A. Cruise Narrative for WOCE P10

A.1. Highlights

WHP Cruise Summary Information

WOCE section designation:               P10
Expedition designation (EXPOCODE):      3250TN026_1
Chief Scientists and their affiliation: Melinda Hall*, Terrence Joyce**/WHOI
Dates:                                  1993.10.05 - 1993.11.10
Ship:                                   R/V Thomas G. Thompson
Ports of call:                          Fiji, Papua New Guinea to
                                        Yokohama, Japan
Number of stations:                     94 svs, 7 lvs
                                                      35 10' N
Geographic boundaries of the stations:  140 45.17 E             149 20.83 E
                                                      4 0.92' S
Floats and drifters deployed:           Twelve ALACE floats
Moorings deployed or recovered:         none
Contributing Authors:                   Daniel Torres, T. Joyce, P. Hacker, E. 
                                        Firing, Marshall Swartz, Laura Goepfert, 
                                        Joe Jennings, Bob Key, Steven Covey, 
                                        Karl Newyear, Scott Birdwhistell, 
                                        Chris Sabine, Rich Rotter, Art Dorety, 
                                        Michio AOYAMA, George Anderson
* Chief Scientist
  Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
  Woods Hole MA 02543
  Phone: 508-289-2599 Fax: 508-457-2181
  e-mail: mindy@latour.whoi.edu

**Co-Chief Scientist
  Woods Hole oceanographic Institute
  Woods Hole MA 02543
  Phone: 508-289-2530 Fax: 508-457-2181
  e-mail: tjoyce@whoi.edu


Table of Contents:

Cruise Summary Information                         Hydrographic Measurements
Description of scientific program                    CTD - general
                                                     CTD - pressure
Geographic boundaries of the survey                  CTD - temperature
Cruise track (figure available in PDF version)       CTD - conductivity/salinity
Description of stations                              CTD - dissolved oxygen
Description of parameters sampled
Bottle depth distributions (figure)                  Salinity
Floats and drifters deployed                         Oxygen
                                                     Nutrients
                                                     CFCs
Principal Investigators for all measurements         Helium
Cruise Participants                                  Tritium
                                                     Radiocarbon
Problems and goals not achieved                      CO2 system parameters
                                                     Other parameters
Underway Data Information                          Acknowledgments
  Navigation                                       References
  Bathymetry
  Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)         DQE Reports
  Thermosalinograph                                  CTD
  Meteorological observations                        S/O2/nutrients
                                                     AMS 14C
                                                     Large Volume 14C
                                                     CFCs
                                                   Data Processing History
(All Figures are available in PDF version)



A.2.    Cruise Summary

The objective of this cruise was to occupy a hydrographic section nominally 
along 149 E from Papua, New Guinea to shelf of Japan near Yokohama as part of 
the onetime WHP survey of the Pacific Ocean. A CTD with a 36 place, 10 liter 
rosette was used on a total of 94 small volume stations with water sampling for 
salinity, oxygen, nutrients, CFCs, tritium/helium-3, alkalinity, TCO2, and 
radiocarbon. The station spacing ranged from 5 to 40 nautical miles and most 
lowerings were made to within 10 meters of the bottom. A lowered ADCP (LADCP) 
was attached to the rosette on 53 of the stations. At 7 stations, additional 
casts were made for large volume sampling of radiocarbon in the deep and mid-
depth waters. These large volume casts were usually made with nine, 250 liter 
Gerard Barrels. Underway measurements along the cruise included pCO2, ADCP, 
digital echo-sounding, thermosalinograph, and meteorology. Twelve ALACE floats 
were deployed along the cruise track to the south of 20 N.


A.3.    List of Principal Investigators

Name                   Responsibility          Affiliation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
M. Hall                CTD,S,O2                WHOI
L. Gordon              Nutrients               Oregon State Univ.
M. Warner              CFCs                    Univ. Washington
C. Sabine              TCO2, pCO2, alkalinity  Princeton Univ.
R. Key                 Radiocarbon (SVS, LVS)  Princeton Univ.
W. Jenkins             Tritium/Helium-3        WHOI
T. Joyce               Underway ADCP           WHOI
P. Hacker & E. Firing  Lowered ADCP            Univ. Hawaii


A.4.    Scientific Program

The P10 cruise was the third in a series of three WHP onetime cruises aboard the 
Thompson in 1993 following P17N and P14N. The ship departed Suva, Fiji, on 29 
September and steamed westwards towards the northern coastline of Papua, New 
Guinea, where the section began at the 200m isobath. During the 7 day deadhead, 
we carried out three test stations (not included in the station numbering 
scheme) to shake down equipment and water sampling methodology. The station 
track, designed in early planning documents for 145 E, was shifted eastward in 
an effort to depart the New Guinea coastline perpendicular to the bathymetry, 
then skirt the Mariana Ridge and Trough to the east, thus making the whole 
section in the East Mariana Basin, rather than in both that basin and the 
Philippine Basin further west. Where bottom depths changed rapidly (near the 
coast and passing the Caroline Seamounts around 6-8 N) station spacing was 
dictated by topographic changes; within 3 degrees of the equator, spacing was 
every 15 minutes of latitude along the ship track (nominally 15 nm, but slightly 
more due to the track angle), stretching to 30 nm up to 10.5 N, then 40 nm from 
there to station 73 at 28.5 N. At that point we began our dogleg towards the 
Japan coast in order to cross the Kuroshio at an approximately right angle. ADCP 
results indicated that this crossing was indeed close to right angles. Over the 
northern dogleg, station spacing gradually decreased to resolve the strong front 
of the Kuroshio and ultimately, to accommodate rapid topographic changes near 
the coast. Stations generally went to within 10 m of the bottom except over the 
Japan Trench and a few other stations where bottom depths exceed 6000 dbar. No 
stations were lost due to weather and the ship arrived on schedule in Yokohama 
on 10 November.


A.5.    Major Problems or goals not achieved

On station 65, on 31 October, we were retrieving the intermediate Large Volume 
cast and had taken 2 Gerard bottles off of the wire when the winch failed to 
stop and the third bottle was 2-blocked, breaking the wire and causing the 
remaining 7 bottles to be lost. Fortunately, no one was injured, but the loss 
reduced the ability to carry out LVS sampling and the final LVS stations was 
designed to use small volume radiocarbon measurements for the intermediate cast. 
Another problem was encountered with the salinity measurements causing 
unacceptably large sample to sample 'noise'. Various causes were examined 
including changing Autosals, changing Autosal location until the problem was 
finally isolated: the 120 ml flint glass WHOI sample bottles were replaced with 
200 ml Scripps Kimax bottles commencing with station 59 and a dramatic 
improvement was seen. The WHOI bottles, over 5 years old, were found to have 
flakes of an insoluble substance that appeared to come from the inside surface.


A.6.    Other Incidents of Note


A.7.    Cruise Participants

Name                      Responsibility                          Affiliation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Hall              Chi. Sci., CTD watch                    WHOI
Terrence Joyce            Co-Chi. Sci, CTD watch, ADCP            WHOI
Marshall Swartz           CTD & Rosette Hardware                  WHOI
George Tupper             Salts, Oxygen, CTD watch, ALACE floats  WHOI
George Knapp              Salts, Oxygen                           WHOI
Susan Wijffels            CTD watch                               WHOI
Dan Torres                CTD watch, bathymetry                   WHOI
Sarah Zimmerman           CTD data processor                      WHOI
Brian Guest               CTD watch                               WHOI
Joe LaCasce               CTD watch                         MIT/WHOI joint prgm.
Teresa Turner             Salts, CTD watch                        WHOI
Scott Birdwhistell        Tritium/Helium-3                        WHOI
Robert Key                Carbon-14                               Princeton
Chris Sabine              CO2                                     Princeton
Rich Rotter               CO2                                     Princeton
Art Dorety                CO2                                     Princeton
Peter Hacker              LADCP, CTD watch                        U. Hawaii
Joe Jennings              Nutrients                               OSU
Consuelo Carbonell-Moore  Nutrients                               OSU
Steve Covey               CFCs                                    U. Wash.
Karl Newyear              CFCs                                    U. Wash.
Jim Wells                 LVS, C-14                               Scripps



B.     Underway Measurements


B.1    Navigation, Bathymetry and Meteorology 
      (Daniel Torres)

A digital bathymetric system (Bathy 2000,Ocean Data Equipment Corporation) with 
a 3.5 kHz pinger was operated for the entire cruise and successfully logged 
bathymetric data while underway at one minute intervals onto an underway Data 
Acquisition System (DAS) along with meteorological data (wind speed, direction) 
from masthead sensors and temperature, conductivity and salinity from a SeaBird 
thermosalinograph. While these and other navigation measurements (from a 
Magnavox 1107 and Trimble 10X GPS sets) were updated at approximately 2 second 
intervals, only one minute sub-samples (unaveraged) were stored on the DAS.

The meteorological data which was merged into the DAS data stream came from a 
suite of instruments assembled by Alden Electronics. Below is a list of those 
instruments along with the manufacturer:

Wind speed and direction:  R. M. Young Anemometer
Air temperature:           R. M. Young Temperature Sensor
Humidity:                  Rotronic Humidity Sensor
Barometric Pressure:       Air Intellisensor Digital Barometer
Precipitation:             R. M. Young Precipitation Gauge
Short wave radiation:      Eppley PIR Geometer
Long wave radiation:       Eppley Pyranometer PSP


The following table lists the underway measurements available on the DAS:

Value  1 = GMT Date      (nav_date)
Value  2 = GMT Time      (nav_time)
Value  3 = DR time       (magnavox_dr_time)
Value  4 = Latitude      (nav_latitude)
Value  5 = Longitude     (nav_longitude)
Value  6 = Status        (magnavox_status)
Value  7 = Speed Log     (knots)               (nav_speed_log)
Value  8 = SOG           (knots)               (nav_sog)
Value  9 = HDOP          (magnavox_hdop)
Value 10 = Gyro Heading  (deg. T)              (nav_gyro_heading)
Value 11 = COG           (deg. T)              (nav_cog)
Value 12 = Satellites    (magnavox_satellites)
Value 13 = Sea Temp.     (deg. C)              (seabird_temperature_int)
Value 14 = Conductivity  (S/m)                 (seabird_conductivity)
Value 15 = Salinity      (PSU)                 (seabird_salinity)
Value 16 = Water Depth   (meters)              (water_depth)
Value 17 = Wire Out      (meters)              (wire_out)
Value 18 = Wind          (m/s)(deg. R)         (imet_wind_spd_dir)
Value 19 = Air Temp.     (deg. C)              (imet_air_temperature)
Value 20 = Humidity      (percent)             (imet_humidity)
Value 21 = Barometer     (millibars)           (imet_barometric_pressure)
Value 22 = Precip.       (mm/m/h)(tot)         (imet_precipitation)
Value 23 = SW Rad.       (watts/m^2)           (imet_sw_radiation)
Value 24 = LW Rad.       (watts/m^2)           (imet_lw_radiation)



B.2    ADCP and LADCP 
       (T. Joyce, P. Hacker & E. Firing)

Direct velocity measurements were made along the cruise track with a hull-
mounted and a lowered ADCP, both from RDI. The former was a 150 kHz system which 
profiled at 8 meter vertical resolution and vector-averaged the 1 second ping 
data onto a 5 minute time series with a vertical range of sampling from 20 to 
350 m depth, approximately. The measurement system included a single GPS 
receiver and an Ashtech 3DF receiver, which measured position as well as ship's 
heading, pitch and roll once per second. The Ashtech heading was used to correct 
for systematic and other errors in the Sperry MK-37 gyros. Data from the 
ADCP/Ashtech system were logged on a separate data stream from the shipboard 
DAS.

The lowered ADCP (LADCP) was a 300 kHz, RDI system which was mounted on the 
rosette frame an used for full-depth velocity profiling. It was used primarily 
in the equatorial band (45 stations from 4 S to 10.5 N) and for 13 stations 
across the Kuroshio, where strong, deep currents were expected.


B.3    Thermosalinograph

As noted above, a SeaBird thermosalinograph was employed using an uncontaminated 
seawater system on the vessel. Data are available at one minute intervals on the 
DAS.



C.     Hydrographic measurements


C.1    Summary of cruise

C.1.1  Major difficulties

The only major difficulty affecting CTD operations was the loss of 46 endcaps on 
the 10-liter bottles, due to stress-induced fractures of the PVC endcap 
material, and to lanyard failures. This led to a major diversion of technician 
time to reinstall endcaps and identify failures, and to numerous lost samples, 
with lost endcaps and springs. The design of the endcap was changed immediately 
by Scripps, and implemented on the following cruise with excellent results.


C.1.2  Equipment Configuration 
       (Marshall Swartz and Laura Goepfert)

Two WHOI-modified EG&G Mk-III CTDs were provided for the cruise, although only 
one was used throughout the entire cruise (CTD #10).  It is provided with an 
optional oxygen current and temperature channel, and has been modified at WHOI 
to install a thermally-isolated titanium pressure transducer, with a separately 
digitized pressure temperature channel (Toole et. al., 1993).

The CTDs both had a digital input for an external serial device. The cruise used 
two Falmouth Scientific (FSI) Ocean Temperature Modules (OTM) to provide 
separate and redundant platinum temperature data for assuring calibration 
stability.  They were interchanged several times during the cruise to build up 
historical information.  One FSI Ocean Conductivity Module (OCM), providing a 
redundant conductivity reading from an inductive conductivity cell, was also 
used on this channel. Temperature and pressure calibrations were made at WHOI 
prior to and following the cruise.

The CTD was provided with one platinum temperature probe, with an estimated lag 
of 250 msec, and a 3 cm conductivity cell.  The temperature lag was checked by 
comparing density reversals in theta salinity (TS) plots (Giles and McDonald, 
1986).  It was found that 250 ms showed the least amount of looping or density 
reversals.

The oxygen sensor was installed at the beginning of the cruise, and changed out 
as called for.  The OTM provided a 400 msec platinum temperature reading at 25 
Hz to the CTD.  The OCM provided the redundant conductivity reading at 4 Hz, and 
the CTD sampled the sensor suite at 25 Hz.

Two identical rosette frames were provided by Scripps. Each consisted of 36 10-
liter custom-designed bottles released by a General Oceanics (GO) model 1016 36-
position pylon.  The bottles had been produced at SIO based on a design from 
PMEL.  Inside the frame were mounted the CTD, a Lowered Acoustic Doppler Current 
Profiler (LADCP) provided by University of Hawaii and a 10-kHz pinger.

The 1016 pylon was controlled by a GO 1016-SCI Surface Control Interface (SCI), 
providing power and commands down the cable, and received status data back.  The 
SCI was controlled through a dedicated personal computer.

The CTD was left powered on at all times, except when disconnected due to cable 
changeout or retermination.  In no event was the CTD warmed up less than 30 
minutes.  The CTD was kept out of the sun to avoid overheating of the case.

The CTD data was acquired by an EG&G Mk-III deck unit providing demodulated data 
to two personal computers running EG&G version 3.0 CTD acquisition software 
(EG&G, Oceansoft acquisition manual, 1990), one providing graphical data to 
screen and plotter, and the other a running listing output.  Bottom approach was 
controlled by following the pinger direct and bottom return signals on the ship-
provided PDR trace.

After each station, the CTD data was forwarded to another set of personal 
computers running both EG&G CTD post-processing software and custom-built 
software from WHOI (Millard and Yang, 1993).  The data were first-differenced, 
lag corrected, pressure sorted and centered into 2 decibar bins for final data 
quality control and analysis, including fitting to water sample salinity and 
oxygen results.  This data was then forwarded to the PI for analysis daily, to 
compare to historical and water sample data.


C.2    Water sample salinity and oxygen measurements 
       (George Knapp)

A complete description of the water sample dissolved oxygen and salinity 
measurement techniques used during this cruise is presented by Knapp et al. 
(1990).  As described in this report, samples were collected for the analysis of 
dissolved oxygen and salinity from each of the 36 ten-liter bottles tripped on 
the upcast of each CTD station, in accordance with the recommendations of the 
WOCE Hydrographic Office.  The vertical distribution of these samples was a 
compromise between the need to obtain deep samples for the calibration of the 
CTD conductivity and oxygen sensors and the requirement to define the 
characteristics of the water masses by the distributions of the various measured 
parameters.


C.2.1  Salinity Analysis

Considerable problems with the water sample salinities were encountered during 
the first half of this cruise.  Because the first 16 stations were in shallow 
water where there was a lot of variability in the salinity, these problems were 
not readily apparent.  As we progressed into deeper water they became more 
visible.  There was an abnormally large scatter in the deep salinities, 
resulting in many samples being flagged as questionable or bad.  Problems with 
the salinometers included radio interference, an unclean source of ship's power, 
and several instances of operator error.  These problems were gradually sorted 
out and rectified.  By far, however, the largest source of this large scatter in 
the salinities came from the bottles that were used to collect the salinity 
samples.  The bottles were 120 ml Boston Round, flint glass bottles with screw 
caps equipped with Poly-Seal cones to prevent leakage and evaporation.  Most of 
the bottles were at least 5 years old, and had been stored continuously with 
small amounts of salt water in them.  Close examination of them revealed flakes 
of an insoluble substance that appeared to be coming from the inside surface. It 
is now believed these particles were the main cause of the majority of the bad 
salinities from approximately the first 58 stations.  Commencing with station 
59, salinities were collected in 200 ml square Kimax bottles owned by SIO, with 
polyethylene caps and inserts, and a dramatic improvement was seen.

