the columbia river as a source of marine light scattering particles
TRANSCRIPT
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF
HASONG PAK for the(Name)
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY(Degree)
in OCEANOGRAPHY presented on July 14, 1969(Major)
Title: THE COLUMBIA RIVER AS A SOURCE OF MARINE LIGHT
SCATTERING PARTICLES
Abstract approved:orge F. Beardley, Jr.
The Columbia River plume region was investigated during the
period of ZO June to 3 July, 1968 by light scattering measurements
and standard hydrographic station observations. The Columbia
River plume was traced by the light scattering particles of the plume
water. The light scattering particles are estimated to be contained
in the plume water for 30 to 50 days. On the basis of the data taken
in the Columbia River plume region, a conceptual model is made to
describe the flow of river originated particles to the ocean water.
In the distribution of the light scattering particles a northward deep
current under the plume near the river mouth and a subsurface off-
shore flow near the bottom of the Columbia River plume are
shown.
Redacted for Privacy
The Columbia River as a Source ofMarine Light Scattering Particles
by
Hasong Pak
A THESIS
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
June 1970
APPROVED:
Assin charge of major
C hairm.n of Department of ceanography
Dean o'f Graduate School
Date thesis is presented \cJ) (k9
Typed by Donna L. Olson for Hasong Pak
Redacted for Privacy
Redacted for Privacy
Redacted for Privacy
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author is deeply indebted to Dr. George F. Beardsley, Jr.,
my thesis advisor, for providing the indispensable means and needs
for the investigation. He also would like to express his sincere
appreciation to Dr. Robert L, Smith, who provided many construc-
tive criticisms and advice, Kendall Carder, who helped in light
scattering measurements, data reduction, and error analysis, and
Robert Hodgeson, who also helped in error analysis.
Special thanks are due to Dr. P. K. Park, who provided space
and water samples on the 6806C Columbia Plume Cruise.
This investigation was supported by the Office of Naval Re-
search, Grant No. 1Z86(1O).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
Problem 1
History 3
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM 5
INTERPRETATION OF SEA WATER LIGHT SCATTERINGDATA 10
DATA 14
RESULTS 55
General Features of 1968 Summer ColumbiaRiver Plume 55
Flows 67Model Plume 73
DISCUSSION 77
BIBLIOGRAPHY 90
APPENDIX I - COLUMBIA RIVER AND ITS ESTUARY 94
APPENDD( II REVIEW OF REGIOi'AL OCEANOGRAPHICCONDITIONS OFF THE OREGON-WASHING-TON COAST 97
APPENDIX III - BRICE PHOENIX LIGHT SCATTERINGPHOTOMETER 100
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. The cruise track and positions of the hydro-graphic stations of the R/V YAQUINA 6806C,20 June to 3 July, 1968. Section I followsclosely to the plume axis, and sections II to Vare approximately along the latitude. 8
2. An example of the volume scattering functionfor coastal and oceanic water, and the theoreti-cal curve for pure water (Spilhaus, 1965). 11
3. Salinity distribution on the sea surface. 30
4. Scattering particle distribution on the seasurface. 31
5. Salinity distribution on the 3m surface. 32
6. Scattering particle distribution on the 3msurface. 33
7, Salinity distribution on the lOm surface. 34
8. Scattering particle distribution on the lOmsurface. 35
9. Salinity distribution on the ZOm surface. 36
10. Scattering particle distribution on the ZOmsurface. 37
11. Salinity distribution on the 30m surface. 38
12. Scattering particle distribution on the 30msurface. 39
13. Salinity distribution on Section I. 40
14. Scattering particle distribution on Section I. 41
Figure Page
15. Temperature distribution on Section I. 42
16. Sigma-t distribution on Section I. 43
17. Oxygen distribution on Section I. 44
18. Salinity distribution on Section II. 45
19. Scattering particle distribution on Section II. 46
20. Temperature distribution on Section II. 47
21. Sigma-t distribution on Section U. 48
22. Oxygen distribution on Section II. 49
23. Scattering distribution on Section III. 50
24. Salinity distribution on Section III. 51
25. Scattering particle on Section IV. 52
26. Salinity distribution on Section IV. 53
27. Scattering particle on Section V. 54
28. Temperature and salinity vs. depth curvesfor stations MC-5 and MC-6. 56
29. Sigma-t distribution on the 3m surface. 58
30. Temperature distribution on the 3m surface. 59
31. Columbia River plume axes defined by salinity,temperature, sigma -t, and scattering particleon the 3m surface. 61
32. Salinity distribution at sea surface, Brown BearCruise 308, 7-19 June 1962 (Budinger et al.,1964). 65
33. Temperature vs. scattering particle on SectionII. 70
Figure Page
34. Distribution of Holocene clay-mineral groups. 72
35. Plume model in the vertical section along theplume axis. 75
36. Plume model on a section across the plumeaxis. 76
37. Scattering particle profile at MC-5 and MC-6. 80
38. Stability (Brunt-Vaisrd. Frequency) profiles atMC-5,6. 81
39. Profiles of stability and scattering particles atMC-25, near the river mouth. 82
40. Profiles of stability and scattering particles atMC-33, at the edge of the plume. 83
41. Stability profiles at MC-5 and MC-15. 85
42. Columbia River basin. 95
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. 6806C Columbia plume cruise data, 16
2. Meridional components of geostrophic currentand Ekman transport. 66
3. Results of error analysis. 108
THE COLUMBIA RIVER AS A SOURCE OFMARINE LIGHT SCATTERING PARTICLES
INTRODUCTION
Problem
The various dissolved and suspended substances in the ocean
produce optical properties which vary markedly from place to place.
A systematic method of interpreting the spatial and temporal distri-
bution of these properties will assist in the solution of many oceano-
graphic problems. Such a systematic approach to the analysis and
interpretation of optical properties must include considerations of
the sources, sinks, and reservoirs of these particles.
Rivers are sources of optical properties just as they are
sources of fresh water. The Columbia River is the major river
bringing fresh water from the North American continent to the North-
eastern Pacific ocean. This thesis is the result of an experimental
effort to understand the process by which particles are introduced
into an oceanic region by a localized source (a major river), and
to develop a conceptual model which describes the basic process by
which rivers introduce one type of optical property, light scattering
by particulate matter, into the ocean. The experimental program
was carried out in the Columbia River plume region.
2
Light scattering by suspended material is the specific para-
meter studied in this thesis, and the word "optical property" is used
to imply this scattering property. The process of light scattering
has been treated theoretically by the application of electromagnetic
wave theory. Mie (1908) derived a rigorous expression in this way
for the light field resulting from the scattering of a plane monochro-
matic wave by spherical, non-absorbing particles. He showed that
the light scattering depends in a complicated way upon the particle
size and relative index of refraction. However, assuming that the
particles are separated by at least three times their radii and
scattered light has the same wavelength as the incident light, then
one useful consequence of the Mie theory is that the scattering by a
system of particles is the sum of the scattered light from individual
particles. Thus the light scattering is directly related to the
particle concentration.
Theoretical analysis of light scattering to obtain particle sizes,
shapes, and constituents is not possible with present techniques, thus
an experimental method is needed. Since for a given set of those
parameters, a unique scattering field is derived, the study of
changes in the scattered light reflects the variations in these para-
meters themselves.
3
History
The progress of optical oceanography has been slow mainly
because of the difficulties in making suitable instruments. Kalle
(Jerlov, 1968) applied the photoelectric cell and made a scattering
meter to determine particle distributions in the deep ocean. Jerlov
(1953) made an extensive application of these optical properties of
sea water to the study of water masses and circulation. During the
Swedish Deep Sea Expedition (1947-1948), Jerlov (1953) determined
the particle concentration using the Tyndall meter measurements.
He applied the method to an identification of water types, the Equa-
tonal current system, deep water circulation, and particle detach-
ment from bottom sediments in connection with bottom topography.
Jerlov (1959) applied the turbulence and diffusion theory to
describe the vertical particle distribution and presented several
empirical measurements. He concluded the following:
* . . . It seems established that there is often an indisputablerelationship between particle distribution and salinity dis-tribution inasmuch as particle distribution is much con-trolled by the turbulence and ultimately by the flow of thedifferent water masses.
The application of light scattering measurements to the outflow
of river effluent has been made by Jerlov (1953a, 1953b and 1958)
and by Ketchum and Shonting (1958). These studies are considered
incomplete due to insufficient area coverage. The Po River plume,
4
studied by the former author (1958), provided a comprehensive guide
to the problem, but geographic and hydrographic conditions of the
plume region complicated the results,
The latter authors traced the Orinoco River plume in the
Cariaco Trench, which is more than 250 nautical miles from the
source. Their findings are considered incomplete since the path be-
tween the region of the studied plume and the source of the plume
was not studied. It seems imperative for the interpretation of the
measurements made in the Cariaco Trench to consider the progress
of the plume between the source and the Cariaco Trench, The parti-
cle constituents, sizes, shapes, and dispersion processes of the
plume may or may not support the interpretation made by the latter
authors on the particle distributions observed in the Cariaco Trench.
On this basis, a thorough study of the optical properties at their
source region is believed to improve and extend the use of these
properties.
5
EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
An ideal scientific experiment is one in which the whole
system can be controlled. Usually such controlled experiments are
not feasible in oceanography, so field experiment programs must be
used instead, A good field program is easiest to develop when the
phenomena to be studied are simple, with a well defined geometry,
and with features that vary slowly in comparison with the possible
speed of survey. Approximations of synoptic observations, which
are often practiced in oceanographic works, are based on such con-
ditions. The availability of supporting data from previous studies is
also helpful in planning field programs.
The Columbia River plume region was considered excellent for
the proposed study. The use of the Columbia River water as a cool-
ant for nuclear power plants at Hanford has motivated many prior
cruises in the plume area, and the basic physical, chemical, bio-
logical, and geological features are well known (References are given
in Appendix II). The plume is well developed during the summer
months, and shows a persistency during this season. Previous
studies (Budinger et al., 1964; Frederick, 1967; and Cissel, 1969)
have shown that fourteen days at sea are sufficient to obtain an
accurate and nearly synoptic picture of the plume during the summer
in a region about 100 by ZOO nautical miles.
The oceanic region into which the Columbia River effluent
flows is characterized as an Eastern Boundary current region of the
North Pacific Ocean with a weak but recognizable southward surface
flow during the summer. North or Northwesterly wind persists
during the summer, and coastal upwelling is observed along the
coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California. Thus during the
summer, the weak southward surface current, a persistant north or
northwesterly wind, and upwelling along the coast cause the Columbia
effluent to form a tongue-shaped plume extending toward the south or
southwest. This plume is bounded by upwelled water on the coast
side and by clear oceanic water on the offshore side. It is clearly
identified by a salinity minimum.
The Columbia River plume maintains a well defined, simple
form during the summer because the dry regional climate during
that season eliminates the complicating effects of coastal streams,
and the persistent wind system keeps the plume position at an
approximately steady state.
Further details of the Columbia River, its estuary and regional
oceanographic conditions are presented in Appendices I and II.
The Columbia River plume cruise (6806C)1 was planned to
study the physical, chemical, and biological aspects of the Columbia
'The 6806C Cruise was planned and executed by Dr. P. K. Park
7
River plume and its environmental water during summer upwelling
conditions. The addition of an optics program to this cruise allowed
us to obtain the data required for this study. The cruise took place
during the period of June 20 to July 3, 1968, and included 67 hydro-
graphic stations and another hundred auxiliary stations of bucket
samples placed between hydrographic stations (Figure 1).
The data obtained at each hydrographic station and used in this
study include temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, and light
scattering, listed in Table 1, along with computed values of sigma-t
(density) and the stability parameter (Brunt-Väisälä frequency). All
the measurements were made on samples taken with Teflon-coated
Nans en-bottles.
The hydro-casts and samples were taken according to standard
procedures. The temperature was measured by reversing thermo-
meters attached to the Nans en-bottles. The salinity was measured
by an hlHytechH inductive salinometer, The dissolved oxygen was
measured by the Winkler method. Light scattering was measured
in the ship?s laboratory with a Brice-Phoenix light scattering photo-
meter. This instrument measures the light scattered by a water
sample contained in a glass scattering cell. The instrument and its
operational procedures are presented in Appendix LII.
The standard sampling depths were 0, 3, 6, 10, 20, 30, 40,
50, 75, 100, 125, and 150 meters. A BT was cast before each
a .uoô..I.-___
-
-...- S.
/ - ''n óS_/'
. .!---"/ -11
SC O I I / / 3'0:,,0:o ---/ r6.
-
a.-'in 'a
I'w /a
SECT ION I / \o2' ) ,A I i 0.
/0F()
in 0çsj 4 in'
in I)
SECTION V
°N ,
0
0
--c &.0/
N?,. -_. . (cjJ',,/'
5,a:
'0(. I...'
.0I:.:
: k.-'
.5
'Io 00 0 0
0' I::
2 N-:f-I
F::'.'
N) IU)i-I
'/E-.
1.0 5'sIC)' ,
0
i
R.
Figure 1. The cruise track and positions of the hydrographic stations
of the RIV YAQUINA 6806 C, 20 June to 3 July, 1968.Section I follows closely to the plume axis, and sectionsII to V are approximately along the latitude.
hydro-cast and additional Nansen-bottles were added to the standard
depths whenever significant features, such as temperature inversions
or any other rapid changes with depth,were found on the BT slide,
Since the casts were all shallow and made under good conditions, no
corrections for wire angle were necessary.
10
INTERPRETATION OF SEA WATER LIGHT SCATTERING DATA
The volume scattering function, p(8), is defined by:
(8) J(6)(1)
HV
where J(0) is the intensity of scattered light in the direction of 8, H
is the input irradiance, and V the scattering volume defined by inter-
section of the light beam and the detectivity beam. Figure 2 shows
three observed volume scattering functions plotted against scatter-
ing angle, 8. The total scattering coefficient can be defined by:
(111
b = Zrr 13(8) sin8dO (2)0
The total scattering coefficient is usually computed from 13(8)
measured at certain intervals of 0. The measurement of 13(8) at a
small angle is considerably difficult, and a separate instrument is
usually used for the small angle measurement (Spilhaus, 1965; and
Morrison, 1967).
FTom the regular behavior of the angular dependence of the
volume scattering function, Jerlov (1953a), Tyler (1961c), Spilhaus
(1965),*and Morrison (1967) concluded that the total scattering co-
efficient can be computed by 13 (45) with small error showing b and
13 (45) are linearly dependent. Thus the total scattering coefficient
11
0C OASTAL
00
00
OCEANIC 00 0
00 0
o 000000000
0
DC
CC
ATHEORETICAL c 0 0
300 600 90° 1200 1500
L!J
Figure 2. An example of the volume scattering functionfor coastal and oceanic water, and the theoreti-cal curve for pure water (Spilhaus, 1965).
12
in the form of equation (2) is not computed considering 1) 3 (45) is
an adequate substitute for b, 2) more time involved in measuring
() at many angles to apply equation (2), and 3) the difficulties in
small angle (0) measurement, which has some uncertainty remain-
ing.
According to the Mie theory, the scattering coefficient from
N particles per unit volume can be represented by:
b=KNirD2/4=KNA (3)
where K is efficiency factor or the effective area coefficient, D is
the diameter of the particles, and A is the cross-sectional area of
particle. In case of polydispersed particles, the scattering coeffi-
cient is given by:
b K. N. (4)
Burt (1956) computed the effective area coefficient, on the
basis of Rayleigh's equation and Mie theory for non-absorbing
spheres, as a function of refractive index, size, and wavelengths.
With increasing particle size, K increases rapidly at small radii,
then it passes a maximum for sizes of the same order as the wave-
length, and it tends thereafter toward a constant value of 2 for larger
radii irrespective of the wavelength.
