Search

This report summarizes the analyses and results produced by a five-member investigative team of Government, university, and industry experts, established by NASA HQ. The team examined data quality problems associated with high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analyses of pigment concentrations in seawater samples produced by the San Diego State University (SDSU) Center for Hydro-Optics and Remote Sensing (CHORS). This report shows CHORS did not validate the methods used before placing them into service to analyze field samples for NASA principal investigators (PIs), even though the HPLC literature contained easily accessible method validation procedures, and the importance of implementing them, more than a decade ago. In addition, there were so many sources of significant variance in the CHORS methodologies, that the HPLC system rarely operated within performance criteria capable of producing the requisite data quality. It is the recommendation of the investigative team to a) not correct the data, b) make all the data that was temporarily sequestered available for scientific use, and c) label the affected data with an appropriate warning, e.g., "These data are not validated and should not be used as the sole basis for a scientific result, conclusion, or hypothesis--independent corroborating evidence is required."

The purpose of this technical report is to provide current documentation of the Sensor Intercomparison and Merger for Biological and Interdisciplinary Oceanic Studies (SIMBIOS) Project activities, NASA Research Announcement (NRA) research status, satellite data processing, data product validation, and field calibration. This documentation is necessary to ensure that critical information is related to the scientific community and NASA management. This critical information includes the technical difficulties and challenges of validating and combining ocean color data from an array of independent satellite systems to form consistent and accurate global bio-optical time series products. This technical report is not meant as a substitute for scientific literature. Instead, it will provide a ready and responsive vehicle for the multitude of technical reports issued by an operational project. This particular document focus on the variability in chlorophyll pigment measurements resulting from differences in methodologies and laboratories conducting the pigment analysis.

Four laboratories, which had contributed to various aspects of SeaWiFS calibration and validation activities, participated in the first SeaWiFS HPLC Analysis Round-Robin Experiment (SeaHARRE-1): Horn Point Laboratory (USA), the Joint Research Centre (Italy), the Laboratoire de Physique et Chimie Marines (France), and the Marine and Coastal Management group (South Africa). The analyses of the data are presented in Chapter 1 and the individual methods of the four groups are presented in Chapters 2-5. The average (or overall) conclusions of the round-robin are derived from 12 in situ stations occupied during a cruise in the Mediterranean Sea, although, only 11 stations are used in the analyses. The data set is composed of 12 replicates taken during each sampling opportunity with 3 replicates going to each of the 4 laboratories. The average (or overall) results from the intercomparison of 15 pigments or pigment associations are as follows (in some cases, data subsets that exclude pigments which were not analyzed by all the laboratories, or that had unusually large variances, are used to exclude a variety of problematic pigments): a) the accuracy of the four methods in determining the concentration of total chlorophyll a is 7.9%, (one method did not separate mono- and divinyl chlorophyll a, and if the samples containing significant divinyl chlorophyll a concentrations are ignored, the four methods have an accuracy of 6.7%); b) the accuracy in determining the full set of pigments is 19.1%; c) there is a reduction in accuracy of approximately - 12.2% for every decade (factor of 10) decrease in concentration (based on a data subset); d) the precision of the four methods using a subset data is 8.617( 6.2% for an edited subset); e) the repeatability of the four methods using the subset data is 9.2% (7.2%; for an edited subset, and f) the reproducibility of the four methods using the subset data is 21.31% (15.0% for an edited subset).

The need for accurate determination of chlorophyll a (chl a) is of interest for numerous reasons. From the need for ground-truth data for remote sensing to pigment detection for laboratory experimentation, it is essential to know the accuracy of the analyses and the factors potentially contributing to variability and error. Numerous methods and instrument techniques are currently employed in the analyses of chl a. These methods range from spectrophotometric quantification, to fluorometric analysis and determination by high performance liquid chromatography. Even within the application of HPLC techniques, methods vary. Here we provide the results of a comparison among methods and provide some guidance for improving the accuracy of these analyses. These results are based on a round-robin conducted among numerous investigators, including several in the Sensor Intercomparison and Merger for Biological and Interdisciplinary Oceanic Studies (SIMBIOS) and HyCODE Programs. Our purpose here is not to present the full results of the laboratory intercalibration; those results will be presented elsewhere. Rather, here we highlight some of the major factors that may contribute to the variability observed. Specifically, we aim to assess the comparability of chl a analyses performed by fluorometry and HPLC, and we identify several factors in the analyses which may contribute disproportionately to this variability.