IAPSO Standard Water Batch P-114 was used through station 12. Commencing with 
station 13, batch P-120 was used for the remainder of the cruise.  At the time 
it was noted that the standby number of the Autosal shifted by +.0015 equivalent 
salinity units.  Post-cruise comparisons of the salinities measured during this 
cruise with historical measurements suggest that the measured salinities from 
the later stations were erroneously high.  Comparisons of batch P-120 with 
batches P-118, P-123 and P-124, made during the summer of 1995 confirm that P-
120 is approximately .0015 fresher than stated on its label.  Thus, it was 
decided to subtract .0015 from all salinity measurements commencing with station 
13, effectively referencing all salinities to Batch P-114.

Because of the multiple problems with salinity during the first 55 stations, 
estimated accuracy is 0.005 psu.  Subsequent salinity data has an estimated 
accuracy of 0.002 psu.


C.2.2  Dissolved Oxygen Analysis

No problems were encountered with the analysis of dissolved oxygen.  Estimated 
accuracy is 0.02 ml/l.  The majority of the data flagged as questionable or bad 
was due to sampling error on deck.


C.3    Water sample Nutrient measurements 
       (Joe Jennings)


C.3.1  Analysts, Equipment and Techniques

Nutrient analysts on P10 were Maria Consuelo Carbonell-Moore and Joe C. 
Jennings, Jr. from L. I. Gordon's analytical group at Oregon State University.  
The continuous flow analyzer used was an Alpkem Rapid Flow Analyzer (RFA), model 
300.  A Keithley data acquisition system was used in parallel with analog 
stripchart recorders  to acquire the absorbance data.  The software used to 
process the nutrient data was developed at OSU.  All of the reagent and 
standard materials were provided by OSU. The methods are described in Anonymous 
(1985) and in Gordon et. al. (a & b).


C.3.2  Sampling Procedures

Nutrient samples were drawn from all CTD/rosette casts at stations 1 through 94 
and at several test stations which preceded station 1.  High density 
polyethylene (HDPE) bottles of approximately 30 ml volume were used as sample 
containers, and these same bottles were positioned directly in the autosampler 
tray.  These bottles were routinely rinsed at least 3 times with one third to 
one half of their volume of sample before filling, and were thoroughly cleaned 
with 10% HCl every two or three days.

The nutrient samples were drawn following those for gases: helium, tritium, 
dissolved oxygen and carbon dioxide.  In some instances, the nutrient sampling 
procedure was not completed for almost 2 hours after the CTD arrived on deck.  
At most stations, the RFA was started before sampling was completed to reduce 
the delay and minimize possible changes in nutrient concentration due to 
biological processes. Analyses were typically completed within three to four 
hours of the end of the CTD/rosette casts except at Stns 21 and 24 where 
analytical problems resulted in a delay of about 5 hours.


C.3.3  Calibration and Standardization

The volumetric flasks and pipettes used to prepare standards were 
gravimetrically calibrated both prior to and after the cruise.  The Eppendorf 
Maxipettor adjustable pipettes used to prepare mixed standards typically have a 
standard deviation of less than 0.002 ml on repeated deliveries of 10 ml 
volumes. High concentration mixed standards containing nitrate, phosphate, and 
silicic acid were prepared at intervals of 4 to 7 days and kept refrigerated in 
HDPE bottles. During the "deadhead" steam at the beginning of the cruise, 
duplicate high concentration standards were prepared for each nutrient and 
compared to ensure that both gave the same response.  For almost every station, 
a fresh "working standard" was prepared by precise dilution of 20 ml of the high 
concentration mixed standard with low nutrient seawater.  This working standard 
has nutrient concentrations which are 75 - 85% of those found in Deep and Bottom 
waters.  A separate nitrite standard solution was also added to these working 
standards. Corrections for the actual volumes of the flasks and pipettes were 
included in the preliminary data.

The WOCE Operations Manual calls for nutrient concentrations to be reported in 
units of micromoles per kilogram (M/kg). Because the salinity information 
required to compute density is not usually available at the time of initial 
computation of the nutrient concentrations, our concentrations are always 
originally computed and reported as micromoles per liter.  This unit conversion 
will be made using the corrected salinity data when it is available.


C.3.4    Equipment and analytical problems

There were no major problems with equipment.  One failure of a power supply 
module was resolved quickly by replacement with a spare module.


C.3.5    Measurement of Precision and Bias

C.3.5.1  Short Term Precision and Bias

Throughout the cruise, replicate samples drawn in different sample bottles from 
the same Niskin bottle were analyzed to assess the precision of the RFA 
analyses.  These replicate samples were analyzed as adjacent samples (one after 
the other) at the beginning and again at the end of each sample runs to help 
monitor deterioration in the samples or uncompensated instrumental drift.  Our 
estimates of short term precision based on these replicate analyses are given 
below.  The values given are the absolute mean differences between replicate 
pairs from the beginning to the end of each sample run.  (Units are reported in 
micromoles per liter and as percentages of typical deep water concentrations.)


    Phosphate:         0.022 (<1.0%)
    Nitrate + Nitrite: 0.09  (<0.3%)
    Silicic acid:      0.3   (<0.3%)
    Nitrite:           0.02  (<2.0%)


C.3.5.2  Longer Term Precision:

On most of the sample runs during P10, an "old" working standard from the 
previous station was run with the "new" working standard which had been freshly 
prepared.  The "old" standards were kept refrigerated in plastic bottles.  The 
average age of the "old" standards when reanalyzed was eight hours.

We calculated the difference in absorbance (peak height) between the new 
standards and the old standard which were run immediately after them.  These 
differences, with regard to sign, were tabulated and analyzed statistically.  
The results were converted to concentration units by multiplying the difference 
by the mean sensitivity factor for each nutrient and are shown on the table 
below.  Based on these statistics, it does not appear that significant 
degradation of the working standards occurred in the 3 to 8 hour time frame 
between stations. 

Table 1. Differences between working standards at adjacent stations.
         Differences are expressed as "new" standard minus "old", and 
Are given in concentration units (M/l).  The number of 
         Comparisons used for these statistics was 87.

              Phosphate   Nitrate   Silicic acid   Nitrite
----------------------------------------------------------
Mean, (M/l)  -0.008      -0.013    -0.09          -0.013
wrt sign:

RMS dev :      0.009       0.095     0.30           0.032


C.3.6   Comparison with other data.

We made comparisons of the P10 nutrient data with data from several other 
cruises.  Where possible, groups of several stations were selected where cruise 
tracks crossed or were parallel and the nutrients were then plotted against 
potential temperature (theta).  The data we used came from the 1973-1974 GEOSECS 
cruise, the 1985 WEPOCS I cruise, and the 1989 WOCE section along 10 N.  The 
nutrient data from these cruises was collected either with the Technicon 
AutoAnalyzer II (GEOSECS and WEPOCS) or the Alpkem RFA 300 (10 N and P10).


C.3.6.1  Nitrate

The deep and bottom water P10 nitrate concentrations tend to be somewhat lower 
than the historical data we used for this comparison. The difference is about 
0.3 M between the deepest P10 and WEPOCS I samples, 0.5 M between the P10 and 
both the 10N and 24N data, and as much as 1.0 - 1.5 M at the nutrient maximum 
(ca. 2300 db) between the P10 nitrates and GEOSECS stn 224.  Below about 3500 
db, the GEOSECS nitrates are only 0.5 to 0.75 M higher than the P10 data. 
There is more overlap of the P10 nitrate/theta envelopes with all of the 
historic data in the upper water column. Relative to the deep water 
concentrations, the agreement between cruises is within 1 - 2% except at the 
nutrient maximum in the GEOSECS stn, where the difference is as much as 3.5%.


C.3.6.2  Phosphate

The deep phosphate/theta envelopes of the P10 data overlap with those of the 
WEPOCS I, 10N and 24N cruises.  GEOSECS stn 224 plots mostly within the P10 
envelope with the deepest GEOSECS samples about 0.03 M lower than the P10 data. 
The 24N data envelope tends to be on the lower side of the P10 envelope, but 
they do overlap.  Above about 1.5 C, the 10N phosphate data are somewhat higher 
(0.02 - 0.07 M) than the P10 data.  As a percentage of deep water 
concentrations, these cruises agree within 1 - 2%.


C.3.6.3  Silicic acid (silicate)

The pattern here is similar to that with nitrate; good agreement with the WEPOCS 
data and overlapping, but slightly lower silicic acid/theta envelopes than the 
other reference cruises.  In the deep and bottom waters, the P10 data is within 
1.0 M of the all of the other cruises. At the silicic acid maximum (2300 db), 
the GEOSECS data is higher by ca. 4 M while the 10N and 24N cruise data is 1 - 
2 M higher than the maximum concentrations determined on P10.  The agreement is 
within < 1% in the bottom water and 1 - 3% at the silicic acid maxima.


C.3.7    Nutrient QC Notes: P10 Cruise

A first pass QC check on the nutrient data was carried out during the P10 
cruise, primarily by comparing vertical profiles and nutrient/theta 
relationships.  During the post-cruise quality control phase, all nutrient data 
were rechecked using log notes and the analog stripchart recordings made at sea 
and by examining parameter/parameter plots for outliers.  Any correctable errors 
have been identified and corrected as appropriate, and the data quality flags 
have been edited to conform to the definitions in the WOCE Operations Manual 
(WOCE Report No. 67/91). A detailed list of flagged data is given in Appendix 
A for all Rosette (ROS) casts on the cruise.


C.3.8    Nutrients Data Processing Notes:

Converted the file from Bob Key to the WHP .lvs format.

Parameters that were in the original file but were not retained in the .lvs file 
because they are not in the .lvs record format description:

latitude
longitude 
depth (m) 
nitrate
nitrite 
phosphate 
silicate 
AOU 
sigma 0
sigma 1
sigma 2
sigma 3
sigma 4 

QUALT1 flags for: 

temperature
nitrate 
nitrite 
phosphate 
silicate 
aou  


The Key file had station numbers 1-13, but the .sum file indicated that the LVS 
stations were 16, 25, 34, 47, 56, 65, and 74.  In addition the cast numbers 
in the Key file were always 1 and 3, which did not agree with the .sum file. 
After comparing the maximum pressure in the .sum file with the maximum pressure 
in the Key file for each cast, I was able to determine which station and cast 
numbers to use. 

There is a 0 flag for some of the parameters, in fact all of the oxygens except 
where there was no sample which is flagged 9.  This is not a valid number for 
the quality flags.  I left them as 0 since I have no way of knowing what they 
should be.  

Sarilee Anderson
17 Dec. 1999


References

Anonymous. 1985. RFA-300 Rapid Flow Analyzer Operation Manual. 
    Preliminary. Alpkem Corporation, Clackamas, Oregon.  
    Looseleaf binder, unnumbered pages.

Gordon, L.I., J.C. Jennings, Jr., A.A. Ross and J.M. Krest.,  
    A suggested protocol for continuous flow automated analysis 
    of seawater nutrients (phosphate, nitrate, nitrite and silicic 
    acid) in the WOCE Hydrographic Program and the Joint Global Ocean 
    Fluxes Study.  Available from the US WHP Office or the authors.

Gordon, L. I., J. Krest, and A. Ross, b. (in preparation), Reducing 
    temperature sensitivity in continuous flow analysis of silicic 
    acid in seawater.



C.4      CTD Data 
         (Laura Goepfert)


C.4.1    SUMMARY OF LABORATORY CALIBRATIONS FOR CTDs

The pressure, temperature, and conductivity sensors were calibrated by Marshall 
Swartz at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute's Calibration Laboratory.


C.4.1.1  PRESSURE CALIBRATIONS

Method/Calibration Standards

The pressure transducer of CTD10 was calibrated in a temperature controlled 
bath to the WHOI Ruska dead weight tester (DWT) as described by Millard and 
Yang (1993). The pre-cruise calibration was completed on September 21, 1993 and 
consisted of pressure calibrations at two temperatures, the ice point, and room 
temperature. The post-cruise pressure calibration was completed on February 13, 
1994 and consisted of three temperatures; 1.36 C, 14.96 C, and 29.7 C.

  
                     BIAS          SLOPE         QUADRATIC
-------------------------------------------------------------
pre-cruise      ice  -.555377E+01  0.100175E+00  -.142270E-08
               room  -.441239E+01  0.100146E+00  -.150717E-08

post-cruise  1.36 C  -.447623E+01  0.100137E+00  -.110389E-08
            14.96 C  -.453082E+01  0.100139E+00  -.128877E-08
            29.70 C  -.402724E+01  0.100112E+00  -.112505E-08


Using the post-cruise pressure calibrations, new pressure temperature terms were 
computed. These terms were used to correct both the static and the dynamic 
response of the pressure transducer to temperature changes (Toole, 1994).


PRESSURE TEMPERATURE

CTD10   S1         S2       T0    BIAS   SLOPE
---------------------------------------------------
       -1.533E-6  .5112E-1  1.36  36.19  -9.0792E-3


C.4.1.2  TEMPERATURE CALIBRATIONS

Method/Calibration Standards

The pre-cruise temperature calibration was completed on September 21, 1993, and 
the post-cruise was finished February 23, 1994.

The pre-cruise calibration was done using the ITS-68 temperature scale whereas 
the post-cruise calibration used the ITS-90 temperature scale.  To convert the 
temperatures to ITS68 scale for use in the determination of salinity the 
following formula was used (NIST,1990):

     ITS68 = x +(2.21667E-04 * x) + (5.95238E-07 * x^2).


              BIAS         SLOPE        QUADRATIC
--------------------------------------------------
pre-cruise   .858035E-02  .499729E-03  .389166E-11
post-cruise  .684949e-02  .499742e-03  .434164E-11


A shift between the pre and post-cruise temperature calibration for CTD10 was 
noted. The shift showed an offset of .002 deg. C at 0 deg. C, .001 C at 15 C, 
and 0 at 25 C. CTD10 temperature measurements during the cruise was compared 
with an Ocean Temperature Module's (OTM) temperature and the difference between 
the two remained constant. A shift, therefore, did not occur during the 
cruise.

The OTM used on the cruise was compared with the pre and post-temperature 
calibrations for a couple of deep stations. It was found that the pre-cruise 
temperature calibration for CTD 10 most closely matched the temperature readings 
of the OTM. Therefore, the pre-cruise temperature calibration was used to scale 
the data.


C.4.1.3  CONDUCTIVITY CALIBRATIONS

Method/Calibration Standards

Only a pre-cruise conductivity calibration was performed. Bottled salinities 
were drawn during the temperature calibration, five samples at each temperature. 
These values were then converted to conductivity and compared to the values read 
by the CTD at the different temperatures (Millard and Yang, 1993).


             BIAS         SLOPE
------------------------------------
pre-cruise  .624569E-02  .100627E-02


In the final processing of the data gathered, the pre-cruise ice point pressure 
and the pre-cruise temperature scaling factors were employed with the post-
cruise pressure temperature scaling factors.


C.4.2    SUMMARY OF AT SEA CALIBRATIONS

The pressure bias of CTD10 at the sea surface, was recorded at the beginning of 
each station. The pressure bias was found by averaging fifteen scans before the 
package entered the water and subtracting this from the pressure bias term in 
each station's calibration file.


C.4.2.1  CONDUCTIVITY CALIBRATION

Basic fitting procedure

The CTD conductivity sensor data was fit to the water sample conductivity as 
described in Millard and Yang 1993. The cruise was fit as one large group, and 
divided into sections where there was a noticeable shift in the sensor. These 
groups were fit for both slope and bias. Due to problems in water sample 
conductivity measurements as described earlier in this report, any questionable 
water sample conductivities were excluded from the fit. Furthermore, the edit 
factor for the determination of good bottles was changed from 2.8 to 2.5.

Closer inspection of the CTD-Water Sample (ws) conductivity data revealed a 
shape in the deep water residuals.  The deep water residuals showed an offset of 
.001. This appeared to be a pressure dependent shape. Alteration of Beta, the 
coefficient of thermal expansion of the conductivity cell, from 1.5E-08 to .75E-
08 brought the at depth residuals to zero.

However, an offset in the surface of the CTD- WS residual plot at approximately 
500 db of .002 remained. A correction was applied to the raw CTD conductivity. 
The correction applied was:

               C=Cold+.002 *exp [-(C-37.5 ^2/b],

where b= 6 when C>37.5 and b=3 when C<37.5 (Toole, 1994).

