ࡱ> jlghi` bjbjss  .  BBB\D28ܱ@x4̴( W~$1hB1B?jBBBKsaaa.BBaaaBBa @Qm.a0a33.3a3Ba$aBBa@@@n@@@V j XN>BBB  NOAA DATA REPORT ERL PMEL- CHEMICAL AND HYDROGRAPHIC MEASUREMENTS FROM THE EQUATORIAL PACIFIC DURING BOREAL AUTUMN, 1992 Marilyn F. Lamb1 Tom Lantry2 James Hendee2 Kristy E. McTaggart1 Paulette P. Murphy1 Richard A. Feely1 Rik Wanninkhof2 Frank J. Millero3 Robert H. Byrne4 Edward T. Peltzer5 Denis Frazel2 1 NOAA, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Seattle, WA 98115-0070 2 NOAA, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML), 4301 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149 3 Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (RSMAS), University of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149 4 Department of Marine Science, University of South Florida, 140 7th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701 5 Department of Chemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543 August 1995 Contribution No. 1605 from NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory NOTICE Mention of a commercial company or product does not constitute an endorsement by NOAA/ERL. Use of information from this publication concerning proprietary products or the tests of such products for publicity or advertising purposes is not authorized. Contribution No. 1605 from NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory __________________________________________________ For sale by the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 REMOTE ACCESS TO DATA LISTED IN THIS REPORT The data presented in this report is available on a computerized Remote Bulletin Board System (RBBS), Internet FTP and the World Wide Web (WWW). For information regarding electronic access to the data sets contact: Mr. James C. Hendee Data Manager, OACES at: U.S. Dept. of Commerce NOAA/AOML/OCD 4301 Rickenbacker Cswy. Miami, FL 33149-1026 Telephone: 305-361-4396 Internet address: hendee@aoml.erl.gov WWW address: http://diatom.aoml.erl.gov/oaces/oaces.html Contoured sections of the data are also available at http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/eqpac.html. LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Chief Scientists: Leg 3 Richard A. Feely and Linda Mangum Leg 4 Rik Wanninkhof and Linda Mangum Leg 5 Paulette P. Murphy CTD/Salinity/Dissolved Oxygen: Leg 3 Gregg Thomas Survey Dept. of NOAA Ship Discoverer Leg 4 Gregg Thomas Bob Roddy Survey Dept. of NOAA Ship Discoverer Leg 5 Gregg Thomas Bob Roddy Survey Dept. of NOAA Ship Discoverer Nutrient Analyses: Leg 3 George Berberian Lloyd Moore Leg 4 George Berberian Lloyd Moore Leg 5 George Berberian Lloyd Moore Denis Frazel fCO2 Analyses: Leg 3 Tom Lantry Cathy Cosca Leg 4 Hua Chen Matt Steckley Leg 5 Hua Chen Matt Steckley DIC Analyses: Leg 3 Marilyn Lamb-Roberts David Jones Leg 4 Tom Lantry David Jones Leg 5 Brian Kerns Tom Lantry TAlk Analyses: Leg 3 Doug Campbell Sonia Olivella Shannon Cass Leg 4 Jia-Zhong Zhang David Purkerson Leg 5 Kitack Lee Sanjay Mane Jennifer Aicher pH Analyses: Leg 3 Robert Byrne Tonya Clayton Beckey Li Leg 4 No participation Leg 5 Robert Byrne Tonya Clayton TOC Sampling: Leg 3 Nancy Hayward Leg 4 Leslie Redmond Leg 5 Gregg Ravizza Computer Support: Jim Hendee Betty Huss Kristy McTaggart Cathy Cosca Sonia Hamilton Dana Greeley ET Support: Mike Shoemaker CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Cruise Itinerary 2 2.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS 2 2.1 CTD and Hydrographic Operations 2 2.2 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) 7 2.2.1 DO data quality control assessment 8 2.3 Discrete fugacity of CO2 (fCO2) 8 2.4 Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) 10 2.5 pH 12 2.6 Total Alkalinity (TAlk) 13 2.7 Nutrients 14 2.7.1 Nitrite and nitrate 14 2.7.2 Phosphate 15 2.7.3 Silicate 15 2.8 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 15 2.9 Salinity 17 3.0 DATA TABLES 17 4.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 18 5.0 REFERENCES 18 APPENDIX A ( Tabulated Discrete Bottle Data 21 APPENDIX B ( Dissolved Oxygen Duplicates 161 FIGURE 1. Station locations for the boreal autumn 1992 NOAA Equatorial Pacific Process Study 3 TABLES 1. Station locations and dates of the boreal autumn EqPac 1992 cruise 4 2. Coefficients of least squares fit of CTD and bottle salinities during Legs 3, 4, and 5 of the boreal autumn EqPac 1992 cruise 7 3. Precision of discrete fCO2 samples taken during Legs 3, 4 and 5 of the boreal autumn EqPac 1992 9 4. Certified reference material (Batch 12) analyzed during the boreal autumn EqPac 1992 cruise 12 5. Corrections applied to DIC data during the boreal autumn EqPac 1992 cruise 12 6. WOCE data quality flag definitions 17 7. Unique quality control flag definitions for fCO2 17 Chemical and Hydrographic Measurements from the Equatorial Pacific during Boreal Autumn, 1992 M. F. Lamb, T. Lantry2, J. Hendee2, K.E. McTaggart1, P.P. Murphy1, R.A. Feely1, R. Wanninkhof2, F.J. Millero3, R.H. Byrne4, E.T. Peltzer5, and Denis Frazel2 ABSTRACT. In the boreal autumn of 1992, NOAA(s Climate and Global Change Program sponsored a major cooperative effort with the U.S. JGOFS Program in the central and eastern equatorial Pacific to investigate the unique role of equatorial processes on CO2 cycling during, and following, the 1991(92 ENSO event. Data were collected meridionally along four transects, generally between 10(N and 10(S. The first leg (Leg 3) included the 140(W and 125(W transects; the second leg (Leg 4) sampled along 110(W, and the third leg (Leg 5) included stations along 95(W and three short transects extending westward from the Peru coast. Chemical parameters sampled included fCO2, DIC, TAlk, pH, TOC, and nutrients. Ancillary measurements of salinity, temperature, and dissolved oxygen (DO) were also taken. Descriptions of sampling methods and data summaries are given in this report. 1.0 INTRODUCTION Human activity is rapidly changing the trace gas composition of the earth(s atmosphere, causing the greenhouse warming effect from excess carbon dioxide (CO2) along with other trace gas species such as chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases play a critical role in controlling the earth(s climate because they increase the infrared opacity of the atmosphere, causing the planetary surface to warm. Of all the anthropogenic CO2 that has ever been produced, only about half remains in the atmosphere; it is the (missing( CO2 for which the global ocean is considered to be the dominant sink for the man-made increase. The equatorial region of the Pacific Ocean (EqPac) is unique because of the huge tongue of cool surface water which is characterized by high concentrations of nutrients and CO2. Our goal was to investigate the role of equatorial processes on CO2 cycling during and following the 1991(92 El Nio-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event, and to better understand the rate at which CO2 is released by the oceans. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(s (NOAA) Ocean-Atmosphere Carbon Exchange Study (OACES) Program, in cooperation with the U.S. Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (U.S. JGOFS) Program, the Equatorial Pacific Ocean Climate Study (EPOCS) and Tropical Ocean Global Atmosphere (TOGA) Program, participated in a multifaceted oceanographic research cruise conducted aboard the NOAA Ship Discoverer from September 6 to December 8, 1992. The primary objective of this U.S. JGOFS/OACES effort was to determine the relative effects of biological fixation of carbon within equatorial upwelling, followed by vertical flux of that fixed carbon to abyssal depths, and of CO2 outgassing. The cruise was focused on determining the concentrations of carbon species and describing ocean circulation in the upper ocean over the equatorial Pacific from 95(W to 140(W. This data report summarizes the carbon species, nutrients, dissolved oxygens, total organic carbon, and salinities from this cruise. The tabulated discrete bottle data are given in Appendix A. 1.1 Cruise Itinerary The ship departed Hilo, Hawaii on Sept. 6, 1992 and proceeded to the first station at 10(N and 140(W. A test cast was performed during the transit to check equipment. The cruise track for the first leg (Leg 3) of the cruise started at 10(N, 140(W and proceeded south along the longitudinal line to 10(S; the ship then transited to 10(S, 125(W, and sampled north along that meridional line to 10(N; Leg 3 ended in Manzanillo, Mexico. The second leg (Leg 4) departed Manzanillo, Mexico on Oct. 12, 1992 and began operations at 10(N, 110(W. Problems with the electrical generator forced a diversion to San Diego for repairs. Research was resumed at 8(N on Oct. 31, and stations were sampled along 110(W longitude to 10(S; additionally, stations were sampled between 2(S and 2(N along 95(W. The ship ended Leg 4 in Salinas, Ecuador on Nov. 18, 1992. The third leg (Leg 5) departed Salinas, Ecuador on Nov. 19, 1992 and occupied stations off the coast of Peru along 5(S from 81(20(W to 82(30(W. An additional line of stations was completed between 12(51(S, 78(30(W to 12(20(S, 77(20(W, and then between 3(3(S, 81(21( to 95(W, 14(S where stations were occupied along the meridional line to 3(N, where a medical evacuation forced cessation of the sampling. The cruise ended in San Diego on Dec. 8, 1992. Station locations and dates are contained in Figure 1 and Table 1. 