A.	Cruise Narrative

A.1	Highlights

A.1.a	WOCE designation	 P17N
				 
A.1.b	EXPOCODE		 325021/1

A.1.c	Chief Scientist		 David L. Musgrave
				 University of Alaska
				 Fairbanks, AK
				 phone: 907-474-7837
				 fax:   907-474-7204
				 e-mail: musgave@ims.alaska.edu
A.1.d	Ship			 
	
A.1.e	Ports of call		 San Francisco, California-Sitka, Alaska (USA)
 				 
A.1.f	Cruise dates		 15-May-1993 to 26-Jun-1993

A.2	Cruise Summary Information

A.2.a	Geographic boundaries

		57N
	158W		123W
		38N

A.2.b	Stations occupied

tations were 
numbered consecutively from the beginning of the cruise.

* 202 CTD/36 bottle rosette stations, 47 with LADCP
 
 1. 127 WOCE stations (1-99,121-148), 33 with LADCP
 2. 21 coastal stations into Alaska Peninsula (100-120), 0 with LADCP
 3. 39 Sitka Sound stations (149-187), 0 with LADCP
 4. 16 Sitka Eddy stations (188-203), 14 with LADCP

* 10 Large volume sampling (Gerard barrel) stations
 
A.2.c	Floats and drifters deployed

A.2.d	Moorings deployed or recovered

 
A.3	List of Principal Investigators

Table1:  List of Principal Investigators

Name		   Parameter			 Institution
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rana Fine          CFC                		 RSMAS 
Teresa Chereskin   ADCP, LADCP  		 SIO 
Wilf Gardner       Transmissometer 		 TAMU  
Catherine Goyet    Carbon Dioxide    		 WHOI  
Charles Keeling    Carbon Dioxide 		 SIO  
Robert Key         Large Volume Carbon-14  	 Princeton 
 		   Radium-228
John Lupton        Helium-3     		 NOAA/PMEL  
Dave Musgrave      CTD-hydrography   		 IMS-UAF  
Tom Royer          CTD-hydrography   		 IMS-UAF  
Paul Quay          AMS Carbon-14   		 UW   
Jim Swift          CTD-hydrography and    	 SIO-ODF
  		   nutrients support
Zafir Top          Helium-3, Tritium   		 RSMAS  
Rick Thomson       Surface Drifters    		 IOS/BC  
------------------------------------------------------------

Disposition of data: please contact the individual investigators
listed above.  We are following the US WHP data policy, by which all
preliminary results are immediately available to all US WOCE
investigators funded for Pacific basin projects, with proprietary
rights for two years for usage and publication of the data given to
the individual investigator responsible for each particular
measurement.  Any use of publication of these data without permission
from the principal investigator responsible for that measurement is in
violation of this agreement.  Collaborative work is encouraged.
 
A.4	Scientific Programme and Methods

The R/V Thompson departed San Francisco for cruise 21 (leg 01) on 
15-May-1993.  This was the first WOCE hydrographic cruise on the R/V 
Thompson.  P17N was supported by the National Science Foundation's 
Ocean Science Division. The Ocean Data Facility of Scripps Institution 
of Oceanography (ODF/SIO) provided the basic technical support for 
this cruise.  Because of their sea-going experience with the WOCE 
Hydrographic Program (WHP) and their prior support of JGOFS activities 
on the R/V Thompson, we had very few problems with equipment.  The 
worst problem seemed to be occasional malfunctioning of the General 
Oceanics pylon. We had extremely good weather (for the Northeast 
Pacific) and were delayed only two times: due to weather for about 24 
hours at station 72 and for about 8 hours at a non-WOCE station 
(194).  We had three weather days planned and gained additional days 
due to a cruising speed of slightly greater than 10 knots.  The 
additional days were spent on hydrographic work on the Alaska 
Peninsula shelf, in Sitka Sound and offshore of Sitka. 

All WOCE stations were to the bottom and included a rosette/CTD
cast.  Basic station spacing in the open ocean was 30 nm, with higher
resolution in regions of steep topography (off Pt. Arena, California,
over the Mendicino ``Ridge'', over the Aleutian Trench, and at the
shelf break into Sitka). The Alaska Peninsula and Sitka Sound stations
were to the bottom (generally less than 200 m) and the Sitka Eddy
stations were to the bottom or 1000m or 2000 m. 

Sampling was done with a 36-place General Oceanics pylon on a rosette
frame with 10-liter bottles and a CTD (SIO/ODF CTD \#1),
transmissometer, altimeter, and pinger.  The CTD data stream consisted
of elapsed time, pressure, two temperature channels, conductivity,
oxygen, altimeter and transmissometer signals.  All WOCE profiles were
full water column depth.  Water samples were collected for analyses of
salt, oxygen, silica, phosphate, nitrate, nitrite on all stations and
of CFC-11, CFC-12, helium-3, helium-4, tritum, AMS C14, total CO2
and total alkalinity on selected stations.

A Lowered Acoutic Doppler Current Profiler was mounted to the rosette
frame which was specially made so that no bottles needed to be
removed. The LADCP was mounted only for stations near steep
bathymetry.  It's pressure case was rated to 5500 dbar so at station
87 at the crossing of the deepest part of the Aleutian Trench  (6000
m), the LADCP was dismounted and then remounted for a second cast.
The time to mount or dismount the LADCP was about one-half hour since
the rosette needed to be partially dismantled.

Large volume sampling was made with 270 liter Gerard barrels for
analyses of C14 Ra(228), salinity, oxygen, and nutrients on
10 stations. We had very good weather for all the Large
Volume Stations and had no problems with pretrips (wire speeds of 30
meters/minute for downcasts).  The time for the LVS's was greater than
that alloted for in the cruise plan.  However, the time gained by
cruise speeds greater than 10 knots more than made up for the lost
time on the LVS's.

A.5	Major Problems and Goals not Achieved

No major problems were encountered on the cruise.  The wind speed and
direction of the IMET system failed early in the cruise.
The shipboard underway system did not log data until station 10
due to a software error. 

The GO pylon had major problems in firing bottles, however all
misfirings were detectable and the console operator was able to
compensate for the misfires.
  
A.6	Other Incidents of Note

A.7	List of Cruise Participants
 
Table 2: List of Cruise Participants

    Name			Instutition	Responsibility
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1   Dave Musgrave   		UAF        	Chief Scientist  
2   Tom Royer       		UAF 		Co-Chief Scientist  
3   Robert T. Williams  	STS/ODF         Data/Marine Tech, WLdr,Oxygen 
4   Carl Mattson      		STS/ODF         Electronics Specialist  
5   Dave Muus       		STS/ODF         Data/Marine Tech, WLdr 
6   Dave Nelson     		STS/ODF/URI     Marine Tech  
7   Stacey Morgan   		STS/ODF         Oxygen/Nutrients  
8   Dennis Guffy   		STS/ODF/TAMU    Nutrients  
9   Laura Goepfert   		STS/ODF         Marine Tech/Salt  
10   Marie-Claude Beaupre   	STS/ODF     	Nutrients/Oxygen  
11   Craig Hallman      	STS/ODF         Marine Tech/Salt  
12   Teri Chereskin  		SIO             ADCP,LADCP  
13   Rich Rotter     		Princeton       Large Volume extractions  
14   Georges Paradis    	PMEL            Helium sampling  
15   Chris Heuer    		RSMAS           Helium/tritium sampling  
16   Emma Bradshaw   		RSMAS           CFC  
17   Kevin Maillet   		RSMAS           CFC  
18   Maren Tracy     		WHOI            CO2  
19   Bob Adams       		WHOI            CO2  
20   Aaron Smith     		WHOI            CO2  
21   Rolf Sonnerup     		UW              AMS 14C  
22   Steve Sweet     		UAF             Watch Stander  
23   Heather Hunt    		UAF             Watch Stander  
_____________________________________________________________________________