After these corrections had been applied, the stations were re-fit to the raw 
water sample conductivity. Conductivity fits applied to the final CTD data are 
tabulated in Appendix B.

As stated earlier, it was found that salinities starting with station 13 were 
.0015 higher than those observed in the historical data. It was determined that 
a correction of -.0015 be added to both the CTD and the water sample salts. This 
was done to both the *.CTD files and the *.SEA files.


C.4.2.2  Oxygen Calibrations

Basic Fitting procedure

The CTD oxygen sensor variables were fit to water sample oxygen data to 
determine the six parameters of the oxygen algorithm (Millard and Yang, 1993). 
As with conductivity, the entire cruise was fit as one group and then divided 
into sections where shifts in the behavior of the sensor were noted. The edit 
factor was changed from 2.8 to 2.5 for valid data. The oxygen data appeared to 
fit better and easier when the edit factor was lowered.


C.4.3    QUALITY CONTROL OF 2DB CTD DATA AND SEA FILES

Qualifications for marking conductivity data Surface spikes in Salinity that 
appeared in the first and second decibars of the stations were not uncommon.  
These spikes, which were probably caused by pressure averaging conductivity data 
prior to the package entering the water, were marked as questionable.

Several spikes were found in the CTD files, and were removed by interpolating 
between the pressure bins. The quality word was changed to six to reflect the 
interpolation. The stations where this occurred and the bins which were 
interpolated are shown in the table below

   station   start bin     end bin
     13      2275 db       2289 db
     35      2167 db       2191 db
     90      1171 db       1175 db


In the SEA files the CTD salinity values were subtracted from the water sample 
salinity and the differences were compared to an edit factor. The edit criteria 
used from 0 db to 1000 db was .01 psu, and 1000 db to 7000 db, was .005 psu. If 
surface bottles exceeded the edit criteria they were accepted as good. 
Variability in surface salinity is expected since the vessel tends to drift 
during the CTD cast. However, if the CTD salinity was in the salinity spike of 
the 2db averaged file than it was marked as questionable.


C.4.3.2  Qualifications for marking oxygen data

As the package approaches the sea floor the descent rate slows, thus affecting 
the flow rate of sea water passed the oxygen sensor.  This slowing of the 
package results in a 'tail' in the 2 db averaged oxygen values. Therefore, in 
stations where the 'tail' is present the oxygen values in the pressure bins at 
the bottom of the cast have been marked as questionable.

In the SEA file, the CTD oxygens were subtracted from the water sample oxygen, 
and the difference was compared to an edit factor. The edit criteria for 0 db to 
1000 db was .50 ml/l and from 1000 db to 7000 db was .05 ml/l. If the difference 
exceeded the criteria the sample was looked at more closely to see which was 
less questionable. If the surface bottles were off by more than .5 ml/l they 
were usually accepted as good.

Due to the merging of the down-trace CTD oxygens with the up-trace water bottle 
sample, the edit criteria was often exceeded. This can most often be found in 
high transition zones where owing to both horizontal variability and large time 
intervals the difference between the two oxygen values can be large (Owens and 
Millard, 1985). Therefore, in areas of high transition both values were accepted 
as good. In the deeper water if both the CTD and water sample exceeded the edit 
criteria and there exists a high transition zone in either temperature or oxygen 
content then both were considered good if they fell on the 2 db averaged down 
CTD trace.



C.5  CFC-11 and CFC-12 Measurements 

Analysts: Mr. Steven Covey, University of Washington
          Mr. Karl Newyear, University of Washington

Our goal was to measure the distribution of theta chlorofluorocarbons, CFC-11 
and CFC-12, as part of the P10 onetime section. Full water column profiles and 
surface marine air samples were analyzed with an electron capture gas 
chromatography system similar to one described by Bullister and Weiss (1988). In 
total, 1272 water and 73 air samples were taken. based on 70 pairs of replicate 
water samples, we estimate our precision to be approximately 2% and 3% of the 
CFC-12 and CFC-11 concentration, respectively.

Our sampling strategy was guided by expected freon presence time constraints. 
Due to their relatively recent introduction to the natural environment, CFC-11 
and CFC-12 are not expected to be found (nor were they) at depths greater than 
about 1800 m on the section. However, the deepest Niskin bottle was always 
sampled in order to detect any topographically-trapped circulation features. 
Additionally, we were limited in time because each sample took 11 minutes to be 
fully analyzed. In order to sample each station and run the required standards 
and blanks limited the number of water samples per cast to about 18-21. Sample 
Collection and Analysis

Samples for CFC analysis were drawn from the 10-liter Niskins into
100-cc ground glass syringes fitted with plastic stopcocks.  These samples
were the first aliquots drawn from the particular Niskins.  There were very
high contamination levels of the CFC samples during the early part of the 
expedition resulting from the Niskin bottles.

Between WHP sections P14N and P10, the gray Niskin bottles were stored in large 
foam-filled plastic containers (used for shipments of frozen fish).  The 
insulating foam in these containers was made by using CFC-11 as a blowing agent.  
The CFC-11 in the air in these boxes builds up to at least 500 times the CFC-11 
values in clean air.  During the month over which the Niskin bottles were stored 
in the box, the CFC-11 was absorbed into the PVC material of the Niskins.  When 
these Niskins were then used to collect seawater samples, the CFC-11 desorbs 
into the water.  At the first test station (Station 998), the CFC-11 
concentrations varied from 0.2 to 1.8 pmol/kg in waters that should be CFC-free. 
During section P14N, the CFC-11 blank of these same bottles was 0.0045 pmol/kg. 
A second test cast was carried out using white PVC bottles made by ODF which had 
not been stored in the "fish boxes". At this station (999), the CFC blanks were 
much lower (0.0 to 0.06 pmol/kg) but still higher than normal. These white 
sampling bottles did not fit the rosette as well as the gray bottles and were 
replaced for a third test cast.  At Station 997, the CFC-11 blanks in the gray 
bottles had decreased to between 0.06 and 0.75 pmol/kg.  The mean and standard 
deviation of these blanks makes the derivation of any useful CFC-11 
concentrations from the gray bottles impossible.

The gray bottles unfortunately remained as the only sampling bottles until 
Station 21. During this time, the CFC-11 sampling blanks decreased to between 
0.03 and 0.8 pmol/kg, depending upon the individual bottle.  In theory, the 
desorption of CFC-11 from the Niskins should be a first order process with time.  
The e-folding time appears to be on the order of 5 days, i.e. by the end of the 
cruise the contamination levels should be about 2% of those at the beginning of 
the cruise. At Station 21, bottle 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 were replaced with the 
white 10-liter bottles for a test which confirmed the gray bottles were still a 
large problem (The mean CFC-11 sampling blanks were 0.099 +/- 0.044 pmol/kg for 
the gray bottles and 0.007 +/- 0.010 pmol/kg for the white bottles.) Between 
Stations 22-55, only white 10-liter bottles were used on the rosette. At Station 
56, gray Niskins went into positions 11 and 21 where they remained until the end 
of the cruise. Positions 2 and 4 were filled with gray Niskins from Station 61 
to the end. These bottles remained too contaminated for reliable CFC-11 
measurements.

The samples were analyzed using a CFC extraction and analysis system of Dr. 
Richard Gammon of the University of Washington. The analytical procedure and 
data analysis are described by Bullister and Weiss (1988).  Dr. Warner and his 
technician, Steven Covey, had used the system during WOCE section P14N and left 
the system set up in the main laboratory of the R.V. Thompson with a small gas 
flow (to prevent contamination problems) between the two WOCE expeditions.  The 
CFC concentrations in air were measured approximately twice per day during this 
expedition.  Air was pumped to the main laboratory from the bow through Dekabon 
tubing.
   
Calibration

A working standard, calibrated on the SIO1986 scale, was used to calibrate the 
response of the electron capture detector of the Shimadzu Mini-2 GC to the CFCs. 
This standard, Airco cylinder CC88098, contained gas with CFC-11 and CFC-12 
concentrations of 274.0 parts per trillion (ppt) and 496.8 ppt, respectively. To 
convert these results to the SIO1993 scale, CFC-11 concentrations need to be 
multiplied by 0.9755 and CFC-12 concentrations need to be multiplied by 1.0128.

Sampling Blanks

The contamination problems with CFC-11 are discussed in detail above. CFC-12 was 
not affected by this problem. We have attempted to estimate this level of 
contamination by taking the mode of measured CFC concentration in samples which 
should be CFC-free.  In this region, measurements of other transient tracers 
such as carbon-14 indicate that the deep waters are much older than the CFC 
transient. We have used all samples deeper than 2000 meters to determine 
the blanks of 0.001 picomoles per kilogram (pmol/kg) for CFC-12 and 0.006 
pmol/kg for CFC-11 in the white bottles. These concentrations have been 
subtracted from all the reported dissolved CFC concentrations.

Data

In addition to the CFC concentrations which have merged with the .hyd file, the 
following three tables have been included to complete the data set.  The first 
two are tables of the duplicate samples. The third is a table of the atmospheric 
CFC concentrations interpolated to each station. 

Table 1: CFC-11 Concentrations in Replicate Samples
 
STATION  SAMP   CFC-11
NUMBER   NO.    pM/kg 
-------  ----  ------
   24    126    0.955 
   24    126    0.958 
   26    130    0.429 
   26    130    0.482 
   30    128    1.715 
   30    128    1.694 
   31    127    1.067 
   31    127    1.070 
   32    125    1.818 
   32    125    1.823 
   34    326    0.674 
   34    326    0.684 
   36    127    1.053 
   36    127    1.042 
   38    124    1.803 
   38    124    1.809 
   40    111    0.002 
   40    111    0.005 
   43    130    0.212 
   43    130    0.220 
   45    132    2.251 
   45    132    2.261 
   46    131    0.188 
   46    131    0.192 
   47    332    1.727 
   47    332    1.722 
   48    132    1.895 
   48    132    1.972 
   50    130    1.634 
   50    130    1.647 
   51    134    1.953 
   51    134    1.961 
   53    132    2.298 
   53    132    2.314 
   55    134    1.980 
   55    134    1.932 
   56    333    2.181 
   56    333    2.203 
   57    130    2.572 
   57    130    2.564 
   58    132    2.398 
   58    132    2.352 
   59    135    1.683 
   59    135    1.699 
   60    130    1.781 
   60    130    1.763 
   61    128    2.517 
   61    128    2.431 
   63    131    2.452 
   63    131    2.459 
   64    129    2.498 
   64    129    2.442 
   65    331    2.492 
   65    331    2.504 
   66    133    2.595 
   66    133    2.564 
   67    130    2.419 
   67    130    2.372 
   68    134    2.473 
   68    134    2.401 
   69    132    2.617 
   69    132    2.686 
   70    132    2.495 
   70    132    2.531 
   71    126    1.380 
   71    126    1.299 
   72    134    2.484 
   72    134    2.446 
   73    134    2.378 
   73    134    2.437 
   74    332    2.674 
   74    332    2.673 
   76    130    2.535 
   76    130    2.468 
   77    132    2.731 
   77    132    2.647 
   79    130    2.189 
   79    130    2.195 
   80    132    2.640 
   80    132    2.635 
   81    134    2.225 
   81    134    2.320 
   82    130    2.499 
   82    130    2.514 
   83    132    2.633 
   83    132    2.675 
   86    130    2.157 
   86    130    2.211 
   88    128    1.599 
   88    128    1.639 
   90    120    1.499 
   90    120    1.519 
   92    114    2.120 
   92    114    2.120 
   93    108    2.176 
   93    108    2.185 

Table 2: CFC-12 Concentrations in Replicate Samples

   Sta   Samp  CFC-12
   ---   ----  ------
    1    101    0.710 
    1    101    0.710 
    1    105    0.984 
    1    105    0.994 
    1    109    0.981 
    1    109    0.980 
    2    110    0.054 
    2    110    0.031 
    3    101    0.012 
    3    101    0.002 
    3    109    0.339 
    3    109    0.333 
    3    116    0.987 
    3    116    0.991 
    4    101   -0.003 
    4    101    0.014 
    4    119    0.998 
    4    119    0.951 
    5    101   -0.004 
    5    101    0.012 
    5    118    0.740 
    5    118    0.731 
    6    118    0.793 
    6    118    0.804 
   10    104    0.107 
   10    104    0.112 
   12    114    0.381 
   12    114    0.397 
   14    117    0.709 
   14    117    0.740 
   16    322    0.334 
   16    322    0.327 
   17    114   -0.001 
   17    114   -0.001 
   20    127    0.827 
   20    127    0.857 
   24    125    0.258 
   24    125    0.276 
   24    126    0.464 
   24    126    0.459 
   26    130    0.235 
   26    130    0.240 
   30    128    0.852 
   30    128    0.840 
   31    127    0.510 
   31    127    0.528 
   32    101   -0.001 
   32    101    0.005 
   32    125    0.932 
   32    125    0.949 
   34    326    0.310 
   34    326    0.337 
   36    127    0.497 
   36    127    0.506 
   38    124    0.923 
   38    124    0.940 
   40    111    0.000 
   40    111    0.002 
   43    130    0.089 
   43    130    0.102 
   45    132    1.104 
   45    132    1.154 
   46    131    0.094 
   46    131    0.093 
   47    332    0.831 
   47    332    0.848 
   48    132    0.949 
   48    132    0.979 
   50    130    0.797 
   50    130    0.801 
   51    134    1.060 
   51    134    1.052 
   53    132    1.221 
   53    132    1.231 
   55    134    1.102 
   55    134    1.071 
   56    333    1.162 
   56    333    1.177 
   57    130    1.339 
   57    130    1.333 
   58    132    1.258 
   58    132    1.250 
   59    135    0.946 
   59    135    0.932 
   60    130    0.982 
   60    130    0.978 
   61    128    1.317 
   61    128    1.293 
   63    131    1.263 
   63    131    1.297 
   64    129    1.294 
   64    129    1.251 
   65    331    1.286 
   65    331    1.299 
   66    133    1.383 
   66    133    1.368 
   67    130    1.248 
   67    130    1.215 
   68    134    1.334 
   68    134    1.285 
   69    132    1.408 
   69    132    1.441 
   70    132    1.323 
   70    132    1.338 
   71    126    0.651 
   71    126    0.628 
   72    134    1.329 
   72    134    1.316 
   73    134    1.262 
   73    134    1.312 
   74    332    1.425 
   74    332    1.403 
   76    130    1.309 
   76    130    1.269 
   77    132    1.453 
   77    132    1.421 
   79    130    1.114 
   79    130    1.122 
   80    132    1.400 
   80    132    1.416 
   81    134    1.180 
   81    134    1.221 
   82    130    1.308 
   82    130    1.341 
   83    132    1.400 
   83    132    1.421 
   86    130    1.084 
   86    130    1.137 
   88    128    0.805 
   88    128    0.823 
   90    120    0.729 
   90    120    0.720 
   92    114    1.071 
   92    114    1.076 
   93    108    1.134 
   93    108    1.144 

Table 3: Atmospheric CFC Concentrations

STATION  F11     F12  
NUMBER   PPT     PPT  
------- -----   -----
    1   262.5   515.6 
    2   262.5   515.6 
    3   262.5   515.6 
    4   262.5   515.6 
    5   262.5   515.6 
    6   262.5   515.6 
    7   262.5   515.6 
    8   262.5   515.6 
    9   262.5   515.6 
   10   262.2   515.4 
   11   262.2   515.4 
   12   262.2   515.4 
   13   262.2   515.6 
   14   262.2   515.6 
   15   262.2   515.6 
   16   262.2   515.6 
   17   262.3   516.2 
   18   262.1   516.2 
   19   262.7   515.2 
   20   262.7   515.2 
   21   262.7   515.2 
   22   262.7   515.2 
   23   263.3   515.3 
   24   263.3   515.3 
   25   263.3   515.3 
   26   263.3   515.3 
   27   263.6   515.2 
   28   264.2   514.1 
   29   264.2   514.1 
   30   263.6   515.2 
   31   263.5   514.7 
   32   263.3   515.5 
   33   263.3   515.5 
   34   263.3   515.5 
   35   263.3   515.5 
   36   264.4   518.7 
   37   265.2   520.5 
   38   264.4   520.5 
   39   265.6   522.2 
   40   267.2   525.6 
   41   267.2   525.6 
   42   267.2   525.6 
   43   267.2   525.6 
   44   267.2   525.6 
   45   267.2   525.6 
   46   266.9   524.4 
   47   266.9   524.4 
   48   267.1   524.0 
   49   268.4   528.8 
   50   268.5   530.2 
   51   268.5   530.2 
   52   268.5   530.2 
   53   269.0   531.9 
   54   269.0   531.9 
   55   269.0   531.9 
   56   269.0   531.9 
   57   269.0   531.9 
   58   268.4   530.5 
   59   267.1   526.6 
   60   267.1   526.6 
   61   267.3   527.3 
   62   267.5   528.1 
   63   267.5   528.1 
   64   267.5   528.1 
   65   267.5   528.1 
   66   267.8   526.5 
   67   268.1   525.8 
   68   268.1   525.8 
   69   268.1   525.8 
   70   268.2   525.0 
   71   268.2   525.0 
   72   268.2   525.0 
   73   268.1   525.2 
   74   267.8   526.2 
   75   267.8   526.2 
   76   267.8   526.2 
   77   268.2   527.2 
   78   268.4   527.3 
   79   268.4   527.3 
   80   268.4   527.3 
   81   268.7   527.3 
   82   269.1   528.2 
   83   269.1   528.4 
   84   269.1   528.4 
   85   269.1   528.4 
   86   269.1   528.4 
   87   269.1   528.4 
   88   274.5   543.1 
   89   274.5   543.1 
   90   274.5   543.1 
   91   274.5   543.1 
   92   272.8   537.8 
   93   272.8   537.8 
   94   272.8   537.8 



C.6  Tritium/Helium-3 
     (Scott Birdwhistell)

A total of 32 stations were sampled for Tritium and helium on the cruise. 
Stations were selected to elucidate the boundary current on the north side of 
New Guinea, the equatorial zone, the Kuroshio and the large scale general 
circulation of the western Pacific. Normally 16 helium and tritium samples were 
taken on each of the stations resulting in approximately 480 water samples for 
each variable, mainly in the upper and mid-depth parts of the water column. In 
addition, two stations were sampled for deep heliums. These 32 samples will be 
used in conjunction wit other WOCE deep helium stations, to describe aspects of 
the abyssal circulation.