2.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL METHODS 2.1 CTD and Hydrographic Operations AOML(s Neil Brown( Instrument Systems (NBIS) Mark IIIb CTD #4 and General Oceanics 24-bottle rosette were used to measure pressure, temperature, and conductivity for all casts through station 67 on Leg 4. After station 67, AOML(s NBIS Mark IIIb CTD #1 and General Oceanics 12-bottle rosette were employed and two casts were completed at each station in order to similarly sample the water column. CTD data were recorded during the downcast and the upcast, and discrete water samples were collected in 10-L Niskin( bottles during the upcast. CTD data passed through an NBIS 1150 deck unit were acquired using AOML CTD acquisition software. A personal computer displayed real-time profiles and wrote the data to hard disk. An audio backup was made to VHS tape. Data files were archived on 5.25" removable hard disk cartridges. Pre-cruise calibrated, 1-db averaged data files were calibrated and processed at PMEL (McTaggart et al., 1994). To correct for cast-dependent drifts, coefficients of a least squares fit of CTD salinities and bottle salinities to a first order polynomial were computed for groups of stations Table 1. Station locations and dates of the boreal autumn EqPac 1992 cruise.  Station Cast Latitude Longitude Date  Leg 3: 1(test cast) 4 16( 29.79(N 149( 53.57(W 7-Sep-92 2 10 10( 0.38(N 139( 59.45(W 10-Sep-92 3 12 8( 57.67(N 140( 18.19(W 10-Sep-92 4 17 7( 59.98(N 139( 59.95(W 11-Sep-92 5 19 6( 0.28(N 139( 59.97(W 11-Sep-92 6 21 5( 0.39(N 140( 3.33(W 11-Sep-92 6 26 5( 0.2(N 140( 3.41(W 12-Sep-92 7 28 3( 58.3(N 140( 0.39(W 12-Sep-92 8 32 2( 59.35(N 140( 7.21(W 12-Sep-92 9 34 1( 9.64(N 140( 0.31(W 13-Sep-92 10 36 1( 0.01(N 139( 59.83(W 13-Sep-92 11 37 0( 29.67(N 140( 0.13(W 13-Sep-92 12 41 0( 0.16(N 140( 0.04(W 14-Sep-92 13 42 0( 15.04(N 139( 59.37(W 14-Sep-92 14 43 0( 15.0(S 139( 59.76(W 14-Sep-92 15 48 0( 29.73(S 139( 59.92(W 15-Sep-92 16 50 0( 59.41(S 139( 59.92(W 15-Sep-92 17 54 2( 0.56(S 140( 0.92(W 16-Sep-92 18 56 2( 59.88(S 140( 0.1(W 16-Sep-92 19 58 3( 59.62(S 140( 0.15(W 16-Sep-92 20 63 4( 58.36(S 140( 1.43(W 17-Sep-92 21 66 6( 0.13(S 140( 0.07(W 17-Sep-92 22 70 7( 0.04(S 140( 0.16(W 17-Sep-92 23 77 10( 0.09(S 135( 0.43(W 19-Sep-92 24 81 10( 0.05(S 125( 0.03(W 20-Sep-92 25 89 7( 57.6(S 125( 1.69(W 22-Sep-92 26 91 5( 59.81(S 125( 0.13(W 22-Sep-92 27 94 4( 59.99(S 125( 0.09(W 23-Sep-92 28 101 4( 0.11(S 125( 0.0(W 23-Sep-92 29 106 3( 0.0(S 125( 0.12(W 24-Sep-92 30 108 1( 59.98(S 125( 0.03(W 24-Sep-92 31 115 0( 59.9(S 124( 59.33(W 25-Sep-92 32 118 0( 29.88(S 124( 59.66(W 25-Sep-92 33 119 0( 14.93(S 124( 59.53(W 26-Sep-92 34 122 0( 1.35(N 124( 52.66(W 26-Sep-92 35 126 0( 15.33(N 124( 59.34(W 27-Sep-92 36 127 0( 30.79(N 124( 59.98(W 27-Sep-92 37 129 1( 1.47(N 124( 59.48(W 27-Sep-92 38 134 1( 59.95(N 125( 0.13(W 28-Sep-92 39 144 2( 59.86(N 125( 0.26(W 28-Sep-92 40 146 4( 0.09(N 125( 0.06(W 29-Sep-92 41 153 5( 3.12(N 125( 0.9(W 30-Sep-92 42 156 6( 0.07(N 124( 59.9(W 30-Sep-92 43 157 6( 59.85(N 124( 59.46(W 30-Sep-92 44 159 8( 3.45(N 124( 59.77(W 1-Oct-92 45 163 8( 59.82(N 124( 59.91(W 1-Oct-92 46 169 9( 59.28(N 124( 59.36(W 2-Oct-92 47 174 11( 59.37(N 125( 0.44(W 2-Oct-92 48 175 13( 42.92(N 120( 0.09(W 3-Oct-92 Table 1. (continued)  Station Cast Latitude Longitude Date  Leg 4: 50 182 10( 1.08(N 109( 56.85(W 17-Oct-92 51 187 8( 0.03(N 110( 0.09(W 31-Oct-92 52 195 5( 59.78(N 109( 59.8(W 1-Nov-92 53 201 4( 58.14(N 109( 54.98(W 1-Nov-92 54 208 3( 59.02(N 109( 59.79(W 2-Nov-92 55 209 2( 59.85(N 110( 0.56(W 2-Nov-92 56 211 2( 6.75(N 110( 6.8(W 2-Nov-92 57 218 0( 59.69(N 110( 0.71(W 3-Nov-92 58 223 0( 31.14(N 110( 0.15(W 3-Nov-92 59 224 0( 15.26(N 109( 59.98(W 4-Nov-92 60 229 0( 11.64(N 110( 5.3(W 4-Nov-92 61 234 0( 0.79(N 110( 0.38(W 4-Nov-92 62 235 0( 15.19(S 110( 0.12(W 5-Nov-92 63 236 0( 30.9(S 110( 0.36(W 5-Nov-92 64 237 1( 0.0(S 109( 59.97(W 6-Nov-92 65 244 2( 5.6(S 109( 54.1(W 6-Nov-92 66 247 2( 59.51(S 110( 1.11(W 7-Nov-92 67 253 3( 59.97(S 109( 58.35(W 8-Nov-92 67 254 4( 0.04(S 109( 58.54(W 8-Nov-92 68 255 4( 59.86(S 110( 2.13(W 8-Nov-92 68 258 4( 59.95(S 110( 1.72(W 8-Nov-92 69 264 6( 0.01(S 110( 0.01(W 8-Nov-92 69 266 5( 59.9(S 110( 0.04(W 9-Nov-92 70 267 8( 0.05(S 109( 59.96(W 9-Nov-92 70 270 7( 59.68(S 110( 0.16(W 9-Nov-92 71 276 10( 0.03(S 110( 0.11(W 10-Nov-92 71 278 9( 59.91(S 109( 59.94(W 10-Nov-92 72 287 2( 0.0(S 95( 0.0(W 13-Nov-92 73 291 0( 0.86(S 95( 3.34(W 14-Nov-92 74 296 1( 57.28(N 94( 9.05(W 15-Nov-92 Leg 5: 75 302 5( 0.0(S 81( 20.02(W 20-Nov-92 76 303 4( 59.95(S 81( 30.04(W 20-Nov-92 76 306 5( 0.1(S 81( 29.88(W 21-Nov-92 77 307 5( 0.03(S 81( 40.08(W 21-Nov-92 77 308 5( 0.06(S 81( 40.0(W 21-Nov-92 78 309 5( 0.01(S 81( 50.01W 21-Nov-92 78 311 5( 0.07(S 81( 50.09(W 21-Nov-92 79 312 5( 0.02(S 81( 59.99(W 21-Nov-92 79 313 4( 59.98(S 82( 0.05(W 21-Nov-92 80 314 5( 0.02(S 82( 30.12(W 21-Nov-92 80 318 4( 59.95(S 82( 29.88(W 21-Nov-92 81 319 12( 51.0(S 78( 36.92(W 23-Nov-92 81 321 12( 51.0(S 78( 37.02(W 23-Nov-92 82 322 12( 45.24(S 78( 21.29(W 23-Nov-92 82 323 12( 44.93(S 78( 21.03(W 23-Nov-92 83 324 12( 39.02(S 78( 5.9(W 23-Nov-92 83 327 12( 38.94(S 78( 5.83(W 23-Nov-92 84 328 12( 32.0(S 77( 48.99(W 23-Nov-92 Table 1. (continued)  Station Cast Latitude Longitude Date  Leg 5 (cont.): 84 332 12( 32.14(S 77( 49.0(W 23-Nov-92 85 333 12( 26.81(S 77( 35.51(W 23-Nov-92 85 337 12( 26.84(S 77( 35.6(W 23-Nov-92 86 338 12( 19.98(S 77( 19.86(W 24-Nov-92 87 340 13( 2.58(S 81( 20.74(W 24-Nov-92 87 344 13( 2.54(S 81( 20.81(W 24-Nov-92 88 345 13( 0.14(S 84( 4.6(W 25-Nov-92 88 347 13( 13.98(S 84( 4.48(W 25-Nov-92 89 348 13( 25.6(S 86( 48.3(W 25-Nov-92 89 352 13( 25.47(S 86( 8.5(W 25-Nov-92 90 353 13( 32.34(S 88( 29.81(W 26-Nov-92 91 354 13( 36.92(S 89( 32.24(W 26-Nov-92 91 356 13( 36.96(S 89( 2.18(W 26-Nov-92 92 357 13( 48.61(S 92( 15.71(W 26-Nov-92 92 361 13( 48.65(S 92( 15.98(W 26-Nov-92 93 362 14( 0.05(S 94( 59.9(W 27-Nov-92 93 364 14( 0.01(S 94( 59.98(W 27-Nov-92 95 366 11( 55.08(S 94( 59.97(W 27-Nov-92 95 369 11( 55.09(S 95( 0.0(W 28-Nov-92 96 370 10( 0.24(S 94( 59.89(W 28-Nov-92 96 372 9( 59.99(S 95( 0.0(W 28-Nov-92 97 373 8( 0.05(S 95( 0.09(W 28-Nov-92 97 377 8( 0.1(S 95( 59.75(W 28-Nov-92 98 378 6( 0.1(S 95( 0.37(W 29-Nov-92 98 380 5( 59.98(S 94( 59.96(W 29-Nov-92 99 381 5( 0.0(S 95( 0.1(W 29-Nov-92 99 383 5( 0.03(S 95( 0.06(W 29-Nov-92 100 388 4( 0.2(S 95( 0.14(W 29-Nov-92 100 390 4( 0.09(S 95( 0.14(W 30-Nov-92 101 391 4( 0.09(S 95( 0.14(W 30-Nov-92 101 393 3( 0.18(S 94( 59.97(W 30-Nov-92 102 395 1( 59.95(S 95( 0.13(W 30-Nov-92 102 399 1( 59.92(S 95( 0.17(W 30-Nov-92 103 401 1( 0.16(S 94( 59.92(W 30-Nov-92 103 403 1( 0.21(S 94( 59.57(W 30-Nov-92 104 405 0( 0.01(N 95( 0.18(W 1-Dec-92 105 410 1( 0.08(N 95( 0.2(W 1-Dec-92 105 414 0( 59.95(N 95( 0.39(W 1-Dec-92 106 416 1( 59.94(N 95( 0.31(W 1-Dec-92 106 418 2( 0.0(N 94( 0.2(W 2-Dec-92 107 423 3( 0.04(N 95( 0.06(W 2-Dec-92 Table 2. Coefficients of least squares fit of CTD and bottle salinities during Legs 3, 4, and 5 of the boreal autumn EqPac 1992 cruise.  Station Bias Slope Std. Dev. # of Pts.  1( 22 (0.1592176E(01 0.1000271E+01 0.0056 396 23( 48 0.1783609E(01 0.9993343E+00 0.0067 472 49( 67 (0.1083432E+00 0.1003059E+01 0.0042 351 67 (0.2837561E+00 0.1007903E+01 0.0049 21 68( 74 0.9982839E(01 0.9972650E+00 0.0029 71 75(107 0.3461486E(01 0.9990724E+00 0.0023 634  and applied to CTD salinities (Table 2). No additional calibrations were applied to pressure or temperature. Samples were collected from 10-L PVC Niskin( bottles in the following order: dissolved oxygen (DO), discrete fugacity of CO2 (fCO2), dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), pH, total alkalinity (TAlk), C-13/C-12 isotope ratios, nutrients, total organic carbon (TOC), particulate organic carbon (POC), particulate organic nitrogen (PON), and salinities. In addition, underway surface fCO2 samples were collected on a continuous basis throughout the cruise. This report does not address C-13/C-12, POC, PON or underway fCO2 measurements. 2.2 Dissolved Oxygen (DO) DO samples were the first to be collected from 10-L Niskin( bottles once the CTD unit was retrieved on deck. Samples were collected in volume-calibrated 150-mL, clear, ground-glass stoppered sample bottles using Tygon( tubing; the drawing tube was outfitted with a latex attachment to prevent the Tygon( tubing from coming into contact with the stopcock nipple and causing TOC contamination. The sample bottles were rinsed twice and filled from the bottom to minimize bubble entrainment, and overflowed approximately half a volume. 