13
On the basis of the equation (3) or (4), the scattering coefficient
measured in sea water can be interpreted as a measure of particle
concentration with a mean diameter D Particularly for a system of
polydispersed particles in which the mean size remains constant, or
then the volume scattering function measured at 450,D N'
p (45), is proportional to the concentration of particles.
14
DATA
The final reduced data are listed in Table 1, The data were
analyzed on horizontal surfaces at several depths and in vertical
sections along the plume axis and across the plume axis, Figures
relevant to the discussion and results are listed below and collected
in the following pages.
The volume scattering function measured at 450 angle is ex-
pressed in absolute unit of (meter-steradian) Through the rela-
tion between the total scattering coefficient and the volume scatter-
ing function measured at 450P (45), as described in the previous
section,1
(45) is directly interpreted as a parameter indicating
suspended particle concentrations.
List of Analysis
Figure
3, Salinity distribution on the sea surface,
4, Scattering particle distribution on the sea surface,
5. Salinity distribution on the 3m surface,
6. Scattering particle distribution on the 3m surface,
7. Salinity distribution on the lOm surface.
8, Scattering particle distribution on the lOm surface,
9, Salinity distribution on the ZOm surface,
10, Scattering particle distribution on the ZOm surface,
15
11. Salinity distribution on the 30m surface.
12. Scattering particle distribution on the 30m surface.
13, Salinity distribution on Section I
14, Scattering particle distribution on Section I.
15, Temperature distribution on Section L
16. Sigma-t distribution on Section I.
17. Oxygen distribution on Section I.
18, Salinity distribution on Section II.
19. Scattering particle distribution on Section II.
20. Temperature distribution on Section II.
21. Sigma-t distribution on Section II.
22. Oxygen distribution on Section II.
23. Scattering distribution on Section III.
24. Salinity distribution on Section III.
25. Scattering distribution on Section IV.
26. Salinity distribution on Section IV.
27. Scattering particle distribution on Section V.
16
Table 1. 6806c Columbia Plume Cruise data.2 T S 02 Ni S45 S90
LI (mi/i)
DB-1 0 10.08 32.959 5.6 25.36 2.975 9.9694 10.9545 9.17 33.290 4.46 25.77 2.008 3.7758 47343
10 8.68 33.L1.5 3.81 25.98 1.657 4.1484 5.594920 7.95 33.65 2.52 26.25 3.0679 4.8993
DB-3 0 io.06 32.794 ,64 25,24 2,901 4.1786 5.0924
5 9.10 33.137 4.53 25,66 1.238 3.4251 4.718610 8.96 33.202 4.39 25.74 1.63 2.0741 2.442920 8.18 33.369 3.17 25.98 2.139 2.4086 3.221530 7.41 33.803 2.12 26.44 .9547 2.0173 3.24504o 7,21 33.884 1.54 26.53 ----- 2.0037 3.176650 7.22 33.888 1.46 26.53 ----- 2.6520 3.7981
DB-5 0 11.73 31.208 6.6i 23.71 3.463 3.1312 3.46515 10.79 31.763 6.35 24.31 3.201 4.1571 4.o75
10 9.53 32.150 5.31 24.83 2,Q48 2,1977 2.769420 7.83 32.934 4.05 25.70 1.947 1.4583 2.118530 7.75 33.352 3.46 26.04 i.5L4 1.0858 1.835340 7.62 33.632 2.60 26.28 1.3921 2.350650 7.45 33,756 2.32 26.39 1.73 1.9191 3.249160 7,10 33.899 1.87 26.55 1.1353 1.4008
DB-7 0 12.67 33.932 1.88 23.10 4.654 3.9774 5.62595. 11.36 33.888 2.55 24.18 3.375 1.4694 2.5910
10 9.55 33.860 2.74 24.75 2,759 1.1190 2.129920 7.89 33.843 2.88 25.52 1.979 1.3215 2.378130 7.62 33.746 2.i0 2.91 1.353 .72796 .881724o 7.71 33.532 3.13 26.09 1.021 9Y-o3 1.769650 7.64 33.419 3.44 26.19 1,40? .27741 2.03476o 7.41 33.162 3.95 26.39 .9331 i.07c4 1.Q7970 7.35 32.716 4.41 26.49 .197 1.4208 3.002580 7.19 32.066 5.48 2.52 .5949 2.5326 3.303090 7.05 31.720 6.70 26.55 .7004 3.4528 Li..6652
100 6.98 30.631 6.69 26.60 5.8627 8.2474DB-10 0 14.17 30.353 6,44 22.59 4.481 2.8980 3,3557
5. 13.54 31.496 6.56 23.59 4.295 2.2710 3.055210 10.27 31.919 6.84 24.2 2.542 2.23R1 2.448320 8.35 32.355 4.95 25.17 1.983 1.2367 1.909030 7,75 32.747 4.31 25,56 1.655 1.2317 1.9i640 7.70 33.085 4.15 25.84 1.438 1.6739 2.23250 7.68 33.340 3.88 26.04 1.340 1.2857 2.288660 7.74 33.583 3.38 26.22 1.022 1.1335 2.084470 7.56 33.682 3.08 26.32 1.150 1.4553 3.106680 7.35 33.816 2.78 26.45 .7598 .87232 1.653790 7.22 33.866 2.76 26.51 .6316 1.9179 3.5635
100 7.16 33.901 2.70 26.55 .5049 1.9168 3.0723125 6.93 33.949 1.60 26.62 3.8258 5.2577
TDB-15 0 14.75 29.526 6.39 21.83 4,4oi 2,4970 3.12210 13.95 31.805 6,30 23.77 2.706 1.4658 2.213420 r'.50 31.925 7.11 24.51 2.43631 8.22 32.247 5.61 25.10 2.046 1.029 1.8043
17
Table 1. (continued)
Z T S 02 Ni S45 S90
(°C) (mi/i)
DR-IS 3 7,75 32.426 5.84 25.31 1.366 .81544 1.63004() 7.81 32,58 5.81 25.40 i.6o6 .63250 1.264945 7.84 32.724 4.31 25.53 1.288 1.7834 3.0257
50 790 32.206 !i57 25.61 1.533 1.1006 1.8591
60 7.R1 33.124 4.60 25.85 1.481 .91483 1.705770 7.81 33.401 3.82 26.07 1.186 1.0920 2.175880 .76 33.572 3.54 26.21 .17 .S0005 1.613890 7.61 33.657 3.16 26.29 1.13.5 1.208 2.7850100 7.3? 33,777 2.71 26.42 .8023 1,1367 2.1712125 7.01 33.910 2.53 26.58 .75 1.0714 1.8715149 6.66 33.959 2.30 26.66 ---- .o3942 2.0171
DB-20 0 14.78 29.603 6.40 21.89 3.Ri 2.4559 3.096020 2,92 32.279 7.16 24.86 1.409 .9467 1.690030 9.17 32.372 7.05 25.06 1.028 .96973 1.666740 ,74 32,428 6.63 25.16 1.104 .8561P 1.667459 Q,19 32,475 6.18 25.28 1.688 .74369 1.345660 7,63 32.234 4.85 25.57 1.893 .82060 1.6282
70 7.70 33.202 4.27 25.93 1.322 1.3414 2.416175 ?.0 33.338 3,27 26.01 1.271 1.1202 1.978120 7.73 33.427 3.64 26.09 1.372 1.2'425 2.3664
.73 3.540 3.40 26.19 l.31 1.2607 2.474390 7,62 33.639 3.07 26.28 .8312 1.2563 i.9899100 7.63 33.727 3.20 26.34 .8802125 7.10 33.877 2.46 26.54 .6475 .373'J2 .42975
150 (-.80 33.95 2.38 26.64 .4372 .03307 1.6391
DB-25 0 1.3Q 28.080 6.27 20.60 5.652 2.5707. 3.13310 13.86 31.936 6.34 23.79 2.391 1.2248 2,270520 12.15 32.147 6.92 24,36 2.93 1,013 2.086830 9.42 32.414 7.13 25.04 .9562 1.4255 1.930140 8.82 32.449 6.87 25.13 .5973 1.6434 2.0218
8.82 32.442 6.70 25.17 .8693 .89434 1.7732.50
60 8.53 32.488 6.31 25.24 1.135 .94445 1.8255
70 8.35 32.614 6.02 25.37 1.623 .98506 1.9347
75 7.99 32.712 5.56 25.50 1.717 1.0110 1.660380 8.21 32.949 5.17 2.65 i.6n8 .68275 1.392285 8.13 33.093 4.85 25.78 1.155 .77413 1.52830 8.05 33.163 4.69 25.84 i.i6 .73198 1.3088
100 7D4 3.315 4.33 25.98 1.026 .884qo 1.6230125 7.93 3.44 26.27 1.042 .73322 1.3716
150 7.10 33.871 2.49 26.54 .5717 1.6654 2.8878DB-30 0 16.09 26.499 6.26 19.23 3.436 2.5675 3.0607
50 9,00 32.447 6.90 25.14 1.239 1.1923 2.166975 8.33 32.809 5.50 25.52 1.338 .77895 1.473586 8.32 33.055 4.95 25.72 1.640 .79265 1.427691 8.31 33.222 4.72 25.85 1.457 .80357 1.5277lot 0,20 33,479 4.12 26.o6 1,068 257LL9 1.2074111 8.17 33.612 3.78 26.18 .5570 1.4467 2,7109121 8.12 33.640 3.67 2.21 .9621 .6063 1.1741130 7.93 33.713 3.59 26.29 .8524 .60744 12334140 7.81 33.788 3.46 26.37 7L144
150 7.65 33.821 3.30 26./42 ---- 1.°127 2.9974
18
Table 1. (continued)
Z T S 02 Ni S45 S90
St't. J (mi/i) (3)
DB_LI.0 0 16.70 25.206 6.08 18.12 7.435 1.7008 2.090510 13.96 31.679 6.32 23.65 3.'21 1.7081 2.684520 11.79 32.474 6.00 24.69 1.718 .96888 1.731130 10.16 32.525 7.24 2501 .8970 1.026 2.1313
0.72 32.c32 7.05 25.09 .7726 .02018 1.988650 9.35 32.535 6.68 25.15 .8232 1.4200 2.053460 0.02 32.555 6.32 25.22 1.454 .73563 1.973870 8.1 32.727 5,79 25.43 1,420 .60261 1.246780 S.4i 32.978 5.43 25,63 i.cio 1.6153 3.310090 8.41 33,22 4.75 25,89 1.284 1.0750 1.8652100 9,20 33.421 4.24 26.03 1.004 .o6?56 1.7712125 .12 33.711 3.49 26.27 .7291 1.293 2.3308150 7.84 33,838 3.10 26.40 --- 1.2450 2.0276
1C-1 0 16.25 20.940 5,92 21.83 R4 1.1858 1.72003 16.22 2P9t2 5.97 21.86 --- .96718 1.72556 16.24 20.020 5.89 21.82 3.242 .80989 1.570
10 15,86 30.369 6.76 22.24 4.c9 1,2185 1.869720 12.28 32.lco 5.98 24.35 2.464 .87247 1.582730 o.84 32.380 7.37 24.96 1.l3 1.0284 2.1088
0.38 32.457 7.13 2,09 .0544 1.1616 2.270850 9,1 32,521 6.47 2.18 1.250 .61388 1.407355 8.20 32.572 6.16 25.25 1.124 .67832 1.391960 8.91 32.657 5.Q 25,32 1.302 .93750 1.68455
89Q 32.770 .89 25,41 1.802 .85757 1.730370 9,75 32.953 5,43 25.7 1.287 1.4523 2.466275 8,72 3329 .09 25.66 1.185 .89961 1.4692
100 .j6 33.327 U.3 26.01 .9725 .oi8o4 1.6814150 7.60 33.777 2.85 26.' 1.7180 2.8677
MC-2 0 15.53 31.634 5,94 23.29 2.548 .78142 1.40083 14.58 31.626 .03 23.49 p77476 1.50086 i5.c4 31.633 5.05 23,29 1.278 .85013 1.4631
10 i.28 31.769 5.95 23.44 2.930 .73423 1.22.56
20 1.62 32.356 6.31 24,24 1.891 .85085 1.378932 12.21 32.459 6.78 24.60 1.750 1.0224 1.605040 10.64 32,492 7,03 2LJ.91 1.142 .91625 1,646250 9.90 32.497 7.14 25.04 1.018 .93443 1.5285
75 8.82 32.610 6.I 25.30 1.450 2.3084 4.5551100 8.11 33.16 4,99 25.82 1.042 1,2409 2.5231150 900 33.790 3.40 26.36 --- 1.1609 1.6946
MC-3 0 15.86 30.94 5.90 2268 .1962 .84870 1.69433 15.82 30.93 5.04 22,69 --- .88025 1.66926 15.86 30.93 5.92 22.68 2.298 1.2224 2.1076
10 1.77, 31.18 5.95 22.89 3.958 .91711 1.537220 13.59 32.62 6.28 24.45 --- 1.042 1.740030 12.89 32.37 6.55 24,40 2.378 .05831 1.69214n 9.96 32.42 7,20 24.07 1.209 i.6636 2.863950 0.15 32.44 7,30 2.11 .6767 1.6156 2.392675 8.51 32.46 6.20 25.23 1.602 1.4354 3.0454
100 7.89 33.16 14.96 25.87 1.206 1.3144 2,5154105 9.1.8 33.31 4.51 25.94 1.045 1.7636 3.0963149 7.79 33.95 3.08 26.42 .5507 .88342 1,7590
19
Table 1. (continued)
Z T S 02 Ni S45 S90
Stat. j (mi/i) j
MC-4 0 16.Li.LI. 28.729 5.92 20.86 4.290 1.6961 2.5290
3 16.36 29.42 5.95 21.41 4.753 1.1998 2.04036 16.1) 30.24 5.99 22.09 5.182 .97840 1.737610 15.03 31.33 6.08 23.16 3.402 1.1227 1.846720 12.78 32.24 6.75 24.32 2.366 .97788 1.565130 10.51 32.43 7.24 24.88 1.237 1.1427 2.177240 9.79 32.47 7.28 25.04 .8698 1.4467 2.256050 9.36 32.48 7.09 25.11 1.029 .72316 1.5763
75 8.87 32.72 5.93 25.38 .99963 2.0113100 8.41 4.55 7.307 .66110 1.3008149 7.73 33.77 3.38 26.37 .61A9 .98260 1.8242
0 16.76 27.32 6.04 19.72 3.292 1.3506 2.18363 16.53 27.68 6.15 20.05 9.313 3.9800 6.47326 1.57 30.81 6.16 22.65 3.992 6.9934 2.4474
10 i.i4 31.52 6.17 23.29 3.402 1.8726 2.412420 12.05 32.22 6.88 24.45 2.151 1.3538 2.834330 10.13 32.44 7.31 24.96 1.093 .84853 1.626640 9.30 32.42 7.24 25.08 .9924 1.6453 2.337650 92 32.45 .68 25.17 .8951 1.0242 1.6855
8.50 32.40 --- 25.25 .9413 1.3820 2.12558.62 32.5'? 6.25 25.30 1.502 2.5339 5.2966
70 9.13 32.62 6.22 25.11.1 .76698 1.273485 2.37 33.13 5.11 25.77 1.540 1.1381 2.151790 9.31 33.27 4.75 25.89 1.073 .61793 1.313395 8.24 33,3 4.64 25.95 1.258 .75626 1.5619
100 8.13 33.41 4.42 26.03 .899? 2.2366 3,5455150 .73 33,9/4 26.42 .77713 1.4963
?'lc-6 0 16.79 25.94 6.21 18.66 6.059 1.3713 2.22033 16.42 2.29 ,27 19.76 10.46 1.9488 3.02306 1.97 31.16 6.37 23.05 2.753 1.6439 2.3857
