      CRUISE NARRATIVE: A16N_2003A
      (Updated 2005.MAR.15)
      
      
      HIGHLIGHTS
                                 CRUISE SUMMARY INFORMATION

                WOCE section designation  A16N_2003A
      Expedition designation (ExpoCodes)  33RO200306_01 
                                          33RO200306_02
                         Chief Scientist  John Bullister / PMEL
                      Co-Chief Scientist  Nicolas Gruber / UCLA
                                   Dates  2003 JUN 04 - 2003 AUG 11
                                    Ship  R/V RONALD H. BROWN
                           Ports of call  Reykjavik, Iceland to Natal, Brazil

                                                       63 17.58' N
           Station geographic boundaries  29 00.00' W             19 59.99' W
                                                        6 0.64' S
                                Stations  150
            Floats and drifters deployed  no info.
          Moorings deployed or recovered  no info.
                    Contributing Authors  E. Peltola,  R. Wanninkhof,  R. Feely,  
                                          R. Castle,   D. Greeley,     J.-Z. Zhang,  
                                          F. Millero,  N.Gruber,       J. Bullister,  
                                          T. Graham
      
                            Chief Scientists' Contact Information
        John L. Bullister (NOAA-PMEL)  7600 Sand Point Way N.E.  Seattle  WA  USA
                   Tel: 206-526-6741  e-mail: John.L.Bullister@noaa.gov
                       Nicolas Gruber (UCLA)  ngruber@igpp.ucla.edu

    
    
                                                                                A16N  BULLISTER/GRUBER  2003
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    
    
      CO2 STUDIES  ON A REPEAT HYDROGRAPHY CRUISE IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN: 
      CO2 CLIVAR SECTION A16N_2003A DURING JUNE-AUGUST, 2003 
      
      E. Peltola, R. Wanninkhof, R. Feely, R. Castle, D. Greeley, J.-Z. 
      Zhang, F. Millero, N.Gruber, J. Bullister and T. Graham
      
      
      Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory
      Miami, Florida
      October 2004
      
      
      NOTICE
      Mention of a commercial company, or product does not constitute an 
      endorsement by NOAA/AOML.  Use of information from this publication 
      concerning proprietary products or the tests of such products for 
      publicity or advertising purposes is not authorized.
      
      
      ELECTRONIC ACCESS TO DATA LISTED IN THIS REPORT
      
      The data presented in this report is available on the World Wide 
      Web (WWW) at the following site: 
      
          
      http://whpo.ucsd.edu/data/co2clivar/atlantic/a16/a16n_2003a/index.htm
      
      
      For further information regarding the data sets contact:
      
      WOCE Hydrographic Program Office 
      UCSD/SIO
      9500 Gilman Drive 0214
      La Jolla, CA 92093-0214
      
      Telephone: 858-822-1770 
      Fax: 858-534-7383 
      Email: whpo@ucsd.edu
      (This email address will reach the WHPO Director and all senior 
      WHPO staff)  
        
      
      
      
      
      CONTENTS
      
      ABSTRACT
          INTRODUCTION 
          DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
          TOTAL DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (DIC)
          FUGACITY OF CO2 (fCO2)
          TOTAL ALKALINITY (TA)
          pH
          NUTRIENTS
        OXYGEN
        ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
        REFERENCES
      
      FIGURES 
       1  Cruise track for the Atlantic Ocean A16N_2003a cruise in June-
          August 2003
       2  DIC duplicates
       3  Change in water vapor concentration (in millivolts) when a set 
          of 6 (dry) standards are run showing that some residual water 
          vapor remains in the lines after water samples are equilibrated 
          which show an H2O response of about 2200 mV
       4  Comparison of fCO2 (20) profiles for a crossover locations 
          between a cruise in 1998 and the A16N_2003a cruise 
       5  Comparison of deep-water fCO2 values for a cruise in 1993 and 
          the A16N_2003a cruise  at a depth range of 4000 to 5000m
       6  Comparison of underway fCO2 measurements (line) with the 
          discrete samples normalized to the same temperature as the 
          underway measurements using an empirical relationship of 4.23% 
          C-1 (diamonds) and the constants of Mehrbach (open squares)
       7  Difference in underway fCO2 measurements and with the discrete 
          samples normalized to the same temperature as the underway 
          measurements using an empirical relationship of 4.23% C-1 (open 
          squares) and the constants of Mehrbach (solid squares)
       8  Shipboard standardization of thiosulfate solution during 2003 
          A16N cruise: slopes in the upper panel and intercepts in the lower
      
      TABLES
       1  Principal Investigators 
       2  Personnel on the cruise 
       3  Participating Institutions 
       4  Dissolved Inorganic Carbon Duplicates Statistics
       5  Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) Duplicates
       6  Comparison of results of different water vapor correction 
          routines
       7  Analysis statistics for fCO2(20)
       8  Table of pCO2 duplicate values
       9  Total Alkalinity (TA) Certified Reference Material 
      
      MEASUREMENTS
      10  Replicate analyses of dissolved oxygen concentration from the 
          test CTD cast
      11  Replicate analyses of dissolved oxygen concentration 
          (micromole/L) by Winkler titration from same Niskin bottle or 
          different bottles at same depth
      12  After cruise recalibration of the volumes (cm3) of the O2 bottles 
      13  Shipboard standardization of thiosulfate solution during 2003 
          A16N cruise
      14  Post cruise comparison of volume delivery of a manual and 
          automatic pipettes by standardization of KIO3 solution with same 
          batch Na2S2O3  solution
      
      APPENDICES
      WOCE quality control flags 

    
    
                                                                                A16N  BULLISTER/GRUBER  2003
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    
    
     
      CO2 STUDIES ON A REPEAT HYDROGRAPHY CRUISE IN THE ATLANTIC OCEAN: 
      CO2 CLIVAR SECTION A16N_2003A DURING JUNE-AUGUST, 2003
      
      E. Peltola, R. Wanninkhof, R. Feely, R. Castle, D. Greeley, J.-Z. 
      Zhang, F. Millero, N.Gruber, J. Bullister and T. Graham
      
      
      ABSTRACT
      
      This report presents methods, analytical and quality control 
      procedures performed during A16N cruise, which took place from 
      June 4 to August 11, 2003 aboard the NOAA Ship RONALD H. BROWN 
      under auspices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
      Administration (NOAA).  The first hydrographic leg (June 19-July 
      10) was from Reykjavik to Funchal, Madeira along the 20W 
      meridian and the second leg (July 15-August 11) continued 
      operations from Funchal to Natal, Brazil on a track southward and 
      ending at 6S, 25W.  The research was the first in a decadal 
      series of repeat hydrography sections jointly funded by NOAA-OGP 
      and NSF-OCE as part of the CLIVAR/CO2/hydrography/tracer program. 
      Samples were taken from up to 34 depths at 150 stations.
      
      The data presented in this report includes the analyses of water 
      samples for: dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), fugacity of CO2 
      (fCO2), Total Alkalinity (TA), pH, nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2), 
      phosphate (PO4), silicate (SiO4) and dissolved oxygen (O2).  
      
      
      1.  INTRODUCTION
      
      The A16N-2003A cruise from Reykjavik, Iceland to Natal, Brazil was 
      the first in a series of repeat hydrography cruises to measure 
      decadal changes in circulation, heat and fresh water budgets, and 
      carbon inventory in the ocean.  The cruises repeat a sub-set of 
      the World Ocean Circulation Experiment/World Hydrographic Program 
      (WOCE/WHP) lines occupied in each major ocean basin in the 
      1990ties. 
      
      The program is driven by the need to monitor the changing patterns 
      of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the ocean and provide the necessary 
      data to support continuing model development that will lead to 
      improve forecasting skill for oceans and global climate.  The 
      WOCE/JGOFS survey during the 1990s has provided a full depth, 
      baseline data set against which to measure future changes.  By 
      integrating the scientific needs of programs requiring measurement 
      of the full water column, major synergies and cost savings are 
      achieved.  These measurements are of importance both for major 
      research programs, such as CLIVAR and the U.S.  GCRP Carbon Cycle 
      Science Program (CCSP), and for operational activities such as 
      GOOS and GCOS.  As outlined in the program documentation one 
      component of a global observing system for the physical 
      climate/CO2 system should include periodic observations of 
      hydrographic variables, CO2 system parameters and other tracers. 
      The large-scale observation component of the CCSP has a need for 
      systematic observations of the invasion of anthropogenic carbon in 
      the ocean superimposed on a variable natural background.  The five 
      topic areas that the CO2/CLIVAR repeat hydrography program 
      addresses are:
      
        A. Carbon system studies 
        B. Heat and freshwater storage and flux studies 
        C. Deep and shallow water mass and ventilation studies 
        D. Calibration of autonomous sensors 
        E. Data for model calibration 
      
      Further descriptions of the repeat hydrography program can be 
      found at: 
      
                       http://ushydro.ucsd.edu/
      
      Details of the A16N_2003a cruise can be found in the cruise 
      instructions posted at the website of PMEL: 
      
                   http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/a16n/
      
      and the repeat hydrography website: 
      
                       http://ushydro.ucsd.edu/
      
      The latter website also serves the full dataset from the cruise. 
      The A16N_2003a cruise involved efforts of a dozen investigators 
      whose names and project are listed in Table 1.  The cruise was 
      executed  under leadership of Dr. John Bullister who served as 
      chief scientist and Dr. Niki Gruber who was co-chief scientist. A 
      full list of personnel on the cruise is given in Table 2.  A list 
      of participating institutions is in Table 3.
      
      The cruise consisted of a transit leg from Charleston to Reykjavik 
      on which limited surface water observations were taken.  Surface 
      water pCO2 measurements for the transit and the hydrography legs 
      can be found at www.aoml.noaa.gov/ocd/gcc.  The first hydrographic 
      leg was from Reykjavik to Funchal, Madeira along the 20W 
      meridian and the second leg continued operations from Funchal to 
      Natal, Brazil on a track southward and ending at 6S, 25W (see 
      Figure 1).
      
      This data report focuses on the measurement of dissolved inorganic 
      carbon (DIC), fugacity of CO2 (fCO2), Total Alkalinity (TA), pH, 
      nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2), phosphate (PO4), silicate (SiO4) and 
      dissolved oxygen (O2).  
      
      Methodology, instrumentation and standardization of these 
      parameters improved significantly during the WOCE/JGOFS era.   
      Notable developments include release of manuals detailing the 
      analytical methods and operating protocols (DOE, 1994; 
      http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/oceans /handbook.html).  Certified 
      Reference Materials (CRM) are now available for DIC and TA, which 
      are run interspersed with samples to determine calibration 
      offsets.  On this cruise the TA values were adjusted accounting 
      for the small difference between the CRMs run at sea and the 
      certified value determined at SIO.  For DIC there were problems 
      with the gas loop calibrations attributed to inaccurate 
      temperature sensors.  The reference materials were therefore used 
      as primary calibration for both DIC and TA.
      
      Instrumentation improved as well in the last decade.  Alkalinity 
      measurements can be done with better precision through automation 
      and close checks of the response of electrodes.  Burettes are 
      independently calibrated, and the preparation of titrant 
      (hydrochloric acid) undergoes improved quality control and 
      standardization (Millero et al., 1998).  Measurement of pH is now 
      done at extreme precision with spectrophotometric methods (Byrne 
      and Breland, 1989).  The DIC measurements are done by coulometry, a 
      precise integrative method.  During the A16_2003a cruise we 
      utilized two single operator multi-parameter metabolic analyzers 
      (SOMMAs) (Johnson et al., 1999) for analyses, which facilitated a 
      sample throughput of up to 80 samples per day.  The fCO2 
      measurements were done with an equilibration system described in 
      Wanninkhof and Thoning, (1993).  For this cruise we changed the 
      data reduction and calculation routines.  Comparison of data with a 
      cruise along a similar transect in 1993 shows a appreciable bias 
      between results that is detailed in the section describing the 
      pCO2 analyses.  Oxygen measurements were performed by Winkler 
      titrations (Carpenter, 1965) with photometric endpoint detection 
      (Friederich et al., 1984).  The titrator worked well but there 
      were issues with errors in bottle volumes and problems with 
      pipettes used to generate standard curves.  Extensive post-cruise 
      trouble shooting and bottle volume re-determination were necessary 
      to reduce the data. 
      
      The data underwent carefully quality assurance and quality control 
      (QA/QC) both during the cruise and post-cruise.  Precision of 
      measurements was determined from duplicate sampling and comparison 
      of deep-water data where little variability is expected.  Outliers 
      in the data were flagged based on several methods utilizing prior 
      knowledge of the trends and known relationships between 
      parameters.  Depth profiles for each parameter were scrutinized 
      for outliers.  When deviations were observed, it was assessed if 
      other parameters showed deviations.  Inorganic carbon system 
      parameters were linked through physical chemical properties and by 
      knowledge of two of the four parameters, the other two can be 
      calculated provided silicate, phosphate, temperature and salinity 
      of the sample are known.  These so-called over-determinations or 
      internal consistency calculations were used to assess the 
      difference between calculated and measured values.  When the 
      difference exceeded 10 mol kg-1 for the measured TA and the TA 
      calculated from DIC and pH or fCO2, the three parameters were 
      scrutinized and compared with other methods to assess if the datum 
      should be labeled as questionable.  Other techniques described in 
      detail below include regional multi-linear regressions (MLR) 
      between the inorganic carbon parameters and physical and chemical 
      parameters known to correlate with them (for instance DIC = f(T, 
      S, AOU, Si, PO4)).  Again the differences between measured and 
      calculated parameters are inspected.  Finally the parameters were 
      plotted against latitude for narrow depth intervals.  Since 
      changes along depth horizons are usually gradual, anomalies can be 
      easily spotted and flagged.
      
      This report describes the analytical procedures, calculations, and 
      assessment of precision for DIC, TA, fCO2, and pH.  This is 
      followed by a description of the QA/QC methods based on internal 
      consistency of these parameters and the MLR technique.  The final 
      section describes the procedures for measurement of nutrients and 
      oxygen, and details the issues encountered during the cruise.
      
      
      
      DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
      
      Total Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC)
      
      The DIC analytical equipment was set up in a seagoing laboratory 
      van.  The analysis was done by coulometry with two analytical 
      systems (AOML-1 and AOML-2) used simultaneously on the cruise. 
      Each system consisted of a coulometer (UIC, Inc.) coupled with a 
      SOMMA (Single Operator Multiparameter Metabolic Analyzer) inlet 
      system developed by Kenneth Johnson (Johnson et al., 1985, 1987, 
      1993; Johnson, 1992) formerly of Brookhaven National Laboratory 
      (BNL).  In the coulometric analysis of DIC, all carbonate species 
      are converted to CO2 (gas) by addition of excess hydrogen ion 
      (acid) to the seawater sample, and the evolved CO2 gas is swept 
      into the titration cell of the coulometer with compressed nitrogen, 
      where it reacts quantitatively with a proprietary reagent based on 
      ethanolamine to generate hydrogen ions.  These are subsequently 
      titrated with coulometrically generated OH-.  CO2 is thus measured 
      by integrating the total charge required to achieve this.
      
      The coulometers were calibrated by injecting aliquots of pure CO2 
      (99.995%) by means of an 8-port valve outfitted with two sample 
      loops that had been calibrated by Kelly Brown, CCN Consulting 
      (Wilke, 1993).  However, due to large temperature variation the 
      calibration factors obtained from gas loop measurements were of 
      poor quality.  Instead of using an average of the small and large 
      loop values, we used a constant value for each analyzer throughout 
      the entire cruise.  The constant calibration value used for AOML-1 
      was 1.00532 and for AOML-2 1.00650.  The CO2 gas volumes bracketed 
      the amount of CO2 extracted from the water samples for the two 
      AOML systems.  All DIC values were corrected for dilution by 0.2 
      ml of HgCl2 used for sample preservation.  The total water volume 
      of the sample bottles was 540 ml.  The correction factor used for 
      dilution was 1.00037.  A correction was also applied for the offset 
      from the Certified Reference Material (CRM) Batch 59, supplied by 
      Dr. A. Dickson of Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO).  This 
      correction was applied for each cell using the CRM value obtained 
      in the beginning of the cell.  To check the stability of the 
      coulometer and coulometer solutions, the CRMs were measured at the 
      beginning, middle, and end of each coulometer cell solution.  The 
      coulometer cell solution was replaced after 25 mg of carbon was 
      titrated, typically after 9-12 hours of continuous use.  Sample 
      titration times were 9-16 minutes.
      
      Samples were drawn from the "Niskin" bottles into cleaned, 
      precombusted 540-ml Pyrex bottles using Tygon tubing according to 
      procedures outlined in the Handbook of Methods for CO2 Analysis 
      (DOE, 1994).  Bottles were rinsed once and filled from the bottom, 
      overflowing half a volume.  Care was taken not to entrain any 
      bubbles.  The tube was pinched off and withdrawn, creating a 5-ml 
      headspace, and 0.2 ml of saturated HgCl2 solution was added as a 
      preservative.  The sample bottles were sealed with glass stoppers 
      lightly covered with Apiezon-L grease, and were stored at room 
      temperature for a maximum of 12 hours prior to analysis.
      
      Replicate seawater samples were taken from the surface, 1000 m, 
      and bottom "Niskin" sample bottles and run at different times 
      during the cell.  The first replicate of the surface water was 
      used at the start of the cell with fresh coulometer solution, the 
      second surface replicate and the first one of the 1000 replicates 
      were run in the middle of the cell after about 12 mg of C were 
      titrated.  The second one of the 1000 m replicates and the first 
      one of the bottom replicates were run at the end of the cell after 
      about 25 mg of C were titrated, while the second one of the bottom 
      replicate samples was run using a new coulometer cell solution, 
      see.  No systematic difference between the replicates was observed.  
      The trends do not suggest any systematic dependency of results 
      with amount of carbon titrated for a particular cell.  The results 
      of the duplicate samples have been presented in Figure 2, and 
      Table 4 and 5.
      
      
      Calculations
      
      Calculation of the amount of CO2 injected was according to the 
      Department of Energy (DOE) CO2  handbook [DOE, 1994].  
      