Table 3:  Insitutuions 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOAA/PMEL			NOAA
				Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
				7600 Sand Point Way NE
				Seattle, WA
				98115-0700

SIO				Scripps Institution of Oceanography
				University of California of San Diego
				9500 Gilman Drive
				La Jolla, CA
				92093

 
TAMU				Texas A&M University
				Department of Oceanography
				College Station, TX
				77843


WHOI				Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
				Woods Hole, Ma
				02543

Princeton			Princeton University
				Princeton, NJ
				08540

RSMAS				Rosential School of Marine and 
				Atmospheric Science
 				Miami, FL

UAF				University of Alaska
				Fairbanks, AK

UW				University of Washington
				School of Oceanography
				Seattle, WA
				98195
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
B.	Underway Measurements

B.1	Navigation and bathymetry

Navigation  data and underway bathymetry was acquired from the ship's Bathy
2000 system via RS-232. It was logged automatically at one-minute intervals
by  one  of  the  Sun  Sparcstations  to  provide a time-series of underway
position, course, speed and bathymetry data. These data were used  for  all
station  positions,  PDR  depths,  and  for bathymetry on vertical sections.


B.2	Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)

An ADCP was run while underway.

B.3	Thermosalinograph and underway dissolved oxygen, etc

pCO was collected while underway.

B.4	XBT and XCTD

B.5	Meteorological observations

Thompson's IMET system  collected (surface water temperature and conductivity, meterological parameters, GPS navigation, ship's speed and heading) and bathymetry from the shipboard PDR.  The IMET's wind speed and direction sensor
malfunctioned early in the cruise.

B.6	Atmospheric chemistry

C.	Hydrographic Measurements

C.1.  Description of Measurement Techniques and Calibration

Basic Hydrography Program

The  basic  hydrography program consisted of salinity, dissolved oxygen and
nutrient (nitrite, nitrate, phosphate and silicate) measurements made  from
bottles taken on CTD/rosette casts plus pressure, temperature, salinity and
dissolved oxygen from CTD  profiles.   202  CTD/Rosette  casts  were  made,
usually  to within 10 meters of the bottom.  Of these 202 casts, there were
a total of 128 WOCE casts.  10 Large Volume stations were occupied with two
casts  per  station.   On  the  WOCE  stations,  4343  bottles were tripped
resulting in 4319 usable bottles. No major problems were encountered during
any  phase  of  the operation. The resulting data set met and in many cases
exceeded WHP specifications. 

C.1.a.  Water Sampling Package

Hydrographic  (rosette)  casts  were  performed  with  a  new design of the
rosette system consisting of a  36-bottle  ODF-designed  rosette  frame,  a
36-place  pylon (General Oceanics 1016) and 36 10-liter Bullister-style PVC
bottles.  The frame worked well  and  held  the  Lowered  Acoustic  Doppler
Current  Profiler  (LADCP) without sacrificing any of the 36 samplers.  The
G.O. pylon had operating problems which could usually be  overcome  by  the
operator  through  the  diagnostics  routine.  The Bullister-style samplers
worked  well,  but  had   fragile   end-cap   edges   and   tight   valves.
Recommendations   for   modifications   were   made  and  have  since  been
implemented.  Underwater electronic components consisted of an ODF-modified
NBIS  Mark III CTD (ODF #1) and associated sensors, SeaTech transmissometer
provided by Texas A&M University (TAMU), RDI LADCP, Benthos  altimeter  and
Benthos  pinger.   The CTD was mounted horizontally along the bottom of the
rosette frame, with the transmissometer, dissolved oxygen and secondary PRT
sensors  deployed alongside.  The LADCP was mounted vertically in the frame
inside the bottle rings. The  Benthos  altimeter  provided  distance-above-
bottom  in  the  CTD data stream. The Benthos pinger was monitored during a
cast with a precision depth recorder (PDR) in the ship's  laboratory.   The
rosette system was suspended from a three-conductor electro-mechanical (EM)
cable. Power to the CTD and pylon was provided through the cable  from  the
ship.  Separate conductors were used for the CTD and pylon signals.

Each  rosette  cast was performed to within 10 meters of the bottom, unless
the bottom returns from both the pinger and altimeter were extremely  poor.
Bottles  on  the  rosette were each identified with a unique serial number.
Usually these numbers corresponded to the reverse  of  the  pylon  tripping
sequence,  1-36,  with  the  first bottle tripped being bottle #36 (deepest
bottle).  Bottle replacements were necessary, and the  replacement  bottles
were numbered 37 and 38.  Averages of CTD data corresponding to the time of
bottle closure  were  associated  with  the  bottle  data  during  a  cast.
Pressure,  depth,  temperature,  salinity,  density and nominally-corrected
oxygen were immediately available to  facilitate  examination  and  quality
control  of  the  bottle  data  as  the  sampling  and  laboratory analyses
progressed.

The deck watch prepared the rosette approximately 45  minutes  prior  to  a
cast.   All valves, vents and lanyards were checked for proper orientation.
The bottles were cocked and all hardware and  connections  rechecked.  Upon
arrival  on  station,  time,  position and bottom depth were logged and the
deployment begun. The rosette was moved into position  under  a  projecting
boom  from  the  rosette  room  using  an  air-powered  cart on tracks. Two
stabilizing tag lines were threaded through rings on the frame. CTD  sensor
covers were removed and the pinger turned on.  Once the CTD acquisition and
control system in the ship's laboratory had been initiated by  the  console
operator  and  the  CTD  and  pylon had passed their diagnostics, the winch
operator raised the package and extended the boom  over  the  side  of  the
ship.  The  package  was then quickly lowered into the water, the tag lines
removed and the console operator notified by radio that the rosette was  at
the surface.

Recovering the package at the end of deployment was essentially the reverse
of the launching. Two tag lines connected to air tuggers and terminating in
large  snap  hooks were manipulated on long poles by the deck watch to snag
recovery rings on the rosette frame. The package was then lifted out of the
water under tension from the tag lines, the boom retracted, and the rosette
lowered onto the cart. Sensor covers were replaced, the pinger  turned  off
and  the  cart with the rosette moved into the rosette room for sampling. A
detailed examination of the bottles and rosette would occur before  samples
were taken, and any extraordinary situations or circumstances were noted on
the sample log for the cast.

Rosette maintenance was performed on a regular basis. O-rings were  changed
as  necessary  and  bottle  maintenance performed each day to insure proper
closure and sealing. Valves  were  inspected  for  leaks  and  repaired  or
replaced.

Large Volume Sampling (LVS), see Key et. al (1991) was also performed on this expedition.
These casts were carried out with ~270-liter stainless steel Gerard barrels
on  which were mounted 5-liter bottles with deep-sea reversing thermometers
(DSRTs).  Samples for salinity, silicate and 14C  were  obtained  from  the
Gerard barrels; samples for salinity and silicate were drawn from piggyback
Niskin-style  bottles.   The  salinity  and  silicate  samples  from   each
piggyback  bottle  were used for comparison with the Gerard barrel salinity
and silicate to verify the integrity of the Gerard sample.

C.1.b.  Underwater Electronics Packages

CTD data were collected with a modified NBIS Mark III  CTD  (ODF  CTD  #1).
This  instrument provided pressure, temperature, conductivity and dissolved
O2  channels,  and  additionally  measured  a   second   temperature   (FSI
temperature  sensor)  as  a calibration check. Other data channels included
elapsed-time,  an  altimeter,  several  power   supply   voltages   and   a
transmissometer.  The  instrument  supplied  a standard 15-byte NBIS-format
data stream at a data rate of  25  fps.  Modifications  to  the  instrument
included  a  revised  dissolved  O2  sensor  mounting;  ODF-designed sensor
interfaces for the FSI PRT and the SeaTech transmissometer;  implementation
of   8-bit  and  16-bit  multiplexer  channels;  an  elapsed-time  channel;
instrument id in the polarity byte and power supply voltages channels.

