Background Image
Previous Page  38 / 57 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 38 / 57 Next Page
Page Background

Ref. No. [UMCES] CBL 2015-010

ACT VS15-03

Great Lakes Field Test Site

A month-long moored field test was conducted in Lake Michigan from June 21 to July

19, 2014. The Great Lakes deployment site was located at 43.23°N, 86.34°W on a fixed pier at

the Lake Michigan Field Station of the NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory,

in Muskegon, Michigan. The site is located at the outfall of Lake Muskegon into Lake Michigan

with a depth of approximately 3 meters. The temperature range during deployment was 11.6°C

through 24.9°C and salinity averaged 0.031.

Photo 7.

Aerial view of Muskegon Lake (left) and rack deployment at GL Site

Time series results of ambient conditions for water depth, temperature, and salinity are

given in figure 15. Temperature ranged from 11.6 to 24.9 and salinity from 0.024 to .035 over

the duration of the field test. While there are no tidal cycles at this site there was significant

exchange between the open lake and the protected basin within the break wall as evidenced by

changes in salinity and water depth. The bottom panel displays the maximum difference recorded

between all reference thermistors mounted at the same depth across the mooring rack. The

average temperature difference observed across the space of the mooring rack was 0.08 ±0.18

o

C

with a maximum of 2.53

o

C. As noted above, it is not possible to quantify the exact difference

between the averaged reference temperature and that measured by the test instrument, but

differences resulting from this variation and variation in the chemistry of the water across will be

minimized because the sampling bottle integrates across the mooring space.

The Idronaut 305 Plus operated continuously over the 29 days of the deployment and

generated 2671 observations at 15 minute intervals. The range in ambient pH measured by the

305 Plus was 7.523 to 8.462 compared to 8.013 to 8.526 for the reference pH measurements

(Fig. 16). The bottom panel presents the time series of the difference between the instrument and

reference pH for each matched pair (n=98 observations). The average and standard deviation of

the difference for the entire deployment was -0.184 ± 0.081 with a total range of -0.465 to -

0.019.

38