1-mL manganous chloride (600 g MnCl2-4H2O in 1 L H2O) and 1-mL alkaline sodium iodide (320 g NaOH and 600 g NaI in 1 L H2O) were added to the sample bottles. The top depressions of the bottles were filled with fresh water to prevent intrusion of air, and samples were kept in darkness until analysis. DO samples were titrated following the technique of Carpenter (1965) and Friederich et al. (1984). A computer-controlled automatic pipette was used for titration with photometric endpoint determination. Values are marked as questionable in the data tables when there were high or low photometric endpoints in the titration process due to improper light levels, or there was possible contamination during processing (air bubbles seen in bottle, etc.). The data are reported in the data tables (Appendix A) in mol/L, but are available in the data base in both mol/L, and mol/kg. The density conversion was made using in-situ temperatures and measured salinity. 2.2.1 DO data quality control assessment The most useful quality control checks with other data sets would compare deep water values. However, the maximum depth of the casts was (1000 db, and variability in DO values cannot be excluded at 1000 db. The quality of the data was evaluated by examining profiles, contour maps, replicates, property/property plots, and comparisons with other data sets. For nearly every cast on these cruises, a second Niskin( was tripped at the maximal depth. This gave a large set of duplicate samples which was used to assess the combined precision of the analytical technique, the Niskin( subsampling technique, and ocean subsampling by the Niskin( (Appendix B). Precision is here defined as the average of the relative error between the samples and it is expressed in percent. The relative error is expressed as the absolute difference divided by the mean for two samples or standard deviation divided by the mean for more than two samples. For Leg 3 the double-trip duplicates were all sampled from 1000 db (41 pairs). The mean difference of duplicate results was 0.40% with 1.22% standard deviation if one pair (Station 45 at 9(N, 125(W) was excluded. These statistics are consistent with the statistics for a set of Niskin( subsampling duplicates taken from 13 different Niskin( bottles on one cast on Leg 3 (Station 12 at 0(, 140(W) which gave a standard deviation from the mean of 1.14%. On Leg 4, 20 duplicates plus one triplicate were sampled from Niskins( tripped at 1000 db. The mean difference was 0.29% with 1.08% standard deviation. For Leg 5, 29 pairs of duplicates were sampled from Niskins( tripped at 800 db. The mean difference was 1.65% with 3.92% standard deviation. The overall mean difference for all three legs was 0.78% difference between duplicates with 2.42% standard deviation if one pair (Station 45 at 9(N, 125(W) was excluded. 2.3 Discrete fugacity of CO2 (fCO2) Samples were drawn from 10-L Niskin( bottles into 500-mL Pyrex( volumetric flasks using Tygon( tubing outfitted with a latex attachment to prevent the Tygon( tubing from coming into contact with the stopcock nipple. Bottles were rinsed once, and while taking care not to entrain air bubbles, were filled from the bottom until half the bottles( volume overflowed. Five mL of water was then withdrawn with a pipette to create a small expansion volume. A saturated HgCl2 solution (0.2 mL) was added to the samples as a preservative. The sample bottles were then sealed with a screw cap containing a polyethylene liner and stored in darkness at room temperature for a maximum of 24 hours prior to analysis. The AOML discrete fCO2 system is patterned after the design described in Chipman et al. (1993) and is discussed in detail in Wanninkhof and Thoning (1993). The major difference between the two systems is that the AOML system uses a Licor( (model 6262) non-dispersive infrared analyzer, while the Chipman et al. system utilizes a gas chromatograph with a flame ionization detector and a methanizer, which quantitatively converts CO2 into CH4 for analysis. The samples were brought to a temperature of 20.00(0.02(C, using a pre-bath at 19(21(C and a Neslab( (model RT-220) controlled temperature bath. In the analyses, two samples are analyzed concurrently; a 60-mL headspace is created in the flasks by replacing the water using a compressed standard gas with a CO2 mixing ratio close to the anticipated fCO2 of the water. The headspace is circulated in a closed loop through the infrared analyzer (IR), which measures CO2 and water vapor levels in the sample cell. The headspaces of the two flasks are equilibrated simultaneously in channels A and B. While headspace from the flask in channel A goes through the IR analyzer, the headspace of the flask in channel B is recirculated in a closed loop. The sample in the A channel is equilibrated for 17 minutes while the air from the headspace of the flask flows through the IR analyzer. The sample in the B channel is circulated in a closed loop for 10 minutes and through the IR for 8 minutes. An expandable volume, consisting of a balloon, keeps the contents of the flasks at room pressure. In order to maintain measurement accuracy and precision, a set of six gas standards was run through the system after every four to ten seawater samples. The standards have mixing ratios of 201.4, 352.2, 511.7, 1012.2, 1552.8, and 2019.8 ppm, which bracket the fCO2 at 20(C (fCO2, 20) values observed in the water column of the equatorial Pacific. The commercial CO2 standards (supplied by Scott( and Air Products() in (artificial air( were calibrated against WMO (World Meteorological Organization) standards in real air supplied by Dr. Charles Keeling of Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO) with mixing ratios of 204.0, 350.4, 795.0, and 1504 ppm. The determination of fCO2 in water from the discrete analyses involves several steps. The mixing ratio and detector response for the standards were normalized for temperature and pressure. The IR voltage output for samples were normalized with regard to pressure and were corrected for the presence of water vapor and converted to a mixing ratio. The mixing ratio in the headspace was converted to fugacity and corrected to fugacity of CO2 in the water sample prior to equilibration by accounting for change in DIC in water during the equilibration process (for details see Wanninkhof and Thoning, 1993). The change in the fCO2 of water, (fCO2w), caused by the change in DIC, was calculated using the constraint that TAlk remains constant during exchange of CO2 gas between the headspace and the water. The calculation is outlined in the appendix of Peng et al. (1987). Precision of the fCO2 analyses shown in Table 3 were determined in four different ways: from re-analyses of the same water sample; from agreement between surface mixed layer values (where mixed layer is defined as the depth of the surface layer with temperatures within 0.5oC); from duplicates of samples taken from the same Niskin( bottle; and duplicates taken from the same depth but from different Niskin( bottles. The precision is defined as the average of the relative Table 3. Precision of discrete fCO2 samples taken during Legs 3, 4 and 5 of the boreal autumn EqPac 1992.  Leg 3 Leg 4 Leg 5 precision # of precision # of precision # of % replicates % replicates % replicates  Re-analysis 0.42 35 0.12 31 0.17 50 Same depth 1.10 36 0.38 23 0.36 34 Mixed layer 3.21 39 0.77 21 1.45 26 Same Niskin( 0.99 2 N/A N/A  error between the samples and is expressed in percent. The percent relative error is expressed as the absolute difference divided by the mean for two samples, or standard deviation divided by the mean for more than two samples. 2.4 Dissolved Inorganic Carbon (DIC) Samples were drawn from 10-L Niskin( bottles into 500-mL Pyrex( bottles using Tygon( tubing outfitted with a latex attachment to prevent the Tygon( tubing from coming into contact with the stopcock nipple. Bottles were rinsed once and filled from the bottom, overflowing half a volume while taking care not to entrain any bubbles. The tube was pinched off and withdrawn, creating a 5-mL headspace volume. 