The O2 sensor was deployed in an ODF-designed  pressure-compensated  holder
assembly  mounted  separately on the rosette frame and connected to the CTD
by an underwater cable.  The transmissometer  interface  was  designed  and
built by ODF using an off-the-shelf 12-bit A/D converter.

Although the secondary temperature sensor was located within 1 meter of the
CTD conductivity  sensor,  it  was  not  sufficiently  close  to  calculate
coherent  salinities.  It  was  used as a secondary temperature calibration
reference rather than as a redundant sensor, with the intent of eliminating
the use of mercury or electronic DSRTs as calibration checks.

Standard  CTD  maintenance  procedures  included  soaking  the conductivity
sensor in deionized water and placing a cap on the O2 sensor between  casts
to  maintain  sensor  stability,  and  protecting  the CTD from exposure to
direct sunlight or wind to maintain an equilibrated internal temperature.

The General Oceanics 1016 36-place pylon was used in conjunction  with  the
General  Oceanics  pylon  deck unit.  There were numerous tripping problems
caused by the G.O. pylon/deck unit combination.   Usually  these  could  be
resolved  by  the  console operator via the pylon diagnostics routine.  The
pylon emitted a confirmation  message  containing  its  current  notion  of
bottle trip position, which was an aid in sorting out mis-trips.  A further
consequence of Using the G.O. pylon and deck unit also contributed  to  the
magnitude  of the variance of salinity differences.  The pylon would take a
variable amount of time to trip a bottle after the trip had been initiated.
The  time  varied  from  5  seconds  to  over  30 seconds.  The acquisition
software began averaging data corresponding to the rosette trip as soon  as
the  trip was initiated, ending when the trip confirmed.  Consequently, CTD
rosette trip  data  used  for  the  differences  contained  variable-length
averages.


C.1.c.  CTD Data Acquisition, Processing and Control System

The CTD data acquisition, processing  and control system consisted of a Sun
SPARC station  2  computer  workstation,  ODF-built  CTD  deck unit, General
Oceanics pylon deck unit, CTD and pylon power supplies, and a VCR  recorder
for  real-time  analog  backup  recording  of the sea-cable signal. The Sun
system consisted of a color display with trackball and  keyboard  (the  CTD
console),  18 RS-232 ports, 2.5 GB disk and 8 mm cartridge tape.  One other
Sun SPARCstation 2 system was networked to the data acquisition system,  as
well  as to the rest of the networked computers aboard the Thompson.  These
systems were available for real-time  CTD  data  display  as  well  as  for
providing  hydrographic  data management and backup.  Each Sun SPARCstation
was equipped with a printer and an 8-color drum plotter.

The CTD FSK signal was demodulated and converted to  a  9600  baud  RS-232C
binary  data  stream  by the CTD deck unit. This data stream was fed to the
Sun  SPARCstation.   The  pylon  deck  unit  was  connected  to  the   data
acquisition  system  through  a  serial port, allowing the data acquisition
system to initiate and confirm bottle trips.   A  bitmapped  color  display
provided  interactive  graphical  display  and  control  of the CTD rosette
sampling system, including real-time raw and  processed  data,  navigation,
winch and rosette trip displays.

The CTD data acquisition, processing and control system was prepared by the
console watch a few minutes before each deployment.  A  console  operations
log  was  maintained  for  each  deployment,  containing  a record of every
attempt to trip a bottle as well  as  any  pertinent  comments.   Most  CTD
console  control  functions,  including starting the data acquisition, were
performed by pointing and clicking a trackball cursor  on  the  display  at
icons  representing  functions  to  perform.  The system then presented the
operator with short dialog  prompts  with  automatically-generated  choices
that  could  either  be accepted as default or overridden. The operator was
instructed to turn on the CTD and pylon power supplies, then to  examine  a
real-time  CTD  data  display  on  the  screen for stable voltages from the
underwater unit. Once this  was  accomplished,  the  data  acquisition  and
processing  was begun and a time and position automatically associated with
the beginning of the cast. A backup analog recording of the CTD signal  was
made  on  a  VCR  tape,  which  was  started  at  the same time as the data
acquisition.  A rosette trip display and pylon control window  then  popped
up,  giving  visual  confirmation that the pylon was initializing properly.
Various plots and displays were initiated. When all was ready, the  console
operator informed the deck watch by radio.

Once  the  deck  watch  had  deployed  the rosette and informed the console
operator that the rosette  was  at  the  surface  (also  confirmed  by  the
computer displays), the console operator provided the winch operator with a
target depth (wire-out) and lowering rate (normally  60  meters/minute  for
this package). The package would then begin its descent.

The  console  operator  examined  the processed CTD data during descent via
interactive plot windows on the display, which could also be run  at  other
workstations  on  the  network. Additionally, the operator decided where to
trip bottles on the up-cast, noting this on the console log.  The  PDR  was
monitored to insure the bottom depth was known at all times.

The  watch  leader  assisted the console operator when the package was ~400
meters above the bottom, and verify the  range  to  the  bottom  using  the
distance  between  the bottom reflection and pinger signal displayed on the
PDR. Between 300 to  60  meters  above  the  bottom,  depending  on  bottom
conditions,  the altimeter typically began signaling a bottom return on the
console.  The winch and altimeter displays  allowed  the  watch  leader  to
refine  the  target depth relayed to the winch operator and safely approach
to within 10 meters of the bottom.

Bottles were tripped by pointing the console trackball cursor at a  graphic
firing control and clicking a button. The data acquisition system responded
with the CTD rosette trip data  and  a  pylon  confirmation  message  in  a
window.  All  tripping attempts were noted on the console log.  The console
operator then directed the winch operator to  the  next  bottle  stop.  The
console operator was also responsible for generating the sample log for the
cast.

After the last bottle was tripped, the console operator directed  the  deck
watch  to  bring  the  rosette  on deck. Once on deck, the console operator
terminated the data acquisition and turned  off  the  CTD,  pylon  and  VCR
recording.  The  VCR  tape  was  filed.  Usually  the console operator also
brought the sample log to the rosette room and served as the sample cop.

C.1.d.  CTD Laboratory Calibration Procedures

Pre-cruise laboratory calibrations of  the  CTD  pressure  and  temperature
sensors were used to generate tables of corrections applied by the CTD data
acquisition and processing software at sea.  These laboratory  calibrations
were also performed post-cruise.

Pressure  and  temperature calibrations were performed on CTD #1 at the ODF
Calibration Facility (La Jolla).  The pre-cruise calibration  was  done  in
May 1993 before the start of the expediton, and the post-cruise calibration
was done in October 1993.

The CTD pressure transducer  was  calibrated  in  a  temperature-controlled
water  bath  to  a  Ruska  Model  2400  Piston  Gauge  pressure  reference.
Calibration curves were measured at  0.01,  11.74  and  31.22  deg.C  to  2
maximum  loading  pressures  (2775 and 6080 db) pre-cruise, and at 1.62 and
32.13 deg.C to 2 maximum loading pressures (1400 and 6080 db)  post-cruise.
Additionally,  dynamic  thermal-response  step  tests were conducted on the
pressure transducer to calibrate dynamic thermal effects.

CTD PRT temperatures were calibrated to an NBIS ATB-1250 resistance  bridge
and  Rosemount  standard PRT in a temperature-controlled bath.  The primary
CTD temperature was offset by ~1.5 deg.C to avoid the 0-point discontinuity
inherent   in  the  internal  digitizing  circuitry.   Figures  1.5.3-1.5.4
summarize the laboratory calibrations performed on the primary PRT.