10 l'i)L4 3,Lj 6,49 23.35 3.856 1.3203 1.938920 9.7 32.20 7.30 24,8/4 1.605 1.6120 L887930 '06 37,39 7.03 25.10 .6815 .87785 1.476340 .74 6.6o 25.14 .8781 1.5118 1.9162
8.51 32,45 6.47 2.22 1.408 1.3635 2.172075 8.02 32.Q9 .12 25.72 1.341 1.0077 2.0200
100 7.84 33.53 3,81 26.17 .2260 .H1022 1.49891/49 7.21 33.4 2.2 26.50 1.6867 2,7889
MC-7 0 16,47 26.105 6.45 18.85 9.705 3.C26 4.85923 1.73 28.78 6.46 21.13 6.096 ?.T /4.48096 15.17 30.17 6.40 22.24 3.327 2.5382 3.338910 14.89 30.67 6,46 22.69 3.57? 2.5629 3.045430 7.90 32.37 5.16 25.25 1.433 1.0868 1.9294SQ 7.77 32.87 5.01 25.66 1.693 .68628 1.679955 7,97 33.09 /4.81 25.99 1,559 .87479 2,006160 7.89 33.23 4.59 25.92 1.346 .55349 1.267065 7,86 33.34 4.28 26.01 1.107 .56849 1.292770 7.87 33,42 4,21 26,07 1.236 2.6840 5.092675 7.83 33.51 4.00 26.15 1.023 .73826 1.601380 774 33.56 3.67 26.20 1.235 .75980 1.6645
Table 1. (continued)
Z T S
L cJ
MC -7
MC-8
NC-9
MC-l0
NC-il
MC-12
90 7.39100 7.33150 6.75
0 15.963 15.916 13. 7810 12.3820 8.4830 7.5340 7,4750 7.5855 7.7860 7.8865 7.8170 7,7475 7.66
100 7.28150 6.62
0 12.563.10.016 9.67
10 9.3420 7.7930 7.7240 7.6450 7.390 12.053 11.626 11.4910 11.3620 7.9830 7.5140 7.6550 7.500 12.883 12.086 9.55
10 8,9420 7.8230 7.7040 7.6550 7.6075 7.150 12.743 12.766 12.7510 12.0820 7.82:30
757,2;
33.69933.84133.94726.1672..22630. 22931. 59232.32032.63332.8 7633. 11233. 30433. 36533.44033.51033. 54333. 849
31.22331. 96532.17532.27732.89233. 43633. 6 50
33.80130. 97831. 30231.47731. 62632. 61833.05833. 53033. 73430.42 530.85932. 01832. 322
33. 09833. 40833. 59233. 79233. 97130. 82430. 84730. 86231.16833. 21633.74633. 842
02
(mi/i)
2.61 26,362.81 26.482,51 26.646.84 19.026.84 19.076.61 22.587.26 23.904.78 25.135.24 25.514.43 25.71
3,93 25,884.28 26.004.38 26.044.07 26.10
3.83 26.16
3,55 26,202,88 26.501.786.27 23.585.68 24,605.39 24.825,28 24.954.08 25.673.10 26.102.72 26.292.12 26.446.09 23.148
6.03 23.826.13 23.986.16 24.114.49 25.434.40 25,842.88 26.192.73 26.386.44 22,916.22 23.404.96 24.734.78 25.053.77 25.833.19 26.092.83 26.243.01 26.411.98 '6.6i6.51 23.236.52 23.256.54 2.?66.56 23,f23.'0 25,022.42 26.3'2,15 Lp
Ni
1.1245658
1.33510.805.7443.5051.9511.4161.3021.551.86721.1751.102.89901.091
5.8402.7021.8082.6822,0831.3571 .239
3.3282.3141.8263.6382.0241.8761. 3.58
4.0556.6512.8452,792i.6io1.2371.293.8859
.7032.P74,7922,150r)ry) 5
20
S45 S90
2)
1.1031 1.9830.87938 1.65593.0)33 4.73734.8697 5.48704.5601 5.59602.7263 3.17722,9601 3.36541.2495 2.0101.84042 1.6014.94987 2.6584.8266 1.7852.70859 1.4586.88685 1.8376.72413 1.5251.81384 1.8416.62036 1.3243.84265 1.4997
3.6908 4.71593,3464 4.02082.9015 3.78972.6362 3.36471.2926 1.81341.1415 2.02231.3030 .21462.5161 3.40924.5658 5.20945.5601 7.98483.7080 4.55623.1660 3.82511.9408 2.36491.1121 1.79691.3792 2.3ce571.41.76 2,29574.7637 6.00634.8996 5.33812.8917 3.84171.9385 2.64351.6772 2.61031.4844 2.54531.5036 2.64241.5527 2.45674.0454 5.20414.1717 5.42114.24.06 5.47174.0205 5.11393.434 5.00242.2447 2.8/431
1.5700 2.70861.0025 3.0328
21
Table 1. (continued)
Z T S 02 Ni S45 S90
§ J ic.i (mi/i)
MC-l3 0 15.68 24.566 6.87 17.85 12.03 7.1610 8.'4.564
3 13.26 29.608 6.66 22.19 8.143 4.6055 5,50116 11.01 31.640 5.58 24.18 3.940 4.1537 5.0645
10 9.72 32.164 4.67 24.81 3.394 2.9349 3.823420 .2 33.267 3.36 25.96 1.682 2,3547 3,513930 7.60 33.587 2.73 26.24 1.165 12273 2,242040 7.42 33.729 2.51 26.37 .9548 1.5275 2.449250 7.22 33.803 2.41 26.47 .7699 1.1166 1.9667
75 .89 33.938 1.76 26,61 3.3367 5,2679MC-14 0 15.55 25.772 6.66 18.80 2,306 6.3011 7.4663
3 15.48 2c.965 6,61 18.96 10.10 6.446 8.01026 13.72 2c,,14Q3 .90 22.02 6.751 5.1342 6.1236
10 12.13 31.462 6.77 23.84 '3,010 3,5774 4.422520 9.82 32.110 4.93 24,75
25,622.957 2.4674 3.0080
30 7.79 32.831 3.75 2,140 1.5881 2.615240 7.44 33.356 3.20 26.08 - 1,Qc 2.i84250 7.55 --- '-- --- 10.2775 6.8? 33.924 1.73 26.61 .5232 1.5174 2,5254
100 6.6o 33.966 i.66 26.68 2.5209 4.1680MC-15 0 15.97 21.268 6.93 15.27 10.31 10.394 12.586
3 15.23 25.255 7.01 19,46 12.12 6.4398 8,07916 14.17 30.221 6.67 22.87 2.542 3.4015 4.4053
10 13.65 30.927 6.70 23.13 2.708 3.6643 4.596020 12.12 31.490 .38 23.87 3.396 3.5277 4.437030 8.74 32.243 4.78 25.01 2.33240 7.71 32.743 14.10 25.56 1.940 1.2533 2.199550 7.38 33.160 3.64 25,94 1.778 1.6126 2.310160 7.53 33.592 2,80 26,26 .-- 1,5393 2.619365 .62 33.571 2.86 26/23 1.512 1.3801 2.269270 7.48 33.696 2.83 26.34 1.253 1.6268 2.747875 7,37 33,774 2.93 26.41 .9700 .86690 1.722480 7.26 33.91 2.75 26,147 .8203 1.2080 2.4629100 6.86 33.913 2.01 26.60 1,9252 2.4561
MC-16 0 1.31 31.751 6.03 23.43 --- 1.1814 2.16173 15.30 31.739 6.o 23.41 1.307 .89599 1.70907 15.09 31.764 6.10 23.48 2.257 .92428 1.4900
10 14.66 31.844 6.18 23.63 2.718 .93123 1.460920 13.11 32.394 6.46 24.37 1.693 .73346 1.366330 11.72 '32.423 7.07 24.66 1.858 2.4018 2.668340 9,77 32.!436 7.32 25,01 .8919 1.5540 2.362950 9.52 32.484 7.22 25.09 1.191 1.5235 2,279575 8.19 32.670 6.07 25.44 2.475 3.5047 3.773580 8.39 33.100 5.09 25.75 1.359 1.2369 2.170385 8.40 33.221 4.80 25,84 1.782 .88564 1.798390 8.23 33.397 4.43 26.00 .8727 1.1803 2.3006
100 8.14 33.476 4.28 26.07 .8262 .46570 1.1541149 7,52 33.780 3.57 26.141 .48528 1.0725
MC-17 0 15.24 32.149 6.04 23,74 --- .82019 1.40203 15,22 32.075 6.05 23.69 .2686 .83428 1.42216 15.21 32.072 6.05 23.69 .4027 .74090 1.2420
10 i,i8 32.070 6.05 23.70 2.690 .77798 1.3465
22
Table 1. (continued)
Z T S 02 NI S45 S90
Stat. J j (mi/i)
MC-17 20 13,01 32.LJ.30 6.54 214.42 1.995 .7599 1.4209
30 11.12 32.494 7.09 24.82 1.1375 1.8414
40 9,69 32.c09 7.26 25.07 .8364 1.0537 1.8062
50 9.20 32.506 6.75 25.15 1.077 1,1454 2.0668
75 R14 32.745 5.87 25.44 i.34'4 1.3110 2.7615
100 8.40 33.290 4.54 25.89 .9944 1.0554 2.0663
149 7.62 33.763 3.55 26.38 - -
?'C-18 0 14.94 31.954 *15 23.66 .3578 .68199 1.3910
3 14.94 31.959 .10 23.67 ---- .7c602 1.48446 14.°3 31.9c7 6.13 23.67 1.182 ,7o528 1.2066
10 14.73 31.QSfl .07 23.72 2.524 .56820 1.102020 13.06 32.360 6.50 24.36 2.108 .92741 1.395830 11.00 32,438 7.34 24.81 1.517 1.7207 2.979340 9.76 32.464 7.44 25,04 .9888 1.0387 1.865950 9.15 32.462 7.08 25.13 1.057 1.0768 1.752375 7.95 32.c96 6.43 25.41 1.635 1.1754 1.956580 7.85 32,737 6.04 2.55 i,45i .98415 1.898385 7.88 32.877 5.68 25.65 1,670 1.1314 2.675890 7,77 33.042 5.24 25.79 1.196 .49402 1.2381
100 7.84 33.232 4.81 25.93 .9751 .60674 1.2539150 7.80 33.826 3.17 26,41 .56401 1.2684
MC-19 0 15.11 31.761 6.14 23.48 ---- .97769 1.4445
3 15.10 31.758 6.io 23.48 ---- 1.1626 1.75906 15.12 31.758 '.12 23.48 ---- .95543 1.5711
10 15.12 31.762 6.10 23.47 2.262 .79363 1.375320 13.10 31.858 6.49 23.98 2.131 .84623 2.128330 p.46 32.314 7.20 24.97 1.282 4.9769 2.118940 8.86 32,402 6.79 25.13 .8416 .95203 1.836950 P57 32.434 6.49 25,20 1.376 .64529 1.0999
7 7.89 32.91 .19 25.67 1.463 .68989 1.217780 7,98 33.063 .01 25.78 1.218 .70587 1.533085 7.89 '33,13° 4.84 25.86 1.125 .60394 1.381190 7.93 33.233 4.71 25.02 1.298 4.7995 2.1622100 7.87 33.433 4.46 2.09 .8277 .59201 1.3223150 7.53 33.803 3.65 26.1.i3 .57713 1,3543
MC-20 0 14.76 31.692 6.29 23.50 .0769 2.0694 2.7514
3 14.73 31.684 6.29 23.50 2.1289 2.77576 14.76 31.684 6.28 23.49 2.8214 2.0065 2,534410 13.59 31.789 .5? 23.81 2,603 2.3403 2.644730 8.25 32.336 6.15 25.17 1.589 1.3464 1.881840 "57 32.531 5.66 2c.4i 1.189 1.1803 2.1729so 7,50 32.704 5.68 25,57 1.476 .89450 1.4831
75 7.40 33.377 3.73 26.11 1.322 1.1466 2.0929
80 7.64 33.536 3.67 26.20 1.222 .99018 1.819985 7,44 33.589 3.29 26.27 1.194 1.3784 2.608190 7.32 33.658 2,89 26.34 .9881 1.1934 1.9632
100 7,26 33,777 2,53 26.4'12447 2.1829
MC-21 0 14.67 31.185 6.30 23.13 .2640 3.4377
3 14.67 31.185 6.30 23.13 .2640 ---- 3.60106 14.65 31,185 6,30 23.13 1.748 3.730 3.9583
10 14.30 31.255 6,40 23.26 3.846 - 3.929070 9.91 32.107 6,6o 24.74 2.292 1.5Ah6 2.1422
23
Table 1. (continued)
Z
-
T
L1S
i%Dl
02
(in 1/1) .&!Ni
iiS45 S90
L:1MC-21 30 7.98 32,402 .17 25,26 1.572 1.0760 1.7227
40 7,411. 32.619 '5.52 25.51 1.945 .81657 1.458350 7.46 33.103 3.56 25.89 1.612 1.5458 2.4130
75 7.13 33.875 1.24 26.54 .8052 4,6705 6.7147100 6.50 33.964 1.40 26.70 5.4491 7.7418
MC-22 0 13.94 31.430 6.31 23.46 .5435 4.2514 .2512
3 13.93 31.431 6.33 23.47 3.9425 4.99236 13.92 31.427 6.31 23,47 2.115 3.8671 4.5398
10 13.29 31.499 6.25 23.65 5.327 3.9093 4.758615 8.86 32.320 4.35 25.07 2.577 1.8720 2.697120 8.42 32,665 3.76 25.40 2.705 2.5414 3.889330 7.66 33,1454 2.11 26.13 1.835 6.1568 8.699740 7.33 33.822 2.26 26.47 .5463 4.4503 6.118850 7.31 33.859 2.16 26.50 7.3715 io;o4i
MC-23 0 14.67 12.129 6.12 8.54 16.67 32.253 39.905
3 13.25 22.745 5.70 16.93 11.19 21.025 26,8546 13.34 27.658 6.31 20.69 8.495 9.8785 11.80910 12.73 31.258 6.41 23.57 --- 7.2061 8.649915 9.79 12.546 6.17 9.5? 17.82 29.255 34.83120 8.25 32.744 3.70 25.49 2.7581 4.3799
MC-24 0 17.10 1.364 7.18 3.186 59.593 57.848
3 16.o6 1.740 7.02 .18 6.256 56.718 74.9426 16.65 3.241 6.66 1.36 11.10 57,476 63.236
10 15.06 9,447 6.io 6,41 18.3315 9.07 .30,092 3.78 23.30
MC-25 0 12.05 29.931i- 5.76 21.90 7.269 192.40 184.80
3 10.73 30.680 4.92 23.49 8.552 6.1619 7.68916 8.47 33.036 3.36 25.68 2.512 L1..392 4.7857
10 7,66 33.205 3.30 25.93 1,729 2.0989 2.877220 7.60 33.570 2.91 26.23 1.108 1.7351 2.628230 753 33.740 2.78 26.37 .7559 1.7360 2.905414.9 7.46 33.807 2.52 26.43 .8445 2.1361 3.050750 7.29 3.3.863 2.91 26.50 .5935 1.7957 2.840560 7.16 33.887 2.28 26,54 - - 3.5793 5.0794
MC-26 0 12.58 29.279 6.63 22.07 6.614 7.2308 8.32363 11.54 30.728 5.98 23,39 7.787 6.3221 7.44626 8.41 32.403 4.12 25.20 3.155 4.3885 4.9916
10 7.99 32.823 3.93 25,60 2.107 2.9934 3.851820 7.72 33.3c4 723 26.05 1.388 1.9010 2.952030 .6i 33.581 2.62 26.24 1.8509 3.039040 7.50 29.898 2.89 1.7232 2.687950 7.38 33.836 2.01 26.47 4.8074 6.2982
MC-27 0 13.98 28.731 7.00 21.38 6.092 5.5646 6.8774
3 13.58. 30.071 7.06 22.50 7.142 4.8106 5.57096 11.58 31.564 6.20 214.,03 4,759 2.8521 3.252310 9.40 32.260 4.91 24,93 2.709 2.0976 2.844120 7.70 32.868 4.03 25.67 2,130 1.2184 2.210130 7.70 33.14.53 2.94 26,12 1.457 .99840 1.906740 7.55 33.696 2.59 26.34 1.3017 2.441250 7,43 32,Q13 3.12 2c.74 2.5225 3.3874
MC-28 0 12.77 30.8c6 6.72 23.26 2.502 3.8677 4,7537
3 12.69 31.077 6.70 23.44 4.084 3.7919 4.94566 11.64 31.469 6.17 23.94 4.767 3.1982 3.9001
69601 6$i' 6ot L1' '9 iC 9L 0 ai 9L1i oic oo oi oY1 L6L9' 1L9'I '1i? 69 f1' t19'o 0
L90ó1 .16b6' 1j' 101 1Y9 ,9?T 0 091 t7916' 9U'1 96'I? 1I?9 906'6? ?7'1 UI
jI 1?L6' 1'b1 109 i1 9 ;o8I C09?1 993I t0'9 6:8 119L c9L6L 9UUT --" L9'I o6' ot7c I'9I 0
I8?1 ?91L't CY l9' LI'L 0I g69'I 17000'l LY Ya 9 oi:
9? 1Tt 6VL 0V9? 1e 101 t6Y1 YI 6C'I 99 1' 96'( U9 9L e;o 68O 68I ?9 96t' L8 ?9(i' 6o1 ty8'9 9f?C Z88 Iti
L?9ti'I 186 96 90 tL ot $7'6 1