C.7  CO2 
     (Chris Sabine, Rich Rotter and Art Dorety)

The Princeton Ocean Tracer Laboratory (OTL) group participated in P10 as part of 
the department of Energy (DOE) global survey of carbon dioxide in the oceans. On 
the cruise approximately 1100 samples from 35 stations were collected and 
analyzed for total carbon dioxide (TCO2) using standard coulometric techniques. 
An equivalent number of samples were collected for alkalinity titration, of 
which 80% were analyzed on board he ship using an automated, closed cell, 
potentiometric system. The remaining 220 sample will be returned for analysis 
ashore. The data will be used by our group to further understand the marine 
carbon system of the far western Pacific and the potential role of this area as 
a sink for anthropogenic CO2.

In addition to the discreet sampling for CO2, an underway pCO2 system was run 
throughout the cruise to collect boundary layer atmospheric and ocean mixed 
layer concentrations. This system together with the ship's navigational and 
meteorological data will be used to calculate air-sea pCO2 differences for flux 
calculations.






Appendix A: Nutrient Quality Control Notes 
            (Joe Jennings)



-------------------------------------------------------------------------
STN  NUTRIENTS  HYDRO      PROBLEM                                   FLAG
 #   AFFECTED   SAMPLE #   NOTED                                 ASSIGNED
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
003  ALL       14          empty hydro bottle                           9
007  ALL       18          empty hydro bottle                           9
015  ALL       11          empty hydro bottle                           9
015  ALL       21          empty hydro bottle                           9
016  N+N, PO4   4          Low; oxygen and Salt flagged; bad bottle?    3
016  N+N, PO4  14          Low; oxygen and Salt flagged; bad bottle?    3
017  ALL       1           empty hydro bottle                           9
017  ALL       20          empty hydro bottle; row missing in file. It
                           should be flagged with 9's and not deleted   9
019  ALL       24          empty hydro bottle                           9
020  ALL       5           empty hydro bottle                           9
021  ALL       35          Noted as leaker                              4
022  N+N       2,4,6-8,    Out of profile                               3
               12,13,15
023  N+N       1,2,6,8-16  Cd coil dying, crummy peaks                  3
025  ALL       17          empty hydro bottle                           9
025  ALL       5           Bad bottle                                   4
025  ALL       11          Noted as leaker                              4
025  ALL       3           empty hydro bottle                           9
025  ALL       29          Noted as leaker                              4
026  ALL       3           empty hydro bottle                           9
026  ALL       11          empty hydro bottle                           9
026  ALL       29          Leaker                                       4
026  ALL       1           empty hydro bottle                           9
026  ALL       20          Leaker?                                      3
027  ALL       3           empty hydro bottle                           9
027  ALL       13          empty hydro bottle                           9
028  ALL       1           didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
028  ALL       21          didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
028  PO4       3           Too high                                     3
029  ALL       29          didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
029  ALL       13          didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
029  ALL       11          didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
030  ALL       11          too low, Salt flagged, O2 suspicious         9
030  ALL       26          out of water, did not sample                 9
030  ALL       31          didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
031  ALL       13          Noted as leaker                              4
031  ALL       11          empty hydro bottle                           9
032  N+N       11,14       Low on theta plot, no obvious problems       3
033  N+N       13          Low in theta plot, no obvious problems       3
033  PO4       8-17        Possible shift; can't be corrected           3
034  ALL       7           didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
035  ALL       11          didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
036  ALL       14          empty hydro bottle                           9
036  ALL       5           Noted as leaker                              4
041  ALL       21          Noted as leaker                              4
042  ALL       22          High? Salt bad                               3
043  ALL       21          didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
043  ALL       33          didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
043  N+N       22          High? Salt bad                               3
044  ALL       13          Noted as leaker; no notes in logsheet        4
045  N+N       19          High                                         3
047  ALL       25          didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
048  ALL       33          didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
050  ALL       11          Noted as leaker                              4
050  ALL       5           Noted as leaker                              4
051  ALL       3           Bad bottle, petcock open                     4
051  ALL       5           Bad bottle, petcock open                     4
052  ALL       8           Leaker?                                      3
058  ALL       17          Noted as leaker                              4
058  ALL       5           Noted as leaker                              4
059  ALL       5           Noted as leaker                              4
061  ALL       4           didn't sample, leaking badly                 9
062  ALL       27          Leaker, low                                  4
065  ALL       1           Noted as leaker                              4
069  ALL       27          Noted as leaker, high                        4
070  ALL       9           Noted as leaker                              4
071  ALL       9           Noted as leaker                              4
071  Si(OH)4   16-18       Low                                          3
071  ALL       15          Noted as leaker                              4
072  ALL       21          Noted as leaker                              4
074  ALL       29          Noted as leaker                              4
077  N+N       6-21        High; apparent baseline shift                3
079  PO4       18-23       Very high, no obvious reason                 3
079  ALL       24          Leaker                                       4
080  Si(OH)4   16,17       Low                                          3
081  ALL       4           Noted as leaker                              4
082  ALL       33          High, no reason, oxygen flagged              3
082  ALL       15          Noted as leaker                              4
086  ALL       11          Noted as leaker                              4
088  ALL       21          Noted as leaker                              4



Note: "Noted as leaker" generally refers to samples which were
      drawn and analyzed, but were noted in the Small Volume Sample
      Log as suspected of leaking.  This data is reported, but is
      considered to be "bad".  By contrast, "didn't sample" generally
      refers to hydro bottles which were clearly identified as leaking
      early in the process of drawing samples and which were therefore
      not sampled.



Appendix B

COMMENTS ON CTD DATA ACQUISITION 
(Marshall Swartz)

From the beginning of the cruise, the 10-liter bottles had problems with endcap 
failures. Typically, the endcap would fracture when closed due to a lanyard 
failure, or a piece of the body of the endcap would fracture, causing the 
uncontrolled ejection of the remaining parts out of the bottle into the hanger.  
This was found to be due to design deficiencies in the thickness of the body of 
the encap, and due to machining problems, causing stress fractures along a 
machined groove root.

The deficiencies were communicated to Scripps, and the problem was corrected on 
subsequent designs.  The spring tension was maintained as low as would retain 
water in the bottles (approximately 35-35 lbs.).

Two Scripps frames with 10-liter bottles were maintained in a ready state.  They 
are noted as the "old" and the "new" frame/bottle set. They were used 
interchangeably, with the only difference being that the LADCP, which had to be 
removed from the frame to be recharged, was more easily mounted and dismounted 
from the "new" frame, and thus was kept there.

Station by Station problems, changes including:

STATION                      COMMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1   OTM 1316 installed within 15 cm horizontally of CTD temperature sensor.
2
3   Bottle 14 not sampled due to leakage.
4
5   Double bottle trip at 900db (nominal pressure)-operator error.
6
7   OTM 1316 stopped shutdown during cast.  Suspected firmware lockup in OTM.
    Bottle 18 not sampled due to leakage.
8   Package powered down than back up at approximately 100db to try and revive 
      OTM 1316.
9   Changed cable for OTM 1316, used cable from #2 frame.
10
11
12
13  Salinity spike in down trace, interpolated down 2 db averaged file btw 2275 
      db and 2289 db.
14
15  Suspected pylon 1460 performance, and removed it. Installed pylon 1419 and 
      new cable prior to station 15. New station configuration. CTD 10, P1419, 
      aft 
    SCI 1419, OTM 1316 AND GREY BOTTLES
    No sample from bottle 11 or 20, both returned to surface empty.
16  First of the GERARD Stations.
    Cast one Deep Gerard, cast two CTD, cast 3 shallow Gerard.
    Conductivity sensor left dry.
17  Started waiting 30 sec after arriving at each bottle depth before triggering 
      bottle release, to assure flushing and dissipation of entrained water.
    A couple of synch errors interpolated in down *.edt file.
    Bottle 20 not cocked, but vented to sea.
18  Conductivity jump interpolated in down *.edt file.
19  Swapped OTM 1316 to OTM 1317.
    Resurfaced package to remove rag.
    Winch problems on up cast between 3400- 3200 db.
    Bottle 24 not sampled due o'ring not being properly seated.
20  Bottle 5 not sampled bottom o'ring not seated.
    Bottle 31 was tripped mechanically but not electrically salts, and oxygens 
      drawn to see where it tripped.
21  Swapped OTM 1317 to OTM 1316.
    Several deep bottles fired in pairs to assists CFC people evaluate bottles.
    SCI had com errors going to position.
    Two synch errors taken out of up *.edt trace.
22
23
24  Bottles 1-30 tripped, skipped 31-35, tripped 36.
    Salt bottles SG 'grey' on odd number positions.
    Salt bottles SW 'white' on even number positions.
    Conductivity jump at 29.3 db interpolated.
25  Swapped OTM 1316 to OTM 1317.
    Gerard station before CTD cast
    New frame, with CTD 10 and Pylon 1419.
    Lanyard hangups on bottles 11, 17, and 29, no sample taken.
26  Conductivity sensor not covered, dried out.
    OTM 1317 intermittent response.
    Lanyard hangups on bottles 3, 11, and 28, no samples taken.
    Synch error interpolated at 403 db in down *.edt file.
27  Lanyard hangups on bottles 3,13, and 21, no samples taken.
28  No samples taken from bottle 21, no water.
29  Fired bottles 1- 31, skipped 32- 35, fired 36
    Lanyard hangups on bottles 1, 11, 13, and 21, no samples taken.
    Conductivity interpolation at 21.3 db in down *.edt.
30  Fired bottles 1-32, skipped 33- 35, fired 36.
    Conductivity interpolation at 16.5 db in down *.edt file
31  Lanyard hangups on bottles 11 and 17, no samples.
32
33
34  Gerard Station
35  OCM replace OTM 1317.
    Autosal #10 developed electrical problem in range select circuit and was 
      repaired.
    Fired bottle 1-28, skipped 29- 35, fired 36.
    Skipped bottle 21, could not get a seal.
    Salinity spike- interpolated 2 db averaged file btw 2167 db and 2191 db.
36  Fired bottles 1-30, skipped 31- 35, fired 36.
    Again bottle 21 was skipped.
37  Fired bottles 1- 25, skipped 26-35, fired bottle 36.
    Petcock open on bottle 21, did not sample.
    Synch error in upcast at 2205 db, interpolated.
38  Fired bottles 1-26, skipped 27- 35, fired bottle 36.
    Pinger battery changed.
    Autosal cell interface circuit board was fixed prior to running 
    salts on station 38.
39  Fired bottles 1- 18, skipped 19- 35, fired 36.
40  Fired bottles 1- 24, skipped 25- 35, fired 36.
41  Fired bottles 1-27, skipped 28- 35, fired 36.
42  Fired bottles 1- 36, skipping 11, 21, 34, and 35.
43  Fired bottles 1- 36, skipping positions 11 and 21.
    Synch errors at 253 db interpolated *.edt file.
44  Fired bottles 1- 36, skipping positions 11 and 21.
    Acquisition started on PC after package entered the water.
45  Fired bottles 1- 36, skipped positions 3, and 21.
46  Gerard station
    NOISEY SALTS
    Skipped positions 11 and 21 again.
47  Skipped positions 11 and 21 again.
48  Lanyard hangup on bottle 33, no sample.
49  Winch problem at 5000db, paid out wire and then started bringing the package 
      back up.
50  Synch error at 1284 db, interpolated down cast *.edt file.
51  Swapped OCM to OTM 1317
    Winch problems at 2952 m, lost main propulsion for 6 min.
    Paid out winch due to gaps in lays, started reeling back in at 3353 m (wire 
      out).
    Winch stopped at 926.8 db (upcast), more winch problems at 460 db.
    Bottles 1- 15 may have been compromised by winch payout.
    In an effort to identify source of errors in sample salts, triple
      salt samples were taken.  One set was drawn into WHOI 125ml
      bottles and sampled on WHOI autosal #10, one set taken
      with SIO 250ml bottles and run on WHOI Autosal #10, and one
      set taken with SIO 250ml bottles and run on an SIO Autosal
      operating in the wet lab.  All samples drawn by same individual.
52  A couple of winch problems on upcast. Winch paused at 4715 m,
      occasional slow downs and pauses due to winch.
    Conductivity spike in down trace interpolated around 3393 db in *.edt file.
53  Changed OTM 1317 out for OCM.
    Winch was slowed down and stopped on several occasion on
    the upcast due to winch leveling problems.
54
55  Bottle position 11 and 21 were not used.
56  Winch problems on upcast around 4000 db.
    Salt replicates for bottles in firing positions 1-9.
57  Winch slow down on up cast at 4720 db.
    Bottle 13, lanyard caught in end cap- no sample.
    EXTRA SAMPLES OF SALTS DRAWN FOR COMPARISON SCRIPPS
    BOTTLES ON WHOI AND SCRIPPS AUTOSALS
58
59  Winch slow down at approximately 5265 db.
60  EXTRA SAMPLE OF SALTS DRAWN TO COMPARE SAMPLE BOTTLES
61  Swapped OCM to OTM 1317.
    No sample bottle 4, water would not come out.
    Sampled 1-31, skipped 32-35, sampled 36.
    Noticed large (approximately 0.5 cm squared area) flakes of iridescent 
      material inside WHOI 125ml sample bottles which appear to trap water and 
      come off.  These bottles are several years old, and no problems have been 
      noted previously. Tried removing flakes with hydrochloric acid with only
      partial success.
62  Synch error interpolated  at 1986 db in down cast.
63  Swapped OTM 1317 to OCM.
    Rough weather, took Package down immediately from surface.
    No sample bottle 35.
    Synch error interpolated at 2861 db.
64
65  Gerard station, Cast 2. Lost 7 gerard barrels- cable snapped.
    Winch problems on upcast, slow between bottles.
66  Winch slow down on uptrace btw 4715 db and 3590 db.
67  New winch speed:
    was 30m/min 0- 300m
        60m/min 300- 5500m
        40m/min 5500- bottom
    NOW 30m/min 0-300m
        60m/min 300- near bottom.
68  Wire connectors on termination replaced prior to station.
       Slow down of package speed on down trace btw 4200 m and 4650m.
69  Bottle position 13 not sampled- end cap not closed.
70
71  Numerous communications errors encountered with pylon/SCI.
    Result is that pylon resets itself to home position during
    cast, and must be repositioned to the next bottle- not
    always successfully.  Suspect that the pylon/SCI
    communication channel FSK signal is being interfered by
    the CTD FSK signal, a condition which shows up on an
    oscilloscope.
72  Swapped OCM for OTM 1317.
       Pylon/SCI communications problems again like station 71. Reset
       pylon by powering off the SCI, waiting 30 seconds, then
       powering on and repositioning to desired bottle.
73  Winch wrap problem at 1412 m out, brought down to 1820 m.
       Bottles 19 and 20 may have been compromised due to this.
74  Swapped OTM 1317 for OCM.
       Bottle in position 13 came up empty- no sample.
75
76  Wire problems, package slow down during up cast
77  Winch slow down at 2393 m on upcast.
       Synch error in down cast interpolated 2120 db.
78
79  No water in bottle 29, no samples.
80
81  Swapped  OCM for OTM 1317.
       POWERED DOWN BEFORE STATION FOR TWO HOURS WHILE LADCP
       REPLACED AND OTM 1317 REPLACED OCM.
82  Winch slowed several times on uptrace. Operator error-
       two bottles tripped at 150 m, none at 800 m.
       Conductivity jumps in down trace. Synch error interpolated at 2288 db.
83
84
85  HEAVY WEATHER, SHIP DRIFTED A WAYS BTW UP AND DOWN CAST.
86  HEAVY WEATHER CONTINUED, LARGE DRIFT FOR VESSELL.
       Winch stop on down cast at ~2900 db.
       Lower end cap open on bottle 5, no sample.
87  WEATHER GETTING BETTER.
       Several winch slow down on upcast.
       COM ERRORS RESETTING PYLON.
88  Conductivity jump in down cast- interpolated 3213 db.
       Skipped bottle 33, 34 and 35.
89  Skipped bottles 28- 35.
90  Skipped bottles 25- 35.
       No sample bottle 19, leaks at end cap.
       Conductivity jumps in down cast.
       Salinity spike, interpolated 2db averaged file btw 1171 db and 1175 db.
91  Skipped bottles 23-35.
92  Skipped bottles 16- 35.
93
94  Conductivity jumps in down cast at 89.7 db, interpolated *.edt file.



