N PS ARCHIVE 1965 BASSETT, C. AN INVESTIGATION OF THE VERTICAL VARIATION OF LIGHT SCATTERING IN MONTEREY BAY CHARLES H. BASSETT HARRY C.'FURMINGER DUDLEY *^ I IBRARV ^^ NAVAL PC MONTERF • AN INVESTIGATION OF THE VERTICAL VARIATION OP LIGHT SCATTERING IN MONTEREY BAY, CALIFORNIA «■##»*• Charles H» Bassett, Jr. and I & r rv C, Pu cmin 5©r AN INVESTIGATION OP THE VERTICAL VARIATION OP LIGHT SCATTERING IN MONTEREY BAY, CALIFORNIA by Charles H, Bassett, Jr. / Lieutenant, United States Navy and Harry C, Furminger Lieutenant, United States Navy Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OP SCIENCE United States Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, California 19 6 5 i DUDLEY KNOX LIBRARY graduate School NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CA 93943-5101 AN INVESTIGATION OP THE VERTICAL VARIATION OP LIGHT SCATTERING IN MONTEREY BAY, CALIFORNIA by Charles H, Bassett, Jr. and Harry C. Furminger This work is accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirements for the degree of MASTER OP SCIENCE from the United States Naval Postgraduate School ABSTRACT An Investigation of the vertical variations of the scattering coefficients for visible light at a selected location in Monterey Bay, California, was conducted during December, 1964, January and February, 1965. Forty-six water samples were collected at various depths on five separate sampling days. Where possible, concurrent light attenuation (horizontal) and solar light extinction measurements were made in situ. The water samples collected were analyzed for den- sity and inorganic phosphates. From the scattering coefficients computed, and hand-fit- ting of scattering function curves with theoretical curves, the particle size and particle concentration was estimated for each sample. The relationships between the sea water density, phosphate content, and the empirically derived scattering coefficient, particle size, and particle concentration were examined. The only significant correlation found is that between particle size and particle concentration. A particle concentration maximum was observed above and adjacent to the pycnocline where one existed. 4 4 TABLE OP CONTENTS Section Title Page 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Purpose 1 1.2 Theory 2 1.2.1 Light Attenuation 3 1.2.2 Light Absorption 4 1.2.3 Light Scattering 5 1.2.4 The Effect of Particle Size, Particle Concentration, and Wavelength on Scattering 7 1.3 Station Oceanographic Climatology 9 2. Equipment 13 2.1 Sea Water Attenuation Hydrophotometer 13 2.2 Insolation Extinction Hydrophotometer 14 2.3 Scattering Analysis Apparatus 14 2,3.1 Constructed Laboratory Model 14 2.3*2 Aminco Light Scattering Micro- photometer 17 2.4 Salinity Determination Apparatus 17 2.5 Phosphate Determination Apparatus 18 3. Procedure 19 3.1 Sample Collection and Attenuation Measure- ment 19 3.2 Forward Angle Scattering Measurement 21 4. Data 23 4.1 Light Attenuation Data 23 4.2 Light Extinction Data 23 iii TABLE OP CONTENTS Section Title Page 4.3 Scattering Coefficient, Density, Phosphate, 24 Particle Size and Concentration Data 5« Data Interpretation 26 60 Conclusions and Acknowledgements 32 Bibliography 35 Appendix I Data Tables 38 II Illustrations 65 iv LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1* Median Temperature and Salinity 38 2. Light Attenuation Data 39 3. Light Extinction Data 41 4. Scattering Coefficient, Density, Phosphate, Particle Size and Concentration 44 5« Measured Scattering Intensity Data 49 LIST OP ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1. Light Energy Attenuation 66 2. Schematic Scatterometer 6? 3. The Single Particle K Field 68 4. Climatological Profiles 69 5» Relative Radiance With Depth 70 6. Scripps Alpha Meter 71 7» Extinction Hydrophotometer 72 8. Constructed Laboratory Scattering Photometer 73 9» Constructed Laboratory Scattering Photometer 74 10. Amlnco Scattering Photometer 75 11* Monterey Bay, California 76 12. Single Particle Scattering Intensity Curves, *■ 1Q3 77 13 t Single Particle Scattering Intensity Curves, tn« 2.0, 1.55* 1*44 78 14, Single Particle Scattering Intensity Curves, m*- 1.20 79 15* Measured Scattering Intensity Curves 80 16. Sample Profiles, 21 December, 1964 81 17 e Sample Profiles, 6 January, 1965 82 18. Sample Profiles, 8 January, 1965 83 19. Sample Profiles, 26 January, 1965 84 20. Sample Profiles, 19 February, 1965 85 21. Graph of Scattering and Concentration 86 22. Scattering Field for Radius and Concentration 87 23. Scattering Field for Phosphate Content and Density 88 vl 1. Introduction 1.1 Purpose In recent years, much research effort has been expended in the field of underwater optics, due primarily to the fact that many of the parameters in physical, biological, and ohem- ical oceanography depend upon the physics associated with the transmission of light through sea water* Scientists are now investigating the areal distribution of the horizontal light attenuation as it varies with depth; (Hughes, R. , at the Naval Ordnance Test Station, China Lake, California, person- al communication)? also under investigation is the areal var- iation of light scattering [35] • The next logical step is a more detailed study of the vertical variation of light scat- tering; and its causes, effects, and methods of investigation* In this paper the approach to light scattering is through a study of the variation of light scatterers. Prom such a study, parameters involved in several oceanographic disciplines may be forecast, resulting in the application of research in underwater light transmission to areas such ass 1. development of an underwater coherent light source for use in detection, ranging and communication; 2. the use of attenuation coefficients or scatter coefficients as a means of typing water; 3» the general improvement of underwater photography and television techniques; ko the study of the penetration of sea water by solar radiation and the resulting effect on productivity; 5« the study of solar radiation penetration and its effect on sea surface temperature and ocean thermal structure. This investigation emphasizes the utility of scattering analysis as an integral part of descriptive oceanography. This study began in December » 1963* with field sampling begin- ning a year later. During this time, the authors investigated the oceanographic climatology of the Monterey Bay Area to de- termine the best sampling area. The sampling area finally chosen was selected considering proximity to shore, water depth, and availability of past oceanographic data £8, 33] • 1.2 Theory Before discussing the variation of scatterers, the applicable definitions and physical relationships for light transmission through water should be reviewed. 1.2.1 Light Attenuation The attenuation of light is the diminution of intensity of a light beam during its passage through a medium such as sea water* and it results from a number of processes. As shown by Tyler, et. al. , this attenuation is mainly attrib- utable to the scattering and absorbing properties of the me- dium C23"]. The function expressing the attenuation of light trans- mission through a medium is K-Ke*1, (1) an expression of Beer's Law as interpreted by Tyler Cll3» No and Nr are tiie source and receiver Intensity, respectively, as measured by an "Alpha " (attenuation) meter. The range j( is the measured distance between the source and the receiver. A plot of various ranges compared with i!n(^Wl ) should give a straight line when plotted against the total attenuation coefficient of the light beam, ()(.• The attenuation coefficient is primarily the sum of the total scattering coefficient, S , and the absorption coeffi- cient,^, or i^Hu+S (2). 3 These coefficients have the units of length • In a medium such as sea water, the presence of contam- inants and solutes alters the scattering and the absorption. In fact* any diatomic molecule of the medium or solute will be a source of possible attenuation El03# 1*2*2 Light Absorption Scattering is a process which results in the redirection of light energy* Light absorption* in contrast, is a process which is an energy transformation. The absorbing substance diminishes the incident light energy by changing it into other forms of energy* such as heat energy and molecular (rotation- al) energy LlO}. The measurement of absorption coefficients may be compli- cated and sometimes measurement is performed by indirect means [22] • To measure absorption in a medium such as sea water, it is desirable to use a colllmated light source to reduce scat- tering to a minimum; the optimum source is a highly colllmated laser beam* Because of the monochromatic properties of sea water* the usual approach is to use a narrow band sharp cut- off filter with a mercury arc lamp as a light source for opti- cal studies* This source-filter combination will limit the band width of study to the area in the light spectrum where absorption is minimum Lll* 18* 30} • The Incident light wave- length used in this study was in the band of minimum absorp- tion so as to reduce the variation of absorption* and to con- centrate attention on the variation of the scattering prop- erties of sea water* A direct measurement of absorption is a problem be* cause it involves energy transformation* and the degree of change per unit volume is less than the error in any accept- able method of measurement* The basio reason for the difficulty in determining the absorption coefficient accurately is that absorption is a function of wavelength, temperature* pressure* the medium, and the particle concentration* Theoretically, the absorption coefficient of distilled water under standard conditions should be constant* Unfortunately* there is wide variation in the values reported by several researchers [l]* This is believed to be due