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 in the dark for a maximum of 24 hours prior to analysis by coulometeric determination. DIC was analyzed by coulometry, and two analytical set-ups were used simultaneously on the cruise, each consisting of a coulometer (UIC, Inc.) coupled with a SOMMA (Single Operator Multiparameter Metabolic Analyzer) inlet system developed by Ken Johnson (Johnson, 1992; Johnson et al., 1993) of Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL). AOML-1 was supplied by the group from NOAA/AOML, and PMEL-1 was provided by the group from NOAA/PMEL. In the coulometric analysis of DIC, all carbonate species (CO32( and HCO3() are converted to CO2 (gas) by addition of excess H+ to seawater, and includes the following steps: the 500-mL sample bottle is inserted in a water bath at 20(C and allowed to come to thermal equilibrium; water from the bottle is displaced by presurization into a calibrated, thermostatted pipette using a headspace gas (511 ppm CO2 in N2) . Using Ultra-Pure N2 as the carrier gas, the sample is injected into the reaction vessel in the SOMMA which contains 1-mL 10% H3PO4 solution previously stripped of CO2, and the evolved CO2 gas from the sample is carried through a condenser and a Mg(ClO4)2 column to dry the gas stream, and then through an ORBO-53( tube to remove volatile acids other than CO2 . In the titration cell of the coulometer, CO2 reacts quantitatively with ethanolamine to form hydroxyethyl carbamic acid which is titrated with OH( ions electrogenerated by the reduction of H2O at a platinum cathode. The equivalence point is detected photometrically with thymolphthalein as indicator. The cell solution is blue at the equivalence point of 10.5 pH and colorless at pH 9.3 after the addition of CO2 in aqueous solutions (Johnson et al., 1985). CO2 drives down the pH and raises % transmittance. As the acid is titrated, pH increases (hence, the blue color returns) and % transmittance decreases, thus causing the titration current to decrease as the equivalence point is approached and sensed by the optical detector. Therefore, the CO2 is measured by the quantity of electrons required to reach the equivalence point, calculated by the magnitude of the current and the time of passage. The coulometers were each calibrated by injecting aliquots of pure CO2 (99.995%) by means of an 8-port valve outfitted with two sample loops. The loop volumes were calibrated at BNL (Wilke, 1993) prior to, and following, the cruise, and no significant difference was found between the pre- and post-cruise calibrations. All DIC values were corrected for dilution by 0.2 mL of HgCl2 solution assuming the solution was saturated with atmospheric CO2 levels and total water volume was 540 mL. The correction factor used was 1.00037. No correction was made for headspace gas exchange with the sample due to the probable variability of fCO2 at the location of sampling, and the small magnitude (<1.0 mol/kg) of the correction. The overall accuracy and precision for both the AOML and PMEL instruments combined was determined to be within (1.8 mol/kg. The instruments were calibrated at the beginning, middle and end of each coulometer cell solution with a set of the gas loop injections. Calculation of the amount of CO2 injected was according to the DOE Handbook of Methods for the Analysis of the Various Parameters of the Carbon Dioxide System in Sea Water, Ver. 2 (1994). The set of gas loops yielded a mean calibration factor (CF) for the instrument defined as: The concentration of DIC in the samples was determined according to: where (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 solution, (Run Time( is the length of coulometric titration (in minutes), (2.0728(10(4( is the conversion factor from counts to mol. The pipette volume was determined by taking aliquots at known temperature of distilled water dispensed from the pipette before, during, and after the cruise and weighing them ashore. No significant volume change was observed for either instrument. The weights with the appropriate densities were used to determine the volume of the pipette. Calculation of pipette volumes, density, and final CO2 concentration were performed according to procedures outlined in the DOE Handbook (1994). A Certified Reference Material (CRM) consisting of seawater poisoned with HgCl2 (Batch 12) prepared by Dr. Andrew Dickson (SIO) was analyzed on both instruments over the duration of the cruise (Table 4). The absolute value was determined by the manometric technique of Dr. Charles Keeling, also of SIO. All DIC data have been corrected to the CRM values on a per instrument/per leg basis; the corrections applied are given in Table 5. The precision of the DIC measurements was determined in three different ways: analyses of six Niksin( bottles all tripped at ~1000db at Station 1 (test cast) yielded at standard deviation of (1.7 mol/kg; CRM(s (Table 4) analyzed during the cruise show that the standard deviation at the 1 level were within (1.9mol/kg (n=138); duplicate pairs tripped at the maximal depth throughout the cruise show a mean difference of 0.1(2.1mol/kg (n=93). Table 4. Certified reference material (Batch 12) analyzed during the boreal autumn EqPac 1992.  PMEL-1 AOML-1 mol/kg mol/kg  Leg 3: 1984.1(1.8, n=37 1985.6(0.8, n=21 Leg 4: 1986.0(1.9, n=20 1985.1(1.2, n=22 Leg 5: 1983.9(0.9, n=19 1986.3(0.3, n=19  Manometrically derived DIC=1984.26(0.73 mol/kg (n=7). Standard deviations are given at the 1 level. Table 5. Corrections applied to DIC data during the boreal autumn EqPac 1992 cruise.  PMEL-1 AOML-1 mol/kg mol/kg  Leg 3: +0.2 (1.3 Leg 4: (1.7 (0.9 Leg 5: +0.4 (2.0  2.5 pH Sample cells (10-cm pathlength spectrophotometric cells, 30-cm3 volume) were filled directly from the Niskin(bottle using a 20-cm length of Tygon( tubing outfitted with a latex attachment to prevent the Tygon( from coming into contact with the stopcock nipple; a flushing volume of approximately 300 mL was used. Care was taken to eliminate bubbles from the sampling system, and the sample cell was sealed with PTFE caps while ensuring that there was no head space. All spectrophotometric pH measurements were made using the indicator m-Cresol Purple. Spectrophotometric cells were warmed to 25(C in a twelve-chambered thermostated aluminum block and subsequently cleaned and placed in the thermostated sample compartment of the spectrophotometer. Absorbance measurements were made at three wavelengths: a non-absorbing wavelength (730 nm) and wavelengths corresponding to the absorbance maxima of the alkaline (I2(,578 nm) and acidic (HI(, 434 nm) forms of the indicator. Subsequently, one of the cell caps was removed and 0.08 cm3 of concentrated indicator (2 mol/cm3) was injected into the cell. The cell was capped, rapidly mixed and returned to the thermostated cell. Absorbance measurements were again made at 730 nm, 578 nm and 434 nm. Sample pH was then calculated using the equations and procedures of Clayton and Byrne (1993). The (total( pH scale is used, and pHT is reported in mol/kg of seawater. 2.6 Total Alkalinity (TAlk) Samples were drawn from 10-L Niskin( bottles into 500-mL Pyrex( bottles using Tygon( tubing outfitted with a latex attachment to prevent the Tygon( tubing from coming into contact with the stopcock nipple. Bottles were rinsed once and filled from the bottom, overflowing half a volume while taking care not to entrain any bubbles. The tube was pinched off and withdrawn, creating a 5-mL headspace volume. The sample bottles were sealed with glass stoppers, and were stored at room temperature in the dark for a maximum of 6 hours prior to analysis by potentiometric determination. The TAlk titration system was similar to the one used in previous studies (Thurmond and Millero, 1982; Bradshaw and Brewer, 1988) and consisted of a Metrohm 665 Dosimat( titrator and an Orion 720A pH meter operated by a personal computer. Both the acid titrant and the seawater sample were maintained at 25(C with a Neslab( temperature bath. The plastic jacketed cells (volume ~200 cm3) were patterned after an earlier design of Bradshaw and Brewer (1988) except a larger volume was used to increase the precision. The cell had zero dead volume valves to increase the reproducibility of the cell volume. A GW-Basic( program was used to control the titrant addition and read the emf of the electrodes. The titration was made by adding HCl to seawater past the carbonic acid end point. A typical titration records the emf reading after it becomes stable (0.09 mV) and adds enough acid to change the voltage by a pre-assigned increment (13 mV). The electrodes used to measure emf consisted of a ROSS( glass pH electrode and an Orion( double junction Ag/AgCl reference electrode. The HCl acid solutions (20 L) were made, standardized, and stored in 500-mL glass bottles prior to the cruise. The 0.25M HCl solutions were made with 1M Mallinckrodt( standard solutions in 0.45M NaCl to yield an ionic strength equivalent to that of average seawater (0.7M). The acid was standardized by titrating weighed amounts of Na2CO3 and TRIS dissolved in 0.7M NaCl solutions. The blanks in the 0.7M NaCl solutions were determined by coulometry and by titrations of the NaCl solutions with and without added Na2CO3 and TRIS. The blanks of the titrations of TRIS were determined by extrapolation to zero added