Meeting 18: 8 May 2017

Meeting Minutes

Date: 8 May 2017

Attendees: Kara Bogus, Chieh Peng, Brian Levay, David Houpt, Jon Howell, Vinny Percuoco, Peter Blum, Denise Kulhanek, Tim Blaisdell, Katerina Petronotis, Leah Levay, Amy McWilliams, Steve Thomas; Via Zoom: Erik Moortgat, Becky Robinson, Lisa Brandt, Nicolette Lawler

Updates

1. Contamination testing workshop

· The panel recommended we discontinue use of the microspheres

· However, we will continue to stock for the short-term

· They also recommended we continue to provide both PFT compounds as there is not yet enough data to determine if one is more effective

· They are planning a revision of Technical Note 28 – with a rough draft by the end of June, a revised draft by the beginning of August to be circulated to the wider geomicro community, and a final version targeted by January 2018

Discussion Items

1. Cruise evaluations

Exp. 363

· The instrument suitable for dissolved inorganic and organic carbon should be ready to be used before an expedition

ACTION: TAS will keep all necessary chemicals in stock and will update the chemicals list on the web. We (LWG) will review the laboratories page on the JRSO website to make it clear which analyses/instruments are part of our standard measurements program and which should be requested ahead of time to enable the chemistry techs to prepare in advance.

· A Picarro Cavity Ring Down Spectrometer should be purchased with the goal of shipboard carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen isotopic analyses on future paleooceanography expeditions.

RECOMMENDATION: None. The LWG recognizes the benefits of such measurements on board, particularly at sites with high sedimentation rates, but the logistics of implementing this are complicated and it is premature to recommend anything.

Exp 366

· Received three comments about the XRD not working

ACTION: None, it was fixed at the next port call and is currently functional.

· A valuable upgrade would be a temperature-controled centrifuge with more different exchangeable rotors (for 0.5, 1.5, 2 ml tubes).

ACTION: New baskets for the current centrifuge will be ordered to accommodate the volumes suggested, but we are not pursuing a temperature-controlled centrifuge at this time.

· In general, expanding the technical staff to people with a microbiology background would be valuable.

RECOMMENDATION: None. To accommodate a microbiology-specific tech would require removing a tech from another laboratory, and as there are no routine microbiology measurements made on every expedition, there is not high enough demand to warrant this. It is noted on the laboratory website that there is no dedicated microbiology technician.

· Additional equipment (e.g., PCR, sequencer) should be considered for incorporation into the microbiology lab.

ACTION: None at this time. This is primarily a space issue and this is the first request for these instruments on board.

· Misunderstanding with the technical staff about where the reagents are and what they do.

RECOMMENDATION: The technical staff have been made aware of where the reagents are kept on the ship. While the technicians do know what each of the reagents are, they rely on the sailing scientists and their expertise to advise on how to use them for different experiments.

· Five evaluations recommended purchasing an EDS to couple to the SEM.

ACTION: We are currently undergoing a 2-week trial with an EDS system on shore. After this, David will report to the LWG and we will discuss this further at the next LWG meeting.

· It would be very useful to have an eH meter to hand in the lab.

ACTION: None, previous scientists have brought their own. Becky recommends we continue this practice and, because the reagants expire quickly (months, not years), we purchase them fresh when a scientist requests them.

· The lab is too small to accommodate both geochemistry and microbiology.

ACTION: None. Unfortunately, we cannot really do anything about this.

· The anaerobic chamber leaked/was difficult to make anaerobic.

RECOMMENDATION: The technical staff should check this before a relevant expedition; it was an LWG recommendation from 2014 that the responsibility for this is the LO/ALOs.

· Chemicals needed for microbiology experiments were not ordered.

ACTION: None, this was a communication error on the scientists’ end.

**NOTE: It is likely that we will have more difficulty in the future ordering chemicals with increasing restrictions on shipping.

· The new ICP data reduction protocol won't run on a Mac.

RECOMMENDATION: Steve to look into options on this.

· There is a problem with the ICP data reduction software and uploader with getting the data into LIMS, which means it cannot be downloaded in a useful format

ACTION: This is a bug in the program. Vinny will correct this.

· The pXRF data is directly uploaded into LIMS, but its CALIBRATED data is not. Really we want to get the calibrated data into the system if we can.

ACTION: None, this was discussed at a previous LWG meeting (see minutes from 29 Nov. 2016) and we decided to upload the uncalibrated data only. Can revisit later if more requests come in.

ACTION: Tim and Jon to look into the shore LORE report for XRF data to ensure it matches the ship LORE report.

· Develop a protocol for measuring the glass beads made for ICP analysis on the pXRF.

ACTION: None. Scientists are welcome to do this on their own, but as our glass beads are not a uniform shape or size, we cannot develop a protocol for this without completely revamping our bead making process (which is already reliable and sufficient for ICP analyses).

· There should be another IODP -80 freezer that should be standard, in case an existing one fails.

ACTION: None, we have three already.

Exp. 367

· There were problems with the bead maker for ICP analyses.

ACTION: None, this was repaired before Exp. 368 and is functional.

· Internet interruptions (primarily from E/O activities over crossovers) that prevented Agilent vendor contact due to shift constraints and time zone differences.

RECOMMENDATION: Chemistry techs to inform MCSs and EPMs if planned discussions with a vendor conflict with the posted video conference schedule. The priority must be lab functionality.

· The hand-held XRF did not have clear set of safety procedures, including the use of film badges and safety gear.

ACTION: None, the safety documentation as well as data for radiation exposure (extremely minimal and within safe levels) is now available on board. If a science party collectively is uncomfortable with using the pXRF and the data are not considered necessary, then they do not need to use it.

2. pXRF performance review

· It has been used on several expeditions thus far with excellent results. There is a specific LORE report for the uncalibrated data.

· However, scientists from Exp 367 were uncomfortable using the pXRF due to safety concerns

· As a result, the safety procedures, along with all data to date on radiation exposure levels from the badges, are available on board.

· The X-ray technicians are primarily responsible for this

ACTION: X-ray techs will write a 1-2 page laminated card on the safety procedures to distribute to scientists.

Technical points

3. HF policy

· We must keep the four safety reagents up to date

ACTION: Chieh to look over the HF policy to ensure we are compliant