to non- standardized methods and equipment. The total absorption coefficient*^* can be obtained by using Equation (2); the attenuation coefficient,^ , is ob- tained with Equation (1), since the measurement of attenuation is not difficult* basically* Several instruments have been devised for this purpose [ 223* The scattering coefficient, 5* is determined through separate measurement* 1.2*3 Light Scattering As light energy passes through a medium, it encounters many particles of the fluid (1^ e. suspended particles, molec- ular structure of the medium* etc*)* According to Haltiner and Martin* some of the particles (dlpoles) may have centers of positive and negative electric charge displaced one from another LlOl. The dipole will vibrate sympathetically at the frequency of the incident electromagnetic energy* The result Is that the particle radiates light energy in all directions. Attenuation is a function of the wavelength of the inci- dent light energy o Duntley and Koslyaninov show* for a wave- length of 480 millimicrons (i.e. visible blue light) with a colllmated incident beam, approximately 60 percent of the attenuation can be attributed to scattering and 40 percent to absorption [ 24, 273® This choice of monochromatic wavelength is discussed by Tyler, et* al*, as being in the band of minimum absorption by distilled water [.24, 25] • This band is bounded by 480 millimicrons for distilled water and approximately 590 millimicrons for coastal sea water* In addition to its varia- tion with wavelength, light attenuation also varies with scat- tering and absorption as already discussed ■ The authors have used monochromatic or limited wavelength band incident light so as to minimize the variation of attenuation* Absorption by the particulate material in sea water is small, and may be ignored according to Tyler £11, 243* The variation of absorption with temperature and pressure can be eliminated by using constant temperature^ at one atmosphere, in a laboratory-controlled experiment, and comparing these results with in situ measurements • This procedure reduces the variation of the scattering phenomenon* Some scattering (see Figure 1) is the result of the inci- dent energy encountering the medium itself* It can be consid- ered molecular scattering and is described by Rayleigh theory. Duntley indicates that molecular scattering is of equal mag- nitude in the forward and backward directions for a collimated light source in sea water £273 • He also states that molec- ular scattering accounts for about seven percent of the total 6 observed scattering. This means that the molecular scattering is generally several orders of magnitude smaller than particle scattering, in the forward direction* The establishment of a specific total volume scattering coefficient is also a complex problem, but it can be measured directly. Consideration must be given to the incident energy wavelength as well as to the particle size, particle concen- tration, and energy dispersion* Total scattering is defined by the following functions: s =zir J l, the use of polarized source light reduces the complexity of function computation* When 6> has a large value , the resulting scattering curves show a preponderance of forward scattering^ as noted in Sec- tion l«lo As B decreases* the scattering pattern becomes more nearly symmetrical about the intercepted volume, and is symmetrical for molecular (Baylelghen) scattering* When con- sidering the light intensity change in a scattering medium due to scattering only* the turbidity or fractional decrease in intensity is written as 8 In this relationship, T\ is the number of particles per unit volume; K is a function of b and the relative index of re- f raction,mr\ ; f is the particle radius; and X is the path length traveled by the transmitted energy. Thus, for very small (molecular) particles: fa -in wtT) { ' l7l Integration over all values of 0 and substitution into Equation (6) results in the following expression: e1 (8). The variation of \<, for values of VY\ and b is shown in Figure 3« If light transmission were to be measured through a system of randomly dispersed particles* it would be best to select a wavelength where absorption is minimum and lessen the complications for evaluation of light scattering. If, on measuring the decrease in intensity, the intensity is found to vary as T , minimum absorption could be assumed. However, the generally accepted method for computing absorption is by calculating the difference between total attenuation and total scattering* There is no complete theory at this time to treat large, irregularly shaped particles; however, most shapes can be reasonably approximated by spheres if the particles are not too large. ■ 1«3 Station Oceanographic Climatology The authors feel that an oceanographic olimatologioal survey Is required to describe the sampling area and to be certain that measured values of temperature and salinity are valid. We have prepared a brief description of the sampling area. The data used were those for which turbidity measure- ments were available*, The description presented is from data obtained from oceanographlc field sheets covering a four-year period (1951-1955) at Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University in Pacific Grove, California, The data were processed and analyzed with the BHBK«>jL3 statistical accumulation and correlation program on the USNPGS CDC-1604 computer. Temperature and salinity were analyzed as to depth and month. The results are presented in Table 1 for the months during which the field sampling was performed. The extinction coefficient data given (Figure k) are for the entire clima- tological sample rather than the months of the field work. Figure 4 shows the temperature and salinity profiles for December, January, February and March, and the same data median values are shown in Table 1„ January shows the weakest vertical temperature gradient as a result of the more intense winter stirring and the warm northward flowing Davidson Current. Not shown in Figure 4, but in the analysis of the entire five-year sample 9 is a vertical temperature gradient of two degrees Celsius in the fifty-meter surface layer. A well-mixed surface layer is shown for December and Jan- uary only, and a weak salinity gradient is evident for this 10 period as well* An Investigation of light attenuation versus cloud cover was conducted; first, to determine the validity of the observa- tions; and second, to determine the shape of the extinction curve in the vertical at the chosen location. 10? observations made with an hydrophotometer were available. Two values were available for each observation; one for incident sunlight at the sea surface, and one for light existing at each depth. A small negative correlation (0.16) was found between the surface light and cloud cover. Whether this correlation should be this small or if it should be larger is difficult to say, as there Is certainly some light even with overcast skies. There is also the possibility of large observational error here, because of variability in observational technique. The next step in the light investigation was an exam- ination of light versus depth. This gave a negative corre- lation of 0<,69. Figure 5 is a graph of relative radiance (relative to incident Insolation at the surface) by depth, using the 155 available observations. Figure 5 shows that the relative radiance approaches zero as depth increases, and allows some quantitative comparison. Curve 1 of Figure 5 18 a plot of percent of incident sunlight versus depth, measured by Tyler In 1957 with a photometer oriented at the zenith angle in fresh water, and the sun at 650 altitude Cll3» Curve 2 is a similar plot for the data of the present study, which ^as hand-fitted to extinction hydrophotometer data. The observations were made at 10:30 a.m. i 30 minutes, so it is safe to assume that the sun altitude was not much different 11 from 65° o Aside from the variation due to sun altitude, there are unknown instrument differences, and the data available were not of the precise nature of Tyler8 s data. These factors, along with the difference in water type, con- tribute to the difference of the slope of curves 1 and 2. Curve 3 is hand- fitted to the station climatological turbid- ity data. It is observed from the curves of Figure 5 that Monterey Bay water is relatively turbid. Here, we can point out that a very shallow thermocline such as exists in the Bay water would hold the more turbid water close to the surface, and tend to change the radiance curve in the manner noted in Figure 5 for this study. This turbidity appears to be concentrated in the upper 25 meters, as there is practically no radiance below 25 meters as indicated by curve 3» Another contributing factor in this regard is the dif- ference in incident sunlight. In the present investigation, the mean incident cloud cover for the 155 observations is 53 percent, while Tyler °s curve was established in a single clear day* The resulting conclusions as to radiance of Bay water is that in the vertical, total extinction is similar in many respects to Tyler 9s data, but that the water is relatively more turbid in the upper 25 meters [ll] « 12 2. Equipment Description 2.1 Sea Water Attenuation Hydrophotometer (Alpha Meter) This instrument was supplied by the Visibility Labor- atory of Scripps Institute of Oceanography, San Diego, Cal- ifornia,, It is designed to measure total horizontal light attenuation. It consists of a constant light source with a monitor cell in a sealed container on one end of a three inch I Beam, as shown in Figure 6. On the other end of the bar is a photocell, also enclosed in a watertight container, with a Wratten Filter number 57* The electric power is supplied on board the USNPGS Hydrographic Research