4.7 Article

The universal ratio of boron to chlorinity for the North Pacific and North Atlantic oceans

期刊

GEOCHIMICA ET COSMOCHIMICA ACTA
卷 74, 期 6, 页码 1801-1811

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gca.2009.12.027

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Research Laboratory (NRL) of the Korean Science and Engineering Foundation
  2. Oceanographic Section of the National Science Foundation
  3. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  4. Division Of Ocean Sciences
  5. Directorate For Geosciences [752972] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We report seawater boron concentration (mg kg(-1)) and chlorinity (parts per thousand) values measured in seawater samples (n = 139) collected at various depths in the North Pacific and North Atlantic oceans and the East/Japan Sea (located in the western temperate North Pacific). Our results indicate that variations in seawater boron concentration are strongly coupled to variations in chlorinity (and salinity), yielding a mean boron to chlorinity ratio of 0.2414 +/- 0.0009 mg kg(-1) parts per thousand(-1) (boron to salinity ratio = 0.1336 +/- 0.0005 mg kg(-1) parts per thousand(-1)). This ratio was surprisingly universal throughout the water column in the three marine basins and across widely different ocean surface regimes, but differs from the generally accepted ratio of 0.232 +/- 0.005 mg kg(-1) parts per thousand(-1) determined by Uppstrom (1974), which was based on only 20 measurements at four sites in the tropical Pacific Ocean. In converting total alkalinity to carbonate alkalinity (and vice versa) for thermodynamic calculations, the difference between these two ratios leads to a difference of 5 mu mol kg(-1) in estimates for ocean surface waters, where the contribution of borate to total alkalinity is typically greatest. We suggest the use of the new boron to chlorinity ratio for predicting seawater boron concentrations using chlorinity (or salinity) data. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据