T1bI 9?tiI 8191 Le7? LI'L 19(?( tO1 0 6I0 19tL O917 I11? £9 86I 01 1tL 1Lti1 9'? C9 991 061 9
16'1 90' 96'Ia 9 6Y6 16t1 ?61C Olie'? I1? 09 o'6? L61 0
I001 --- 9i'9 oz Ct7 0
ó99' -L1 c1i9 661 18 1L 0j 0' 11'I 1O1 $1c::'9
o1' o1Y 8YL o o11 oeY1 1L' 6' ;ic 0
CC'ti -?6C 6I9C i'o oi 1i?9 coco; 6I 80 009 Q9Y?L 001 9 090' £::s1't1 c098' 90' 0'9 10I 999 1e'i O'1 1O (v9 ?'01 0
It6eL't? I' --- Y9 90? 912 91'L 0
?0?' 961i1i'? 01'1 619 191i L 01
09C'e 06'1 C9 6'? LoY L
L086 s800' 99'1 91'9 9O 90' 9c?' 0
960 II1 08'1 66 LiC Cc 66'L 1
91 ?'ti?9 68'Z 16?C 19'3 01 C16' £' 991 66 9
c190'i1 9L't ;t1 £:ii'OI
$7 9,17 16' O'1 96?I 1011 0 O-DW 1?' 8'Z £' 96?1 0
Li6' --- 69z 1L 04i
L 9L'1 £39 1'9 09 11 0
9o1L I1IY? 160'1 069'CC 0
6901' 68' OL 9c'cZ 69's 9O0 O1'6 01 17't7 £19 61C Z0'II 9
9?'9 69c 6' LY9 990'1 ü'i c
L8Y9 66'c 2'z C' L9'9 o68'o IY?I 0 691 0
?60t7 6o? --- 6C9 8' 09eY 017
9I8' ?06t7'I 9117'I 6V9 99 0 0L1?' 981 o' 176 o6 Z8 0
D9Z cco 1iO6 csiz 1iI 89I 1ô 01 8-W ty r 'i riir
06S SS IN EQ S Z
(pnuuo) 1 Tqi
25
Table 1. (continued)
Z T S 02 Ni S45 S90
J (mi/i)
MC-33 76 7.98 32.859 5.31 25.61 1.087 .57735 1.3836
86 8.29 33.063 4.89 25.73 1.485 .59018 1.3378
91 8.44 33.230 4.66 25,84 1.557 1.3472 1.361796 8.26 33.354 4,29 25.96 1.885 .65623 i.05i8
101 8.12 33.558 3.96 26,14 .9144 .84500 1.5030125 7.93 33.773 3.34 26.34 .6221 .44801 1,1314
150 7,514. 33,920 3,18 26.44 .93317 1.9536
MC-34 0 16.02 29.628 5.94 21,64 .7643 .98559 1.8123
3 1.94 29.624 5.97 21.66 ---- .99540 1.91036 15.97 20,625 5,97 21,65 1.524 .81265 1.5798
10 1.93 29.731 5.97 21.74 4.592 .86646 1.731620 14.79 32.127 6.03 23.85 2.852 .71696 1.3146
30 11,56 32.394 6.97 24.67 1.784 .86917 1.593040 io,iS 32.497 7.16 24,99 .9909 .86170 1.2870
50 9.68 32.514 7.13 25,08 .8193 .74089 1.2757
75 9.12 32.618 6.42 25.25 1.332 .83125 1.3679
100 9.22 33.009 .4o 2s.6o 1.202 .80852 i.56i4
125 8.26 33.479 4.10 26.'6 .8889 .77831 1.4823
io 8.o4 33.81 3.71 26.25 .49483 1.1454
MC-35 0 14.66 32.438 6.09 24,10 .3831 1.1793 1.4339
3 14.61 32.430 6.06 24,10 .77770 1.3369
6 14.64 32.432 6.08 24.09 .98920 1,734210 14.64 32.&i.32 6.o8 24,09 1.798 .64700 1,190520 13.7 32.49 6.143 24.41 1.872 .65299 1.1995
31 11.23 32.485 7.01 24.80 1.416 1.0569 1.8386
41 10.31 32,540 7.09 25.00 .8247 1.1354 1.8320
51 0,97 32,60 7,14 25.07 .9282 1.001 1.7148
76 9.13 32.656 6.40 25,29 1194 1.1079 1.6559
101 8.55 32.993 5.55 25.64 1.224 .97675 1.6945125 8.34 33.409 4,53 26.00 .92'l-4 .99940 1.7107150 8.16 13.655 3.91 26.22 .7395 .70907 1.3815
MC-36 0 14.68 32.396 6.11 24.06 .4082 .69739 1.2709
3 14.67 32.397 6.11 24,06 .92916 8.43176 14.68 32.394 6.11 24.06 .79577 1.3860
10 14.67 32.395 6.08 24.05 1.211 .64328 1.3102
20 14.14 32.436 6.40 24.20 2.400 .85926 1.449430 11.52 32,522 6.95 24.78 1.514 .90974 2.03034o 10.35 32.5c8 7.11 25.01 1.150 .9738 1.910850 0.62 32.566 .92 25.14 .84io 1.4206 2.10075 8.91 32.652 6.37 25.32 1.222 .76295 1.4572
100 9.56 33,057 .37 25.69 1.186 .65542 1.3621
125 8.55 33.503 4,22 26.04 .9342 .6i84 1.3812
iso 8.25 33.731 3.49 26,26 .78268 1.6304
MC-37 0 14.73 32.359 6.13 24.02 .314.91 1.167 1.8621
3 14.72 32.361 .13 24.02 .9593 1.6855
6 14.74 32.360 6.13 24.01 .8663s 1.2824
10 14.74 32,360 6.11 24.01 .3168 .74149 1.2040
20 14.71 32.362 6.10 24.02 1.080 .0951 1.5917
o 14.28 32.396 6.36 24.14 2.438 .96174 1,4171
26
Table 1. (continued)
Stat.
Z
JJT
c_
S 02
(mi/i)
Ni S45 S90
(3)
MC-37 40 11,72 32.17 6.87 24.73 1.5114' .89690 1.368250 10.33 32,LI.86 7.23 24,96 .8820 1.2134 1.5436
75 9.30 32.529 6.56 25.16 1.245 1.1387 1.6159100 8.61 32.883 5.65 25.5 1.305 .98395 1.7927125 8.04 33.311 4.77 25.97 1.030 .76522 1.3777150 7.97 33.646 3.68 2,24 .87578 1.6805
MC-38 0 15.35 32.138 5.90 23.72 .68029 1.19126 15.36 32.128 5.88 -- .71499 1.309210 15.36 32.139 5.92 23.7fl .2403 .86164 1.345)4
20 15.32 32.129 5.92 23.71 2.414 .83710 1.3138
30 13.63 32.420 6.33 24.29 1.869 .74385 1.206640 11.88 32.437 6.75 24,64 1.829 .95686 1.5703
50 10.28 32.493 7.10 24.98 .9005 .78773 1.4322
75 9.21 32.537 6.46 25.18 1.388 .78069 1.3657
100 8.05 32.922 5.37 25.66 1.295 .53051 1.1460125 7.92 33.431 4,32 26.08 .9177 .62638 1.2558
150 7.71 33.666 3.90 26.29 .149762 1.1849
NC-39 0 15.39 32.013 5.98 23.61 .4755 .91179 1.5110
3 15,37 32.019 6.00 23.62 --- 1.1340 1.81316 15.39 32.018 5.97 23.61 .3664 1.0512 1.549310 15.37 32.025 5.98 23,62 .5174 1.0596 1.522820 15.31 32.040 1,00 23.65 2.679 90775 1.377730 12,90 32.322 6.60 24.36 2,054 .92130 1.748340 11.36 32.500 6.94 24.79 1.549 1,4436 2.466250 10.17 32.534 7.05 25.04 .7928 1.3574 2.0781
75 9.42 32.584 6.57 25.28 1.155 .92614 1.6191100 8.85 32.894 5.68 25.52 1.435 1.0570 1.9182125 8.38 33.454 4.39 26.03 .9106 .81638 1.398?150 8.17 33.686 3.70 26.24 --- 1,1511 1.9307
MC-40 0 15.28 32.163 6.02 23,76 .95234 1.11.120
3 15.22 32.158 6.00 23.76 .91424 1.49516 15.26 32.160 6.00 23.75 .80113 1.3366
10 15,28 32.158 6.02 23.74 .5871 .96551 1.430820 15.16 32,169 6.02 23,78 3,266 .82502 1.3024
31 10.65 32.551 7,07 24.95 1.17)4 1.1591 1.8765
41 10.16 32.619 7.01 25.09 .9286 1.4216 2.0345
51 9,43 32.574 6.66 25.18 .8996 1.0708 1.534576 8.82 32.714 6.21 25.38 1.513 .84838 1.4692
101 8.41 33.362 '.54 25,95 1.019 1.0106 1.7767125 8.18 33.634 3.92 26.20 .8221 .60623 1.4760
150 7.89 33.800 3.57 26.37 .76636 1.2719
NC-4i 0 i.6o 32.003 6.oi 23.56 .1489 .,91609 1.7048
3 15.58 32.001 6.07 23.56 .8110 .84033 1.4260
6 15,56 32.021 6.01 23.58 1.529 1.1129 1.7830
10 15.39 32.100 6.02 23.67 .8188 .88760 1.7845
20 15.18 32.125 6.04 23.74 2,888 1.2092 2.3906
30 12.25 32.433 6.86 24.57 1.832 .97924 1.750640 10.67 32.503 7.17 24.91 1.136 .6865i 1.4763
50 9,96 32.506 7.22 25.04 1.068 .73258 1.3071
27Table 1. (continued)
Z
J1T
LclS
1i
02(mi/i)
Ni S45 S90(3)
MC-41 75 9.08 32.696 6.04 25.33 1.62 .57028 1.2152100 8.69 33.124 5.25 25.72 1.024 .54845 1.3305125 8.34 33.387 4.69 25.99 1.070 .52631 1.2858150 8.00 33.697 3,94 26.27 .55161 1.3764
?1C-42 0 14.72 30.898 6.22 22.90 .5068 1.1086 1.626310 14.70 30.926 6.28 22.93 3.591 1.0836 1.845120 13.05 32.170 6.8 24.22 2.601 .83041 1.564430 10.42 32.424 7.17 24.89 1.269 .5684 1.180340 9.71 32.475 7.21 25.06 .8970 .73278 1.288350 9.36 32.510 6.72 25.14 1.091 .79224 1.506775 8.86 32.788 5.78 25.43 1.536 .57709 1.135580 8.84 32.933 5.43 25.55 1.911 1.5555 1.360785 8.60 33.125 5.02 25.73 1.820 .69252 1.552890 8.35 33.282 4.68 25.90 1.380 .61208 1.2482100 8.03 33.462 4.45 26.09 .8906 .74194 1.2331125. 7.93 33.702 3.80 26.29 .7445 .67976 1.1887150 7.67 33.826 3.75 26.42 .60875 1.1655
NC-43 0 12.13 31.816 6.71 24.12 .4480 2.3511 2.82693 12.14 31.819 6.71 24.12 2.4356 2.99346 12.16 31.815 6.74 24.11 .2563 2.4840 2.8253
10 12.13 31.816 6.74 24.12 2.305 2.8489 3.385020 10.22 32.061 6.90 24.65. 1.891 1.8668 2.243730 9.07 32.296 6.64 25.01 1.580 1.3732 2.169040 8.25 32.446 6.23 25.26 1.575 .76175 1.516345 7.85 32.526 6.12 25.38 1.601 .67819 1.284150 7.96 32.710 5.50 25.51 1.387 .78141 1.601255 8.42 32.920 5.33 25.60 1.241 .66866 1.472176 8.23 33.295 4.45 25.93 1.273 .69929 1.4729
100 7.96 33.746 3.58 26.32 .8150 .75193 1.4507125 7.50 33.866 3.34 26.48 .6236 1.5314 2.5022149 7.17 33.921 3.01 26.57 .75484 1.4370
Mc-44 0 10.75 32,249 6.50 24.69 .5742 3.1152 3.55093 10.75 32.244 6.53 24.70 2.7175 3.40016 10.77 32.244 6.53 24.70 .6781 2.8165 3.3277
10 10.62 32.239 6.50 24.72 2.624 2.7662 3.324520 7.97 32.583 5.83 25.5i 1,224 .78909 1.292725 7.80 32.651 5.60 25.48 1.490 .63325 1.245630 7.98 32.824 5.30 25.59 1.369 .77236 1.342240 8.09 33.082 4.46 25.78 1.507 .72838 1.399350 7.95 33.351 3.77 26.01 1.287 .77031 1.466475 7.51 33.790 3.27 26.42 .8228 .99621 1.6945
100 7.06 33.926 2.31 26.59 3.4608 5.2418MC-45 0 8.91 33.167 5.22 25.72 .6751 2.5423 3.6042
3 8,73 33.145 5.03 25.73 1.262 2.8211 3.04986 8.30 33.121 4.4 25.78 1.194 1.8236 2.6424
10 8.24 33.190 4.28 25.84 .8495 1.5472 2.36Q920 8.17 33.265 3.93 25.91 1.387 1.5687 2.689025 8.25 33.403 3.67 26.01 2,284 1.4417 2.228730 7.87 33.664 2.98 26.27 1.775 2.4123 3.8049
28
Table 1. (continued)
Z T S 02 Ni S45 S90
Stat. J (mi/i) j
MC-45 35 7.55 3.802 2.51 26.42 .9644 2.8036 4.645240 7,42 .843 2.38 26,147 .5970 4.0580 5.645245 7.39 33.853 2.40 26,49 3.9697 6.6340
!1c-46 0 9.17 33.058 5.61 25.58 2.209 3.5732 4,7347
3 8.92 33.175 4.99 25.73 1.746 3.0955 4.39116 8.32 33.175 4.18 25.82 1.282 3.3464 3,452710 8.56 33.311 4,37 2.89 1.380 2.5798 3.654420 8.60 33.558 4.16 26.08 1.550 3.0972 5.472430 7.85 33.723 2.69 26.32 .8172 2.7591 4.1708140 7.65 33.771 2,38 26.38 --- 3.0901 4.4724
MC-47 0 9.18 33.368 5.22 25.82 .7949 4.8038 7.5824
3. 9.18 33.376 5.16 25.94 .9157 5.7827 6.61256 9.12 33,392 5.11 25.87 1.290 4.7657 6.153910 8.95 33.451 5.00 25.914 1.761 4.4290 5.304820 7.97 33.653 2.92 26.25 .9028 3.5367 5.016530 7.79 33.727 2,50 26.33 .6561. 4.8452 6.237640 7.71 33.767 2.37 26.37 5.2754 7.0554
MC-48 0 9.30 32.991 5.35 25.51 3.061 3.9678
3 9,53 32,887 5.148 25.141 2.589 2.4727 3.08386 9.13 33.061 5.38 25,61 2.528 3.1165 4.049010 8.82 33.332 4.70 25.86 1.730 2.7165 3.855220 8.07 33.565 3.18 26.16 1.316 2.2288 3.256230 7.74 33.726 2.37 26.33 .8596 2.1849 3.4077140 7.62 33.798 2.21 26.141 .6659 2.5265 3.580950 7.49 33.829 1.87 26.45 5.1508 7.4803
MC-149 0 10.03 33.067 5.76 25.145 .7230 3.1185 4.2966
3 10.04 33.070 '.82 25.46 2.115 3,37914. 3,75146 9,140 33.104 5.47 25,60 2.114 3.1705 4.477710 8.84 33.228 5.13 25,78 1.422 3.1553 4.107820 8.62 33.441 4.46 25.98 1.096 3.3998 14.2645
30 8.50 33.573 3.99 26.10 1.512, 3.9Q81 4.936140 7.67 33.707 2.67 26.33 1.7778 24542
MC-60 0 11.86 33.143 9.06 2'.19 1.8140 4.7926 7.37433 8.93 33,147 8.93 25.29 2.409 6.6068. 6.81766 10.26 33.120 7.56 2r,47 2.994 4.8687 6,4585
10 7.95 33.124 3.78 2c.93 1.808 1.5154 2,12320 7.73 33.1+96 3.14 26.16 1.381 1.3705 2.037330 7.55 33,706 2.86 26.35 i.oi14 .98859 1.719640 7.43 33.815 2.36 26,45 .8109 1.0023 1.950450 7.32 33.877 2.06 26,1 1.9616 2.8742
MC-51 0 11.43 33.198 9.19 25.31 i.14414 6.6532 9.0619
3 11.08 33.191 9.17 2.38 1.999 6.5680 8.08046 10.35 33,178 7.66 25.50 1.377 7.1209 8.2337
10 9.89 33.202 6.65 C.J 2.642 6,1292 6,661220 7.84
7.5733.665 2.46
1.97 '6.140i.ii4 1.6225 2.5328
30 33.775 1.042 1.8307 3.039840 7.41 3.884 1.61 2(.50 2.6444 3.9727
MC-52 0 11.87 33.176 --- 6.00i6 8.86712 11.88 33.126 7.30 7.13 2.981 4.2739 5.1149
5 10.33 33.109 7,59 2,45 1,302 6.3556 6.7211
9 10.03 33.140 6.63 25.52 2.523 5.1232 5.6806
99L 16'1 9t9 '1 61 8°L 01
0011 0c01 1 t2'C L' 0
6C1'? LCIYt d90'I 9Z9 o6' O9' OL'L 0
6°L t2P9 6' 9L°Z 9-1- c9'6 01
L9O0 ti909 i60 9 ?'9 Lt' LVOI 9 I1L lilieYli 9' L' i1'9 16 io1 9L1i 699's r'T 9S9 99'3 'T1 0
cOLLI 9?81'I --- 0C9? ?I'C 99" 19'L 0
18L1 6600'T O9 61 7eY ç9 041
9L?Y1 8o6 L0YI 0O'9? $' 18? ?9/ O
I6gVz £9c1 i 6' o' e.9'L 0?
