Description
Needs analysis is the formal process defined by K Tara Smith[1] that sits alongside Requirements analysis and focuses on the human elements of the requirements.
COASTAL COMMUNITY PROFESSIONALS’ USE OF, SATISFACTION WITH, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
Conducted for the Alliance for Coastal Technologies by Responsive Management
2004
COASTAL COMMUNITY PROFESSIONALS’ USE OF, SATISFACTION WITH, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
2004
Responsive Management National Office
Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director Peter E. De Michele, Ph.D., Director of Research Martin Jones, Research Associate Chad Craun, Research Associate Angelique Allen, Research Associate Andrea Criscione, Research Associate Alison Lanier, Business Manager Bill Testerman, Survey Center Manager Steven J. Bissell, Ph.D., Qualitative Research Associate Ping Wang, Ph.D., Quantitative Research Associate James B. Herrick, Ph.D., Research Associate
130 Franklin Street Harrisonburg, VA 22801 Phone: 540/432-1888 Fax: 540/432-1892 E-mail: [email protected] www.responsivemanagement.com
Acknowledgements
Responsive Management would like to thank Mario Tamburri of the Alliance for Coastal Technologies, Richard Burt of the Chelsea Technologies Group, Jan A. Newton, Ph.D., of the University of Washington’s Environmental Assessment Program School of Oceanography, and Scott McLean of Satlantic for their input, support, and guidance on this project.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This study was conducted for the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) to assess how various parties commonly use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers, their satisfaction with the capabilities of existing models, and their requirements for instrument performance. The study entailed a survey of 50 coastal community professionals knowledgeable about in situ chlorophyll fluorometers.
For the survey, telephone interviews were conducted. The telephone survey questionnaire was developed cooperatively by Responsive Management, the ACT, and knowledgeable professionals. Interviews were conducted Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., all local time. The survey was conducted in August and September of 2004. Responsive Management obtained a total of 50 completed interviews.
The software used for data collection was Questionnaire Programming Language 4.1. The analysis of data was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software as well as proprietary software developed by Responsive Management.
PRIMARY SENSOR DEPLOYMENT AREA OF INTEREST Research best represents a majority (90%) of respondents’ primary sensor deployment area of interest or application concern, distantly followed by resource management (10%).
PRIMARY INVESTIGATION ENVIRONMENTS Coastal/near shore best represent a majority (62%) of respondents’ primary investigation/monitoring environment, followed by intermediate depths of 10 to 100 meters (46%), blue water/marine (42%), depths of more than 100 meters (40%), and estuaries (40%).
ii USE OF IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
Responsive Management
A majority (86%) of respondents currently use in situ chlorophyll fluorometer sensors; 14% do not.
Respondents’ most common applications are using the sensor as part of a suite of instruments used for profiling (74%), deploying the sensor on remote platforms for continuous in situ monitoring (67%), and using a flow-through system on a vessel for periodic surveys (56%).
ABSOLUTE CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATIONS A majority (64%) of respondents use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers to determine both absolute concentrations and relative changes. • • 28% use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers to determine relative changes only. 8% use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers to determine absolute concentrations only.
LIMITATIONS OF IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS Regarding the in situ chlorophyll fluorometers they currently use, respondents have most commonly found limitations with accuracy (23%). • Other common limitations, or areas for which in situ chlorophyll fluorometers failed to meet respondents’ expectations, include calibration life (21%), reliability (21%), quality of documentation/product handbook (19%), range/detection limits (16%), and precision (14%).
IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHEN USING IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS A majority (82%) of respondents rated reliability as the most important characteristic when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers in the field.
Respondents most commonly (27%) rated automatic calibration as the least important characteristic when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers in the field.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHEN PURCHASING IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS A majority (80%) of respondents rated reliability as the most important characteristic when purchasing in situ chlorophyll fluorometers.
iii
Respondents most commonly (28%) rated automatic calibration as the least important characteristic when purchasing in situ chlorophyll fluorometers.
COMPARISON OF IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHEN USING AND WHEN PURCHASING IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS A majority of respondents rated reliability as an important characteristic when using (82%) and when purchasing (80%) in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. When asked to rate reliability on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the mean of respondents’ ratings of reliability was 4.8 when using fluorometers and 4.7 when purchasing fluorometers. CUSTOM CHARACTERISTICS A majority (80%) of respondents’ sensor requirements are standard; 16% of respondents’ sensor requirements are custom, or “non-standard”, characteristics.
ANTICIPATED PURCHASES OF IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS A plurality (44%) of respondents plan to acquire new commercial sensors within the next 2 years; 26% do not plan to acquire new commercial sensors.
A majority (82%) of respondents will consider using a different sensor type other than the one they are currently using to measure in situ chlorophyll; 18% will not consider using a different sensor type.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE CURRENT DESIGNS When asked for their recommendations to improve current designs, respondents most commonly reported the need to address poor accuracy and biofouling issues.
iv
Responsive Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Methodology........................................................................................................ 1 Survey Results................................................................................................................................. 3 Primary Sensor Deployment Area of Interest ..................................................................... 3 Primary Investigation Environments................................................................................... 4 Use of In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometers............................................................................ 5 Absolute Chlorophyll Concentrations................................................................................. 9 Limitations of In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometers.............................................................. 12 Range..................................................................................................................... 15 Accuracy................................................................................................................ 15 Precision ................................................................................................................ 15 Frequency.............................................................................................................. 16 Reliability.............................................................................................................. 16 Operating Life ....................................................................................................... 16 Operating Pressure ................................................................................................ 17 Flow Sensitivity..................................................................................................... 17 Calibration Life ..................................................................................................... 17 Automatic Calibration ........................................................................................... 18 Ease of Calibration ................................................................................................ 18 Real-Time Sensor Data ......................................................................................... 18 Off-Sensor Telemetry............................................................................................ 19 Input/Output Interfaces ......................................................................................... 19 Packaging .............................................................................................................. 19 In-Field Maintenance ............................................................................................ 19 Quality of Documentation..................................................................................... 20 Cost........................................................................................................................ 20 Importance of Characteristics When Using In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometers ................ 21 Importance of Characteristics When Purchasing In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometers........ 26 Comparison of Importance of Characteristics When Using And When Purchasing In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometers ..................................................................................... 31 Custom Characteristics...................................................................................................... 37
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
v
Anticipated Purchases of In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometers ............................................ 38 Recommendations to Improve Current Designs ............................................................... 41 Additional Comments ....................................................................................................... 42 Survey Instrument ......................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix A: Informative Letter Sent via Email to Prospective Survey Participants .................. 74
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
This study was conducted for the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) to assess how various parties commonly use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers, their satisfaction with the capabilities of existing models, and their requirements for instrument performance. Study results will enable the ACT to accurately assess user needs and to assist with the development of improved sensor technology for monitoring and studying coastal environments. The study entailed a survey of 50 professionals knowledgeable about in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. Specific aspects of the research methodology are discussed below.
A targeted sample of known or likely users of in situ chlorophyll fluorometers was used for this survey. The ACT provided Responsive Management with a named list of coastal community professionals who would be willing to participate in the study. To locate the names of additional coastal community professionals for the survey sample, Responsive Management researched relevant Web sites: university oceanography/marine biology departments, coastal conservation organizations, and research programs that use fluorometry measurements. A pre-notification was sent to prospective survey participants via email, which was first approved by the ACT, explaining the study and asking for their participation. A copy of the emailed letter is attached to this report as Appendix A.
For the survey, telephone interviews were conducted. A central polling site at the Responsive Management office allowed for rigorous quality control over the interviews and data collection. Responsive Management maintains its own in-house telephone interviewing facilities. These facilities are staffed by interviewers with experience conducting computer-assisted telephone interviews on the subject of environmental issues and natural resources. The telephone survey questionnaire was developed cooperatively by Responsive Management, the ACT, and knowledgeable professionals.
To ensure that the telephone survey data collected were of the highest quality, Responsive Management has interviewers who have been trained according to the standards established by the Council of American Survey Research Organizations. Methods of instruction included lecture and role-playing. The Survey Center Manager conducted project briefings with the
2
Responsive Management
interviewers prior to the administration of the survey. Interviewers were instructed on type of study, study goals and objectives, handling of survey questions, interview length, termination points and qualifiers for participation, interviewer instructions within the survey instrument, reading of the survey instrument, skip patterns, and probing and clarifying techniques necessary for specific questions on the survey instrument. The telephone survey interviews were monitored without the interviewers’ knowledge to evaluate performance. After the surveys were obtained by the interviewers, the Survey Center Manager and statisticians edited each completed survey to ensure clarity and completeness.
Interviews were conducted Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., all local time. Multiple calls to prospective survey participants from the target sample were made to provide an equal opportunity for all to participate. When a respondent could not be reached on the first call, subsequent calls were placed on different days of the week and at different times of the day. The survey was conducted in August and September of 2004. Responsive Management obtained a total of 50 completed interviews.
The software used for data collection was Questionnaire Programming Language 4.1 (QPL). The survey data were entered into the computer as each interview was being conducted, eliminating manual data entry after the completion of the survey and the concomitant data entry errors that may occur with manual data entry. The survey instrument was programmed so that QPL branched, coded, and substituted phrases in the survey based on previous responses to ensure the integrity and consistency of the data collection. The analysis of data was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software as well as proprietary software developed by Responsive Management.
Note that some results may not sum to exactly 100% because of rounding.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
3
SURVEY RESULTS
PRIMARY SENSOR DEPLOYMENT AREA OF INTEREST
Research best represents a majority (90%) of respondents’ primary sensor deployment area of interest or application concern, distantly followed by resource management (10%).
Q7. Which best represents your primary sensor deployment area of interest or application concern?
Research
90
Resource management
10
Regulatory compliance / Permitting
0
Wastewater treatment
0
Aquaculture
0
Don't know
0
Other
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
4
Responsive Management
PRIMARY INVESTIGATION ENVIRONMENTS
Coastal/near shore best represent a majority (62%) of respondents’ primary investigation/monitoring environment, followed by intermediate depths of 10 to 100 meters (46%), blue water/marine (42%), depths of more than 100 meters (40%), and estuaries (40%).
Q10. Which represents your primary investigation/monitoring environments?
Coastal / near shore
62
Intermediate depths (10 - 100 meters)
46
Bluewater / marine Multiple Responses Allowed
42
Deep water (> 100 meters depth)
40
Estuarine
40
Shallow water (< 10 meters depth)
36
Rivers / lakes / freshwater wetlands Industrial (aquaculture operations/water & wastewater treatment) Other
4
36
14
Don't know 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
5
USE OF IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
A majority (86%) of respondents currently use in situ chlorophyll fluorometer sensors; 14% do not.
Respondents’ most common applications are using the sensor as part of a suite of instruments used for profiling (74%), deploying the sensor on remote platforms for continuous in situ monitoring (67%), and using a flow-through system on a vessel for periodic surveys (56%).
A majority (98%) of respondents’ current sensors are primarily commercial products; 2% of respondents’ current sensors are a combination of commercial products and designs they developed.
6
Responsive Management
Q12. Do you currently use in situ chlorophyll fluorometer sensors?
Yes
86
No
14
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
7
Q14. What are your most common applications?
Sensor as part of a suite of instruments used for profiling
74
Deployed sensor on remote platforms for continuous in-situ monitoring
67
Multiple Responses Allowed
Flow-through system on a vessel for periodic surveys, transects, etc.
56
Hand held / portable sensors for spot measurements
26
Flow-through system on a vessel in long-term use (e.g., ferry)
14
In-line monitoring for water treatment systems
2
Don't know
0
Other 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=43)
8
Responsive Management
Q16. Are your current sensors...?
Primarily commercial products
98
Primarily designs you developed yourself
0
A combination of both
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=43)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
9
ABSOLUTE CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATIONS
A majority (64%) of respondents use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers to determine both absolute concentrations and relative changes. • • 28% use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers to determine relative changes only. 8% use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers to determine absolute concentrations only.
A majority (94%) of respondents conduct their own absolute calibrations when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers for determining absolute concentrations; 3% do not conduct their own absolute calibrations. • To calibrate the fluorometer for determining absolute concentrations, respondents reported using known standard solutions, extractions of chlorophyll, and available reference material.