                          


                             =======================
                             DATA QUALITY EVALUATION
                             =======================


COMMENTS ON DQ EVALUATION OF WOCE P10 CTD DATA
(Michio AOYAMA)
21 March 1996

General:

The data quality of WOCE P10 CTD data (EXPOCODE: 3250TN026_1)  and the CTD 
salinity and oxygen found in dot sea file are examined.  The individual 2 dbar 
profiles were observed in temperature, salinity and oxygen by comparing the 
profiles obtained in the same basin. The 94 profiles of P10 CTD data were 
divided into four groups as follows;

Station number          corresponding basin name
from 1 to 20                   
from 20 to 39            East Caroline Basin
from 39 to 60            East Mariana Basin
from 60 to 94            North Pacific  Basin

The CTD salinity and oxygen calibrations are examined using the water sample 
data file p10.mka. DQE used the water sample data flagged "2" only for the DQE 
work.


Details

1. CTD profiles 

The temperature and salinity profiles generally look good. DQE observed decrease 
of oxygen concentration near the bottom of the sea in the most of the dot wct 
files. These decreases observed at the deepest 10 - 30 dbar and ranged from 1 
mol/kg to 4 mol/kg. Since DQE thinks that these decreases is originated the 
decrease of lowering rate of CTD and an a lowring rate artifact, they should be 
flagged "3".

 
2    Evaluation of CTD calibrations to water samples

2.1  Salinity calibration;

The onboard calibration for salinity looks good in general. Standard deviation 
of Ds, Ds = CTD salinity in dot sea file - bottle salinity, is 0.00553 pss for 
all data and 0.00123 pss for deeper than 2000 dbar, respectively.  The histogram 
of Ds for all depths shows a symmetric distribution (fig. 1). Since the larger 
difference are shallower layers, larger Ds disappeared in the histogram of Ds 
for deeper than 2000 dbar (fig. 2). DQE, however, observed the non-symmetric 
distribution of Ds in deep salinity fit. DQE thinks that this non-symmetric 
distribution depends on a small bias on the bottle salinity measurements among 
the first 58 stations (see the DQE comments on Hydrographic data). 

2.2 Oxygen calibration;

The histogram of Dox, Dox = CTD oxygen in dot sea file - bottle oxygen, for all 
depths shows a symmetric distribution. Standard deviation of Dox is 4.38 mol/kg 
for all depths.  The histogram of Dox for deeper than 2000 dbar becomes 
beautiful and standard deviation of Dox is 0.96 mol/kg (fig. 4). These confirms 
the good oxygen calibration work. DQE observed no significant station dependency 
of Dox. Though, pressure dependency of Dox is observed (see the DQE comments on 
Hydrographic data).


3. The following are some specific problems that should be looked at:

stn. 34  from 3800 dbar to 4300 dbar;  temperature looks like shifting toward 
         0.02 deg C higher than those of nearby stations.

stn. 42  from 3500 dbar to 4000 dbar;  temperature looks like shifting toward 
         0.02 deg C higher than those of nearby stations.

stn. 68  from 4700  dbar to 4900 dbar; periodical noisy oxygen profile were 
         observed. Suggest flg "3".

stn. 89  from 3000 dbar to 4000 dbar; temperature looks like shifting toward 
         0.03 deg C lower than those of nearby stations.

In the 4 dot wct files, wrong STNNBRs are found. DQE changed the STNNBRs as 
follows;

file name        found                DQE put
---------------------------------------------
tn26d022.wct     STNNBR  21           22
tn26d046.wct     STNNBR  45           46
tn26d062.wct     STNNBR  63           62
tn26d066.wct     STNNBR  67           66

DQE assumed that the filename might be correct. However, DQE compared the 
maximum pressures in dot wct file with those in dot sum file to confirm it.




COMMENTS ON DQ EVALUATION OF WOCE P10 HYDROGRAPHIC DATA.
(Michio AOYAMA)
20 March 1996, revised on 21 March


The data quality of the hydrographic data of the WOCE P10 cruise (EXPOCODE: 
3250TN026_1) are examined. The data files for this DQE work was P10.sum and 
P10.mka (this P10.mka file is created for DQE, then it has a new column of 
quality 2 word) provided by WHPO.

General

The station spacing ranged from 5 to 40 nautical miles and the sampling layer 
spacing was kept ca. 250 dbar in the deeper layers during this P10 cruise. The 
ctd lowerings were made to within 10 meters to the sea bottom except several 
stations. Since the data originators have done a pretty reliable work in 
evaluating their data, hydrographic data flagged "2-good" has a pretty good 
quality. Then this DQE work was enjoyable and fun for me. This high density and 
high quality data will improve our knowledge on the western North Pacific 
following the update of Pacific Ocean deep water data set. Although, I would 
like to complain of the flagging to salinity data in hydrographic data file.

DQE used the data flagged "2" by data originator for this DQE work.

DQE examined 6 profiles and 5 property vs. property plots as listed below:

   salinity, oxygen, silicate, nitrate, nitrite and phosphate profiles
   theta vs. salinity plot
   theta vs. oxygen plot
   salinity vs. oxygen plot
   nitrate vs. phosphate plot
   salinity vs. silicate plot


1. Salinity

DS, DS=CTD salinity - bottle salinity in dot sea file, vs. station #. for the 
deeper layer (theta below 1.5 deg C) show relatively larger variability of 
salinity difference among the stations up to 58. DS ranged from -0.005 to 0.003 
at the first 58 stations. Then DS ranged from -0.003 to 0.002 psu. This 
distribution is easy to understand with the saying on the problem of salinity 
measurements in the cruise report.  Cruise report stated the accuracy is 0.005 
psu for the first 55 stations, this might be first 58 stations, and 0.002 psu 
for the subsequent stations (C.2.1 salinity Analysis) . DQE, however, think that 
this statement should be for "precision", not for "accuracy". 

Fig. 1 also shows a bias of ca. -0.001 in DS distribution among the first 58 
stations. DQE thinks that observed bias may have originated from the bias during 
the bottle salinity measurement.  The overlay plot of theta vs. bottle salinity, 
theta vs. CTD salinity in upcast and theta vs. CTD salinity in upcast for 
stations 53 and 54 are shown for example (fig. 2)  Unreasonable values for some 
of the bottle salinity (marked "+" in fig. 2) are observed in fig. 2.  DQE 
thinks that these questionable bottle salinity data could not be flagged out by 
PI because of the problem on the salinity measurements among the first 58 
stations. Then, DQE suggests that some of the bottle salinity data having larger 
DS should be flagged "3". The overlay plot of theta vs. salinity (bottle, CTD up 
and CTD down) will help flagging to them.

DQE thinks that the edit criteria might be around 0.003 pss (0.002 x 1.414) 
because both CTD salinity and bottle salinity would be able to have accepted 
accuracy of 0.002 psu. The edit criteria stated in the cruise report for deep 
waters does not meet the WHP one-time survey standards for water samples and it 
for CTD measurements. The used criteria was 0.005 psu from 1000 dbar to 7000 
dbar and it is wider than 0.003 psu induced as mentioned above.


2.  Oxygen

Bottle oxygen profile looks good. Salinity vs. oxygen and theta vs. oxygen plots 
also looks reasonable. DQE thinks that the flags of the bottle oxygen data are 
reliable.

The used edit criteria for CTD oxygen and bottle oxygen was 0.05 ml/l (ca. 2.2 
mol/kg) for 1000 dbar to 7000 dbar (C.3.2). DQE examined Dox, Dox=CTD oxygen - 
bottle Oxygen, vs. pressure. In the depth from 1000 dbar to 7000 dbar(fig. 3), 
Dox ranged within the edit criteria except a few data at the oxygen minimum 
layers. In the deeper and low gradient layers, Dox ranged +/- 1.5 mol/kg and 
this corresponds 1% of the oxygen concentration there. Then DQE agrees with this 
edit criteria.

DQE observes "weak pressure dependency" of Dox in fig. 3. Although the range of 
dependency is ca. 1 mol/kg, if PI of CTDO could correct this tendency, the 
quality of CTD oxygen data will be improved.


3. Nutrients

Since nutrient PI has done a pretty reliable work in evaluating their data, the 
profiles of silicate, nitrate, nitrite and phosphate looks pretty well. Nitrate 
vs. phosphate plot and silicate vs. salinity plot also look pretty reasonable. 


4. The following are some specific problems that should be looked at:

STNNBR XX/ CASTNO X/ SAMPNO XX at XXXX dbar:

20/1/13 at 1595 dbar: Nitrite concentration is 0.11 mol/kg. This high 
    concentration might originate from contamination during handling/analysis. 
    Suggest flag "4".
  
35/1/18 at 699 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like higher. Suggest flag "3".

79/1/25 - 36 at 893dbar - 6.5 dbar: Phosphate concentration gap is observed 
    between 2198dbar (2.96 mol/kg) and 2398dbar(2.72 mol/kg). The phosphate 
    data between 2198dbar and 1193dbar were flagged "3" by PI. DQE observed that 
    the phosphate data shallower than 893 dbar show higher concentration, 
    especially at 893dbar and 798dbar.  DQE guess that something might occurred 
    during analyses. If so, suggest flag "3" to the phosphate data shallower 
    than 893 dbar.

81/1/34 at 99dbar: Bottle oxygen looks higher. Suggest change flag to "3"..

83/1/4 at 5004 dbar: Bottle salinity looks like slightly higher. Suggest flag 
    "3".


A note about the Quality 2 flags for P10, hydrographic data.  
(George Anderson)

The DQE has been done for the discrete bottle data for salinity, oxygen, and the  
nutrients.  However, the Quality 2 flags might suggest that this work has not  
been done.  Almost all of the Q-2 flags have been set to 1.  There are a few  
that are not 1, but in every case but one, the Q-1 flag has been set or reset to  
the number in the Q-2 field.  The one case where the Q-1 flag is not identical  
to the Q-2 flag is for station 20, bottle 13, at 1595.3 db.  The Q-2 flag is a  
4, the Q-1 flag is a 2.  The "4" was recommended by the DQ evaluator, and I  
would agree with his comment and conclusion.

My recommendation:
  
1.  copy the Q1 flags to the Q2 field.
2.  for the one station mentioned above, change the nitrite Q-2 flag to a 4.
    this is flag 8.    
3.  replace the present file on the WEB site with this new file.
4.  add a note to the documentation file indicating that this has been done.  


Sarilee has a program which copies the Q-1 flags to the Q-2 field.  I'm sure she  
could update the file as I've indicated above and dump the corrected file into  
the WHPO folder for you or Danie to move to the WEB site.  

With this done, one more DQE loose end will have been eliminated.  

George  


1. Error weighted mean reported with data set

2. Larger of the standard deviation and the error weighted standard deviation of 
   the mean.

1999.11.30

The enclosed file:  "p10hy.all.params.no3.dqe" has been modified as follows:
1. The Q1 flags have been copied to the Q2 field.
2. The date in the heading has been changed to June 7, 1999
3. The initials at the end of this field have been changed to GCA.

Background
It would appear that when the original DQE work was performed on the bottle 
data, specifically:  salinity, oxygen and nutrients, all Q2 flags had been set 
to 1. When the DQ evaluator completed his work, only the 1's in the Q2 field 
that disagreed with his determinations were set to something other than 1.  As a 
result, most all the Q2 flags remained as 1's with a few flags being changed to 
something other than 1.

I reviewed all the differences between the Q2 and Q1 flags.  In all cases but 
one, the Q1 flags had been changed to reflect the determinations of the DQ 
evaluator. The only discrepancy that remained was for station 20, bottle 13 at 
1595.3 db. The DQ evaluator showed the Q2 flag for nitrite as a 4, the Q1 flag 
remained a 2. (I happen to agree with the DQ evaluator; a nitrite value of 0.11 
at ~1600 db is unlikely.) So when copying the Q1 flags to the Q2 field, this 
difference was carried forward.

Much of this data is public, but according to Danie's notes made during some 
recent data merging, some of the data are not public.  When moving this file to 
the WEB site for Cruise P10, please keep this in mind.

I believe all the data merged into the P10 file by Danie is contained in this 
file.
 
George Anderson




FINAL REPORT FOR AMS 14C SAMPLES
(R. Key)
April 24, 1998

1.0  General Information

WOCE cruise P10 was carried out aboard the R/V Thomas G. Thompson in the 
southwestern Pacific Ocean. The WHPO designation for this cruise was 
3250TN026_1. Melinda Hall and Terry Joyce were the co-chief scientists. The 
cruise departed Suva, Fiji on October 5, 1993 and ended on November 10, 1993 at 
Yokohama, Japan. The ship deadheaded from Fiji to just north of Papua, New 
Guinea at 4S-145E where the first station was occupied. From there the track 
was nominally northward along 149E, generally staying east of the Philippine 
Sea. A total of 94 stations were occupied. The reader is referred to cruise 
documentation provided by the chief scientists as the primary source for cruise 
information. This report covers details of the small volume radiocarbon samples. 
The AMS station locations are summarized in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1. A 
total of 588 AMS delta-14-C samples were collected at 38 stations. In addition 
to the AMS samples, large volume Gerard samples were also collected on this 
cruise. The large volume measurements are expected to be completed later this 
year and will be described in a separate report.


Figure 1: AMS 14C station locations for WOCE P10 (map by GMT, Wessel and Smith, 
          1991,1995).


TABLE 1.  AMS Stations on WOCE Section P10

Station  Date      Latitude   Longitude  Bottom    Max.
                                         Depth     Sample
                                         (m)       Pressure
------------------------------------------------------------
1      10/12/93    -4.015     144.811      212      200
3      10/12/93    -3.892     144.892     1399     1382
6      10/13/93    -3.145     144.286     2080     2077
9      10/13/93    -2.250     145.500     1005      998
13     10/14/93    -1.250     145.786     2299     2297
16     10/15/93    -0.475     146.008     3523     3562
18     10/15/93     0.000     146.142     2477     3503
20     10/16/93     0.500     146.283     4134     4182
22     10/16/93     1.000     146.428     4521     4573
25     10/17/93     1.750     146.642     4446     4498
28     10/18/93     2.500     146.858     4437     4496
31     10/19/93     3.503     147.214     4586     4656
34     10/20/93     5.000     147.850     4193     4243
36     10/20/93     6.000     148.272     4095     4141
41     10/21/93     8.500     149.333     3617     3665
44     10/22/93     9.697     149.333     5333     5428
45     10/22/93    10.000     149.333     5548     5643
47     10/23/93    11.158     149.331     5809     5912
50     10/25/93    13.167     149.333     5959     6068
53     10/26/93    15.167     149.333     5677     5777
56     10/27/93    17.167     149.333     5391     5482
59     10/28/93    19.167     149.333     5550     5647
62     10/29/93    21.167     149.333     5389     5481
65     10/30/93    23.181     149.339     5797     5904
66     10/31/93    23.833     149.333     5835     5943
68     11/1/93     25.167     149.333     5903     6014
71     11/2/93     27.167     149.333     5885     5996
74     11/3/93     29.158     149.286     5972     6087
76     11/4/93     30.189     148.047     6181     6304
78     11/5/93     31.208     146.761     6059     6179
80     11/5/93     32.230     145.475     5875     5989
83     11/6/93     33.667     143.667     5608     5713
85     11/7/93     34.169     142.692     5595     5699
88     11/8/93     34.725     141.611     5285     5380
90     11/8/93     34.928     141.211     3304     3345
92     11/9/93     35.092     140.892     1174     1156
93     11/9/93     35.125     140.831      484      472
94     11/9/93     35.167     140.781      216      208


2.0  Personnel

14C sampling for this cruise was carried out by R. Key from the Ocean Tracer Lab 
at Princeton University. Sample extraction, d13C analyses and 14C analyses were 
performed by NOSAMS (National Ocean Sciences AMS Facility at Woods Hole 
Oceanographic Institution). Salinity and oxygen were analyzed by the WHOI CTD 
group (G. Tupper, G. Knapp and T. Turner) and nutrients by Oregon State 
University (J. Jennings and C. Carbonell-Moore for L. Gordon). R. Key collected 
the data from the originators, merged the files, assigned quality control flags 
to the 14C results and submitted the data files to the WOCE office (4/98). R. 
Key is the PI for the 14C data.