salt (Goyet and Hacker, 1992). The alkalinity blanks in the NaCl were approximately 14(1 mol. Cell volumes were determined in the laboratory by weighing the cells filled with degassed Millipore water. The density of water at the temperature of the measurements (25(C) was calculated from the international equation of state of seawater (Millero and Poisson, 1981). The nominal volumes of all the cells were about 200 cm3 and the values were determined to 0.03 cm3. The NaCl, Na2CO3 and NaHCO3 salts used to make up the solutions were Baker Analyzed( reagent grade. Details on preparation and calibration of the seawater buffers are given in Dickson (1993) and Millero (1993). Approximately 20 L of standard carbonate solutions in 0.7M NaCl were prepared for the calibrations of the acids. The solutions were equilibrated with air to provide an alkalinity and nearly constant DIC standard. The DIC in the blanks and carbonate solutions was measured daily using a coulometer (see Section 2.4). The coulometer was calibrated using CO2 gas loops and monitored with Batch #12 CRM. The volume of HCl delivered to the cell is traditionally assumed to have small uncertainties (Dickson, 1981) due to the digital output of the titrator. Calibrations with water at 25(C of the Dosimats( burettes indicate that the systems deliver 3 cm3, a typical value for a titration of seawater, to a precision of 0.0004 cm3. This uncertainty results in an error of 0.4 mol kg(1 in TAlk. The accuracy of the volume of acid delivered by the Dosimats, however, was ten times poorer (0.004 cm3) than the precision. Since the titration systems were calibrated using standard solutions, this error in accuracy of volume delivery will be partially cancelled and included in the value assigned to the concentration of HCl and the volume of the cell. 2.7 Nutrients Nutrient samples were collected from 10-L Niskin( bottles in aged 60-mL linear polyethylene bottles after three complete seawater rinses, and stored in the dark at 4(C until analysis was completed (within 24 hours of sample collection). Concentrations of dissolved nitrite (NO2(), dissolved nitrate (NO3(), dissolved phosphate (HPO42() and silicate (H4SiO4) were determined using an Alpkem( Rapid Flow Analyzer( (RFA/2() Auto-Analyzer aboard ship. The water used for the preparation of standards, determination of blank and wash between samples was filtered Gulf Stream seawater obtained from the surface of the Strait of Florida. Analytical temperature was assumed to be 25(1(C. The data are reported in the data tables (Appendix A) as mol/L, but are available in the data base in both mol/L and mol/kg. The density conversion was made using the aforementioned analytical temperature and measured salinity. 2.7.1 Nitrite and nitrate The automated colorimetric procedures and methodologies used in the analysis of nitrite and nitrate are similar to those described by Armstrong et al. (1967), with modifications described in Atlas et al. (1971). Standardizations were performed prior to each sample run with working solutions prepared aboard ship from pre-weighed Baker Analyzed( reagent grade standards. Nitrite (NO2() was determined by diazotization with sulfanilamide and coupling with N(1naphthyl)ethylenediaminedihydrochloride to form an azo dye. The color produced is proportional to the nitrite concentration. Samples for nitrate (NO3() analysis were passed through copperized cadmium in the form of an Open Tubular Cadmium Reactor (OTCR) coil, which reduced nitrate to nitrite; the resulting nitrite concentration was then determined as described above. The detection limits for nitrite and nitrate were 0.1 mol/L and 0.4 mol/L, respectively. The standard deviation of the analyses of samples from two Niskin( bottles at 1000 db were used to estimate the overall precision obtained by the sampling and analytical procedures. The percent relative error of nitrate analysis for these samples was 0.38%(0.37% (n = 80). 2.7.2 Phosphate The analytical procedures and methodologies used in the analysis of phosphate are similar to those described by Armstrong et al. (1967), with modifications described in Grasshoff et al. (1983). In this method, orthophosphate in the samples was determined by reacting with molybdenum (VI) and antimony (III) in an acidic medium to form an antimonyphospho-molybdate complex. This complex was subsequently reduced with ascorbic acid to form a blue complex and the absorbance was measured at 880 nm by a filter photometer in RFA/2( system. The method detection limit was 0.08 mol/L. The percent relative error of phosphate analysis for samples from two Niskin( bottles at 1000db was 0.92%(0.77% (n=76). 2.7.3 Silicate The analytical procedures and methodologies used in the analysis of silicate are essentially similar to those described by Armstrong et al. (1967), with modifications described in Atlas et al. (1971). In this modified method, -molybdosilicic acid was formed by reaction of the silicate contained in the sample with molybdate in an acidic solution. The (molybdosilicic acid was then reduced by stannous chloride to form molybdenum blue. The absorbance of the molybdenum blue, measured at 660 nm, was linearly proportional to the concentration of silicate in the sample, with a detection limit of 0.4 mol/L. The percent relative error of silicate analysis for samples from two Niskin( bottles at 1000 db was 1.41%(1.24% (n=72). 2.8 Total Organic Carbon (TOC) All samples for total organic carbon (TOC) analysis were collected using the 10L-Niskin( bottles on a 12- or 24-bottle CTD-rosette. The Niskin( bottles used red silicone rubber o-rings and nylon coated stainless steel springs; stopcocks were polyethylene. A strict sample drawing order was followed. Samples for DO, fCO2, DIC, and pH were drawn first using sample drawing tubes with silicone rubber or surgical rubber connectors. At no time was Tygon( tubing used in direct contact with the stopcock nipple prior to drawing the TOC samples, nor was the vial allowed to come into contact with the stopcock nipple. 30-mL samples were drawn into 40-mL Pyrex( glass vials. The vials were rinsed prior to filling three times with sample and at no time was the vial allowed to come into contact with the Niskin( stopcock nipple. Samples were tightly capped with teflon lined screw-caps and kept under cover to prevent excessive warming while on deck. Immediately following collection, the samples were returned to the shipboard lab and acidified with 160L of 50% (w/w) H3PO4. Samples were NOT filtered. The samples were stored at 4(C until ready to be shipped home. At that time they were wrapped as flats of 100 vials in bubble wrap, transferred to a cooler filled with frozen (blue( ice, then hand-carried to the airport and shipped home as excess baggage. All samples were in the lab refrigerator within 48 hours of shipping. Samples were analyzed by the high-temperature combustion/discrete injection (HTC/DI) technique (Peltzer and Brewer, 1993) using a custom built analyzer. Immediately prior to analysis the samples were sparged with CO2-free oxygen at 500 mL/min for 6(7 minutes. Each sample was injected in triplicate into a third-generation HTC/DI analyzer consisting of a two-stage combustion system. The combustion tube contained 5% Pt on alumina catalyst (Dimatec, Essen, Germany) at 800(C in the upper catalyst zone, and copper oxide and Sulfix( (Wako Chemical Corp., Richmond, VA) at 600(C in the lower zone. Oxygen was used as a carrier gas. The gas stream passes through a AgNO3/H3PO4 bubbler, a U-tube cold trap at 1(2(C, a Mg(ClO4)2 drying tube and two particle filters (0.1 m and 0.01 m, Balston Inc., Lexington, MA) before entering a LiCor Model 6252 NDIR CO2 analyzer. The output from the CO2 detector is continuously monitored and recorded using TurboChrom( 3 software operating on a 386-PC in a Windows environment. All peaks were visually checked for proper baseline integration and appropriate peak shape. Those not passing were either manually re-integrated or rejected. If only one peak of the three was acceptable, the sample run was rejected and a new run with three more injections from the same sample was made. Stringent quality control/quality assurance protocols were followed. Peak areas were converted to organic carbon concentrations by first correcting for the instrument blank, measured with carbon-free distilled water (CFDW), then dividing the result by the instrument response factor determined with organic compound standards (glucose, KHP or glucoseamine) in seawater. The instrument response factor was measured twice daily (at the beginning and end of the day(s runs using high and low TOC standards) and the instrument blank was repeatedly measured throughout the day, typically after every four to six samples. While the instrument blank exhibited a generally decreasing value throughout the lifetime of