10
Responsive Management
Q80. Do you use your in situ chlorophyll fluorometer to determine absolute chlorophyll concentrations or only the relative changes?
Absolute concentrations only
8
Relative changes only
28
Both
64
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
11
Q81. When determining absolute concentrations, do you conduct your own absolute calibrations?
Yes
94
No
3
Don't know
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=36)
12
Responsive Management
LIMITATIONS OF IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
Regarding the in situ chlorophyll fluorometers they currently use, respondents have most commonly found limitations with accuracy (23%). • Other common limitations, or areas for which in situ chlorophyll fluorometers failed to meet respondents’ expectations, include calibration life (21%), reliability (21%), quality of documentation/product handbook (19%), range/detection limits (16%), and precision (14%).
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
13
Q18, Q20. In which areas do the in situ chlorophyll fluorometers that you are currently using not meet your needs? Part 1.
Accuracy
23
Calibration life
21
Reliability Multiple Responses Allowed Quality of product handbook / documentation Range / detection limits
21
19
16
Precision
14
Flow sensitivity
12
Ease of calibration
12
Input / output interfaces
12
In-field maintenance 0
9
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=43)
14
Responsive Management
Q18, Q20. In which areas do the in situ chlorophyll fluorometers that you are currently using not meet your needs? Part 2.
Cost
9
Operating life
7
Off-sensor telemetry Multiple Responses Allowed
7
Sampling interval / frequency
7
Operating pressure / depth range
5
Automatic calibration Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis Packaging
5
5
5
Other
0
None of these 0 20
37
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=43)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results RANGE Of those who indicated limitations with range/detection, respondents most commonly reported poor sensitivity when monitoring blue water.
15
Comments regarding range are recorded below. They (in situ chlorophyll fluorometers) cannot handle going from coastal lakes to blue water. Low sensitivity is a problem. Blue water is not very good; they (in situ chlorophyll fluorometers) do not go low enough. Sensitivity is a problem. The values are low in some of the areas we work in. Some parts of the year our data matches up; sometimes it does not. Unreliable data is a problem.
ACCURACY Of those who indicated limitations with accuracy, respondents most commonly reported problems with biofouling issues.
Comments regarding accuracy are recorded below. We do not know what the real values are because of unreliable data. No accuracy is a problem. Biofouling issues are a problem. Biofouling is a problem. They (manufacturers) should be able to make a more accurate. Accuracy is inherent in measurement.
PRECISION Of those who indicated limitations with precision, one respondent reported problems with scattering interferences.
Comments regarding precision are recorded below. Precision is inherent in measurement. They (in situ chlorophyll fluorometers) are sometimes noisy. I have trouble with scattering interferences.
16 FREQUENCY
Responsive Management
Of those who indicated limitations with frequency/sampling interval, respondents most commonly reported problems with a slow response time.
Comments regarding frequency are recorded below. I would like them (in situ chlorophyll fluorometers) to go faster.
RELIABILITY Of those who indicated limitations with reliability, respondents most commonly reported problems with shutters failing, biofouling issues, and unstable instruments.
Comments regarding reliability are recorded below. The copper shutter has failed quite often. Biofouling issues are a problem. (The in situ chlorophyll fluorometer) is less sensitive to dirty windows. (The in situ chlorophyll fluorometer) has occasional unexplained spikes in the data that could be genuine or just occasional failures. Our in situ chlorophyll fluorometers have shutters that need to be replaced every time. Anything motorized is usually the fail point. In situ chlorophyll fluorometers are not stable enough and drift with time. We have two of the same model. One model is marvelous, but the other model is horrible. I know it has something to do with the electronics of the sensor. We had a few fail, some flood, and others that just did not work.
OPERATING LIFE Of those who indicated limitations with operating life, one respondent reported problems with bulbs wearing out too quickly and the degradation of the instrument’s signal over time.
Comments regarding operating life are recorded below. Battery drain, power consumption, and degradation of the signal over time. Bulbs wear out; longer lasting bulbs would be good. We have had a lot of problems with instruments that stop working.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results OPERATING PRESSURE Of those who indicated limitations with operating pressure/depth range, respondents most commonly reported problems with depths greater than 500 meters.
17
Comments regarding operating pressure are recorded below. Most (in situ chlorophyll fluorometers) will only go to 500 meters. Plastic deforms at depths greater than 500 meters.
FLOW SENSITIVITY Of those who indicated limitations with flow sensitivity, one respondent reported problems with bubbles causing interference.
Comments regarding flow sensitivity are recorded below. Bubbles are an interference. We have noticed problems in lab calibrations.
CALIBRATION LIFE Of those who indicated limitations with calibration life, respondents most commonly reported problems with biofouling issues.
Comments regarding calibration life are recorded below. Biofouling is probably the problem, not the sensor itself. Calibration only lasts as long as the biofouling. Biofouling issues are a problem, as well as difficulty in finding a solid calibration standard. Biofouling is always a problem with fluorometers. Instruments that drift and biofouling are problematic. I must recalibrate too often. Temperature sensitivity is a problem. I would like the instrument to last longer.
18 AUTOMATIC CALIBRATION
Responsive Management
Of those who indicated limitations with automatic calibration, one respondent reported difficulty calibrating the instrument to standards.
Comments regarding automatic calibration are recorded below. I have difficulty getting the instrument to calibrate to standards. Automatic calibration would be nice to have.
EASE OF CALIBRATION Of those who indicated limitations with the ease of calibrations, respondents most commonly reported that calibration was difficult.
Comments regarding ease of calibration are recorded below. There is not a good standardized method to calibrate. Calibration is hard to do. I have to get someone else to do the calibration.
REAL-TIME SENSOR DATA Of those who indicated limitations with real-time sensor data, one respondent reported problems with awkward user interfaces.
Comments regarding real-time sensor data are recorded below. Clumsy user interfaces is a problem. Hard to tell if it is working properly without connecting it to a computer.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results OFF-SENSOR TELEMETRY Few respondents reported problems with off-sensor telemetry.
19
Comments regarding off-sensor telemetry are recorded below. I am interested in using off-sensor telemetry. Manufacturers have different ways to send formats.
INPUT/OUTPUT INTERFACES Few respondents reported problems with input/output interfaces.
Comments regarding input/output interfaces are recorded below. It is nice to have a USB port on them as well. Everybody should go to USB.
PACKAGING Of those who indicated limitations with packaging, one respondent reported that current designs are too big.
Comments regarding packaging are recorded below. Some designs are better than others. They are too big.
IN-FIELD MAINTENANCE Of those who indicated limitations with in-field maintenance, respondents most commonly reported being unable to monitor biofouling as a problem.
Comments regarding in-field maintenance are recorded below. I need some way to monitor biofouling. We do not know the sensor fouled until we get it back or after biofouling has occurred. We do not perform maintenance in the field; we have to bring it all back.
20 QUALITY OF DOCUMENTATION
Responsive Management
Of those who indicated limitations with the quality of documentation/product handbook, respondents most commonly reported the need for clarity and details. One respondent reported the need for an explanation of field repairs in the product handbook, and another respondent suggested including a section on limitations and expectations.
Comments regarding quality of documentation are recorded below. Documentation can always be more layman-related. Documentation has been really good, but more thought and work should be devoted to the manuals regarding field repairs. I need more detail on circuit design and calibration procedures. I need more documentation and labels for parts. Most handbooks are too complex. Handbooks are usually out-of-date and missing details. A section on limitations and expectations should be in the book.
COST Of those who indicated limitations with cost, respondents most commonly reported that the instruments were too expensive.
Comments regarding cost are recorded below. (In situ chlorophyll fluorometers) are just too pricey. They (in situ chlorophyll fluorometers) are all too high. (In situ chlorophyll fluorometers) are very expensive. You get what you pay for, but it is difficult on a state budget.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
21
IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHEN USING IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
Respondents were asked to rate characteristics on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all important and 5 being very important. A majority (82%) of respondents rated reliability as the most important characteristic when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers in the field. • Other characteristics rated as most important when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers include range/detection limits (58%), precision (40%), product support/warranty/vendor reputation (40%), accuracy (34%), calibration life (27%), and ease of calibration (27%).
Respondents most commonly (27%) rated automatic calibration as the least important characteristic when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers in the field. • Other characteristics rated as least important when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers include flow sensitivity (24%), off-sensor telemetry (16%), and operating pressure/depth range (16%).
22
Responsive Management
Q40-Q58. Percent who rated the following as a 5 in importance when using chlorophyll fluorometers in the field. Part 1. .
Q44. Reliability 82
Q40. Range/detection limits
58
Q42. Precision Q56. Product support/warranty/vendor reputation Q41. Accuracy
40
40
34
Q48. Calibration life (n=49) Q50. Ease of calibration (n=49)
27
27
Q45. Operating life
26
Q43. Sampling interval/frequency Q55. In-field maintenance 0
22
18
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
23
Q40-Q58. Percent who rated the following as a 5 in importance when using chlorophyll fluorometers in the field. Part 2. .
Q58. Cost 18
Q49. Automatic calibration (n=48) Q53. Input/output interfaces Q57. Quality of product handbook/documentation
17
16
14
Q54. Packaging
10
Q46. Operating pressure/depth range Q51. Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis Q52. Off-sensor telemetry (n=49)
8
8
6
Q47. Flow sensitivity
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
24
Responsive Management
Q40-Q58. Percent who rated the following as a 1 in importance when using chlorophyll fluorometers in the field. Part 1. .
Q49. Automatic calibration (n=48) Q47. Flow sensitivity Q52. Offsensor telemetry Q46. Operating pressure/depth range Q51. Real-time sensor data display and/or Q54. Packaging Q50. Ease of calibration (n=49) Q48. Calibration life (n=49) Q53. Input/output interfaces Q55. In-field maintenance 0 8 27
24
16
16
8
6
4
4
4
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
25
Q40-Q58. Percent who rated the following as a 1 in importance when using chlorophyll fluorometers in the field. Part 2. .
Q40. Range/detection limits Q43. Sampling interval/frequency Q56. Product support/warranty/vendor reputation Q57. Quality of product handbook/documentation 2
2
2
2
Q58. Cost
2
Q41. Accuracy
0
Q42. Precision
0
Q44. Reliability
0
Q45. Operating life
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
26
Responsive Management
IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHEN PURCHASING IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
Respondents were asked to rate characteristics on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all important and 5 being very important. A majority (80%) of respondents rated reliability as the most important characteristic when purchasing in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. • Other characteristics rated as most important when purchasing in situ chlorophyll fluorometers include range/detection limits (62%), precision (40%), accuracy (36%), product support/warranty/vendor reputation (34%), sampling interval/frequency (26%), and operating life (26%).
Respondents most commonly (28%) rated automatic calibration as the least important characteristic when purchasing in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. • Other characteristics rated as least important when purchasing in situ chlorophyll fluorometers include flow sensitivity (24%), off-sensor telemetry (20%), and operating pressure/depth range (16%).
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
27
Q59-Q77. Percent who rated the following as a 5 in importance when deciding which chlorophyll fluorometer(s) to purchase. Part 1. .
Q63. Reliability 80
Q59. Range/detection limits
62
Q61. Precision
40
Q60. Accuracy Q75. Product support/warranty/vendor reputation Q62. Sampling interval/frequency 26
36
34
Q64. Operating life
26
Q77. Cost
24
Q67. Calibration life
20
Q69. Ease of calibration
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
28
Responsive Management
Q59-Q77. Percent who rated the following as a 5 in importance when deciding which chlorophyll fluorometer(s) to purchase. Part 2. .
Q74. In-field maintenance 16
Q71. Off-sensor telemetry (n=49) Q68. Automatic calibration Q72. Input/output interfaces Q76. Quality of product handbook/documentation
12
12
12
12
Q66. Flow sensitivity Q70. Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis Q65. Operating pressure/depth range
10
10
8
Q73. Packaging
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
29
Q59-Q77. Percent who rated the following as a 1 in importance when deciding which chlorophyll fluorometer(s) to purchase. Part 1. .