3.0  Results

This 14C data set and any changes or additions supersedes any prior release. The 
delta-14-C results reported here are, under WOCE guidelines, considered proprie-
tary for two years after publication of the preliminary data report (March, 
2000) or until publication, whichever comes first.


3.1  Hydrography

Hydrography from this leg has been submitted to the WOCE office by the chief 
scientist and described in the hydrographic report which is available via the 
web address (http://whpo.ucsd.edu/data/onetime/pacific/p10/index.htm).


3.2  14C

The delta-14-C values reported here were originally published in a NOSAMS data 
report (NOSAMS, March 13, 1998). That report included results which had not been 
through the WOCE quality control procedures.

All of the AMS samples from this cruise have been measured. Replicate 
measurements were made on 21 water samples. These replicate analyses are 
tabulated in Table 2. The table shows the error weighted mean and uncertainty 
for each set of replicates. Uncertainty is defined here as the larger of the 
standard deviation and the error weighted standard deviation of the mean. For 
these replicates, the simple average of the tabulated uncertainties for the 
replicates is 4.0 (equal weighting for each replicate set). This precision is 
typical for the time frame over which these samples were measured (Feb. - Oct., 
1997). Note that the errors given for individual measurements in the final data 
report (with the exception of the replicates) include only counting errors, and 
errors due to blanks and backgrounds. The uncertainty obtained for replicate 
analyses is an estimate of the true error which includes errors due to sample 
collection, sample degassing, etc. For a detailed discussion of this see Key 
(1996a). Once the large volume measurements are completed, comparison between 
the AMS and LV results will be possible.


Table 2: Summary of Replicate Analyses

Sta-Cast-Bottle  delta-14-C   Err   E.W.Mean(a)  Uncertainty(b)
---------------------------------------------------------------
6-1-3             -209.4      2.8   -211.0            2.3
                  -212.6      2.8        
6-1-5             -187.3      2.7   -189.2            4.4
                  -193.5      4.2        
31-1-29             90.8      6.0     89.4            3.4
                    88.7      4.2        
34-3-18           -159.8      6.9   -155.2            5.1
                  -152.6      5.3        
34-3-25            -52.8      4.5    -55.3            2.6
                   -56.5      3.1              
34-3-27             70.2      5.3     71.5            3.4
                    72.4      4.5              
36-1-24            -80.0      3.5    -79.8            2.8
                   -79.4      4.9              
65-3-33            135.0      4.1    134.6            2.5
                   134.4      3.1              
65-3-35            118.0      3.4    118.6            2.6
                   119.5      4.0              
68-1-30            117.2      4.6    117.0            3.1
                   116.7      4.1              
71-1-25           -126.5      3.1   -129.1            4.1
                  -132.3      3.4              
71-1-30            109.8      4.1    107.4            3.6
                   104.6      4.5              
74-3-15           -235.1      2.7   -234.1            3.6
                  -229.9      5.6              
76-1-28             53.7      3.5     50.3            5.0
                    46.6      3.6              
78-1-31            128.4      4.1    123.0            6.8
                   118.8      3.6              
83-1-34            121.0      4.1    120.2            2.7
                   119.6      3.6              
85-1-24           -110.6      4.0   -115.2            5.8
                  -118.8      3.5              
85-1-27             34.9      5.3     30.6            4.9
                    28.0      4.0              
90-1-4            -232.2      2.7   -230.4            3.6
                  -227.1      3.7              
90-1-17            -76.5      3.6    -71.9            6.5
                   -67.4      3.6              
90-1-20              2.9      3.1      1.6            4.3
                    -3.2      5.8              
---------------------------------------------------------------
     a. Error weighted mean reported with data set
     b. Larger of the standard deviation and the error 
        weighted standard deviation of the mean.


4.0  Quality Control Flag Assignment

Quality flag values were assigned to all delta-14-C measurements using the code 
defined in Table 0.2 of WHP Office Report WHPO 91-1 Rev. 2 section 4.5.2. 
(Joyce, et al., 1994). Measurement flags values of 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have been 
assigned. The choice between values 2 (good), 3 (questionable) or 4 (bad) 
involves some interpretation.

When using this data set for scientific application, any 14C 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 14C data, the 
measurement error was taken into consideration. That is, approximately one-third 
of the 14C measurements are expected to deviate from the true value by more than 
the measurement precision (~4.0). No measured values have been removed from 
this data set, therefore a flag value of 5 implies that the sample was totally 
lost somewhere between collection and analysis. 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). 

Table 3: Summary of Assigned Quality Control Flags

     Flag  Number
     ------------
     2     551
     3       1
     4       3
     5      12
     6      21


5.0  Data Summary

Figures 2-6 summarize the delta-14-C data collected on this leg. Only delta-14-C 
measurements with a quality flag value of 2 ("good") or 6 ("replicate") are 
included in each figure. Figure 2 shows the delta-14-C values with 2s error bars 
plotted as a function of pressure. The mid depth delta-14-C minimum occurs 
around 2000 to 2400 meters, but is weak in this data set relative to the eastern 
North Pacific. Measurements in the thermocline region fall into two distinct 
groups with the higher values being from the southern end of the section and the 
extreme northern end while the lower grouping is from the central portion (see 
Figure 3 and Figure 4). 

Figure 2: delta-14-C results for P10 stations shown with 2s error bars. Only 
          those measurements having a quality control flag value of 2 or 6 are 
          plotted.

Figure 3 shows the delta-14-C values plotted against silicate. 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 (delta-14-C = -70 - Si) represents the relationship between 
naturally occurring radiocarbon and silicate for most of the ocean. They 
interpret deviations in delta-14-C above this line to be due to input of bomb-
produced radiocarbon, however, they note that the interpretation can be 
problematic at high latitudes. Samples collected from shallower depths at these 
stations show an upward trend with decreasing silicate values reflecting the 
addition of bomb produced 14C. As in Figure 2, two distinct trends are apparent. 
Here the upper grouping is from the northern end of the section and the lower 
from the southern end.

Figure 3: delta-14-C as a function of silicate for P10 AMS samples. The straight 
          line shows the relationship proposed by Broecker, et al., 1995 (delta-
          14-C = -70 - Si with radiocarbon in  and silicate in mmol/kg).

Another way to visualize the 14C - silicate correlation is as a section. Figure 
4 shows delta-14-C as contour lines in silicate - latitude space for samples 
having a potential density greater than 26.9 which corresponds to ~500m. In this 
space, shallow waters are toward the bottom of the figure. The density cutoff 
was selected to eliminate those samples having a very large bomb produced 14C 
component.  For this data set, Broecker's hypothesis does not work very well. 
The delta-14-C isolines trend upward to the north and the spacing between the 
isolines, for contours which fall below the depth of bomb-radiocarbon 
contamination, decreases northward. The upward curvature of the isolines at the 
northern end of the section is due to the addition of bomb-produced radiocarbon 
via ventilation or due to an "anomalous" silicate signal (Talley and Joyce, 
1992).

Figure 4: Section of 14C contours along latitude in silicate space for the 500-
          2500m depth range. Note that for this section, "shallow" is toward the 
          bottom.

Figures 5-6 show delta-14-C contoured along the section. Figure 5 is a normal 
section in latitude-depth space while Figure 6 shows the same data set in 
potential density-latitude space. The depth section was gridded using LeTraon's 
(1990)objective technique and the density section was gridded using the "loess" 
methods described in Chambers et al. (1983), Chambers and Hastie (1991), 
Cleveland (1979) and Cleveland and Devlin (1988).

Figure 5: delta-14-C along WOCE section P10. Most of the deep and bottom waters 
          along this section were sampled with the large volume technique. The 
          few AMS samples collected below 1500m were omitted from this section.

Figure 6: Same data as Figure 5 contoured in potential density space.

In Figure 5 the primary structure of the isopleths is due to the presence of the 
Pacific North Equatorial Current which flows westward across the southern end of 
the section and the Japan current which flows northeastward across the far 
northern end of the section. Upwelling near the equator is not particularly 
evident in Figure 5, but is the source of most of the structure seen in the 
isopleths in Figure 6 in the low latitude zone. The deep and bottom water AMS 
results are too sparse to contour. These data will be merged with the large 
volume results and once that data is available in order to prepare a deep 
section.


6.0  References

Broecker, W.S., S. Sutherland and W. Smethie, Oceanic radiocarbon: Separation of 
    the natural and bomb components, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 9(2), 263-
    288, 1995.

Chambers, J.M. and Hastie, T.J., 1991, Statistical Models in S, Wadsworth & 
    Brooks, Cole Computer Science Series, Pacific Grove, CA, 608pp.

Chambers, J.M., Cleveland, W.S., Kleiner, B., and Tukey, P.A., 1983, Graphical 
    Methods for Data Analysis, Wadsworth, Belmont, CA.

Cleveland, W.S., 1979, Robust locally weighted regression and smoothing 
    scatterplots, J. Amer. Statistical Assoc., 74, 829-836.

Cleveland, W.S. and S.J. Devlin, 1988, Locally-weighted regression: An approach 
    to regression analysis by local fitting, J. Am. Statist. Assoc., 83:596-610.

Joyce, T., and Corry, C., eds., Corry, C., Dessier, A., Dickson, A., Joyce, T., 
    Kenny, M., Key, R., Legler, D., Millard, R., Onken, R., Saunders, P., 
    Stalcup, M., contrib., Requirements for WOCE Hydrographic Programme Data 
    Reporting, WHPO Pub. 90-1 Rev. 2, 145pp., 1994.

Key, R.M., WOCE Pacific Ocean radiocarbon program, Radiocarbon, 38(3), 415-423, 
    1996(a).

Key, R.M., P.D. Quay and NOSAMS, WOCE AMS Radiocarbon I: Pacific Ocean results; 
    P6, P16 & P17, Radiocarbon, 38(3), 425-518, 1996.

LeTraon, P.Y., A method for optimal analysis of fields with spatially variable 
    mean, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 13,543-13,547, 1990.

NOSAMS, National Ocean Sciences AMS Facility Data Report #98-027, Woods Hole 
    Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA, 02543, Mar., 1998.

Stuiver, M., G. stlund, R.M. Key and P.J. Reimer, Large-volume WOCE radiocarbon 
    sampling in the Pacific Ocean, Radiocarbon, 38(3), 519-561, 1996

Talley, L.D. and T.M. Joyce, The double silica maximum in the North Pacific, J. 
    Geophys. Res., 97, 5465-5480, 1992.

Wessel, P. and W.H.F. Smith, Free software helps map and display data, EOS 
    Trans. AGU, 72(441), 445-446, 1991.

Wessel, P. and W.H.F. Smith, New version of the generic mapping tools released, 
    EOS Trans. AGU, 76, 329, 1995.




FINAL REPORT FOR LARGE VOLUME SAMPLES AND DELTA-14-C MEASUREMENTS
(Robert M. Key)
April 10, 1998


1.0 General Information

WOCE cruise P10 was carried out aboard the R/V Thomas G. Thompson in the  
western Pacific Ocean. The WHPO designation for this leg was 3250TN026_1. 
Melinda Hall of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute was chief scientist for this 
cruise. This report covers details of data collection and analysis for the 
large volume Gerard samples. The reader is referred to the Hall's Final Report 
for general information. The cruise departed Suva, Fiji on October 5, 1993 and 
ended at Yokohama, Japan on November 10, 1993. The objective of this cruise was 
to occupy a hydrographic section nominally along 149E from Papua, New Guinea 
to the shelf of Japan near Yokohama as part of the onetime WHP survey of the 
Pacific Ocean. 

Seven large volume (LV) stations were occupied on this leg. The planned 
sampling density was 1 station every 5 of latitude (~300nmi). Each station 
(except station 74 which had only one cast) included one deep cast (2500db to 
the bottom), and an intermediate (1000db to 2500db) cast. All LV casts were 
done using the starboard-aft winch and coring cable. The purpose of these casts 
was to collect samples for 14C analysis. 14C coverage for the upper water 
column was done via small volume AMS sampling from the Rosette. Table 1 
summarizes the LV sampling and Figure 1 shows the station positions for leg 
P10.

TABLE 1. Station/Cast Summary

Station Cast Latitude Longitude #Samples
----------------------------------------
16       1   -0.473   146.015      9
         3   -0.465   146.000      9
25       1    1.750   146.643      9
         3    1.771   146.640      9
34       1    4.997   147.882      9
         3    5.000   147.860      9
47       1   11.169   149.329      9
         3   11.166   149.325      9
56       1   17.163   149.302      9
         3   17.187   149.328      9
65       1   23.170   149.335      9
         3   23.197   149.328      2
74       1   29.163   149.327      5
         7   13    TOTALS        106


Figure 1: Large volume station locations for WOCE cruise P10 (map by GMT).


Each Gerard barrel was equipped with a piggyback 5 liter Niskin bottle which, 
in turn, had a full set of high precision reversing thermometers to determine 
sampling pressure and temperature. Both Gerard and Niskin were sampled for 
salinity and nutrients. Additionally, each Gerard was sampled for radiocarbon. 
The salinity samples from the piggyback bottle were used for comparison with 
the Gerard barrel salinities to verify the integrity of the Gerard sample. As 
samples were collected, information was recorded on a sample log sheet. The 
discrete hydrographic data were entered into the shipboard data sys-tem and 
processed as the analyses were completed. The bottle data were brought to a us-
able, though not final, state at sea. Data checking procedures included 
verification that the sample was assigned to the correct depth. The salinity 
and nutrient data were compared with those 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.

During retrieval of station 65 cast 3, seven of the nine Gerard barrels, along 
with all accompanying equipment, were lost when the winch operator failed to 
stop when signaled. A few hours were spent trying to drag for the equipment, 
but this was a long shot at best and complicated by the fact that the remaining 
coring cable was just long enough to reach bottom. For the remainder of the 
cruise, the deep water was sampled using AMS samples. Fortunately, this was the 
last WOCE cruise for which large volume sampling was planned.


2.0  Personnel

LV sampling for this cruise was under the direction of the principal 
investigator, Robert M. Key (Princeton). All LV 14C extractions at sea were 
done by Key. Deck work was done by the WHOI CTD group under the direction of J. 
Wells from SIO-ODF. Wells and Key were responsible for reading thermometers. 
Salinities and nutrients were analyzed by WHOI (George Tupper, George Knapp 
and Teresa Turner) and Oregon State Univ. (Joe Jennings), respectively. 14C 
and 13C analyses were performed by Minze Stuiver, Univ. Washington. Key 
collected the data from the originators, merged the files, as-signed quality 
control flags to all of the large volume hydrographic data and radiocarbon 
results and submitted the data files to the WOCE office.


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 41-53 while Gerard 
barrels are in the range 81-94.


3.1  Pressure and Temperature

Pressure and temperature for the LV casts are determined by reversing thermome-
ters mounted on the piggyback Niskin bottle. Each bottle was equipped with the 
standard set of 2 protected and 1 unprotected thermometer. Each temperature 
value reported on the LV casts was calculated from the average of four 
readings, provided both protected thermometers functioned 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. 
Figure 2 shows potential temperature vs. pressure for the LV casts.


Figure 2: Potential temperature from DSRT on LV casts vs. pressure.


3.2   Salinity

Salinity samples were collected from each Gerard barrel and each piggyback Nis-
kin 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. In terms of accuracy, the 
large volume salinity values for this cruise are actually better than those 
from the Rosette at the same station. The problem with the Rosette salinity 
values was discovered to be inadequate rinsing (which is never a problem with 
the LV 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.

Salinity samples were drawn into 200 ml Kimax high alumina borosilicate bottles 
after 3-5 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 air-tight 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 large volume cast with IAPSO Standard Seawater (SSW) 
Batch P-120, 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. The quality of the temperature 
and salinity is demonstrated by Figure 3 which shows data from all of the large 
volume samples. Each Gerard-Niskin pair is as- signed the same temperature which 
allows direct comparison of many of the paired salinity values on the figure.

The following is taken directly from the chief scientist's report for this 
cruise. Note that the correction mentioned (and applied) for the Rosette 
samples has not been applied to the large volume cast results.

    IAPSO Standard Water Batch P-114 was used through station 12. 
    Commencing with station 13, batch P-120 was used for the remainder of 
    the cruise. At the time it was noted that the standby number of the 
    Autosal shifted by +.0015 equivalent salinity units. Post-cruise 
    comparisons of the salinities measured during this cruise with 
    historical measurements suggest that the measured salinities from
    the later stations were erroneously high. Comparisons of batch P-120 
    with batches P-118, P-123 and P-124,made during the summer of 1995 
    confirm that P-120 is approximately 0.0015 fresher than stated on its 
    label. Thus, it was decided to subtract 0.0015 from all salinity 
    measurements commencing with station 13, effectively referencing all 
    salinities to BatchP-114. Because of the multiple problems with 
    salinity during the first 55 stations, estimated accuracy is 0.005. 
    Subsequent salinity data has an estimated accuracy of 0.002.