These laboratory temperature calibrations  are  referenced  to  the  ITS-90
standard.   Calibration coefficients were converted to the IPTS-68 standard
because  calculated  parameters,  including  salinity  and   density,   are
currently defined in terms of that standard.

C.1.e.  CTD Calibration Procedures

This  cruise  was the first of 2 consecutive Pacific Ocean cruises for this
CTD.  Transfer standards and redundant sensors  were  used  as  calibration
checks  while  at  sea.   An FSI secondary pressure reference was used as a
pressure calibration transfer standard. An FSI PRT sensor was deployed as a
second  temperature  channel  and  compared with the primary PRT channel on
most casts.

The secondary PRT sensor did not exhibit any appreciable drift during these
expeditions.   There  was  a  constant offset maintained between the 2 PRTs
throughout this leg.  The response times of the sensors were
first matched, then the temperatures compared  for  a  series  of  standard
depths from each CTD down-cast.

CTD  conductivity and dissolved O2 were calibrated to in-situ check samples
collected during  each  rosette  cast.   Based  on  the  stability  of  the
conductivity  calibration,  there  were  no  significant  shifts in the CTD
pressure or temperature.

CTD Pressure and Temperature

The final pressure and  temperature  calibrations  were  determined  during
post-cruise  processing.  Over  6000  db,  there  was a 1.5 db slope change
between  the  pre-  and  post-cruise  cold   "deep"   pressure   laboratory
calibrations,  as  well as an ~1.5 db offset between the 2 sets of pressure
calibrations  (pre-  and  post).   After  analyzing   these   2   sets   of
calibrations,  a  decision  was  made to generate new tables of corrections
based on averaging the data from both sets of pressure calibrations.  These
new  corrections,  generated  by  this  new averaged calibration, were then
reapplied to the data set for the cruise.  Another reason  to  reapply  the
corrections  to the block-averaged data was because the pressure model used
had been further  refined  to  more  accurately  apply  the  thermal  shock
correction. 

The primary temperature sensor (Rosemount Model  171BJ  Serial  No.  14304)
laboratory  calibration  shows  essentially  the  same curve pre- and post-
cruise, with at most a .0004 deg.C shift  in  the  range  of  10-27  deg.C;
colder  and  warmer  than that range, the curves are essentially identical.
It was therefore decided to stay with the pre-cruise PRT #1 correction  for
this data set.

The  secondary  temperature  sensor  (FSI  Model  OTM-D212 Serial No. 1320)
laboratory calibrations pre- and post-cruise showed some  differences,  but
the  same temperature ranges were not measured and these FSI sensors show a
greater amount of variability.  There did not appear to be any major shift,
perhaps an ~1 millidegree shift in the range of 1-20 deg.C.

Conductivity

The  CTD  rosette  trip  pressure and temperature were used with the bottle
salinity to calculate a bottle conductivity. Differences between the bottle
and  CTD  conductivities were then used to derive a conductivity correction
as a linear function of conductivity.

Cast-by-cast comparisons had shown only minor  conductivity  sensor  offset
shifts,  and no sensor slope changes.  Conductivity differences were fit to
CTD conductivity for all casts to determine the  mean  conductivity  slope.

The mean conductivity slope (-0.000523123 mmhos/cm) was used for all casts.

Residual CTD #1 conductivity offset values were calculated  after  applying
the conductivity slopes.  The conductivity offsets were determined for each
cast from the deepest bottle conductivities and then fit as a  function  of
station   number   by   groups.   Smoothed  offsets  were  applied  to  CTD
conductivities in 5 station groups: 001-056, 057-067, 068-097, 098-189  and
190-202.  The  conductivity  sensor was cleaned after stations 056 and 067.
Stations 098-120 were shallow (maxp less than 600 db) and stations  146-189
were  also  shallow  (mostly less than 200 db) so the smoothed conductivity
offset determined from the deep group of stations 122-145  was  applied  to
all  these  shallow  casts.   The group of stations 190-202 were mid-range,
varying between 1010 and  2700  db.  

The  CTD  conductivity  calibration  represents  a  best  estimate  of  the
conductivity  field  throughout  the  water  column.   Note  that  the  CTD
calibration was not fit from the bottle conductivities cast-by-cast.  Also,
Some  offsets were manually re-adjusted to account for discontinuous shifts
in the conductivity transducer response, or to insure a consistent deep T-S
relationship  from  station  to station.  The conductivity cell on this CTD
proved extremely stable as demonstrated by the constant  calibration  slope
and offsets that could easily be fit by station groups.

The limit of repeatability for all salinites is  +/-0.004PSU 
and +/-0.001 PSU for deep salinities represents the limit of
repeatability  of  the  bottle  salinities (Autosal, rosette, operators and
samplers).  This limit agrees with station overlays of deep T-S.  Within  a
cast (a single salinometer run), the precision of bottle salinities appears
to exceed 0.001 PSU. The precision of the CTD salinities appears to  exceed
0.0005 PSU.

CTD Dissolved Oxygen

There  are  a  number  of problems with the response characteristics of the
Sensormedics O2 sensor used in the NBIS Mark III CTD, the major ones  being
a  secondary  thermal  response  and  a  sensitivity to profiling velocity.
Because of these  problems,  CTD  rosette  trip  data  cannot  be  directly
calibrated  to O2 check samples. Instead, down-cast CTD O2 data are derived
by matching  the  up-cast  rosette  trips  along  isopycnal  surfaces.  The
differences between CTD O2 data modeled from these derived values and check
samples  are  then  minimized  using  a  non-linear  least-squares  fitting
procedure.    

The mean of the differences is not zero, because  the  O2  values
are  weighted  by pressure before fitting.  The standard deviations of 0.05
ml/l for all oxygens and 0.03 ml/l for deep oxygens are  only  intended  as
metrics  of  the  goodness  of  the fits. ODF makes no claims regarding the
precision or accuracy of CTD dissolved O2 data.

The general form of the  ODF  O2  conversion  equation  follows  Brown  and
Morrison (1978)  and  Millard (1982),  Owen (1985).   ODF does not use a
digitized O2 sensor temperature to model the secondary thermal response but
instead  models  membrane and sensor temperatures by low-pass filtering the
PRT temperature.  In-situ pressure and temperature are  filtered  to  match
the  sensor  response.  Time-constants for the pressure response p, and two
temperature responses  Ts  and  Tf  are  fitting  parameters.   The  sensor
current, or Oc, gradient is approximated by low-pass filtering 1st-order Oc
differences.  This term attempts to correct for reduction of species  other
than O2 at the cathode. The time-constant for this filter, og, is a fitting
parameter. Oxygen partial-pressure is then calculated:

     Opp=[c1Oc+c2]fsat(S,T,P)e(c3Pl+c4Tf+c5Ts+c6___)       

where:

Opp           = Dissolved O2 partial-pressure in atmospheres (atm);
Oc            = Sensor current (amps);
fsat(S,T,P)   = O2 saturation partial-pressure at S,T,P (atm);
S             = Salinity at O2 response-time (PSUs);
T             = Temperature at O2 response-time (deg.C);
P             = Pressure at O2 response-time (decibars);
Pl            = Low-pass filtered pressure (decibars);
Tf            = Fast low-pass filtered temperature (deg.C);
Ts            = Slow low-pass filtered temperature (deg.C);
___           = Sensor current gradient (amps/secs).


C.1.f.  CTD Data Processing

ODF CTD processing software consists of over 30 programs running under the
Unix operating system.  The initial CTD processing program (ctdba) is used
either in real-time or with existing raw data sets to:

o   Convert raw CTD scans into scaled engineering units, and assign
    the data to logical channels;
o   Filter  specific  channels  according  to  specified  filtering
    criteria;
o   Apply sensor or instrument-specific response-correction models;
o   Provide  periodic averages of the channels corresponding to the
    output time-series interval; and
o   Store the output time-series in a CTD-independent format.