Q68. Automatic calibration Q66. Flow sensitivity Q71. Offsensor telemetry Q65. Operating pressure/depth range Q70. Real-time sensor data display and/or Q69. Ease of calibration Q73. Packaging Q67. Calibration life Q72. Input/output interfaces Q74. In-field maintenance 0 28
24
20
16
14
12
8
6
6
6
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
30
Responsive Management
Q59-Q77. Percent who rated the following as a 1 in importance when deciding which chlorophyll fluorometer(s) to purchase. Part 2. .
Q59. Range/detection limits Q62. Sampling interval/frequency Q75. Product support/warranty/vendor reputation Q76. Quality of product handbook/documentation 4
4
4
4
Q77. Cost
4
Q60. Accuracy
2
Q61. Precision
2
Q63. Reliability
2
Q64. Operating life
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
31
COMPARISON OF IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHEN USING AND WHEN PURCHASING IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
A majority of respondents rated reliability as an important characteristic when using (82%) and when purchasing (80%) in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. When asked to rate reliability on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the mean of respondents’ ratings of reliability was 4.8 when using fluorometers and 4.7 when purchasing fluorometers.
A majority of respondents rated range/detection limits as an important characteristic when using (58%) and when purchasing (62%) in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. When asked to rate range/detection limits on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the mean of respondents’ ratings of range/detection limits was 4.4 when using fluorometers and 4.4 when purchasing fluorometers.
Respondents commonly rated precision as an important characteristic when using (40%) and when purchasing (40%) in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. When asked to rate precision on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the mean of respondents’ ratings of precision was 4.1 when using fluorometers and 4.1 when purchasing fluorometers.
Respondents rated product support/warranty/vendor reputation as an important characteristic when using (40%) and when purchasing (34%) in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. When asked to rate product support/warranty/vendor reputation on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the mean of respondents’ ratings of product support/warranty/vendor reputation was 4.1 when using fluorometers and 4.0 when purchasing fluorometers.
Respondents commonly rated accuracy as an important characteristic when using (34%) and when purchasing (36%) in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. When asked to rate accuracy on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the mean of respondents’ ratings of accuracy was 4.0 when using fluorometers and 4.0 when purchasing fluorometers.
32
Responsive Management
Q44, Q63. Importance of the reliability of chlorophyll fluorometers.
82 5 80 When using in the field When deciding which to purchase
14 4 16
Means Using: 4.8 Purchasing: 4.7 4 3 2
0 2 0
0 1 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
33
Q40, Q59. Importance of the range/detection limits of chlorophyll fluorometers.
58 5 62 When using in the field When deciding which to purchase
32 4 26
Means Using: 4.4 Purchasing: 4.4
8 3 8
0 2 0
2 1 4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
34
Responsive Management
Q42, Q61. Importance of the precision of chlorophyll fluorometers.
40 5 40 When using in the field When deciding which to purchase
36 4 36
Means Using: 4.1 Purchasing: 4.1 22 3 18
2 2 4
0 1 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
35
Q56, Q75. Importance of product support/warranty/vendor reputation of chlorophyll fluorometers.
40 5 34 When using in the field When deciding which to purchase 44 Means Using: 4.1 Purchasing: 4.0 20 3 18
38 4
0 2 0
2 1 4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
36
Responsive Management
Q41, Q60. Importance of the accuracy of chlorophyll fluorometers.
34 5 36 When using in the field When deciding which to purchase
40 4 36
Means Using: 4.0 Purchasing: 4.0 22 3 20
4 2 6
0 1 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
37
CUSTOM CHARACTERISTICS
A majority (80%) of respondents’ sensor requirements are standard; 16% of respondents’ sensor requirements are custom, or “non-standard”, characteristics. • Of those whose sensor requirements are custom characteristics, one respondent reported changing the capabilities for integration; another respondent reported the need to characterize for the properties of chlorophyll.
Q78. Relative to the sensor system characteristics, are any of your sensor needs/requirements “nonstandard” or custom?
Yes
16
No
80
Don't know
4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
38
Responsive Management
ANTICIPATED PURCHASES OF IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
A plurality (44%) of respondents plan to acquire new commercial sensors within the next 2 years; 26% do not plan to acquire new commercial sensors.
A majority (82%) of respondents will consider using a different sensor type other than the one they are currently using to measure in situ chlorophyll; 18% will not consider using a different sensor type. • When asked why they would consider using a different sensor type, respondents cited smaller packaging, biofouling issues, and simply getting the best instrument for their money. • When asked why they would not consider using a different sensor type, respondents cited custom packaging, reliability, and satisfaction with current vendor.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
39
Q83. Do you plan on acquiring new commercial sensors within the next 2 years?
Yes
44
No
26
Don't know
30
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
40
Responsive Management
Q84. Will you consider a different sensor type than the one you are currently using to measure in situ chlorophyll?
Yes
82
No
18
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=22)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
41
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE CURRENT DESIGNS
When asked for their recommendations to improve current designs, respondents most commonly reported the need to address poor accuracy and biofouling issues.
Additional recommendations to improve current designs are recorded below. Accuracy seems to be the problem. All in situ chlorophyll fluorometers fail in full sunlight; not a fault of sensor but of phytoplankton. Need better attention to biofouling and steadiness of the in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. Address depth limitations. Need to improve ease of changing filters for use with other detection methods. Need effective anti-biofouling methods. Need an automated way to deal with biofouling of optical surfaces. I believe straight voltage is better. I would like to see them being made smaller in size and with lower power consumption. We need improved accuracy. (In situ chlorophyll fluorometers) need improved accuracy. Address deployment biofouling issues. Address the issue of calibration in the field and biofouling. Need longer-lasting, reliable, anti-biofouling sensors with automated calibration. Need to improve software and have some kind of reference standard for calibrations.
42
Responsive Management
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Additional comments (general) are recorded below. I am interested in helping with this. I have been doing this for 25 years and would be happy to help out, if possible. I would love to talk to someone about this outside of a boxed-in survey format. I think there should be more education on what sensors can and cannot do. People try to do things with the sensor that it is not capable of doing; people blame the company when it is not the company’s fault. I am surprised “biological fouling” was not an option on the characteristic parameters list. I would like to see the ACT report when it is completed; please send me a copy.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
43
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
1. PRESS RETURN WHEN INTERVIEW BEGINS START TIMER STARTS AFTER THIS SCREEN
2. DOS SURVEY NAME SNAME 1:1 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| 1. ACTFL
3. Hello, my name is __________, may I please speak with __________? I am calling on behalf of the Alliance for Coastal Technologies to ask you some questions about in situ chlorophyll fluorometers usage and capabilities. We are not selling anything and would just like a few minutes of your time. Will you help us by completing the interview? CONPER 1:2 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Correct person, good time to do survey Bad time/Schedule recall Answering machine/No answer/Busy signal Refusal Not eligible Disconnected Business/Government Office Deaf/Language barrier Bad Number (missing digit, begins with zero, etc.)
4. Time when interview began TIME1 1:3-7 |__|__|__|__|__|
44
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 2
5. DETERMINATION OF SURVEY SKIP PATH PATH 1:8 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| 1. SKIP PATH
IF (#3 = 1) GO TO #7 IF (#3 = 2) GO TO #6 SKIP TO QUESTION 95 ===========================================================
6. When would be a more convenient time to call you back? Thank you for your time. WHENCALL ENTER DAY AND TIME ON CALLSHEET (CB) SKIP TO QUESTION 95 ===========================================================
7. Which of the following best represents your primary sensor deployment area of interest or application concern? (READ LIST; CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) SNSRAREA 1:9 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Invalid answer. Select another. (GO TO QUESTION 7) Research Resource management Regulatory compliance / Permitting Wastewater treatment Aquaculture Don't know Other (GO TO QUESTION 8)
SKIP TO QUESTION 10 ===========================================================
8. ENTER OTHER SENSOR DEPLOYMENT AREAS OF INTEREST OR APPLICATION CONCERN. OTHAREAS 1:10-249 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ SKIP TO QUESTION 10 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
45
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 3
9. YOU DID NOT USE SPACE BAR NOSPAC01 PRESS ENTER TO TRY AGAIN
10. Which of the following represent your primary investigation/ monitoring environments? (READ LIST; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) MONENV 2:1-10 (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) |__| 1. |__| 2. |__| 3. |__| 4. |__| 5. |__| 6. |__| 7. |__| 8. |__| 9. |__| 10. Bluewater / marine Coastal / near shore Shallow water (< 10 meters depth) Intermediate depths (10 - 100 meters) Deep water (> 100 meters depth) Estuarine Rivers / lakes / freshwater wetlands Industrial (aquaculture operations/water & wastewater treatment) Don't know Other
IF (#10 = 0) GO TO #9 IF (#10 @ 10) GO TO #11 SKIP TO QUESTION 12 ===========================================================
11. ENTER OTHER INVESTIGATION/MONITORING ENVIRONMENT. MONENVST 2:11-250 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
12. Do you currently use in situ chlorophyll fluorometer sensors? USEISCFS 3:1 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Select another. Yes (GO TO QUESTION 14) No Don't know (GO TO QUESTION 12)
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
46
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 4
13. YOU DID NOT USE SPACE BAR NOSPAC02 PRESS ENTER TO TRY AGAIN
14. What are your most common applications? (READ LIST; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) COMAPP 3:2-10 (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Hand held / portable sensors for spot measurements Sensor as part of a suite of instruments used for profiling Deployed sensor on remote platforms for continuous in-situ monitoring (GO TO QUESTION 14) Flow-through system on a vessel for periodic surveys, transects, etc. Flow-through system on a vessel in long-term use (e.g., ferry) In-line monitoring for water treatment systems Don't know Other
IF (#14 = 0) GO TO #13 IF (#14 @ 9) GO TO #15 SKIP TO QUESTION 16 ===========================================================
15. ENTER OTHER APPLICATION. COMAPPST 3:11-250 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
16. Are your current sensors..? (READ LIST; CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) SNSTYP 4:1 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Primarily commercial products Primarily designs you developed yourself A combination of both Don't know
SKIP TO QUESTION 18 ===========================================================
17. YOU DID NOT USE SPACE BAR NOSPAC03 PRESS ENTER TO TRY AGAIN
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
47
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 5
18. In which of the following areas does the in situ chlorophyll fluorometers that you are currently using have significant limitations, not lived up to specifications or expectations, or does not meet your needs? (READ LIST; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) LIMIT1 4:2-13 (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. Range / detection limits 2. Accuracy (Accuracy is the combination of bias and precision of 3. an analytical procedure, which reflects the closeness of (GO TO QUESTION 18) 4. the measured value to the true value.) (GO TO QUESTION 18) 5. Precision (Precision is the measure of the degree of agreement 6. among replicate measurements of a sample, usually expressed (GO TO QUESTION 18) 7. as a standard deviation.) (GO TO QUESTION 18) 8. Sampling interval / frequency 9. Reliability (Reliability is the measure of the ability to 10. maintain integrity of the instrument and data collections (GO TO QUESTION 18) 11. over time.) (GO TO QUESTION 18) 12. DNR: None of these
IF (#18 = 0) GO TO #17 SKIP TO QUESTION 20 ===========================================================
19. YOU DID NOT USE SPACE BAR NOSPAC04 PRESS ENTER TO TRY AGAIN
48
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 6
20. Continues from previous list... (READ LIST; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) LIMIT2 4:14-28 (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. = @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Operating life Operating pressure / depth range Flow sensitivity Calibration life Automatic calibration Ease of calibration Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis Off-sensor telemetry Input / output interfaces (e.g., computers, alarms, to other sensors or equipment etc.) (GO TO QUESTION 20) Packaging In-field maintenance Quality of product handbook / documentation Cost Other 0) GO TO #19 15) GO TO #21 1) GO TO #22 2) GO TO #23 5) GO TO #24 8) GO TO #25 9) GO TO #26 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
(#20 (#20 (#18 (#18 (#18 (#18 (#18 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
49
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 7
21. ENTER OTHER AREAS THAT HAVE NOT LIVED UP TO SPECIFICATIONS OR EXPECTATIONS, OR DOES NOT MEET YOUR NEEDS. LIMITST 5:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#18 (#18 (#18 (#18 (#18 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1) GO TO #22 2) GO TO #23 5) GO TO #24 8) GO TO #25 9) GO TO #26 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
50
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 8
22. What were the issues with range / detection limits that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTRNG 6:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#18 (#18 (#18 (#18 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2) GO TO #23 5) GO TO #24 8) GO TO #25 9) GO TO #26 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
51
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 9
23. What were the issues with accuracy that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTACC 7:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#18 (#18 (#18 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5) GO TO #24 8) GO TO #25 9) GO TO #26 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
52
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 10
24. What were the issues with precision that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTPRC 8:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#18 (#18 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8) GO TO #25 9) GO TO #26 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
53
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 11
25. What were the issues with sampling interval/frequency that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTFRQ 9:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#18 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9) GO TO #26 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
54
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 12
26. What were the issues with Reliability that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTREL 10:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
27. What were the issues with operating life that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTLIF 11:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
55
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 13
28. What were the issues with operating pressure/depth range that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTDPT 12:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
