Meeting 14: 25 June 2015

Meeting Minutes

Date: 25 June 2015

Attendees: unknown

Cruise evaluations

Expedition 354 (Bengal Fan):

· Four evaluations received; three with comments

o An instrument (SRA) was not functional and the reproducibility of the CHNS analyser was poor

o Comments provided: Unfortunately, the non-functionality of the SRA was not known ahead of time. While the technicians tried their best to restore it during Exp. 354, this did not happen. However, it was fixed during Exp. 355 and is currently working.

o Poor reproducibility is caused by two things: an issue with the instrumentation and user error. CHN analytical reproducibility is checked by the technicians throughout an expedition using standard material. The reproducibility (both precision and accuracy) of the standards was within acceptable limits for the instrument itself, which is set by the manufacturer for each element. Therefore, this was not an instrumentation issue. Most likely, poor reproducibility between multiple analyses of the same sample (if performed, which is not common) would result from sample preparation errors (i.e., weighing). If only single measurements were made on each sample, then the precision is impossible to determine.

o We were at a significant disadvantage starting out in the geochem lab, with only one experienced lab tech, one tech brand new to IODP, and many instrument issues to overcome. Lisa B. was great, and Sonja S. did an incredible job walking into a brand new lab sight unseen, surrounded by intensely volatile personalities. She quietly achieved tremendous competence with all the tasks handed to her. We made a good team in the end, and produced a lot of excellent data, thanks to the extraordinary efforts made by everyone. Instrument problems at the beginning plagued our progress, some minor, others major (one instrument, the SRA, was never brought online). Despite this, most of the available instrumentation eventually produced fantastic data, allowing us to achieve most of our scientific objectives. Kudos to IODP for assigning Sonja to our lab at the last minute - this was a great decision. When I think about what we were able to achieve on board a floating laboratory in less than 8 weeks, it is pretty extraordinary. For this reason I rate the shipboard labs excellent in terms of the instrumentation and technical support that was provided to us.

o See response for SRA above.

o Overall very disappointed by the quality of the instrumentation present on board. It is a bit of a non-sense to invest that much money in a ship like the JR and not have descent equipment in the labs. The equipment in the chemistry lab is outdated and some capabilities are missing. For instance, small CRDS systems capable of measuring stable isotopes should be added to the analytical park. In 2015 it is also quite unbelievable that there is no XRF and/or CT scan on the JR.

o We thank the scientist for his input. It is very disappointing to hear that he does not think we have decent equipment in the lab because we work quite hard to produce reliable data. All of our instrumentation is not, in fact, outdated. Each instrument is <10 yrs old and represent common measurements routinely performed in geochemistry lab in the community. While our equipment is state-of-the-art, they are not, as he correctly points out, cutting-edge. However, not every shore-based geochemistry lab has every possible capability available either, for very obvious reasons. In our case, each instrument that we do have was carefully vetted based on three criteria: (1) does the instrument supply data used to assess safety during our operations? (2) does the instrument measure ephemeral properties? (3) does the instrument provide unique information that would inform drilling/coring decisions? Additionally, the measurements have to have reasonable preparation time to be feasible on an 8-week expedition, where the primary goal is to collect high-quality material and reliably characterize it on a basic level to facilitate shore-based research. Unfortunately, each of the instruments he specifically mentions meets none of these criteria, and all are better suited to a shore-based lab.

Expedition 355 (Arabian Sea Monsoon):

· Four evaluations received, all with comments

o Labs and technical staff are world class. Bit disappointed that some of the specialised organic geochemistry consumables were not delivered. This refers to test tubes etc that I had requested and was told would be delivered. Apparently, these were not ordered. Additionally, solvents in a hazmat delivery were held up (however, the hazmat issue was beyond the control of the IODP). I am providing this information as feedback which I hope will be useful for the future.

o Acknowledged by Chieh – our fault, new policy of checks

o I do not wish to imply any more general criticism towards the staff and laboratory facilities which are excellent. Moreover, it did not prevent the organic geochemists from doing useful work and performing assay extractions on the ship (in addition to routine duties).

o The technical staff was great, but there were problems with the machinery. CHNS columns were not good for sulfur analysis and there was no information about predicted sensitivity of the machine. SRA machine didn't work at all.

o Detection limit issues with samples chosen – known issue with S, 1 run only – changed our protocol to separate run for sulfur (content needs to be higher)

o ACTION: (1) check manual/UG for specifics about sulfur, (2) if none, add into user guide (Vinny)

o In database, there was no information to recover analysis from chemistry lab together with Text ID and depth information of the samples in the same spreadsheet.

o Not an issue

o It would be nice to get information in advance about machinery that will not be available or not working during the expedition

o Recommendations: Something EPM should be made aware of at kick-off meeting, with them communicating

o Technical support was excellent. The data software was not intuitive.

o Nothing can be done without more specific information. Investigate new questions - ask Erik if anything more specific was communicated

o In the Geochemistry Lab where I worked, all the instruments were in the optimum working conditions. Especially, the technical help provided by Erik and Vinny in the Geochemistry lab was top-notch and they were very helpful and knowledgeable.

Discussion:

· Are there any comments that need to become action items?

· Are there any updates from the ship at the moment that may affect Exp. 356?

· Other items?

· Enzyme kinematics – phosphate

· Different test ID in LIMS – one for 30 min and one for 1.5 hrs

· ACTION: None at the moment Review protocol

· Ask Mitch for the procedure to investigate changes to the sample prep.

Review of currently open action items