Vessel by two 500-kilo- watt generators* The control box contains two potentiometers to display transmitted and received intensity* The Alpha Meter is first standardized in air to calibrate the two meters with the power supply. Then the apparatus is lowered Just below the sea surface and is standardized at this position and the first reading is made. Since this meter determines horizontal light attenuation, attention must be given to maintaining a horizontal position during all readings. Lowering the Alpha Meter to specific meter wheel depth readings allows data to be taken at depths down to a maximum cable length of 50 meters. The Wratten Filter number 57 passes maximum intensity at 0.536^ microns with a half width of 0.050 microns. This band is in the region of maximum transmittance of light in sea water. Forward angle scattering was measured using light in the same wavelength band. 13 2.2 Insolation Extinction Hydrophotometer0 Go M» Mfg. & Instrument Corp. Submarine Photometer Model 15M0*f This instrument was used to determine solar radiation extinction with depth , which gives a measure of upper layer turbidity • The basic equipment , as shown in Figure 79 con- sists of two photocells | one9 a deck monitor to measure sur- face incident solar radiation,, the second to measure solar radiation at some selected deptho The information is displayed by means of two potentiometers mounted in the deck control box. This allows the operator to obtain significant data points at pre-selected depths 9 and to determine the depth at which solar radiation is totally attenuated. A Wratten Filter number 57A is used with the in situ photocell 9 which has a peak trans- mittance at a wavelength of 0.53^0 microns and a half width of 0.060 microns 9 which overlaps the band width of the Alpha Meter Wratten Filter number 57* With the Insolation Extinction Hydrophotometer and the Sea Water Attenuation Hydrophotometer9 it is possible to ob- tain vertical and horizontal attenuation in the upper layers simultaneously. There should be an extinction maximum in the areas of high concentration of particulate matter. It is also possible to compare these data with other oceanic areas9 as will be seen later. 2.3 Scattering Analysis Apparatus 2.3ol Constructed Laboratory Model As shown in Figure 8$, there are four major components to this variable angle scattering analysis apparatus; a Mer~ oury Arc lamp; and Eldorado Differential Photometer 0 Model 210, 14 with two photocells, (capable of recording as small as two micro-micro lumens); a Leeds- Nor thrup Analog Chart Recorder; and the variable angle protractor scattering table with one liter flask, aperture, wavelength discrimination filter, polarization neutral screen, and focusing (collimation) lens. The Mercury Arc lamp produces a narrow beam which contains monochromatic lines at 0.6907* 0.6234, 0.5791* 0.576959* 0.5461, 0.^960, 0.49l69 0,435835, and 0.404656 microns. The lines at 0.576959* 0.435835* and 0*404656 microns are the only lines whose intensity are of practical use. Using a Wratten Filter number 57» it is possible to eliminate all the lines except the desired wavelength of 0.576959 microns. It is desirable to colllmate the beam to eliminate any beam divergence over the measuring path. This can be done by using a 3/32 inch aperture with a five-inch focal lens. Proper alignment and positioning of aperture and lens gives nearly zero divergence over the path used (beam width is O0-^1 at the receiver). A pair of adjustable polarizing lenses are posi» tioned in the beam to obtain control of the absolute intensity which is received by the Eldorado Differential Photometer photo- cells. The flask is positioned over the center of the pro- tractor scattering table with its relative position always checked for consistancy to eliminate any changes in beam path due to glass-water interface refraction. One of the photocells is positioned on the beam path. The second is secured to the rotating arm of the protractor scattering table. An electric slow speed AC motor is geared to the rotating arm so as to provide the necessary constant 15 rotation of the variable position photocell. The arm move- ment is slow enough to present a useful curve on the Leeds- Northrup Analog Recorder, giving readings on a continuous curve rather than at discrete points. To align the apparatus, it is necessary to diminish the signal received by the fixed arm photocell to a value which allows adequate scale freedom on the Eldorado Differential Photometer. Alignment is then made with the air-filled flask to eliminate flask refraction effect. This is repeated with distilled water, so that the ultimate data will be relative to the distilled water • As is seen in Figure 9» this apparatus can process a large number of one liter samples in complete darkness, with a permanent record of the results . The product is a continu- ous curve of scattering at angles varying from that perpen° dicular to the beam axis to along the axis. 16 2,3*2 Aminco Light Scattering Microphotometer The Aminco Microphotometer, of the American Instrument Company* Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland, was used for samples of less than one-liter volume and for individual point studies (i..e0 at particular angles) » The apparatus, shown in Figure 10, consists of the same general components on the larger scattering apparatus with the exception of not having a differential photometric capability. The same type AH4 mercury arc lamp is the light source with a Wratten 57 Filter and a three-inch focal length collimating lens. The receiver photocell which sits on a variable-angle plate receives and displays the intensity of light scattered from the sample at various angles with respect to the light beam. The apparatus gives good small-angle forward scattering resolution for a 62 0 8 cubic-centimeter sample* but because of the necessity to pre-position definite angles manually, and the sample size limitation, it was used as an auxiliary and checking system* The procedure is to determine the light beam intensity first in air, and then with a sample of distilled water at each degree relative to the beam axis* When this calibration is complete* any sample can be investigated at any angle desired* After completion of sample analysis, another dis- tilled water sample is analyzed for beam attenuation on the axis to evaluate the meter drift. 2*k Salinity Determination Apparatus The Hytech Model 621 Inductive Salinity and Conduct- ivity Meter was used to measure salinity. The Meter uses 17 the magnetic induction method to compare the conductivity of a sample with that of Copenhagen water. This apparatus compensates automatically for temperature differences be- tween the sample and the standard; if the differences are small, allowing all reagents to come to room temperature will satis- fy the temperature requirements. The salinity range capability of the Meter is from 0 to WVoo with an accuracy ^f;0,0Q3. percent salinity, which includes errors which may be made during nor- mal handling procedures using a 50 cubic centimeter sample* 2*5 Phosphate Determination Apparatus The phosphate determination was conducted using a color comparison technique with the Beckman DU Spectrophotometer, The Spectrophotometer compares a sample, after the addition of an acidic solution of ammonium molybdinate, plus an agent such as stannous chloride to reduce the complex phospho- molybidic acid to a blue colored substance, with a prepared set of samples of known concentration. This colorimetric quantitative analysis determines differences in the colors which are proportional to the concentration of the phosphate in the sea water sample* The accuracy of the results is about 5 percent throughout the phosphate concentration range, which generally lies between 0o00 and a maximum of 3*00 milli- grams per liter for sea water. 18 3. Procedure 3.1 Sample Collection and Attenuation Measurement The primary purpose of this investigation is to discover the nature of the vertical variation of light scatterers in Monterey Bay, Previous work in this field has pointed toward a need to analyze forward-angle scattering9 and the techniques and apparatus were designed with this in mind# Working on a foundation of information published by Burt, Tyler, et. al»0 the authors concluded that uncontaminated water samples collected in the field would retain their optical properties if analyzed quickly enough to preclude decomposition of suspended organic matter, and they could be collected by Nansen bottle cast [9» 17, 22, 23j • Spilhaus showed, in his study of the areal distribution of scattering, that it was practicable to use a shipboard laboratory device to measure scattering in samples collected by Nansen bottle cast [35] • Sample depth was determined by a combination of wire- angle computation and bathythermograph slide interpretation. The water samples were collected on 21 December, 1964: 6 and 8 January, 26 January, and 19 February, 1965 » The first three days were during a stormy weather period and the surface waters were well- mixed « The last two days were during a relatively calm period and the surface water mixing was less intense* The spread of collection days was due to severe weather conditions. A station was selected offshore on the rim of the Monterey Submarine Canyon in about 900 fathoms of water. This station was chosen because of its location at the Bay entrance, 19 with expected low terrestrial polution* Also, previous sun- light extinction data were available for comparison, and the oceanographic climatology of the area had been established (note Section 1*3) e This station is located at 36°42,N and 122°02»W, and all samples were taken within two miles of this location, with positioning by visual bearings (see Figure 11 )• Three types of light transmission measurements were made: (a) horizontal attenuation of a light beam, in situ, using the Alpha Meter (Figure 6). (b) vertical extinction of sunlight, using the hydro- photometer iji situ (Figure 7)» (c) horizontal scattering of a collimated light beam, with scatterometers in a shore laboratory, shown in schematic form in Figure 2» All light measurements were made at nearly the same wave- length e The procedure at the Bay station wast 1* Horizontal attenuation measurement at five-meter inter- vals to cable limit. 