29. What were the issues with flow sensitivity that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTFLO 13:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
56
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 14
30. What were the issues with calibration life that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTCAL 14:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
31. What were the issues with automatic calibration that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTAUT 15:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
57
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 15
32. What were the issues with ease of calibration that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTEZ 16:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
33. What were the issues with real-time sensor data display and/ or analysis that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTTIM 17:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
58
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 16
34. What were the issues with off-sensor telemetry that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTOST 18:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
35. What were the issues with input / output interfaces that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTIO 19:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ 11) 12) 13) 14) GO GO GO GO TO TO TO TO #36 #37 #38 #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
59
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 17
36. What were the issues with packaging that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTPKG 20:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF (#20 @ 12) GO TO #37 IF (#20 @ 13) GO TO #38 IF (#20 @ 14) GO TO #39 SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
37. What were the issues with in-field maintenance that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTIFM 21:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF (#20 @ 13) GO TO #38 IF (#20 @ 14) GO TO #39 SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
38. What were the issues with quality of product handbook/ documentation that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTBK 22:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF (#20 @ 14) GO TO #39 SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
60
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 18
39. What were the issues with cost that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTCST 23:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
40. How important are the following characteristics to you when USING chlorophyll fluorometers in the field? Please rate each characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important. The first characteristic is range/detection limits. (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPRANGE 23:241 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
41. Accuracy (Accuracy is the combination of bias and precision of an analytical procedure, which reflects the closeness of the measured value to the true value.)? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPACRCY 23:242 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
42. Precision (Precision is the measure of the degree of agreement among replicate measurements of a sample, usually expressed as a standard deviation.)? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPPRCSN 23:243 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
61
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 19
43. Sampling interval/frequency? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPFRQCY 23:244 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
44. Reliability (Reliability is the measure of the ability to maintain integrity of the instrument and data collections over time.) (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPRBLTY 23:245 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
45. Operating life? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPOPLIF 23:246 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
46. Operating pressure/depth range? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPDEPTH 23:247 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
62
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 20
47. Flow sensitivity? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPFLOW 23:248 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
48. Calibration life? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPCLLIF 23:249 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
49. Automatic calibration? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPAUTO 23:250 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
50. Ease of calibration? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPEASE 24:1 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
51. Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPRLTIM 24:2 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
63
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 21
52. Off-sensor telemetry? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPOST 24:3 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
53. Input/output interfaces (e.g., computers, alarms, etc)? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPOPINT 24:4 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
54. Packaging? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPPCKAG 24:5 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
55. In-field maintenance? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPIFM 24:6 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
64
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 22
56. Product support/warranty/vendor reputation? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPREP 24:7 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
57. Quality of product handbook/documentation? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPBOOK 24:8 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
58. Cost? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPCOST 24:9 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
59. How important are the following characteristics to you when deciding which chlorophyll fluorometer(s) to PURCHASE? Please rate each characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important. The first characteristic is range/detection limits. (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURRANGE 24:10 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
65
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 23
60. Accuracy (Accuracy is the combination of bias and precision of an analytical procedure, which reflects the closeness of the measured value to the true value.)? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURACC 24:11 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
61. Precision (Precision is the measure of the degree of agreement among replicate measurements of a sample, usually expressed as a standard deviation.) (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURPRC 24:12 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
62. Sampling interval/frequency? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURFRQ 24:13 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
63. Reliability (Reliability is the measure of the ability to maintain integrity of the instrument and data collections over time.) (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURREL 24:14 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
66
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 24
64. Operating life? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PUROPLIF 24:15 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
65. Operating pressure/depth range? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURDEPTH 24:16 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
66. Flow sensitivity? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURFLOW 24:17 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
67. Calibration life? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURCLLIF 24:18 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
68. Automatic calibration? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURAUTO 24:19 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
67
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 25
69. Ease of calibration? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PUREASE 24:20 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
70. Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURTIME 24:21 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
71. Off-sensor telemetry? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PUROST 24:22 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
72. Input/output interfaces (e.g., computers, alarms, etc)? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURIOINT 24:23 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
68
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 26
73. Packaging? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURPACK 24:24 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
74. In-field maintenance? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURIFM 24:25 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
75. Product support/warranty/vendor reputation? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURREP 24:26 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
76. Quality of product handbook/documentation? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURBOOK 24:27 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
77. Cost? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURCOST 24:28 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
69
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 27
78. Relative to the above sensor system characteristics, are any of your sensor needs or requirements "non-standard" or custom? CUSTOM 24:29 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Select another. Yes (GO TO QUESTION 79) No Don't know (GO TO QUESTION 78)
SKIP TO QUESTION 80 ===========================================================
79. ENTER OTHER "NON-STANDARD" OR CUSTOM CHARACTERISTICS. CUSTOMST 25:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
80. Do you use your in situ chlorophyll fluorometer to determine absolute chlorophyll concentrations or only the relative changes? (READ LIST; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.) ABORREL 25:241 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Invalid answer. Select another. (GO TO QUESTION 80) Absolute concentrations only (GO TO QUESTION 81) Relative changes only Both (GO TO QUESTION 81) Don't know
SKIP TO QUESTION 83 ===========================================================
81. When using your fluorometer for determining absolute concentrations, do you conduct your own absolute calibrations? ABSOLCAL 25:242 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Select another. Yes (GO TO QUESTION 82) No Don't know (GO TO QUESTION 81)
70
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 28
82. What method do you use to calibrate your fluorometer for determining absolute concentrations? METHOD 26:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
83. Do you plan on acquiring new commercial sensors within the next 2 years? BUYNEW 26:241 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Select another. Yes (GO TO QUESTION 84) No Don't know (GO TO QUESTION 83)
SKIP TO QUESTION 87 ===========================================================
84. Will you consider a different sensor type than the one you are currently using to measure in situ chlorophyll? DIFFSENS 26:242 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Select another. Yes (GO TO QUESTION 85) No (GO TO QUESTION 86) Don't know (GO TO QUESTION 84)
SKIP TO QUESTION 87 ===========================================================
85. Why will you consider using a different sensor type than the one you are currently using to measure in situ chlorophyll? WHYDIF 27:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ SKIP TO QUESTION 87 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
71
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 29
86. Why will you not consider using a different sensor type than the one you are currently using to measure in situ chlorophyll? NODIF 28:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
87. Based on your experience with in situ chlorophyll fluorometers, are there any shortfalls in current designs or additions you'd like to see in future designs? SHRTFALL 29:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
88. That's the end of the questionnaire, thank you very much for your time and cooperation! (ENTER ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS; IN FIRST PERSON; 240 CHARACTERS) END 30:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ SKIP TO QUESTION 90 ===========================================================
89. YOU HAVE INDICATED A TERMINATED INTERVIEW, IS THIS CORRECT? TM 30:241 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Select another. (GO TO QUESTION 89) Yes, save as a terminated interview (GO TO QUESTION 90) No, take me back to the survey No, I'd like to exit the survey (GO TO QUESTION 96)
SKIP TO QUESTION 5 ===========================================================
72
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 30
90. OBSERVE AND RECORD RESPONDENT'S GENDER GENDER 30:242 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Uncertain Male Female Select another. (GO TO QUESTION 90)
91. ENTER RM CASE NUMBER. CASENO 30:243-247 |__|__|__|__|__|
92. TIME INTERVIEW WAS COMPLETED ENDTIME 31:1-5 |__|__|__|__|__|
93. Please enter your initials in LOWERCASE ONLY! INTVRINT 31:6-8 |__|__|__|
94. Enter the area code and telephone number of number dialed. TELEPHON 31:9-18 |__|__|__|-|__|__|__|-|__|__|__|__| LOWEST VALUE = 1
95. DETERMINES RESULT CODE FOR CALL RESULT 31:19-20 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| 1. |__| 2. |__| 3. |__| 4. |__| 5. |__| 6. |__| 7. |__| 8. |__| 9. |__| 10. Completed survey Call back Answering machine/No answer/Busy signal Refusal Not eligible Disconnected/Nonworking number Business/Government office Deaf/Language Barrier Bad number (missing digit, begins with zero, etc.) Terminated interview
COMPUTE IF (#89 = 2) 10 COMPUTE #3
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
73
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 31
96. SAVE ALL INTERVIEWS, UNLESS THIS IS A PRACTICE INTERVIEW! FINISH 31:21 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| 1. Save answers (GO TO QUESTION 98) 2. Erase answers 3. Review answers (GO TO QUESTION 5)
97. ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO ERASE THIS INTERVIEW? ONLY ERASE IF THIS IS A PRACTICE INTERVIEW!!! MAKESURE 31:22 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| 1. No, do not erase the answers (GO TO QUESTION 96) 2. Yes, erase this interview, it is only practice
98. Date call was made INTVDAT 31:23-30 |__|__|__|__|-|__|__|-|__|__| Year Month Day
SAVE IF (#96 = 1)
74
Responsive Management
APPENDIX A: Informative Letter Sent via Email to Prospective Survey Participants
Dear (Prospective Survey Participant), This letter is to inform you of and ask for your participation in an upcoming study being conducted by Responsive Management on behalf of the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT); a NOAA-funded partnership of research institutions, state and regional resource managers, and private sector companies interested in developing, improving, and applying sensor technologies for studying and monitoring coastal environments (www.act-us.info). Responsive Management is partnering with ACT to assess how various parties commonly use in situ fluorometers and what their requirements are for instrument performance. Your participation in this survey will assure that your opinions are represented when ACT develops protocols for their third-party performance evaluation of in situ fluorometers for measures of chlorophyll. The results of this assessment will also be sent to you and made available to the public in a summary report. Responsive Management would like to set up an appointment to conduct a brief 10-minute survey with you regarding your attitudes toward in situ chlorophyll fluorometry. Please respond to this email as soon as you can to let us know when you can participate in the survey during the week of Wednesday, August 18 – Tuesday, August 31, 2004. Please also include a specific time (your local time) to contact you, as well as the best telephone number at which to reach you for the appointment. If you know of other professionals knowledgeable about in situ chlorophyll fluorometers, please let us know so we can include their input, as well. I thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and to assist ACT in making technologies available to fulfill your needs. Andrea Criscione Research Associate Responsive Management Responsive Management is a nationally recognized public opinion and attitude survey research firm specializing in natural resource and outdoor recreation issues. Our mission is to help natural resource and outdoor recreation agencies and organizations better understand and work with their constituents and the public. Please visit our Web site at www.responsivemanagement.com.
doc_276016955.pdf
Needs analysis is the formal process defined by K Tara Smith[1] that sits alongside Requirements analysis and focuses on the human elements of the requirements.