Once the CTD data are reduced to a standard-format time-series, they can be
manipulated  in  a  number  of  various  ways. Channels can be additionally
filtered.  The time-series can be split  up  into  shorter  time-series  or
pasted   together   to  form  longer  time-series.  A  time-series  can  be
transformed into a pressure-series, or a  different  interval  time-series.
For  temperature,  conductivity  and oxygen, calibration corrections to the
series are maintained in separate files and are applied whenever  the  data
are  accessed.   The  pressure  calibration  corrections are applied during
reduction of the data to time-series.

ODF data acquisition software acquired and processed the CTD data in  real-
time,  providing  calibrated,  processed  data for interactive plotting and
reporting during a cast.  The 25  hz  data  from  the  CTD  were  filtered,
response-corrected  and  averaged  to  a  2  hz  (0.5 seconds) time-series.
Sensor  correction  and  calibration  models  were  applied  to   pressure,
temperature,  conductivity  and  O2.  Rosette trip data were extracted from
this time-series in response to trip initiation and  confirmation  signals.
The calibrated 2 hz time-series data were stored on disk (as were the 25 hz
raw data) and were available  in  real-time  for  reporting  and  graphical
display. At the end of the cast, various consistency and calibration checks
were performed, and a 2.0 db pressure-series of the down-cast was generated
and subsequently used for reports and plots.

CTD  plots  generated  automatically  at  the completion of deployment were
checked daily for potential problems.  The two PRT temperature sensors were
inter-calibrated  and checked for sensor drift. The CTD conductivity sensor
was monitored by comparing CTD values to check-sample conductivities and by
deep  T-S  comparisons  with adjacent stations. The CTD dissolved O2 sensor
was calibrated to check-sample data.

A few casts exhibited conductivity offsets due to biological or particulate
artifacts.  Sometimes casts are subject to noise in 1 or more channels.  In
these cases the 2 hz time-series were additionally filtered, using a spike-
removal  filter  that replaced points exceeding a specified multiple of the
standard deviation least-squares  polynomial  fit  of  specified  order  of
segments  of  the  data. The filtered points were replaced by the filtering
polynomial value.

Density  inversions  can  appear  in   high-gradient   regions.    Detailed
examination  of  the  raw  data shows significant mixing occurring in these
areas because of ship roll.  In order to minimize these inversions, a ship-
roll  filter  was  applied  to  most  casts  during  pressure-sequencing to
disallow pressure reversals.  Pressure intervals with no  time-series  data
can optionally be filled by double-parabolic interpolation.

When  the down-cast CTD data have excessive noise, gaps or offsets, the up-
cast data are used instead.  CTD data from down- and up-casts are not mixed
together  in  the  pressure-series  data  because  they  do  not  represent
identical water columns (due to ship movement, wire angles, etc.).

Table 4 provides a list of CTD casts requiring special attention.

+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Cast                   Problem/Comment                               Solution              |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------+
007/01CTD O2 offset 2993 db                             offset.                            |
011/01Salt offset 650-658 db                            offset.                            |
022/01Retermination after cast                          |                                  |
024/01Power outage down-cast                            filtered-CTD O2  questionable  4902|
|     |                                                 db to bottom.                      |
027/01Power outage down-cast                            filtered-CTD  O2  questionable 5214|
|     |                                                 db to bottom.                      |
042/012.9 min pause @ 3098 db-possible feature there  inno action.                         |
|     both dn/up & all parameters                       |                                  |
044/01Salt offset 3070-3186 db                          offset.                            |
047/01Salt offset 1852-4046 db                          offset.                            |
057/01Cond cell cleaned after cast; shift in cond offset|                                  |
059/01Salt offset 1918-1945 db                          offset.                            |
060/01CTD O2 feature ~3500 db both dn/up                no action.                         |
066/01No surface bottle O2                              no action.                         |
068/01Cond cell cleaned after cast; shift in cond offset|                                  |
070/01Salt offset 1525-1588 db/power outage down-cast   offset/filtered & offset.          |
073/01CTD O2 bad top 130 db; retermination after cast   no action.                         |
080/01Numerous salt offsets due to biological matter    filtered/chopped off bottom 112 db.|
087/02Salt offset 1670-2008 db/no discrete O2           offset/used CTD O2 fit from 087/01.|
091/011.8 min pause @ 3980 db                           no   action-CTD   O2   questionable|
|     |                                                 3978-3988 db.                      |
092/010.46 min pause @ 3570 db                          no   action-CTD   O2   questionable|
|     |                                                 3568-3584 db.                      |
093/01CTD O2 feature ~2800 db both dn/up                no action.                         |
120/01CTD hit bottom; no apparent cond sensor shift     |                                  |
123/01Salt offset 1206-1366 db                          offset.                            |
188/01Cast maxp < 200 db - CTD O2 bad top 40 db         no action.                         |
190/02Numerous down-cast cond drop-outs                 up-cast used.                      |
195/01Impossible to get CTD O2 to fit                   blanked out CTD O2 data.           |
196/01Salt offset 38-46 db                              filtered.                          |
+-----+-------------------------------------------------+----------------------------------+

               Table 4 Tabulation of atypical CTD casts.

C.1.g.  Bottle Sampling

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

o   CFCs;
o   Helium;
o   Oxygen;
o   Total CO2;
o   Alkalinity;
o   AMS C14;
o   Tritium;
o   Nutrients;
o   Salinity.


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

Normal sampling practice included opening the drain  valve  before  opening
the  air  vent on the bottle, indicating an air leak if water escaped. This
observation together with other diagnostic comments (e.g., "lanyard  caught
in  lid",  "valve  left open") that might later prove useful in determining
sample integrity were routinely noted on the sample log.

Drawing oxygen samples also involved taking  the  sample  draw  temperature
from  the  bottle.  The  temperature  was  noted  on the sample log and was
sometimes useful in determining leaking or mis-tripped bottles.

Once individual samples had been drawn and  properly  prepared,  they  were
distributed   to   their  respective  laboratories  for  analysis.  Oxygen,
nutrients and salinity analyses were performed  on  computer-assisted  (PC)
analytical  equipment  networked  to Sun SPARCStations for centralized data
analysis.  The analyst for a specific property was responsible for insuring
that their results updated the cruise database.

C.1.h.  Bottle Data Processing

The  first  stage  of  bottle  data  processing  consisted of verifying and
validating individual samples, and checking  the  sample  log  (the  sample
inventory)  for  consistency.  At this stage, bottle tripping problems were
usually  resolved,  sometimes  resulting  in  changes  to   the   pressure,
temperature  and other CTD properties associated with the bottle. Note that
the rosette bottle number was the primary identification  for  all  samples
taken  from  the  bottle,  as  well as for the CTD data associated with the
bottle. All  CTD  trips  were  retained  (whether  confirmed  or  not),  so
resolving  bottle tripping problems simply consisted of assigning the right
rosette bottle number to the right CTD trip level.

Diagnostic  comments  from  the  sample  log  were  then  translated   into
preliminary  WOCE  quality  codes, together with appropriate comments. Each
code indicating a potential problem was investigated.

The second stage of processing began once all the samples for  a  cast  had
been  accounted  for.  All  samples  for  bottles suspected of leaking were
checked to see if the property was consistent  with  the  profile  for  the
cast,  with adjacent stations, and where applicable, with the CTD data. All
comments from the analysts were examined and turned  into  appropriate  WHP
water  sample  codes.  Oxygen flask numbers were verified, as each flask is
individually  calibrated  and  significantly  affects  the  calculated   O2
concentration.

The third stage of processing continued throughout the cruise and until the
data  set  is  considered  "final".  Various  property-property  plots  and
vertical  sections  were  examined  for  both consistency within a cast and
consistency with adjacent stations. In conjunction with  this  process  the
analysts  would  review  and  sometimes  revise  their  data  as additional
calibration or diagnostic results became available.  Assignment  of  a  WHP
water  sample  code  to  an  anomalous  sample value was typically achieved
through consensus, usually also involving one of the chief scientists.

