€ Menn et al.
TABLE 6 | Results of the comparison made at sea, between buoys transmitted
jalues. CTD and SBE 35 measurements
Value Sst Ttrans- Ttrans- SSTcor-
transmitted corrected Tetd Tsbe35 Tsbe35
538758002 16.35 16.382 —0.048 —0.047 —0.014
SST 58019 16.35 16.389 —0.048 —0.047 —0.008
RSST 58002 16.391 —0.007 —0.006
ARSST 58019 16.398 0.000 0.001
"he first (last) two lines show the results for the SST analog (HRSST sensors, respectively).
calculated in the metrology laboratory, they are within the
calculated expanded uncertainties of buoys SST sensors, and also
within the estimated standard deviations from the percentiles
transmitted by the buoys.
This comparison at sea shows firstly that the temperature
values transmitted by the buoys are not erroneous.
Secondly, regarding the HRSST sensors, the deviations
obtained in comparison to two independent instruments,
are small and probably representative of the dispersion
of the medium temperatures. They are inferior to the
deviations obtained with the SST analog sensors, even
after linear correction of SST transmitted values, probably
because of their better response time, resolution and
calibration uncertainties.
After this comparison, buoys were released in an eddy feature.
[he details of this deployment are given by Poli et al. (2018). After
initial deployment on 26th April 2018, the buoys were initially
separated by <1km and they remained within 10km of each
other until 23rd May. After that, they quickly diverged until the
first one ran ashore. At the time of initial writing of this paper,
the second buoy was still drifting with its drogue, five and a half
month after its deployment.
According to Poli et al. (2018), this comparison showed that
‘once freely drifting, the buoys observe that the SST spread
within 5min is usually smaller than 0.1 K, especially when the
sea-state is well-mixed and the buoys are within an eddy core.
Che availability of percentiles from the 5-min distribution of SST
sampled at 1 Hz (by a sensor with a fast response time) should
help users improve their data processing chain to move toward
an ensemble approach.” The results of this other paper suggest
also that “it is important to consider the sea-state mixing and the
ocean surface circulation to understand the representativeness of
the in-situ SST data, as they both affect observed SST variations
(within the day and within 5min). Consequently, they may
both be worth taking into account in the process of satellite
SST cal/val.”
CONCLUSION
The goal of this study relates to the conception and the
metrological characterization of new surface drifting buoys,
design to comply with the requirements of SST satellites
measurements validation and to link through comparison these
measurements to the SI. This linkage can be achieved by the
rontiers in Marine Science | www.frontiersin.or
SVP-BRST Fiducial Reference Network
calibration of each buoy and the assessment of the instrumental
measurement uncertainty, taking into account all the elements of
the temperature calibration chain.
Calibrating individually 100 drifting buoys in a calibration
bath is time-consuming and unrealistic. This study shows that
it is possible to calibrate the sensors and their conditioning
electronic circuits beforehand, without adding significant
errors or uncertainties to in situ measurements even once
the sensors have been integrated in buoys, and to keep the
instrumental uncertainty under the tolerance of 0.01°C. This
was possible through the design of the MoSens modules
which include high resolution temperature sensors and
hydrostatic pressure sensors. The concept of high resolution
includes the possibility to make temperature measurements
with a repeatability close to a milli-degree, a fast thermal
response time measured in laboratory and a fast sample rate
(1 Hz).
The measurements made on the two buoys have also enabled
the improvement of the calibration of the SST analog sensors.
If, initially, their measurement errors are already included
in the +0.1°C tolerance, it is possible, by using slope and
offset correction coefficients, to obtain instrumental expanded
measurements uncertainties inferior to 15 mK. With these
corrections, in situ comparisons have shown that it is possible
to reduce the deviation of 0.047 to —0.014°C for one sensor
and —0.008°C for the other. However, this correction procedure
requires each buoy to be placed in the calibration bath. This
is not feasible for an industrial process to ensure repeated
accuracy. Also, one must bear in mind that the large size of
the SST analog sensors makes them much slower to respond to
seawater variations than smaller HRSST sensors, as shown in
this paper.
The temperature-dependence of the MoSens pressure sensor
has also been studied. It can lead to errors of -+0.15
dbar in the temperature range 0-35°C. These errors can
be compensated with average slope and offset coeflicients to
improve the determination of HRSST measurements depth
during calm sea conditions. In rough sea conditions, this
sensor provides an indication of the sea-state, which is
essential to understand the deviations between satellites and
buoys temperature measurements. The relationship between
information contained in the high-frequency data and the sea
state should be explored in future work.
The specifications of two prototypes measured
in laboratory, have been confirmed during the
initial deployment at sea by a comparison to a
reference thermometer SBE 35 and a CTD profiler,
demonstrating also the good transmission of data and
the very good trueness of HRSST measurements in a
homogeneous medium.
Future prospects include deploying at least 100 SVP-BRST
units, with the aim of closing the metrological loop with buoys
that would be recovered from sea, to be verified in a calibration
bath. An experiment will also be carried out with a SVP-BRST
buoy kept over a long duration at a fixed position at sea, next to
a reference moored buoy. This will allow to determine whether
Zantembear 2019 I Valıme A 1 Article S7£