COASTAL COMMUNITY PROFESSIONALS’ USE OF, SATISFACTION WITH, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
Conducted for the Alliance for Coastal Technologies by Responsive Management
2004
COASTAL COMMUNITY PROFESSIONALS’ USE OF, SATISFACTION WITH, AND REQUIREMENTS FOR IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
2004
Responsive Management National Office
Mark Damian Duda, Executive Director Peter E. De Michele, Ph.D., Director of Research Martin Jones, Research Associate Chad Craun, Research Associate Angelique Allen, Research Associate Andrea Criscione, Research Associate Alison Lanier, Business Manager Bill Testerman, Survey Center Manager Steven J. Bissell, Ph.D., Qualitative Research Associate Ping Wang, Ph.D., Quantitative Research Associate James B. Herrick, Ph.D., Research Associate
130 Franklin Street Harrisonburg, VA 22801 Phone: 540/432-1888 Fax: 540/432-1892 E-mail: [email protected] www.responsivemanagement.com
Acknowledgements
Responsive Management would like to thank Mario Tamburri of the Alliance for Coastal Technologies, Richard Burt of the Chelsea Technologies Group, Jan A. Newton, Ph.D., of the University of Washington’s Environmental Assessment Program School of Oceanography, and Scott McLean of Satlantic for their input, support, and guidance on this project.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY This study was conducted for the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) to assess how various parties commonly use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers, their satisfaction with the capabilities of existing models, and their requirements for instrument performance. The study entailed a survey of 50 coastal community professionals knowledgeable about in situ chlorophyll fluorometers.
For the survey, telephone interviews were conducted. The telephone survey questionnaire was developed cooperatively by Responsive Management, the ACT, and knowledgeable professionals. Interviews were conducted Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., all local time. The survey was conducted in August and September of 2004. Responsive Management obtained a total of 50 completed interviews.
The software used for data collection was Questionnaire Programming Language 4.1. The analysis of data was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software as well as proprietary software developed by Responsive Management.
PRIMARY SENSOR DEPLOYMENT AREA OF INTEREST Research best represents a majority (90%) of respondents’ primary sensor deployment area of interest or application concern, distantly followed by resource management (10%).
PRIMARY INVESTIGATION ENVIRONMENTS Coastal/near shore best represent a majority (62%) of respondents’ primary investigation/monitoring environment, followed by intermediate depths of 10 to 100 meters (46%), blue water/marine (42%), depths of more than 100 meters (40%), and estuaries (40%).
ii USE OF IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
Responsive Management
A majority (86%) of respondents currently use in situ chlorophyll fluorometer sensors; 14% do not.
Respondents’ most common applications are using the sensor as part of a suite of instruments used for profiling (74%), deploying the sensor on remote platforms for continuous in situ monitoring (67%), and using a flow-through system on a vessel for periodic surveys (56%).
ABSOLUTE CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATIONS A majority (64%) of respondents use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers to determine both absolute concentrations and relative changes. • • 28% use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers to determine relative changes only. 8% use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers to determine absolute concentrations only.
LIMITATIONS OF IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS Regarding the in situ chlorophyll fluorometers they currently use, respondents have most commonly found limitations with accuracy (23%). • Other common limitations, or areas for which in situ chlorophyll fluorometers failed to meet respondents’ expectations, include calibration life (21%), reliability (21%), quality of documentation/product handbook (19%), range/detection limits (16%), and precision (14%).
IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHEN USING IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS A majority (82%) of respondents rated reliability as the most important characteristic when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers in the field.
Respondents most commonly (27%) rated automatic calibration as the least important characteristic when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers in the field.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHEN PURCHASING IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS A majority (80%) of respondents rated reliability as the most important characteristic when purchasing in situ chlorophyll fluorometers.
iii
Respondents most commonly (28%) rated automatic calibration as the least important characteristic when purchasing in situ chlorophyll fluorometers.
COMPARISON OF IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHEN USING AND WHEN PURCHASING IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS A majority of respondents rated reliability as an important characteristic when using (82%) and when purchasing (80%) in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. When asked to rate reliability on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the mean of respondents’ ratings of reliability was 4.8 when using fluorometers and 4.7 when purchasing fluorometers. CUSTOM CHARACTERISTICS A majority (80%) of respondents’ sensor requirements are standard; 16% of respondents’ sensor requirements are custom, or “non-standard”, characteristics.
ANTICIPATED PURCHASES OF IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS A plurality (44%) of respondents plan to acquire new commercial sensors within the next 2 years; 26% do not plan to acquire new commercial sensors.
A majority (82%) of respondents will consider using a different sensor type other than the one they are currently using to measure in situ chlorophyll; 18% will not consider using a different sensor type.
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE CURRENT DESIGNS When asked for their recommendations to improve current designs, respondents most commonly reported the need to address poor accuracy and biofouling issues.
iv
Responsive Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Methodology........................................................................................................ 1 Survey Results................................................................................................................................. 3 Primary Sensor Deployment Area of Interest ..................................................................... 3 Primary Investigation Environments................................................................................... 4 Use of In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometers............................................................................ 5 Absolute Chlorophyll Concentrations................................................................................. 9 Limitations of In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometers.............................................................. 12 Range..................................................................................................................... 15 Accuracy................................................................................................................ 15 Precision ................................................................................................................ 15 Frequency.............................................................................................................. 16 Reliability.............................................................................................................. 16 Operating Life ....................................................................................................... 16 Operating Pressure ................................................................................................ 17 Flow Sensitivity..................................................................................................... 17 Calibration Life ..................................................................................................... 17 Automatic Calibration ........................................................................................... 18 Ease of Calibration ................................................................................................ 18 Real-Time Sensor Data ......................................................................................... 18 Off-Sensor Telemetry............................................................................................ 19 Input/Output Interfaces ......................................................................................... 19 Packaging .............................................................................................................. 19 In-Field Maintenance ............................................................................................ 19 Quality of Documentation..................................................................................... 20 Cost........................................................................................................................ 20 Importance of Characteristics When Using In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometers ................ 21 Importance of Characteristics When Purchasing In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometers........ 26 Comparison of Importance of Characteristics When Using And When Purchasing In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometers ..................................................................................... 31 Custom Characteristics...................................................................................................... 37
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
v
Anticipated Purchases of In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometers ............................................ 38 Recommendations to Improve Current Designs ............................................................... 41 Additional Comments ....................................................................................................... 42 Survey Instrument ......................................................................................................................... 43 Appendix A: Informative Letter Sent via Email to Prospective Survey Participants .................. 74
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
This study was conducted for the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT) to assess how various parties commonly use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers, their satisfaction with the capabilities of existing models, and their requirements for instrument performance. Study results will enable the ACT to accurately assess user needs and to assist with the development of improved sensor technology for monitoring and studying coastal environments. The study entailed a survey of 50 professionals knowledgeable about in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. Specific aspects of the research methodology are discussed below.
A targeted sample of known or likely users of in situ chlorophyll fluorometers was used for this survey. The ACT provided Responsive Management with a named list of coastal community professionals who would be willing to participate in the study. To locate the names of additional coastal community professionals for the survey sample, Responsive Management researched relevant Web sites: university oceanography/marine biology departments, coastal conservation organizations, and research programs that use fluorometry measurements. A pre-notification was sent to prospective survey participants via email, which was first approved by the ACT, explaining the study and asking for their participation. A copy of the emailed letter is attached to this report as Appendix A.
For the survey, telephone interviews were conducted. A central polling site at the Responsive Management office allowed for rigorous quality control over the interviews and data collection. Responsive Management maintains its own in-house telephone interviewing facilities. These facilities are staffed by interviewers with experience conducting computer-assisted telephone interviews on the subject of environmental issues and natural resources. The telephone survey questionnaire was developed cooperatively by Responsive Management, the ACT, and knowledgeable professionals.
To ensure that the telephone survey data collected were of the highest quality, Responsive Management has interviewers who have been trained according to the standards established by the Council of American Survey Research Organizations. Methods of instruction included lecture and role-playing. The Survey Center Manager conducted project briefings with the
2
Responsive Management
interviewers prior to the administration of the survey. Interviewers were instructed on type of study, study goals and objectives, handling of survey questions, interview length, termination points and qualifiers for participation, interviewer instructions within the survey instrument, reading of the survey instrument, skip patterns, and probing and clarifying techniques necessary for specific questions on the survey instrument. The telephone survey interviews were monitored without the interviewers’ knowledge to evaluate performance. After the surveys were obtained by the interviewers, the Survey Center Manager and statisticians edited each completed survey to ensure clarity and completeness.
Interviews were conducted Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., all local time. Multiple calls to prospective survey participants from the target sample were made to provide an equal opportunity for all to participate. When a respondent could not be reached on the first call, subsequent calls were placed on different days of the week and at different times of the day. The survey was conducted in August and September of 2004. Responsive Management obtained a total of 50 completed interviews.
The software used for data collection was Questionnaire Programming Language 4.1 (QPL). The survey data were entered into the computer as each interview was being conducted, eliminating manual data entry after the completion of the survey and the concomitant data entry errors that may occur with manual data entry. The survey instrument was programmed so that QPL branched, coded, and substituted phrases in the survey based on previous responses to ensure the integrity and consistency of the data collection. The analysis of data was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software as well as proprietary software developed by Responsive Management.
Note that some results may not sum to exactly 100% because of rounding.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
3
SURVEY RESULTS
PRIMARY SENSOR DEPLOYMENT AREA OF INTEREST
Research best represents a majority (90%) of respondents’ primary sensor deployment area of interest or application concern, distantly followed by resource management (10%).
Q7. Which best represents your primary sensor deployment area of interest or application concern?
Research
90
Resource management
10
Regulatory compliance / Permitting
0
Wastewater treatment
0
Aquaculture
0
Don't know
0
Other
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
4
Responsive Management
PRIMARY INVESTIGATION ENVIRONMENTS
Coastal/near shore best represent a majority (62%) of respondents’ primary investigation/monitoring environment, followed by intermediate depths of 10 to 100 meters (46%), blue water/marine (42%), depths of more than 100 meters (40%), and estuaries (40%).
Q10. Which represents your primary investigation/monitoring environments?
Coastal / near shore
62
Intermediate depths (10 - 100 meters)
46
Bluewater / marine Multiple Responses Allowed
42
Deep water (> 100 meters depth)
40
Estuarine
40
Shallow water (< 10 meters depth)
36
Rivers / lakes / freshwater wetlands Industrial (aquaculture operations/water & wastewater treatment) Other
4
36
14
Don't know 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
5
USE OF IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
A majority (86%) of respondents currently use in situ chlorophyll fluorometer sensors; 14% do not.
Respondents’ most common applications are using the sensor as part of a suite of instruments used for profiling (74%), deploying the sensor on remote platforms for continuous in situ monitoring (67%), and using a flow-through system on a vessel for periodic surveys (56%).
A majority (98%) of respondents’ current sensors are primarily commercial products; 2% of respondents’ current sensors are a combination of commercial products and designs they developed.
6
Responsive Management
Q12. Do you currently use in situ chlorophyll fluorometer sensors?
Yes
86
No
14
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
7
Q14. What are your most common applications?
Sensor as part of a suite of instruments used for profiling
74
Deployed sensor on remote platforms for continuous in-situ monitoring
67
Multiple Responses Allowed
Flow-through system on a vessel for periodic surveys, transects, etc.
56
Hand held / portable sensors for spot measurements
26
Flow-through system on a vessel in long-term use (e.g., ferry)
14
In-line monitoring for water treatment systems
2
Don't know
0
Other 0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=43)
8
Responsive Management
Q16. Are your current sensors...?
Primarily commercial products
98
Primarily designs you developed yourself
0
A combination of both
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=43)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
9
ABSOLUTE CHLOROPHYLL CONCENTRATIONS
A majority (64%) of respondents use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers to determine both absolute concentrations and relative changes. • • 28% use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers to determine relative changes only. 8% use in situ chlorophyll fluorometers to determine absolute concentrations only.
A majority (94%) of respondents conduct their own absolute calibrations when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers for determining absolute concentrations; 3% do not conduct their own absolute calibrations. • To calibrate the fluorometer for determining absolute concentrations, respondents reported using known standard solutions, extractions of chlorophyll, and available reference material.
10
Responsive Management
Q80. Do you use your in situ chlorophyll fluorometer to determine absolute chlorophyll concentrations or only the relative changes?
Absolute concentrations only
8
Relative changes only
28
Both
64
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
11
Q81. When determining absolute concentrations, do you conduct your own absolute calibrations?
