Conductivity (and salinity and density) dropped suddenly for several hours, then returned to reasonable values. Excluding data from final statistics.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Conductivity (and salinity and density) dropped suddenly for approx. 24 hours, then returned to reasonable values. Excluding data from final statistics.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Conductivity dropped substantially (this affects salinity and density) then gradually returned to resemble the data that were recorded before the issue. Temperature and pressure don't appear to be affected. Excluding data from final statistics. Data should be annotated to alert users of the issue.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Conductivity dropped substantially for several weeks (this affects salinity and density). Temperature and pressure don't appear to be affected. Excluding data from final statistics. Data should be annotated to alert users of the issue.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Excluding data from the beginning of deployment 2 from the final statistics as the mooring was recovered and re-deployed (annotation ID 580)

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Data are unreasonable. According to asset management, the instrument was deployed at 150m but pressure values are recorded around 280 dbar. Conductivity, salinity, and density are also unreasonable. Temperature in degrees Celsius appear to be reasonable for a CTD deployed at 280 dbar. The L0 data products (conductivity, pressure and temperature in counts) are in a similar range to those from other deployments.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/2/19

Deployments 4 and 5 don't have deployment depths defined in asset management.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Deployments 4 and 5 don't have deployment depths defined in asset management.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

Deployments 4 and 5 don't have deployment depths defined in asset management.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/3/19

The mooring was deployed 9 - 10 km from the location of the previous 4 deployments of this mooring. If this location is correct, the platform should be annotated to inform the users as to why the deployment location changed.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/2/19

Deployments 2, 3, 4: deployment depths from asset management are substantially different than the pressure recorded by the instrument. If the deployment depths in asset management are correct, the data should be annotated to indicate why the pressure values are so different from the depth at which the instrument was deployed.

By Lori Garzio, on 1/2/19

Salinity for deployment 2 appears to be shifted high compared to other deployments. The average salinity for deployment 2 is 34.94 while the average salinity for deployments 1, 3, 4 is 34.93. This pattern isn't observed in surrounding CTDMOs.

By Lori Garzio, on 12/21/18

Practical salinity and density dropped briefly - excluding from final statistics.

By Lori Garzio, on 12/21/18

Annotation ID 350: Seawater temperature (degrees C) values are negative. Salinity and density are also incorrect. Temperature values in counts are within a similar range to those from deployments 2-4 (these deployments have reasonable temperature values). Annotation ID 350 should be updated with additional information after investigation.

By Lori Garzio, on 12/18/18

Annotation ID 351: Temperature values gradually increased over the length of the deployment. Similar behavior is not observed on the CTDs deployed at ~1700m and ~2300m (GI03FLMA-RI000-00-CTDMOH000 and GI03FLMA-RI000-00-CTDMOH400, respectively). Density and salinity values are also suspect. Annotation ID 351 should be updated with additional information after investigation.

By Lori Garzio, on 12/18/18

Density and salinity start low and gradually increase before leveling off. This pattern isn't observed in surrounding CTDMOs, or in the previous deployments of this CTDMO. Excluding data from final statistics, and issue should be investigated and annotated.

By Lori Garzio, on 12/19/18

Conductivity (and salinity and density) dropped suddenly for approx. 24 hours, then returned to reasonable values. Excluding data from final statistics.

By Lori Garzio, on 12/19/18

Deployments 1, 2 and 7: Data gap at the end of the deployment is not annotated in the system.

Deployments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7: Invalid data represent data well above the maximum global ranges 400 µmol/(L,Kg) for dissolved oxygen concentrations or 110 % for oxygen saturation. Biofouling and DO sensor drift are both observed in the data.

By Leila Belabbassi, on 12/17/18

Deployments 1, 4, and 6: The missing data in the recovered_inst stream are found at the end of the record in both the telemetered and recovered_host streams.

Deployments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7: The timestamps do not match exactly when comparing streams of different methods. Overlapping the data in a plot will hardly show the difference.

Deployments 2, 4, 6, and 8: Invalid data represent data outside global ranges [0 - 400 µmol/Kg] : There are values greater than 400 and less than 0 in the data.

By Leila Belabbassi, on 12/14/18

Need an annotation explaining to the user why deployment 4 recovered_inst data are not available. According to the ingest csv, recovered_inst data are not expected because: "could not communicate with instrument".

By Lori Garzio, on 12/19/18