3.3 Nutrients

Nutrient samples were collected from both Gerard barrels and piggyback Niskin 
bottles. LV nutrients were measured along with Rosette nutrients so the 
analytical precision should be the same as Rosette samples. Nutrients 
collected from LV casts are some-times 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.  See the chief scientist's report for details 
of nutrient analysis.  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. 
The overall quality of the nutrient data for this cruise is demonstrated in 
Figure 4 which shows both Gerard and piggyback values as a function of 
potential temperature. Overlain on the plot (lines) are the Rosette measure-
ments for the same stations and depth ranges. The Rosette phosphate data are 
omitted since, at this scale, only confusion results if added.


Figure 3: Theta-salinity for all of the large volume cast data with a QC flag of 
          2 for both temperature and salinity.


3.4  14C

All Gerard samples deemed to be "OK" on initial inspection at sea were 
extracted for 14C 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 Stuiver's lab in Seattle. Both 13C and 
14C measurements are performed on the same CO2 gas extracted from the large 
volume samples. The standard for the 14C measurements is the NBS oxalic acid 
standard for radiocarbon dating. R-value is the ratio between the measured 
specific activity of the sample CO2 to that of CO2 prepared from the 
standard, the latter number corrected to a delta-13C value of -19ppt and age 
corrected from today to AD1950 all according to the international agreement. 
delta-14-C is the deviation in ppt from unity, of the activity ratio, isotope 
corrected to a sample delta-13C value of -25ppt. For further information of 
these calculations and procedures see Broecker and Olson (1981), Stuiver and 
Robinson (1974) and Stuiver (1980). 14C has been measured on all LV samples 
collected. This exceeds the rate funded for this work (80%).  Prior to this 
cruise, no 14C data existed for this entire region of the ocean, except for 3 
thermocline stations reported by Masao Ishii (personal communication) and a 
GEOSECS station east of Japan.


4.0  Data Summary

Figures 5 & 6 summarize the large volume 14C data collected on this leg. All D 
14C measurements with a quality flag value of 2 are included in each figure. 
Figure 5 shows the D 14C values plotted as a function of pressure . One sigma 
error bars (4ppt) are shown with each datum. The mid-depth minimum which is 
characteristic of Pacific profiles is present in some of these profiles, 
however, it is interesting that the minimum is more pronounced at the southern 
end of the section than at the northern end. Figure 6 shows the delta-14-C 
values plotted against measured Gerard barrel silicate values. The angled heavy 
line is the relationship suggested by Broecker et al. (1995) to be representa-
tive of the mean global pre-bomb delta-14-C - silicate correlation. The 
relationship does not appear to hold for these waters. Figure 7 is a section of 
the radiocarbon data from P10 large volume samples. The northward flowing 
Antarctic water is evident near the bottom of the section. Lying above is the 
older water (14C minimum) North Pacific deep water. The minimum values in this 
section are not at low as those found in the eastern north Pacific.


Figure 4: Plot includes nutrient data from both Gerard and piggyback 
          Niskin samples. Rosette/CTD data from the same stations and 
          depth ranges are overlain as lines except for phosphate where 
          the added lines would be too confused to be helpful for 
          comparison. Rosette samples use the same symbols as large 
          volume data from the same station, but are only one-half size.


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 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 14C data. There is no overlap between this data set and any 
existing 14C data, so that type of comparison was impractical. The lack of 
other data for comparison led to a more lenient grading on the 14C data. When 
flagging 14C data, the measurement error was taken into consideration. That 
is, approximately one-third of the 14C measurements are expected to deviate 
from the true value by more than the measurement precision of ~2ppt.


Figure 5: All LV delta-14-C values as a function of pressure. Vertical bars 
          indicate two sigma errors.


Figure 6: All LV delta-14-C measurements having a quality control flag value 
          of 2 or 6 are plotted. Vertical bars are one sigma errors. The 
          heavy line is that suggested by Broecker, et al. (1995) to be 
          representative of the global relationship between pre-bomb 14C 
          and silicate.


Figure 7: Radiocarbon section for deep and bottom waters. Evident in the 
          figure are northward flowing waters of Antarctic origin along 
          the bottom and the older presumably southward flowing deep 
          water around 2500dB.


No measured values have been removed from this data set. When using this data 
set, it is advised that the nutrient data only be considered as a tool for 
judging the quality of the 14C data regardless of the quality code value. A 
summary of all flags is provided in Table 2.


TABLE 2. Quality Code Summary

                           WHP Quality Codes
             Levels  1   2  3   4  5  6  7  8   9
-------------------------------------------------
BTLNBR   226         0  209 0  17  0  0  0  0   0
SALNTY   226         0  203 1   5  0  0  0  0  14
SILCAT   226         0  205 0   5  0  0  0  0  16
REVTMP   226         0  206 0   0  0  0  0  0  14
DELC14*  105         0  105 0   0  0  0  0  0   0
-------------------------------------------------
  *14C large volume samples can not be collected 
   from piggyback Niskin bottles


6.0  References and Supporting Documentation

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

Broecker, W.S., S. Sutherland, W. Smethie, T.-H. Peng and G. stlund, 
Oceanic radiocarbon: Separation of the natural and bomb components, 
    Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 9(2), 263-288, 1995.

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

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

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

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

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


D. Acknowledgments

Funding for this research cruise was primarily from various
grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), OCE93-06689
(M. Hall). We also wish to thank Captain and crew of the R/V
Thomas Thompson for a successful cruise.



E. References

Anonymous. 1985. RFA-300 Rapid Flow Analyzer Operation Manual.
    Preliminary. Alpkem Corporation, Clackamas, Oregon. Looseleaf binder,
    unnumbered pages.

Bullister, J. L. and R. F. Weiss. 1988. Determination of CCl3F and CCl2F2 in
    seawater and air. Deep Sea Research, vol. 35, no.  5, 839-853.

Giles, Alan B. and Trevor J. McDonald. 1986. Two methods for the reduction
    of Salinity Spiking of CTDs. Deep Sea Research. vol. 33, no 9. 1253-1274.

Gordon, L.I., J.C. Jennings, Jr., A.A. Ross and J.M. Krest.,  A suggested 
    protocol for continuous flow automated analysis of seawater nutrients 
    (phosphate, nitrate, nitrite and silicic acid) in the WOCE Hydrographic 
    Program and the Joint Global Ocean Fluxes Study. Available from the US WHP 
    Office or the authors.

Gordon, L. I., J. Krest, and A. Ross, b. (in preparation), Reducing temperature 
    sensitivity in continuous flow analysis of silicic acid in seawater.

Knapp, G.P., M.C. Stalcup and R.J. Stanley (1990).  Automated oxygen titration 
    and salinity determination.  Technical Report WHOI-90-35, Woods Hole 
    Oceanographic Inst.

Mangum, B.W. and G.T. Furukawa.1990. Guidelines for Realizing the International 
    Temperature Scale of 1990 (ITS-90). Nist Technical Notes 1265.

Millard, R. C. and K. Yang.1993. CTD Calibration and Processing Methods used at 
    Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Technical Report No. 93-44, 96 pages.

Oceansoft MKIII/SCTD Acquisition Software Manual. 1990. P/N Manual 10239.
    EG&G Marine Instruments.

Owens, Brechner W. and Robert C. Millard, Jr.1985. A New Algorithm for CTD 
    Oxygen Calibrations. J. Phys. Oceanog. vol. 15.621-631.

Toole, John, G. Bond, R.Millard. 1993. Implementation of a titanium strain
    gauge pressure transducer for CTD applications. Deep Sea Research. vol.
    40, no 5. 1009-1021.

Toole, John. 1994. personal communication.




FINAL CFC DATA QUALITY EVALUATION (DQE) COMMENTS ON P10.
(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 (mwarner@ocean.washington.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.
************************************************************************
 




                      WHPO DATA PROCESSING HISTORY:

Date      Contact     Data Type      Data Status Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/14/96   Aoyama      CTD            DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO

3/20/96   Aoyama      NUTs           DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO

3/21/96   Aoyama      BTL            DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO

8/15/97   Uribe       DOC            Submitted  See Note:
  2000.12.11 KJU:  File contained here is a CRUISE SUMMARY and NOT sumfile. 
  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 sum files. Received 1997 August 15th.

4/22/98   Key         DELC14         DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO
  distribute to WOCE PIs only, included LV sampling   Today I uploaded the P10 
  small volume data and final report to your anon ftp site. I send the final 
  report in three formats: P10.ps (postscript version with figures), P10.txt 
  (ascii with no figs), P10.rtf (rich text format).  proprietary till March, 
  2000.

4/27/98   Kozyr       ALKALI/TCARBN  Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO
  I have put the final CO2-related data file for the Pacific Ocean WOCE Section 
  P10 to the WHPO ftp INCOMING area.

11/19/98  Key         ALK/C02        Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO
  As data originators of the TCO2 and alkalinity data for P10, we consider it 
  to be public. It only becomes "officially" public after CDIAC has issued its 
  final report  For now, P10 C14 is still proprietary except to WOCE PIs.

12/3/98   Jenkins     He/Tr          Submitted  Preliminary
  Attached is a listing of the preliminary data (we have a proposal into NSF to 
  do a synthesis to finalize the data).  S.Diggs noted problems merging this 
  data w/ BTL file.

1/25/99   Bartolacci  CTD/BTL/TRA    Data Update  
  Public except for tracers

1/26/99   Warner      CFCs           Data are Public
  Yes they can be public.  -Mark

1/26/99   Talley      He/Tr          Tracers merged into HYD file

2/1/99    Jenkins     HELIUM/Tr      Data are NonPublic for 6 months

2/9/99    Talley      SUM            Data Update  see note:
  I just found an error in the p10su.txt file, on line 231, where cast 4 (LVS) 
  was mislabeled as station 66, and should have been 65.  I corrected it and put 
  the corrected file in my ftp site on whpo.ucsd.edu.

3/26/99   Ross        NO2+NO3        Data Update  see note:
  In regard to the "P10 - Nitrate" note Lou sent to you the other day - the 
  data listed under the "NITRATE" column is in fact the total of "Nitrate AND 
  Nitrite" or N+N.  You are correct in stating that to obtain NITRATE only, you 
  must subtract out the corresponding NITRITE value.   Again, the units of 
  umol/Kg are correct for all nutrients.  To clarify, I obtained the P10 data 
  (p10hy.txt) from the WOCE website that your PACIFIC data listing website 
  linked -
           >http://whpo.ucsd.edu/data/onetime/pacific/p10/index.htm.
  
4/21/99   Kozyr       DOC            Requested full doc file
  
4/23/99   Bartolacci  DOC            complete doc OnLine (ascii)
   I've updated the p10 doc file, and changed the table accordingly.

4/28/99   Kappa       DOC            Cruise Rpt Rcvd @ WHPO
  Sent complete doc file to Kozyr

4/29/99   Quay        DELC13         Data and/or Status info Requested by dmb

5/6/99    Bartolacci  He/Tr          Following note sent to Jenkins:
  I would like to thank you for the submission of helium and tritium data for 
  p10, and ask you a few questions about the data.  The data sent had no WOCE 
  quality flags associated with them.  Upon merging, data are designated a flags 
  solely on the basis of being present or missing from the data set (i.e. if a 
  value was present, it was considered an acceptable measurement and designated 
  a flag of 2, if a missing value was present [-99.00] it was understood that no 
  sample was drawn from the bottle and was designated a flag of 9).  However, if 
  you wish to send flags that further describe the quality of the data they 
  would be most welcome!  Definitions of the WOCE quality flags can be found in 
  the WOCE Operations Manual, which is also on line at http://whpo.ucsd.edu/ 
  under WHP Manuals (chapter 4).  Along with Tritium was a parameter named Sigma 
  Tritium which was defined as the uncertainty in the Tritium measurement.  Can 
  we assume this parameter to be equivalent to the WOCE parameter Tritium Error?  
  If the quality flags we designated are acceptable, please notify us and we 
  will continue with the merging process.  Thank you for your time!

  According to email sent by Lynne Talley, the incorrect units on HELIUM were 
  changed from PMOL/KG to NMOL/KG.  See email below.  B. Jenkins was notified 
  via email and phone regarding these data discrepancies. No word from the PI on 
  a course of action.  See email below.
  
5/10/99   Bartolacci  He/Tr          Following note sent to Jenkins:
  In regards to my previous email on the questions surrounding helium and 
  tritium data for p10 I'd like to add another.

  Further inspection of the data with Steve Diggs revealed some values that may 
  be questionable.  Steve suggested I ask you about these as well.

  The tritium and sigma tritium data use -99.00 as missing values, however the 
  same does not appear to be true for the helium and delta helium3 values. There 
  is a value of -9.90 that appears in the delta helium3 column which corresponds 
  to a helium value of -4.417 consistently. To my (very limited) knowledge the 
  range of helium values is somewhere between 1-3 nmol/kg.  Is -4.417 a valid 
  value for helium or is this an artifact of a calculation?  Could you briefly 
  explain what parameters comprise the ratio of delta helium3?

  Also, there are some values in the helium column that have a different 
  precisions.  For example, is 1.7 appears as a helium value in the same station 
  as 1.860.  Is 1.7 actually 1.700?  The WOCE format standards for helium are 
  8.4 which means precision will be 'added' to these values.  If you have 
  carried out measurements to this precision, do you wish to resend values for 
  helium?  The WOCE formats will also force the tritium (and sigma tritium) 
  values to a precision of 8.2.  These values will be rounded.

  Thanks very much for your time concerning this data!  A sample station (that 
  has values in question) follows below.
  Sincerely,   Danie Bartolacci

         90   15  34.93  141.21     8   11      93
        224   49  20.336  34.511  216. -99.00  -99.00    0.48   1.7
        223   98  17.474  34.642  187.   1.441   0.010   4.28   1.757
        221  197  12.735  34.476  168.   1.558   0.011   9.48   1.797
        220  246  10.899  34.391  156.   1.238   0.009  11.42   1.803
        218  345   8.834  34.305  139.   1.199   0.010  13.59   1.810
        217  396   7.652  34.271  127.   1.053   0.009  14.34   1.817
        216  496   5.459  34.247   91.   0.607   0.007  15.82   1.839
        215  597   4.411  34.320   73.   0.349   0.005  16.51   1.849
        214  697   3.684  34.328   55.   0.218   0.004  16.35   1.860
        213  796   3.433  34.367   55. -99.00  -99.00   16.85   1.9
        212  897   3.112  34.395   54.   0.117   0.003  -9.90  -4.417

11/17/99  Key         DELC14         LVS DQE Report rcvd @ WHPO

11/18/99  Key         DELC14         LVS Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO

11/30/99  Bartolacci  He/Tr/C14/C02  Data Update
  I have replaced both the public (he/tr, Tcarb, Alk, and DelC14 masked out of 
  the file) and nonpublic (encrypted) bottle files with the newly formatted 
  version from George Anderson.  The new files have correct Q2 bytes in the 
  QUALT2 column now.  Old version had all 1's in the Q2 word.  I have updated 
  the table to reflect the date of the update.

12/17/99  Anderson    LVS  Data Update  See note:
  Converted the file from Bob Key to the WHP .lvs format.  Parameters that were 
  in the original file but were not retained in the .lvs file because they are 
  not in the .lvs record format description:

    latitude      QUALT1 flags for: 
    longitude                       temperature
    depth (m)                       nitrate 
    nitrate                         nitrite 
    nitrite                         phosphate 
    phosphate                       silicate 
    silicate                        aou  
    AOU     
    sigma 0    
    sigma 1    
    sigma 2    
    sigma 3    
    sigma 4     
  
  The Key file had station numbers 1-13, but the .sum file  indicated that the 
  LVS stations were 16, 25, 34, 47, 56, 65, and 74.  In addition the the cast 
  numbers in the Key file were always 1 and 3, which did not agree with the .sum 
  file.  After comparing the maximum pressure in the .sum file with the maximum 
  pressure in the Key file for each cast, I was able to determine which station 
  and cast numbers to use. There is a 0 flag for some of the parameters, in fact 
  all of the oxygens except where there was no sample which is flagged 9.  This 
  is not a valid number for the quality flags.  I left them as 0 since I have no 
  way of knowing what they should be.   
  
