5 Quality check

Quality check is based on a qualitative analysis of the available data: Depth, SPM triplicates, Spectrum of \(a_g\) and \(R_{rs}\), COPS cast replicates. To this end, several interactive dashboard have been created, especially to QC SPM triplicates (template applicable for each project), and in more global approach a dashboard for the entire database, showing spectrum of AOP (Rrs only) and IOPs data along with a map and a table giving relevant info on the data point.

QC classes:

  1. bad quality, strong doubt, wrong info
  2. considered good
  3. cannot say if good or bad, may be interesting to investigate

5.1 Regions

Figure 5.1: Identification of data point quality check by region

5.2 Projects

One campaign of sampling for the Manicouagan peninsula (WISEMan) project taking place during august 2019, cover all the variability previously observed with the CHONe project in the Bay of Sept-Îles, with sampling taking place during may, june, august, september, october (see ??).

Figure 5.2: Identification of data point quality check by project

A mixing in distribution between JB and EGSL bring a strong doubt about the regional pattern observed. To my eyes, it look like a real phenomena, further investigation would be required to understand it. For now they are flagged with QC_SPM == 2 and Mix with EGSL|JB as comment.

Reformatting of JB database and integration of every available metadata would be of good help to further investigate this topic…

5.3 SPM vs PSU

If SPM increase with salinity, it would probably mean than salt retention on filter is an issue. As expected SPM decrease with PSU, which does not indicate such effect.

Figure 5.3: SPM vs PSU, identification of probable salt retention

However, a positive tendency is observed for WISEMan project. Together with the QC tag 2 or 0 and Comment “High from Anap” (observed in project QC dashboard) it could indicate that those data point are indeed unreliable, absence of mili Q washing after filtration is suspected.