Metadata Report for BODC Series Reference Number 2079987
Definition of BOTTFLAG
|0||The sampling event occurred without any incident being reported to BODC.|
|1||The filter in an in-situ sampling pump physically ruptured during sample resulting in an unquantifiable loss of sampled material.|
|2||Analytical evidence (e.g. surface water salinity measured on a sample collected at depth) indicates that the water sample has been contaminated by water from depths other than the depths of sampling.|
|3||The feedback indicator on the deck unit reported that the bottle closure command had failed. General Oceanics deck units used on NERC vessels in the 80s and 90s were renowned for reporting misfires when the bottle had been closed. This flag is also suitable for when a trigger command is mistakenly sent to a bottle that has previously been fired.|
|4||During the sampling deployment the bottle was fired in an order other than incrementing rosette position. Indicative of the potential for errors in the assignment of bottle firing depth, especially with General Oceanics rosettes.|
|5||Water was reported to be escaping from the bottle as the rosette was being recovered.|
|6||The bottle seals were observed to be incorrectly seated and the bottle was only part full of water on recovery.|
|7||Either the bottle was found to contain no sample on recovery or there was no bottle fitted to the rosette position fired (but SBE35 record may exist).|
|8||There is reason to doubt the accuracy of the sampling depth associated with the sample.|
|9||The bottle air vent had not been closed prior to deployment giving rise to a risk of sample contamination through leakage.|
Definition of Rank
No Problem Report Found in the Database
Open Data supplied by Natural Environment Research Council (NERC)
You must always use the following attribution statement to acknowledge the source of the information: "Contains data supplied by Natural Environment Research Council."
A water sampling bottle featuring close-open-close operation. The bottle opens automatically at approximately 10 metres and flushes until closed. Sampling with these bottles avoids contamination at the surface, internal spring contamination, loss of sample on deck and exchange of water from different depths.
There are several sizes available, from 1.7 to 100 litres and are made of PVC with a depth rating of up to 500 m. These bottles can be attached to a rosette or placed on a cable at selected positions.
Dissolved Trace Metals (Cd, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn, Al, Hg) and arsenic species as part of the North Sea Project
Converted from CDROM documentation
Sampling strategy and methodology
Samples for trace metal analysis were collected, using clean techniques, in 10 litre Teflon-lined Go-Flo bottles, modified to reduce the contamination potential for trace metals, fitted to the CTD rosette sampler. Initial sample handling for trace metals was carried out on board using the facilities of the RVS clean chemistry container (Morley et al., 1988).
Each sea water sample was pressure-filtered (ca. 0.7 bar) in-line through a 0.4 µm Nuclepore membrane filter. The filtrate (samples for dissolved metal analysis) were acidified to ca. pH 2 by the addition of sub-boiled nitric acid (1 ml per litre of sea water) in order to stabilise the total-dissolved concentrations of metals. For a substantial proportion of the samples large volume filtration systems were used to obtain sufficient suspended particulate material for trace metal analysis.
The filters were stored and processed for particulate trace metals. Consequently, the particulate and dissolved trace metal data form an integrated data set from a single set of samples using compatible analytical procedures which greatly enhances their value.
Analysis of Cd, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Pb, Zn
This was undertaken using the specialised clean facilities in the Department of Oceanography, University of Southampton. Dissolved metals were extracted and preconcentrated following the dithiocarbamate complexation-freon extraction method of Danielsson et al. (1978), as modified by Statham (1985) and Tappin (1988), and were determined by graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrophotometry (GFAAS). Within batch analytical precision of the method is generally less than 10% (coefficient of variation) for each metal. More details of the method are given in Tappin et al. (1992).
Quality control (i.e. accuracy and between batch analytical precision) of the data was assessed by regularly analysing aliquots of the CASS-1 coastal sea water reference sample for dissolved trace metals and a bulk filtered acidified sea water sample which was used for batch-to-batch quality control. Results of these analyses were satisfactory, with very few exceptions, and ensure that the data are of high quality.