  Sarilee Anderson  --  17 Dec. 1999
  
1/12/00   Key         LVS            Data Update  See Note:
  I understand the problem. Some days I'm not sure what ocean I'm working  on. 
  P10LV files are attached, including the Final Report (pdf). A few additional 
  notes regarding this data set follow. Some of these comments are generic to my 
  LV file procedure (i.e. treatment of missing bottom depth in SUM file), but 
  most are specific to p10

   1. cast numbers. Some confusion existed here because after the cruise Terry 
      and staff changed cast numbers on stations which had a Ra-228 surface 
      soak. This messed up shore based measurements since the sample collection 
      deck logs no longer matched the SUM file. The attached file P10LVSUM.ASC 
      is a copy of the SUM file produced by WHOI whenever. The file p10lvsta is 
      my reduction of that file with corrections to what I think things should 
      be. 
   2. In p10lvsta, I have filled in any missing bottom depths. 
   3. The locations (BE,BO,EN) are better taken from P10LVSUM.ASC than from 
      p10lvsta since I only keep one location (almost always BO).
   4. The data file has a flag (tf) for the reversing temperature values
   5. Some values in the data file have a flag value of "0" intentionally, by 
      agreement between Jim Swift and me. This indicates that the value was 
      somehow approximated. Oxygen was never measured for the LV casts. Here I 
      interpolated oxygen based on the measured rosette values at the same 
      station. Missing temperature and salinity values were interpolated from 
      surrounding LV cast samples on the same station.
   6. I provided all QC flags. QC values are burst into individual flag 
      values with names that are easily recognized (i.e. sif=silicate flag, 
      sf=salt flag). Marking is according to WOCE convention. QC performed 
      relative to this cruise only (i.e. no comparison to other cruises). Gerard 
      barrel QC on nutrients not as strict as Rosette samples. Note however that 
      the salts values (especially deep) for the first half of this cruise are 
      better than the measured Rosette salt values due to "lazy" collection 
      technique by a graduate student on the Rosette salts (should be a comment 
      in the Chi. Sci. Rpt. about this, but I wouldn't bet on it - Mandy was in 
      way over her head on this one).
   7. Depths estimated from latitude and pressure using the algorithm 
      published anon. in the 1970 Bulletin Geodesique.
   8. Number of decimal places. There should be the required number or 
      more for all variables, however, my software truncates trailing "0's" on 
      print.
   9. Nutrient data received in umol/l; converted with lab temperature of 
      25C and measured salinity.
  10. AOU values calculated using the Weiss algorithm rather than the 
      Garcia algorithm. I now prefer the latter, but you should probably just 
      dump these and recalculate using your programs to be sure of consistancy. 
      Ditto on theta and sigmaX.

  This is probably more than you wanted to know. Rather than me sending you a 
  giant data dump, I suggest that we deal with the LV cruises one at a time so 
  that the exceptions get properly noted for the final archive.

  I have all LV data that exists from U.S. WOCE Pacific.

2/4/00    Kozyr       ALK/TCARBN     Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO

2/9/00    Bartolacci  CO2            Data Merged/OnLine
  TCARBN  merged new values into existing column.  Changed missing data 
    valuefrom -999.9 in latest co2 data set to -9.0 in current bottle file.
  ALKALI  merged new values into existing column.  Changed missing data 
    valuefrom -999.9 in latest co2 data set to -9.0 in current bottle file.
  C14ERR  added new column for these values into existing column. Changed 
    missing data value in latest co2 data set from -999.9 to -9.0 in 
    current bottle file.
  Ran maskhyd to add name/date stamp.  Ran wocecvt to check format.  Both 
    programs ran with no errors detected in routine formatting.
  New file has been placed in p10 directory, and table has been updated to 
    reflect the change.
  This information has been added as a readme file to the original p10 
  directory.  --  DMB 2000.02.09

2/25/00   Warner      CFCs           Data Update  See note:
  Since John Bullister has asked us all to check our data, I have resubmitted 
  the WOCE P10 CFC data to the ftp site. I have changed it to the SIO1993 
  calibration scale, and flagged one or two questionable points.

3/8/00    Bartolacci  CFCs           Data Merged/OnLine
  Merged CFC11/12 values from Mark Warner (email below).  Used "driver.pl" 
    and "warner.pl" to reformat data in order to merge.
  Used D. Newton's "mrgsea" for merging both values into existing P10 bottle 
   file obtained from WHPO website.
  Ran wocecvt on merged bottle file.  No errors.  Ran maskhyd to include 
    date/name stamp. Also made a public version with he/tr and C14 masked out of 
    file (named p10hy.txt).
  Renamed merged bottle file p10hy_all_params encrypted it and moved 
    old file to 'original' subdirectory with replacement date in filename.

3/28/00   Talley      HELIUM         Units should be Nanomoles/kg.

3/28/00   Bartolacci  He/Tr  Update Needed, Following note sent to Jenkins:
  It was discovered by L. Talley that the current version of p10 bottle file on 
  line, has incorrect helium and tritium data merged into it. Therefore the 
  original helium/tritium data sent by Jenkins, was re-merged into the current 
  bottle file. Please see file README.p10 regarding first merging of these data 
  and documentation.

  NOTES on merging:

  Used DMN code mrgsea to merge TRITUM, HELIUM, DELHE3, SIGTRI (which 
    possibly should be TRITER)
  changed missing data value for TRITUM from -99.00 to -9.0
  changed missing data value for SIGTRI from -99.00 to -9.0
  changed missing data value for DELHE3 from -9.90 to -999.00
  added missing data value for HELIUM -9.0.
  changed HELIUM units from PMOL/KG to NMOL/KG. ran wocecvt with no bottle 
    file errors.
  ran read_hyd.  Code did not recognize SIGTRI as WOCE accepted parameter.  no 
    other errors detected.
  ran maskhyd to add date/name stamp.  Code stopped after not recognizing  
    SIGTRI as WOCE parameter.
  added date/name stamp by hand edit.
  ran movehyd to put parameter columns in WOCE order.

  Final file is called p10_complete_20000328.txt
 
  PROBLEMS: 
 
  Erroneous HELIUM values -4.417 correspond to DELHE3 values of -9.90 and 
    may be the intended missing data value. These values are out of the accepted 
    range for HELIUM in the WOCE Operations Manual 90-1. These values were 
    merged and left as-is until further word from PI.
  Precision for HELIUM varied from f8.1 to f8.3.  WOCE Operations Manual 90-
    1 states precision for HELIUM should be f8.4.  Therefore precision was 
    "added" to these values when merged into the current bottle file.  
  SIGTRI is not a recognized WOCE parameter and possibly should be TRITER 
    but no course of action had been given by PI.  Parameter was merged as is 
    until further word from PI.
  See email below.  This was the second contact for this PI regarding these 
    data problems. 

    Hello Dr. Jenkins,
     Lynne Talley recently caught an error in the helium/tritium data that was 
    merged into the P10 bottle file, which caused me to delve back into the 
    original data you sent a year or so ago. The error Lynne caught was a result 
    of the merging process, however I cannot seem to find a response from you on 
    the following problems/questions we had regarding the data.
     Can you please look through the original emails (attached) and reply with a
    course of action to be taken on these data.  Also at this time, may we make 
    the helium and tritium data public?

4/13/00   Bartolacci  He/Tr          Data Update  See note:
  I have re-merged the helium and tritium values sent by Jenkins into the p10 
  bottle file. The file now contains: TRITUM, HELIUM, DELHE3, and SIGTRI (which 
  I think should be TRITER but is left  as is until word from the PI).  There 
  were some questions regarding missing data values for HELIUM, and the PI was 
  notified, however no response has come yet.  Data were merged AS-IS.
  On line bottle file has been replaced and the table has been edited to reflect 
  this change.
  
4/14/00   Key         DELC14         Data are Public
  As of 3/2000 the 2 year clock expired on the last of the Pacific Ocean C14 
  data (P10).  All Pacific Ocean WOCE C-14 data should be made public. 
  
4/19/00   Bartolacci  TRITUM         Data Update  Header error, See note:
  SMALL ERROR  I know there is a non-WOCE header for P10 TR data, but I haven't 
  yet heard anything from Jenkins on changing it. I cc'd you on a correspondence 
  regarding that problem (and others) since they should be in the information 
  about P10 that is available to users.
 
4/19/00  Jenkins      He/Tr          Reply to Bartolocci's notes:
  My apologies for the silence, but I have been rather busy as of late with 
  adminstrative duties, and have been unable to work with or access the WOCE 
  data with in any convenient format. Based on the information you gave me, I 
  offer the following comments: 
  
  I regret that the format I sent you was not entirely consistent with the WOCE 
  convention, but my understanding at the time was that this was not a formal 
  submission, but rather a quick response to a personal request by Lynne to look 
  at the data. I have not had the time to work through the data into the final 
  format, as this was to be part of the currently active WOCE-AIMS data mop-up 
  program for tritium-helium. I had hoped that prior to official/final 
  transmission, we could have an opportunity to complete inter-lab comparisons 
  and final data quality control.
  
  For the tritium data, -99.00 means no sample, or that the sample analysis 
  failed (e.g., sometimes storage flasks leaked, invalidating the measurement). 
  For helium data, -9.90in the del-3He column means a null value (it's actually 
  -99.00 per mil, but expressed in percent). The corresponding helium 
  concentration value (which for some reason is a negative, but irrelevant 
  number) will be invalid. The reason why the number appears like this is a 
  minor bug in the reporting programme, and should be ignored.
  
  No flags were reported for the data at present for the reasons described 
  above.
    
  PS:  I'm hoping to put together the Pacific tirtium-helium data submission 
  sometime in the next few months, once we get through this year's graduate 
  admissions process and a couple of other deadlines.

9/26/00   Buck        LVS            Website Updated; Data added to website
  Added Large Volume Samples file to website.

10/17/00  Jenkins     TRITUM         Submitted  Preliminary
  WOCE Indian Ocean = WITrit.dat   Contains all legs
  WOCE Pacific P10  = WP10Trit.dat
  WOCE Pacific P13  = WP13Trit.dat
  WOCE Pacific P14c = WP14cTrit.dat
  WOCE Pacific P18  = WP18Trit.dat
  WOCE Pacific P19  = WP19Trit.dat
  WOCE Pacific P21  = WP21Trit.dat
  SAVE South Atlnt  = SAVETrit.dat

  Column Layout as follows:  Station, Cast, Bottle, Pressure, Tritium, 
    ErrTritium
  Units as follows:  Tritium and ErrTritium in T.U.
  All data are unfortunately still preliminary until we have completed the 
    laboratory intercomparision and intercalibration that is still underway.

10/17/00  Jenkins     He/He3/Neon    Submitted  Preliminary 
  WOCE Indian Ocean = WIHe.dat   Contains all legs
  WOCE Pacific P10 = WP10He.dat
  WOCE Pacific P18 = WP18He.dat
  WOCE Pacific P19 = WP19He.dat
  WOCE Pacific P21 = WP21He.dat

  Column Layout as follows:  Station, Cast, Bottle, Pressure, Delta3He, 
    ErrDelta3He, ConcHelium, ErrConcHelium, ConcNeon, ErrConcNeon
  Units as follows:  
    Delta3He and ErrDelta3He in %
    ConcHelium, ErrConcHelium, ConcNeon, and ErrConcNeon in nmol/kg
    Null values (for ConcNeon and ErrConcNeon only ) = -9.000
  All data are unfortunately still preliminary until we have completed the 
    laboratory intercomparision and intercalibration that is still underway.

11/1/00   Jenkins     He/Tr/Ne       Final Data Rcvd @ WHPO
  The following data were received from Bill Jenkins 2000/11/01 and were 
  reformatted by Sarilee Anderson:
    P10: tr/he/ne
    P13: tr
    P14C:tr
    P18: tr/he/ne
    P19: tr/he/ne
    P21: tr/he/ne
  SAVE: S. Atlantic tritium data from SAVE program

11/8/00   Anderson    HE/NEON        Reformatted by WHPO
  I have put the Jenkins helium and neon in WOCE format. There were no quality 
  codes so I set the HELIUM, DELHE3, and NEON to 2.

11/13/00  Anderson    TRITUM         Reformatted by WHPO
  I have put the Jenkins tritium data into WOCE format.  There were no quality 
  codes so I set the TRITUM to 2. 
  
1/11/01   Kappa                      DOC  txt version created
  includes cfc report, nutrients report, ctd & hyd dqe reports and large- and 
  small-volume c14 reports.

1/17/01   Huynh       DOC            Website Updated, txt version online

1/30/01   Stuart      DELC13         Submitted  See Note:
  Enclosed are three text files (and data) for the Pacific. The headers are:
    Lab ID
    WHPID
    Station
    Cast
    Niskin
    Del-C13
    C13 flag
  The files are for P10, P14C, P17E, and P17E/P19S

6/22/01   Uribe       CTD/BTL        Website Updated; CSV File Added
  CTD and Bottle files in exchange format have been put online.

6/22/01   Muus        He/Tr Shallow  Submitted/not on web
  JENKINS received Oct 17 and NOV1, 2000. NP per table and data history.  Not on 
  plain text web file: 20000414WHPOSIODMB but encrypted file exists. Public per 
  Jenkins referenced message above.
					
8/9/01    Kappa       DOC            new pdf, txt versions online
  Files put online by K. Uribe. p10_3250TN026_1.txt (replaces the txt file 
  currently online), p10_3250TN026_1.pdf.bin
					
8/21/01   Muus        CFCs           Data into BTl file
  Notes on P10 CFC merging Aug 21, 2001. D. Muus 

  1. New CFC-11 and CFC-12 from: 
     /usr/export/html-public/data/onetime/pacific/p10/original/  
     20010709_CFC_WISEGARVER_P10/20010709.172120_WISEGARVER_P10_p10_CFC_DQE.dat 
     merged into plain text web SEA file as of Aug 20, 2001 (20000414WHPOSIODMB) 
     and into encrypted web SEA file as of Aug 20, 2001 (20000328WHPOSIODMB) 

  2. Changed header "SIGTRI" to "TRITER". Header in Jenkins tritium data file 
     was "ErrTritium". 

  3. Exchange file made for the plain test version and checked using Java Ocean 
     Atlas. 
					
8/24/01   Bartolacci  BTL/CFCs       Update Needed
  Updates CFC's will not be online until HE/TR are merged.  Although Dave Muus 
  has merged updated CFC's into the current P10 bottle file there was a small 
  flag missmatch in the public version of the data.  Because helium and tritium 
  still need merging into this file, this will be done and the final merged 
  bottle file (also with corrected flags) will then be put online.

  So for now no updated CFC's will be online until the helium and tritium is 
  merged.
					
8/27/01   Swift       He/Tr          Status changed to Public
  Steve - Please make the following changes from non-public to public.  All 
  Jenkins Pacific/Indian data are public according to an email he sent 
  2/26/2001, hence P10 3250TN026_1   The He/Tr data are not in the public data 
  file.  Please make them public and available.
					
8/30/01   Bartolacci  BTL            Website Updated; BTL file replaced
  Status changed to public.  I have replaced the current P10 bottle file with a 
  file containing updated CFC 11 and 12 values as well as merged helium, delhe3, 
  tritium, and neon data. Data merged by D. Muus. According to Jenkins (by way 
  of J. Swift) all tracer data may be made public, and therefore the entire 
  bottle file has been made publicly available in WOCE and Exchange format. Old 
  files have been moved to original subdirectory and have been renamed to 
  reflect replacement. All tables and references have been updated to reflect 
  this change.

8/28/01   D. Muus     He/Tr/Ne/CFC   Notes on merging
  1. New CFC-11 and CFC-12 from:
     /usr/export/html-public/data/onetime/pacific/p10/original/
     20010709_CFC_WISEGARVER_P10/20010709.172120_WISEGARVER_P10_p10_CFC_DQE.dat

     merged into plain text web SEA file as of Aug 20, 2001 (20000414WHPOSIODMB)

  2. New HELIUM, DELHE3, NEON, and TRITUM from:

     /usr/export/html-public/data/onetime/pacific/p10/original/
     2000.11.13_TRIT_HE_REFORMAT_P10_SA

     merged into plain-text SEA file after CFCs merged (Item 1 above).
     Encrypted web Sea file (20000328WHPOSIODMB) has 60 more bottles with helium
     data than the new helium file and a net of 7 more tritium levels than the
     new tritium file.

     a. New files have no SAMPNO but BTLNBR appears to be same as SAMPNO in 
        original SEA file while BTLNBR in original SEA file differs from new 
        helium, tritium, neon files BTLNBR (e.g. Sta 1, Cast 1, 8.4db: "WG009" 
        in Sea file, "9" in new file). Matched SAMPNO in SEA file with BTLNBR in 
        new files for this merge. Used original SEA file SAMPNOs and BTLNBRs. No 
        quality codes from data originator so used "2"s used for both QUALT1 and
        QUALT2.

     b. New files have Cast 2 for Stations 16, 56, 74 and 90. SUMMARY file and 
        web SEA file have Station 16 Cast 3(ROS)   (Cast 2 is BUC)
                                  56      3(ROS)   (No tritium, Cast 2 is LVS)
                                  74      3(ROS)   (No tritium, Cast 2 is BUC)
                                  90      1(ROS)   (No Cast 2)     
     Changed new files to match SUMMARY and SEA file data for ROS.   

  3. Exchange files made for both the Public and Non-Public versions and checked
     using Java Ocean Atlas.
 
10/25/01  Kappa       Doc            Cruise Report updates
  Added CFC DQE reports & CFC merging notes; updated Data Processing Notes