      The concentration of CO2 ([CO2]) in the samples was determined 
      according to:
                             (Counts - Blank * Run Time) * K mol/count
      [CO2] = Cal. factor * -------------------------------------------
                                pipette volume * density of sample
      
      where Cal factor is the calibration factor that were fixed for 
      this cruise because of malfunctioning of gas loops, "Counts" is 
      the instrument reading at the end of the analysis, "Blank" is the 
      counts/minute determined from blank runs performed at least once 
      for each cell of the solution, "Run Time" is the length of 
      coulometric titration (in minutes), and K is the conversion factor 
      from counts to mol which is dependent on the slope and intercept 
      relation between instrument response and charge.  For a unit with 
      Ecal slope of 1 and intercept of 0, the constant is 2.0728 * 10-4.
      
      The blank values for AOML1 were in the range of 12.0-33.3 
      counts/min with an average value of 19.6 counts/min and a standard 
      deviation of 6.8 counts/min.  For AOML2 they were in the range of 
      12.0-30.0 counts/min with an average value of 21.7 counts/min and 
      a standard deviation of 6.1 counts/min.
      
      The pipette volume was determined by taking aliquots at known 
      temperature of distilled water from the volumes prior to the 
      cruise.  The weights with the appropriate densities were used to 
      determine the volume of the pipettes (AOML1: 28.726 cm3 @ 19.96C, 
      AOML2: 22.623 cm3 @ 22.63C).  
      
      Calculation of pipette volumes, density, and final CO2 concentration 
      were performed according to procedures outlined in the DOE CO2 handbook 
      (DOE, 1994).
      
      
      Fugacity of CO2 (fCO2) 
      
      Instrumentation
      
      The fugacity of CO2 was measured on the A16N_2003a cruise at a 
      constant temperature of 20C by equilibrating a 500-ml water 
      aliquot in a volumetric flask with a closed headspace.  The 
      headspace is circulated through a non-dispersive infrared detector 
      that measures both CO2 and H2O levels.  The analytical instrumentation 
      is detailed in Wanninkhof and Thoning (1993) and is the same as the 
      setup used in the N.Atl-93 cruise that occupied the same cruise line 
      in 1993 (Castle et al., 1998). 
      
      The system is patterned after that of Chipman et al. (1993) 
      with modifications as presented in Wanninkhof and Thoning (1993).  
      In short, in the system a 500-ml water sample is equilibrated at 
      ambient pressure with an 80-ml headspace in a thermostatted 
      volumetric flask.  The headspace is circulated through a non-
      dispersive infrared analyzer, NDIR, LICOR model 6262.  Upon 
      equilibration the circulation flow is stopped and 30 readings of 
      H2O content and CO2 content in the cell are taken over a 30-second 
      interval and averaged.  The system is a dual channel system where 
      one equilibration occurs while circulating through the NDIR and a 
      second flask is equilibrated offline.  Once the first sample is 
      analyzed the second flask is switched in line with the NDIR and 
      the residual air in the NDIR is equilibrated with the second flask 
      content.  The second equilibration phase through the NDIR takes 
      less time as a large part of the headspace already is equilibrated 
      offline.  The two-channel configuration decreases the total 
      analysis time to about 20 minutes for two samples. 
      
      The system is calibrated after every eight samples with six 
      gaseous standards traceable to the manometrically determined 
      values of C. D. Keeling of Scripps Institute of Oceanography.  The 
      mole fractions of the standards used during the A16N_2003a cruise 
      were:
      
                          Tank number | mole fraction
                          ---------------------------
                            CA05989   |   378.7 ppm
                            CA05980   |   792.5 ppm
                            CA05984   |  1036.9 ppm
                            CA05940   |  1533.7 ppm
                            CA05988   |   593.6 ppm
                            CA05998   |   205.1 ppm
      
      
      The standards are also used as the headspace gas for the 
      equilibration.  Since the mole fractions of the gases in the 
      headspace prior to equilibration are known, the small perturbation 
      of the fCO2 in the water during the equilibration process can 
      quantitatively be accounted for.  The headspace gas is selected 
      such that it is close the anticipated water value thereby 
      minimizing the correction.
      
      
      Data Reduction
      
      The calculation of the fCO2 involves several steps including the 
      conversion of the NDIR output to an equivalent dried mole fraction 
      of CO2, the correction for the perturbation of the fCO2 in water 
      by equilibration, and the small adjustment from the measurement 
      temperature to 20C.  For the reduction of the A16N_2003a fCO2 we 
      made an important adjustment in procedures.  On previous cruises, 
      the calibration of the samples that were run at 100% water vapor 
      pressure (@ 20C) to the standards that are dry was done through 
      an empirical algorithms created by running standards both wet and 
      dry.  For this cruise we relied on the internal correction from 
      wet to dry mole fraction of CO2 provided by the LI-COR 6262.  This 
      change is based on testing by our group and other investigators 
      that showed that the correction provided by the instrument is of 
      high quality and subject to less uncertainty than our empirical 
      corrections.  Since this is a fundamental change in our procedures 
      we describe the old and new routine in detail below including 
      comparison of the results.  
      
      The correction from detector output to (dry) mole fraction of CO2, 
      XCO2 in the headspace was previously done by measuring the voltage 
      output of the CO2 and H2O channel.  An empirical algorithm between 
      dry standards and standards saturated with water vapor at 20C was 
      created of the form: 
      
        MVCO2(dry) = MVCO2 (wet) + A + B*MVCO2(wet) + C*(MVCO2(wet))2
      
      Where MV is the millivolt output of the CO2 channel and MVCO2 
      (wet) is the milli-volt value measured for the equilibrated 
      headspace of the sample.  From this algorithm the (water 
      saturated) headspace gas is corrected to the dry state such that 
      the samples can be directly related to the standard.  The next 
      step is the convert the MVCO2(dry) of the sample to a XCO2 by 
      creating a curve of MVCO2(dry) vs. XCO2 using the standards 
      preceding and following the samples.  For each sample the three 
      standards closest to the samples are selected and a second-order 
      polynomial was created of MVCO2 vs. XCO2 by averaging the 
      appropriate standards preceding and following the sample.  The 
      second- order polynomial is then used to calculate the XCO2 of the 
      sample.
      
      Following this step the fCO2 in the headspace is calculated 
      according to:
                          fCO2 = XCO2 (1-pH2O)*0.9966
      
      Where pH2O is the water vapor pressure @ 20C (= 0.0226 atm) and  
      0.9966 is the conversion factor from pCO2 to fCO2 @ 20C.
      
      The next step is the correction for change in the fCO2 in the 
      water sample due to exchange of CO2 with the headspace during 
      equilibration.  This step is accomplished by using the mass 
      balance criteria that the total amount of carbon in the headspace 
      and water is conserved and by using the fact that the TA remains 
      unchanged during equilibration.  The DIC of the sample (determined 
      independently) and the headspace gas concentration prior to 
      equilibration along with the volume of water and headspace are 
      used to calculate the total amount of carbon in the system.  From 
      the change in headspace CO2 before versus after equilibration the 
      change the DIC in the water can then be determined.  From this 
      change and the TA (calculated from DIC and fCO2 after 
      equilibration), the fCO2 in the water before equilibration can 
      then be determined.  
      
      The final step is to correct the fCO2 from analysis temperature to 
      20C.  The water samples are always equilibrated within 0.1C of 
      20C such that this correction is less than 0.4% of the value.  
      The correction for perturbation of the fCO2 in the water during 
      equilibration and the temperature correction to 20C are performed 
      using the carbonate dissociation constants and the temperature 
      dependence of the constants and the calculation routines described 
      in (Peng et al., 1987)
      
      For A16N_2003a the correction from the moist gas of the sample to 
      an equivalent dry concentration was performed utilizing the 
      internal correction routine built into the Li-6262 analyzer.  This 
      internal algorithm has been extensively checked by others and our 
      tests showed that the correction was robust as well.  The 
      important advantage of this internal correction is that in our 
      previous data reductions we assumed that the algorithm between wet 
      and dry created in laboratory tests before the cruise or after the 
      cruise does not change appreciably over time.  This has proven not 
      always to be the case.  Secondly, the water vapor level measured 
      during the standard runs can be appreciable despite absence of 
      water vapor in the compressed gas standards since it takes a long 
      time for the water vapor introduced by the equilibration of the 
      samples to be flushed from the system.  Therefore we see a 
      decreasing trend of water vapor level when the six samples are run 
      consecutively (see Figure 3).
      
      The modified data reduction routine uses the XCO2(dry) calculated 
      by the detector for both standards and samples.  A second-order 
      polynomial fit is created between the actual mole fraction of CO2 
      in the standard and the instrument value.  This standardization 
      accounts instrument drifts over time.  The detector was zeroed and 
      spanned for CO2 every day while the water vapor channel was 
      spanned right before the first leg and before the second leg.  
      Standardizing the water vapor channel is difficult because of the 
      "stickiness" of the water vapor leading to lags and very slow 
      response times.  A polynomial is created for the three standards 
      closest to the sample by averaging the pertinent standards before 
      and after the sample.  The other steps of correcting for small 
      temperature deviations of the water bath from 20C and correction 
      to fCO2 prior to equilibration are identical to the procedures 
      outlined above.
      
      The new correction routine results in small differences in values 
      for calculated fCO2 compared to the previous data reduction 
      routine.  Table 6 shows a comparison for station 45.  The values 
      using the new reduction are systematically about 2 atm lower than 
      the old reduction method.  The Table also gives the results of two 
      different water vapor correction algorithms.  One empirical 
      correction was established before the cruise and one determined 
      from running wet vs. dry standards after the cruise.  The results 
      show differences in the range from 7 to 17 atm.
      
      
      Quality Control
      
      During the cruise a total of 1515 Niskin samples were analyzed for 
      fCO2, compared to 2500 DIC samples.  This was because only one 
      full-time and a part -time operator were available for the work 
      while two full-time analysts were involved in DIC analysis.  A 
      summary of the analysis statistics is given in Table 7.
      
      The precision of the results is based on comparison of duplicate 
      values and is estimated to be 2 atm or 0.3% based on the 
      results in Table 8.  There is no apparent trend in imprecision with 
      depth or absolute concentration when comparing absolute 
      difference.  The relative (%) difference is slightly higher for 
      lower fCO2 values found near the surface.   
      
      
      Deep-water comparison with the 1993 cruise (NAtl-93) and crossover 
          with 1999 cruise (24N).
      
      The A16N_2003a cruise overlapped or intersected with two previous 
      cruises that were sampled by our group.  The NAtl-93 cruise 
      (Castle et al., 1998) followed the same track and was occupied 
      during the summer of 1993  but it was run from South to North.  A 
      24- bottle rosette was used such that fewer depth samples were 
      obtained and the spacing of the stations was nominal 1 degree 
      compared to 1/2 degree spacing on the 2003 occupation.
      
      The 24N-98 cruise was run in February and intersected the A16N-
      2003a cruise near 24N, 26.5W.  In the comparison we make the 
      assumption that changes in deep water are negligible over the time 
      period.  The crossover with the 24 N cruise is shown in Figure 4. 
      The fCO2 shows a consistent offset with the 2003 data being about 
      18 atm higher than the 1998 data.  For the comparison with the 
      1993 data we looked at the deep water offset in the deep water for 
      stations spaced about 5 degrees apart (Figure 5).  Again a 
      systematic bias is observed with the 2003 data being higher.  The 
      magnitude of the bias however is about 10 atm.  The cause of 
      these offsets is disconcerting and attributed to the water vapor 
      correction.  However, the exact reason or possible corrections is 
      not readily apparent.
      
      The surface water fCO2 levels are measured with a different system 
      in underway mode  near sea surface temperature and offer an 
      independent assessment of agreement of fCO2 values.  However, the 
      temperature correction has some uncertainties which complicate the 
      comparison.  For the comparison the fCO2(20) values are corrected 
      to SST as determined by the thermosalinograph using the empirical 
      correction of fCO2/T = 0.0423C-1 and by using the temperature 
      dependence of the dissociation constant and using the 
      thermodynamic equations.  The results are shown in Figure 6 and 
      show average differences of:
      
           -3.30  4.9 atm (n=76) for fCO2(UW)-fCO2(disc)Mehr  and
      
           -6.66  4.1 atm (n=76) for fCO2(UW)-fCO2(disc)4.23%.
      
      In case of  fCO2(UW)- fCO2(disc)Mehr, the fCO2(20)  are normalized 
      to sea surface temperature using the Mehrbach constants as refit 
      by Dickson and Millero.  For fCO2(UW)-fCO2(disc)4.23%., the 
      fCO2(20) are normalized to SST  using the empirical relationship 
      of 0.0423C-1 .  Again our temperature corrected discrete data are 
      on average higher than the underway measurements.  The differences 
      CO2(UW)-fCO2(disc)Mehr and fCO2(UW)-fCO2(disc)4.23%  are plotted 
      against temperature in Figure 7.  There is a slight trend with 
      temperature for the adjustments using the Mehrbach constants.  
      Also, near 20C when the adjustment is small the comparison shows 
      that the discrete data is systematically higher.  For the range 
      from 18 to 22C the difference is -5.1  4.9atm (n=76) and -6.7 
       4.1 atm (n=76) for fCO2(UW)-fCO2(disc)Mehr and fCO2(UW)-
      fCO2(disc)4.23% very similar to the average difference over the 
      entire temperature range suggesting that the systematic offset is 
      not attributable to the temperature correction alone.
      
      
      Total Alkalinity (TA)
      
      Seawater samples were drawn from the "Niskin" bottles with a 40-cm 
      length of silicon tubing.  One end of the tubing was fit over the 
      petcock of the "Niskin" bottle and the other end was inserted into 
      the bottom of a 500-ml Corning glass-stoppered sample bottle.  The 
      sample bottle was rinsed three times with approximately 300 ml of 
      seawater.  The sample bottle was slowly filled from the bottom.  
      Once filled, the sample bottles were kept in a constant water bath 
      at 25C for half-hour before analysis.  
      
      The titration system used to determine TA consisted of a Metrohm 
      665 Dosimat titrator and an Orion 720A pH meter controlled by a 
      personal computer (Millero et al., 1993).  The acid titrant, in a 
      water-jacketed burette, and the seawater sample, in a water-
      jacketed cell, were kept at 250.1C with a Neslab constant-
      temperature bath.  The plexiglass water-jacketed cells were 
      similar to those used by Bradshaw et al. (1988), except that a 
      larger volume (200 ml) was used to increase the precision.  The 
      cells had fill and drain valves with zero dead-volume to increase 
      the reproducibility of the cell volume. 
      
      The HCl solutions used throughout the cruise were made, 
      standardized, and stored in 500 cm3 glass bottles in the 
      laboratory for use at sea.  The 0.23202 M HCl solutions were made 
      from 1 M Mallinckrodt standard solutions in 0.45 M NaCl to yield 
      an ionic strength equivalent to that of average seawater (~0.7 M).  
      The acid was standardized using a coulometric technique by the 
      Univ. of Miami and by Dr. Dickson of Scripps Institution of 
      Oceanography (SIO).  The two standardization techniques agreed to 
      +/-0.0001 N. 
      
      The volume of HCl delivered to the cell is traditionally assumed 
      to have a small uncertainty (Dickson, 1981) and is equated with 
      the digital output of the titrator.  Calibrations of the Dosimat 
      burettes with Milli Q water at 25C indicated that the systems 
      deliver 3.000 ml (the value for a titration of seawater) to a 
      precision of 0.0004 ml.  This uncertainty resulted in an error of 
      0.4 mol/kg in TA. 
      
      The titrators were calibrated in the laboratory before the cruise. 
      Certified standard Reference Material (CRM) Batch 59 prepared by 
      Dr. Dickson was used at sea to monitor the performance of the 
      titrators.  All TA data have been corrected based on CRM values for 
      each cell and each leg. (Millero et al, 2000), see Table 9.
      
      
      pH
      
      Seawater samples were drawn from the "Niskin" bottles with a 20-cm 
      length of silicon tubing.  One end of the tubing was fit over the 
      petcock of the "Niskin" bottle and the other end was attached over 
      the opening of a 10-cm glass spectrophotometric cell.  The 
      spectrophotometric cell was rinsed three to four times with a 
      total volume of approximately 200 ml of seawater; the Teflon 
      endcaps were also rinsed and then used to seal a sample of 
      seawater in the glass cell.  While drawing the sample, care was 
      taken to make sure that no air bubbles were trapped within the 
      cell.  The sample cells were kept in a waterbath at 20C for a 
      half an hour before analysis.
      
      Seawater pH was measured using the spectrophotometric procedure 
      (Byrne, 1987) and the indicator calibration of Clayton and Byrne 
      (1993).  The indicator was an 8.0-mM solution of m-cresol purple 
      sodium salt (C21H17O5Na) in MilliQ water. 
      
      The absorbance measurements were made using a Varian Cary 2200 
      spectrophotometer.  The temperature was controlled to a constant 
      temperature of 25C with an Endocal RTE 8DD refrigerated 
      circulating temperature bath that regulates the temperature to 0.01C.  
      The temperature was measured using a Guildline 9540 digital platinum 
      resistance thermometer.
      
      
      Nutrients 
      
      Sampling and analytical methods
      
      Nutrient samples were collected from Niskin bottles in acid washed 
      25-mL linear polyethylene bottles after at least three complete 
      seawater rinses and analyzed within 2 hours of sample collection.  
      Measurements were made in a temperature-controlled bioanalytical 
      laboratory (20 2C) aboard the NOAA Ship R. Brown. 

      Concentrations of nitrite (NO2-), nitrate (NO3-), phosphate (PO43-) 
      and silicic acid (H4SiO4) were determined using a modified 
      Alpkem Flow Solution Auto-Analyzer coupled with a modified RFA 301 
      autosampler.  Sample and wash time for the auto sampler were set 
      at 120 and 5 seconds, respectively.  The following analytical 
      methods were employed:
      
      
      Nitrate and Nitrite:
      
      Nitrite was determined by diazotizing with sulfanilamide and 
      coupling with N-1 naphthyl ethylenediamine dihydrochloride to form 
      an azo dye.  The color produced is measured at 
      
      540 nm (Zhang et al., 1997a).  Samples for nitrate analysis were 
      passed through a home- made cadmium column (Zhang et al, 2000), 
      which reduced nitrate to nitrite.  Total nitrite, mostly from 
      reduction of nitrate with a small amount of nitrite present in the 
      original samples, was then determined as described above.  Nitrate 
      concentrations in seawater samples were calculated by difference.
      