Yes
94
No
3
Don't know
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=36)
12
Responsive Management
LIMITATIONS OF IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
Regarding the in situ chlorophyll fluorometers they currently use, respondents have most commonly found limitations with accuracy (23%). • Other common limitations, or areas for which in situ chlorophyll fluorometers failed to meet respondents’ expectations, include calibration life (21%), reliability (21%), quality of documentation/product handbook (19%), range/detection limits (16%), and precision (14%).
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
13
Q18, Q20. In which areas do the in situ chlorophyll fluorometers that you are currently using not meet your needs? Part 1.
Accuracy
23
Calibration life
21
Reliability Multiple Responses Allowed Quality of product handbook / documentation Range / detection limits
21
19
16
Precision
14
Flow sensitivity
12
Ease of calibration
12
Input / output interfaces
12
In-field maintenance 0
9
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=43)
14
Responsive Management
Q18, Q20. In which areas do the in situ chlorophyll fluorometers that you are currently using not meet your needs? Part 2.
Cost
9
Operating life
7
Off-sensor telemetry Multiple Responses Allowed
7
Sampling interval / frequency
7
Operating pressure / depth range
5
Automatic calibration Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis Packaging
5
5
5
Other
0
None of these 0 20
37
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=43)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results RANGE Of those who indicated limitations with range/detection, respondents most commonly reported poor sensitivity when monitoring blue water.
15
Comments regarding range are recorded below. They (in situ chlorophyll fluorometers) cannot handle going from coastal lakes to blue water. Low sensitivity is a problem. Blue water is not very good; they (in situ chlorophyll fluorometers) do not go low enough. Sensitivity is a problem. The values are low in some of the areas we work in. Some parts of the year our data matches up; sometimes it does not. Unreliable data is a problem.
ACCURACY Of those who indicated limitations with accuracy, respondents most commonly reported problems with biofouling issues.
Comments regarding accuracy are recorded below. We do not know what the real values are because of unreliable data. No accuracy is a problem. Biofouling issues are a problem. Biofouling is a problem. They (manufacturers) should be able to make a more accurate. Accuracy is inherent in measurement.
PRECISION Of those who indicated limitations with precision, one respondent reported problems with scattering interferences.
Comments regarding precision are recorded below. Precision is inherent in measurement. They (in situ chlorophyll fluorometers) are sometimes noisy. I have trouble with scattering interferences.
16 FREQUENCY
Responsive Management
Of those who indicated limitations with frequency/sampling interval, respondents most commonly reported problems with a slow response time.
Comments regarding frequency are recorded below. I would like them (in situ chlorophyll fluorometers) to go faster.
RELIABILITY Of those who indicated limitations with reliability, respondents most commonly reported problems with shutters failing, biofouling issues, and unstable instruments.
Comments regarding reliability are recorded below. The copper shutter has failed quite often. Biofouling issues are a problem. (The in situ chlorophyll fluorometer) is less sensitive to dirty windows. (The in situ chlorophyll fluorometer) has occasional unexplained spikes in the data that could be genuine or just occasional failures. Our in situ chlorophyll fluorometers have shutters that need to be replaced every time. Anything motorized is usually the fail point. In situ chlorophyll fluorometers are not stable enough and drift with time. We have two of the same model. One model is marvelous, but the other model is horrible. I know it has something to do with the electronics of the sensor. We had a few fail, some flood, and others that just did not work.
OPERATING LIFE Of those who indicated limitations with operating life, one respondent reported problems with bulbs wearing out too quickly and the degradation of the instrument’s signal over time.
Comments regarding operating life are recorded below. Battery drain, power consumption, and degradation of the signal over time. Bulbs wear out; longer lasting bulbs would be good. We have had a lot of problems with instruments that stop working.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results OPERATING PRESSURE Of those who indicated limitations with operating pressure/depth range, respondents most commonly reported problems with depths greater than 500 meters.
17
Comments regarding operating pressure are recorded below. Most (in situ chlorophyll fluorometers) will only go to 500 meters. Plastic deforms at depths greater than 500 meters.
FLOW SENSITIVITY Of those who indicated limitations with flow sensitivity, one respondent reported problems with bubbles causing interference.
Comments regarding flow sensitivity are recorded below. Bubbles are an interference. We have noticed problems in lab calibrations.
CALIBRATION LIFE Of those who indicated limitations with calibration life, respondents most commonly reported problems with biofouling issues.
Comments regarding calibration life are recorded below. Biofouling is probably the problem, not the sensor itself. Calibration only lasts as long as the biofouling. Biofouling issues are a problem, as well as difficulty in finding a solid calibration standard. Biofouling is always a problem with fluorometers. Instruments that drift and biofouling are problematic. I must recalibrate too often. Temperature sensitivity is a problem. I would like the instrument to last longer.
18 AUTOMATIC CALIBRATION
Responsive Management
Of those who indicated limitations with automatic calibration, one respondent reported difficulty calibrating the instrument to standards.
Comments regarding automatic calibration are recorded below. I have difficulty getting the instrument to calibrate to standards. Automatic calibration would be nice to have.
EASE OF CALIBRATION Of those who indicated limitations with the ease of calibrations, respondents most commonly reported that calibration was difficult.
Comments regarding ease of calibration are recorded below. There is not a good standardized method to calibrate. Calibration is hard to do. I have to get someone else to do the calibration.
REAL-TIME SENSOR DATA Of those who indicated limitations with real-time sensor data, one respondent reported problems with awkward user interfaces.
Comments regarding real-time sensor data are recorded below. Clumsy user interfaces is a problem. Hard to tell if it is working properly without connecting it to a computer.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results OFF-SENSOR TELEMETRY Few respondents reported problems with off-sensor telemetry.
19
Comments regarding off-sensor telemetry are recorded below. I am interested in using off-sensor telemetry. Manufacturers have different ways to send formats.
INPUT/OUTPUT INTERFACES Few respondents reported problems with input/output interfaces.
Comments regarding input/output interfaces are recorded below. It is nice to have a USB port on them as well. Everybody should go to USB.
PACKAGING Of those who indicated limitations with packaging, one respondent reported that current designs are too big.
Comments regarding packaging are recorded below. Some designs are better than others. They are too big.
IN-FIELD MAINTENANCE Of those who indicated limitations with in-field maintenance, respondents most commonly reported being unable to monitor biofouling as a problem.
Comments regarding in-field maintenance are recorded below. I need some way to monitor biofouling. We do not know the sensor fouled until we get it back or after biofouling has occurred. We do not perform maintenance in the field; we have to bring it all back.
20 QUALITY OF DOCUMENTATION
Responsive Management
Of those who indicated limitations with the quality of documentation/product handbook, respondents most commonly reported the need for clarity and details. One respondent reported the need for an explanation of field repairs in the product handbook, and another respondent suggested including a section on limitations and expectations.
Comments regarding quality of documentation are recorded below. Documentation can always be more layman-related. Documentation has been really good, but more thought and work should be devoted to the manuals regarding field repairs. I need more detail on circuit design and calibration procedures. I need more documentation and labels for parts. Most handbooks are too complex. Handbooks are usually out-of-date and missing details. A section on limitations and expectations should be in the book.
COST Of those who indicated limitations with cost, respondents most commonly reported that the instruments were too expensive.
Comments regarding cost are recorded below. (In situ chlorophyll fluorometers) are just too pricey. They (in situ chlorophyll fluorometers) are all too high. (In situ chlorophyll fluorometers) are very expensive. You get what you pay for, but it is difficult on a state budget.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
21
IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHEN USING IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
Respondents were asked to rate characteristics on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all important and 5 being very important. A majority (82%) of respondents rated reliability as the most important characteristic when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers in the field. • Other characteristics rated as most important when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers include range/detection limits (58%), precision (40%), product support/warranty/vendor reputation (40%), accuracy (34%), calibration life (27%), and ease of calibration (27%).
Respondents most commonly (27%) rated automatic calibration as the least important characteristic when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers in the field. • Other characteristics rated as least important when using in situ chlorophyll fluorometers include flow sensitivity (24%), off-sensor telemetry (16%), and operating pressure/depth range (16%).
22
Responsive Management
Q40-Q58. Percent who rated the following as a 5 in importance when using chlorophyll fluorometers in the field. Part 1. .
Q44. Reliability 82
Q40. Range/detection limits
58
Q42. Precision Q56. Product support/warranty/vendor reputation Q41. Accuracy
40
40
34
Q48. Calibration life (n=49) Q50. Ease of calibration (n=49)
27
27
Q45. Operating life
26
Q43. Sampling interval/frequency Q55. In-field maintenance 0
22
18
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
23
Q40-Q58. Percent who rated the following as a 5 in importance when using chlorophyll fluorometers in the field. Part 2. .
Q58. Cost 18
Q49. Automatic calibration (n=48) Q53. Input/output interfaces Q57. Quality of product handbook/documentation
17
16
14
Q54. Packaging
10
Q46. Operating pressure/depth range Q51. Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis Q52. Off-sensor telemetry (n=49)
8
8
6
Q47. Flow sensitivity
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
24
Responsive Management
Q40-Q58. Percent who rated the following as a 1 in importance when using chlorophyll fluorometers in the field. Part 1. .
Q49. Automatic calibration (n=48) Q47. Flow sensitivity Q52. Offsensor telemetry Q46. Operating pressure/depth range Q51. Real-time sensor data display and/or Q54. Packaging Q50. Ease of calibration (n=49) Q48. Calibration life (n=49) Q53. Input/output interfaces Q55. In-field maintenance 0 8 27
24
16
16
8
6
4
4
4
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
25
Q40-Q58. Percent who rated the following as a 1 in importance when using chlorophyll fluorometers in the field. Part 2. .
Q40. Range/detection limits Q43. Sampling interval/frequency Q56. Product support/warranty/vendor reputation Q57. Quality of product handbook/documentation 2
2
2
2
Q58. Cost
2
Q41. Accuracy
0
Q42. Precision
0
Q44. Reliability
0
Q45. Operating life
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
26
Responsive Management
IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHEN PURCHASING IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
Respondents were asked to rate characteristics on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being not at all important and 5 being very important. A majority (80%) of respondents rated reliability as the most important characteristic when purchasing in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. • Other characteristics rated as most important when purchasing in situ chlorophyll fluorometers include range/detection limits (62%), precision (40%), accuracy (36%), product support/warranty/vendor reputation (34%), sampling interval/frequency (26%), and operating life (26%).
Respondents most commonly (28%) rated automatic calibration as the least important characteristic when purchasing in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. • Other characteristics rated as least important when purchasing in situ chlorophyll fluorometers include flow sensitivity (24%), off-sensor telemetry (20%), and operating pressure/depth range (16%).
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
27
Q59-Q77. Percent who rated the following as a 5 in importance when deciding which chlorophyll fluorometer(s) to purchase. Part 1. .
Q63. Reliability 80
Q59. Range/detection limits
62
Q61. Precision
40
Q60. Accuracy Q75. Product support/warranty/vendor reputation Q62. Sampling interval/frequency 26
36
34
Q64. Operating life
26
Q77. Cost
24
Q67. Calibration life
20
Q69. Ease of calibration
20
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
28
Responsive Management
Q59-Q77. Percent who rated the following as a 5 in importance when deciding which chlorophyll fluorometer(s) to purchase. Part 2. .
Q74. In-field maintenance 16
Q71. Off-sensor telemetry (n=49) Q68. Automatic calibration Q72. Input/output interfaces Q76. Quality of product handbook/documentation
12
12
12
12
Q66. Flow sensitivity Q70. Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis Q65. Operating pressure/depth range
10
10
8
Q73. Packaging
6
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
29
Q59-Q77. Percent who rated the following as a 1 in importance when deciding which chlorophyll fluorometer(s) to purchase. Part 1. .
Q68. Automatic calibration Q66. Flow sensitivity Q71. Offsensor telemetry Q65. Operating pressure/depth range Q70. Real-time sensor data display and/or Q69. Ease of calibration Q73. Packaging Q67. Calibration life Q72. Input/output interfaces Q74. In-field maintenance 0 28
24
20
16
14
12
8
6
6
6
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
30
Responsive Management
Q59-Q77. Percent who rated the following as a 1 in importance when deciding which chlorophyll fluorometer(s) to purchase. Part 2. .