2, Sunlight extinction measurement at five-meter intervals* 3o Nansen cast at standard depths * ko Bathythermograph cast* Immediately upon returning to port, the water samples were taken to a USNPGS laboratory for scatterometer measurement* Later, the salinity and phosphate determinations were made, with careful handling of samples and storage at a constant 66° F temperature* 20 3»2 Forward Angle Scattering Measurement All scatterometer readings were preceded by readings with the chamber first air-filled for meter calibration and then filled with distilled water to provide relative values for Mie scattering determination* Individual readings for air, distilled water 9 or sea water, consist of a base trans- mission reading made with a cell on the beam axis to check alignment and intensity and a curve of scatterometer readings from angles of 90° to 180° relative to the beam axis. To establish the vertical variation of suspended material, as many variables as possible must be eliminated 0 This may be accomplished by: 1* Selection of a narrow wavelength band (approx- imately monochromatic) to assure minimum ab- sorption (by wavelength selection) and elimin- ate variability of Rayleigh scattering* The most effective wavelength has been found to be <»56 microns^ for bay water „ A comparable wave- length value for turbid coastal water is close to 0*58 microns, and for distilled water, about 0o^8 microns o Natural sea water acts as a monochromator in this region, with minimum absorption generally near a wavelength of 0»53- 0*5^ microns* Available data for comparison of results and standardization can be used if a monochromatic light source is used £ll5 Zkf 35}« 2© Collimation of the light source to assure predominance of forward scattering and placing 21 the scattering dependence on scatterer size and concentration. In the scattering apparatus* (T(9) was measured at angles and plotted as relative signal intensity versus angle. The position of the curve for each sample should provide a large particle scatter coefficient ■ Comparison of slopes of the curves should give an indication of particle size distribution. This assumes the Rayleigh scattering is constant from sample to sample* and is the same for either distilled or sea water. In line with Tyler's paper on angular resolution in scattering measurement* a beam of high collimatlon with verti- cal receiver slits was used in scattering measurements \[.263. 22 4. Data 4.1 Light Attenuation Data Data shown in Table 2 were taken by means of the Scripps Alpha Meter, as outlined in Sections 2«1 and 3«lp and were observed in situ. The difficulties encountered were due to the large wire angle caused by existing weather conditions „ This caused the cable weight to be exerted on the pressure connectors of the cableso This additional weight, plus the boat motion, brought about occasional cable separation. On the 8th of Jan- uary, the wire angle was zero and the cable parted at the con- nectors due to cable weight and handling. On the 26th of Jan- uary, the cable developed an internal break at a splice point, making data- taking impossible. On the 19th of February the apparatus operated perfectly* 4.2 Light Extinction Data Data shown in Table 3 were obtained in situ, using the USNPGS Solar Radiation Extinction Hydrophotometer, described in Sections 2.2 and 3<>lo The first two cruises were late in the day and the weather was bad, with high winds and heavy cloud cover, and this gear was not used. The next two cruises had good weather conditions and the resulting data were taken at mid-day on both days, at about 1415 local time. On the 19th of February the apparatus was lowered Just as the boat drifted into a fog bank which decreased the amount of Incident radiation. On this day the water was extremely turbid. 23 *f»3 Scattering Coefficient, Density, Phosphate, Particle Concentration Data Data shown in Table 4 were taken in a USNPGS laboratory with equipment and procedures explained in Sections 2,3, 2.^, 2*5» and 3«2. The scattering data were first taken on a table arrangement shown in Figure 8. The procedure was awkward be- cause the measurements had to be made in the dark. A constant speed drive was necessary to give the required constant angu- lar velocity for the scattering measurements. Difficulties arose because the scattering intensity varied through three orders of magnitude, requiring the shifting of meter scales at the correct moment, in total darkness. If time were available to correct the design of this scattering apparatus, the present undesirable features could be eliminated. It might prove to be a most accurate scattering measuring device because of the high sensitivity of the differential photometer. The samples obtained on the 26th of January and the 19th of February were analyzed, using the Amlnco Scattering meter described in Section 2»5» The Aminco Meter is less sensitive than the constructed protractor table. This drawback is more than compensated for by the use of small samples, working in a lighted room, and measurement at discrete points rather than continuously. A plot of the scattering function It is believed that most of the material found in sea water of the particular size under investigation has a relative refractive index in the range 1.2 to 2.0$, particularly the organic material* On the last sampling day* the bottom two bottles picked up samples from a turbidity current along the canyon wall. Upon retrieval, the bottom weight was dragged along the canyon wall and a small sample of mud and pebbles was ob- tained • It was felt that a sediment analysis of this sample would give an indication of the nature of the suspended mater- ial in the sea water above. The analysis of the bottom sample by Lieutenant Gordon Monteath showed over two- thirds of the sample to be in the size range of less than 12.5 microns (per- cent by weight) Q36]. The material was a greenish-brown, very fine silty sand matrix* surrounding well-rounded pebbles of granodlorite and quartz! te0 Over 60 percent of the sample was quartz and feldspar {75 percent of this was light pink in color and in the size range less than 12,5 microns). There were notable amounts of mafic minerals,, shell fragments, biotite, and aggregates-coprolites. The majority of these minerals and other substances have an index of refraction which is in the range 1.20 to 1.65© Therefore,, the use of tf\ values between 1.20 and 1.44 seems to be appropriate in this study <> Referring to the K= field chart, Figure 3, the relationship can be seen between K(W\>B^9 27 (which is proportional to volume scattering), particle size, r » and the index of refraction*^ , This chart shows that the larger particles (which most affect the scattering) have anYT\ range between 1.20 and l©^* The region of max- imum K value (forB<12.) is found in a zone of decreasing & values and increasing^ valueso As the index of refraction increases, the greatest scattering (greatest K ) is found to be associated with particles of smaller and smaller radius* After the selection of the appropriates andYT\ values for each sample curve, a plot of the theoretical K-field was entered and the applicable y( value was determined. Using Equations (1) and (2) and assuming absorption to be negli- gible gives ^0 •fa € (9). Setting Equation (9) equal to Equation (6) gives S ^ktt rxr\ (10). The measurement of scattering intensity, J i&) , and solution of Equation (3) and Equation (4) gave us a measured value of S • We have a fitted K and an estimated Y* value (determined from 3*2£T, Section lo2)<> Solution of Equation (10) for each sample gives a measure of particle concentration ITU These are shown in the data compilation, Table 4„ Concentration is seen to be proportional to scattering and inversely proportional to particle size,. Values shown in Table 4 for the two parameters, radius and scattering coeffi- cient, were obtained by different means, 28 Figure 21 shows a scatter diagram of S versus f\9 according to particle radius o There appears to be a separation in the relations for particle size of one to two microns and those greater than two mlcronso Except for very small parti- cles ,> scattering increases with particle radius for a given concentration This relationship is more pronounced for the one to two micron size than for particles larger than two microns. It is also shown in the K- field (Figure 3) that the K value increases for increasing particle radius, in the size range of interest (greater than one micron)* An examination of the particle size variation shows no clear relationship with depths considering all sampleso Particle sizes obtained from curve fitting are mainly in the size range between 1»6 and 2„4 microns*, The reader will note from Figures 16 to 20 that a definite difference in vertical profiles of salinity, phosphate, and sigma "t exists for the last two sample days as compared to the first three days. Weather conditions would tend to cause the upper water layers to be well-mixed on 21 December , and 6 and 8 January, while layered conditions existed on 26 January and 19 Feb- ruary e One would expect, then, a uniform size distribution in the upper layers for the first three sample days* Looking at particle size from the standpoint of a layered system,, it was found