      
      Phosphate:
      
      Phosphate in the samples was determined by reacting with 
      molybdenum (VI) in an acidic medium to form a phosphomolybdate 
      complex.  This complex was subsequently reduced with hydrazine at a 
      temperature of 55(C to form phosphomolybdenum blue (Zhang et al., 
      2001).  An AAII detector with an 880 nm filter was used to measure 
      the absorbance during the cruise.
      
      
      Silicic Acid:
      
      Silicic acid in the samples was analyzed by reacting with 
      molybdate in a acidic solution to form -molybdosilicic acid.  The 
      -molybdosilicic acid was then reduced by ascorbic acid to form 
      molybdenum blue (Zhang et al., 1997b).  The absorbance of the 
      molybdenum blue was measured at 660 nm.
      
      
      Calibration and standards:
      
      The low-nutrient seawater used for the preparation of working 
      standards, determination of blank and wash between samples was 
      filtered seawater obtained from the surface of the Gulf Stream. 
      Stock standard solutions were prepared by dissolving high purity 
      standard materials (KNO3 , NaNO2 , KH2PO4 and Na2SiF6) in 
      deionized water.  Working standards were freshly made at each 
      station by diluting the stock solutions in low-nutrient seawater.    
      Standardizations were performed prior to each sample run with 
      working standard solutions.  Two or three replicate samples were 
      collected from a Niskin bottle that was sampled at deepest depth 
      at each cast.  The relative standard deviation from the results of 
      these replicate samples were used to estimate the overall 
      precision obtained by the sampling and analytical procedures.  The 
      precisions of analyses were 0.08 mol/kg for nitrate, 0.01 mol/kg 
      for phosphate and 0.1 mol/kg for silicic acid, respectively.
      
      
      OXYGEN
      
      Method 
      
      The analytical method for dissolved oxygen in seawater during 2003 
      A16N cruise was based on automated Winkler titration by Williams 
      and Jenkinson (1982) and modified by Friederich et al. (1991).  
      Dissolved oxygen samples were withdrawn from 10-L Niskin bottles 
      to 145-ml Pyrex brand iodine flasks (Corning 5400, Corning, New 
      York, USA).  The exact volume of each flask at room temperature had 
      been gravimetrically calibrated with its ground glass stopper 
      following standard procedures (DOE, 1994; WHP Operations and 
      methods, 1991).  One ml of manganese chloride reagent and one ml of 
      alkaline iodide reagent were added to each sample in the iodine 
      flasks and its stopper was placed in the bottle neck.  The bottles 
      were shaken vigorously for about one minute to completely fix 
      oxygen with manganese hydroxide.  In this method, dissolved oxygen 
      in the sample reacts with manganese hydroxide to form Mn(OH)3 
      precipitate.  Particulate Mn(OH)3 dissolve upon the acidification 
      and resulting Mn3+ oxidize iodide to iodine in acidic solution. 
      The liberated iodine complex with excess iodide forming I3 and 
      the latter is titrated with a sodium thiosulfate solution that is 
      standardized by a primary standard potassium iodate.  The complex 
      I3 has a maximum absorbance at 352 nm and change in absorbance of 
      I3 at 352 nm is used to detect the end point.  A custom-build 
      automated oxygen titrator with MS DOS interfacing software was 
      used to determine dissolved oxygen concentrations in the samples.
      
      A total of 5011 seawater samples were taken from 150 stations and 
      analyze for dissolved oxygen concentrations.  At the beginning of 
      cruise, a test CTD cast was made by sampling 20 Niskin bottles 
      from same depth (170 m).  Analysis of these samples was listed in 
      Table 10 and indicate a precision of 0.3 micromole/L.  Throughout 
      the cruise duplicate samples from same Niskin bottle were 
      collected at each station to estimate the precision of overall 
      measurement (sampling and analysis).  Analyses of 300 replicate 
      samples listed in Table 11 indicated that the precision of 
      shipboard automated Winkler titration is 0.29 including all 
      outliers and 0.24 micromole/L excluding the outliers.  Analysis of 
      outliers indicated that most outliers in duplicate analysis were 
      due to errors in the volumes of oxygen bottles if it is not a 
      problem with Niskin bottles or sampling error.  The outliers in 
      vertical profiles of oxygen were also used to identify the bottles 
      that might have errors in volumes.  Total of 33 sample bottles were 
      recalibrated and 11 of them had volume errors greater than 0.3 ml 
      (Table 12).  This accounts about 5% of sample bottles used during 
      the A16N cruise.  The volumes of such identified questionable 
      oxygen bottles were recalibrated after the cruise and dissolved 
      oxygen concentrations were recalculated for those samples using 
      correct volumes.
      
      The primary iodate standard solution was prepared from high purity 
      reagent grade KIO3 (Mallinckrodt, USA), pre-dried in an oven at 
      110C for overnight and cooled in a desiccator before weighing.  
      The thiosulfate solution was prepared from reagent grade Na2S2O3 
      5H2O (Mallinckrodt, USA).  During the cruise, total of 25 bottles 
      of thiosulfate solutions (1 liter each) were consumed for oxygen 
      analyses.  Each new bottle of thiosulfate solution was first 
      standardized by the primary standard KIO3 solution before using it 
      for sample titration.  Standardizations of the thiosulfate 
      solutions were performed by titration of known amounts of KIO3 
      solution (usually 2, 4, 6, and 8 ml).  Regression analysis of four 
      titration points generates a slope (factor) and an intercept 
      (blank) from which sample concentration are calculated.  Extending 
      KIO3 solution to 20 ml produced essentially the same calibration 
      curve as shown in the thiosulfate bottle 21 in Table 13.  Each 
      bottle of thiosulfate usually lasts for 2 to 3 days of sample 
      titration.  The thiosulfate bottle 24 had replicate 
      standardization.  The thiosulfate bottle 19 was standardized at the 
      beginning and the end of its life span to check its stability 
      during storage.  All the replicate analyses produced acceptable 
      results within uncertainty of standardization as shown in Table 
      13.  It should be pointed out that at beginning of cruise there are 
      several standardizations with lower slopes and larger intercepts 
      as shown in Figure 8.  These were attributed to malfunction of 
      titration system used during that period.  When system is 
      functioning properly it produced slopes within 1% of the 
      theoretical value of 24.818 and intercepts less than 0.01 as 
      shown in most part of cruise in Figure 8.
      
      At the beginning of leg 2 (from stations 72 to 79) a problematic 
      automatic pipette was used to deliver the KIO3 standard solution 
      for standardization of thiosulfate solution in bottle 14.  An 
      unusually high slope was observed and this pipette was not used in 
      subsequent analyses.  Shipboard and post cruise comparison 
      indicated that there is an error in volume delivery of this 
      automatic pipette.  Dissolved oxygen concentrations from station 72 
      to 79 have been corrected for errors in volume delivery of iodate 
      solution by this automatic pipette used in the standardization of 
      thiosulfate solution.  A correction factor (1.0153) was estimated 
      based on post-cruise recalibration of the automatic pipette as 
      shown in Table 14 and was applied to data from station 72 to 79. 
      
      Since the Dosimat titrators have demonstrated high precision and 
      accuracy (0.05 and 0.2% at delivery of 10ml solution, 
      respectively) in volume delivery of titrants, we recommend use a 
      Dosimat or similar positive displacement burette to quantitatively 
      dispense the iodate standard solution in the future cruises.  This 
      procedure can improve the accuracy of shipboard oxygen analysis.
      
      
      
      ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
      
      The dedication and assistance of the officers and crew of the NOAA 
      Ship RONALD H. BROWN is gratefully appreciated and hereby 
      acknowledged. This research was supported by the Climate 
      Observation and Services Panel of NOAA.  We wish to acknowledge the 
      COSP program manager Mike Johnson for supporting the field 
      program.  The CO2 CLIVAR repeat hydrography program is a joint 
      effort between NOAA and NSF-OCE.  Eric Itchweire of NSF was 
      instrumental in forming the program.
      
      
      
      REFERENCES
      
      Bradshaw, A.L. and Brewer, P.G.,  1988.  High precision measurements of 
          alkalinity and total carbon dioxide in seawater by potentiometric 
          titration-1. Presence of unknown protolyte(s)?, Mar. Chem., 23, 69-86.
      
      Byrne, R.H., and J.A. Breland, High precision multiwavelenth pH 
          determinations in seawater using cresol red, Deep-Sea Research, 
          36, 803-810, 1989.
          
      Byrne, R. H., 1987. Standardization of standard buffers by visible 
          spectrometry. Anal.Chem., 59, 1479-1481.
      
      Carpenter, J.H., The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for the 
          Winkler  dissolved oxygen method, Limnol. Oceanogr., 10, 141-143, 
          1965.
          
      Castle, R., R. Wanninkhof, S.C. Doney, J. Bullister, L. Johns, 
          R.A. Feely, B.E. Huss, F.J. Millero, and K. Lee, Chemical and 
          hydrographic profiles and underway measurements from the North 
          Atlantic during July and August of 1993, NOAA data report ERL 
          AOML-32, NOAA/AOML, Springfield NJ, 1998.
      
      Chipman, D.W., J. Marra, and T. Takahashi, Primary production at 
          47(N and 20(W in the North Atlantic Ocean: A comparison between 
          the 14C incubation method and mixed layer carbon budget 
          observations, Deep-Sea Research II, 40, 151-169, 1993.
      
      Clayton T. and Byrne, R.H., 1993.  Calibration of m-cresol purple 
          on the total hydrogen ion concentration scale and its application 
          to CO2-system characteristics in seawater, Deep-Sea Research, 40, 
          2115-2129.
      
      Dickson, A.G., 1981.  An exact definition of total alkalinity and 
          a procedure for the estimation of alkalinity and total CO2 from 
          titration data, Deep-Sea Res., 28, 609-623.
          
      DOE, Handbook of methods for the analysis of the various 
          parameters of the carbon dioxide system in sea water; version 2, 
          edited by A.G. Dickson, and C. Goyet, DOE, 1994.
          
      Friederich, G.E., L.A.Codispoti and C. M. Sakamoto, An Easy-to-
          constructed Winkler titration system. Monterey Bay Aquarium 
          Research Institute, 1991; Technical Report No. 91-6.
          
      Friederich, G.E., P. Sherman, and L.A. Codispoti, A high precision 
          automated Winkler titration system based on a HP-85 computer, a 
          simple colorimeter and an inexpensive electromechanial buret, 
          Bigelow Lab. Technical Report, 42, 24 pp, 1984.
      
      Johnson, K.M., A. Krtzinger, L. Mintrop, J.C. Duinker, and D.W.R. 
          Wallace, Coulometric total carbon dioxide analysis for marine 
          studies: measurement and internal consistency  of underway surface 
          TCO2 concentrations, Mar. Chem, Accepted, 1999.
      
      Johnson, K.M., Wills, K.D., Butler, D.B., Johnson, W.K., and Wong 
          C.S., 1993. Coulometric total carbon dioxide analysis for marine 
          studies: Maximizing the performance of an automated continuous gas 
          extraction system and coulometric detector. Mar. Chem., 44, 167-
          189.
      
      Johnson, K.M., 1992 Operator's manual: Single operator 
          multiparameter metabolicanalyzer (SOMMA) for total carbon dioxide 
          (CT) with coulometric detection. Brookhaven National Laboratory, 
          Brookhaven, N.Y., 70 pp.
      
      Johnson, K.M., Williams, P.J., Brandstrom, L., and Sieburth J. 
          McN., 1987. Coulometric total carbon analysis for marine studies: 
          Automation and calibration. Mar. Chem., 21, 117-133.
          
      Johnson, K.M., King, A.E., and Sieburth, J. McN., 1985. 
          Coulometric DIC analyses formarine studies: An introduction. Mar. 
          Chem., 16, 61-82.
          
      Millero, F. J., Zhu, X., Liu, X., Roche, M. P., Moore, C., 
          Jolliff, J., 2000. The pH and TA along 24 North in the Atlantic 
          Ocean. Univ. of Miami Technical Report No. RSMAS-2000-03, 41 pp.
          
      Millero, F.J., et. al. Total alkalinity measurements in the Indian 
          Ocean during the WOCE Hydrographic Program CO2 survey cruises 
          1994-1996, Mar. Chem., 63, 9-20, 1998.
          
      Millero F. J., Zhang, J. Z., Lee, K., and Campbell, D. M., 1993.  
          Titration alkalinity of seawater, Marine Chemistry, 44, 153-165.
      
      Peng, T.-H., T. Takahashi, W.S. Broecker, and J. Olafsson, 
          Seasonal variability of carbon dioxide, nutrients and oxygen in 
          the northern North Atlantic surface water:  observations and a 
          model, Tellus, 39B, 439-458, 1987.
      
      Wanninkhof, R., and K. Thoning, Measurement of fugacity of CO2 in 
          surface water using continuous and discrete sampling methods, Mar. 
          Chem., 44 (2-4), 189-205, 1993.
          
      WHP Operation and methods: dissolved oxygen by C.H. Culberson, 1991.
      
      Wilke, R.J., Wallace, D.W.R., and Johnson, K.M., 1993. Water-based 
          gravimetric method for the determination of gas loop volume. Anal. 
          Chem. 65, 2403-2406.
          
      Williams, P.J.LeB and N.W. Jenkinson, A transportable microprocessor-
          controlled precise Winkler titration suitable for field station and 
          shipboard use. Limnol. Oceangr., 1982; 27:576-584. 
      
      Zhang, J-Z., C. Fischer and P. B. Ortner, (2001) Continuous flow 
          analysis of phosphate in natural waters using hydrazine as a 
          reductant, International Journal of Environmental Analytical 
          Chemistry, 80(1): 61-73.
      
      Zhang, J-Z., C. Fischer and P. B. Ortner, (2000) Comparison of 
          open tubular cadmium reactor and packed cadmium column in 
          automated gas-segmented continuous flow nitrate analysis. 
          International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 
          76(2):99-113.
      
      Zhang, J-Z., P. B. Ortner and C. Fischer, (1997a) Determination of 
          nitrite and nitrate in estuarine and coastal waters by gas 
          segmented continuous flow colorimetric analysis. EPA's manual  
          "Methods for the determination of Chemical Substances in Marine and 
          Estuarine Environmental Matrices - 2nd Edition". EPA/600/R-97/072, 
          September 1997. 
          
      Zhang, J-Z., and G. A. Berberian, (1997b) Determination of 
          dissolved silicate in estuarine and coastal waters by gas 
          segmented continuous flow colorimetric analysis. EPA's manual 
          "Methods for the determination of Chemical Substances in Marine and 
          Estuarine Environmental Matrices - 2nd Edition". EPA/600/R-97/072, 
          September 1997.
          
      
      
      
      
      FIGURE LEGENDS (see PDF report for figures)
      
      Figure 1: Cruise track for the Atlantic Ocean A16N_2003a cruise 
                in June-August 2003
      
                    | Average | Stdev
                    |----------------
      Surface Water |   1.0   | 0.9
      1000 m        |   1.2   | 0.8
      Deep Water    |   1.4   | 0.9
      
      
      Figure 2: DIC duplicates
      
      Figure 3: Change in water vapor concentration (in millivolts) 
                when a set of 6 (dry) standards are run showing that some residual 
                water vapor remains in the lines after water samples are 
                equilibrated . Watersamples which show an H2O response of about 
                2200 mV.
      
      Figure 4: Comparison of fCO2 (20) profiles for a crossover 
                location between a cruise in 1998 and the A16N_203a cruise
      
      Figure 5: Comparison of deep-water fCO2 values for a cruise in 
                1993 and the A16N_2003a cruise  at a depth range of 4000 to 5000 m 
      
      Figure 6: Comparison of underway fCO2 measurements (line) with 
                the discrete samples normalized to the same temperature as the 
                underway measurements using an empirical relationship of 4.23% C-1
                (diamonds) and the constants of Mehrbach (open squares).
      
      Figure 7: Difference in underway fCO2 measurements and with the 
                discrete samples normalized to the same temperature as the 
                underway measurements using an empirical relationship of 
                4.23% C-1 (open squares) and the constants of Mehrbach (solid 
                squares).
      
      Figure 8: Shipboard standardization of thiosulfate solution 
                during 2003 A16N cruise: slopes in the upper panel and intercepts 
                in the lower panel.
                
