1. Arrays
  2. Global Argentine Basin
  3. Apex Surface Mooring
  4. Surface Buoy
  5. Spectrophotometer

Spectrophotometer

Reference Designator
GA01SUMO-SBD12-01-OPTAAD000
Review Status
Review Complete
Note
The OPTAA data were run through the automated QC tests, but were not reviewed visually. Plots are provided in the “Review Images” section only for wavelengths on/near 676nm.
Depth
1m
Class
OPTAA (Absorption Spectrophotometer)
Make / Model
WET Labs / AC-S

Dataset Reviews Last processed: 6/26/19, 5:32 PM

QC Check Info
Dep. Preferred Method Stream DD FD SG EG Gaps GD TS Rate (s) Pressure Comp. Time Order Valid Data Missing Data Data Comp. Missing Coords. Review
1 recovered_host 257 66 0 15 30 190 51,484 1 / 1 Complete
2 recovered_host 361 349 0 0 1 12 1,449,044 1 / 2 1 Complete
3 recovered_host 445 445 0 0 0 0 1,853,150 1 / 2 1 Complete
Data Ranges Review Images

Test Notes

  1. no comparison: timestamps do not match
  2. pass unique test - ascending not tested

Data Coverage

Deployment: 123
26%97%100%

Lat/Lon Differences (km)

Deployment: 123
1 0.00
2 10.690.00
3 1.2511.910.00

System Annotations

Metadata Start Date End Date Comment
GA01SUMO-SBD12-01-OPTAAD000
Stream: optaa_dj_dcl_instrument
3/15/15, 5:25 PM

Per vendor feedback, the first 1-2 min of each AC-S instrument sampling period should be considered suspect. Signal drift can occur as the instrument warms up, flushes with seawater, and the filter wheel spins up.

Id: 1795 By: swhite

GA01SUMO-SBD12-01-OPTAAD000
Stream: optaa_dj_dcl_instrument_recovered
3/15/15, 5:25 PM

Per vendor feedback, the first 1-2 min of each AC-S instrument sampling period should be considered suspect. Signal drift can occur as the instrument warms up, flushes with seawater, and the filter wheel spins up.

Id: 1796 By: swhite

GA01SUMO
 		3/15/15, 5:25 PM 11/26/15, 5:08 AM

Deployment 1: Buoy log files showed that seawater was first detected inside the buoy well on 3/26/2015. Both leak detectors showed increasing presence of water over the period of deployment. Upon recovery of the mooring, no external damage was visible and the buoy did not appear to be floating lower than normal.

Id: 653 By: lgarzio

GA01SUMO-SBD12
 		3/15/15, 5:25 PM 11/26/15, 5:08 AM

Deployment 1: Upon recovery, the bottom of the buoy was heavily biofouled with gooseneck barnacles. The barnacle coverage likely caused imporper sea water flushing at the location of the intakes and sensor faces for the subsurface instruments.

Id: 655 By: lgarzio

GA01SUMO-SBD12-01-OPTAAD000
 		3/15/15, 5:25 PM 11/26/15, 5:08 AM

Deployment 1: The intake plumbing was torn from the weight of attached barnacles.

Id: 657 By: lgarzio

GA01SUMO-SBD12
 		11/14/15, 4:06 PM 11/8/16, 5:10 AM

Deployment 2: Upon recovery, the bottom of the buoy was heavily biofouled with barnacles.

Id: 664 By: lgarzio

GA01SUMO-SBD12
 		10/26/16, 9:47 PM 1/14/18, 5:24 AM

Deployment 3: Upon recovery, the bottom of the buoy was heavily biofouled.

Id: 386 By: lgarzio

Review Notes

Metadata Start Date End Date Comment
GA01SUMO-SBD12-01-OPTAAD000

According to Roesler and Barnard (Optical proxy for phytoplankton biomass in the absence of photophysiology: Rethinking the absorption line height, Methods in Oceanography, 2013), “absorption meters are highly prone to biofouling, particularly biofilms which not only attenuate the collimated beam but also impact the scattering properties of the optical surfaces and tubes. In productive coastal waters biofouling can have significant impacts (i.e. 10% of the signal) within one to two weeks”.

By Lori Garzio, on 6/27/19

New Note