that on the three sample days with mixing, the upper 50 meters (considered as a mixed layer) shows a more uniform particle size than is shown on the last two days» This sug- gests that the resulting variation in scattering in the upper layer may be due to variations in particle concentration 29 Figure 22 shows the scattering, field for values of particle radius and particle concentration* This empirical relation- ship should be verified by future experimentation* It is difficult to say how the surface area-to-mass ratio of particles will be distributed with depth* The relative refractive index of lightweight particles with the nature of wax or animal fat would be about 1*2, The same index for mineral material such as quartz might range up to 1»5» The small index difference is considered in the curve fitting* The surface area-to-mass ratio should have wide divergence for organic and mineral particles. The computed particle sizes would lead us to believe that we should be able to detect an Increase of size with depth under calm conditions* It is possible that the large particles we see are of very light material and not greatly affected by gravity* The majority of the scattering particles however, probably are not living zoo or phy to-plankton * A previous study by the authors of the most common Monterey Bay planktonic forms shows a range in size upward from 15 microns* It was hoped that some clear relationship between scattering and phosphate concentration might be found, (see Figure 23) a It is noted that there is little variation of scattering with phosphate amount for the two sample days with layering in the upper 50 meter layer (Table k)„ More varia- tion is seen below 50 meters* For the three days with mixed waters there can be seen a negative correlation between scat- tering and phosphate in all samples, with a tendency for greater scattering in the upper 50 meters* There is no in- 30 dependent verification of the latter relationship; however,, some support is provided through data from the first two days (the well-mixed condition) when phosphate was observed to be high in the surface waters o No definite conclusion can be formed concerning the relationship between particle concentration and depth. There appears to be a tendency for greater concentration of parti- cles above 50 meters for the two days exhibiting an unmixed layer. The computed scattering coefficient is relatively large at the base of this unmixed layer* Little useful information on scattering can be obtained from the attenuation and extinction data because of poor data overlap with the scattering analysis 0 A check of the data shows the resulting absorption to be reasonable when ,1 checked using the attenuation-scattering difference. 31 6. Conclusions The clear relationship expected between scattering coefficients and density and phosphates did not develop from this study, although a tendency is suggested in this direction. Perhaps a future study using a much larger sample size will verify the trend. There seems to be a light scattering layer (comparable to the deep scattering layer for sound transmission) at about 50 meters . This layer appears to be partially des- troyed by mixing in the upper layers from storm activity. This light scattering layer appears to be associated with the upper margin of a pynocline which would buoy small particles and organisms and tend to be a collection area for these less dense materials. Seasonal variation of this pynocline will definitely affect the optical water mass characteristic* This in turn will affect the variation of solar radiation present in the region of the pynocline • This scattering layer will also affect the variation of attenuation with depth due to in- creased scattering and absorption. It is possible that this layer has a high concentration of planktonic organisms which exist in the region of less than one percent incident solar radiation* Prom the data (Table k) on particle size and concentration, we conclude that the methods used are sound and the results valid. The techniques could be adapted to ship-board use for the rapid processing of a large number of samples. The final computations are, however * tedious and time-consuming and computerization of all computations after initial intensity readings is desirable. 32 To provide more meaningful results from future studies of this type, the authors feel that attenuation hydrophoto- meter measurements are necessary for all levels where samples are taken* This provides a check on the order of magnitude of scatter coefficients and any layering discovered can be closely sampled to obtain data on parameters affecting the variation of scattering.. If a verification is achieved. Figure 23 would be useful for estimates of particle radius and particle concentration if a scattering coefficient is available. In future studies the authors recommend: 1* The use of a coherent light source with variable wavelength selection* 2* The use of a monochromatic collimated light source with at least two discrete wavelength selections to give beam definition and the ability to determine particle size and con- centration without the undesirable and sub- jective curve fitting technique, 3* A chemical and microscopic analysis be made with in vitro samples to be correlated with associated scattering data* The authors wish to express their profound gratitude to Dr« Glenn H« Jung for his assistance* Without his staunch support, a problem of this magnitude could not have been completed* The technical assistance of Dr* Gerald D* Ewing in the field of light transmission in sea water is greatly appreciated* The work of Dr* Raymond L* Kelly and Professor 33 Sidney H. Kalmbach in optical physics; Dr. Charles F. Howell in chemical oceanography; Richard Wo Haupt, Commander, United States Navy$> in oceanographic instrumentation; and Assistant Professor Warren Denner all contributed to this complex study. We wish to express our sincere thanks to Gordon Monteath, Lieutenant, United States Navy, for his sediment analysis and his assistance in sampling on 21 December, 1964, and 6 January, 1965 . The weather conditions on both of these days were extreme8 and without his help, the operation might have met with instrument loss before the sampling and experiment- ation got started. The authors wish to express their appreci- ation to Mr. Roswell Austin of the Visibility Laboratory at Scripps Institute of Oceanography for the use of the Alpha Meter. For the computer techniques and programming advice, we are deeply indebted to Mrs. William L. Johnson. Credit should be given to our wives, Mrs, Charles Bassett and Mrs. Harry Purminger. Their typing, editing, data breakdown and moral support was outstanding and essential. 3^ BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Sverdrupo H. U0, Johnson, M» Wo 9 Fleming, Ro H. The Oceans* Prentice Hall, Inco, 19^2 0 2. National Bureau of Standards,, Tables of Scattering Functions for Spherical Particleso United States Govern- ment Printing Office „ January, 19*^9 <> 3« Grumprechtj) Ro 00 9 Sung, No L0 , Chin, J. No 9 Sliepevich, Co Mo Angular Distribution of Intensity of Light Scat- tered by Large Droplets of Water» Journal of the Opti- cal Society of America , v» ^2, November , 1951. 226-231 . k. Johns Hopkins University • The Dual- Filter Hydrophoto- meter, by J* Williams, March, 1953« Technical report number 5* 5o Davis, Co No Survey of Scattering and Light by Particles. British Journal of Applied Physics, vD 5» Sup. 3, 195*K 6. Lewis, P« Co, and- Go Fe Lothian. Photoextinction Measurements on Spherical Particles o British Journal of Applied Physics, v« 5s> Sup» 3» 195^« 'o ?. Johns Hopkins University » The Tri-Filter Hydrophotometer, by Jo Williams o June, 19 55 • Technical report number 9o 8, Barum, E. Go The Ecology of Sonic Scatterers in the Monterey Bay Area, California o Dissertation, Stanford University, November, 1956© 9« Burt, Wo Vo On Attenuation of Light in the Sea« Journal of the Marine Biology Association of the United Kingdom, vo 36, 1957o 10. Haltiner, Go Jo and F0 L. Martin. Dynamic and Physical Meteorology o McGraw-Hill, Inc» 1957? 79°104. 11 • Tyler, J0 E. Monochromatic Measurement of the Volume Scattering of Natural Waters. Journal of the Optical Society of America, ve k?9 August, 1957? 7i*5~7l*7 '• 12. Ashley, L0 E. and C0 M0 Cobbo Single Particle Scattering Functions for Latex Spheres in Water. Journal of the Optical Society of America, v. ^8, Aprils 1958 8 261-268. 13. Clark, Go Lc and R0 H. Backus. Measurement of Light Penetration in Relation to Vertical Migration and Records of Luminescence of Deep Sea Animals . Deep Sea Research, v. 4, 1958? 1-14. 35 BIBLIOGRAPHY lk» Woods Hole Oceanographlc Institution* Measurement of the Spectral Distribution of Light Underwater, by C. J. Hubbard o January , 1958* Report no. 58-6 • 15. Rakestraw, N» W0 Particulate Matter in the Oxygen Minimum Layer* Journal of Marine Research, v. 17, 1958s ^29-^31* 16* Woods Hole Oceanographlc Institution Optical Studies of Particulate Matter in the Sea, by D. H. Shontig and Bo Ho Ketchum. February, 1958» Report no. 58-15* 17. University of Washington, Department of Oceanography. Specific Scattering by Uniform Minerogenic Suspensions, by Wo Vo Burto January, 1959 o Report no0 kZ • 18* Tyler, Jo £• Natural Water as a Monochromator. Lim- nology and Oceanography, v. k9 January, 1959* 102-105* 19o Orr, Co, and J« M. Dallavalle0 Particle Size Measure- ment from Radiation Transmissions Pine Particle Measure- ment* Mac-Millan, 1959. 20* Laevastu, To, Factors Affecting the Temperature of the Surface Layer of the Seae Sociates Scientiarum Fennica, Helsinki, i960. 21. Uo So Naval Research Laboratory. A High Resolution Investigation of the Relative Spectral Attenuation Coefficients of Water, by Lo Fo Drummeter and G. L. Knestrick. May, 1961. Preliminary report no. 56^2. 