Additionally, the data set was examined to identify any values which appeared to have been affected by contamination on the basis of supporting data. Only an insignificant fraction of the total data were shown to have been contaminated and rejected.
Analysis of aluminium
An aliquot of the water sample was separately vacuum filtered through a 0.4 µm Nucleopore membrane and analysed for aluminium using the method of Hydes and Liss (1972). The complete analytical procedure was undertaken at sea, usually in the general laboratory.
It should be noted that whilst most samples were collected using the ultra-clean trace metal bottles described above, a few were collected using standard 10 litre Go-Flo bottles. As a general rule if there is aluminium data for a sample but no other trace metals then it should be assumed that a standard bottle was used to collect the sample.
Analysis of arsenic
A separate aliquot of water was filtered, in the clean laboratory, through a 0.45 µm Millipore filter for arsenic analysis. The samples were stored at 4°C to reduce biological activity and keep losses of monomethyl arsenic (MMA) and dimethyl arsenic (DMA) to a minimum. Nevertheless, some losses were inevitable as the samples had to be stored on board ship for the cruise duration (up to 2 weeks) and subjected to a 2-3 week analytical procedure. These losses have been quantified for samples from the Tamar Estuary in Kitts (1991).
The technique used for inorganic arsenic was to add 6M Analar HCl and 2 per cent Spectrosol NaBH4 solution to the water sample to generate arsines. These were purged from the apparatus by a stream of nitrogen for analysis by flame atomic absorption spectroscopy.
MMA and DMA were analysed using a similar technique using a lower acid concentration (1M) to favour the formation of organic arsines. The lower concentrations required the incorporation of an arsine trapping procedure. The nitrogen purgative, dried by NaOH traps, was passed through a glass U tube packed with glass beads cooled to -196°C by liquid nitrogen. The trap was allowed to gradually warm to room temperature giving up the trapped arsines as a series of pulses, thus achieving separation of the arsenic species. Each species was analysed by flame atomic absorption spectroscopy.
A full description and discussion of the analytical techniques is given in Kitts, 1991.
Analysis of mercury
Reactive mercury, i.e. mercury which can be determined without prior oxidation, was determined by the reduction of the mercury in the acidified sample to elemental form by the addition of tin (II) chloride. This was then removed from solution by purging with oxygen-free nitrogen and the mercury vapour trapped as an amalgam on gold chips. Once purging was complete, the gold chips were inductively heated to vaporize the mercury as a pulse which was quantified by atomic absorption spectroscopy.
Total mercury was measured by the above method on samples which had been oxidised by addition of hydrochloric acid, potassium bromide and potassium bromate. Samples were left to oxidise for at least an hour before the bromine was reduced by the addition of excess hydroxylammonium chloride solution.
Total mercury was determined on both unfiltered sea water and on sea water which had been filtered through an ashed (450°C for 24 hours) GFF filter paper. Reactive mercury was determined on filtered samples only. Full details of the methodology are given in Harper et al (1989).
Danielsson, L.-G., B. Magnusson and S. Westerlund (1978) An improved metal extraction procedure for the determination of trace metals in sea water by atomic absorption spectrometry with electrothermal atomization. Analytica Chimica Acta 98, 47-57.
Harper, D.J., C.F. Fileman, P.V. May and J.E. Portmann (1989). Methods of analysis for trace metals in marine and other samples. Aquatic environment protection: analytical methods number 3. MAFF Directorate of Fisheries Research, 38pp.
Hydes, D.J. and P.S. Liss (1976). A fluorometric method for the determination of low concentrations of dissolved aluminium in natural waters. The Analyst 101, 922-931.
Kitts, H. (1991). Estuaries as sources of methylated arsenic to the North Sea. Ph.D. thesis, Polytechnic South West.