Q59. Range/detection limits Q62. Sampling interval/frequency Q75. Product support/warranty/vendor reputation Q76. Quality of product handbook/documentation 4
4
4
4
Q77. Cost
4
Q60. Accuracy
2
Q61. Precision
2
Q63. Reliability
2
Q64. Operating life
2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50 unless otherwise stated)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
31
COMPARISON OF IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTERISTICS WHEN USING AND WHEN PURCHASING IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
A majority of respondents rated reliability as an important characteristic when using (82%) and when purchasing (80%) in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. When asked to rate reliability on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the mean of respondents’ ratings of reliability was 4.8 when using fluorometers and 4.7 when purchasing fluorometers.
A majority of respondents rated range/detection limits as an important characteristic when using (58%) and when purchasing (62%) in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. When asked to rate range/detection limits on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the mean of respondents’ ratings of range/detection limits was 4.4 when using fluorometers and 4.4 when purchasing fluorometers.
Respondents commonly rated precision as an important characteristic when using (40%) and when purchasing (40%) in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. When asked to rate precision on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the mean of respondents’ ratings of precision was 4.1 when using fluorometers and 4.1 when purchasing fluorometers.
Respondents rated product support/warranty/vendor reputation as an important characteristic when using (40%) and when purchasing (34%) in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. When asked to rate product support/warranty/vendor reputation on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the mean of respondents’ ratings of product support/warranty/vendor reputation was 4.1 when using fluorometers and 4.0 when purchasing fluorometers.
Respondents commonly rated accuracy as an important characteristic when using (34%) and when purchasing (36%) in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. When asked to rate accuracy on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very important, the mean of respondents’ ratings of accuracy was 4.0 when using fluorometers and 4.0 when purchasing fluorometers.
32
Responsive Management
Q44, Q63. Importance of the reliability of chlorophyll fluorometers.
82 5 80 When using in the field When deciding which to purchase
14 4 16
Means Using: 4.8 Purchasing: 4.7 4 3 2
0 2 0
0 1 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
33
Q40, Q59. Importance of the range/detection limits of chlorophyll fluorometers.
58 5 62 When using in the field When deciding which to purchase
32 4 26
Means Using: 4.4 Purchasing: 4.4
8 3 8
0 2 0
2 1 4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
34
Responsive Management
Q42, Q61. Importance of the precision of chlorophyll fluorometers.
40 5 40 When using in the field When deciding which to purchase
36 4 36
Means Using: 4.1 Purchasing: 4.1 22 3 18
2 2 4
0 1 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
35
Q56, Q75. Importance of product support/warranty/vendor reputation of chlorophyll fluorometers.
40 5 34 When using in the field When deciding which to purchase 44 Means Using: 4.1 Purchasing: 4.0 20 3 18
38 4
0 2 0
2 1 4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
36
Responsive Management
Q41, Q60. Importance of the accuracy of chlorophyll fluorometers.
34 5 36 When using in the field When deciding which to purchase
40 4 36
Means Using: 4.0 Purchasing: 4.0 22 3 20
4 2 6
0 1 2
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
37
CUSTOM CHARACTERISTICS
A majority (80%) of respondents’ sensor requirements are standard; 16% of respondents’ sensor requirements are custom, or “non-standard”, characteristics. • Of those whose sensor requirements are custom characteristics, one respondent reported changing the capabilities for integration; another respondent reported the need to characterize for the properties of chlorophyll.
Q78. Relative to the sensor system characteristics, are any of your sensor needs/requirements “nonstandard” or custom?
Yes
16
No
80
Don't know
4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
38
Responsive Management
ANTICIPATED PURCHASES OF IN SITU CHLOROPHYLL FLUOROMETERS
A plurality (44%) of respondents plan to acquire new commercial sensors within the next 2 years; 26% do not plan to acquire new commercial sensors.
A majority (82%) of respondents will consider using a different sensor type other than the one they are currently using to measure in situ chlorophyll; 18% will not consider using a different sensor type. • When asked why they would consider using a different sensor type, respondents cited smaller packaging, biofouling issues, and simply getting the best instrument for their money. • When asked why they would not consider using a different sensor type, respondents cited custom packaging, reliability, and satisfaction with current vendor.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
39
Q83. Do you plan on acquiring new commercial sensors within the next 2 years?
Yes
44
No
26
Don't know
30
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=50)
40
Responsive Management
Q84. Will you consider a different sensor type than the one you are currently using to measure in situ chlorophyll?
Yes
82
No
18
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent (n=22)
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
41
RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPROVE CURRENT DESIGNS
When asked for their recommendations to improve current designs, respondents most commonly reported the need to address poor accuracy and biofouling issues.
Additional recommendations to improve current designs are recorded below. Accuracy seems to be the problem. All in situ chlorophyll fluorometers fail in full sunlight; not a fault of sensor but of phytoplankton. Need better attention to biofouling and steadiness of the in situ chlorophyll fluorometers. Address depth limitations. Need to improve ease of changing filters for use with other detection methods. Need effective anti-biofouling methods. Need an automated way to deal with biofouling of optical surfaces. I believe straight voltage is better. I would like to see them being made smaller in size and with lower power consumption. We need improved accuracy. (In situ chlorophyll fluorometers) need improved accuracy. Address deployment biofouling issues. Address the issue of calibration in the field and biofouling. Need longer-lasting, reliable, anti-biofouling sensors with automated calibration. Need to improve software and have some kind of reference standard for calibrations.
42
Responsive Management
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
Additional comments (general) are recorded below. I am interested in helping with this. I have been doing this for 25 years and would be happy to help out, if possible. I would love to talk to someone about this outside of a boxed-in survey format. I think there should be more education on what sensors can and cannot do. People try to do things with the sensor that it is not capable of doing; people blame the company when it is not the company’s fault. I am surprised “biological fouling” was not an option on the characteristic parameters list. I would like to see the ACT report when it is completed; please send me a copy.
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
43
SURVEY INSTRUMENT
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
1. PRESS RETURN WHEN INTERVIEW BEGINS START TIMER STARTS AFTER THIS SCREEN
2. DOS SURVEY NAME SNAME 1:1 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| 1. ACTFL
3. Hello, my name is __________, may I please speak with __________? I am calling on behalf of the Alliance for Coastal Technologies to ask you some questions about in situ chlorophyll fluorometers usage and capabilities. We are not selling anything and would just like a few minutes of your time. Will you help us by completing the interview? CONPER 1:2 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Correct person, good time to do survey Bad time/Schedule recall Answering machine/No answer/Busy signal Refusal Not eligible Disconnected Business/Government Office Deaf/Language barrier Bad Number (missing digit, begins with zero, etc.)
4. Time when interview began TIME1 1:3-7 |__|__|__|__|__|
44
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 2
5. DETERMINATION OF SURVEY SKIP PATH PATH 1:8 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| 1. SKIP PATH
IF (#3 = 1) GO TO #7 IF (#3 = 2) GO TO #6 SKIP TO QUESTION 95 ===========================================================
6. When would be a more convenient time to call you back? Thank you for your time. WHENCALL ENTER DAY AND TIME ON CALLSHEET (CB) SKIP TO QUESTION 95 ===========================================================
7. Which of the following best represents your primary sensor deployment area of interest or application concern? (READ LIST; CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) SNSRAREA 1:9 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Invalid answer. Select another. (GO TO QUESTION 7) Research Resource management Regulatory compliance / Permitting Wastewater treatment Aquaculture Don't know Other (GO TO QUESTION 8)
SKIP TO QUESTION 10 ===========================================================
8. ENTER OTHER SENSOR DEPLOYMENT AREAS OF INTEREST OR APPLICATION CONCERN. OTHAREAS 1:10-249 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ SKIP TO QUESTION 10 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
45
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 3
9. YOU DID NOT USE SPACE BAR NOSPAC01 PRESS ENTER TO TRY AGAIN
10. Which of the following represent your primary investigation/ monitoring environments? (READ LIST; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) MONENV 2:1-10 (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) |__| 1. |__| 2. |__| 3. |__| 4. |__| 5. |__| 6. |__| 7. |__| 8. |__| 9. |__| 10. Bluewater / marine Coastal / near shore Shallow water (< 10 meters depth) Intermediate depths (10 - 100 meters) Deep water (> 100 meters depth) Estuarine Rivers / lakes / freshwater wetlands Industrial (aquaculture operations/water & wastewater treatment) Don't know Other
IF (#10 = 0) GO TO #9 IF (#10 @ 10) GO TO #11 SKIP TO QUESTION 12 ===========================================================
11. ENTER OTHER INVESTIGATION/MONITORING ENVIRONMENT. MONENVST 2:11-250 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
12. Do you currently use in situ chlorophyll fluorometer sensors? USEISCFS 3:1 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Select another. Yes (GO TO QUESTION 14) No Don't know (GO TO QUESTION 12)
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
46
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 4
13. YOU DID NOT USE SPACE BAR NOSPAC02 PRESS ENTER TO TRY AGAIN
14. What are your most common applications? (READ LIST; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) COMAPP 3:2-10 (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Hand held / portable sensors for spot measurements Sensor as part of a suite of instruments used for profiling Deployed sensor on remote platforms for continuous in-situ monitoring (GO TO QUESTION 14) Flow-through system on a vessel for periodic surveys, transects, etc. Flow-through system on a vessel in long-term use (e.g., ferry) In-line monitoring for water treatment systems Don't know Other
IF (#14 = 0) GO TO #13 IF (#14 @ 9) GO TO #15 SKIP TO QUESTION 16 ===========================================================
15. ENTER OTHER APPLICATION. COMAPPST 3:11-250 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
16. Are your current sensors..? (READ LIST; CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) SNSTYP 4:1 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Primarily commercial products Primarily designs you developed yourself A combination of both Don't know
SKIP TO QUESTION 18 ===========================================================
17. YOU DID NOT USE SPACE BAR NOSPAC03 PRESS ENTER TO TRY AGAIN
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
47
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 5
18. In which of the following areas does the in situ chlorophyll fluorometers that you are currently using have significant limitations, not lived up to specifications or expectations, or does not meet your needs? (READ LIST; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) LIMIT1 4:2-13 (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. Range / detection limits 2. Accuracy (Accuracy is the combination of bias and precision of 3. an analytical procedure, which reflects the closeness of (GO TO QUESTION 18) 4. the measured value to the true value.) (GO TO QUESTION 18) 5. Precision (Precision is the measure of the degree of agreement 6. among replicate measurements of a sample, usually expressed (GO TO QUESTION 18) 7. as a standard deviation.) (GO TO QUESTION 18) 8. Sampling interval / frequency 9. Reliability (Reliability is the measure of the ability to 10. maintain integrity of the instrument and data collections (GO TO QUESTION 18) 11. over time.) (GO TO QUESTION 18) 12. DNR: None of these
IF (#18 = 0) GO TO #17 SKIP TO QUESTION 20 ===========================================================
19. YOU DID NOT USE SPACE BAR NOSPAC04 PRESS ENTER TO TRY AGAIN
48
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 6
20. Continues from previous list... (READ LIST; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) LIMIT2 4:14-28 (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. = @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Operating life Operating pressure / depth range Flow sensitivity Calibration life Automatic calibration Ease of calibration Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis Off-sensor telemetry Input / output interfaces (e.g., computers, alarms, to other sensors or equipment etc.) (GO TO QUESTION 20) Packaging In-field maintenance Quality of product handbook / documentation Cost Other 0) GO TO #19 15) GO TO #21 1) GO TO #22 2) GO TO #23 5) GO TO #24 8) GO TO #25 9) GO TO #26 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
(#20 (#20 (#18 (#18 (#18 (#18 (#18 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
49
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 7
21. ENTER OTHER AREAS THAT HAVE NOT LIVED UP TO SPECIFICATIONS OR EXPECTATIONS, OR DOES NOT MEET YOUR NEEDS. LIMITST 5:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#18 (#18 (#18 (#18 (#18 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1) GO TO #22 2) GO TO #23 5) GO TO #24 8) GO TO #25 9) GO TO #26 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
50
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 8
22. What were the issues with range / detection limits that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTRNG 6:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#18 (#18 (#18 (#18 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2) GO TO #23 5) GO TO #24 8) GO TO #25 9) GO TO #26 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
51
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 9
23. What were the issues with accuracy that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTACC 7:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#18 (#18 (#18 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5) GO TO #24 8) GO TO #25 9) GO TO #26 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
52
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 10
24. What were the issues with precision that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTPRC 8:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#18 (#18 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8) GO TO #25 9) GO TO #26 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
53
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 11
25. What were the issues with sampling interval/frequency that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTFRQ 9:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#18 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 9) GO TO #26 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
54
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 12
26. What were the issues with Reliability that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTREL 10:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1) GO TO #27 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
27. What were the issues with operating life that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTLIF 11:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2) GO TO #28 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
55
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 13
28. What were the issues with operating pressure/depth range that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTDPT 12:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3) GO TO #29 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
29. What were the issues with flow sensitivity that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTFLO 13:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 4) GO TO #30 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
56
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 14
30. What were the issues with calibration life that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTCAL 14:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 5) GO TO #31 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