      
      
      
      
      TABLES
      
      
      TABLE 1: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS
      
      PROJECT                     NAME                  INSTITUTION
      --------------------------  --------------------  -------------
      CTD                         Gregory Johnson       PMEL
      Salinity                    Gregory Johnson       PMEL
      CTD/O2                      Gregory Johnson       PMEL
      Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)  John Bullister        PMEL
      Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)  Mark Warner           UW
      HCFs                        Shari Yvon-Lewis      AOML
      Total CO2(DIC), pCO2        Richard Feely         PMEL
      Total CO2(DIC), pCO2        Richard Wanninkhof    AOML
      Nutrients                   Calvin Mordy          PMEL
      Nutrients                   Jia-Zhong Zhang       AOML
      Dissolved Oxygen            Jia-Zhong Zhang       AOML
      Helium/tritium              Peter Schlosser       LDEO
      Total Alkalinity            Frank Millero         Miami
      pH                          Frank Millero         Miami
      Trace Metals                Christopher Measures  Hawaii
      Trace Metals                William Landing       FSU
      Aerosols                    William Landing       FSU
      ADCP                        Eric Firing           Hawaii
      ALACE Float deployment      Breck Owens           WHOI
      ALACE Float deployment      Silvia Garzoli        AOML
      PIC/POC                     Jim Bishop            LBNL
      DOC                         Dennis Hansell        Miami
      13-C, 14-C                  Ann McNichol          WHOI
      Alkyl Nitrate               Eric Saltzman         UCI
      Bathymetry                  Ship personnel  
      Underway thermosalinograph  Ship personnel  
      
      
      
      
      TABLE 2: PERSONNEL ON THE CRUISE
                                                                            Leg
                         |                     |               | Nation- |----------
      Position           | Name                | Institution   | ality   | 0 | 1 | 2
      ------------------ | ------------------- | ------------- | ------- | - | - | -
      Chief Scientist    | John Bullister      | PMEL          | US      |   | * | *
      Co-Chief Scientist | Nicolas Gruber      | UCLA          | Swiss   |   | * | *
      Data Manager       | Delahoyd            | SIO           | US      |   | * | *
      Grad Student       | Nicole Lovenduski   | UCLA          | US      |   |   | *
      Grad Student       | Elena Brambilla     | SIO           | Italy   |   | * | 
      Grad Student       | Regina Cesario      | UW            | US      |   | * | 
      CTD Data Processor | Kristene McTaggart  | PMEL          | US      |   | * | *
      ET                 | Douglas Anderson    | AOML          | US      |   | * | 
      ET                 | David Bitterman     | AOML          | US      |   |   | *
      LADCP              | Julia Hummon        | UH            | US      |   | * | *
      Salinity           | Gregory Johnson     | PMEL          | US      |   | * | 
      Salinity           | David Wisegarver    | PMEL          | US      |   |   | *
      O2                 | George Berberian    | AOML          | US      |   | * | *
      Nutrients          | Jia-Zhong Zhang     | AOML          | US      |   |   | *
      Nutrients          | David Wisegarver    | PMEL          | US      |   | * | 
      Nutrients          | Charles Fischer     | AOML          | US      |   |   | *
      Nutrients          | Calvin Mordy        | UW-JISAO/PMEL | US      |   | * | 
      CFC                | Mark Warner         | UW            | US      |   | * | *
      CFC                | Eric Wisegarver     | PMEL          | US      |   | * | *
      Helium/Tritium     |                     | LDEO          |         |   | * | *
      HCFC               | Shari Yvon-Lewis    | AOML          |         |   | * | *
      Alkalinity & pH    | Xiaorong Zhu        | UM            | China   |   | * | *
      Alkalinity & pH    | Taylor Graham       | UM            | US      |   | * | *  
      Alkalinity & pH    | Mike Trapp          | UM            | US      |   |   | *
      Alkalinity & pH    | Vanessa Koehler     | UM            | US      | * | * | *
      Alkalinity & pH    | William Hiscock     | UM            | US      | * | * | 
      Alkalinity & pH    | David Sergio Valdes | UM            | Mexico  |   |   | *
      Alkalinity & pH    | Denis Pierrot       | UM            | France  | * |   | 
      DIC1               | Esa Peltola         | AOML          | US      |   | * | *
      DIC2               | Robert Castle       | AOML          | US      |   | * | *
      pCO2               | Dana Greeley        | PMEL          | US      |   | * | *
      pCO2               | Kevin Sullivan      | UM-CIMAS/AOML | US      | * |   | 
      Trace Metal        | Chris Measures      | UH            | Chile   |   | * | *
      Trace Metal        | Rodrigo Torres      | WHOI          | US      | * | * | *
      Trace Metal        | Matt Brown          | UH            |         | * |   | 
      Aerosol            | William Landing     | FSU           | US      | * | * | *
      Aerosol            | Clifton Buck        |               | US      | * | * | *
      Aerosol            | Erik Kvaleberg      | FSU           | Norway  | * |   | 
      Aerosol            | Anthony Arguez      | FSU           | US      | * |   | 
      POC/PIC            | Jim Bishop          | LBNL          | US      |   | * | 
      POC                | Alexey Mishonov     | TAMU          | Ukraine |   | * | 
      DOC                | Stacy Brown         | UM            | US      |   | * | 
      Alkyl Nitrate      | Elizabeth Dahl      | UCI           |         |   |   | 
      CIRIMS-IR-SST      | Trina Litchendorf   | UW            | US      | * |   | 

          The Chief Survey Technician aboard the R/V Ronald Brown for the 
          cruise was Jonathan Shannahoff.
      
      
      
      
      TABLE 3: PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS
      
      AOML      NOAA, Atlantic Oceanographic and
                Meteorological Laboratory
                4301 Rickenbacker Causeway,
                Miami, FL 33149-1098
      
      FSU       Florida State Univ.
                Department of Oceanography
                0102 OSB, West Call Street
                Tallahassee, FL 32306
      
      LBNL      EO Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
                1 Cyclotron Road
                Berkeley, California 94720
      
      LDEO      The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory 
                61 Route 9W
                Palisades, NY 10964-1000
      
      PMEL      NOAA, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
                7600 Sand Point Way NE
                Seattle, WA 98115-0070
      
      SIO       Scripps Institution of Oceanography
                8602 La Jolla Shores Drive
                La Jolla, CA. 92037
      
      TAMU      Texas A&M Univ., Department of Oceanography
                College Station, TX 77843-3146
      
      UCI       Univ. of California, Irvine, Earth System Science
                Irvine, CA 92697-3100
      
      UCLA      Univ. of California, Institute of Geophysics and 
                Planetary Physics & Dept. of Atmospheric Sci
                5853 Slichter Hall,
                Los Angeles, CA 90095-1567
      
      UCSD      Univ. of California, San Diego
                9500 Gilman Drive
                La Jolla, CA 92093 - 0214
      
      UH        Univ. of Hawaii, Department of Oceanography,
                Univ. of Hawai`i at Manoa
                1000 Pope Rd, Marine Sci. Bldg, 
                Honolulu, HI 96822
      
      UM        Univ. of Miami
                4301 Rickenbacker Causeway,
                Miami, Florida 33149
      
      UM-CIMAS  Univ. of Miami/Cooperative Institute for
                Marine and Atmospheric Studies
                4301 Rickenbacker Causeway,
                Miami, Florida 33149
      UW        Univ. of Washington
                Box 357940, Seattle,
                WA 98195-7940
      
      UW-JISAO  Univ. of Washington/Joint Institute for
                Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean  Box 357940, Seattle,
                WA 98195-7940
      
      WHOI      Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution  Co-op Building, MS 
      #16
                Woods Hole, MA 02543
              
      
      
      
      
      TABLE 4: DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON DUPLICATE STATISTICS
      
                                           Duplicate Statistics:
              |   BB   |  BM   |  ME   | BE   |  DC   | DI   | BEBE | MM   | EE   | Deleted
              | ------ | ----- | ----- | ---- | ----- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | -------
      Average:|   0.8  |  1.3  |  1.2  | 1.3  |  1.4  | 0.7  |   -  | 1.3  | 1.0  | 
      Stdev:  |   0.80 |  0.94 |  0.57 | 1.27 |  0.86 | 0.42 |   -  | 1.01 | 0.30 |  
      Number: |  94    | 39    | 13    | 8    | 56    | 3    |   0  | 6    | 3    | 64 
      Total:  | 286   
      
      BB    The duplicate samples were measured back-to-back    
      BM    One duplicate was measured in the beginning and the other 
            one in the end of the cell
      ME    One duplicate was measured in the middle and the other one 
            in the end of the   cell
      BE    One duplicate was measured in the beginning and the other 
            one in the end of the cell
      DC    The duplicates were run on a same instrument, but on 
            different cells  
      DI    The duplicates were run on different instruments BEBE  Both 
            duplicates were measured in the beginning of the cell, 
            but not back-to-back
      MM    Both duplicates were measured in the middle of the cell, but 
            not back-to-back
      EE    Both duplicates were measured in the end of the cell, but 
            not back-to-back
      
      
      
      
      TABLE 5: DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (DIC) DUPLICATES
      
      Station#  Cast#  Bottle#  Pressure   DIC
                                 (db)     mol/kg    Stdev
      --------  -----  -------  --------  -------    -----
         1        1       1       200     2145.9     0.38
         1        1      11         2     2099.3     1.71
         2        1       1       553     2157.6     0.36
         2        1      18         2     2105.8     0.86
         3        1       1     1,009     2157.6     1.23
         5        1       1     1,816     2161.5     0.81
         5        1       8     1,000     2157.2     1.23
         6        1      29         2     2085.1     1.11
         7        1      29         2     2079.5     0.15
         8        1      30         2     2068.8     0.52
        10        1      32         2     2064.4     0.16
        11        1      12     1,051     2168.3     0.72
        11        1      33         3     2064.7     1.19
        12        1      32         2     2062.6     0.25
        13        1      33         2     2063.3     0.86
        15        1       1     1,647     2161.9     0.50
        15        1      27         2     2090.1     0.60
        16        1       1     1,168     2172.1     0.70
        17        1      21         2     2082.7     0.87
        19        1       1     1,464     2159.3     1.70
        21        1      26         9     2088.8     0.54
        22        1      25         6     2083.1     0.17
        23        1       1     1,418     2160.7     0.05
        24        1      31         3     2088.7     0.04
        25        1       1     2,706     2190.1     0.41
        25        1      26       125     2128.7     0.03
        25        1      32         2     2080.1     1.84
        26        1      33         3     2090.8     0.22
        27        1       1     3,812     2203.2     0.18
        27        1      13     1,050     2166.7     0.80
        29        1      14     1,100     2172.0     0.51
        29        1      35        20     2086.3     1.75
        30        1      33         2     2082.2     0.74
        31        1       1     4,472     2204.0     1.60
        31        1      13     1,050     2180.3     0.49
        32        1      35         2     2075.3     0.98
        33        1       1     4,482     2201.4     0.27
        33        1      14     1,002     2177.5     0.49
        34        1      33         3     2072.3     0.60
        36        1      24         8     2079.6     0.34
        41        1      20     1,001     2180.5     0.13
        41        2      24         4     2069.7     0.50
        42        1      23        25     2070.1     0.05
        43        1       1     4,066     2197.4     0.75
        43        1      14     1,003     2182.1     1.45
        43        1      35         4     2070.2     0.25
      
      
      TABLE 5: DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (DIC) DUPLICATES  
               (continued)
      
      Station#  Cast#  Bottle#  Pressure   DIC
                                 (db)     mol/kg    Stdev
      --------  -----  -------  --------  -------    -----
        44        2      32         3     2067.4     0.03
        45        1       1     5,240     2200.0     0.53
        45        1      14     1,001     2184.3     1.73
        45        1      35         3     2067.2     0.68
        46        1      33         3     2067.6     2.01
        47        1       1     2,458     2169.3     1.26
        47        1      10     1,049     2192.6     1.47
        47        1      31         3     2068.4     0.28
        48        2      30         3     2070.7     0.49
        49        1       1     4,775     2197.9     1.64
        51        1      15     1,046     2190.3     0.05
        51        1      35         3     2069.7     2.05
        52        1       1     4,734     2198.0     1.72
        52        1      33         4     2069.9     0.91
        53        1       1     4,826     2201.0     1.04
        53        1      14       900     2179.3     1.10
        53        1      32        19     2066.9     0.53
        54        1      35         3     2068.2     1.82
        55        2       1     5,218     2200.6     0.14
        55        2      17       950     2189.1     0.43
        55        2      30        92     2099.1     0.25
        55        2      35         4     2085.9     0.29
        57        2       1     3,875     2196.1     0.64
        57        2      35         4     2086.4     0.60
        58        1      35         4     2092.6     2.11
        59        1      15     1,051     2194.2     1.71
        59        1      35         3     2090.1     1.04
        60        1      33         3     2089.6     0.32
        61        2       1     5,215     2201.5     0.26
        61        2      17       992     2185.1     0.81
        61        2      35         4     2085.9     0.67
        62        1      35         3     2095.4     0.30
        63        2       1     5,319     2200.1     0.71
        63        2      14     1,051     2190.1     0.01
        63        2      35         3     2107.4     0.93
        64        1      35         4     2094.4     1.43
        65        1       1     5,343     2198.8     0.36
        65        1      33         3     2109.3     1.39
        66        1      35         3     2105.5     0.78
        67        2       1     5,252     2200.5     0.72
        67        2      17       951     2190.2     1.62
        67        2      35         4     2104.1     1.84
        68        1      17       942     2186.7     1.25
        68        1      35         3     2108.3     0.62
        69        1       1     5,317     2199.7     2.33
        69        1      14     1,002     2187.6     0.54
      
      
      TABLE 5: DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (DIC) DUPLICATES
               (continued)
      
      Station#  Cast#  Bottle#  Pressure   DIC
                                 (db)     mol/kg    Stdev
      --------  -----  -------  --------  -------    -----
        69        1      35         4     2101.5     0.27
        70        1      33         3     2103.2     0.02
        71        1       1     5,332     2199.4     0.99
        71        1      17       951     2186.6     0.59
        71        1      35         3     2103.0     0.17
        72        2       1     5,332     2198.1     0.41
        72        2      17       950     2188.8     0.57
        72        2      31        65     2095.3     0.92
        72        2      35         3     2109.7     1.77
        74        1       1     5,275     2199.4     1.87
        74        1      14     1,000     2191.4     0.40
        74        1      35         4     2111.0     1.54
        75        1      35         3     2111.9     0.63
        76        1       1     5,306     2198.7     0.80
        76        1      13     1,050     2197.3     1.86
        76        1      35         4     2112.4     0.05
        78        2       1     5,329     2193.8     1.01
        78        2      35         3     2103.6     0.05
        79        1      35         3     2109.9     0.55
        80        1      14     1,000     2196.4     0.57
        80        1      35         3     2108.1     0.17
        81        1      35         4     2096.7     0.65
        82        2       1     5,491     2201.1     0.17
        82        2      17       949     2195.7     0.52
        82        2      35         4     2100.5     0.04
        83        1      35         4     2101.6     0.36
        84        1       1     5,551     2202.9     0.88
        84        1      17       950     2205.3     0.90
        84        1      35         4     2102.1     1.65
        85        1      35         4     2097.5     1.73
        86        1      35         3     2100.1     0.09
        87        1      35         4     2082.8     0.56
        88        2       1     5,528     2201.2     0.34
        88        2      17       949     2209.3     0.59
        88        2      35         4     2086.0     1.88
        89        1      35         3     2083.5     0.72
        90        1       1     5,125     2198.7     1.31
        90        1      14     1,000     2209.0     2.12
        91        1      35         3     2065.0     0.53
        92        1       1     4,874     2201.0     1.05
        92        1      12     1,050     2208.2     1.57
        92        1      35         4     2064.0     2.10
        94        2       1     4,632     2200.6     0.55
        94        2      33         3     2062.8     0.29
        95        1      35         4     2064.9     0.47
        96        1       1     4,612     2202.5     2.00
      
      
      TABLE 5: DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (DIC) DUPLICATES  
               (continued)
      
      Station#  Cast#  Bottle#  Pressure   DIC
                                 (db)     mol/kg    Stdev
      --------  -----  -------  --------  -------    -----
       96         1      15       950     2216.7     1.24
       96         1      35         3     2055.3     0.08
       97         1      33         3     2063.7     0.82
       98         2      13     1,000     2211.4     0.77
       98         2      33         4     2035.1     0.49
       100        2       1     3,892     2203.1     0.68
       100        2      12     1,050     2220.2     0.19
       100        2      33         4     2048.2     0.14
       101        1      35         3     2035.8     0.09
       104        2       1     5,534     2207.5     1.41
       104        2      20       548     2240.9     0.10
       104        2      35         3     2040.4     0.24
       105        1      35         3     2025.6     0.54
       106        2       1     5,796     2198.2     1.94
       106        2      35         4     2026.5     0.21
       107        1      35         3     2013.5     0.20
       108        1       1     5,798     2199.3     0.69
       108        1      15       749     2238.0     1.96
       108        1      35         3     2018.2     0.69
       109        1      35         3     2028.2     0.04
       110        2       1     6,071     2198.1     0.24
       110        2      35         3     2026.0     0.03
       111        1      35         3     2019.1     0.93
       112        1       1     5,446     2201.7     0.23
       112        1      17       950     2226.5     0.64
       112        1      35         3     2004.8     1.92
       113        1      35         3     1977.0     0.73
       114        1       1     5,296     2205.2     0.96
       114        1      14     1,001     2223.8     0.60
       114        1      33        20     1978.5     0.50
       116        2       1     5,162     2206.6     2.36
       116        2      20       424     2226.5     0.18
       116        2      35         3     1955.0     0.01
       117        1      35         4     1953.3     0.52
       118        2       1     4,422     2193.1     2.31
       118        2      13     1,000     2224.7     0.83
       118        2      33         3     1954.8     0.18
       119        1      35         3     1951.9     0.11
       120        1       1     4,358     2193.9     1.04
       120        1      20       449     2238.3     0.26
       120        1      35         4     1944.9     1.08
       121        1      35         3     1948.3     0.28
       122        2       1     4,577     2197.4     0.16
       122        2      13     1,051     2217.4     0.93
       122        2      33        10     1986.5     0.30
       123        1      35         4     1987.8     1.40
      
      TABLE 5: DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (DIC) DUPLICATES
               (continued)
      
      Station#  Cast#  Bottle#  Pressure   DIC
                                 (db)     mol/kg    Stdev
      --------  -----  -------  --------  -------    -----
       124        1       1     4,088     2195.7     0.12
       124        1      35         3     1987.2     0.63
       125        1      35         3     1986.0     0.96
       126        2      18       550     2218.4     1.62
       126        2      33        10     1986.7     0.26
       127        1      35         3     1989.8     0.16
       128        1       1     3,803     2191.6     0.97
       129        1       1     3,932     2194.4     2.15
       129        1      13       999     2217.2     0.09
       129        1      35         4     1987.8     2.23
       130        1      35         3     1995.2     0.45
       131        1       1     3,678     2191.5     1.51
       132        1       1     3,358     2186.2     1.64
       132        1      12     1,052     2212.8     0.68
       132        1      33         3     2038.5     1.27
       133        1      33        19     2042.0     0.33
       134        1      35         4     2043.1     0.28
       135        1       1     3,231     2185.0     1.00
       135        1      12     1,000     2216.5     0.06
       135        1      33         4     2044.8     0.15
       136        1      32         3     2044.9     0.02
       137        1      33         3     2048.5     1.54
       138        2       1     3,187     2182.0     0.95
       138        2      11     1,049     2214.8     1.10
       138        2      32         3     2049.6     0.21
       141        1       1     5,019     2257.0     1.09
       141        1      15     1,000     2216.5     0.56
       141        1      35         3     2040.2     0.80
       144        2       1     5,410     2257.3     0.23
       144        2      14     1,050     2215.4     0.10
       144        2      35         3     2037.1     0.59
       146        1      17     1,000     2215.3     0.21
       146        1      35         4     2024.2     2.17
       148        2       1     5,807     2255.9     0.61
       148        2      17       950     2215.0     1.66
       148        2      35         4     2017.4     0.31
       150        1      18     1,000     2214.9     0.72
       150        1      35         4     2020.1     0.58
      