Morley, N.H., P.J. Statham and C. Fay (1988) Design and use of a clean shipboard handling system for sea water samples. In: Advances in Underwater Technology, Ocean Science and Offshore Engineering, Volume 16 (Oceanology '88), Graham and Trotman, London, 283-290.
Statham, P.J. (1985) The determination of dissolved manganese and cadmium in sea water at low nmol/l concentrations by chelation and extraction followed by electrothermal atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Analytica Chimica Acta 169, 149-159.
Tappin, A.D. (1988) Trace metals in shelf seas of the British Isles, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Southampton, 279pp.
Tappin A.D., D.J. Hydes, P.J. Statham and J.D. Burton (1992) Concentrations, distributions and seasonal variability of dissolved Cd, Co, Cu, Mn, Ni, Pb and Zn in the English Channel. Continental Shelf Research (vol 12, in press).
North Sea Project
The North Sea Project (NSP) was the first Marine Sciences Community Research project of the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). It evolved from a NERC review of shelf sea research, which identified the need for a concerted multidisciplinary study of circulation, transport and production.
The ultimate aim of the NERC North Sea Project was the development of a suite of prognostic water quality models to aid management of the North Sea. To progress towards water quality models, three intermediate objectives were pursued in parallel:
- Production of a 3-D transport model for any conservative passive constituent, incorporating improved representations of the necessary physics - hydrodynamics and dispersion;
- Identifying and quantifying non-conservative processes - sources and sinks determining the cycling and fate of individual constituents;
- Defining a complete seasonal cycle as a database for all the observational studies needed to formulate, drive and test models.
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory hosted the project, which involved over 200 scientists and support staff from NERC and other Government funded laboratories, as well as seven universities and polytechnics.
The project ran from 1987 to 1992, with marine field data collection between April 1988 and October 1989. One shakedown (CH28) and fifteen survey cruises (Table 1), each lasting 12 days and following the same track, were repeated monthly. The track selected covered the summer-stratified waters of the north and the homogeneous waters in the Southern Bight in about equal lengths together with their separating frontal band from Flamborough head to Dogger Bank, the Friesian Islands and the German Bight. Mooring stations were maintained at six sites for the duration of the project.
|Table 1: Details of NSP Survey Cruises on RRS Challenger|
|CH28||29/04/88 - 15/05/88|
|CH33||04/08/88 - 16/08/88|
|CH35||03/09/88 - 15/09/88|
|CH37||02/10/88 - 14/10/88|
|CH39||01/11/88 - 13/11/88|
|CH41||01/12/88 - 13/12/88|
|CH43||30/12/88 - 12/01/89|
|CH45||28/01/89 - 10/02/89|
|CH47||27/02/89 - 12/03/89|
|CH49||29/03/89 - 10/04/89|
|CH51||27/04/89 - 09/05/89|
|CH53||26/05/89 - 07/06/89|
|CH55||24/06/89 - 07/07/89|
|CH57||24/07/89 - 06/08/89|
|CH59||23/08/89 - 04/09/89|
|CH61||21/09/89 - 03/10/89|
Alternating with the survey cruises were process study cruises (Table 2), which investigated some particular aspect of the science of the North Sea. These included fronts (nearshore, circulation and mixing), sandwaves and sandbanks, plumes (Humber, Wash, Thames and Rhine), resuspension, air-sea exchange, primary productivity and blooms/chemistry.