each furnace tube, the instrument response factor varied less than (5% of the mean value over the course of the analysis period and several furnace tube lifetimes. The CFDW used to measure the instrument blank was obtained from a Milli-Q( water purification system (Millipore, Bedford, MA). This water was consistently found to have the lowest total blank of all the CFDWs tested in multiple direct, head-to-head comparisons. Consequently, it was assigned a residual TOC concentration of 0.0mol C and no back correction of the measured TOC values was required. It should be noted that even though this lot of CFDW gave the lowest total blanks, this fact does not guarantee that it did not contain some residual carbon. If at some future date it can be shown that this CFDW did contain some amount of TOC, then the values reported here would need to be revised upwards by this amount. However, such a correction could not exceed the measured total blanks, which were on the order of 6(8mol C/L. TOC values are reported as molC/kilogram seawater (mol/kg). The measured concentration (mol/L) is converted to mol/kg by dividing by the density of the sample at the time of the analysis. Sample density is calculated from the measured salinity and lab temperature using the international equation of state of seawater (Millero and Poisson, 1981). The bottle salinity was used whenever available, otherwise the corresponding CTD salinity measured on the downcast was used. For sample temperature, the measured lab temperature at the time of analysis was used. 2.9 Salinity Salinity samples were collected in 125-mL amber glass bottles directly from the rosette, taking care not to touch the petcock. Bottles were rinsed twice and overflowed one half volume; new caps were used for each sample. Bottle salinities were measured using a Guildline( 8400 Autosal and #114 standard seawater in a temperature-controlled van. Conductivity ratios were converted to salinities conforming to the PSS78 standard. If there was no bottle salinity available for a given sample position, the CTD value was used in calculations requiring a salinity measurement. 3.0 DATA TABLES A complete listing of the CTD data is available through NOAA (McTaggart et al., 1994). Discrete data are reported at all observed depths (Appendix A). Where no data is available, a null value is inserted. A quality control column is located next to most of the observed parameters; quality control flags follow the WHP Data Reporting Requirements (WOCE Operations Manual, 1991), and are listed in Table 6. In addition, Table 7 displays unique quality control flags for fCO2. Sigma-theta () and potential temperature () values listed in the tables were calculated using standard UNESCO algorithms (Fofonoff and Millard, 1983). Input parameters include salinities and in-situ temperatures from the CTD. Header information at the top of each page includes an operation number consisting of year, Julian date, and GMT at time-at-depth. The Sample ID listed in the data tables consists of the cast number followed by the 2 digit Niskin( rosette position. Due to the loss Table 6. WOCE data quality flag definitions. ADVANCE \u5 2 Acceptable measurement 3 Questionable measurement 4 Bad measurement 9 Sample not drawn for measurement ADVANCE \u5 ADVANCE \u5 Table 7. Unique quality control flag definitions for fCO2. ADVANCE \u5 Fugacity of CO2 A No DIC available for calculation B No sigma theta available for calculation D Estimated DIC used in calculation E Estimated sigma theta used in calculation of the 24-position rosette during Leg 4, and the subsequent requirement to take two 12-position rosette casts per station to maintain our sampling density, those respective stations are contained in two separate data tables indicated by different cast numbers within Appendix A. To obtain the data base by remote access, please see page iii of this report. 4.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The assistance of the officers and crew of the NOAA Ship Discoverer is gratefully acknowledged. The authors also wish to thank Ryan Whitney for manuscript preparation, and the critical review of John Bullister and Jim Johnson of PMEL. Jim Gendron, also of PMEL, is acknowledged for formatting the data tables in Appendix A. This research was supported by the Climate and Global Change Program of NOAA as part of the joint NSF/NOAA sponsored U.S. JGOFS Equatorial Pacific Process Study. We thank Drs. James F. Todd of the NOAA Office of Global Programs and Neil Anderson of the National Science Foundation for their efforts in the coordination of this joint study. 5.0 REFERENCES Armstrong, F.A.J., C.R. Stearns, and J.D.H. Strickland (1967): The measurement of upwelling and subsequent biological processes by means of the Technicon Auto-Analyzer and associated equipment. Deep-Sea Res., 14, 381(389. Atlas, E.L., J.C. Callaway, R.D. Tomlinson, L.I. Gordon, L. Barstow, and P.K. Park (1971): A practical manual for use of the Technicon Autoanalyzer for nutrient analysis, revised. Oregon State University, Technical Report 215, Reference No. 71(22. Bradshaw, A.L., and P.G. Brewer (1988): High precision measurements of alkalinity and total carbon dioxide in seawater by potentiometric titration. Presence of unknown protolyte(s)? Mar. Chem., 23, 69(86. Carpenter, J.H. (1965): The Chesapeake Bay Institute technique for the Winkler Dissolved Oxygen method. Limnol. Oceanogr., 10, 141(143. Chipman, D.W., J. Marra, and T. Takahashi (1993): Primary production at 47(N and 20(W in the North Atlantic Ocean: A comparison between the 14(C incubation method and mixed layer carbon budget observations. Deep-Sea Res. II, 40, 151(169. Clayton T.D., and R.H. Byrne (1993): Spectrophotometric seawater pH measurements: total hydrogen ion concentration scale calibration of m-cresol purple and at-sea results. Deep-Sea Res., 40, 2115(2129. Dickson, A.G. (1981): An exact definition of total alkalinity and a procedure for the estimate of alkalinity and total CO2 from titration data. Deep-Sea Res., 28, 609(623. Dickson, A.G. (1993): pH buffers for seawater media based on the total hydrogen ion concentration scale. Deep-Sea Res., 40, 107(118. DOE (1994): Handbook of methods for the analysis of the various parameters of the carbon dioxide system in sea water, version 2.0 (A. Dickson and C. Goyet, ed.). Fofonoff, N.P., and R.C. Millard, Jr. (1983): Algorithms for computation of fundamental properties of seawater. UNESCO Technical Paper, 44. Friederich, G.E., P. Sherman, and L.A. Codispoti (1984): A high precision automated Winkler titration system based on an HP-85 computer, a simple colorimeter and an inexpensive electromechanical buret. Bigelow Lab. for Ocean Sciences, Tech. Report 42, 24 pp. Goyet, C., and S.D. Hacker (1992): Procedure for calibration of a coulometric system used for total inorganic carbon measurements in seawater. Mar. Chem., 38, 37(51. Grasshoff, K., M. Ehrhardt, and K. Kremling (1983): Methods of seawater analysis. Weinheim, Verlag Chemie. Johnson, K.M., A.E. King, and J. McN. Sieburth (1985): Coulometric TCO2 Analyses for Marine Studies; An Introduction. Johnson, K.M. (1992): Operator(s manual; Single operator multiparameter metabolic analyzer (SOMMA) for total carbon dioxide (CT) with coulometric detection. 70 pp., Brookhaven N.Y. Johnson, K.M., K.D. Wills, D.B. Butler, W.K. Johnson, and C.S. Wong (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. McTaggart, K., and L. Mangum (1994): CTD/O2 measurements during 1991 and 1992 as part of the Equatorial Pacific Ocean Climate Studies (EPOCS). NOAA Data Report ERL PMEL-50, 740 pp. Millero, F.J. (1979): The thermodynamics of the carbonic acid system in seawater. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 43, 1651(1661. Millero, F.J., and A. Poisson (1981): International one-atmosphere equation of state of seawater. Deep-Sea Res., 28A, 625(629. Millero, F.J. (1986): The pH of estuarine waters. Limnol. Oceangr., 31, 839(847. Millero, F.J., J.-Z. Zhang, S. Fiol, S. Sotolongo, R. Roy, K. Lee, and S. Mayne (1993): The use of buffers to measure the pH of seawater. Mar. Chem., 44, 143(152. Peltzer, E.T., and P.G. Brewer (1993): Some practical aspects of measuring DOC-sampling artifacts and analytical problems with marine samples. Mar. Chem., 41, 243(252. Peng, T.