22. Tyler, Jo E. and R» W» Preisendorfer. Transmission of Energy Within the Sea» The Sea, v. 1, Intersoience, 1961. 23. Tyler, J. E, On the Measurement of the Scattering Function of the Seae International Union of Geodesy and Geo- physics Symposium on Radiant Energy in the Sea, Helsinki. Monograph no. 10, June, 1961: **0-45. 2k„ Tyler 9 J. E. Scattering Properties of Distilled and Natural Water 0 Limnology and Oceanography, v. 6, October, 1961; 451-^56. 25. Tyler9 J. E. Measurement of Scattering Properties of Hydrosolso Journal of the Optical Society of America, v. 51, November, 1961: 1289-1293* 26. Tyler, J. E. and Co Howertono Instrument for Measuring the Forward Scattering Coefficient of Sea Water. Limnol- ogy and Oceanography, v. 7, July, 1962$ 393-395* 36 BIBLIOGRAPHY 27. Duntley, S» Go Light in the Sea* Journal of the Optical Society of America 9 v<» 53» February 9 19638 21*f-233« 28 • U« S, Naval Research Laboratory o Transmission of Ruby Laser Light Through Water, by Jo A» Curcio and G, L« Knestricko June, 1963<> Report no, 59*H» 29 • Jerlov, No Go Optical Oceanography© Oceanographic Marine Biology Annual Review, 1963* 89=11^ '» 30. Hulbert, E0 0* Optics of Distilled and Natural Water* Journal of the Optical Society of America , v0 35 9 Novem- ber, 19638 698-705o 31» Irani, R0 R» and Po Co Clayton» Light Scattering as a Measure of Particle Sizes Particle Size Measurement and Interpretation* Wiley, 1963o 32. Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University o Pacific Grove, California » Studies of the Marine Climate and Phytoplankton of the Central Coastal Area of California, by Ro Lo Bolin and D« P» Abbot o July, 19640 33* Uo So Naval Electronics Laboratory* Transparency of Coastal Waters, by R* Po Dill and A0 Gargola, 196^. Report* 3^» Uo So Naval Research Laboratoryo Optical Properties of Materials, by Go L« Knestrick, A, G© Rockman, Jo A. Curcio. July, 1964: 26-27* Progress report, problem no, N01-07, o 35* Spilhaus, A, Po , Jr» Observations of Light Scattering in Sea Water* Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, February, 19&5* 36, Monteath, Gordon, Lto, USN* Environmental Analysis of the Recent Marine Sediments of Southern Monterey Bay, Calif orniao Thesis, U0 S0 Naval Postgraduate School, 1965. 37 APPENDIX I TABLE 1 MEDIAN TEMPERATURE AND SALINITY 0 10 20 30 40 50 December Temp, Salinity 54*18 54.18 54.17 54.18 33.06 33o06 33.06 33-06 January 52o00 33o09 53.46 53.46 53 ok? 53*51 not available- 53<>49 33*24 Salinity 33.11 33.10 33o23 33-23 0 10 20 30 4o 50 February Tempo Salinity March 52o93 52.75 52o75 52^5^ 51*51 33.16 33*24 33*24 33.24 33.29 Temp, Salinity 51.6? 32.88 51o57 32.95 51.30 32,95 51.28 33.01 not available- 50o02 33.12 Temperature in degrees Fahrenheit. Salinity in parts per thousand. Depth in meters. 38 TABLE 2 LIGHT ATTENUATION DATA Meter Accepted Light Alpha Percent Temp. Wheel Depth Source Reading Transml ssion Degrees P. Reading Intensity „-<*• Meters Meters ir. 1964 Arbitrary units e oC 21 Decemb< - 0 1 17o3 8a5 0.492 0.71 54.3 5 4*5 17o3 8.8 Q„508 0.68 54.2 10 8.1 17.3 8.6 0.497 0.70 54.2 15 1U7 17.3 9.0 0.520 0.65 54.1 20 15-9 17o3 9.2 0.532 0.63 54.0 25 20.4 17.3 9.5 0.549 0.60 53.6 30 25*1 17.3 9.8 0.567 0.57 53.6 35 29.9 17.3 9.8 0.567 0.57 53.6 40 34.8 17.3 9.8 0.578 0.55 53.5 45 39.2 17.3 10o0 O.567 0.57 53.5 50 44.8 17.3 9.8 Disconnected 53.5 6 January, 0 i i£6i 15 6.0 0.400 0o91 54.5 5 5 15 8.0 0.533 0.63 52.6 10 9 15 8o0 0.533 O063 52.6 15 13 15 8.0 0.533 O.63 52.5 20 17 15 7.7 0.513 0.67 52.5 25 22 15 8.2 0.547 0*60 52.6 30 27 15 8.5 0.567 0.57 52.6 35 32 15 Disconnected 52.5 8 January, i it** 0 0 12 6^6 0.550 0.59 54.2 5 5 12 7.4 0.617 0.48 54.1 10 10 12 7.2 0.600 0.51 54.0 15 15 12 7*3 0.608 0.50 54.0 20 20 12 7.1 0.592 0.53 54.1 Z5 25 12 7.1 0.592 0.53 54.1 30 30 12 6.8 0.567 0.57 54.2 35 35 12 7«4 0.617 0.48 54.2 40 40 12 7.0 0.583 0.54 54.5 **5 45 12 7.6 0.633 0.46 54.5 47 49 12 6.4 0.533 0.63 54.7 45 45 12 6.2 0.517 0.66 54.5 40 40 12 6.0 0.500 0.69 54.5 35 35 12 6.5 0,542 0o6l 54.2 30 30 12 » Disconnected 54.2 39 TABLE 2 Meter Wheel Reading Meters Accepted Depth Meters 19 February, 1965 Surface 00 5 5 10 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 30 30 35 40 U 43.5 43 40 40 35 35 30 30 25 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 5 5 Surface 00 Light Alpha Source Reading Intensity Arbitrary units No readings Percent Transmission Temp* Degrees F. 11.5 11.5 10.5 11.5 11.5 11,0 11.0 n.4 11.0 11.4 11.5 11.5 11.4 11.5 11.7 11.4 11.5 10.4 10.5 5*1 5.1 4.8 5.0 5.5 5.6 6,0 6.5 6.5 6,4 6.5 6.6 6.1 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.* 5.0 4.7 €* 0.500 0.443 0.457 0.435 0.478 0.508 0.454 0.571 0.592 0.562 0.565 0.574 0.535 0.496 0.462 0.465 0,470 0.482 0.448 oc 0.69 0.81 0.78 0.83 0.74 0.68 0.79 O.56 0.52 0.57 0.57 0.55 0.62 0.70 0.77 O.76 0.75 0.73 0.80 53.5 53.5 53.4 53.2 53.1 53.0 52.3 52.0 51.6 51.5 51.6 52.0 52.3 53.0 53.3 53.2 53.4 53.5 53.5 40 TABLE 3 LIGHT EXTINCTION DATA Meter Accepted Source Trans- Coefficient Temp. Radiance Wheel Depth Light mi ttance of op In % of Reading Intensity Extinction Incident Meters Meters Arbitrary units Sunlight 8 January 00 00 5 o 0x10 2 800 1.6 54.4 100 5 5 5*5 350 0.637 54.2 39.8 10 10 5.5 220 0.400 54.2 25.0 15 15 5.5 130 0.236 54.2 1A.7 20 20 5.0 70.0 0.140 54.2 8*8 25 25 5.0 40.0 0.080 54.3 5.0 30 30 5.0 35.0 0.070 54.4 4.4 35 35 5.0 21.0 0.042 54.8 2.6 40 40 t.5 12.0 0.0266 54.8 1.7 45 45 4.5 8.00 0.0178 54.8 1.1 50 50 4.8 6.00 0.0125 54.7 0.8 55 55 5.0 4.00 0.0080 5^.9 0.5 60 60 5.0 2.50 0.0050 54.2 0.3 65 65 5.0 1.60 0.0032 54.7 0.2 70 70 5.0 1.00 0.0020 53.1 0.1 75 75 5.0 0;50 0.0010 52.8 0.1 80 80 5.0 0.20 0.0004 52.3 0.025 85 85 5.0 0.20 0.0004 52.1 0.025 87 87 5.0 0.0 0.000 52.0 0 00 00 5.0 750 1.5 54.4 100 10 10 4,8 220 0.458 54.2 32.4 20 20 4.3 86.0 0.200 54.2 13.3 30 30 4.4 30.0 0.0682 54.4 4.5 40 40 5.0 14.0 0.0280 54.-8 1.9 50 50 5.0 6.50 0.0130 54.7 0.9 60 60 5.0 2.50 0.0050 54.2 o.> 70 70 5.0 1.00 0.0020 53.1 0.1 80 80 5.0 0.20 0.0008 52.3 0.1 87 87 5.0 0.0 0.000 52.0 0.0 41 TABLE 3 Meter Accepted Source Trans= Coefficient Temp. Radiance Wheel Depth Light mittance of op in % of Reading Intensity Extinction Incident Meters Meters r* 1265 Arbitrary units Sunlight 26 January 00 00 8.0xl02 1200 1.50 54.1 100 5 5 8.0 400 0.500 54.0 33.3 10 10 8.0 200 0.250 54.0 I6.7 15 15 8o0 no reading 54.0 C9CD 20 20 8o0 54.0 0.0675 53o9 4.50 25 25 8.0 26.0 0.0325 53.9 2.20 30 30 8o0 15.0 0.01875 53.8 1.30 35 35 8o0 9o00 0.01125 53.6 0.80 40 40 8.0 5.30 O.OO663 53.2 0.40 45 45 8.0 3.50 0. 00438 52.8 0.25 50 50 8.0 2.20 0.00275 52.2 0.2 55 55 8.0 lo50 0.001875 51.6 0.1 60 60 8.0 1.00 0.001250 51.1 0.1 65 65 8.0 0.50 0.000625 51o0 0.04 70 70 9o0 0.40 0. 000445 50.7 0.03 75 75 8.5 0.20 0.000235 50.5 0.01 80 80 8.5 0.20 0.000235 50.4 00 00 8.0 1000 1.25 54.1 100 5 5 8.0 550 0.693 54.0 55.4 10 10 8.0 350 0.425 54.0 34.0 15 15 8.0 123 0.154 54.0 12.3 20 20 8.0 59.0 0o0738 53.9 5.8 25 25 8.0 30.0 0.0375 53.9 3.0 30 30 7*5 15o0 0.0200 53.8 1.6 P 35 7.0 8.80 0.0126 53.6 1.0 40 40 7.0 5«60 0.00800 53*2 0.64 45 <*5 7.0 3o50 0.00500 52.8 0.40 50 50 7.5 2.40 0.00320 52.2 0.25 55 55 8.5 1.50 O0OOI765 51.6 0.14 60 60 9o0 1.00 0.001111 51.1 0.09 65 65 9o0 0.60 0.000667 51.0 0.05 70 70 9.0 0.40 0.000445 50.7 0.03 77 77 8.0 0.40 0.000500 50.4 19 February o 1965 00 00 6.9 480 0.695 53.5 100 5 5 6.5 320 0.492 53.5 71 10 10 6.0 160 0.267 53.4 38.6 15 15 7.3 70.0 0.096 53.2 13.8 20 20 8.0 12.0 0.0150 53.3 2.2 24.5 24 8.0 0.0 0.0 53.0 0 42 TABLE 3 Meter Accepted Source Trans- Coefficient Temp. Radiance Wheel Depth Light mi ttance of Op in % of Reading Intensity Extinction Incident Meters Meters ry. 1965 00 Arbitrary unit 53.5 Sunlight 19 Februa 8,0 700 0.875 00 100 5 5 7o0 300 0.425 0.314 53.5 48.6 10 10 5.8 182 53*4 35.9 15 15 5.5 86.0 0.156 53.2 17.8 20 20 6.5 9o50 0.0146 53.3 1.7 24. 5 24 8,0 0.0 0.0 53.0 0 43 TABLE 4 Scattering Coefficient Density » Phosphate, Particle Size and Concentration rwirvfc1 gm-.-a— =1 t-t wm Sample Field Work Depth Phosphate Temp. Salinity Density Number Date Meters mgm. Degrees °/oo 3~t liter"1 0.54 12.8 1 21 Dec. •64 Sfc. 33.074 24.960 2 « 10 0,12 12.1 33.162 25.160 3 n 20 O.76 11.8 33.180 25.230 4 « 30 0*40 11.7 33.290 25.340 5 H 40 0.61 11.6 33.416 25.450 6 It 50 0.10 11.5 33.332 25.410 7 6 Jan* •65 SfC. 0.11 12.2 33.234 25.210 8 it 25 0.12 11.7 33.304 25.350 9 n 50 0.08 11.9 33.364 25.360 10 •t 75 0.18 12.0 33.356 25.330 11 •t 100 0.10 12.0 33.117 25.150 12 it 125 Cloudy 11.1 33.420 25.550 13 8 Jan. •65 Sfc. 0.48 12.3 32.784 24.830 14 w 30 0.71 12.4 33.197 25.130 15 n 100 0.46 10.3 33.695 25.900 16 it 150 0.78 9o3 33.857 26.200 17 n 200 0.98 8.6 33.911 26.360 18 n 250 0.97 7.8 33.920 26.480 19 it 300 1.05 6.9 34.078 26.731 20 A 26 Jan. •65 Sfc. 0.10 12.3 33.315 25.250 21 » 10 0o28 12.8 33.372 25.190 22 n 20 0.28 12.2 33.378 25.310 23 n 30 0.28 12.1 33.638 25.530 24 n 40 0,96 11.8 33.742 25.670 25 A n 50 0.73 11.2 33.822 25.840 26 it 75 0.73 10.3 33.639 25.860 27 •t 100 0,60 10.1 33.071 26.230 28 •t 150 (N.O«-0»4l* 9.3 34.213 26.470 29 it 200 0*59 8,8 34.061 26.440 30 n 250 0.78 8,1 34.212 26.660 31 n 300 0.96 7.6 34.263 26.770 44 TABLE 4 Sample Field Work Depth Phosphate Temp, Salinity Density Number Date Meters mgm, . Degrees °/oo oi Sfc. liter"1 0,14 — - Co 12.0 32 19 Feb. •65 33.476 25.430 33 ti 10 0o35 11.9 33.468 25.440 34 H 20 0,30 11.8 33.422 25.420 35 it 17.5 0*43 12.0 33.467 25.420 36 A it 30 0.42 11.3 33.569 25.630 37 ii 40 0,59 ll.l 33.582 25.670 38 B it 30 0,51 11.3 33.665 25.700 39 ii 43 0,83 10.8 33.702 25.820 40 n 54 0,32 11.0 33.477 25.610 41 it 75 0.71 10.9 33.506 25.650 42 it 92 0.52 10.6 33.561 25.750 43 ii 105 (b ot.) 4.70 ** 10.5 33.826 25.970 44 ii 110 (bot) 2,35 *« 10.6 33.993 26.080 45 B 26 Jan, 965 Sfc. Short *«# 12.3 Short .... 