WHP water bottle quality flags were assigned with the  following
additional interpretations:
   |
3  | An  air  leak  large  enough  to produce an observable
   | effect on a sample is identified by a code of 3 on the
   | bottle  and  a  code  of  4 on the oxygen.  (Small air
   | leaks may have  no  observable  effect,  or  may  only
   | affect gas samples.)
4  | Bottles  tripped at other than the intended depth were
   | assigned a code of 4.  There may be no  problems  with
   | the associated water sample data.

WHP water sample quality flags were assigned using the following
criteria:
   |
1  | The sample for  this  measurement  was  drawn  from  a
   | bottle, but the results of the analysis were not (yet)
   | received.
2  | Acceptable measurement.
3  | Questionable measurement.  The data did  not  fit  the
   | station  profile  or  adjacent station comparisons (or
   | possibly CTD data  comparisons).  No  notes  from  the
   | analyst   indicated  a  problem.  The  data  could  be
   | correct, but are open to interpretation.
4  | Bad measurement.  Does not fit  the  station  profile,
   | adjacent  stations or CTD data.  There were analytical
   | notes indicating  a  problem,  but  data  values  were
   | reported.  Sampling  and  analytical  errors were also
   | coded as 4.
5  | Not  reported.   There  should  always  be  a   reason
   | associated  with  a code of 5, usually that the sample
   | was lost, contaminated or rendered unusable.
9  | The sample for this measurement was not drawn.

WHP water sample quality flags were assigned to the CTDSAL  (CTD
salinity) parameter as follows:
   |
2  | Acceptable measurement.
3  | Questionable  measurement.  The  data  did not fit the
   | bottle  data,  or  there  was   a   CTD   conductivity
   | calibration shift during the cast.
4  | Bad  measurement.  The  CTD data were determined to be
   | unusable for calculating a salinity.
8  | The CTD salinity was derived from the CTD  down  cast,
   | matched on an isopycnal surface.

WHP  water sample quality flags were assigned to the CTDOXY (CTD
oxygen) parameter as follows:
   |
2  | Acceptable measurement.
4  | Bad measurement. The CTD data were  determined  to  be
   | unusable    for   calculating   a   dissolved   oxygen
   | concentration.
5  | Not reported. The CTD data could not be reported.
9  | Not sampled. No operational  dissolved  oxygen  sensor
   | was present on this cast.


Note  that  all CTDOXY values were derived from the down cast data, matched
to the upcast along isopycnal surfaces.  If the CTD salinity was  footnoted
as bad or questionable, the CTD oxygen is blank.

Table 5 and 6 shows the number of samples drawn and the number of
times each WHP sample quality flag was assigned for each basic hydrographic
property:

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                 Rosette Samples Stations 1-99, 121-148                  |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|               Reported                   WHP Quality Codes              |
|               levels        1         2      3        4       5      9  |
+------------+-------------+----------------------------------------------+
| Bottle     |    4343     |  0      4090     14      228       0     11  |
| CTD Salt   |    4343     |  0      4258      0       85       0      0  |
| CTD Oxy    |    4260     |  0      4227     33        0       0     83  |
| Salinity   |    4324     |  0      4264     12       48       6     13  |
| Oxygen     |    4292     |  0      4272      1       19       4     47  |
| Silicate   |    4293     |  0      4238     40       15       0     50  |
| Nitrate    |    4293     |  0      4272      6       15       0     50  |
| Nitrite    |    4006     |  0      3992      0       14     287     50  |
| Phosphate  |    4293     |  0      4201      5       87       0     50  |
+------------+-------------+----------------------------------------------+
          Table 5 Frequency of WHP quality flag assignments.


+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|     Large Volume Samples Stations 10,28,39,48,58,68,78,86,132,141       |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|                Reported                 WHP Quality Codes               |
|                levels      1      2    3      4    5    6  7    8   9   |
+--------------+-----------+----------------------------------------------+
|Bottle        |    360    | 0    353    5      0    0    0  0    0   2   |
|Salinity      |    358    | 0    345   12      1    0    0  0    0   2   |
|Silicate      |    358    | 0    320   37      1    0    0  0    0   2   |
|Nitrate       |    358    | 0      0    0    358    0    0  0    0   2   |
|Nitrite       |    322    | 0      0    0    322   36    0  0    0   2   |
|Phophate      |    358    | 0      0    0    358    0    0  0    0   2   |
|Pressure      |    360    | 0    360    0      0    0    0  0    0   0   |
|Temperature   |    352    | 0    348    4      0    8    0  0    0   0   |
+--------------+-----------+----------------------------------------------+
        Table 6 Frequency of WHP LVS quality flag assignments.

 
C.1.i.  Pressure and Temperatures

All pressures and temperatures for  the  bottle  data  tabulations  on  the
rosette  casts  were obtained by averaging CTD data for a brief interval at
the time the bottle was closed on the rosette,  then  correcting  the  data
based on CTD laboratory calibrations.

LVS  pressures  and  temperatures  were  calculated from deep-sea reversing
thermometer (DSRT) readings.  Each DSRT  rack  normally  held  2  protected
(temperature)   thermometers  and  1  unprotected  (pressure)  thermometer.
Thermometers were read by two people, each attempting to read  a  precision
equal   to  one  tenth  of  the  thermometer  etching  interval.   Thus,  a
thermometer etched at 0.05 degree intervals would be read  to  the  nearest
0.005 degrees. Each temperature value reported on the LVS cast is therefore
calculated from the average  of  four  readings,  provided  both  protected
thermometers  function  normally.   The  pressure is verified by comparison
with the calculation of pressure determined by wireout.  The pressure  from
the  thermometer  is fitted by a polynomial equation which incorporates the
wireout and wire angle.

Calibration of the thermometers are performed in ODF's calibration facility
depending  on  the  age  of  the  thermometer  and  within two years of the
expedition.

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

C.1.j.  Salinity Analysis

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

Two Guildline Autosal Model 8400A salinometers  (55-654  and  57-396)  were
used to measure salinities.  These were located in a temperature-controlled
laboratory.  The salinometers were modified by ODF and contained interfaces
for  computer-aided  measurement.  A computer (PC) prompted the analyst for
control functions (changing sample,  flushing)  while  it  made  continuous
measurements  and  logged  results.  The salinometer cell was flushed until
successive  readings  met  software  criteria  for  consistency,  then  two
successive measurements were made and averaged for a final result.

The salinometer was standardized for each cast with IAPSO Standard Seawater
(SSW) Batch P-122, 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 81, was then calculated for each sample from the measured conductivity
ratios, and the results merged with the cruise database.

Salinometer 55-654 was used on stations 001, 002 and 013-202.   Salinometer
57-396 was used on stations 003-012.

4324  salinity  measurements  were  made  from  the  rosette  stations; 358
measurements were made from  the  large  volume  stations.   376  vials  of
standard water were used.  The temperature stability of the laboratory used
to make the measurements was acceptable (usually  within  4  deg.C  of  the
salinometer  bath  temperature).   There were no substantial problems noted
with  the  analyses.   The  salinities  were  used  to  calibrate  the  CTD
conductivity sensor.

C.1.k.  Oxygen Analysis

Samples were collected for dissolved oxygen analyses soon after the rosette
sampler was brought on board and after CFC and helium were drawn.   Nominal
125  ml  volume-calibrated  iodine  flasks  were  rinsed twice with minimal
agitation, then filled via a drawing tube, and allowed to overflow  for  at
least  3  flask  volumes.  The sample temperature was measured with a small
platinum  resistance  thermometer  embedded  in  the  drawing  tube.   Draw
temperatures  were  very  useful  in  detecting  possible bad trips even as
samples were being drawn.  Reagents were added to  fix  the  oxygen  before
stoppering.   The flasks were shaken twice to assure thorough dispersion of
the MnO(OH)2 precipitate.  They were shaken once immediately after drawing,
and  then  again  after  20 minutes.  The samples were analyzed within 4-36
hours of collection.

