Metadata Report for BODC Series Reference Number 604542
No Problem Report Found in the Database
Public domain data
These data have no specific confidentiality restrictions for users. However, users must acknowledge data sources as it is not ethical to publish data without proper attribution. Any publication or other output resulting from usage of the data should include an acknowledgment.
The recommended acknowledgment is
"This study uses data from the data source/organisation/programme, provided by the British Oceanographic Data Centre and funded by the funding body."
Neil Brown MK3 CTD
The Neil Brown MK3 conductivity-temperature-depth (CTD) profiler consists of an integral unit containing pressure, temperature and conductivity sensors with an optional dissolved oxygen sensor in a pressure-hardened casing. The most widely used variant in the 1980s and 1990s was the MK3B. An upgrade to this, the MK3C, was developed to meet the requirements of the WOCE project.
The MK3C includes a low hysteresis, titanium strain gauge pressure transducer. The transducer temperature is measured separately, allowing correction for the effects of temperature on pressure measurements. The MK3C conductivity cell features a free flow, internal field design that eliminates ducted pumping and is not affected by external metallic objects such as guard cages and external sensors.
Additional optional sensors include pH and a pressure-temperature fluorometer. The instrument is no longer in production, but is supported (repair and calibration) by General Oceanics.
These specification apply to the MK3C version.
3200 m (optional)
|-3 to 32°C||1 to 6.5 S cm-1|
0.03% FS < 1 msec
0.003°C < 30 msec
0.0001 S cm-1
0.0003 S cm-1 < 30 msec
Further details can be found in the specification sheet.
James Clark Ross 14 CTD Processing Document
The first ten CTD casts were done with a Sea-Bird CTD. A Neil Brown Mk III CTD was then used. However, the salinity data from this CTD were unreliable because of drifts, major sudden offsets, etc. It turned out the conductivity cell was cracked.
Note from Andrew Watson (Principal Investigator)
This is the situation with respect to the JCR CTD data from cruise 14, the July/August 1996 ESOP-2 cruise. (1) The original salinity data were very difficult to calibrate owing to jumps and drifts occurring in the brand-new CTD. Fortunately, every cast was accompanied by 24 salinity bottle measurements, so good salinity data do exist for the cruise in this form.
We believed that we had managed to calibrate adequately the CTD salinity data to the bottle data. However, as you found, on some casts that turns out not to be the case. On these, the jumps were so sudden and severe that the CTD salinities are essentially un-calibratable and will have to be junked. We think it's the case that on *most* casts, the calibrations are OK -- i.e within ~1-2 ppm of the salinity bottles at the equivalent depth, for all depths below the first few hundred metres.
General Data Screening carried out by BODC
BODC screen both the series header qualifying information and the parameter values in the data cycles themselves.
Header information is inspected for:
- Irregularities such as unfeasible values
- Inconsistencies between related information, for example:
- Times for instrument deployment and for start/end of data series
- Length of record and the number of data cycles/cycle interval
- Parameters expected and the parameters actually present in the data cycles
- Originator's comments on meter/mooring performance and data quality
Documents are written by BODC highlighting irregularities which cannot be resolved.
Data cycles are inspected using time or depth series plots of all parameters. Currents are additionally inspected using vector scatter plots and time series plots of North and East velocity components. These presentations undergo intrinsic and extrinsic screening to detect infeasible values within the data cycles themselves and inconsistencies as seen when comparing characteristics of adjacent data sets displaced with respect to depth, position or time. Values suspected of being of non-oceanographic origin may be tagged with the BODC flag denoting suspect value; the data values will not be altered.
The following types of irregularity, each relying on visual detection in the plot, are amongst those which may be flagged as suspect:
- Spurious data at the start or end of the record.
- Obvious spikes occurring in periods free from meteorological disturbance.
- A sequence of constant values in consecutive data cycles.
If a large percentage of the data is affected by irregularities then a Problem Report will be written rather than flagging the individual suspect values. Problem Reports are also used to highlight irregularities seen in the graphical data presentations.
Inconsistencies between the characteristics of the data set and those of its neighbours are sought and, where necessary, documented. This covers inconsistencies such as the following:
- Maximum and minimum values of parameters (spikes excluded).
- The occurrence of meteorological events.
This intrinsic and extrinsic screening of the parameter values seeks to confirm the qualifying information and the source laboratory's comments on the series. In screening and collating information, every care is taken to ensure that errors of BODC making are not introduced.
No Project Information held for the Series
|Cruise Name||JR19960720 (JR14)|
|Principal Scientist(s)||Andrew J Watson (University of East Anglia School of Environmental Sciences)|
|Ship||RRS James Clark Ross|
Complete Cruise Metadata Report is available here
No Fixed Station Information held for the Series
|<||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|
|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|