46 B i* 50 Short *«* 11.2 Short -... * (N. C.) Not conclusive, solution turned yellow. *# (bot.) Bottle contained sediment. *** Short Not sufficient sample available to perform analysis. 45 ' TABLE 4 Sample No* Attenuation Extinction 6=T Particle Relative Coefficient Coefficient Mean Refractive oC Radius (r) (microns) Index (rv\) 1 0.710 27 2.36 1.26 2 0.700 27 2.36 1.26 3 0.630 ■van .=,«==> =,«=«,» 4 0.570 19 1.66 1.26 5 0.550 21 1.84 1.26 6 21 1.84 1.26 7 0.910 19.6 1.72 1.26 8 0.600 • 26 2.28 1.33 9 26 2.28 1.33 10 11 l? 32 MOB 2o80 1,25 OOOO 13 0.590 1.60000 32 2.80 1.25 14 0.570 0.07000 32 2.80 1.25 15 22 lo93 1.33 16 22 1.93 1.33 17 22 1*93 1.33 18 22 1.93 1.33 19 26 2.28 1026 20 A 1.50000 17 1.99 1.26 21 0.25000 22 1.93 1.25 22 0.06750 22 1.93 1«25 23 0.01875 22 1,93 I.25 24 0.00663 27 2.36 1.33 ' 25 0.00275 17 1.49 1.26 26 0.00023 27 2.36 1.26 27 22 1.93 1.33 28 16 1.41 1.33 29 22 1.93 1.25 30 16 1.41 1.26 31 22 1.93 1.25 32 0.690 0 069500 21 1.84 1.25 33 0.780 0.26700 5 0o49 1.25 34 0.740 0.01500 21 1.84 1.25 35 0.830 0.09600 13 1.11 1.24 36 A 0.790 5 0.44 1.25 37 0.520 5 0.44 1.25 38 B 0.620 27.5 2.35 1.33 39 0.570 22.0 1.88 1.33 40 30 2.64 1.20 41 21 1.84 1.25 42 27 2.36 1.26 ?? 32 2.80 1.33 44 8 0.70 1.25 45 B 1.50000 21 1.79 1.33 46 B 0.00275 25 2.13 1.33 46 TABLE 4 Sample Volume Concentration Number Scattering Particles Per cm3xl0^ Coefficient Meter-1 IS) 0,2179 1 3.U 2 0.3123 4.46 3 Short ..<~_ 4 0o2367 10.3 5 0,1794 6.04 6 0,4018 13.5 7 0,6466 27.5 8 0,8401 15*4 9 1,2020 22.1 10 0.4194 10.0 11 Short „«,«, 12 Short — 13 0.7649 8.32 14 0.4463 5*40 15 0.3714 13.3 16 0.1301 4.63 17 0,1778 6.33 18 0.3078 11.0 19 0.2288 3.62 20 A 0.9990 44o8 21 0.9646 25.8 22 0.9658 25.8 23 0.9579 25.6 24 0o9664 16.6 25 1.0010 44.9 26 0o0917 lo57 27 0.9252 23o7 28 0.0960 4.27 29 0.8854 21.0 30 0.8512 42.6 31 0.9271 24,8 32 0.3642 10.7 33 0.3456 202 3* 0.3286 11.0 35 0.3332 17o5 36 A 0.3317 194 37 0.3363 197 38 B 0.3315 5-53 39 0.3379 12.7 40 0.3919 3.35 41 0.3109 10.4 42 0.3484 4.87 *3 0.4143 3.53 44 0.5113 7.15 47 TABLE 4 Sample Volume Concentration Number Scattering Particles . Coefficient Per cm-^xKr* Meter"1 V5) __ 45 B 0.9491 39.2 46 B 1.0031 21.9 48 TABLE 5 TTERING INT Angle Sigma the ta Logsigtheta Sample 7* 1 179.00 309.95671 5.73643 170 o 00 20.64516 3.02748 160.00 29.99999 3.40120 150.00 25.71429 3.24705 140.00 26.66667 3.28341 130*00 24.54545 3.20053 120.00 6 179.00 20.00000 2.99573 2 5.74200 311.68831 170.00 29.03226 3.36841 160.00 ^5*55556 3.81893 150.00 45.71429 3.82241 140.00 44.99999 3. 80666 130.00 32.72727 3.48821 6 4 179.00 303.03030 5.71383 170.00 46.12903 3.83144 160.00 35.55556 3.57110 150.00 29.28571 3.57710 140.00 29.16667 3.37303 130.00 7 179*00 24.54545 3.20053 5 5.58275 265. 80087 170.00 29.03226 3.36841 160.00 ^5.55556 3.81893 150.00 38.57143 3.65251 140.00 60.00000 4.09434 130.00 16.36363 2.79506 120.00 7 179.00 10.00000 2.30259 6 5.73643 309.95671 170.00 29.03226 3.36841 160.00 29.99999 3.40120 150.00 32.14286 3.47019 140.00 30.00000 3.40120 130.00 74.54545 4.31141 120.00 6 179.00 40*00000 3,68888 7 5.90327 366.23377 170.00 56.12903 4.02765 160.00 57*77778 4.05660 150.00 46.42858 3.83792 140.00 62.50000 4.13517 130 0 00 79.09091 4.37060 Number of data points for each sample. 49 TABLE 5 Angle Sigma theta Logs ig theta Sample 6 179.00 300.86580 5.70666 8 170,00 119.03226 4.77939 5.26442 160.00 193.33333 150.00 232.85714 5.45043 140.00 108.33333 4.68521 130.00 6 179.00 79.09091 4» 37060 9 348.48485 5.85359 170.00 140.32258 4.94394 160.00 241.66667 5.48756 150.00 232.85714 5.45043 140.00 217.50000 5.38220 130.00 118.18182 4.77222 6 10 179.00 309.95671 5*73643 170.00 56.12903 4.02765 160.00 84.44444 4.43609 150.00 92.85714 4.53106 140,00 72.50000 4.28359 130.00 39.09091 3.66589 7 13 179.00 290.90909 5.67301 170.00 72.25806 4.28024 160.00 101.11111 4.61622 150.00 100.00000 4.60517 140.00 81.66667 4.40265 130.00 76.36364 4.33551 120.00 77*7777* 4.35386 5 14 179.00 261.03896 5.56467 170.00 58.70968 4.07260 160.00 78.88889 4.36804 150.00 40c 00000 3.68888 130.00 50.90909 3.93004 6 15 179.00 290.90909 5.67301 170.00 45. 16129 3.81024 160.00 62.22222 4.13071 150.00 7O0OOOOO 4.24850 140.00 46.66667 3.84303 130.00 38.18182 3.64236 5 16 179.00 261.30896 5.56570 170.00 36.12903 3.58710 160.00 46.66667 3.84303 150.00 30.00000 3.40120 140.00 11.66667 2o45674 50 TABLE 5 Angle Sigma the ta Logsigtheta Sample 6 17 179.00 273.16017 5.61006 170.00 40.32258 3.69691 160.00 54.^444 3. 99718 150.00 50.00000 3.91202 140.00 35.00000 3.55535 130.00 12.72727 2.54375 5 18 179.00 254.97835 5.54118 170.00 45.80645 3.82442 160.00 62.22222 4.13071 150.00 59.99999 4.09434 140.00 35.00000 3.55535 5 19 179.00 139.39394 4.93730 170.00 49.67742 3.90555 160.00 69.44444 4.24053 150.00 59.99999 4.09434 140.00 23.33333 3.14988 18 20 179.00 184.09425 5.21545 178.00 85.79410 4.45195 177.00 61.34970 4.11659 176.00 51.02040 3.93223 175.00 35.17315 3.56028 174.00 22.04970 3.09330 173.00 20.71430 3.03082 172.00 21,17940 3.05303 171.00 20.00000 2.99573 170.00 20.97505 3.04333 160 .00 30.13395 3.40565 150.00 42.20780 3.74261 140*00 54.62185 4.00043 130.00 61.90475 4.12560 120.00 71.42855 4.26870 110.00 77.38095 4.34874 100.00 81.16885 4.39653 90.00 92.85710 4.53106 51 TABLE 5 Angle Sigma the ta Logsigtheta Sample 18 21 179.00 331.36966 5.80323 178.00 149.64086 5.00824 177.00 105.17090 4.65559 176.00 68.02721 4.21991 175*00 37.87879 3.63439 174.00 22.67080 3.12108 173.00 20.00000 2.99573 172.00 18.68771 2.92787 171.00 20.47619 3.01926 170.00 19.84127 2.98776 160.00 29.01785 3.36791 150.00 42.20779 3.74260 14Q.00 54.62185 4.00043 130.00 59.52381 4.08638 120.00 65.93406 4.18866 110.00 74.40476 4.30952 100 0 00 81.16883 4.39653 90.00 89.28571 4.49184 18 22 179.00 349.77908 5.85730 178.00 153o63128 5.03456 177.00 89.83348 4.49796 176.00 65.59767 4.18354 175.00 43.29004 3.76792 174.00 25.15528 3.22507 173.00 21.07143 3.04792 172.00 19.51827 2.97135 171.00 20.95238 3.04225 170.00 20.97505 3.04333 160.00 30.13393 3.40565 150.00 40.58441 3*70338 140.00 52.52101 3.96121 130.00 59*52381 4.O8638 120.00 68.68132 4.22948 110.00 74.40476 4.30952 100.00 81.16883 4.39653 90o00 89.28571 4.49184 ¥** 5Z TABLE 5 Angle Sigma the ta Logsigtheta Sample 18 23 179.00 121.50221 4.79993 178.00 75.81803 4.32834 177.00 59.15863 4.08022 176.00 46.16132 3.83214 175.00 29.76190 3.39323 174.00 18.63354 2.92496 173.00 15.71428 2.75457 172.00 15.78073 2.75879 171.00 16.19047 2.78442 170.00 18.14059 2.89815 160.00 29.01785 3.36791 150.00 40.58441 3.70338 140.00 52.52101 3.96121 130.00 58.33333 4.06617 120.00 67.30769 4.20927 110.00 71.42857 4.26870 100.00 81.16883 4.39653 90.00 89.28571 4.49184 18 24 179.00 865.24300 6.76301 178.00 678.37190 6.51970 177.00 372.48028 5.92018 176.00 160.34985 5.07736 175.00 70.34632 4.25343 17^.00 34.16149 3.53H0 173.00 18.92857 2.94067 172.00 17.02658 2.83478 171.00 18.57143 2.92162 170.00 19.27437 2.95878 160.00 19.01785 2.94538 150.00 40.58441 3.70338 140.00 52.52101 3.96121 130.00 59.52381 4.08638 120.00 68.68132 4.22948 110.00 74.40476 4.30952 100.00 8I.I6883 4.39653 90.00 89.28571 4.49184 53 TABLE 5 Angle Sigma the ta Logsigtheta Sample 18 25 179.00 77.31959 4o 34795 178.00 57.86113 4.05805 177.00 56.96757 if. 04248 176.00 38.87269 3.66029 175.00 27.05627 3.29792 174.00 19.56521 2.97375 173.00 16.42857 2.79902 172.00 15. 78073 2.75879 171.00 16.66666 2.81341 170.00 18.70748 2.92892 160.00 30.13393 3.40565 150.00 42.20779 3.74260 140.00 54.62185 4.00043 130.00 61.90476 4.12560 120.00 71.42857 4.26870 110.00 77.38095 4.54874 100.00 84.41558 4.43575 90.00 92.85714 4.53106 18 26 179.00 184.09425 5.21545 178.00 155.62649 5.04746 177.00 127.08150 4.84483 176.00 97.18173 4.57658 175.00 67.64069 4.21421 174.00 34.16149 3.53HO 173.00 20.71428 3.03082 172.00 7.48848 2.01337 171.00 7.50682 2.01581 170.00 6.79228 1.91579 160.00 7.84632 2.06004 150.00 6.73302 1.90702 140.00 7.02075 1.94887 130.00 7.14285 1.96611 120.00 7.26928 1.98366 110.00 7.49362 2.01405 100.00 7.40025 2.00151 90.00 7.46753 2.01056 54 TABLE 5 Angle Sigma the ta Logsigtheta Sample 18 27 179.00 38.65979 3.65480 178.00 25.93774 3.25570 177.00 12.48904 2.52485 176.00 8.50340 2.14047 175.00 4.32900 1.46534 174.00 2^23602 .80470 173.00 1.60714 .47446 172.00 1.49501 .40214 171.00 1.61904 .48184 170.00 1.75737 .56382 160.00 2.79018 1.02611 150.00 3.89610 1.35998 140.00 4.83193 1.57525 130.00 5.47619 1.70041 120.00 6.59340 1.88607 110.00 6.84523 1.92355 100.00 7.46753 2.01056 90.00 8.57142 2.14843 18 28 179.00 143.59352 4.96699 178.00 109.73663 4.69808 177.00 59.21560 4.08119 176.00 70.30675 4.25287 175.00 37.87879 3.63439 17^.00 19.25466 2.95775 173.00 14;64285 2.68395 172.00 14.95016 2.70472 171.00 14.76190 2.69205 170.00 17.00680 2.83361 160.00 27.90178 3.32869 150.00 38.96104 3.66256 140.00 50.42017 3.92039 130.00 57414285 4;04555 120.00 65.93406 4.18866 110.00 71.42857 4*26870 100.00 77.92208 4.35571 90.00 85.71428 4.45102 55 TABLE 5 Angle Sigma theta Logsigtheta Sample 18 29 179.00 110.45655 4.70462 178.00 81.80365 4.40432 177.00 89.83345 4.49796 176.00 65.59765 4.18354 175.00 47 .46755 3.86005 174.00 18.94410 2.94149 173.00 14.64285 2.68395 172.00 14.11960 2.64756 171.00 15.23805 2.72380 170.00 17.00680 2.83361 160.00 26.78570 3.28787 150.00 37.33765 3.62000 140.00 48.31935 3.87783 130.00 54.76190 4.00299 120.00 63. 18680 4.14610 110.00 66.96430 4.20416 100.00 74.67530 4.31315 90.00 82.14285 4.40846 18 30 179.00 607.51104 6.40937 178.00 438.94653 6.08438 177.00 262.92725 5.57188 176.00 116.61807 4.75890 175.00 51.40692 3.93977 174.00 22.67080 3.12108 173.00 16.07143 2.77704 172.00 15.36545 2.73212 171.00 15.23809 2.72380 170.00 16.43991 2.79971 160.00 25.11160 3.22333 150.00 35.71428 3.57555 140.00 45. 