-H., T. Takahashi, W.S. Broecker, and J. Olafsson (1987): Seasonal variability of carbon dioxide, nutrients and oxygen in the northern North Atlantic surface water: observations and a model. Tellus, 39B, 439(458. Thurmond, V.L., and F.J. Millero (1982): The ionization of carbonic acid in sodium chloride solutions at 25(C. J. Solution Chem., 11, 447(11,456. Wanninkhof, R., and K. Thoning (1993): Surface water fCO2 measurements using continuous and discrete sampling methods. Mar. Chem. 44, 189(204. Wilke, R.J., D.W.R. Wallace, and K.M. Johnson (1993): Water-based gravimetric method for the determination of gas loop volume. Anal. Chem. 65, 2403(2406. WOCE (World Ocean Circulation Experiment) (1991): WOCE Operations Manual; Volume 3: The Observational Programme; Section 3.1: WOCE Hydrographic Programme; Part 3.1.2: Requirements for WHP Data Reporting. WHP Office Report WHPO 90-1 (Revision 1), WOCE Report No. 67/91 (T. Joyce, C. Corry, and M. Stalcup, eds.), Woods Hole, MA, 71pp. APPENDIX A TABULATED DISCRETE BOTTLE DATA APPENDIX B DISSOLVED OXYGEN DUPLICATES Appendix B: Dissolved oxygen duplicates of the boreal autumn EqPac 1992 cruise.  Date Latitude Longitude Sta # Pressure O2 % deviation from 1st ((N) ((W) (db) (mol/L)  Samples collected from 13 separate Niskin( bottles on same cast LEG 3: 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 86.2 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 82.8 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 83.9 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 83.1 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 82.9 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 83.3 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 82.7 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 83.0 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 83.2 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 83.5 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 82.7 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 83.0 9/16/92 0 140 12 1000 82.5 83.3 Mean of 13 0.9 Std. Dev. 1.1 % Rel. Error Double-trip Duplicates LEG 3: 9/12/92 9 140 3 1000 34.0 9/12/92 140 3 1000 34.4 (1.18 9/12/92 8 140 4 1000 37.4 9/12/92 140 4 1000 36.5 2.41 9/13/92 6 140 5 1000 50.5 9/13/92 140 5 1000 50.5 0.00 9/13/92 5 140 6 1000 56.9 9/13/92 140 6 1000 56.3 1.05 9/13/92 4 140 7 1000 52.5 9/13/92 140 7 1000 52.3 0.38 9/14/92 3 140 8 1000 69.4 9/14/92 140 8 1000 69.6 (0.29 9/14/92 2 140 9 1000 74.3 9/14/92 140 9 1000 74.2 0.13 9/14/92 1 140 10 1000 84.7 9/14/92 140 10 1000 84.4 0.35 9/15/92 0.50 140 11 1000 84.1 9/15/92 140 11 1000 83.2 1.07 9/15/92 0 140 12 1000 86.9 #   - . ; < > @   a  CM DE 'jhA0JH*U^JhA5CJ\^JaJ jChA^J hAH*^JhA6]^JhACJ^JaJ hAH*^JhA5\^J hA^JD !"#  / = > $ 0L1$^`La$$1$a$ 6    _ ` a b c d p q $ 0d1$a$$ 0L1$^`La$$ 01$a$ $ 0d1$]^a$ $ Hd1$a$$ 0d1$a$ - a $ 0d1$`a$$ 0d1$a$ $ Hd1$a$$ 0d1$a$6KLd"#$:;v$  0~ @ ~ d1$`~ a$$  0~ @ d1$a$ $ Hd1$a$$ 0d1$a$ )Nak$  0~ @ d1$`a$$  0~ @ ~ d1$`~ a$$  0~ @ d1$a$<HWfukN$  0~ @ d1$`a$$  0~ @ d1$a$$$  0~ @ d1$`a$ $$$  0~ @ ~ d1$`~ a$ $$$  0~ @ d1$`a$$$$  0~ @ d1$a$%2HXiu$  0~ @ d1$a$$  0~ @ d1$`a$$  0~ @ ~ d1$`~ a$-A`k| $ $ d1$a$ $ $d1$a$ $ Hd1$a$$  0~ @ d1$`a$$  0~ @ d1$a$$  0~ @ ~ d1$`~ a$ 7` /Ccy9i $ $ d1$a$$ $ *d1$`*a$$ $ d1$`a$$ 0$ d1$a$ijra Qoyyy"$ 0*~ @ >d1$^`>a$$ 0$ >d1$^`>a$$ $ d1$^a$$ 0*~ @ d1$a$ $ Hd1$a$ $ $ d1$a$&'X'()q$ `0@$@@d1$]@^@a$$ H$d1$a$$ `0@$d1$a$$ `0@$d1$a$$ 0*~ @ d1$a$$ 0$ >d1$^`>a$ %&)PQUV%'NOTUBCe f !!"">" j@hA^J jAhA^J hAH*^J j=hA^J hA0J jEhA0J jBhA0J hA0JH* j=hA0JhA0JCJaJ hA0J hAH*^J hA^J:#!""$#$&&&(;*u$$ `0@$@d1$`@a$$$$ `0@$d1$a$$ `0@$@d1$`@a$$ `0@$d1$a$$ `0@$d1$a$$ `0@$d1$a$ >"?"""""A$L$X%Y%& &&&&&E'F'O'P'''''((:(;(A(B(w(x((())t)u)))))))))))**********++++ + ++++++++ +"+#+8+9+ jNhA^JhA0J^J jEhA^JhA6]^J j=hA^J hAH*^J hA^J jBhA^JK9+:+;+@+A+C+D+J+K+P+Q+++B,f,g,,,,,,o-p-..&0-008191`1a1h1{1|1111111111111111}}}} jNhACJ^JaJ jEhACJ^JaJhA56CJ\]^JaJjhAUmHnHuhACJ^JaJhA6]^J jJhA^J j=hA^JhA0J^J hA0J jEhA^J jNhA^J hA^J1;*A,B,g,,/00081:1t$$$ T@  d1$a$$$$ H d1$a$$$ `0@$@d1$`@a$$$$ `0@$d1$a$$ `0@$d1$a$$ `0@$@d1$`@a$ :1`1b1i11112:2`22222 3H3o3333494`444$$$  rd1$a$$$$  xd1$a$111111111111122222 2!2&2'2-2.2A2B2G2H2M2N2S2T2g2h2l2m2r2s2x2y22222222222222222222222223333 3 333(3)3/3035363;3<3P3Q3V3W3\3]3b3c3 jNhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJ jEhACJ^JaJWc3w3x3~33333333333333333333333333334444 4!4&4'4,4-4A4B4H4I4N4O4S4T4h4i4o4p4u4v4{4|444444444444444444444444455 55555 jNhACJ^JaJ jEhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJW444&5N5u55556<6e6666 767_77778(8R8z8$  rd1$a$$$  rd1$a$55/5055565;5<5A5B5V5W5\5]5b5c5h5i5}5~555555555555555555555555555666666#6$6)6*6/606E6F6K6L6Q6R6X6Y6n6o6u6v6{6|66666666666666666 jEhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJ jNhACJ^JaJW666666666677777"7#7)7*7?7@7E7F7K7L7R7S7h7i7o7p7u7v7{7|7777777777777777777777777 8 888888818288898>8?8E8F8[8\8a8b8g8h8n8o888888 jEhACJ^JaJ jNhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJW888888888888888888888999 9 9995969]9^9_9e9p9q9v9w9|9}999999999999999999999999999::::: :&:':;:<:hA56CJ\]^JaJjhAUmHnHu jNhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJ jEhACJ^JaJKz8888995979]9_9f9999 :2:Z:::::$  xd1$a$$  x d1$a$$ H d1$a$$  rd1$a$<:B:C:H:I:N:O:c:d:i:j:o:p:t:u:::::::::::::::::::::::::;; ; ;;;;;);*;/;0;5;6;;;<;P;Q;W;X;];^;c;d;x;y;~;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; jEhACJ^JaJ jNhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJW: ;G;o;;;; <4<\<<<<<"=J=s====>>>@>i>>>>$  rd1$a$;;;;;;;<<<<<!<"<(<)<=<><C<D<I<J<P<Q<e<f<l<m<r<s<x<y<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<== = =====+=,=2=3=8=9=>=?=T=U=Z=[=`=a=f=g=|=}======= jNhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJ jEhACJ^JaJW=======================>>>>">#>'>(>,>->3>4>I>J>P>Q>U>V>\>]>r>s>w>x>|>}>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>??????!?"?hA56CJ\]^JaJ jNhACJ^JaJ jEhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJP>?.?V?~????!@K@u@@@@@AA.A0A?AhA$  xd1$a$$  rd1$a$$ Hrd1$a$$  rd1$a$"?7?8?=?>?B?C?I?J?_?`?f?g?k?l?q?r?????????????????????????@@@ @ @@@@+@,@2@3@7@8@>@?@U@V@\@]@a@b@h@i@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ jNhACJ^JaJ jEhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJW@@AA.A/A0A>AIAJAPAQAUAVA[A\ArAsAyAzA~AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABBBBBB#B$B*B+BABBBGBHBLBMBQBRBhBiBoBpBtBuBzB{BBBBB jEhACJ^JaJhA56CJ\]^JaJjhAUmHnHuhACJ^JaJ jNhACJ^JaJKhAAAAB7B^BBBBC+CTC~CCCC#DKDtDDDDE8E]EEE$  rd1$a$BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB C CCCCCCC5C6CD?DUDVD[D jNhACJ^JaJ jEhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJW[D\D`DaDgDhD}D~DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEEEEE E$E%E+E,EAEBEFEGEKELEPEQEfEgElEmEqErEwExEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFF jEhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJ jNhACJ^JaJWEEE$FMFvFFFFG=GeGGGGGH>H@H$ @  d1$a$$ H d1$a$ $ $d1$a$$  rd1$a$F F FFFFF.F/F5F6F:F;F@FAFWFXF^F_FcFdFiFjFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFGGG G GG G&G'G+G,G1G2GGGHGNGOGSGTGYGZGoGpGtGuGyGzG~GGGGGGGGGGG jEhACJ^JaJ jNhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJWGGG>H?HhHiHlHmHrHsH}H~HHHHHHHHHHH'I(I6I7IUIVIdIeIIIIJJlJmJrJsJmKnKKKLLYLZLLLMMNMVNWNZN[NeNfNNNOORRhAOJQJhA6]^JhA0J^J hAH*^J jJhA^J jBhACJ^JaJjhAUmHnHuhACJ^JaJ hA^JhA>*CJ^JaJ?@HhHjHHHH$IRIIIIILLu$ `0@$@d1$`@a$$ `0@$d1$a$$$ `0@$d1$a$$$$  &X d1$a$$$$ 8@ d1$a$$$$ 8@ d1$a$ LL`O4S6S8SS*UjWZZ#[]__c$ `0@$@d1$`@a$$ `0@$d1$a$$ `0@$@d1$`@a$$$ `0@$@d1$`@a$$$$ `0@$d1$a$RfRhR~RR8SSNTOTaUbUVVCVDV&X'X-X.XXXXXXXXXsYtYZZZZZZZ[[ [!["[F[G[a[b[[[[[y\z\\\]]3^8^^^_______ƽƽ hAH*^J j=hA^JhA0JH*^JhA0J^J jEhA^J jJhA^J j#hA^JhA6]^JhAOJQJ hA^JA______`````` a a}a~adddddeVeWeteueeeeeeeff/h0hhhhhqiriiiiijj*k+kvkwkkkk%l񣘣hACJH*^JaJhACJ^JaJ hAH*^JhA6]^J j@hA^J jAhA^J hAH*^J jJhA^J jBhA^J jEhA^J hA^J j"hA^J7cyfikk%l'l:lhllll @  !d1$  \ H<d1$  zd1$ !d1$ H$d1$$ `0@$d1$a$$ `0@$@d1$`@a$$ `0@$@d1$`@a$ %l&lllmm.m/m1mn;n_n`nzn{nnnnnoobpcpqrrrrrrrrrrssss2t3t8t9tOtPttttttttt8u9u:u;uuuvuuuuսմսսսխ՚սսսսսսսսսս jEhA^J jBhAH*^J hAH*^JhA6]^J hAH*^J jJhA^JhA0J^J hA^J jJhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJjhAUmHnHuz{#$ d1$a$$ H$d1$a$$$ `0@$@d1$`@a$$$$ `0@$d1$a$$ `0@$d1$a$$ `0@$@d1$`@a$ 0=LM{de>@ !" 'ak]ko jBhA^JhACJH*^JaJhA>*CJ^JaJjhACJU^JaJhACJ^JaJhAOJQJ hAH*^JhA6]^J hA0J jJhA^J hA^JhA0J^J:#<Wi .j$$$ ppd1$`pa$$$$ pd1$`a$$$$ pd1$a$$$$ Hd1$a$$ pd1$a$$ d1$a$$ ppd1$`pa$ .Y}(o$$ `0@$@d1$`@a$$$$ `0@$d1$a$$ `0@$d1$a$$$ pd1$a$$$$ pd1$`a$$$$ ppd1$`pa$ t`(S[ [$ `0@$@d1$^@`a$$ `0@$d1$a$opFGOP-.DUZ[ _noCPUVb~<PUVmx}~  j=hA^JhA6H*]^J hAH*^J jEhA^JhA6]^J hA^J jBhA^JN?$ H d1$a$$ T@  d1$a$$ T@  d1$a$$ `0@$@d1$^@`a$ MN$289|~ (*8:>ʼʱʤʤʘʼʈuʈhhfU jBhACJ^JaJ$ jJhA56CJ\]^JaJhA56CJ\]^JaJhACJOJQJaJ jEhACJ^JaJhACJH*^JaJjhAUmHnHuhACJ^JaJhA5CJ \^JaJ hA6]^J hAH*^J hA^J jBhA^J(|8<>v$ H&X $d1$a$$ & 0vT \ &X $d1$a$$ & 0vT \ &X $d1$a$$ T@  d1$a$$ H d1$a$$ T@  d1$a$ !