      
      
      
      TABLE 6: COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF DIFFERENT WATER VAPOR 
               CORRECTION ROUTINES
      
      Keyfield  Lat  pressure  fCO2(20)  fCO2(20)  fCO2(20)
                (N)            (final)  (cruise)  (newH2O)
      --------  ---  --------  -------  --------  --------
       45101    43    5239.7    762.9    765.80    745.8
       45102    43    4994.3    765.7    768.80    748.5
       45103    43    4499.7    769.5    771.45    751.7
       45104    43    3983.9    768.5    770.30    751.8
       45106    43    3001.5    758.4    760.50    742.1
       45108    43    2000.5    755.2    756.60    738.6
       45109    43    1800.0    761.4    762.90    745.3
       45111    43    1401.5    746      747.80    729.8
       45112    43    1200.0    728.4    730.10    712.9
       45114    43    1001.0    724.1    725.70    708.1
       45115    43     900.3    728.7    730.40    713.2
       45116    43     800.7    712.4    714.00    696.6
       45117    43     699.6    712.3    713.80    696.9
       45118    43     601.3    687.2    689.00    672.7
       45119    43     501.0    635.2    637.20    621.3
       45121    43     401.1    576.8    578.60    563.8
       45123    43     299.7    556.3    557.90    543.4
       45125    43     201.0    510.7    512.10    499.1
       45127    43     151.0    507.8    509.00    495.7
       45129    43      99.7    494.1    495.30    482.3
       45130    43      79.6    486.6    487.80    474.8
       45131    43      60.0    482.2    483.40    471.7
       45132    43      39.5    450.7    451.80    440.2
       45133    43      19.9    381.9    384.20    374.2
       45135    43       3.4    374.7    375.30    365.6
        
      fCO2(20)(final)   final data reduction using the detector XCO2 
                        (dry) output
      fCO2(20)(cruise)  data reduction on cruise using an empirical 
                        water vapor correction 
      fCO2(20)(new H2O) data reduction in Jan 2004 using an empirical 
                        water vapor correction that was determined 
                        post-cruise
      
      
      
      
      TABLE 7: ANALYSIS STATISTICS FOR FCO2(20)
      
      Total number of stations                                150
      Total number of stations sampled for fCO2 (full depth)   67
      Total number of Niskin bottles tripped                 4823
      Total number of Niskin bottles sampled for fCO2        1522
      Number of duplicates                                    140
      Number of bad values                                      6
      Number of questionable values                            48
      
      
      
      
      TABLE 8:   TABLE OF  PCO2 DUPLICATE VALUES
      
       Key      Depth      Dif     Dif     Ave.      N     Comment
      number             (atm)%     
      ------    -----    -------   ---     ---       -     -------
       1101      200.1     4.4     0.7     644       2     B
       1111        2       4       0.8     503.1     2     B
       5108      999.7     5       0.7     718.9     2     B
       9112     1199.8     4.8     0.6     781       2     B
       9133       20.5     0.4     0.1     435.8     2     C
      10131       19.8     0.3     0.1     409.0     4     A & B, 4 bottles
      13105     2101       4.6     0.6     758       2     B
      17103      799.7     4.2     0.6     749.6     2     B
      18125        3.1     2.5     0.6     453.45    2     B
      25106     1700.4     0       0.0     770.8     2     C
      25107     1500.5                     770.8     1     B, 1 dup bad 
      26135        2.3     3.6     0.8     453.2     2     B
      28235        2.2                     424.4     1     B, 1 dup bad 
      33102     4000.4     1.7     0.2     775.15    2     B
      33135        2.5                     384       1     B, 1 dup bad 
      41121      893.9     2.8     0.4     737.9     2     C
      43105     3000.8     1.3     0.2     760.15    2     B
      45103     4499.7     1.8     0.2     769.5     2     B
      45125      201       0.8     0.2     510.7     2     B
      45133       19.9     3.2     0.8     381.9     2     B
      47103     1999.7     4.2     0.6     751.2     2     B
      47113      748.8     3.5     0.5     707.85    2     B
      49111     1199.7     2.2     0.3     701.3     2     B
      49126      149.4                     507.7     1     B, 1 dup bad  
      49132       20.3     3.9     1.0     371.75    2     B
      51113     1457.1     0.5     0.1     750.05    2     B
      51135        2.9     2.9     0.8     356.8     2     B
      52133        3.6                     358.9     1     B, 1 dup bad 
      53112     1099.9     2.5     0.3     715.4     2     B
      53120      400.3     6.4     1.1     571.9     2     B
      54104     4304.7     0.5     0.1     762.5     2     B
      54111     1437.6     2.5     0.3     715.4     4     A & B, 2 bottles dup 
      54135        2.8                     357.3     1     B, 1 dup bad 
      56133        3.2     3.3     0.9     359.7     2     B
      57205     2492.3     3.3     0.4     745.0     2     B
      57221      398.7     1.4     0.2     597.1     2     B
      61204     4297.4     1.9     0.2     763.2     2     B
      61215     1300.5     2.9     0.4     740.4     2     B
      61230      100.7     1.6     0.4     409.8     2     B
      63202     4999.8     1.7     0.2     765.4     2     B
      63214     1050.6     1.4     0.2     725.8     2     B
      65102     5001.8     2.4     0.3     765.4     2     B
      65108     2000.5     3.8     0.5     735       2     B
      65114     1099.3     0.6     0.1     766.9     2     B
      67203     4707.3     3.4     0.4     770       2     B
      67216     1100.5     1.5     0.2     729.1     2     B
      
      
      TABLE 8:   TABLE OF  PCO2 DUPLICATE VALUES  (continued)
      
       Key      Depth      Dif     Dif     Ave.      N     Comment 
      number             (atm)%     
      ------    -----    -------   ---     ---       -     -------
      67218      800       3.3     0.5     732.2     2     B
      69104     4000.4     2.5     0.3     765.3     2     B
      69106     2999.5     0       0.0     757.1     2     B
      69112     1199.3     2.7     0.4     739.3     2     B
      71107     3349.7                     761.5     1     B, 1 dup bad 
      71110     2650.8     1.8     0.2     751       2     B
      71113     1750       0       0.0     731.2     2     B
      72207     3549.7     0.3     0.0     760.5     2     B
      72210     2650.2     0.2     0.0     750.8     2     B
      72213     1749       1       0.1     733.7     2     B
      74103     4500.1     0.1     0.0     766.4     2     B
      74107     2500.1     4.6     0.6     752.2     2     B
      75135        3.2     0.9     0.3     331.3     2     B
      76103     4244.4                     760.2     1     B, 1 dup bad 
      76107     2248.6     1.9     0.3     749.4     2     B
      76110     1499.2     1.2     0.2     764.5     2     B
      78202     5000       3.4     0.4     765.1     2     B
      78206     2998.9     0.3     0.0     755.9     2     B
      80102     4150       7.1     0.9     758.3     2     B
      80106     2949.8     0.3     0.0     755.1     2     B
      80110     1750.6     0.8     0.1     762.8     2     B
      80126      190       0.3     0.1     420.1     2     B
      82203     4747.8     1.3     0.2     766.4     2     B
      82207     3549       0       0.0     761.6     2     B
      84102     5299.6     2       0.3     770.5     2     B
      84106     3799.5     0.6     0.1     768.1     2     B
      84112     1899.2     0.6     0.1     765       2     B
      84116     1099.9     0.4     0.0     897.9     2     B
      86101     5611.2     1.8     0.2     766.1     2     B
      86105     4399.6     2.1     0.3     765.6     2     B
      88204     4449.5     0.3     0.0     766.5     2     B
      88206     3849       1.7     0.2     763.0     2     B
      88217      949.2     1.9     0.2    1002.1     2     B
      90105     3499.8     3.9     0.5     761.6     3     A & B
      90115      898.3     3.3     0.3    1078.4     2     B
      94203     4002       0.4     0.1     764.8     2     B
      94206     2499.6     0.9     0.1     764.45    2     B
      94215      799.2                    1151.3     1     B, 1 dup bad 
      96103     4150.3     0.7     0.1     766.95    2     B
      96106     3250.3     0.9     0.1     765.55    2     B
      98203     3997.9                     770.4     1     B, 1 dup bad 
      98205     2996.7                     757.4     1     B, 1 dup bad 
      100204    2797.3                     756.4     1     B, 1 dup bad 
      100206    2200       0.4     0.1     762.5     2     B
      100214     849.5     3.7     0.3    1183.9     2     B
      104205    4147.9     2.1     0.3     779.15    2     B
      
      
      TABLE 8:   TABLE OF  PCO2 DUPLICATE VALUES  (continued)
      
       Key      Depth      Dif     Dif     Ave.      N     Comment
      number             (atm)%     
      ------    -----    -------   ---     ---       -     -------
      104207    3548.8     1.8     0.2     760.9     2     B
      104213    1748.6     0.8     0.1     791.7     2     B
      106206    3998.4     0.6     0.1     777       2     B
      106209    2798.8     1.8     0.2     757.5     2     B
      108112    1299.2     2.6     0.3     947.7     2     B
      108135       2.7     2.3     0.8     285.25    2     B
      110205    4400.3     1.2     0.2     777.9     2     B
      110212    1899.9     1.8     0.2     763.4     2     B
      110226     199.4     8.3     0.8    1048.7     2     B
      112105    4148       0.4     0.1     770.6     2     B
      112120     550.1     1.6     0.1    1433       2     B
      112133      14.5     1.6     0.6     277.8     2     B
      114103    4500.9     3.2     0.4     776.2     2     B
      114110    1600.6     0       0.0     804.7     2     B
      116203    4249.5     0.4     0.1     776.1     2     B
      116207    2249.5     0.7     0.1     755.3     2     B
      116216     749.2     2.8     0.2    1336.6     2     B
      118203    3999.4     3.9     0.5     771.6     2     B
      118211    1199.5     5       0.5    1053.1     2     B
      118224     199.6     5.2     0.6     873.7     2     B
      118233       3.2     0.6     0.2     252.3     2     C
      118235       3.1     1.6     0.6     252.6     2     B
      120103    3599.9     0.4     0.1     775       2     B
      120108    2000                       767.1     1     B, 1 dup bad 
      120129      99.3     0       0.0     596.1     2     B
      122204    2999.6     0.2     0.0     769.8     2     B
      122212    1149.3     2.9     0.3    1037.1     2     B
      124105    2401.5     1.7     0.2     760.0     2     B
      124123     300.6     2.2     0.2    1099.6     2     B
      126203    3398.7     0       0.0     774.1     2     B
      126208    1899.2     0       0.0     758.3     2     B
      126225     185.5     3       0.4     855.2     2     B
      129103    3098.8     2.7     0.4     770.75    2     B
      129133      19.6     0.7     0.3     267.05    2     B
      130116     747.7     0.7     0.1     1177.2    2     B
      130125     184.6     5       0.6     815.6     2     B
      130129      90.4     6       0.8     756.8     2     B
      131113    1049.3     1       0.1    1090.7     2     A & B,1 dup bad 
      132103    2900.3     0.8     0.1     768.2     2     B
      132115     750.7     2.5     0.2    1185.1     2     B
      132130      50.4     0.4     0.1     323.4     2     B
      133133      19.1     1.1     0.4     313.3     2     B
      135105    1899.3     1.6     0.2     757.4     2     B
      135114     799.4     0.2     0.0    1177.5     2     B
      135128      79.6     1.5     0.4     419.25    2     B
      138203    2599.7     2.4     0.3     765.1     2     B
      
      
      TABLE 8:   TABLE OF  PCO2 DUPLICATE VALUES  (continued)
      
       Key      Depth      Dif     Dif     Ave.      N     Comment 
      number             (atm)%     
      ------    -----    -------   ---     ---       -     -------
      138207    1599.3     0.9     0.1     780.0     2     B
      138231      10       0.2     0.1     318.7     2     B
      141104    3999.6     1.5     0.2     799.75    2     B
      141114    1199.6                    1016.4     1     B, 1 dup bad 
      141126     219.8     2.2     0.2     933.8     2     B
      144203    4599.9     2.1     0.2     962.55    2     B
      144209    1899.6     0       0.0     750.2     2     B
      146103    4898.9     5.5     0.6     993.05    2     B
      146110    2800       0.7     0.1     764.85    2     B
      146126     199.8     0       0.0     910.2     2     B
      148203    4998.7     2.3     0.2    1001.15    2     B
      148220     548.4     3.8     0.3    1238.8     2     B
      150133      25.7     1.1     0.4     293.15    2     B
      ------------------------------------------------------
               Average     2.0     0.3     
                 Stdev     1.7     0.3     
      
      Values were labeled questionable or bad based on the quality 
        control procedures listed below.  
            A = from same sample bottle
            B = from same Niskin
            C = from different Niskins sampled at same depth
      
      
      
      
      TABLE 9: TOTAL ALKALINITY (TA) CERTIFIED REFERENCE MATERIAL 
               MEASUREMENTS (DIC AND PH VALUES HAVE BEEN CALCULATED 
               FROM TA TITRATIONS)
      
                        |  TA mol/kg  |  DIC mol/kg | pH (total scale)   | Total 
                        |              |              |      @ 25C        | Runs
      ------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------------|---
      Leg 1             |              |              |                    |
        System 1        | 2222.2  3.6 | 2015.0  3.7 | 7.891  0.007      | 15
        System 2        | 2224.2  3.2 | 2017.7  3.4 | 7.893  0.007      | 17
                        |              |              |                    |
      Leg 2             |              |              |                    |
        System 1        | 2222.5  4.5 | 2012.1  2.4 | 7.895  0.009      | 16
        System 2        | 2222.9  3.8 | 2016.1  4.1 | 7.890  0.009      | 15
        Manual Sys      | 2217.2  2.1 | 2013.4  0.5 | 7.888  0.006      |  3
                        |              |              |                    |
      Both Legs         |              |              |                    |
        System 1        | 2222.4  3.8 | 2013.6  3.4 | 7.891  0.011      | 33
        System 2        | 2223.6  3.5 | 2017.0  3.8 | 7.891  0.008      | 30
        Manual Sys      | 2217.2  2.1 | 2013.4  0.5 | 7.888  0.006      |  3
                        |              |              |                    |
      All Systems       | 2222.7  3.6 | 2015.2  3.5 | 7.891  0.009      | 66
      ------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------------|---
      Certified Values  |              |              |                    |
        CRM Batch 59    | 2220.98      | 2007.1       | 7.895a             |
                        |              |              | 7.9674 +/- 0.0005b | 19
        TRIS            |              |              | 8.0855 +/- 0.0003a | 19
      ------------------|--------------|--------------|--------------------|---
      Correction Factor |              |              |                    |
        Leg 1           |              |              |                    |
          System 1      | 0.9994       | 0.9961       | 0.004              |
          System 2      | 0.9980       | 0.9947       | 0.002              |
        Leg 2           |              |              |                    |
          System 1      | 0.9988       | 0.9975       | 0.000              |
          System 2      | 0.9991       | 0.9958       | 0.005              |
          Manual Sys    | 1.0017       | 0.9969       | 0.007              |
      
      
      
      
      TABLE 10: REPLICATE ANALYSES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION FROM 
                THE TEST CTD CAST
      
      Station  Niskin  Depty     DO 
               Bottle   (m)     (m)
      -------  ------  -----    -----
        test      1     170     277.2
        test      2     170     277.2
        test      3     170     276.9
        test      4     170     277.1
        test      5     170     276.8
        test      6     170     276.8
        test      7     170     277.1
        test      8     170     276.8
        test      9     170     276.7
        test     10     170     277.4
        test     11     170     277.6
        test     12     170     274.5*
        test     13     170     277.9
        test     14     170     277.2
        test     15     170     277.3
        test     16     170     276.8
        test     17     170     277.4
        test     18     170     276.9
        test     19     170     277
        test     20     170     276.8
      -------------------------------
                       Average  277.1
                          STDV   0.03
      
      * Outlier in replicate analyses not included in the average and 
        possibly due to errors in bottle volumes or sampling.
      