1oo 6t'z 91'? 9'41 irC 6G'& 01
1Ol9' OOYt7 Ls71' 6'41? tL'9 41L?' 6LO1 9 99Y9 9199c 9Lo'41 6?4i? L LO?C ?C'?I
£99'l tiL6'C 19C? $1'!. £L2? 17L'?I 0 93W 0109' Cr? -; 9'9 ??6' ç9 oi 19rY? 9LO'? 9C '9Z II'L c1
1o6'1 611i Y 0419? 'L1? 99Y 641 001 oiYi L6 41oc'c 69 10?91 z4116ó' 81?'I 8Z11 0??E ?L 09 ?919'I 08?0'I II7CI 9Y.? 6it7 L96'? 69'L 0 410611 6?1s ICt11 99? j?8'i7 098?C oYeL 41
6°1 19L?' OliliI 9Y2 0t ?LL'z 6L ot 6899'I 96410'I 911'1 $7? 96'ti O09'? iiL 9i70'? ?1?21 9C91 ?'? 6zS 0'L o 00'1 90aC1 ti'1 86'li? 1'9 1?Z 69's 0? ti9?0'll ?961'$ ii LL'? 61'e. 1471 o?1 01 C1i' 6o'C i93 C? 90L 0??1 ?L'?I 9 61'? 91961 8I 1L'?? 119 6a'o 11 69'? 41000? ?9??, 17L'Z? Ili'9 L0 98tiI 0
9C1 9L0L' 41'9? 99'? 81L 01 4168'1 C96419 T0CY 041'9? z1' Z' 9' ?1
9109'1 t1166 9O'1 ?1'9? 41L$' e9'L 001 cct79'I 419996' 1'1 09? 0L't s76'L L
ç9T 919' .O'1 9Z'2 9?'9 0L41? ?141'1 z9ç' 90Z6' ct' Y9 11'? 11b' 041
i6otYi 99C66' c1419' go' 6' ci.o o ?4199'T ?1(?'I LY1 9L'1? £1L 9?C'? 9'0T 0? ?C19'I 8941'1 6?oC 99,C? 0'9 9C2'IC 41c'L 01 (9i.'z ?9Y1 t7?1' 9.1Z 411'9 91L'6? 61i1 9 9641C'? 1?9'T I6srC 941'I? t.O9 41C'6? o61 :
eL91'? 91 1410E C411? 01'9 0?C'6? 416'1 0 99C6'? 1C6Z'? 4141'9? c1'? 09' 917'L 01
910'? 411'1 ?9'1 ?.'9? 609'CC 99'L 0
?16'1 9'1 141J'1 e.0'9? 09(' 69'L 0? 6oY? 99O°? 116'I 1.'? 41?'1 966'? 31'B 01
9?cO'( 11?9'? 0C9'I L? 6L°41 606'? 6c'e 9 3L'41 c099'C 41c1' L?'c'? L8 Lz'OI 61?o'c 16c9'41 ?9?'I ZZ'? 81'9 19°? ?41'OI 0 oL?L'41 41961 z'9 09'I L 6si 9419'? ?1?L'I 9L9' 841'9? 9'1 841g'c O1i't
041'? 6941'1 69418 141'9? 0'Z 418Y 't 6z
106'? 609°T 99'1 19? 88'? 0Y 08' 61 ZDW ty tT (T t5T tF 06S SI'S IN S .1. Z
(panut;uoz) t iqL
6Z
30
I
I
[S%ol
46°N \\I
'I20
) I I IJf
:
24
32 31 I .
45°N I! I I I / I
I / /J'I
/ // -rI! /// // 3 32
26 I
44°N /28/
/
:.°.;
30
//./:*
I I I I 4;:.:
I;
/ I
Figure 3. Salinity distribution on the sea surface.
[1
13(45)xK5z (rn-sir)'
S / S
0
I
SI.
31
OL.
/°ORT
S
.
.zo
/./
InC.JI
Figure 4. Scattering particle distribution on the sea surface.
32
i°NL$%oI
32 3' 30 /29 28 .'.-.-,
AOM 26
I / /7'/7)./ '4/ ////////// ..
RT
44°N 32 33 -
.;.
;'j'.<4:;l
/N- '.D It)
/:: CJ
Figure 5. Salinity distribution on the 3m surface.
33
II I
I3(45)xIO2(m-str
4.0
S
50iWPORT
Figure 6. Scattering particle distribution on the 3m surface.
N
.
.
0
I .R.
.
34
(.
)X32 33
32 31 n__/ 31
.
Figure 7. Salinity distribution on the lOm surface.
35
I
(45)xId2(m-Str1'
I
46°N Ii /4.t°. . . S
45°N/ 1I
/
.
I
S4
5
5d4IL
44°N
::
Figure 8. Scattering particle distribution on the lOm surface.
II
I
S
32.5
,
,
,
S S
S
S
ID
S
S
S
R
S33 S;
RT
/ S S
(
:;.,
S
0 7'0
l.() (7t £I
Figure 9. Salinity distribution on the 2Orn surface.
37
4°N
(45)Kr (m-str
4°N ..:
WPORT
.7
44°N ,/ ) 3.0
/ / ))..2.0
1
/0 0 0 1'
F.- w U)
Figure 10. Scattering particle distribution on the Z0m surface.
38
S S S ,,
5;
o4!1S
-o?
S . S IS
I1
,./
/
-,
S
/
I5°N I
S S S.
I32.5 32.5
/ wpo/i\ 33.0
I
S ' S IS S'SI/
SI33.5I
,I
4401,
/
,32.5-;.
Figure U. Salinity distribution on the 30m surface.
3.0 507.0 I
I
I3(45)xIO (rn-str
///$4°N
!O .:
/1 I
/ /
/ V (
I
r0
44°N
I I I
I.OZL9
Figure 12. Scattering particle distribution on the 30m surface.
25
50
=I.-
Iiic 7
100
125
150
20n.m. 40n.m.. - . a,' I A -,' -- -
:\.
I
1s (%)1
Figure 13. Salinity distribution on Section I. 0
=I-
a-wc
25
50
100
125
150
20n.m. 40n.m.IV1.f.J I IVI-'It I I
2..72.
Figure 14. Scattering particle distribution on Section I.
[ (5) x jo2 (m-str)1]
20n.m. 40n.m.'MC-25 MC-141 I I
MC-6° r I 6
¶:i iT\ HT7
Figure 15. Temperature distribution on Section I.
DB-40
[Temperature (°c)]
=I-0LLI
25
50
75
100
125
150
Figure 16. Sigma-t distribution on Section I.
'I
25
50
I-0Iii
a 75
100
125
1 5C
20fl.m. 40flmlit' IA IIA('_ flR4fl-I.--
-- 6. - - - -
-
7
4TNiiIIIJS
3
NFigure 17. Oxygen distribution on Section I.
S
[02 (mI/liter)]
0
25
5O
zI-0wc 75
100
125
150
MC-12 MC-13 MC-14 MC-15 MC-IG110n.m. zpn.m.
[S (%o)]
Figure 18. Salinity distribution on Section II.Ui
I-0wc
U
25
50
100
125
MC-12 MC-3 MC-14
I 0 B.
EEEEEEE
MC-15 MC-16
un.m.-I-
150[
Figure 19. Scattering particle distribution on Section II.
t (15) x iO (m-str)]
C'
-II
0tLI
c
25
50
100
125
MC-2 MC-13 MC-14 MC-15 MC-.t6
I un.m. 11.111.
I I
S. - .
1501
Figure 20. Temperature distribution on Section II.
\ '. IS
rnperature (°C)J
0
25
5o
I-0Luc 75
100
125
1 5C
MC-12 MC-13 MC-14 MC-15 MC-16ton.m.
2pn.m.
. '265
i
Figure 21. Sigrna-t distribution on Section II.
U
25
50
Ia-LU
75
100
125
150
MC-12 MC-13 MC-4
ii
MC-IStim. Z.On.m.
1w_I
iitH
[02 (m1/Jter)]
Figure 22. Oxygen distribution on Section II.
25
50
=I$ijcD 75
100
125
150
Figure 23. Scattering distribution on Section III. u-I
C
0
25
- 50
xI-0wci
100
125
150
I On.m. 20 n.m.
MC-5 MC-4
32
335
-[S (%)J
Figure 24. Salinity distribution on Section III. (B
2
I-0w
1
1
.Yf-.-.'.
3O.1.
0 .
S
S S
5.'\S
S 5
.
-15 -0 -25 -O -'fU 'vi'--'
-2.O
_-1.0S 1.0
S S
.. S
S S
S
I
S
S
S
S
S S
S
S
I (45) X 102 (m-str]
Figure 25. Scattering particle on Section IV.U.'
t\)
L
25
50
F-
0w
75
100
125
- -10 -? -0 - -iO -40 [1
32
S S S
1501
Figure Z6. Salinity distribution on Section IV.
S
[S (%o)]
a-w
1O(
1 2
1 5(
Figure 27. Scattering particle on Section V. U,
55
RESULTS
General Features of the 1968 Summer Columbia River Plume
The area distribution of the Columbia River plume observed
during the 6806C Cruise is presented in Figures 3 to 10 in terms of
salinity and particulate concentration. The Columbia River plume
in the summer is characterized by a tongue oflow salinity, high
temperature, and high particle concentration extending south or
southwest from the river mouth. The orientation of the plume is in
agreement with the general seasonal characteristics of the plume,
and its simple tongue-like shape clearly indicates the Columbia
River as the single source of the fresh water in the region.
One method of delineating the plume is to use some character-
istic isopleth as a boundary. Budinger et al, (1964) suggested that
the 32. 5 ppt isohaline is a suitable boundary for the Columbia River
plume. In the vertical section along the plume axis, the isohalines
(Figure 11) seem to suggest the 32.0 or 32.25 ppt isohaline may be
a better choice of the plume boundary in this case. The salinity vs.
depth curve of a station near the plume axis shown in Figure 28
clearly indicates that the boundary between the fresh river effluent
and the more saline ocean water is located at approximately ZOm
depth, which corresponds to the 32.25 ppt isohaline. The numerical
value of the salinity plume boundary may vary from year to year as
I.-0w
ST.
27 29 31 3314
35I6
Figure 28. Temperature and salinity vs. depth curves forstations MC-5 and MC-6.
56
57
flow conditions change.
The Columbia River plume as defined by the 32.25 ppt iso-
haline has a maximum width of about 110 nautical miles and extends
south or southwest to about 250 nautical miles from its source near
Astoria, Oregon, and is contained within the upper 30m of water.
The horizontal plume defined by 32. 25 ppt isohaline can be
very closely approximated by the isopleths of 24.0 sigma-t and 15°C
temperature in the 3m surface (Figures 29 and 30). The bottom
boundary of the plume can also be drawn approximately by the 25. 0
sigma-t and 11 to 12 degrees Centigrade isotherm which correspond
closely to the boundary set by salinity. The bottom boundary values
of sigma-t and temperature are noted to be different from those of
the edge boundary in the 3m surface. This is the result of the heat-
ing of the surface water by the solar radiation.
The particle concentration analyzed in the same method as the
other parameters shows the isopleth of particle concentration along
the outer plume boundary in the sea surface, 3 (45) = 1.0 x 10
(m-str)', is in fair agreement with the boundaries set by the other
parameters, but with considerable differences along the shore side
of the plume (Figure 4). The main reason for the differences ob-
served between the particle distribution and the salinity distribution
is that the coastal water acts as a disturbing source of particles
while the low salinity water has come only from the mouth of the
[1
SIGMA- T
.