Dissolved oxygen analyses were performed  with  an  SIO-designed  automated
oxygen   titrator  using  photometric  end-point  detection  based  on  the
absorption of  365  nm  wavelength  ultra-violet  light.   Thiosulfate  was
dispensed  by  a  Dosimat 665 buret driver fitted with a 1.0 ml buret.  ODF
uses a whole-bottle modified-Winkler titration following the  technique  of
Carpenter (1965)  with  modifications by Culberson et. al (1991), but
with higher concentrations  of  potassium  iodate  standard  (approximately
0.012N)  and  thiosulfate  solution (50 gm/l).  Standard solutions prepared
from pre-weighed potassium iodate crystals were run  at  the  beginning  of
each  session  of  analyses, which typically included from 1 to 3 stations.
Several standards were made up during the cruise  and  compared  to  assure
that  the  results  were reproducible, and to preclude the possibility of a
weighing error.  Reagent/distilled water blanks were determined to  account
for  oxidizing  or  reducing  materials in the reagents.  The auto-titrator
generally performed very well.

The samples were titrated and the data logged by the PC  control  software.
The  data  were  then  used  to  update  the  cruise  database  on  the Sun
SPARCstations.

Thiosulfate normalities and blanks, calculated  from  each  standardization
and  corrected  to 20 deg.C, were plotted versus time and were reviewed for
possible problems.  New thiosulfate normalities were recalculated after the
blanks  had  been  smoothed.  These normalities were then smoothed, and the
oxygen data were recalculated.

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

Oxygen flasks were calibrated gravimetrically with degassed deionized water
(DIW)  to  determine  flask volumes at ODF's chemistry laboratory.  This is
done  once  before  using  flasks  for  the  first  time  and  periodically
thereafter  when  a  suspect  bottle  volume  is  detected.  All volumetric
glassware used in preparing standards is calibrated as well as  the  10  ml
Dosimat buret used to dispense standard iodate solution.

Iodate standards are pre-weighed in ODF's chemistry laboratory to a nominal
weight of 0.44xx grams and exact normality calculated  at  sea.   Potassium
iodate (KIO3) is obtained from Johnson Matthey Chemical Co. and is reported
by the supplier to be > 99.4% pure. All other reagents are "reagent  grade"
and  are  tested  for  levels of oxidizing and reducing impurities prior to
use.

4292 oxygen measurements from the rosette stations were made.  Oxygens were
not  drawn  from  the  large  volume  stations.   No  major  problems  were
encountered with the analyses.  The oxygen data were used to calibrate  the
CTD dissolved O2 sensor.

C.1.l.  Nutrient Analysis

Nutrient  samples  were drawn into 45 ml high density polypropylene, narrow
mouth, screw-capped centrifuge tubes which were rinsed three  times  before
filling.   Standardizations were performed at the beginning and end of each
group of analyses  (one  cast,  usually  36  samples)  with  a  set  of  an
intermediate  concentration  standard  prepared for each run from secondary
standards.  These secondary standards were in turn prepared aboard ship  by
dilution  from  dry,  pre-weighed primary standards.  Sets of 5-6 different
concentrations  of  shipboard  standards  were  analyzed  periodically   to
determine  the  deviation from linearity as a function of concentration for
each nutrient.

Nutrient analyses (phosphate, silicate, nitrate and nitrite) were performed
on  an  ODF-modified  4 channel Technicon AutoAnalyzer II, generally within
one hour of the cast. Occasionally some samples were refrigerated at 2 to 6
deg.C  for  a maximum of 4 hours.  The methods used are described by Gordon
et al. (1991),  Hager et. al (1972),  Atlas et. al. (1971).  
During  the  first  part  of  the expedition,  all  peaks were logged manually.  Later during the expedition,
software was developed and implemented to interpret the colorimeter  output
from   each   of  the  four  channels  which  were   digitized  and  logged
automatically by computer (PC), then split into absorbence peaks.  All  the
runs were manually verified.

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

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

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

Nutrients   reported   in  micromoles  per  kilogram  were  converted  from
micromoles per liter by dividing by sample  density  calculated  at  1  atm
pressure,  in-situ  salinity,  and  an assumed laboratory temperature of 25
deg.C.

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

4293 nutrient analyses from  the  rosette  stations  were  performed.   358
nutrient  analyses  were  performed on the large volume stations.  However,
these data should only be used as a check of the integrity  of  the  Gerard
barrels. The nitrate, phosphate and nitrite are coded "4", bad measurement,
as an assurance that these samples will not be used for any other  purpose.
No major problems were encountered with the measurements.  Some concern was
expressed in the comparison with historical silicate data.   The  Chemistry
Department at ODF has compared the batch of sodium fluorosilicate (silicate
standard) that was sent on the P17N WOCE leg with silicate  standards  from
three  other manufacturers, as well as a different lot of silicate standard
from the same  manufacturer.   Our  findings  indicate  that  the  silicate
standard  used  on  the P17N WOCE leg was 0.6% lower than the mean silicate
standard value in this comparison.


 
D. 	Acknowledgments

I wish to thank Captain Gomes, the crew of the R/V Thompson and the scientific
personnel for making this a pleasant and scientifically successful
cruise. 

E.	References

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

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

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

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

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

     Carter, D. J. T., "Computerised Version  of  Echo-sounding  Correction
     Tables  (Third  Edition),"  Marine  Information  and Advisory Service,
     Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Wormley, Godalming,  Surrey.  GU8
     5UB. U.K. (1980).

 
     Culberson,  C.  H.,  Knapp,  G.,  Stalcup,  M.,  Williams,  R. T., and
     Zemlyak, F.,  "A  comparison  of  methods  for  the  determination  of
     dissolved  oxygen  in  seawater,"  Report WHPO 91-2, WOCE Hydrographic
     Programme Office (Aug 1991).

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

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

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

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

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

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


     Unesco, 1983. International Oceanographic tables. Unesco Technical Papers in 
     Marine Science, No. 44.

     Unesco, 1991. Processing of Oceanographic Station Data. Unesco memorgraph
     By JPOTS editorial panel.

F.	WHPO Summary

Stations number 100 to 120 are non_WOCE stations.  They are represented
in the sum file to show the cruise was continious.  The data will
not be avialable in WOCE format.
  
Several data files are associated with this report.  They are the P17n.sum, 
325021_1.hyd, 325021_1.csl and *.wct files.  The 325021_1.sum file contains a summary of the location, time, type of parameters sampled, and other pertinent
information regarding each hydrographic station.  The 325021_1.hyd file 
contains the bottle data. The *.wct files are the ctd data for each station.  The *.wct files are zipped into one file called 325021_1wct.zip. The P17n.csl file is a listing of ctd and calculated values at standard levels.

The following is a description of how the standard levels and
calculated values were derived for the 325021_1.csl file:

Salinity, Temperature and Pressure:  These three values were smoothed from
the individual CTD files over the N uniformly increasing pressure levels.
using the following binomial filter-

	t(j) = 0.25ti(j-1) + 0.5ti(j) + 0.25ti(j+1) j=2....N-1

When a pressure level is represented in the *.csl file that is not
contained within the ctd values, the value was linearly interpolated
to the desired level after applying the binomial filtering.   

Sigma-theta(SIG-TH:KG/M3), Sigma-2 (SIG-2: KG/M3), and Sigma-4(SIG-4:
KG/M3): These values are calculated using the practical salinity scale
(PSS-78) and the international equation of state for seawater (EOS-80)
as described in the Unesco publication 44 at reference pressures of the
surface for SIG-TH; 2000 dbars for Sigma-2; and 4000 dbars for Sigma-4.