      
      
      
      TABLE 11: REPLICATE ANALYSES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION 
                (MOL/L) BY WINKLER TITRATION FROM SAME NISKIN BOTTLE OR 
                DIFFERENT BOTTLES AT SAME DEPTH
      
                                   Replicate
      STN    Sample     1         2         3          4
      ---    ------   -----     -----     -----    -----
        1       1     276.1     266.8*          
        1       4     279.1     279.4          
        1       8     266.7     289.2          
        1      11     297.2     296.1          
        2       2     262.8     262.2          
        2      18     297.2     302.7*    297.4     
        4       1     287.1     161.1*          
        5       4     277.3     266.3*          
        5      25     276.2*    279.9          
        6       1     302.1*    288.1          
        6      12     245.4     245.3          
        7       8     250.4     249.9          
        7      14     269.9*    261.1          
       10       6     286.6     286          
       10      32     306.3     306.8          
       11       4     286.2     286.5          
       11      35     307.6     308.3     307.6     
       12      23     273.1     273.4          
       14       3     277.5     278          
       14      32     275.1     275.6          
       15       7     232.4     232.1          
       15     27,28   274.3     275.6          
       16       2     241.1     241.6          
       16      24     279.8     279.9          
       19       4     264       264.5          
       19     26,27   274.6     281.7*          
       20       4     231.1*    227.4          
       20      17     258       257.8          
       21     25,26   275.5     275.1          
       24       7     265.7     265.1          
       24      25     259       259.3          
       25       5     284.3     284.3          
       25      20     241       241          
       25      28     263.8     264.4          
       26     33,35   268.3     267.9          
       28       2     243.7     244.2          
       30       9     275.6     276.6          
       30      31     271.9     271.7          
       32      27     194       194.2          
       34     33,35   269.6     270.2          
       40       1     270.2*    246.5          
       43       6     268.8     268.6          
       43      17     196.5     192.9          
       44       7     263.9     264.1          
       45       2     247       246.9          
       45      35     248.7     249.4          
      
      
      TABLE 11: REPLICATE ANALYSES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION 
                (MOL/L) BY WINKLER TITRATION FROM SAME NISKIN BOTTLE OR 
                DIFFERENT BOTTLES AT SAME DEPTH (continued)
      
                                   Replicate
      STN    Sample     1         2         3         4
      ---    ------   -----     -----     -----     -----
       46      10     208.2     208.4          
       47       7     229.7     229.9          
       47     31,32   247.1     247          
       49      33     240       239.8          
       51      15     195.5     195.9          
       51      32     278.3     278.6          
       52      11     200.4     200.1          
       52      32     240.2     240.4          
       53     33,35   237.9     237.7          
       54      14     190.1     191.5          
       54      31     261.4     261.4          
       55       7     251.2     250.6          
       55      31     260       259.9          
       57       6     264.9     265.4          
       57      33     238.1     237.8          
       60       1     250.9     250.8     250.8     
       60     11,15   248.1     247.7     246.3     247.3
       60      13     218.7     216.1     216.9     
       60      29     236       235.5     235.4     
       61       1     258.9     253.3*          
       61       2     253.1     251.7          
       61       5     251.7     252       252.6     
       61       7     252.9     253.1          
       62       1     250.9     251          
       62       3     251       250.8          
       62       5     250.8     250.7          
       62       7     251       251.5          
       63       8     261       260.9     261.5     
       63      13     190.1     190.1     190     
       63      17     187.9     187.6     187.9     
       63      24     212.6     212.8     212.5     
       63      29     234.3*    240       241.6     
       63      33     242.3     242.2          
       64       4     251.4     250.8          
       64      12     186.8     182.4*          
       64      30     237.6     237.8          
       65       1     251.1     251          
       65       4     251.8     251.6          
       65      17     170.6     170.6          
       66       3     251.6     251.4          
       66       9     247.4     246.8          
       66      15     181.1     181       180.8     
       66      28     228.2     228.8          
       67       7     251.2     250.8     251.1     
       67      20     191.6     191.5     191.6     
      
      
      TABLE 11: REPLICATE ANALYSES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION 
                (MOL/L) BY WINKLER TITRATION FROM SAME NISKIN BOTTLE OR 
                DIFFERENT BOTTLES AT SAME DEPTH (continued)
      
                                   Replicate
      STN    Sample     1         2         3         4
      ---    ------   -----     -----     -----     -----
       68       1     251.6     251.8          
       68       3     251.6     251.9          
       68       7     251.3     251.5          
       68      16     189.5     189.7          
       68      25     209.5     209.4          
       68      33     226.2     226.1          
       69       1     251.1     251.3          
       69       3     251.5     251.3          
       69       5     250.9     250.6          
       69      16     180.9     181.3          
       69      33     229.8     229.8          
       70       9     246.1     245.8          
       70     12,13   192.2     191.3          
       70      22     213.5     213.1          
       71       1     251.6     251.9          
       71       5     251.4     251.6          
       71      18     169.8     170          
       71      30     242.8     242.9          
       72      12     246.3     246          
       72      28     217       217.1          
       73       1     246.5     246.6          
       73       3     246.9     246.6          
       73       5     245.9     246.2          
       73      16     161.8     162.4          
       73      33     213.8     213.8          
       74       1     246.1     246.3          
       74       4     247.3     247          
       74      17     171.6     171.6          
       74      21     195.4     195          
       74      33     214       214.1          
       74      35     213.6     213.8          
       75       1     246.4     246.4          
       75       5     246.9     246.6          
       76       1     246.6     246.7          
       76       4     247       246.8          
       76      18     182.5     182.3          
       77       1     247.3     246.4          
       77       5     246.8     247          
       77      23     197.8     197.4          
       78       4     246.4     246.8          
       78      10     214.2     214.4          
       79       1     246.3     246.8          
       79       5     246.1     246          
       79      18     154*      158.2          
       79      33     212.7     212.5          
       80       3     249.2     249.3          
      
      
      TABLE 11: REPLICATE ANALYSES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION 
                (MOL/L) BY WINKLER TITRATION FROM SAME NISKIN BOTTLE OR 
                DIFFERENT BOTTLES AT SAME DEPTH (continued)
      
                                   Replicate
      STN    Sample     1         2         3         4
      ---    ------   -----     -----     -----     -----
       80      14     161.4     161.1          
       80      32     229.9     229.7          
       81       1     249.3     249.6          
       81       2     249.6     249.8          
       82       2     249.8     249.6          
       82      28     213       212.6          
       83       1     249.3     249          
       83       5     249.3     248.9          
       83      18     132.2     132.2          
       84       3     238.4*    249.3          
       84      15     181.4     181.6          
       85       1     248.6     249.2          
       85       2     248.8     249.2          
       86       1     249.7     248.8          
       86       5     249.2     248.8          
       86      19     131.2     130.8          
       87       1     254.6     254.2          
       87      19     130       130.3          
       88       1     254.5     254          
       88      16     173       172.8          
       89       1     253.8     253.5          
       89       3     252.3     253.8          
       89       5     252.2     251.9          
       89      16     133       131.7          
       90       2     253.3     253.8          
       90      18     116.2     115.7          
       91       1     252.9     252.4          
       91      18     94.7       95.2          
       92       1     251.9     251.8          
       92       2     251.7     252          
       92      18     110.9     110.3          
       92      33     215.7     215.8          
       94       2     249       249.3          
       94      14     117.9     117.5          
       95       1     256.4*    245.3          
       95       6     243.2     243.4          
       95      23     74         73.9          
       96       2     243.5     243.2          
       96      22     70.5       70.8          
       96      32     220.8     220.2          
       97       2     246.8     246.9          
       97      18     93.2       96*          
       98       2     245.9     249.2*          
       98      19     81         80.6          
       98      32     209       209          
       99       2     248.1     248          
      
      
      TABLE 11: REPLICATE ANALYSES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION 
                (MOL/L) BY WINKLER TITRATION FROM SAME NISKIN BOTTLE OR 
                DIFFERENT BOTTLES AT SAME DEPTH (continued)
      
                                   Replicate
      STN    Sample     1         2         3         4
      ---    ------   -----     -----     -----     -----
       99      21     94.8       95          
       99      23     94         93.9          
      100       2     250.5     250.7          
      100      22     76.5       76.2          
      100      32     211.2     211          
      101       1     250.9     251.2          
      101      19     71.6       71.6          
      104       2     252       251.9          
      104      23     72.9       72.9          
      104      33     206.7     206.7          
      105       1     253.1     253.3          
      105       4     250.1     249.9          
      105      25     79.3       79.7          
      106       2     253.9     253.6          
      106      22     59.5       59.5          
      106      33     206.8     206.6          
      107       1     252       252.2          
      107      18     70.3       70.2          
      107      32     206.6     206.2          
      108       2     253.4     254.2          
      108      21     51         51.2          
      108      32     211.6     211.8          
      109       2     254.1     254.4     254.2     
      109      14     225.3     225.5          
      109      22     50.4       51.7          
      110       2     254.4     254.5          
      110      21     51.4       51          
      111       4     250.7     250.8          
      111      24     67.7       67.5          
      111      30     83.3       83.7          
      112       4     253.6     254.5          
      112      24     96.2       96.4          
      112      32     179.8     179.9          
      113       5     254.3     254          
      113      17     92.7       92.7          
      113      23     89.6       89.5          
      114       6     255.5     255.9          
      114      25     102.3     102.1          
      114      32     186.4     186.5          
      115       1     249       249.2          
      115      21     64.6       64.5          
      115      33     205.5     205.2          
      116       2     252.1     252.2          
      116      20     77.6       77.3          
      116      32     207.9     207.8          
      117       4     259.6     259.9          
      
      
      TABLE 11: REPLICATE ANALYSES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION 
                (MOL/L) BY WINKLER TITRATION FROM SAME NISKIN BOTTLE OR 
                DIFFERENT BOTTLES AT SAME DEPTH (continued)
      
                                   Replicate
      STN    Sample     1         2         3         4
      ---    ------   -----     -----     -----     -----
      117      22     63.7       63          
      118       2     257       257.1          
      118      19     62.6       62.2          
      118      33     206.8     206.9          
      119       1     254.8     254.7          
      119      22     55.6       55.4          
      119      35     206.6     206.9          
      120       4     254.8     255.1          
      120      24     140       140.3          
      120      33     205.4     205.1          
      121       3     255.2     255.1          
      121      19     70         69.9          
      121      33     206.7     206.5          
      122       2     255.4     255.3          
      122      18     87.8       87.6          
      122      33     209.1     209          
      123       1     252       252          
      123      17     131.6     131.8          
      123      29     155.3     155.1          
      124       3     255.6     256          
      124      28     137.2     137.4          
      124      30     205.5     205.8          
      125       1     253       253.4          
      125      19     112.8     113.8          
      125      35     255       254.7          
      126       4     256.2     256.3          
      126      13     160.7     161          
      126      26     98.7       98.1          
      127       4     257       257.4          
      127      28     99.4       98.9          
      127      33     209.2     209.1          
      128       2     259.3     259.1          
      128      16     153.7     153.9          
      128      28     96.7       96.3          
      129       3     255       255          
      129      19     136.7     136.9          
      129      32     207.2     207.5          
      130       1     253.6     253.4          
      130      35     213.5     213.2          
      131       3     257.6     258          
      131      26     108.5     108.7          
      131      33     212.3     212.4          
      132       4     253.6     253.3          
      132      19     121.5     121          
      132      28     132.5     132.5          
      133       1     261.2     261          
      
      
      TABLE 11: REPLICATE ANALYSES OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATION 
                (MOL/L) BY WINKLER TITRATION FROM SAME NISKIN BOTTLE OR 
                DIFFERENT BOTTLES AT SAME DEPTH (continued)
      
                                   Replicate
      STN    Sample     1         2         3         4
      ---    ------   -----     -----     -----     -----
      133      23     105.4     105.3          
      133      32     204.6     204.8          
      134       1     257.9     257.7          
      134      23     96.8       96.6          
      134      35     210.5     210.3          
      135       6     245.9     245.9          
      135      20     116.9     116.6          
      135      33     208.8     208.8          
      136       1     256.6     256.2          
      136       8     229.2     229.6          
      136      26     175.7     175.5          
      137       2     256.9     257.2          
      137      24     113.4     113.3          
      137      32     209.3     209.5          
      138       2     255.8     256          
      138      20     83.2       83          
      138      31     208.9     209.1          
      139       2     232.5     232.2          
      139      23     95.8       95.6          
      140       3     240.9     241.2          
      140      23     70.1       70.3          
      140      31     207.3     207.5          
      141       3     236.2     236.3          
      141      15     166.4     166.7          
      141      32     209.1     209.2          
      143      13     158.7     158.9          
      144       2     230.2     230.3          
      144      15     158.9     158.8          
      144      31     169.2     169.5          
      145       1     228       228.1          
      145      23     104.3     104.7          
      145      35     212.9     212.7          
      146       4     234.1     234.3          
      146      16     174.5     174.3          
      146      25     101.8     101.9          
      147       4     233.2     233.6          
      147      28     106.3     106.3          
      147      33     209.7     209.7          
      148       1     228.6     229.2          
      148      23     90.7       90.6          
      148      33     210.3     210          
      149       2     228.9     228.6          
      149      24     86.5       86.2          
      149      35     208.4     208.4          
      150       3     231.1     231.2          
      150      24     85.9       86.2          
      150      31     205.6     205.6          
      
      
      
      
      TABLE 12: AFTER CRUISE RECALIBRATION OF THE VOLUMES (CM3) 
                OF THE OXYGEN BOTTLES
      
      Bottle  Old Volume  New Volume  Difference
      ------  ----------  ----------  ----------
        1      145.853     145.610     -0.243
        2      145.200     145.209      0.009
        3      145.318     149.967      4.649
        4      143.917     143.908     -0.009
        5      139.471     138.748     -0.723
        6      145.464     145.470      0.006
        7      145.443     145.441     -0.002
        8      152.778     152.796      0.018
        9      142.276     146.019      3.743
       10      145.662     145.666      0.004
       11      143.687     143.643     -0.044
       12      145.292     147.003      1.711
       13      142.335     142.307     -0.028
       14      141.151     145.220      4.069
       15      145.456     145.507      0.051
       16      145.908     145.897     -0.011
       17      145.645     145.644     -0.001
       18      144.759     144.734     -0.025
       19      142.898     142.913      0.015
       20      143.300     143.310      0.010
       21      146.299     141.180     -5.119
       22      144.406     147.777      3.371
       23      145.704     148.320      2.616
       24      141.570     152.070     10.500
       25      145.085     145.109      0.024
       26      145.599     145.606      0.007
       27      147.751     146.772     -0.979
       28      144.469     144.459     -0.010
       29      147.404     147.396     -0.008
       30      146.101     146.131      0.030
       31      146.039     146.004     -0.035
       32      145.111     145.152      0.041
       33      145.501     145.501      0.000
       34      146.663     146.678      0.015
       35      143.309     143.347      0.038
       36      147.371     147.429      0.058
       37      146.290     150.489      4.199
       38      140.623     144.152      3.529
       39      146.959     151.425      4.466
       40      144.179     144.183      0.004
       41      139.747     141.192      1.445
       42      143.726     150.186      6.460
       43      146.369     146.369      0.000
       44      142.137     142.137      0.000
       45      142.478     142.478      0.000
       46      143.805     143.805      0.000
       47      143.494     143.500      0.006
       48      145.665     142.890     -2.775
       49      144.254     144.254      0.000
       50      145.715     141.225     -4.490
       51      147.807     147.809      0.002
      
      
      TABLE 12: AFTER CRUISE RECALIBRATION OF THE VOLUMES (CM3) 
                OF THE OXYGEN BOTTLES (continued)
      
      Bottle  Old Volume  New Volume  Difference
      ------  ----------  ----------  ----------
       52      146.055     146.055      0.000
       53      143.431     143.431      0.000
       54      143.347     145.342      1.995
       55      144.658     144.715      0.057
       56      146.009     146.032      0.023
       57      142.607     144.083      1.476
       58      145.371     145.372      0.001
       59      144.344     144.343     -0.001
       60      145.292     145.244     -0.048
       61      146.185     146.159     -0.026
       62      142.781     142.786      0.005
       63      144.319     144.307     -0.012
       64      144.039     144.042      0.003
       65      145.311     149.630      4.319
       66      144.080     144.153      0.073
       67      143.908     143.892     -0.016
       68      137.386     146.368      8.982
       69      145.505     145.539      0.034
       70      143.273     143.276      0.003
       71      146.396     146.377     -0.019
       72      145.602     145.555     -0.047
       73      145.019     145.027      0.008
       74      146.627     146.634      0.007
       75      144.237     144.236     -0.001
       76      144.935     144.856     -0.079
       77      146.540     146.552      0.012
       78      143.597     143.551     -0.046
       79      142.704     148.421      5.717
       80      146.607     145.227     -1.380
       81      147.842     147.813     -0.029
       82      145.624     145.493     -0.131
       83      149.920     143.503     -6.417
       84      149.503     142.045     -7.458
       85      143.718     143.666     -0.052
       86      145.641     145.552     -0.089
       87      143.796     143.654     -0.142
       88      140.322     140.321     -0.001
       89      138.752     138.633     -0.119
       90      138.785     138.658     -0.127
       91      145.587     142.249     -3.338
       92      144.516     142.404     -2.112
       93      151.851     149.504     -2.347
       94      145.714     145.720      0.006
       95      149.465     149.364     -0.101
       96      151.184     148.882     -2.302
       97      144.609     144.592     -0.017
       98      152.251     152.200     -0.051
       99      144.545     144.552      0.007
      
      
      TABLE 12: AFTER CRUISE RECALIBRATION OF THE VOLUMES (CM3) 
                OF THE OXYGEN BOTTLES (continued)
      
      Bottle  Old Volume  New Volume  Difference
      ------  ----------  ----------  ----------
      100      147.346     147.187     -0.159
      101      139.500     139.479     -0.021
      102      149.319     149.298     -0.021
      103      147.485     147.484     -0.001
      104      138.295     138.310      0.015
      105      139.030     139.035      0.005
      106      144.610     144.606     -0.004
      107      148.793     148.778     -0.015
      108      146.952     146.951     -0.001
      109      149.911     149.928      0.017
      110      146.285     142.968     -3.317
      111      149.657     141.784     -7.873
      112      142.400     143.215      0.815
      113      143.206     143.217      0.011
      114      139.272     139.267     -0.005
      115      139.648     139.631     -0.017
      116      141.125     141.138      0.013
      117      141.218     142.124      0.906
      118      147.477     147.484      0.007
      119      148.834     148.847      0.013
      120      147.002     147.023      0.021
      121      144.803     144.080     -0.723
      122      141.945     141.949      0.004
      123      143.415     143.134     -0.281
      124      145.482     144.116     -1.366
      125      145.685     145.706      0.021
      126      144.523     144.527      0.004
      127      145.756     145.780      0.024
      128      140.523     140.521     -0.002
      129      143.820     143.811     -0.009
      130      145.730     138.828     -6.902
      131      145.849     145.855      0.006
      132      145.156     145.146     -0.010
      133      145.696     145.673     -0.023
      134      143.807     143.807      0.000
      135      148.692     148.692      0.000
      136      141.083     141.083      0.000
      137      143.675     143.675      0.000
      138      145.247     145.247      0.000
      139      144.459     144.459      0.000
      140      143.336     143.336      0.000
      141      143.962     143.971      0.009
      142      144.590     142.608     -1.982
      143      145.759     145.776      0.017
      144      137.683     145.339      7.656
      145      145.356     145.346     -0.010
      146      142.249     142.273      0.024
      147      145.810     145.800     -0.010
      148      144.984     144.954     -0.030
      149      146.996     146.998      0.002
      