N
.
0F.-
0wc,J
23 24 25
.I2
Figure 29. Sigma-t distribution on the 3m surface.
.
.
0
TEMPER
5 6
59
).HT. t
I5?% .;ç.
. S
6
/ //(PT/5/ I
/I
0IL)
cJ
Figure 30. Temperature distribution on the 3m surface.
Columbia River. The large particle concentration of the coastal
water on the shore side of the plume is primarily due to the high
biological productivity associated with coastal upwelling, and second-
arily due to the sediments disturbed by the water in shallow water.
This is due to the nearer proximity of the phytoplankton bloom, rela-
tively larger volume of the phytoplankton source, and more involved
process of transport and suspension of denser bottom sediments.
Consequently, the particle concentration contrast between the plume
and oceanic water on the shoreward edge of the plume decreases as
the downstream suspended load decreases and as the effect of the
coastal source increases.
The axis of the Columbia River plume in 3m depth as defined
by the different parameters used is presented in Figure 31. The
axes of the plume delineated by the different parameters nearly
coincide and the small deviations seem to be almost within the limits
of error. The plume axis defined by particle concentration, how-
ever, is shorter than that defined by salinity: the tongue-shaped
feature of the plume in particle concentration vanishes at about 100
nautical miles from the source (Figures 4 and 6).
The Columbia River plume is clearly identified and character-
ized by the high concentration of particles for about 100 nautical
miles downstream from its source in spite of the disturbing effects
from the nearshore water along the Oregon coast.
46
45
44
43
61
$27 $26 $25 24
SCATTERINGA TEMPERATURE
Alo SALINITY
' SIGMA-I0,
Al
QUINA
hi!
A/il
Figure 31. Columbia River plume axes defined by salinity,temperature, sigma- t, and scattering particleon the 3m surface.
62
In three cross sections, at the river mouth, at about 30 nm. from
the river mouth, and at about 60 nm. from the river mouth, the total
particle content was checked by the product of the cross-sectional
area of the plume defined by 32.25 ppt isobaline times the mean
particle concentration. The products for the three cross-sections
agree within five percent. The same computations for two more
cross-sections further downstream, one at 90 nm and the other 120
nm from the river mouth showed a marked decrease. Since the
particle distribution in the last cross-section, the one at 120 nm from
the river mouth, shown in Figure 27, unmistakably indicates no
plume particles, we may consider the product of the cross-sectional
area and the mean particle concentration computed for this section as
the value of the ambient water. Subtracting the value of the ambient
water from the values of the other cross-sections, the fourth cross-
section gave about 30 percent of the first three sections.
On the basis of the above estimates, the particle content of the
Columbia River plume is a conservative property of the plume water
over a distance of 60 nm and this distance corresponds to about ten
days if Frederick's (1967) 12 cm/sec surface current is assumed.
There is no indication in Figure 14 of a large number of sink-
ing particles in the water below the plume axis about 60 to 90 nm
downstream from the river mouth. The salinity distribution in the
10 and 20 meters (Figures 7 and 9) shows a low salinity center
63
located about 120 nm downstream from the river mouth. This ex-
tends the salinity plume along its axis in the downstream direction.
An examination of the particle distribution indicates that the low
salinity center mentioned above does not correspond with high
particle concentration. This fact suggests that the portion of the
plume water indicated by the low salinity center has gone through a
complicated history instead of a simple form of the plume shown in
the present data. If this is the case, then the particles contained in
the water at the low salinity center had been lost for some time and
consequently the water is considerably older than that at the termi-
nus of the tongue-shaped plume defined by the particle concentration.
The suspended particles in the plume water will slowly sink
down below the plume water, and in time particle concentration be-
comes non-conservative property. It was shown to be conservative
over a distance of 60 nm and a period of ten days. If a steady de-
crease of concentration is assumed, the particle concentration should
approximately be conservative for another three to five times 60 nm
and ten days, that is another 180 to 300 nm and 30 to 50 days.
Because of the seasonal variations of the wind system, the
plume delineated herein is in the transition from winter to summer
plume, and the plume will extend further south to southwest in time.
During the spring, before the northerly wind becomes predominant,
the Columbia River plume was flowing northward and a separate cell
64
of plume water was found at about 50 nautical miles north of the
Columbia River mouth during 8 to 24 May, 1961 (Budinger et al.,
1964). As the summer wind system developed, the pool was carried
downstream by the wind as a body of effluent. A surface salinity
distribution observed during the period of June 7 to 19, 1962, which
was seasonally about two weeks earlier than the observation herein,
is shown in Figure 32 (Budinger et al., 1964). It has a separate low
salinity cell located to the offshore side of the present fresh plume
axis, but it does not contribute to the extension of the present plume
length. When this '62 plume is compared with that of the '68 plume,
it is easy to see that the '68 plume could have resulted from a move-
ment of the low salinity center from the '62 position in the down-
stream direction. An estimate of the drifting speed of such a pool
was made using monthly mean wind at 45°N, 125°W taken from daily
surface weather map (Fisher, 1969), and geostrophic current at the
sea surface computed from hydrographic data taken from both the
NH-line and the DB-line each month. The method of computing drift
is given by Budinger et al, (1964), which provides an estimate of the
predicted plume position by adding the geostrophic current and
Ekman transport. The result of computation are listed in Table 2.
All the values of transport (drift) are north-south component. As
Budinger et al. (1964) noted, the use of monthly mean wind instead
of the actual wind in wind stress computation may introduce a
65
66
considerable error, and the error tends to cause the result too small,
It can be seen from Table 2 that the monthly total drift in April and
June is about one half of that in May. The total computed drift in
May and June is about the same as the distance from the river mouth
to the terminus of the plume determined by particle distribution,
The lowest value of drift in April may be interpreted as the period
when the pool was stagnant.
Table 2. Meridional components of geostrophic current and Ekmantrans port.
April May June
v-component of geo-strophic current,Vg (cm/sec) 0.8578 4.5246 2,4193
Monthly mean wind (m/sec),u - 3,04 - 1,44 - 0,645v 4,34 2,14 4.985
Ekman transport2(gm/(cm-sec)) x 10 45. 7515 10. 5495 9,2084
Ekman transport velocity,V (cm/sec) 1. 525 0,3515 0.307
Total velocity,Vg + Ve (cm/sec) 2.4828 4.8761 2.7263
Monthly total drift,nautical miles 33,332 68.2103 38.135
67
A thick layer of particle maximum is found on the offshore side
of the present plume axis below 30m depth (Figure Z3). Its thickness
increases down to deeper water as the distance from the plume axis
toward offshore direction increases. Thickness of this layer is about
50m at MC-4 and about 90m at MC-3.
Flows
The plume region, as described earlier, reveals a weak
southward surface flow. During the summer season a persistent
wind from the north contributes to a more steady southward surface
current. The plume orientation clearly results from these current
and wind conditions, This northerly wind also causes an upwelling
phenomena along the coast (Smith, 1964), The surface water under
the northerly wind stress is transported offshore and water from the
deeper layer upwells near the coast to replenish the transported
water.
The coastal upwelling is clearly indicated by the upward slope
of the isopleths of temperature, salinity, density, and particulate
concentration toward the shore in the vertical section across the
plume (Figures 18 to Z8). It is also noted by the band of cold water
along the coast. One of such distribution of cold temperature is
shown in Figure 30.
In a previous paper (Pak, Beardsley and Smith), an off-
shore subsurface flow was discussed in connection with a tempera-
ture inversion and a tongue of high particle concentration under up-
welling conditions. In the above discussion, the temperature in-
version and the corresponding scatterance maximum and minimum
transmittance was interpreted as the result of a flow along the slant-
ed permanent pycnocline. The water which flows along the perma-
nent pycnocline was formed from the dense upwelled water, modi-
fied by the solar heating, mixed with the warmer and less saline
surface water, and supplemented with particles of phytoplankton
products. The upwelled water originating from a depth below the
permanent pycnocline undergoes these modifying processes, and the
resulting water becomes similar in density to that at the bottom of
the permanent pycnocline. As this water is carried offshore by the
northerly wind, it tends to flow along the slanted pycnocline since it
is denser than its neighboring water.
Another subsurface offshore flow is likely to occur from a
consideration of the continuity of upwelling and the existence of the
plume. The process of the formation of this source water is entire-
ly analogous to that of the offshore flow along the permanent pycno-
dine except that the final density of the offshore flow is smaller than
that of the permanent pycnocline. Thus the water does not sink to
the permanent pycnocline, but stays near the surface until it meets
with the Columbia River plume. Then it dives under the plume. The
pronounced pycnocline at the bottom of the plume, sloping downward
offshore, acts like a barrier for the denser water moving offshore.
The particle concentration plotted against temperature on
Section II is presented in Figure 33, showing that a tongue of water
of high particle concentration is associated with 11°C temperature.
The 11°C isotherm in Figure 20 corresponds to the particle maxi-
mum located at the lower part of the plume in Figure 19. This
layer is also associated with an oxygen maximum slightly below the
particle maximum. The difference in the depth between the particle
and oxygen maximum may partly be explained by the fact that the
oxygen maximum is controlled by both the nutrients associated with
the particle maximum and an optimum amount of sunlight.
The particle distribution to the north of the Columbia River
mouth at the 30m surface (Figure 12) under the southward flowing
surface layer, indicates that the large particles which sank quickly
from the river plume are flowing northward, which conforms with
the current measurements of Collins et al. (1968). The evidence of
the northward flow in the deep layer is also found in the distribution
of sediments originating from the Columbia River. Gross and
Nelson (1958), by means of a radioactive tracer method, found that
oc
15
Li'
5
MC-13 MC-14 MC-15 MC-I6
8 9 10 1099__j/
4
-r
Figure 33. Temperature vs. scattering particle on Section II.
2
-.1C
71
Columbia River originated sediments are distributed to the north
and west of the Columbia River mouth, Duncan et al, (1968) showed
that the Group I clay minerals (Figure 34), which were derived from
the lower Columbia and Snake River sub-basins are found primarily
north and west of the Columbia River mouth.
In addition to the coastal upwelling driven by the wind system,
it is also conceivable that the entrainment process suggested by
Tully (1958) exists, In that case upwelling of the deep water occurs
under the fast moving plume especially around the river mouth. The
entrainment of deep water by fast moving surface water seems to be
analogous to the upwelling of deep water resulting from the offshore
transport of surface water driven by the wind except for the difference
in the driving force, The present data near the river mouth shows
the upwelling effects but wind driven coastal upwelling cannot be dif-
ferentiated from that by the entrainment,
The offshoreward subsurface flows discussed above may be
performing an important role of biological interest. The existence
of the Columbia River plume is essentially blocking any direct
transport of upwelled nutrients into the surface layer, and the region
offshore side of the Columbia River plume could not have a high
nutrient supply without the subsurface offshore flow discussed above.
The distribution of the upwelled nutrients beyond the Columbia River
plume must be ascribed to the subsurface offshore flows along the
130° 128° 1260
IY460GROUPI /'
I
wI °; °ASTORIA I
is .'
rAcCADIA CHANNL GROJP2 o'- (GROUP /1 '
"J/'k., 4. -''
I:)
I
.1
p.'
.',
C)
I
1/°C2_L_______.t /130° 128°
Figure 34. Distribution of Holocene clay-mineral groups.
72
124°
4 COL1$JS/A
c\.46°
'CAPEOLANCO
ROGUERIvER
ORE.
i
124°
440
73
permanent pycnocline and the pycnocline under the plume.
Model Plume
The Columbia River effluent is the major source of light
scattering particles in the plume region. A model has been devel-
oped to describe the general pattern of paths and processes by which
the river particles are distributed to ocean water masses. It was
assumed that the bottom slope of the plume region is such that the
plume water has little influence from the bottom sediment. Thus it
is valid when the plume is in deep water immediately off the river
mouth.
Particles with a wide range of sizes, densities, and indices of
refraction are carried down the estuary by the Columbia River. The
high density particles that were carried by the river effluent will
sink rapidly into deep water below the plume within a few miles from
the river mouth. These particles are permanently lost from the
river plume.
The less dense particles tend to stay in the plume for a long
time. The sinking of these light particles is so slow that they may
be considered as conserved in the plume. For such a tendency of
conservativeness in the plume, the concentration of the less dense
particles serve as an indicator of the plume position and mixing
processes.
74
While the light particles are kept in the plume, they settle
internally to form one or two layers of particle maximum within the
plume. In general, the bottom of plumes are identified by a marked
density gradient, which is associated with a large salinity gradient.
One layer of particle maximum occurs at this level. Because of
solar radiation a thermocline is eventually created even if there
were no thermocline across the lower boundary of the effluent
leaving the estuary. If the vertical gradients of salinity and tempera-
ture are located at two separate levels, then two layers of particle
maxima will be observed as shown in Figures 35 and 36. As the
plume continues its flow and spreading, the solar radiation maintains
the thermocline despite mixing and diffusion, but the salinity gradient
weakens continuously. Thus the particle maximum associated with
the halocline eventually disappears as the plume diffuses and only
one layer of particle maximum remains.
Ia-wc
0
25
50
100
125
150
/60 NM-- bU 100 /20
32.2 ISOALINE
Figure 35. Plume model on a section along the plume axis.-J'SI
0
25
;50
0w
75
100
'In --MV DV
32,5 ISOHAIjNE
125
150
Figure 36. Plume model on a section across the plume axis.-.1
0'
77
DISCUSSION
The Columbia River effluent had the simple form of a plume
extending south to southwest under the persistent north to north-
easterly wind as described in the previous section. Because of the
coastal upwelling along the Oregon and California coasts, the plume
was kept away from the coast.
The horizontal spreading of the plume is clear evidence of
horizontal diffusion, but the vertical diffusion is limited by the
presence of the vertical gradient of the density at the bottom of the
plume. Tully (1958) and Budinger et al. (1964) concluded that the
vertical mixing of the fresh water plume takes place in the form of
entrainment of the sea water below the plume into the fresh water.
Thus the vertical exchange is only in one way, that is upward trans-
port of heavy sea water into the plume water, and as a result the
plume tends to maintain its lower boundary at the same level or lift
upward, and glides over the heavy sea water resulting in horizontal
spreading.
The Columbia River effluent carries particles of all sizes.
The large particles quickly sink into the ocean water below the
stratified plume within a few miles from the river mouth. These
large particles, after they leave the plume water, keep sinking and
are also carried away by the flow of deep water. The water below
rI1
the plume is generally slow and tends to flow in the opposite direc-
tion from the surface flow due to the upwelling caused by the wind and
entrainment effect resulting in a restriction of the spreading of these
large particles. In the case of the Columbia River, the deep water
flows northward with an onshore component, and the large particles
are carried northward within a few miles from the coast (Figure 12).
The small particles are contained in the plume and carried
along with the plume. The plume is oriented towards the south to
southwest responding to the prevailing wind. The plume is bounded
by cold and saline water upwelled from deep water on the coast side,
and cold and saline ocean water on the oceanic side.
The length of the plume depicted in the horizontal plane is
approximately 100 nautical miles on the 3m surface. Using the sur-
face velocity of 12 cm/sec determined by Chromium activity
(Frederick, 1967), the time required for the plume to reach a point
100 nautical miles downstream from the river mouth is about 20
days. On the basis of conservation of particle content to the extent
discussed in the previous section, the length of the model plume
should not be limited to that of the present data. It is more likely to
extend beyond ZOO nautical miles (about three times the length of the
present plume axis) under a steady wind condition. This figure is,
of course, a first approximation since it will vary with the cb3rac-
teristics of the effluent, stability structure, and extent of mixing.
