notes.p09

Std f11 converted to SIO 86 scale by multiplying by 1.02.


All F12 data was flagged as questionable or bad by the collector.
No air data is available.
Station 33 -Looks like cfc samples mixed up or other problem.  Not clear
that samples came from listed depths.  All cfc samples should be
flagged.

Stations 97 and 101 appear to be very low in conc.  Perhaps a
calibration curve or standard problem.  Upper 100m at 50% saturation.

Samples should have been taken at deeper depths, especially during the
first part of the cruise to see if the signals (low) seen were due to
blanks or not.  
In light of no air data, and no f12 data, it is difficult to assess the
quality of these data. 
  The cfc11 data may be OK if station 33 is
dropped. REps not bad, average sfc saturation based on air values 
from Walker, et al, average 100% after dropping stations 33, 97 and 101.
Precision of f11 measurements determined to be the greater of 1.5% or 0.005.
dpw,22Jun2000.



plot of sfc saturation shows all (or nearly all) f12 values very high.
f11 sfc saturations more reasonable.

sta 	samp	comments

18      318     2       4
29	317	3	4	120%SAT
33	301	Very low conc.
97	309	low
101	306	low

without above, satf11 = 1.00, but variable.

33	301	f11 too low, sal matches ctdsal, Mis sampled?
		or ff11 = 4
		Rep are very far off.  Incorrect sampling or tripping?


85	223,224	flagged as 3, higher than surrounding values
		O2 slightly higher in these bottles, flag may not be
		necessary.


97	calib crv prob? Upper 100m too low cfc conc (~50% sat)
	discard


101	calib crv prob? Upper 100m too low cfc conc (~50% sat)
	discard

Suggested flag changes.

18      318     2       3	#ff12 = 9
29      317     3       3       #120%SAT
33      301     4       3       #Very low conc.
sta 97&101, all 3       3