      
      TABLE 12: AFTER CRUISE RECALIBRATION OF THE VOLUMES (CM3) 
                OF THE OXYGEN BOTTLES (continued)
      
      Bottle  Old Volume  New Volume  Difference
      ------  ----------  ----------  ----------
      150      145.100     145.094     -0.006
      151      142.395     142.369     -0.026
      152      144.586     144.983      0.397
      153      147.093     147.102      0.009
      154      145.219     142.119     -3.100
      155      150.067     150.055     -0.012
      156      138.514     143.383      4.869
      157      148.070     144.191     -3.879
      158      145.740     145.788      0.048
      159      143.852     143.853      0.001
      160      145.975     145.999      0.024
      161      144.786     144.785     -0.001
      162      144.560     144.304     -0.256
      163      146.144     146.096     -0.048
      164      144.518     144.296     -0.222
      165      144.623     144.514     -0.109
      166      141.617     141.524     -0.093
      167      144.192     144.162     -0.030
      168      145.917     145.651     -0.266
      169      145.682     145.604     -0.078
      170      146.535     146.342     -0.193
      171      139.221     139.144     -0.077
      172      150.611     150.569     -0.042
      173      145.165     145.101     -0.064
      174      145.379     145.303     -0.076
      175      144.814     144.744     -0.070
      176      141.770     141.687     -0.083
      177      143.827     143.722     -0.105
      178      145.031     144.941     -0.090
      179      145.668     143.528     -2.140
      180      147.606     147.524     -0.082
        
        
      
      
      Table 13: Shipboard standardization  of thiosulfate solution 
                during 2003 A16N cruise
        
       Thio  Standard  Starting  Ending   Intercept  Slope   Remarks
      Bottle   File    Station   Station
      -----  --------  --------  -------  ---------  ------  -----------------
         1      2         1         4     -0.004     24.743  
         2      6         4         8      0.1515    24.585  
         3      7         7        15      0.1155    23.87   
         4      9        16        18      0.0885    24.635  
         5     10        19        23      0.1117    24.312  
         6     11        24        29      0.05      24.96   
         7     15        30        37      0.143     24.495  
         8     16        37        46      0.1255    24.135  
         9     17        46        50      0.0405    24.845  
        10     18        51        58      0.0072    24.988  
        11     21        59        61      0.0042    25.075  
        12     22        62        65     -0.0015    25.005  
        13     23        66        71     -0.0025    24.87   
        14     24        72        79     -0.01      25.355  Digital Pipette
        15     25        80        86     -0.0007    24.97   
        16     26        87        92      0.008     24.755  
        17     27        93        97      0.002     24.735  
        18     30        98        98      0.0045    24.92   
        19     30G       98       106      0.0057    24.873  
        19                                 0.001     24.89   End of the Bottle
        20     31G      107       115      0.002     24.88   
        21                                 0.0096    24.719  5-20ml KIO3
        21     32G      116       123      0.0043    24.747  2-16ml KIO3
        22     33G      124       131      0.0056    24.757  
        23     35G      132       140      0.0097    24.753  
        24     36G      141       148      0.0063    24.682  
        24                                 0.009     24.685  Repeat
        25     37G      149       150      0.007     24.697  
        25     38                          0.007     24.678  
        25     39                          0.0039    24.649  
      ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Average:                             0.03015   24.7421
      
      
      
      
      Table 14: Post cruise comparison of volume delivery of a manual 
                and the problematic automatic pipette used for 
                stations 72-79 by standardization of KIO3 solution 
                with same batch Na2S2O3 solution. The correction 
                of 1.01531 was applied to all samples in this station 
                range.
      
      
           Automatic                     Manual                       Ratio
      Run  Factor     Intercept    r2    Factor    Intercept    r2
      ---  ---------  ---------  ------  ------    ---------  ------  ------
       1   25.050     -0.0023    1.0000  24.577    0.0127     1.0000    
       2   25.035     -0.0008    1.0000  24.690    0.0057     1.0000    
       3   25.017     -0.0005    1.0000  24.685    0.0040     1.0000    
       4   25.205     -0.0052    1.0000  24.673    0.0050     1.0000    
       5   25.067      0.0012    1.0000  24.687    0.0063     1.0000    
       6   24.990      0.0022    1.0000  24.690    0.0070     1.0000    
       7   25.112     -0.0030    1.0000  24.670    0.0065     1.0000    
       8   25.047      0.0030    1.0000  24.700    0.0060     1.0000    
       9   25.290     -0.0063    1.0000  24.685    0.0075     1.0000    
      10   24.910      0.0040    1.0000  24.658    0.0075     1.0000    
      11   24.861      0.0050    1.0000  24.697    0.0065     1.0000    
      12                                 24.693    0.0083     1.0000    
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Ave  25.05309   -0.0002            24.67542  0.0069            1.015306
      std   0.120788   0.0037             0.03323  0.0022          
      RSD   0.5%                          0.1%              
      
          
    
    
                                                                                A16N  BULLISTER/GRUBER  2003
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    
    
    

      CDT DATA
      
      
      CTD Personnel:    Regina Cesario, 
                        Elena Brambilla, 
                        Nicole Lovenduski, 
                        Kristy McTaggart
      Final Processing: Kristy McTaggart
      
      
      ACQUISITION
      
      During this cruise, 150 stations were occupied in the North 
      Atlantic from 63N to 5S primary along 20W at 30nm spacing, and 152 
      CTDO profiles were collected.  All profiles were to within 10m of 
      the bottom, ranging from about 200m to nearly 6000m.  
      
      Three underwater package configurations were used during this 
      cruise.  The primary package was a new 36-position stainless steel 
      frame mounted with 34 12-liter Niskin bottles, Sea-Bird carousel, 
      load cell, altimeter, pinger, LADCP, and optical sensors.  The 
      Sea-Bird CTDO sensors were a 9plus CTD s/n 315; primary TC sensors 
      s/n 4193, 1180; secondary TC sensors s/n 1455, 354; and SBE 43 
      oxygen sensors s/n 315, 313, or 312.
           
      During bad weather or while testing a deteriorating winch cable, a 
      small 24-position stainless steel frame was employed.  This bad 
      weather frame was mounted with 24 4-liter Niskin bottles, AOML-
      owned Sea-Bird carousel, load cell, altimeter, and pinger.  The 
      Sea-Bird CTDO sensors were a 9plus CTD s/n 209; primary TC sensors 
      s/n 1370, 1434; secondary TC sensors s/n 1460, 1177; and SBE 43 
      oxygen sensors s/n 313 or 312.
      
      The third configuration was comprised of the primary package with 
      the bad weather CTD and sensors, and used after the primary CTD 
      s/n 315 blew the power supply at station 142.  Sea-Bird 
      configuration files were named a16n_1.con, a16n_2.con, and 
      a16n_3.con, respectively.  N.B., The pre-cruise pressure 
      calibration offset for CTD s/n 315 was amended by +1 dbar in 
      a16n_1.con.  
      
      Data were acquired at full 24 Hz resolution through a Sea-Bird 
      11plus deck unit and the ship's dedicated PC using Seasave 
      software version 5.28c.  Analog data were archived onto VCR tapes, 
      although likely unrecoverable.  Fortunately, no real-time data 
      were lost.  Digital backups were made to Zip disks and CDs.
      
      The discrete sample database, maintained by Frank Delahoyde at 
      sea, totals 4824 records.  The only instance of rosette misfire 
      identified was during station 119, where two bottles closed at 
      1400 dbar; the following 6 bottle closures were offset by one; and 
      no sample was collected at 600 dbar.  
      
      
      PROCESSING
      
      The reduction of profile data began with a standard suite of 
      processing modules using Sea-Bird Seasoft software DOS version 
      4.249 in the following order:
      
      DATCNV   converts raw data into engineering units and creates a 
               bottle range file.  Both down and up casts were processed 
               for scan, elapsed time(s), pressure, t0, t1, c0, c1, and 
               oxygen voltage.  Optical sensor data were carried through 
               for casts using the primary package.  MARKSCAN was used 
               to skip over scans acquired on deck and while priming the 
               system. 
      
      ALIGNCTD aligns temperature, conductivity, and oxygen measurements 
               in time relative to pressure to ensure that derived 
               parameters are made using measurements from the same 
               parcel of water.  Primary conductivity is automatically 
               advanced in the deck unit by 0.073 seconds.  On the 
               primary package, the additional alignment of primary 
               sensor s/n 1180 was -0.040 seconds (net alignment 0.033 
               seconds), and the total alignment for secondary sensor 
               s/n 354 was 0.089 seconds.  On the bad weather package, 
               the additional alignment of primary sensor s/n 1434 was -
               0.010 seconds (net alignment 0.063 seconds), and the 
               total alignment for secondary sensor s/n 1177 was 0.057 
               seconds.  For the ending package configuration, the 
               additional alignment of primary sensor s/n 1434 was -
               0.010 seconds (net alignment 0.063 seconds), and the 
               total alignment for secondary sensor s/n 1177 was 0.089 
               seconds as it was then being plumbed with the optical 
               sensors in the primary frame.  It was not necessary to 
               align temperature or oxygen.
      
      ROSSUM   averages bottle data over an 8-second interval as 
               specified in the range file, and derives salinity, theta, 
               sigma-theta, and oxygen (umol/kg). 
      
      WILDEDIT makes two passes through the data in 100 scan bins.  The 
               first pass flags points greater than 2 standard 
               deviations; the second pass removes points greater than 
               20 standard deviations from the mean with the flagged 
               points excluded.  Data were kept within 100 of the mean 
               (i.e. all data).
      
      FILTER   applies a low pass filter to pressure with a time 
               constant of 0.15 seconds.  In order to produce zero phase 
               (no time shift) the filter is first run forward through 
               the file and then run backwards through the file. 
               Mistakenly, a time constant of only 0.03 seconds was used 
               for this cruise, of small consequence.
      
      CELLTM   uses a recursive filter to remove conductivity cell 
               thermal mass effects from measured conductivity.  In 
               areas with steep temperature gradients the thermal mass 
               correction is on the order of 0.005 PSU.  In other areas 
               the correction is negligible.  The value used for the 
               thermal anomaly amplitude (alpha) was 0.03.  The value 
               used for the thermal anomaly time constant (1/beta) was 
               7.0.  Mistakenly, the secondary sensors of either CTD 
               were not corrected for this effect.
      
      LOOPEDIT removes scans associated with pressure slowdowns and 
               reversals.  If the CTD velocity is less than 0.25 m/s or 
               the pressure is not greater than the previous maximum 
               scan, the scan is omitted.
      
      BINAVG   averages the data into 1 db bins.  Each bin is centered 
               on an integer pressure value, e.g. the 1 db bin averages 
               scans where pressure is between 0.5 db and 1.5 db.  There 
               is no surface bin.
      
      DERIVE   uses 1 db averaged pressure, temperature, and 
               conductivity to compute salinity, theta, sigma-theta, and 
               dynamic height.
      
      TRANS    converts the data file from binary to ASCII format.
      
      Package slowdowns and reversals owing to ship roll can move mixed 
      water in tow to in front of the CTD sensors and create artificial 
      density inversions and other artifacts.  In addition to Seasoft 
      module LOOPEDIT, MATLAB program deloop.m computes values of 
      density locally referenced between every 1 dbar of pressure to 
      compute N^2 and linearly interpolates temperature, conductivity, 
      and oxygen voltage over those records where N^2 is less than or 
      equal to -1e-5 per s^2.  MATLAB program calctd_1k.m or calctd_2k.m 
      or calctd_3k.m applies final calibrations to temperature and 
      conductivity, and computes salinity and calibrated oxygen.  
      Program cnv_eps1.f  and cnv_eps2.f computes ITS-90 temperature, 
      theta, sigma-t, sigma-theta, and dynamic height; creates WOCE 
      quality flags, and converts the ASCII data files into NetCDF 
      format for PMEL's database.  Program wocelst_ox.F converts the 
      NetCDF files into WOCE format for submission to the WHPO, and 
      creates WOCE .SUM files, one for each leg of the cruise.
      
      
      SALINITIES
      
      Primary TC data were selected from the primary package.  These 
      data were used to calibrate stations 1-34, 43-101, and 104-141.  
      Secondary TC data were selected from the bad weather package.  
      These data were used to calibrate stations 35-42, 102-103, and 
      142-150.  Note that stations 144-150 used bad weather CTD s/n 209 
      in the primary package.
      
      Samples were collected by the CTD watchstander.  A duplicate 
      sample was collected from the deepest bottle.  Salinity analysis 
      was performed by Greg Johnson on leg 1, and Dave Wisegarver on leg 
      2.  Analysis was done on the ship's autosalinometer using Ocean 
      Scientific ACI2000 interface and IAPSO standard seawater batch 
      P143 dated February 2003.  The bath temperature was set to 24C.  
      The ambient room temperature should be within 1 degree of the bath 
      temperature, preferably cooler.  Samples were left to equilibrate 
      in the Autosal lab space for a minimum of 8 hours before analysis.  
      The Autosal was standardized once a day.
      
      Sample salinities used to calibrate CTD conductivity sensors were 
      obtained from the Data Manager at sea.  However, salinity data 
      were re-evaluated post-cruise and a linear drift correction 
      between standardizations was applied.  The final data set was 
      produced at PMEL in December 2003.  
      
      
      OXYGENS
      
      SBE 43 oxygen sensor s/n 315 was used on the primary package for 
      stations 1-60.  It had a noticeable trend from the onset but it 
      wasn't confirmed until sample oxygens were reviewed.  Sensor s/n 
      315 was swapped out for sensor s/n 313 prior to station 61.  Sea-
      Bird has suggested that this membrane could've been frozen or torn 
      before the cruise.  
      
      SBE 43 oxygen sensor s/n 313 was used first on the bad weather 
      package for stations 35-42 before going on the primary package 
      prior to station 61.  Starting at station 94, s/n 313 was not 
      responding well to the new oxygen minimum below the thermocline.  
      It was swapped out for sensor s/n 312 prior to station 122.
      
      SBE 43 oxygen sensor s/n 312 was used first on the bad weather 
      package for stations 102-103.  It was moved to the primary package 
      prior to station 122 and used for the remainder of the cruise.
      
      Sample oxygens used to calibrate these sensors were obtained from 
      the Data Manager at sea.  However, oxygen data were re-evaluated 
      post-cruise and the final data set was produced at AOML in 
      September 2004. 
      
   
      BOTTLE DATA
      
      Seasoft module ROSSUM created a bottle data file for each cast.  
      These files were appended using program sbecal1k.f for primary 
      sensor data or sbecal2k.f for secondary sensor data.  Program 
      addsalk3.f matched sample salinities to CTD salinities by 
      station/sample number.  MATLAB calibration programs were used to 
      determine best fit groupings.  The final results were a second 
      order polynomial fit for stations 1-100 using the primary sensor 
      pair; a third order polynomial fit for stations 101-141 using the 
      primary sensor pair; a linear fit for stations 35-42 and stations 
      102-103 using the secondary sensor pair; and a linear fit with a 
      station dependent slope for stations 142-150 using the secondary 
      sensor pair.
      
      [sta,slope,bias,newbotco,newctdco]=calcos2(stat,cond,pres,botc,2.8,1,100);
        number of points used   2427
        total number of points  2815
        % of points used in fit   86.22
        fit standard deviation     0.001952
        fit bias                   0.0015337094
        min fit slope              0.99993324
        max fit slope              0.99997466
      
      [sta,slope,bias,newbotco,newctdco]=calcos3(stat,cond,pres,botc,2.8,101,141);
        number of points used   1039
        total number of points  1312
        % of points used in fit   79.19
        fit standard deviation     0.0018
        fit bias                  -0.004654759
        min fit slope              1.000081
        max fit slope              1.0001403
      
      [sta,slope,bias,newbotco,newctdco]=calcos0(stat,cond,pres,botc,2.8,35,42);
        number of points used   184
        total number of points  202
        % of points used in fit  91.09
        fit standard deviation    0.001569
        fit bias                  0.00067359131
        min fit slope             1.0000342
        max fit slope             1.0000342
      
      [sta,slope,bias,newbotco,newctdco]=calcos0(stat,cond,pres,botc,2.8,102,103);
        number of points used   42
        total number of points  44
        % of points used in fit 95.45
        fit standard deviation   0.00243
        fit bias                -0.0086599793
        min fit slope            1.0003549
        max fit slope            1.0003549
      
      [sta,slope,bias,newbotco,newctdco]=calcos1(stat,cond,pres,botc,2.8,142,150);
        number of points used   232
        total number of points  279
        % of points used in fit  83.15
        fit standard deviation    0.001669
        fit bias                 -0.0027190403
        min fit slope             1.0000403
        max fit slope             1.0000991
      
      Program addoxyk3.f matched sample oxygens to CTD oxygens by 
      station/sample number.  Because of sensor hysteresis, MATLAB 
      programs matched upcast oxygens to downcast oxygens by sigma-2.  
      Coefficients were determined using run_oxygen_cal_1.m and saved in 
      final.mat.
      
      Temperature viscous and drift corrections, conductivity 
      coefficients, and oxygen coefficients were applied to the bottle 
      data file using calclo_k.m.  Quality flags for sample salinities 
      were determined using MATLAB program sflag.m. Of the 4676 sample 
      salinities, 0.6% were flagged as bad and 1% were flagged as 
      questionable.  Final CTDO bottle data, a16n_allo.flg, were given 
      to John Bullister to incorporate into the master data file.  For 
      PMEL's database, individual bottle files for each cast were 
      created in NetCDF format using clb_epso.f.  
      

      
      APPENDIX
      
      
      WOCE QUALITY FLAG DEFINITIONS FOR WATER BOTTLES.
      