16806 3.81039 130.00 52.38095 3.95854 120.00 60.43956 4.10164 110.00 65.47619 4.18169 100.00 71.42857 4.26870 90.00 78.57143 4.36401 56 TABLE 5 Angle 179.00 178.00 177*00 176.00 175.00 174.00 173.00 172.00 171.00 170.00 160.00 150.00 140.00 130.00 120.00 110.00 100.00 90.00 179.00 178.00 177.00 176.00 175.00 174,00 173.00 172.00 171.00 170.00 160.00 150.00 140.00 130.00 120.00 110.00 100.00 90.00 18 18 Sigma theta 114.13844 81.80367 65. 73181 51.02041 29.76190 17.39130 12.85714 13.28903 14.76190 16.43991 27.90178 40.58441 52.52101 57.14285 65.93406 71. 42857 77.92208 85.71428 533.33333 69.27374 58.89570 35.13513 22.12121 16.69565 14.80000 12.55813 11.73333 10.79365 13.75000 20.00000 25.88200 28.00000 32.30769 27.33333 29.45454 29.45454 Logslgtheta 4.73741 4.40432 4.18558 3.93223 3.39323 2.85597 2.55390 2.58694 2.69205 2.79971 3.32869 3.70338 3.96121 4.04555 4.18866 4.26870 4.35571 4.45102 6.27915 4.23807 4.07577 3.55920 3.09654 2.81515 2.69463 2.53037 2.46243 2.37896 2.62104 2.99573 3.25355 3.33220 3.47531 3.30811 3.38285 3.38285 Sample 31 32 57 TABLE 5 Angle Sigma the ta Logslgtheta Sample 18 33 179.00 984.61538 6.89225 178.00 102.79329 4.63272 177*00 61.34969 4.11659 176 « 00 43.24324 3.^6684 175.00 23.93939 3.17553 174.00 17.39130 2.85597 173 ♦ 00 13.20000 2.58022 172 • 00 11.62790 2.45341 171.00 10.66666 2.36712 170.00 10.79365 2.37896 160.00 15.00000 2.70805 150.00 13.18181 2.57884 140.00 18.82352 2.93511 130.00 21.60000 3.07269 120.00 25.23076 3.22806 110.00 27.00000 3.29584 100.00 29.09090 3.37043 90.00 31.27272 3.44275 18 3* 179.00 574.35897 6.35325 178.00 53.63128 3.98213 177.00 44.17177 3.78809 176.00 10.13513 2.31601 175.00 18.18181 2.90042 17^.00 13.21739 2.58153 173.00 10.79999 2.37955 172.00 9.76744 2.27905 171.00 9.06666 2.20460 170.00 9.52380 2.25379 160.00 12.50000 2.52573 150.00 14.72727 2.68970 140.00 19.05882 2.94753 130.00 21.60000 3.07269 120.00 24.92307 3.21579 110.00 27.00000 3.29584 100.00 28.72727 3.35785 90.00 29.09090 3.37043 58 TABLE 5 Angle Sigma the ta Logsigtheta Sample 18 35 179.00 861.53846 6.75872 178,00 71.50837 4.26981 177.00 49.07975 3.89345 176.00 35.13513 3.55920 175.00 19.39393 2.96496 17**. 00 15.65217 2.75061 173.00 14.40000 2.66723 172.00 13.02325 2.56674 171.00 9.60000 2.26176 170.00 10.15873 2.31833 160.00 10.75000 2.37491 150.00 15.09090 2.71409 140.00 19.05882 2.94753 130.00 21.33333 3.06027 120.00 25.23076 3.22806 110.00 27.33333 3.30811 100.00 29.81818 3.39512 90.00 29.45454 3.38285 18 36 179.00 779.48717 6.65864 178.00 71.50837 4.26981 177.00 46.62576 3.84215 176.00 37.83783 3.63331 175.00 22.42424 3.11014 174.00 14.95652 2.70515 173.00 12.00000 2.48491 172.00 10.69767 2.37003 171.00 9.60000 2.26176 170.00 10.15873 2.31833 160.00 10.75000 2.37491 150.00 14.90909 2.70197 140,00 19.29411 2.95980 130.00 21.60000 3.07269 120.00 24.30769 3.19079 110.00 27.00000 3.29584 100.00 29.45454 3.38285 90.00 29.45454 3.38285 59 TABLE 5 Angle Sigma theta Logsigtheta Sample 18 37 179.00 1194.23076 7.08526 178.00 15L95530 5.02359 177.00 107.97546 4.68190 176.00 83.78378 4.42824 175.00 60.60606 4.10439 174.00 45.21739 3.81148 173.00 31.19999 3.44042 172.00 26.04651 3.25988 171.00 24.00000 3.17805 170.00 23.49456 3.15677 160.00 16.25000 2.78809 150.00 18.18181 2.90042 140.00 19.29411 2.95980 130.00 21.33333 3.06027 120.00 24.61538 3.20337 110.00 26.33333 3.27084 100.00 28.36363 3.34511 90.00 29.09090 3.37043 18 38 179.00 1169.23077 7.06410 178.00 105.02793 4.65423 177.00 51.53374 3.94224 176.00 37.83784 3.63331 175.00 24.84848 3.21280 17^.00 16.34782 2.79409 173.00 12.40000 2.51770 172.00 10.69767 2.37003 171.00 10.13333 2.31583 170.00 10.15873 2.31833 160.00 10.87500 2.38647 150.00 14.54545 2,67728 140.00 19.05882 2.94753 130.00 21.33333 3.06027 120.00 24.61538 3.20337 110.00 26.66666 3.28341 100.00 29.09091 3.37043 90.00 29.45454 3.38285 60 TABLE 5 Angle Sigma the ta Logsigtheta Sample 18 39 179.00 137^.35897 7.22574 178.00 71.50838 4.26981 177.00 58.89570 4.07577 176.00 37.83784 3.63331 175.00 22.72727 3.12357 174.00 17.04348 2.83577 173.00 14.00000 2.63906 172.00 11.62790 2.45341 171.00 11.20000 2.41591 170.00 11.42857 2.43612 160.00 10.75000 2.37491 150.00 15.27272 2.72607 140.00 19.52941 2.97192 130.00 21.86666 3.08496 120.00 25.53846 3.24019 110.00 27.33333 3.30811 100.00 29.81818 3.39512 90.00 29.81818 3.39512 18 40 179.00 1600.00000 7.37776 178.00 160.89385 5.08074 177.00 56.44172 4.03321 176.00 45.94594 3.82747 175.00 23.03030 3.13681 174.00 17.04348 2.83577 173.00 14.40000 2.66723 172.00 12*09302 2.49263 171.00 11.20000 2.41591 170.00 11.42857 2.43612 160.00 15.00000 2.70805 150.00 15.45454 2.73790 140.00 19.52941 2.97192 130.00 22.40000 3.10906 120.00 25.53846 3.24019 110.00 27.66666 3.32023 100.00 30.54545 3.41922 90.00 29.81818 3.39512 61 TABLE 5 Angle Slgmatheta Logslgtheta Sample 18 41 179.00 1579.48718 7.36486 178.00 158.65922 5.06676 177.00 56.44172 4.03321 176,00 43.24324 3.76684 175.00 23.93939 3.17553 174*00 18*78261 2.93293 173.00 14*80000 2*69463 172.00 13.48837 2.60183 171.00 12.80000 2.54945 170.00 12.69841 2.54148 160.00 15.00000 2.70805 150.00 15.09091 2.71409 140.00 19.52941 2.97192 130,00 22*13333 3.09708 120*00 25.53846 3.24019 110*00 27*66666 3.32023 100*00 30.18182 3.40724 90.00 29.81818 3.39512 18 42 179.00 1025.64102 6.93307 178*00 122.90502 4.81141 177.00 61.34969 4.11659 176.00 40.54054 3.70230 175.00 24.24242 3.18810 17^.00 28.52173 3.35067 173.00 23.59999 3.16125 172.00 20*00000 2.99573 171.00 17.60000 2.86790 170*00 16.50793 2.80384 160.00 25.00000 3.21888 150.00 21.81818 3. 08274 140.00 19.76470 2.98390 130.00 22*40000 3.10906 120*00 25.53846 3.24019 110*00 27.33333 3.30811 100*00 29.81818 3.39512 90.00 29.81818 3.39512 62 TABLE 5 Angle Sigma theta Logs Ig theta Sample 18 43 179.00 6.97435 lo 94224 178,00 7.59776 2.02785 177.00 8.09815 2.09164 176.00 8.64864 2.15740 175.00 9.69696 2.27181 174.00 11.13043 2.40968 173.00 12.40000 2.51770 172.00 13.95348 2.63573 171.00 15.46666 2.73869 170.00 17.77777 2.87795 160.00 26.25000 3.26767 150.00 30 o90909 3.43105 140.00 35.29411 3.56372 130.00 34.66666 3.54578 120.00 36.92307 3.60884 110.00 40.00000 3.68888 100.00 33.09090 3.49926 90.00 32.00000 3.46574 18 44 179.00 615.38461 6.42225 178.00 491.62011 6.19771 177.00 392.63803 5.97289 176.00 351.35135 5.86179 175.00 230.30303 5.43940 17^.00 222.60869 5.40542 173.00 204.00000 5.31812 172,00 190.69767 5.25069 171.00 181.33333 5.20034 170.00 177o7?7?7 5.18053 160.00 71.25000 4.26619 150.00 49.09090 3.89367 140.00 42.35294 3.74604 130.00 40.00000 3.68888 120.00 40.00000 3.68888 110.00 40.00000 3.68888 100.00 34.18181 3.53169 90o00 33.81818 3.52100 63 TABLE 5 Angle Sigma the ta Logs! g the ta Sample 18 45 179.00 84.68336 4.43892 178.00 57.86113 4.05805 177o00 54.77651 4.00326 176.00 46.16132 3.83214 175.00 35.17316 3.56028 174.00 22.98136 3.13468 173.00 20.00000 2.99573 172.00 19.51827 2.97135 171.00 20.00000 2.99573 170.00 21.54195 3.07000 160.00 30.13393 3.40565 150.00 12.72015 2.54319 140.00 52.52101 3.96121 130.00 59.52381 4.O8638 120.00 68.68132 4.22948 110.00 74.^0476 4.30952 100.00 81.16883 4.39653 90.00 89.28571 4.49184 18 46 179.00 239.32253 5.47781 178.00 87.78780 4.47492 177.00 61.34969 4.11659 176.00 46.16132 3.83214 175.00 32.46753 3.48024 174.00 22.04969 3.09330 173.00 18.92857 2.94067 172.00 18.68770 2.92787 171.00 17.61905 2.86898 170.00 18.70748 2.92892 160.00 30.13393 3.40565 150.00 40.58441 3.70338 140.00 52.52101 3.96121 130.00 61.90476 4.12560 120.00 71.42857 4.26870 110.00 77.38095 4.34874 100.00 87.66234 4.47349 90.00 92.85714 4.53106 64 APPENDIX II ILLUSTRATIONS 65 INCIDENT LIGHT LIGHT ENERGY ATTENUATION FIGURE 1 6 0 =0 UJ I— UJ 2> O o: UJ \- 8 in (j UJ I (J CM LxJ or _) u. G7 r& Bi THE SINGLE PARTICLE(K) FIELD K = fcn.(m,B) (K = S:B2) DATA AFTER NATIONAL BUREAU of STANDARDS MAXIMUM (K) VALUES NO DATA t RELATIVE REFRACTIVE INDEX (m) FIGURE 3 31 05 CL LlI Q EO o Q O O O o n o o O C\J en in C\J O in o o o o in o CM CM CO UJ a: => CD U. LU p r^ - - -o a — — , — =.^r-—^2 z> ". o '~~~^_ 1— «— ~* ~--^^ hi ?l°— "~--.a LUll 0* Q_° «■>' o D LU 69 percentage of incident solar radiation 10 RELATIVE RADIANCE WITH DEPTH (1) AFTER DATA FROM TYLER (LAKE PEND OREILLE) (2,-) DATA (3,°) OCEANOGRAPHIC CLIMATOLOGY AFTER BARHAM (JDJERLOV CLASSIFICATION AFTER LAEVASTU J1 OCEANIC.CCLEAR (water mass) J2: OCEANIC, NORMAL J 3 OCEANIC. TURBID AND COASTAL, CLEAR J4 COASTAL, NORMAL J 5: COASTAL, TURBID 70 7 1 12 73 FIGURE 9 74 75 —r- 05' 122° 55' MONTEREY BAY CALIFORNIA -50' h + + r -A3- 4- ~r~ \ ,--t-^ J 1-8-65 ' ^ i • i • i i / -40' >- t — -- — 7 \~ -36°35' 4- ft3 ■ -+■ +" FIGURE n 7G LOG SIGMA THETA In (7(0), VARIATION WITH ANGLE 0 INDEX OF REFRACTION: m = 133 CIRCUMFERENCE TO WAVELENGTH RATIO, B= 2TTKA DATA AFTER GUMPRECHT, (et. al.) B=1 180° 175° 170* ANGLE 0 FIGURE 12 7 7 FIGURE 13 75 LOG SIGMA THETA, In o-(0), VARIATION WITH ANGLE 0 INDEX OF REFRACTION: m = 1-20 CIRCUMFERENCE TO WAVELENGTH RATIO, B= 2TTr: A DATA AFTER GUMPRECHT (et.al.) B=30 B = 20 •B=1 180" 175° 170° 140° 130' ANGLE 0 FIGURE 14 79 21 DEC 1964 In a(0) VARIATION WITH ANGLE 0 B ^ 175° 170' 150" 140 130 ANGLE 0 3* FIGURE 15 60 £1 62 83 (71 6 a: r*. w_ o i— i s«fc o (J r\ i/) o 84 o O O Q o CM ro ■sr LO ID o o o in o CO Q O CM id o ID CM o O 85 ..8 T o X u o c CM z III oo rr mp 3 *" < o K h h- Z UJ u z o u S- 1N3IDI333CO 9Niy311V0S b6 Bi to 3 < z O rr H < m rr 0 i- Ll z O LU ( ) -J 7 LU o Ll (J O z ct 111 t- 1- < o CO DO x + —i 1— O 00 ■+■ -t- ■+- ■+" — t— CD -i- IT O to c\i cm O CO cvi c\j c\i <- «- «•* (suojdjuj) sniavy aiDiiyvd o CD O -T a CM O o 3* 87 t oo o oco^r 6 6- to z ui Q Q Z < z UJ h- z O u I Q. CO O I CL cc 2 UJ u. CD z q: UJ I- u CO o o in in in o CM in ID CM \ V1AI9IS 88 V 183 35 Si <* U 7 Thesis B24255 Bassett An investigation of the vertical variation of light scattering in Monterey Bay, Calif. 16 JUL 4 AH& 70 15 FEB79 B IIIDERY 18 381 2 5 u 4 7 Thesis B24255 Bassett An investiqation of the vertical variation of light scattering In Monterey Bay, Calif. f n 78