31. What were the issues with automatic calibration that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTAUT 15:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6) GO TO #32 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
57
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 15
32. What were the issues with ease of calibration that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTEZ 16:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 7) GO TO #33 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
33. What were the issues with real-time sensor data display and/ or analysis that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTTIM 17:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ @ 8) GO TO #34 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
58
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 16
34. What were the issues with off-sensor telemetry that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTOST 18:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ @ 9) GO TO #35 11) GO TO #36 12) GO TO #37 13) GO TO #38 14) GO TO #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
35. What were the issues with input / output interfaces that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTIO 19:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF IF IF IF (#20 (#20 (#20 (#20 @ @ @ @ 11) 12) 13) 14) GO GO GO GO TO TO TO TO #36 #37 #38 #39
SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
59
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 17
36. What were the issues with packaging that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTPKG 20:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF (#20 @ 12) GO TO #37 IF (#20 @ 13) GO TO #38 IF (#20 @ 14) GO TO #39 SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
37. What were the issues with in-field maintenance that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTIFM 21:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF (#20 @ 13) GO TO #38 IF (#20 @ 14) GO TO #39 SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
38. What were the issues with quality of product handbook/ documentation that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTBK 22:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ IF (#20 @ 14) GO TO #39 SKIP TO QUESTION 40 ===========================================================
60
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 18
39. What were the issues with cost that had significant limitations or did not live up to specifications or expectations? WHTCST 23:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
40. How important are the following characteristics to you when USING chlorophyll fluorometers in the field? Please rate each characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important. The first characteristic is range/detection limits. (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPRANGE 23:241 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
41. Accuracy (Accuracy is the combination of bias and precision of an analytical procedure, which reflects the closeness of the measured value to the true value.)? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPACRCY 23:242 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
42. Precision (Precision is the measure of the degree of agreement among replicate measurements of a sample, usually expressed as a standard deviation.)? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPPRCSN 23:243 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
61
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 19
43. Sampling interval/frequency? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPFRQCY 23:244 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
44. Reliability (Reliability is the measure of the ability to maintain integrity of the instrument and data collections over time.) (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPRBLTY 23:245 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
45. Operating life? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPOPLIF 23:246 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
46. Operating pressure/depth range? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPDEPTH 23:247 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
62
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 20
47. Flow sensitivity? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPFLOW 23:248 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
48. Calibration life? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPCLLIF 23:249 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
49. Automatic calibration? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPAUTO 23:250 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
50. Ease of calibration? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPEASE 24:1 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
51. Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPRLTIM 24:2 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
63
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 21
52. Off-sensor telemetry? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPOST 24:3 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
53. Input/output interfaces (e.g., computers, alarms, etc)? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPOPINT 24:4 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
54. Packaging? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPPCKAG 24:5 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
55. In-field maintenance? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPIFM 24:6 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
64
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 22
56. Product support/warranty/vendor reputation? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPREP 24:7 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
57. Quality of product handbook/documentation? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPBOOK 24:8 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
58. Cost? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) IMPCOST 24:9 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
59. How important are the following characteristics to you when deciding which chlorophyll fluorometer(s) to PURCHASE? Please rate each characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important. The first characteristic is range/detection limits. (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURRANGE 24:10 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
65
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 23
60. Accuracy (Accuracy is the combination of bias and precision of an analytical procedure, which reflects the closeness of the measured value to the true value.)? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURACC 24:11 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
61. Precision (Precision is the measure of the degree of agreement among replicate measurements of a sample, usually expressed as a standard deviation.) (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURPRC 24:12 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
62. Sampling interval/frequency? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURFRQ 24:13 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
63. Reliability (Reliability is the measure of the ability to maintain integrity of the instrument and data collections over time.) (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURREL 24:14 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
66
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 24
64. Operating life? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PUROPLIF 24:15 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
65. Operating pressure/depth range? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURDEPTH 24:16 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
66. Flow sensitivity? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURFLOW 24:17 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
67. Calibration life? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURCLLIF 24:18 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
68. Automatic calibration? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURAUTO 24:19 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
67
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 25
69. Ease of calibration? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PUREASE 24:20 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
70. Real-time sensor data display and/or analysis? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURTIME 24:21 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
71. Off-sensor telemetry? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PUROST 24:22 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
72. Input/output interfaces (e.g., computers, alarms, etc)? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURIOINT 24:23 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
68
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 26
73. Packaging? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURPACK 24:24 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
74. In-field maintenance? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURIFM 24:25 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
75. Product support/warranty/vendor reputation? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURREP 24:26 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
76. Quality of product handbook/documentation? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURBOOK 24:27 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
77. Cost? (How would you rate this characteristic on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not at all important and 5 is very important?) PURCOST 24:28 |__| LOWEST VALUE = 1 HIGHEST VALUE = 5
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
69
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 27
78. Relative to the above sensor system characteristics, are any of your sensor needs or requirements "non-standard" or custom? CUSTOM 24:29 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Select another. Yes (GO TO QUESTION 79) No Don't know (GO TO QUESTION 78)
SKIP TO QUESTION 80 ===========================================================
79. ENTER OTHER "NON-STANDARD" OR CUSTOM CHARACTERISTICS. CUSTOMST 25:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
80. Do you use your in situ chlorophyll fluorometer to determine absolute chlorophyll concentrations or only the relative changes? (READ LIST; CHECK ALL THAT APPLY.) ABORREL 25:241 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Invalid answer. Select another. (GO TO QUESTION 80) Absolute concentrations only (GO TO QUESTION 81) Relative changes only Both (GO TO QUESTION 81) Don't know
SKIP TO QUESTION 83 ===========================================================
81. When using your fluorometer for determining absolute concentrations, do you conduct your own absolute calibrations? ABSOLCAL 25:242 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Select another. Yes (GO TO QUESTION 82) No Don't know (GO TO QUESTION 81)
70
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 28
82. What method do you use to calibrate your fluorometer for determining absolute concentrations? METHOD 26:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
83. Do you plan on acquiring new commercial sensors within the next 2 years? BUYNEW 26:241 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Select another. Yes (GO TO QUESTION 84) No Don't know (GO TO QUESTION 83)
SKIP TO QUESTION 87 ===========================================================
84. Will you consider a different sensor type than the one you are currently using to measure in situ chlorophyll? DIFFSENS 26:242 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Select another. Yes (GO TO QUESTION 85) No (GO TO QUESTION 86) Don't know (GO TO QUESTION 84)
SKIP TO QUESTION 87 ===========================================================
85. Why will you consider using a different sensor type than the one you are currently using to measure in situ chlorophyll? WHYDIF 27:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ SKIP TO QUESTION 87 ===========================================================
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
71
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 29
86. Why will you not consider using a different sensor type than the one you are currently using to measure in situ chlorophyll? NODIF 28:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
87. Based on your experience with in situ chlorophyll fluorometers, are there any shortfalls in current designs or additions you'd like to see in future designs? SHRTFALL 29:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
88. That's the end of the questionnaire, thank you very much for your time and cooperation! (ENTER ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS; IN FIRST PERSON; 240 CHARACTERS) END 30:1-240 ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ SKIP TO QUESTION 90 ===========================================================
89. YOU HAVE INDICATED A TERMINATED INTERVIEW, IS THIS CORRECT? TM 30:241 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Select another. (GO TO QUESTION 89) Yes, save as a terminated interview (GO TO QUESTION 90) No, take me back to the survey No, I'd like to exit the survey (GO TO QUESTION 96)
SKIP TO QUESTION 5 ===========================================================
72
Responsive Management
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 30
90. OBSERVE AND RECORD RESPONDENT'S GENDER GENDER 30:242 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| |__| 1. 2. 3. 4. Invalid answer. Uncertain Male Female Select another. (GO TO QUESTION 90)
91. ENTER RM CASE NUMBER. CASENO 30:243-247 |__|__|__|__|__|
92. TIME INTERVIEW WAS COMPLETED ENDTIME 31:1-5 |__|__|__|__|__|
93. Please enter your initials in LOWERCASE ONLY! INTVRINT 31:6-8 |__|__|__|
94. Enter the area code and telephone number of number dialed. TELEPHON 31:9-18 |__|__|__|-|__|__|__|-|__|__|__|__| LOWEST VALUE = 1
95. DETERMINES RESULT CODE FOR CALL RESULT 31:19-20 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| 1. |__| 2. |__| 3. |__| 4. |__| 5. |__| 6. |__| 7. |__| 8. |__| 9. |__| 10. Completed survey Call back Answering machine/No answer/Busy signal Refusal Not eligible Disconnected/Nonworking number Business/Government office Deaf/Language Barrier Bad number (missing digit, begins with zero, etc.) Terminated interview
COMPUTE IF (#89 = 2) 10 COMPUTE #3
In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey Results
73
2004 ACT In Situ Chlorophyll Fluorometer Survey
Page 31
96. SAVE ALL INTERVIEWS, UNLESS THIS IS A PRACTICE INTERVIEW! FINISH 31:21 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| |__| 1. Save answers (GO TO QUESTION 98) 2. Erase answers 3. Review answers (GO TO QUESTION 5)
97. ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO ERASE THIS INTERVIEW? ONLY ERASE IF THIS IS A PRACTICE INTERVIEW!!! MAKESURE 31:22 (CHECK ONLY ONE ANSWER) |__| |__| 1. No, do not erase the answers (GO TO QUESTION 96) 2. Yes, erase this interview, it is only practice
98. Date call was made INTVDAT 31:23-30 |__|__|__|__|-|__|__|-|__|__| Year Month Day
SAVE IF (#96 = 1)
74
Responsive Management
APPENDIX A: Informative Letter Sent via Email to Prospective Survey Participants
Dear (Prospective Survey Participant), This letter is to inform you of and ask for your participation in an upcoming study being conducted by Responsive Management on behalf of the Alliance for Coastal Technologies (ACT); a NOAA-funded partnership of research institutions, state and regional resource managers, and private sector companies interested in developing, improving, and applying sensor technologies for studying and monitoring coastal environments (www.act-us.info). Responsive Management is partnering with ACT to assess how various parties commonly use in situ fluorometers and what their requirements are for instrument performance. Your participation in this survey will assure that your opinions are represented when ACT develops protocols for their third-party performance evaluation of in situ fluorometers for measures of chlorophyll. The results of this assessment will also be sent to you and made available to the public in a summary report. Responsive Management would like to set up an appointment to conduct a brief 10-minute survey with you regarding your attitudes toward in situ chlorophyll fluorometry. Please respond to this email as soon as you can to let us know when you can participate in the survey during the week of Wednesday, August 18 – Tuesday, August 31, 2004. Please also include a specific time (your local time) to contact you, as well as the best telephone number at which to reach you for the appointment. If you know of other professionals knowledgeable about in situ chlorophyll fluorometers, please let us know so we can include their input, as well. I thank you for taking the time to complete this survey and to assist ACT in making technologies available to fulfill your needs. Andrea Criscione Research Associate Responsive Management Responsive Management is a nationally recognized public opinion and attitude survey research firm specializing in natural resource and outdoor recreation issues. Our mission is to help natural resource and outdoor recreation agencies and organizations better understand and work with their constituents and the public. Please visit our Web site at www.responsivemanagement.com.
doc_276016955.pdf