|Table 2: Details of NSP Process cruises on RRS Challenger|
|CH34||18/08/88 - 01/09/88||Fronts - nearshore|
|CH36||16/09/88 - 30/09/88||Fronts - mixing|
|CH56||08/07/89 - 22/07/89||Fronts - circulation|
|CH58||07/08/89 - 21/08/89||Fronts - mixing|
|CH38||24/10/88 - 31/10/88||Sandwaves|
|CH40||15/11/88 - 29/11/88||Sandbanks|
|CH42||15/12/88 - 29/12/88||Plumes/Sandbanks|
|CH46||12/02/89 - 26/02/89||Plumes/Sandwaves|
|CH44||13/01/89 - 27/01/89||Resuspension|
|CH52||11/05/89 - 24/05/89||Resuspension|
|CH60||06/09/89 - 19/09/89||Resuspension|
|CH48||13/03/89 - 27/03/89||Air/sea exchanges|
|CH62||05/10/89 - 19/10/89||Air/sea exchanges|
|CH50||12/04/89 - 25/04/89||Blooms/chemistry|
|CH54||09/06/89 - 22/06/89||Production|
In addition to the main data collection period, a series of cruises took place between October 1989 and October 1990 that followed up work done on previous cruises (Table 3). Process studies relating to blooms, plumes (Humber, Wash and Rhine), sandwaves and the flux of contaminants through the Dover Strait were carried out as well as two `survey' cruises.
|Table 3: Details of NSP `Follow up' cruises on RRS Challenger|
|CH62A||23/10/89 - 03/11/89||Blooms|
|CH64||03/04/90 - 03/05/90||Blooms|
|CH65||06/05/90 - 17/05/90||Humber plume|
|CH66A||20/05/90 - 31/05/90||Survey|
|CH66B||03/06/90 - 18/06/90||Contaminants through Dover Strait|
|CH69||26/07/90 - 07/08/90||Resuspension/Plumes|
|CH72A||20/09/90 - 02/10/90||Survey|
|CH72B||04/10/90 - 06/10/90||Sandwaves/STABLE|
|CH72C||06/10/90 - 19/10/90||Rhine plume|
The data collected during the observational phase of the North Sea Project comprised one of the most detailed sets of observations ever undertaken in any shallow shelf sea at that time.
|Start Date (yyyy-mm-dd)||1989-02-16|
|End Date (yyyy-mm-dd)||1989-02-16|
|Organization Undertaking Activity||Plymouth Marine Laboratory|
|Country of Organization||United Kingdom|
|Originator's Data Activity Identifier||CH46_CTD_1432|
|Platform Category||lowered unmanned submersible|
BODC Sample Metadata Report for CH46_CTD_1432
|Sample reference number||Nominal collection volume(l)||Bottle rosette position||Bottle firing sequence number||Minimum pressure sampled (dbar)||Maximum pressure sampled (dbar)||Depth of sampling point (m)||Bottle type||Sample quality flag||Bottle reference||Comments|
|303931||10.00||17.50||17.70||14.50||Niskin bottle||No problem reported|
|303945||10.00||11.20||11.30||8.20||General Oceanics GO-FLO water sampler||No problem reported|
Please note:the supplied parameters may not have been sampled from all the bottle firings described in the table above. Cross-match the Sample Reference Number above against the SAMPRFNM value in the data file to identify the relevant metadata.
|Principal Scientist(s)||Alan W Morris (Plymouth Marine Laboratory)|
Complete Cruise Metadata Report is available here
No Fixed Station Information held for the Series
The following single character qualifying flags may be associated with one or more individual parameters with a data cycle:
|<||Below detection limit|
|>||In excess of quoted value|
|A||Taxonomic flag for affinis (aff.)|
|B||Beginning of CTD Down/Up Cast|
|C||Taxonomic flag for confer (cf.)|
|E||End of CTD Down/Up Cast|
|G||Non-taxonomic biological characteristic uncertainty|
|I||Taxonomic flag for single species (sp.)|
|K||Improbable value - unknown quality control source|
|L||Improbable value - originator's quality control|
|M||Improbable value - BODC quality control|
|O||Improbable value - user quality control|
The following single character qualifying flags may be associated with one or more individual parameters with a data cycle:
|0||no quality control|
|2||probably good value|
|3||probably bad value|
|6||value below detection|
|7||value in excess|
|A||value phenomenon uncertain|
|Q||value below limit of quantification|