79
The particle concentration in the Columbia River plume region
can conveniently be described by three distinctive layers: the first
and second layers in the plume water itself, and the third layer in the
water below the plume.
The Columbia River effluent was warmer than the ambient sea
water (Figure 30). This plume water was heated by the solar radia-
tion at the surface. The net result was a strong vertical tempera-
ture gradient, the thermocline, at the lower part of the plume water.
The entrainment of cold sea water and the solar radiation heating at
the surface of the plume water cause a strong thermocline and also
a strong halocline,
The particles contained in the plume water showed a tendency
to settle down slowly within the plume water. As they settled down,
they were trapped at the level where the vertical density gradient
was a maximum. Two layers of particle maximum, the first and
second layers, were observed at the maximum density gradient
levels which are associated with the maximum stability (Figures 37
and 38), The Brunt Vàisàlâ frequency is used as the stability para-
meter. The two layers of particle maxima were not observed at the
edge of the plume and near the river mouth of the plume (Figures
39 and 40). Along the edges, mixing is extensive so that the halo-
dine becomes quite weak and the first layer does not exist. In the
vicinity of the river mouth, the upwelling ofdeep water due to the
2
0Ui
FigUre 37. Scatt ng particle profile at
I'
=Ia-LLI
-2 -I
Figure 39. Profilesof stability and scattering particles atMC-25, near the river mouth.
LU
50
Ni]
M
-2 -I
Figure 40. Profiles of stability and scattering particles atMC-33, at the edge of the plume.
wind and also the entrainment causes the river effluent to be kept in
the upper 10 to 15 meters depth, so that the temperature and salinity
gradients are unable to be separated.
The third layer is difficult to simplify in the model, because it
is not uniformly distributed and its cause may be diverse too. It
could have been formed by the process(es) of (1) sinking of the parti-
des from the plume when the plume stagnated for a long period of
time, 2) erosion of particles trapped at the bottom of the plume by
the subsurface offshore flow, 3) transport of particles from the sur-
face layer by the subsurface offshore flow, and 4) in situ biological
production.
The particles in the third layer could have been derived by any
one of the processes introduced above, or any combinations. The
sinking of particles will take place all the time but their quantitative
treatment is difficult. The subsurface offshore flow is evident from
the temperature inversion (Figure 20), bulges in particle concentra-
tionfrom shore to offshore in 20 and 30 meters surfaces (Figures
10 and 12), and also the correlation of temperature and particle con-
centration (Figure 33), A super-saturated oxygen concentration
layer is found under the plume axis, implying that the photosynthetic
production is active. At the stations, MC-5 and MC-15, the third
layers is found as a 30 meters thick layer and centered at about 55m
depth. The stability of the water column (Figure 41) is high at 75 to
;50
I-0w
I.
-2N
-I
7/1/
o MC-15
L MC-5
Figure 41. Stability profiles at MC-5 and MC-15.
85
90 meters, and a low stability exists at 55m depth at MC-5. This
must be an indication of the fact that the sinking is not the major
process responsible for the third layer.
The particulate substances that the Columbia River introduces
into the oceanic region off the Oregon coast during the summer sea-
son under the predominant northerly wind may be considered under
the following three processes: 1) the heavy particles sinking from
the plume water immediately off the river mouth, Z) erosion of
particles (particles settled to the bottom of the plume) by the sub-
surface offshore flow along the bottom of the plume, and 3) the
sinking of small particles which have been contained in the plume
water. By the first process, large particles are introduced into the
oceanic region but confined within a narrow zone along the coast due
to their high rate of sinking and the deep water circulation northward
with onshore component. These particles must be studied more
closely since there were too few stations near the river mouth.
The second process is a direct consequence of the upwelling
and its downstream (offshore) extent is not known, but it may be re-
lated to the intensity of the upwelling. From Figures 10 and 12, it
can be noted that the offshore subsurface flow is associated with the
bulges of particle concentration, and this implies that the subsurface
offshore flow is patchy instead of uniform along the coast. This
subsurface flow should be closely related with water of high biological
productivity since it consists of upwelled water and passes through
lighted depths of water. This flow will pick up some particles as it
moves along the bottom of the plume water.
The third process is the process which was ignored in the
model plume. The Columbia River plume data suggest that the
plume could be traced a much longer distance by the particle concen-
tration later in the season, The model tacitly assumes that the small
particles are nearly conserved over the length of the plume. Thus
particles will eventually sink from the plume water which is distri-
buted over a large area, approximately over ZOO nautical miles
downstream, and the plume is acting as a broad plane source of
particles.
The study of the Columbia River plume was motivated by the
need of understanding the process by which particles carried by the
river effluent are distributed to the ocean water. The application of
the optical method to the oceanographic problem is directly related
with this knowledge. The model describes the basic process of de-
livering particles: 1) large particles sink immediately within a few
miles of the river mouth, and Z) small particles are contained in the
plume water, which spreads out, responding to the general circula-
tion of the sea surface, over the ocean water as a layer of about 30m
thick. The river effluent, mainly because of its density relative to
the ocean water, effectively converts a point source of particles,
river mouth, into a surface source of particles. The size of this sur-
face is a function of spreading causes, i.e., currents and wind field,
and residence time of the particles in the plume water, This resi-
dence time is estimated as 30 to 50 days.
It is useful to consider the results of Ketchum and Shonting
(1958) in light of the present model. In order to show that the parti-
des found in the Cariaco Trench originate in the Orinoco River it is
necessary to establish: 1) that the plume reaches the trench; 2) that
the particles are retained in the plume until the trench is reached; and
3) that the density structure of the plume changes in the vicinity of the
trench so that the particles can fall to the observed depth of 100 to
220 meters.
In the absence of data on the temperature and salinity of the
water at and upstream to the Cariaco Trench it is impossible to es-
tablish either the path of the plume or the stability of the water
column, The particle distribution in the Cariaco Trench does not
show any indication of river plume in the surface layer. The time of
travel between the river mouth and trench appears long in comparison
to the residence time of particles in the Columbia River plume. Thus
none of the conditions required is shown to be true for the Orinoco-
Cariaco system.
Since the water over the trench must pass over a sill with the
maximum depth of 24 meters immediately at the upstream edge of
I
the trench, it seems much simpler to attribute the observed particle
distribution to the topographic effect (Jerlov, 1968),
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anderson, C. C. 1964. The seasonal and geographic distribution ofprimary productivity off the Washington and Oregon coasts.Limnology and Oceanography 9:284-302.
Beardsley, C. F., Jr. 1966. The polarization of the near asympto-tic light field in sea water. Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge,Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 119 numb. leaves.
Budinger, T. F., L. K. Coachman and C. A. Barnes. 1964.Columbia River effluent in the northeast Pacific Ocean, 1961,1962: Selected aspects of physical oceanography. Seattle,University of Washington, Dept. of Oceanography. 'ISp.(Technical Report no. 99)
Burt, W. V. and B. McAlister. 1959. Recent studies in the hydro-graphy of Oregon estuaries. Research Briefs of the Fish Com-mission of Oregon 7: 14-27.
Burt, W. V. and B. Wyatt. 1964. Drift bottle observations of theDavidson Current off Oregon. In: Studies on oceanography,ed. by Kozo Yoshida. Tokyo, Japan, University of Tokyo.p. 156-165.
Cissell, M. C. 1969. Chemical features of the Columbia Riverplume off Oregon. Master's thesis. Corvallis, Oregon StateUniversity. 45 numb, leaves.
Collins, C. A. 1964. Structure and kinematics of the permanentoceanic front off the Oregon coast. Master's thesis.Corvallis, Oregon State University. 53 numb, leaves.
Collins, C. A., C. N. K. Mooers, M. R. Stevenson, R. L. Smithand J, C. Pattullo. 1968. Direct current measurements inthe frontal zone of a coastal upwelling region. Journal of theOceanographical Society of Japan. (In press)
Duncan, J, R., L. D. KulmandG. B. Griggs. 1968. Clay-mineral composition of late Pleistocene and Holocene sedi-ments of Cascadia Basin, Northeastern Pacific Ocean.(Submitted to the Journal of Geology)
Duxbury, A. C. 1965. The union of the Columbia River and thePacific Ocean, In: Ocean Science and Ocean Engineering,
91
1965: Transactions of the Joint Conference of the MarineTechnology Society and American Society of Limnology andOceanography, 1965. Washington, D. C. p. 914-922.
Fisher, C. W. 1969. A statistical study of winds and sea watertemperature during Oregon coastal upwellings. Master'sthesis, Corvallis, Oregon State University. 67 numb. leaves.
Frederick, L. C. 1967. Dispersion of the Columbia River plumebased on radioactivity measurements. Ph.D. thesis.Corvallis, Oregon State University. 134 numb, leaves.
Gross, M. G. and J. L. Nelson. 1958. Sediment movement of thecontinental shelf near Washington and Oregon. Science 154:879 -881.
Hickson, R. E. and F. W. Rodolf. 1951. History of the ColumbiaRiver jetties. In: Proceedings of the First Conference onCoastal Engineering, Long Beach, 1950. Berkeley, Councilon Wave Research. p. 283-298.
Jerlov, N. G. 1953a. Influence of suspended and dissolved matteron the transparency of sea water. Tellus 5: 306-307.
Jerlov, N. G. 1953b. Particle distribution in the ocean. In: Re-ports of the Swedish Deep-Sea Expedition, 1947-1948, ed. byHans Petterson. Vol. 3. Physics and chemistry. Goteborg.Elanders Boktryckeri Aktiebolag. p. 73-9 7.
Jerlov, N. G. 1955, The particulate matter in the sea as deter-mined by means of the Tyndall meter. Tellus 7:218-225.
Jerlov, N. G. 1958, Distribution of suspended material in theAdriatic Sea. Archivio di Oceanografia e Limnologia 11:227-250.
Jerlov, N. G. 1959. Maxima in the vertical distribution of particlesin the sea. Deep-Sea Research 5: 178-184.
Jerlov, N. G. 1968. Optical oceanography. Elsevier, Amsterdam.l94p.
Jerlov, N. G. and B. Kullenberg. 1953. The Tyndall effect of uni-form minerogenic suspensions. Tellus 5: 306-307.
92
Ketchum, B. H. and D. H. Shonting. 1958. Optical studies ofparticulate matter in the sea. Woods Hole, Massachusetts.28p. (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Reference no.58-15)
Morse, B. A. and N. McGary. 1965. Graphic representation of thesalinity distribution near the Columbia River mouth. In:Ocean Science and Ocean Engineering, 1965: Transactions ofthe Joint Conference of the Marine Technology Society andAmerican Society of Limnology and Oceanography, 1965.Washington, D. C. p. 923-942.
Neal, V. T. 1965. A calculation of flushing times and pollutiondistribution for the Columbia River estuary. Ph.D. thesis.Corvallis, Oregon State University. 82 numb. leaves.
Osterberg, C., N, Cutshall and J. T. Cronin. 1965. Chromium-51 as a radioactive tracer of Columbia River water at sea.Science 150: 1585-1587,
Osterberg, C., J. Pattullo and W. Pearcy. 1964. Zinc-65 ineuphausiids as related to Columbia River water off the Oregoncoast. Limnology and Oceanography 9:249-257.
Pak, H., G. F. Beardsley, Jr. and R. L. Smith. 1969. An opticaland hydrographic study of a temperature inversion off Oregonduring upwelling. (Submitted to the Journal of GeophysicalResearch)
Park, K. 1966. Columbia River plume identification by specificalkalinity. Lirnnology and Oceanography 2: 118-120.
Rosenburg, D. H. 1962. Characteristics and distribution of watermasses off the Oregon coast. Master's thesis. Corvallis,Oregon State University. 45 numb. leaves.
Sasaki, T., N. Okami, G. Oshiba and S. Watanabe. 1962. Studieson suspended particles in deep sea water. Scientific papers ofthe Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (Tokyo) 56:77-83.
Smith, R. L. 1964. An investigation of upwelling along the Oregoncoast. Ph.D. thesis. Corvallis, Oregon State University.83 numb, leaves.
Spilhaus, A. F. 1965. Observation of light scattering in sea water.Ph.D. thesis. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Techno-logy. 24Z numb. leaves,
Stefanson, U. and F. A. Richards, 1963, Process contributing tothe nutrient distribution of the Columbia River and the Straitof Juan de Fuca, Limnology and Oceanography 8:394-410.
Tully, J. P. 1958, On structure, entrainment, and transport inestuarian embayments. Journal of Marine Research 17: 5Z3-535,
U. S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1947, The Columbia River: Acomprehensive report on the development of the water re-sources of the Columbia River Basin. Washington, D. C.393p.
APPENDICES
94
APPENDIX I
COLUMBIA RIVER AND ITS ESTUARY
The Columbia River is carrying the bulk of fresh water into
the northeastern part of the Pacific Ocean through its estuary located
at the border of Oregon and Washington States (Figure 42). Its total
length is approximately 1220 statute miles (Hickson and Rodolf,
1951). The drainage basin (U,S Bureau of Reclamation, 1947),which
covers 670, 000 Km2 with 85 percent of this area within the United
States, includes nearly all of Idaho, most of Washington, Oregon
and western Montana, and small areas in Wyoming, Nevada and
Utah. The watershed of the Columbia River constitutes about seven
percent of the nation's area.
There is considerable seasonal variation in the mass transport
of the Columbia River. Maximum discharge occurs during May to
July due to melting snow at the head waters, whereas the maxima
for the small coastal streams south to the Rogue River normally
occurs during the wet period from November through February.
Average flow in the period of maximum and minimum discharge is
about 660, 000 and 70, 000 cubic feet per second (Hickson and Rodolf,
1951). Total flow represents approximately 14 percent of the total
annual discharge from continental United States.
Seasonal variation in precpitation shows more precipitation in
N
95
Tzo IIo
150W
Figure 42. Columbia River basin.
winter than in summer, A quick run-off of winter rain on the west
side of the Cascade Range controls the coastal stream discharges to
create a seasonal variation opposite to that of the Columbia River.
There is a winter peak flow in the Columbia River depending on
coastal precipitation (Duxbury, 1965). The winter discharge may
deviate considerably from its mean value,
Using Pritchard's classification (1955), the Columbia River
estuary at Astoria, Oregon, belongs to type B (partially mixed type)
during high discharge period and type D (well mixed) during low
river period (Neal, 1965), Upstream the estuary is type B except
for high river flow when it becomes type A (Stratified).
The tide at the river mouth of the estuary has a mean range
of 6. 5 feet and the tide itself is the typical mixed semi-diurnal tide
of Northeastern Pacific Ocean (Neal, 1965).
The salinity intrusion ranges from ZO to 15 nautical miles up-
stream from the river mouth depending on whether type B or type D
conditions exist (Burt and McAlister, 1959),
Further physical and hydrological details of the Columbia
River were discussed by Budinger et al, (1964) and Neal (1965),
97APPENDIX II
REVIEW OF REGIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC CONDITIONSOFF THE OREGON-WASHINGTON COAST
The oceanic region off the Oregon and Washington coast is
characterized by a weak and poorly defined current, the Eastern
boundary current, The North Pacific west wind drift diverges into
northern and southern branches, The northern branch feeds into a
gyre in the Gulf of Alaska, and the southern branch forms a broad
California Current,
Seasonal patterns in wind produce distinctive seasonal varia-
tions in near-shore current systems. During October and through
March or April, south or southwest winds prevail and result in a
northerly surface current, called Davidson Current (Burt and Wyatt,
1964), and during the rest of the year, north to northwest winds pre-
vail to cause coastal upwelling (Smith, 1964).
