2-Wavelength Fluorometer

Reference Designator
Review Status
Review Complete
300 to 2,373m
FLORD (2-Wavelength Fluorometer)
Make / Model

Dataset Reviews Last processed: 8/5/19, 6:57 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_wfp 310 275 0 34 0 0 200,292 10 2152 / 11760 1 1 2 Complete
2 recovered_wfp 363 362 0 0 0 0 350,076 10 2242 / 2239 Complete
3 recovered_wfp 367 364 1 0 0 0 376,240 10 2373 / 2230 1 1 Complete
Data Ranges Review Images

Test Notes

  1. no other streams for comparison
  2. missing: ['pressure']

Data Coverage

Deployment: 123

Lat/Lon Differences (km)

Deployment: 123
1 0.00
2 8.330.00

System Annotations

Metadata Start Date End Date Comment
2/19/15, 6:00 PM 12/25/15, 7:50 AM

Deployment 1: Due to delays on deck during deployment, the profiler's first dive began before the anchor was dropped. Once the dive started, the winch roller engaged and the profiler began its descent, which in this case meant winching back toward the boat/anchor. This may have damaged the winch mechanism or started the profiler into a non-standard deployment mode. The upper profiler (WFP02) indicated an error condition upon recovery, and a large number of profiles failed to log any CTD data. The lower profiler's battery voltage dropped rapidly near profile 300, which appears to have slowed down the profiling speed and increased the profile duration.

Id: 750 By: lgarzio

11/30/16, 2:29 PM 12/1/17, 7:01 AM

Deployment 3: Data were not transmitted via satellite telemetry.

Id: 377 By: lgarzio

Review Notes

Metadata Start Date End Date Comment

Comparisons with shipboard CTD casts were done for D0001 and D0002. Chl-a recorded by the profiler was higher compared to the CTD cast for D0002. Further analysis using the shipboard bottle data should be conducted. This is outside the scope of this project.

By Lori Garzio, on 3/8/19


I submitted a helpdesk question on 11/12/2018 regarding an offset between recovered and telemetered data for all global HYPMs: "There appears to be a substantial offset between data with the same timestamps from recovered_wfp and telemetered methods for all deployments of all global WFP CTDs, and I have included information from two representative deployments of two different profilers as examples. It looks like the values recorded for the first common timestamp are exactly the same, and as the profiler moves along in time the offset between the values recorded for the same timestamp become increasingly more offset. Then, the profiler reaches the end of the profile (either at its shallowest or deepest point), resets, and the pattern begins again. This is most easily seen in the pressure data, but there is an offset for all science parameters.

GI02HYPM-WFP02-04-CTDPFL000 deployment 1
GP02HYPM-WFP02-04-CTDPFL000 deployment 3

The *_intersect.csv files attached contain data where recovered and telemetered timestamps intersect. For each timestamp and science parameter there are recorded values (from .nc files downloaded from the system) and the difference. For each parameter, the difference between the values at the bottom and top of the profiler's range are exactly zero, and (particularly for pressure) the differences steadily increase until they are reset at zero at the bottom/top of the profile. This pattern continues throughout the deployment. The plots attached are zoomed in to one upcast and one downcast, and highlight the offset in the data between the two methods."

Redmine 13743

By Lori Garzio, on 8/8/19


Unreasonably high chl-a and backscatter outliers are scattered throughout all deployments.

By Lori Garzio, on 8/8/19

Deployment: 1

Missing the pressure coordinate for deployment 1.

By Lori Garzio, on 8/8/19

Deployment: 1

Suspect data for deployment 1 - see annotation ID 750

By Lori Garzio, on 8/8/19

New Note