=Yu9Ul$ H&l$d1$a$$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$0Kj4So DdLjȈ$ H&l$d1$a$$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$ 9/15/92 140 12 1000 83.0 4.49 9/15/92 0.25 140 13 1000 83.9 9/15/92 140 13 1000 83.1 0.95 9/16/92 (0.50 140 15 1000 85.7 9/16/92 140 15 1000 86.9 (1.40 9/16/92 (1 140 16 1000 93.6 Appendix B: Dissolved oxygen duplicates. (continued)  Date Latitude Longitude Sta # Pressure O2 % deviation from 1st ((N) ((W) (db) (mol/L)  LEG 3 (continued): 9/16/92 140 16 1000 92.9 0.75 9/17/92 (2 140 17 1000 90.5 9/17/92 140 17 1000 89.6 0.99 9/17/92 (3 140 18 1000 91.3 9/17/92 140 18 1000 91.4 (0.11 9/18/92 (4 140 19 1000 99.1 9/18/92 140 19 1000 98.6 0.50 9/19/92 (5 140 20 1000 92.7 9/19/92 140 20 1000 92.2 0.54 9/21/92 (6 140 21 1000 90.7 9/21/92 140 21 1000 90.5 0.22 9/21/92 (7 140 22 1000 100.0 9/21/92 140 22 800 98.5 1.50 9/23/92 (10 140 23 1000 90.4 9/23/92 125 23 1000 90.3 0.11 9/23/92 (10 125 24 1000 78.7 9/23/92 125 24 1000 78.7 0.00 9/23/92 (7 125 25 1000 91.5 9/23/92 125 25 1000 91.7 (0.22 9/24/92 (6 125 26 1000 88.4 9/24/92 125 26 1000 89.7 (1.47 9/25/92 (5 125 27 1000 92.2 9/25/92 125 27 800 91.7 0.54 9/25/92 (4 125 28 1000 94.9 9/25/92 125 28 1000 94.6 0.32 9/26/92 (3 125 29 1000 88.0 9/26/92 125 29 1000 87.7 0.34 9/26/92 (2 125 30 1000 87.5 9/26/92 125 30 800 87.6 (0.11 9/27/92 (1 125 31 1000 86.0 9/27/92 125 31 1000 86.1 (0.12 9/27/92 ( 0.50 125 32 1000 84.0 9/27/92 125 32 1000 83.6 0.48 9/27/92 ( 0.25 125 33 1000 84.5 9/27/92 125 33 1000 84.2 0.36 9/28/92 0 125 34 1000 84.6 9/28/92 125 34 1000 84.4 0.24 9/28/92 0.25 125 35 1000 80.7 9/28/92 125 35 1000 81.9 (1.49 9/29/92 0.50 125 36 1000 81.8 9/29/92 125 36 1000 81.4 0.49 9/29/92 1 125 37 1000 79.2 9/29/92 125 37 1000 78.9 0.38 9/30/92 2 125 38 1000 73.7 9/30/92 125 38 1000 73.3 0.54 10/1/92 3 125 39 1000 74.1 10/1/92 125 39 1000 74.3 (0.27 10/1/92 4 125 40 1000 63.9 10/1/92 125 40 1000 64.9 (1.56 Appendix B: Dissolved oxygen duplicates. (continued)  Date Latitude Longitude Sta # Pressure O2 % deviation from 1st ((N) ((W) (db) (mol/L)  LEG 3 (continued): 10/1/92 5 125 41 1000 54.8 10/1/92 125 41 800 54.6 0.36 10/5/92 6 125 42 1000 55.5 10/5/92 125 42 1000 56.0 (0.90 10/5/92 8 125 44 1000 41.3 10/5/92 125 44 800 39.7 3.87 10/6/92 9 125 45 1000 37.5 10/6/92 125 45 1000 15.1 59.73 10/6/92 10 125 46 1000 42.5 10/6/92 125 46 1000 41.6 2.12 1.81 Mean % deviation 9.23 Std. Dev. % LEG 4: 10/29/92 10 110 50 1000 30.5 10/29/92 110 1000 30.7 (0.66 11/1/92 8 110 51 1000 35.1 11/1/92 110 1000 35.1 0.00 11/2/92 6 110 52 1000 48.8 11/2/92 110 1000 49.2 (0.82 11/2/92 5 110 53 1000 56.3 11/2/92 110 1000 55.4 1.60 11/3/92 4 110 54 1000 54.2 11/3/92 110 1000 55.6 (2.58 11/3/92 3 110 55 1000 70.5 11/3/92 110 1000 70.3 0.28 11/4/92 1 110 57 1000 76.3 11/4/92 110 1000 75.7 0.79 11/4/92 0.5 110 58 1000 82.7 11/4/92 110 1000 82.7 0.00 11/5/92 0.25 110 59 1000 84.0 11/5/92 110 1000 83.6 0.48 11/5/92 0.18 110 60 1000 83.4 11/5/92 110 1000 82.6 0.96 11/6/92 0 110 61 1000 80.5 11/6/92 110 1000 80.5 0.00 11/7/92 (0.25 110 62 1000 84.8 11/7/92 110 1000 83.4 1.65 11/8/92 (0.5 110 63 1000 86.4 11/8/92 110 1000 85.9 0.58 11/8/92 (1 110 64 1000 84.9 11/8/92 110 1000 84.4 0.59 11/8/92 (2 110 65 1000 75.7 11/8/92 110 1000 75.6 0.13 11/8/92 110 1000 76.0 (0.40 11/9/92 (3 110 66 1000 92.7 11/9/92 110 1000 93.0 (0.32 11/11/92 (5 110 68 1000 97.7 11/11/92 110 1000 96.5 1.23 Appendix B: Dissolved oxygen duplicates. (continued)  Date Latitude Longitude Sta # Pressure O2 % deviation from 1st ((N) ((W) (db) (mol/L)  LEG 4 (continued): 11/12/92 (6 110 69 1000 88.1 11/12/92 110 1000 87.2 1.02 11/12/92 (8 110 70 1000 76.0 11/12/92 110 1000 77.1 (1.45 11/14/92 (10 110 71 1000 73.8 11/14/92 110 1000 72.3 2.03 11/15/92 (2 110 72 1000 70.7 11/15/92 110 72 1000 69.8 1.27 0.29 Mean % deviation 1.08 Std. Dev. % LEG 5: 11/22/92 (5 82 77 800 35.1 11/22/92 82 77 800 34.0 3.13 11/22/92 (5 82 78 800 33.1 11/22/92 82 78 800 32.9 0.60 11/22/92 (5 82 79 800 31.5 11/22/92 82 79 800 31.6 (0.32 11/22/92 (5 82 80 800 42.9 11/23/92 82 80 800 42.2 1.63 11/23/92 (13 78 78 800 24.0 11/23/92 78 81 800 22.9 4.58 11/24/92 (13 78 82 800 30.6 11/24/92 78 82 800 30.0 1.96 11/24/92 (13 78 83 800 27.3 11/24/92 78 83 800 26.7 2.20 11/25/92 (12 78 84 800 31.1 11/25/92 78 84 800 30.5 1.93 11/25/92 (12 78 85 800 5.9 11/25/92 78 85 800 4.9 16.95 11/26/92 (13 81 87 800 30.3 11/26/92 81 87 800 30.1 0.66 11/27/92 (13 84 88 800 28.9 11/27/92 84 88 800 28.9 0.00 11/27/92 (13 86 89 800 36.9 11/27/92 86 89 800 36.3 1.63 11/28/92 (13 89 91 800 34.3 11/28/92 89 91 800 33.4 2.62 11/28/92 (14 92 92 800 34.6 11/28/92 92 92 800 34.2 1.16 11/28/92 (14 95 93 800 40.4 11/28/92 95 93 800 39.4 2.48 11/29/92 (12 95 95 800 50.5 11/29/92 95 95 800 50.6 (0.20 11/29/92 (10 95 96 800 31.5 11/29/92 95 96 800 30.4 3.49 11/29/92 (8 95 97 800 40.7 11/29/92 95 97 800 37.4 8.11 11/30/92 (6 95 98 800 44.1 Appendix B: Dissolved oxygen duplicates. (continued)  Date Latitude Longitude Sta # Pressure O2 % deviation from 1st ((N) ((W) (db) (pq)*DEIJ8  lnCDŒEFwxǍȍFGƎǎ  LMhA56CJ\]^JaJhACJOJQJaJ jEhACJ^JaJhACJH*^JaJjhAUmHnHu jBhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJB@:z6x:Y$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$$ & 0vT \ &X $d1$a$$ & 0vT \ &X $d1$a$$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$Yyڌ<\}ލ=]}ݎ!Ad$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$)Ieݐ;<rt$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$$ H&l$d1$a$$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$56rs8 ÔĔ8901op67EFtu56:;8NPʚ̚(*HJhA56CJ\]^JaJhACJOJQJaJ jEhACJ^JaJhACJH*^JaJjhAUmHnHu jBhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJBt:r*bؓ ,Li$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$$ & 0vT \ &X $d1$a$$ & 0vT \ &X $d1$a$ɔ>Zxϕ 'Hf̖$Ge—$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$—<[z1$ & 0vT \ &X $d1$a$$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$$ H&l$d1$a$$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$ :x4x9QRYwӜ/N$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$$ & 0vT \ &X $d1$a$Jʛ̛RXcdݜޜ  XY֝םTUўҞOP͟Ο  <=LMǠȠ=>XY]^8nphACJOJQJaJU jEhACJ^JaJhACJH*^JaJjhAUmHnHuhA56CJ\]^JaJ jBhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJANn̝ +JiǞ&Eeß"Bb$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$۠ܠT:zt$ & 0vT \ &X $d1$a$$ & 0vT \ &X $d1$a$$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$$ H&l$d1$a$$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$ mol/L)  LEG 5 (continued): 11/30/92 95 98 800 47.3 (7.26 11/30/92 (5 95 99 800 71.5 11/30/92 95 99 800 71.4 0.14 12/1/92 (4 95 100 800 62.7 12/1/92 95 100 800 62.6 0.16 12/1/92 (3 95 101 800 61.0 12/1/92 95 101 800 62.1 (1.80 12/1/92 (2 95 102 800 65.2 12/1/92 95 102 800 65.0 0.31 12/2/92 (1 95 103 800 68.1 12/2/92 95 103 800 68.1 0.00 12/2/92 0 95 104 800 49.8 12/2/92 95 104 800 50.0 (0.40 12/3/92 1 95 105 800 52.1 12/3/92 95 105 800 52.3 (0.38 12/4/92 2 95 106 800 55.1 12/4/92 95 106 800 54.7 0.73 12/4/92 3 95 107 800 39.6 12/4/92 95 107 800 38.8 2.02 1.65 Mean % deviation 3.92 Std. Dev. %   NOAA, Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070. 2 NOAA, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (AOML), 4301 Rickenbaker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149. 3 Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences (RSMAS), University of Miami, 4600 Rickenbacker Causeway, Miami, FL 33149. 4 Department of Marine Science, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. 5 Department of Chemistry, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA 02543.     PAGE vii PAGE 166 ޻vxHJ "468:<>@BDFHJLNTV`bhjlnprtvxjhAU^J hA^JhwmHnHujhwUhAjhAUhwhACJH*^JaJ"jhA0JCJH*U^JaJjhAUmHnHu jBhACJ^JaJhACJ^JaJ60n&d޼Tʽ>t $ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$ 246:<@BFHLNPRlnpr $ Hda$$da$d$ 0da$$ 0Ld^`La$rt$ & 0T$ H&l$d1$a$ $ Hda$dhACJ^JaJhw hA^JjhAU^Jhw^JmHnHujhwU^J/0P/ =!"#$% 200P/ =!"#$% 200P/ =!"#$% 5 000P/ =!"#$% 200P/ =!"#$% 200P/ =!"#$% 200P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% /0P/ =!"#$% /0P/ =!"#$% /0P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% /0P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% /0P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% /0P/ =!"#$% 200P/ =!"#$% /0P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 2 00P/ =!"#$% 8 00P:pA/ =!"#$% T@T Normal1$7$8$H$ CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k@(No List <&@< Footnote Reference<O< ABSTRACTCJOJQJ^JaJ<O< HEAD15CJOJQJ\^JaJ(O!( HEAD25\(O1( HEAD36]  !                                  j'#((18?IVcoT{!R+Y#01e8l3g4h5i9j7k! z z z"zz z z"zz z z"zz"zz z z z" z zzzzzzz z z"zzzzzq  j'#((189?IJV8Xcrdo+rT{X!ܧ6R+Y#0I  &  bk  !"# /=> _`abcdp-a6KLd"#$:;v  ) N a k    < H W f u  % 2 H X i u  - A ` k |  7 `   /Ccyjra Qo'X'()## ;"A$B$g$$(8):)`)b)i))))*:*`***** +H+o++++,9,`,,,,,&-N-u----.<.e.... /6/_////0(0R0z00015171]1_1f1111 222Z22222 3G3o3333 444\44444"5J5s5555666@6i66667.7V7~7777!8K8u88899.909?9h9999:7:^::::;+;T;~;;;;#<K<t<<<<=8=]=====$>M>v>>>>?=?e???@>@@@h@j@@@@$ARAAAAADDD`GI!JKMYQZQQVFZ\;`bbbbbbbbc@ciccqdrddCgorzt{t}t~tttttuwT{{{{{{ |;|l|n|||||2}4}C}T}V}g}x}}}}}}g8}X@APno!G'(6rsOPQûջ Ugwż~,-=hV R) |vj +,-.:Y MNUq5Qm 'Bb}+Je?[{#Y[ +Jk(Hg ,Lm ,Ll3Oo4Pp!#c (Gc @\z *FdCa}9Wv0fh6Vx 3Rp *Ii%Dd!@`=Z,.Aa7Vt $C^}f$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$x$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS$LS $PS$PS$LS$$$\$v$ $$$v$v$$$$$$PS$#$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$