In the Northeast Pacific Ocean, precipitation and fresh water
drainage from adjacent land masses exceeds the evaporation so that
the area is a region of net dilution (Budinger et al., 1964), The
oceanic region subject to the influence of the Columbia River plume
is contained within 40 to 50 degrees North, and 1Z4 to 132 degrees
West (Budinger et al., 1964).
Rosenburg (1962), Collins (1964), Pattullo and Denner (1965),
and others discussed the water mass characteristics of the region in
detail. The water mass above lOOm depth, according to them, con-
sists largely of Subarctic water mixed with a small amount of Pacific
Equatorial water.
The Columbia River plume shows a large seasonal variation in
its position due to the prevailing surface current which is driven by
the prevailing wind, During the summer, prevailing wind drives
the surface water southward with offshore component causing deep
water to upwell. A band of high salinity and low temperature water
along the coast in summer is the direct consequence of the upwelling.
A zone exists parallel to the coast between upwelled water near
shore and non-upwelled water offshore. This zone is referred to as
a front because there exist a large density, temperature, and
salinity gradients across this zone (Collins, 1964).
The Columbia River effluent is the major source of fresh
water drainage in the Northeast Pacific Ocean, and is the primary
cause of the low salinity water near the shore of Oregon. Yet,
during some period of the year, primarily the winter, the Columbia
River effluent becomes less distinguishable from that of the other
coastal streams once it becomes part of the marine environment.
During the summer, the Columbia River plume is often kept
intact as a shallow lens of water, over the dense sea water due to
the calm sea and large river discharge (Budinger et al., 1964).
Tully (1958), and Budinger et al. (1964) explained that the mixing
occurs in such a way that the salty sea water mixes vertically upward
into the plume, and little fresh water is lost through the halocline.
Buoyancy of fresh water keeps it above the sea water. Tully (1958)
attributed this phenomena to the lower coefficient of vertical eddy
viscosity near the pycnocline than in the water above it.
Budinger et al. (1964) delineated the Columbia River plume by
3Z. 5 ppt isohaline, which they found consistently corresponds to 30
to 40 meters depth in the vertical and about 760 Km downstream
during late summer.
During the winter, the plume turns northward and lies closely
along the Washington coast. High run-off from the coastal streams
and low Columbia River discharge in the winter complicate the
Columbia River plume determination (Budinger et al., 1964; and
Duxbury, 1965).
The Columbia River plume has been studied by salinity
(Budinger et al., 1964; Duxbury, 1965; Morse and McGary, 1965,
and others), by plant nutrients (Stefanson and Richards, 1963),
Chlorophyl (Anderson, 1964), Alkalinity (Park, 1966), and by radio-
active tracers (Osterberg, 1964; Osterberg, 1965; and Frederick,
1967).
100
APPENDIX III
BRICE PHOENIX LIGHT SCATTERING PHOTOMETER
Introduction
The B rice Phoenix light scattering photometer, which was used
to measure the intensity of scattered light, is a laboratory type in-
strument, It measures the intensity of light scattered from water
samples contained in the Pyrex-glass scattering cell and placed in
the path of the light beam. Thus it requires samples taken by means
of the sampling device. The scattering intensity is measured at
angles between 300 and 1350 measured from the direction of the beam,
and the limits are imposed by the geometry of the system. The volume
scattering function is deduced from the intensity by formula (1).
The light source is provided by an 85 watt mercury arc lamp,
and the output of the photomultiplier detector is recorded on a re-
corder. In order to keep the input to the photomultiplier detector in
the linear range of the system, a set of four neutral density filters
are used in the light source to control the intensity of the light source.
Interference filters are used to control the wavelength of the light
beam.
The details of the instrument are described by Spilhaus (1965)
and they are not repeated here.
101
Calibration of the B rice Phoenix Light Scattering Photometer
The calibration of the Brice Phoenix light scattering photometer
was done basia1ly by the working standard method of Tomimatsu and
Palmer (1963), but by an entirely dependent derivation of the rela-
tions.
The volume scattering function defined in equation (1) can be
expressed in terms of radiance and recorder output voltage. The
radiant intensity falling on the detector in the direction of 0 is,
J(0) = N AS S
(5)
where N is scattered radiance and A is the area of the scatteringS 5
volume defined by the distance between the scattering volume and the
detector, and the solid angle £2D. The radiance, N, N, and ND
representing the incident, scattered, and detected radiance respec-
tively, is a function of £2, and d, assuming the time dependence is
negligible. The voltage output recorded, V0, may be expressed by
V (0) = k N A % Tg (1 - R) (6)D sD
where k is a constant conversion factor (volts/flux), T and R are
transmissivity and reflectivity of the Pyrex glass scattering cell,
From equation (1) and (5), the scattered radiance is expressed by
N = 1(0) N £2 T (1 - R) (7)00 g
102
recalling that the incident irradiance, H = N £2 , and the scattering00volume, V = A 1(0), where 1(0) is the path of sight. The path of
sight is t sinO, when t is the width of the light beam. Then equation
(6) with equation (7) substituted in for N becomes
VD(e) = k (0)l(0)N £2 A £2 T 2(1 - R)2 (8)ooDDg
The voltage output at 0 0, VD (0), is written as
V (0) = kuN £2 £2 A T 2(1 - R)2
D ooDDg
where a is the working standard constant. The ratio of VD(e) to
VD(0) is
p(e)l(o)VD(0) a
(6) ta sine (9)
The ratio of voltage outputs, V and V isw op
V kN2a2Aw 00 D D a
V kN2T2A fop oo oDD o
where V and V are voltage outputs when the working standardw op
and opal standard were placed in the beam respectively, T is the
transmissivity of the opal standard.
103
The working standard constant, a, is
Vw
a T (10)V 0
op
From equation (8), the volume scattering function is written by
VD(0) V T= sinO
VD(0) V top
Thus the calibration constant K is expressed by
Y T
V top
(1Z)
T is provided with the instrument by the manufacturer, and t can
easily be determined.
Operational Procedures
The operational procedure includes the sampling of water,
operation of the B rice Phoenix scattering photometer, and reduction
of the recorded data into the volume scattering function.
Water samples were drawn from the desired depth by Nansen-
bottles hung on regular hydro-wire. The inside of the Nansen-bottles
were coated with teflon. The water samples were transferred to
plastic nutrient bottles. The nutrient bottles were rinsed carefully
104
to avoid contamination. Since there are always some possibilities of
contamination from the transferring of the samples to nutrient
bottles, a direct transfer of samples from the Nansen-bottle to the
scattering cell is desirable.
The estimated time of storage in the nutrient bottle ranges
from ten to thirty minutes. According to Spilbaus (1965), the error
that might occur by the storage of less than one hour is negligible.
The operation of the Brice Phoenix light scattering photometer
starts with warming up the light source and photomultiplier. The
power was put on as soon as the instrument is installed, and left on
for the entire cruise. On the power source a voltage regulator was
used to prevent any fluctuation of voltage. It was convenient to make
a log on the recorder chart before the measurement about the cruise,
station, date, and other things that might be needed later on.
A semi-hexagonal pyrex-glass scattering cell was used, and
this cell enabled measurement of the scattered light at 45, 90, and
135 degrees. The scattering cell was cleaned before the first sta-
tion and clean double distilled water was filled in, and also whenever
the instrument was idle the scattering cell was filled with the same
double distilled water, After the sample was poured into the
scattering cell, the cell was seated on the cell base in the light tight
1 ('1. U.
compartment. The alignment of the scattering cell was checked by
watching the reflected light beam from the scattering cell back to the
slit through which the light beam emanates. The cap of the light tight
compartment was closed. At this time another log for the sample in
the instrument was made. This log included the depth of the water
sample, color of the light, time of measurement, etc.
The 00 reading was made first. Using the neutral density fil-
ters attached near the light source, the output was kept near 4 to 5
my. The output decreases as the angle increases, and the neutral
density filters become unnecessary. The output of open ocean water
at 90° is usually less than 4 my without using any neutral density fil-
ter.
As the output is recorded, the angle of measurement and
neutral density filters used must be recorded. The output often
shows some fluctuations. The record was made long enough, some-
times as long as one minute, to record the minimum reading. The
higher values are from the motes, which are very difficult to treat
uniformly, and the effects of the motes are avoided by taking the
minimum readings for all the measurements.
The data read from the chart was processed by a CDC3300
computer to deduce the volume scattering functions corresponding to
angles of measurements. The formula for the volume scattering
function is given in equation (7).
The data processing includes 1) take account of the neutral
density filters used, Z) normalize to the NO), 3) take account of the
scattering volume, 4) take the calibration constant into account, and
5) make correction for reflections. These processes are discussed
by Spilhaus (1965) and the complete computer program is presented
here without repeating explanations on steps.
Error Analysis
Spilhaus (1965) determined the precision of measurements of
the B rice Phoenix light scatterometer from an experimental measure-
ment made on pairs of samples drawn simultaneously. The measure-
ment itself could not be made simultaneously. By the deviation of
J(0) from its mean at each angle, the standard error was ± 0. 034.
He also analyzed the error caused by the aging of the sample
by repeating the measurement of the same sample with various
storage time intervals. He did not find a pattern of changes as a
function of time.
Beardsley (1966) discussed the precision of the same instru-
ment. He found a standard deviation of four percent for the drift
of the electro-optical system by taking time average of a large num-
ber of one second period readings. He also found that the repeata-
bility of the calibration can be determined with a precision of two
107
310') TPil S1 iFPS1J 1 . 12/?3/ 14tprAt SCAT 4C"N 'W (10) N 1 (1 RO) , IF7 (1 k'l) N(. 3(1 Mo I , iF+ C I Fl I
F? ,I (1) ,F4 ( 3) .AS (1 MO) ,CAS Ri') ,csr9lF9 od , ),C'I. C1 Cl1, (F (1) T1 , 3 , (F2 (11 , , (F 4 ( j 1 1) fl g ( ) I = I , 1)
13 F1AT (12F,.l)PFr (CAL (I AMI)4 ,(AC.11)A=l ,1)
105 F"lAT (3F14,7)RFAIi 1112, ,K1,'?,K')K,K1,K4,15,KA
1112 Fr,l4AT (M(T4,1()PFAO 33). in
310 rrir (110)1010 P'r 1)1,LAo!l)A,Tp.)EPT1.TTM,nATF.STATT J.CCUTS ,S:pVFwl')l F'1A1 (Tl.J X,T1 ,1X.44,IX,A4,1X,AR,lX,A7.1X,A5,1 *.'A4)
1 ILA1"°A) s0fl,c00,fl1Sot CrINJE
2FA 1'2,PCI,P(1 ) ,F'JFl (1) ,!IF?(3 I ,NF3(1) ,NF4(1) , (P(ç) ,NF I (K) ,NE?H')
102 FO1AT (F3.0,9C1X.F3.0.4T1))PTNT 1O2),
100 FQ?lAT (1k ,lOX.TM.1l,Tl .1 x,i1 ,1 X.A4,1K,44,IX,AM,) ,A7.1 g,A5,l x,?,oIR)PI1=(P(1)_PCt)*F4CT(F1(LAI)A).kF)(1)*FACT(F?(LA11l),NF2(1))*FACT(
IFIO AMOA) ,htF3(1) I C F4 CI AMC)AI ,PJF'+ (1)
A5((<)=((P(K)_PiT)*FACT(Fl(LAMr1eNF1(K))*FtCT(F2(L,l)A).Nfd((c))*FA1rT(r3(LAMrlA),NF1(K))*vAcT(F4(,ArA0A).jF4CK))*CAL(LAnA)*sIf(MLlINIDfl1) / U' 1)
MR CITTtJIIFDZ 99 K=KS,Kf,K6=J*K,lR0
TF(l(.L).9O) 12,1312 CAS (K)4S(K).076*AS CL)
r, TC 10013 CAS (K) .4% (K) _.0lk*AS (1)
10(1 cSJrTN1IE99 (ONTIM'E
RAT=C45 (45) /CAS (J36)RATT=CAS(45) /CAS(Q0)PQTNT 3OS,CAS(4),CASCQ0).CAS(11S,,AT.PAYT
305 FPHAT (14X,HAS(4S),F14.4,1X.RkCAS(90)s,l4.4,1X,'kCAS(l35),F1l4.4,? (3X,F14.4) /1PU'IrH 336, Ifl,LMflA, IP,DFPTH,TTMF,flAT,ST4T13lhCRUiSF
316 FPkAT(I1°,lX,Tl ,1X,Tl,lX.44,1 X,A4,1(,AR.lX,A7,' ,AS)2I('.IrH 333,Tn,CAS4,CAS9°,C65135
333 FORMAT (1X,TlO,IX, 46S=,F14.4,t*,3k9°=,Fl4.'4,lX,'4-411=,Fl.4)TflTf)1( TC 1))0
500 F"JflFl(IrTIN FACT(F,NFFACT:l ,0TF(NF.E(.1)FACTFENO
p e r C e nt.
To test the repeatability of the instrument, an experiment was
made with a sample prepared by adding 10.5 micron diameter Latax
spheres into cleau sea water. The sea water was prepared by fil-
tering through 0.8 micron Millipore filters many times. The clean-
liness of this filtered water was checked by scattering measurements
aLId also by Coulter-Counter measurements. The number of Latax
spheres added was determined by the Coulter-Counter method. The
sample prepared in this way was measured by the Brice Phoenix
light scatterometer at angles of 0, 45, 90, and 135 degrees using
blue and green light. Two days later, the same procedure was re-
peated by a different person. The results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3. Results of error analysis.
Color 0 A5 B C5 D(xlO )
(xlO
Blue 45 0.0176 0.44% 0.0062 0.15%90 0. 0129 4.98% 0.0045 1. 73%
135 0.0408 14.4% 0.0144 5,08%
Green 45 0,0354 1,28% 0.0125 0.45%90 0.0040 2,43% 0.0014 0.85%
135 0. 0180 9.7 % 0. 0063 3.39%
A=N1 N2
N1B = A x 100
C = Standard Deviation
D = (Stand. Dev,/p(0)1)x 100
109
The errors are larger at the larger angles than at 45 degrees.
These errors include that of the Coulter-Counter and all the opera-
tional errors such as electro-optical drift, cleanliness of the scat-
tering cell, human error, etc. The experiments were made aboard
the R/V Yaquina during a cruise on the open ocean.
The errors due to the storage time of samples discussed by
Spilhaus (1965) will be much smaller in this work since samples are
measured much more quickly by measuring at only three angles,
while Spilhaus took readings at 5 degree intervals from 30 to 135
degrees.
The recording pen often drifts to give a wide range of value.
This is due to the motes of the particles in the scattering volume,
especially large particles like swimming zooplanktons. It is diffi-
cult to account for the effects of this non-homogenous state. We
considered the scattering from a sample of water as a sum of basic
scattering and anomalous scattering from a few foreign particles
(from large particles that cause the large variations). The effects
of such anomalous scattering are eliminated by taking long records,
as long as one minute, and taking the minimum value.
Another set of experiments was made to determine whether or
not the Nansen-bottles contaminated the water samples as compared
to newer plastic sampling bottles, and the experimental errors.
The experiment included sampling and light scattering
110
measurements. Seven Teflon coated Nansen-bottles were tested
against four Niskin bottles, one Van Dorn bottle, and two NI0 bottles.
The Nansen-bottles and plastic bottles were placed in alternating
order on the hydro-wire with two meters spacing. The choice of
each individual bottle was made randomly. The bottles were
lowered to Z50 meters depth, well below the thermocline, and water
samples were taken, The scattering measurements at 450 were
made in random order until each sample was measured twice.
The result of this experiment shows that the Nansen-bottles
are no different from the newer plastic bottles, and the mean error
of the same sample and the mean of the same type bottles were
approximately five percent each.