      Flag  Definition
      ----  --------------------------------------
       1    Bottle information unavailable
       2    No problems noted
       3    Leaking
       4    Did not trip correctly
       5    Not reported
       7    Unknown problem
       9    Samples not drawn from this bottle
      
      
      
      WOCE WATER QUALITY FLAG DEFINITIONS.
      
      Flag  Definition
      ----  --------------------------------------
       1    Sample drawn but analysis not received
       2    Acceptable measurement
       3    Questionable measurement
       4    Bad measurement
       5    Not reported
       6    Mean of replicate measurements
       9    Sample not drawn for measurement
      
      
      
      
      
      
      * Outliers in replicate analyses are possibly due to errors in 
        bottle volumes or sampling
      

    
    
                                                                                A16N  BULLISTER/GRUBER  2003
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________________
    
    
    

      
      DATA PROCESSING NOTES
      
      
      DATA      CONTACT    DATA TYPE      DATA STATUS SUMMARY
      --------  ---------  -------------  --------------------------------------------
      04/01/03  Swift      CTD/BTL        List of cruise parameters
                Here is the current parameter list for the 2003 A16N son-of-WOCE 
                cruise.
      
                Kristin Sanborn of ODF gave me the list. She has been working with Bob 
                Williams on preparations for the bottle data processing on that 
                cruise. Of course some of the water samples generate many individual 
                parameters. An asterisk after a value indicates it comes from the CTD 
                computer. An f before a value indicates it's a flag.
      
                stnnbr     castno       
                btlnbr     (bottle serial number)   sampno   (niskin number + castno*100)
                lat        (decimal degrees)        lon      (decimal degrees)
                year*      month*   day*            hour*    min*     
                second*    (decimal seconds)        ctdprs*  ctdsal*  fctdsal    
                ctdtmp*    ctdoxy*  fctdoxy         trans*   (Bishop tranmissometer)  
                pic*       (Bishop particulate inorganic carbon)
                scatter*   (Bishop scatter meter)   sigma0*  theta*
                cfc11      fcfc11                   cfc12    fcfc12    
                cfc13      fcfc13                   ccl4     fccl4
                hcfc22     (AOML HCFC-22)           fhcfc22
                ch3cl      (methyl chloride)        fch3cl       
                ch3br      (methyl bromide)         fch3br
                aomlcfc11  (AOML cfc-11)            faomlcfc11
                hcfc141b   (AOML HCFC-141b)         fhcfc141b
                ch3i       (methyl iodide)          fch3i
                aomlcfc13  (AOML cfc13)             faomlcfc13
                aomlccl4   (AOML ccl4)              faomlccl4       
                tcarbn     ftcarbn
                pco2       fpco2       nitrat       fnitrat       nitrit       fnitrit
                phspht     fphspht     silcat       fsilcat       oxygen       foxygen
                hel3       fhel3       tritum       ftritum       alkali       falkali
                ph         fph         doc          fdoc          don          fdon
                
                There appear to be two different CFC groups working at the same time 
                on A16N, each apparently drawing their own samples.
      			
      08/27/03  Bullister  CTD/BTL/SUM    Raw shipboard prelim data available via ftp
                You have my permission to obtain the data from Frank and post them
                at the website.  You should include the caveats that these data are
                the raw shipboard version, are still preliminary and will be updated.
      
      09/04/03  Bullister  DOC            Submitted
                This is from John Bullister and is the project instructions 
                document for A16N_2003a (Ron Brown). It's the closest thing that 
                he had to cruise docs, but he's working on a preliminary post-
                cruise report.  When he completes the work-in-progress, we should 
                replace the new doc with the one he's working on now.
                          
      
      09/08/03  McTaggart  CTD            Submitted available on NOAA ftp site  
                A16N preliminary CTD data files in WOCE format are ready for you on 
                our FTP site:  ftp.pmel.noaa.gov under /ctd/woce/a16n.
      
      
      
      DATA      CONTACT    DATA TYPE      DATA STATUS SUMMARY
      --------  ---------  -------------  --------------------------------------------
      09/08/03  Diggs      CTD            Data retrieved from NOAA ftp site
                I have received your files and am checking them over.  
      
      09/10/03  Delahoyd  BTL/SUM         BTL Parameters Submitted:
                BTLNBR  CTDRAW  CTDPRS  CTDTMP  CTDSAL  CTDOXY  THETA   SALNTY  
                OXYGEN  SILCAT  NITRAT  NITRIT  PHSPHT  CFC-11  CFC-12  CFC113  
                TCO2    TALK    PH      PCO2
                
                These data were provided by:
                
                PARAMETER/PROGRAM   |NAME                 |EMAIL ADDRESS
                --------------------|---------------------|---------------------------
                Chief Scientist     |John Bullister-PMEL  |bullister@pmel.noaa.gov   
                CTDO/S/O2/nutrients |Greg Johnson-PMEL    |gjohnson@pmel.noaa.gov
                Nutrients           |Calvin Mordy-PMEL    |mordy@pmel.noaa.gov
                                    |Jia-Zhong Zhang-AOML |zhang@aoml.noaa.gov
                Total CO2(DIC), pCO2|Dick Feely- PMEL     |feely@pmel.noaa.gov 
                                    |Rik Wanninkhof-AOML  |rik.wanninkhof@noaa.gov
                CFC                 |John Bullister-PMEL  |bullister@pmel.noaa.gov
                CFC                 |Mark Warner-UW       |mwarner@ocean.washington.edu
                HCFs                |Shari Yvon-Lewis-AOML|syvon@aoml.noaa.gov
                He/Tr               |Peter Schlosser      |peters@ldeo.columbia.edu
                14C/13C             |Ann McNichol WHOI    |amcnichol@whoi.edu     
                
                The data included in these files are preliminary, and are subject 
                to final calibration and processing. They have made available for 
                public access as soon as possible following their collection. 
                Users should maintain caution in their interpretation and use. 
                Following American Geophysical Union recommendations, the data 
                should be cited as: "data provider(s), cruise name or cruise ID, 
                data file name(s), CLIVAR and Carbon Hydrographic Data Office, La 
                Jolla, CA, USA, and data file date." For further information, 
                please contact one of the parties listed above or whpo@ucsd.edu. 
                Users are also requested to acknowledge the NSF/NOAA-funded U.S. 
                Repeat Hydrography Program in publications resulting from their use.
                          
                A16N water property codes for WOCE ".sum" file "PROPERTIES" column:
                
                      Water            Water            Water            Water 
                Code  Property   Code  Property   Code  Property   Code  Property 
                ----  --------   ----  --------   ----  --------   ----  --------
                   1  Salinity      8  CFC-12       25  PCO2        101  PIC
                   2  O2            9  Tritium      26  PH          102  Al
                   3  SIO3         10  He           27  CFC-113     103  Fe
                   4  NO3          12  del14C       32  DON         104  AlkNO3
                   5  NO2          13  del13C       40  POC         105  Carbohydrates
                   6  PO4          23  TCO2         43  DOC         106  CDOM
                   7  CFC-11       24  TALK        100  HCFCs       
      
      
      
      DATA      CONTACT    DATA TYPE      DATA STATUS SUMMARY
      --------  ---------  -------------  --------------------------------------------
      09/26/03  McTaggart  CTD            Submitted
                There is a file for you on our anonymous FTP site, ftp.pmel.noaa.gov, 
                under /ctd/woce/a16n.  It's called a16n_allo.clb and it is the 
                preliminary calibrated discrete CTD measurements and associated sample 
                salinities and oxygens.
                        
                In generating this file, I found an error I had made in applying 
                the preliminary calibrations to the profile data.  The .ctd files 
                now on our FTP site are correct and should be downloaded again.  I 
                apologize for this oversight.  And I changed the expocode in the 
                header to be a 13-character string instead of a 12-character 
                string as it is on the WHPO website (e.g. suffix '_01' instead of '_1').
                          
      09/29/03  Diggs      CTD            Website Updated  CTD submitted and online
                CTD data recalibrated.  Updated versions of the ctd and ctd-
                exchange on website.  
                          
      10/03/03  Johnson    CTD/BTL        Defined ctd/nuts/O2 Pis
                For A16N please keep me (Gregory Johnson) as PI for CTD/O2 and S, but 
                Mordy & Zhang for nutrients, and Zhang for bottle O2.
      			
      10/20/03  Diggs      CTD/SUM/BTL    Website Updated with Formatted files
                CTD, SUM, BTL available along with Exchange formatted versions on 
                WHPO website.
                          
      10/23/03  Diggs      CTD/BTL        Website Updated; Citation added to files
                Repackaged all zip files (WOCE CTD, Exchange CTD, and WOCE Bottle 
                w/ SUM) with new citation files per request from Talley and 
                Swift).
                          
      10/29/03  Diggs      SUM/CTD/BTL    Updated archive citations
                Updated all citations (00_README files) embedded in each zip 
                archive as well as the Exchange formatted bottle file. Bottle 
                Exchange updated to reflect accurate ExpoCodes for each station 
                from updated summary file.
                
      10/24/03  Kappa      DOC            Cruise Report PDF & ASCII versions Updated
                added links from TOC to text in PDF version
                made a text version
                added these WHPO-SIO Data Processing Notes
                
      11/03/03  Coartney   Cruise Report  Website Updated; New PDF & ASCII docs online
      
      01/30/04  Diggs      CTD/BTL/SUM    Website Updated; line identifiers changed
                Corrected all cruise line identifiers to A16N (from A16N_2003A) as per 
                Jim Swift's request.
      			
      02/20/04  Kappa      Cruise Report  Updated PDF & ASCII versions made
      			
      06/11/04  Diggs      CTD            Website Updated; missing files added
                A transmission error occurred from PMEL to SIO, resulting in only 80 
                files being at the WHPO. Alison MacDonlad from WHOI noticed the 
                problem. I re-ftp'd the files, format checked them, convert them to 
                Exchange, and put all of the ftp files back on the website. All checks 
                out.
      			
      
      
      DATA      CONTACT    DATA TYPE      DATA STATUS SUMMARY
      --------  ---------  -------------  --------------------------------------------
      10/27/04  Hansell    DOC/TDN       Submitted data & sampling procedures report
                The data disposition is: Public  
                The file format is:      Plain Text (ASCII) 
                The archive type is:     NONE - Individual File 
                The data type(s) is:     Bottle Data (hyd)
                   Dissolved Organic Carbon 
                   Total Dissolved Nitrogen for A16N2003 Line 
                   Documentation     
                The file contains these water sample identifiers:
                   Cast Number (CASTNO)
                   Station Number (STATNO)
                   Bottle Number (BTLNBR)
                   Sample Number (SAMPNO)
                HANSELL, DENNIS would like the following action(s) taken on the data: 
                   Merge Data
                   Place Data Online 
      
      12/10/04  Kozyr      Cruise Report  Submitted CO2 report
                I am attaching here 3 files with reports on measured carbon fields. 
                You will have to decide what and how much information you need for 
                cruise report.
      
      12/10/04  Kozyr      CO2            Submitted  TCARBN, TALK, pH, and pCO2
                I have just submitted the final TCARBN, TALK, pH, and pCO2 data for 
                A16_2003 cruise for merging into the hydrographic data file. Could you 
                with the new numbers. Please, let me know if you have any questions 
                regarding the data. 
      
      12/10/04  Kozyr      CO2            Submitted
                This is information regarding line A16N_2003
                     ExpoCode:      33RO200306_01 33RO200306_02
                     Cruise Date:   2003/06/19 - 2003/08/11
                     From:          KOZYR, ALEX
                     Email address: kozyra@ornl.gov
                     Institution:   CDIAC/ORNL
                     Country:       USA
                
                The file:  
                     a16n_2003_carbn_final.txt - 308958 bytes
                has been saved as:
                     20041210.063700_KOZYR_A16N_2003_a16n_2003_carbn_final.txt
                in the directory:  
                     20041210.063700_KOZYR_A16N_2003
                The data disposition is:
                     Public  
                The bottle file has the following parameters:
                     TCARBN, TALK, PCO2, PH
                The file format is:
                     WOCE Format (ASCII) 
                The archive type is:
                     NONE - Individual File 
                The data type(s) is:
                     Bottle Data (hyd)
                The file contains these water sample identifiers:
                     Cast Number (CASTNO)
                     Station Number (STATNO)
                     Bottle Number (BTLNBR)
                     Sample Number (SAMPNO)
                KOZYR, ALEX would like the following action(s) taken on the data:
                     Merge Data
                Any additional notes are:
                     This is the final bottle TCARBN, TALK, pH, and pCO2 data. I have 
                     merged these numbers from two  different files I received from 
                     PMEL and AOML CO2 measurement groups. New quality flags were 
                     assigned according to QA-QC work. Please let me know if you need 
                     more information on these data.
      
      
      
      DATA      CONTACT    DATA TYPE      DATA STATUS SUMMARY
      --------  ---------  -------------  --------------------------------------------
      12/10/04  Anderson   CO2            Website Updated OnLine Online
                Copied files submitted by A. Kozyr from INCOMING to     
                  .../a16n_2003a/original_data/20041210_KOZYR_A16N_2003.
                  These files contain updated TCARBN, TALK, PCO2, and PH.
                I will merge into online file.
            
      12/17/04  Bullister  Cruise Report  Submitted Final cruise report  
            
      12/29/04  Mordy      NUTs           Submitted by Calvin Mordy  
                  Date:    Wed, 29 Dec 2004 13:44:00 -0800 (PST)
                  From:    WHPO Website <http@odf.ucsd.edu>
                  To:      Calvin.W.Mordy@noaa.gov, jrweir@odf.ucsd.edu, whpo@ucsd.edu
                  Subject: WHPO DATA A16N: BOT from MORDY
      
                This is information regarding line: A16N
                           ExpoCode:      33RO200306_01 _02
                           Cruise Date:   2003/06/04 - 2003/08/11
                           From:          MORDY, CALVIN
                           Email address: Calvin.W.Mordy@noaa.gov
                           Institution:   NOAA/PMEL
                           Country:       USA
                
                The file:  A16N-Apr14nuts-submitted.xls - 1207296 bytes
                    has been saved as:  20041229.134359_MORDY_A16N_A16N-Apr14nuts-
                    submitted.xls in the directory:  20041229.134359_MORDY_A16N
                The data disposition is:
                    Public  
                The bottle file has the following parameters:
                    SILCAT, NITRAT, NITRIT, PHSPHT
                The file format is:
                    MS Excel (Binary) 
                The archive type is:
                    NONE - Individual File 
                The data type(s) is:
                    Bottle Data (hyd)
                The file contains these water sample identifiers:
                    Cast Number (CASTNO)
                    Station Number (STATNO)
                    Bottle Number (BTLNBR)
                MORDY, CALVIN would like the following action(s) taken on the data:
                    Merge Data
                    Place Data Online
                    Update Parameters
                Any additional notes are:
                    Data are provided in umole/l and umole/kg.  The lab temperature 
                    and the CTD bottle salts that were used in the unit conversion 
                    are also provided.
                
            
      12/30/04  Bullister  Cruise Report  Submitted Oxygen Data Report  
                The cruise we did was A16N_2003 (not p16n_2003).
                I forwarded Jim Swift's directive (see next message) to all the 
                    investigators on A16N_2003 last February, advising them to forward 
                    data and documentation directly to the CCHDO-WHPO.  I'll send out 
                    another reminder.
                In addition to the carbon data and documentation, I have copies here 
                    of the revised CTD and bottle salinity data from Kristy McTaggart, 
                    revised CFC data from our group, revised oxygen data (and 
                    documentation) from Z.Zhang, and revised nutrient data from Calvin 
                    Mordy.  I can send you these individual files as attachments to 
                    the next message.
                I have merged all of these revised data files into Frank Delahoyde's 
                    A16n2003 shipboard file to create a master data file in the .sea 
                    format. I can also sent this to you.
                Unfortunately, I am heading out tomorrow for the A16S cruise and can't 
                    do much more before I leave.  I will have all the a16n2003 data 
                    with me on the cruise and should be able to answer questions by e-
                    mail.
                My address should be:
                    john.bullister.atsea@rbnems.ronbrown.omao.noaa.gov
            
      
      
      DATA      CONTACT    DATA TYPE      DATA STATUS SUMMARY
      --------  ---------  -------------  --------------------------------------------
      01/18/05  Anderson   CO2            Website Updated, data OnLine 
                ...File  Jan. 18, 2005
                a16n_2003a  33RO200306_01  
                Merged the carbon data  (TCO2, TALK, PH, and PCO2) sent by A. Kozyr 
                    Dec. 10, 2004 re his email below into online file.  Made new 
                    exchange and netcdf files.   
      
                Date:      Fri, 14 Jan 2005 14:18:05 -0500
                From:      Alexander Kozyr <kozyra@ornl.gov>
                Subject:   A22_2003 Alkalinity data
                To:        Sarilee Anderson <sarilee@minerva.ucsd.edu>
      
                Thank you very much Sarilee. Did you make a new exchange file as well?
                Could you check A16N_2003a files? I've sent the final carbon-related 
                    data (TCARBN (or TCO2), ALKALI, pH, and pCO2) for this section on 
                    12/10/2004 to WHPO but did not see any changes in your files. When 
                    you merge these data, please make sure that you merge all four 
                    parameters, because from the first look it seems like TCARBN and 
                    pH are the same, but in reality we PIs changed some numbers and 
                    flags for both.
      			
      02/14/05  Kappa      Cruise Report  Replaced "Cruise Instructions"
                Added CTD Data Processing Report
                The bulk of this cruise report was submitted by Alex Kozyr on 
                12/10/04.  It includes sections on:
                   TCARBN
                   Fugacity of CO2
                   ALKALI
                   pH
                   Nutrients
                   Oxygen
                   Figures
                   Tables
                Both the PDF and ASCII cruise reports also contain the WHPO/CCHDO 
                summary pages, and these Data Processing Notes.  Figures are found 
                only in the PDF version.  The PDF version also has links from text to 
                figures and tables, PDF bookmarks and PDF thumbnails.
                
      03/10/05  McTaggart  CTD            Submitted Data Processing Report


      03/15/05  Kappa      Cruise Report  Added CTD Data Processing report
                
                
                
                
      
      