Gradient Potential Temperature (GRD-PT: C/DB 10-3) is calculated as the
least squares slope between two levels, where the standard level is the
center of the interval.  The interval being the smallest of the two
differences between the standard level and the two closest values.
The slope is first determined using CTD temperature and then the
adiabatic lapse rate is subtracted to obtain the gradient potential
temperature.  Equations and Fortran routines are described in Unesco
publication 44.

Gradient Salinity (GRD-S: 1/DB 10-3) is calculated as the least squares
slope between two levels, where the standard level is the center of the
standard level and the two closes values.  Equations and Fortran
routines are described in Unesco publication 44.

Potential Vorticity (POT-V: 1/ms 10-11) is calculated as the vertical
component ignoring contributions due to relative vorticity, i.e.
pv=fN2/g, where f is the coriolius parameter, N is the buoyancy
frequency (data expressed as radius/sec), and g is the local
acceleration of gravity. 

Buoyancy Frequency (B-V: cph) is calculated using the adiabatic
leveling method, Fofonoff (1985) and Millard, Owens and Fofonoff
(1990).  Equations and Fortran routines are described in Unesco
publication 44.

Potential Energy (PE: J/M2: 10-5) and Dynamic Height (DYN-HT: M) are
calculated by integrating from 0 to the level of interest.  Equations and 
Fortran routines are described in Unesco publication 44.

Neutral Density (GAMMA-N: KG/M3) is calculated with the program GAMMA-N
(Jackett and McDougall) version 1.3 Nov. 94.  


G.  DQE Evaulations
CTD and hydrographic DQE by Micho Aoyama 

General:

The data quality of WOCE P17N CTD data (EXPOCODE: 325021/1)  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 at the nearby stations. 

The CTD salinity and oxygen calibrations are examined using the water sample data
file p17n.mka. DQE used the original water sample data flagged "2" only for the DQE
work.


 Details

CTD profiles

The temperature and salinity profiles generally look good.
Since the data originator has done a pretty reliable work in evaluating their data, CTD
data flagged "2-good" has a pretty good quality. Although the data originator has
solved some CTD salinity offset  problems well, DQE would like to complain of CTD
conductivity offsets adapted by the data originator as described in the next section.

 
Evaluation of CTD calibrations to water samples:

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 0.00467 psu for all data and
0.00112 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 observed that Ds vs. pressure plot shows a
small bias of  ca. -0.001 psu in the deeper than 2000 dbar, while it shows a small bias
of  0.001 psu in the shallower than 1500 dbar (fig. 3).
DQE also observed that the Ds in deep salinity fit shows a larger discontinuity at
several stations as shown in fig 4 considering the accuracy and precision of CTD
salinity for the WOCE one time survey standards for CTD measurements . The
 magnitude of the discontinuity and the stations are summarized in table 1 together
with the problems recorded in table 1.7.0 in the cruise report;

Table 7: Summary of Ds offset larger than 0.002 psu.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  stations                             Ds offset         related comment in cruise report
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a) between stn. 11 and 12        ca.  0.004 psu       sal. offset at stn. 11
b) between stn. 24 and 25        ca.  0.002 psu       power outage at stn. 24 
c) between stn. 26 and 27        ca. -0.002 psu       power outage at stn. 27 
d) between stn. 45 and 47        ca. -0.003 psu      sal. offset at stn. 47
e) between stn. 47 and 48        ca.  0.002 psu      sal. offset at stn. 47
f) between stn. 55 and 56        ca.  0.003 psu      no problem recorded
g) between stn. 79 and 81        ca. -0.002 psu      sal. offset at stn. 80
h) between stn. 121 and 122    ca. -0.003 psu      no problem recorded
i) between stn. 126 and 128    ca.  0.003 psu      no problem recorded
j) between stn. 131 and 133    ca. -0.002 psu      no problem recorded
k) between stn. 135 and 136    ca. -0.002 psu      no problem recorded
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
DQE thinks that something might have occurred to the conductivity sensor at the
stations listed in above table .  For an example, DQE thinks that the smoothed offset for the
station group 068-097 is not in good fit. Then, Ds for stations 068-097 has a clear
trend from -0.001 psu to 0.001 psu between 068 and 079, thereafter Ds for stations
080-097 shows clear trend from -0.001 psu to 0.001 psu again. DQE think this can be
explained by the wrong estimation of the slope of the CTD conductivity offset due to
the unsuitable station grouping. If the data originator will divide this station group of
068-097 into 2 station groups of 068-079 and 080-097 and apply new CTD
conductivity offsets to CTD conductivities in new 2 station groups, the trend of Ds will
be expected to be smaller remarkably. 
DQE suggests that the CTD conductivity offsets should be applied to CTD conductivity 
in more station groups taking into account the Ds trend as shown in fig. 4. DQE also
suggests additional calibration for decreasing the pressure dependency of Ds will
improve the quality of CTD salinity.

Oxygen calibration;

Standard deviation of Dox, Dox = CTD oxygen in dot sea file - bottle oxygen, is 4.49
umol/kg for all depths and the standard deviation of Dox is 0.89 umol/kg for deeper
than 200 dbar. These confirms the good oxygen calibration work.
DQE observed no significant station dependency of Dox. DQE observes "weak
pressure dependency" of Dox in fig. 5. Although the range of dependency is ca. 1
u mol/kg, if PI of CTDO could correct this tendency, the quality of CTD oxygen  data
will be further improved.


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

Stn. 70 at 4262-4848 dbar and 4150-4172 dbar. CTD salinity looks shifted 0.002
higher. Suggest flg. "3"

Stn. 138  at 3126 dbar and 3128 dbar;  CTD oxygen spikes are observed. Suggest flg.
"3"

 Comments on DQ evaluation of WOCE P17N Hydrographic data (EXPOCODE:
325021/1).
Michio AOYAMA

The data quality of the hydrographic data of the WOCE P17N cruise (EXPOCODE:
325021/1) are examined.The data files for this DQE work was P17N.sum and
P17N.mka ( this P17N.mka file is created for DQE, then it has a new column of quality
2 word) provided by WHPO.

General;
The station spacing was less than 30 nautical miles and the sampling layer spacing
was kept ca. 250 dbar in the deeper layers during this P17N cruise. The ctd lowering
were made to within 2 -19 meters to the sea bottom. Since the data originators have
done a pretty reliable work in evaluating their data, hydrographic data flagged "2-good"
has a pretty good quality. This high density and high quality data will improve our
knowledge on the eastern North Pacific following the update of Pacific Ocean deep 
water data set.

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

DQE examined 6 profiles, 6 property vs. theta  plots, and 2 property vs. property plots
as listed below;
salinity, oxygen, silicate, nitrate,nitrite and phosphate profiles
salinity, oxygen, silicate, nitrate,nitrite and phosphate vs. theta plot
nitrate vs. phosphate plot
salinity vs. silicate plot


Salinity;

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

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.


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. 
(The data originator was concerned in the comparison with historical silica data in the
cruise report. DQE also observes a larger difference between P17N silica and P1
silica data at the crossing. However, a verification of overall traceability among the
WOCE cruises and historical data might depend a further work in the near future.)



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

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


9/1/36 at 3646 dbar: Silicate concentration looks higher. Suggest flag "3".

44/1/36 at 4207 dbar: Bottle salinity  looks higher. Suggest flag "3".

56/1/24 at 1926 dbar: Bottle salinity  looks lower. Suggest flag "3".

56/1/27 at 2220 dbar: Bottle salinity  looks lower. Suggest flag "3".

78/2/36 at 4703 dbar: Bottle salinity  looks lower. Suggest flag "3".