with the aid of lagoon sea water. Although the analyses for a number of these samples indicated various stages of evaporation, the amount of the various sea water constituents was generally in the correct order. On the other hand, the sea water rinsing of two bottles into the third pro- vided samples in which the recovery of the total fallout was far greater than when the dry material was collected without rinsing, For this reason, the amounts of fallout material as coral or device-products from the lagoon stations (1-250 series) were considered the most valid. Hence the fallout material from Shot 1 consisted of coral and the device-product components. The material from Shot 2 showed the presence of all three components. Three of the samples were combined acid (EC1) washes of funnel end bottle so the Cl analysis was not included. Smell smounts of residue (carbonaceous) were not analyzed. The fallout from Shot 3 also contained significant amounts of all three components in addition to large volumes of rain water, The rain washed down the funnels. Only one sample from Shot 4 was analyzed; the analysis of this sample gave a 15.2 per cent excess concentration (tased on Cl, Na, and Mg analysis) of sea water but no remainder as coral; however, the sample was known to have been exposed too short a time for evaporation of that extent to occur so that the excess was attributed to fallout. The field teams of Project 2.5a inspected the collectors periodically to remove extraneous material from the bottle collectors; however, it was not always possible to make such an inspection immediately prior to shot time at all stations, Therefore, when analyses indicate, the island station samples may be assumed to be high in coral while the raft or buoy (or YAG) station collectors high in sea water constituents. For any shot, the best estimate of the amount of coral would accordingly be obtained from a collector stationed in the lagoon while the best estimate of the amount of sea water in the fallout would be obtained from a sampler stationed on an island. Any departure of sea water constituents from the lagoon water concentration would indicate either evaporation or collection of rain water. Samplers mounted on buoys were further from the water than those mounted on rafts; hence the amount of spray collected by buoy samplers would be less than that collected by raft samplers and should give a better estimate of sea water in the fallout as well as a better estimate for the radioactive material, These considerations, along with those given in the preceding peragraph, are used in the following discussion of the data. The surface density of the three comvonents, coral, sea water, and device products are tabulated in Table 3.20. The density distributions are plotted in Figs. 3.12 through 3.14. The surface densities are calcu- lated for the 7-in. diameter funnel in terms of the original (unchanged) component material. Due to limitations of time and manpower as well as considerations of application of the data, analyses to determine the amounts of pyrolyzed and non-pyrolyzed coral were not attempted. If they had been, estimates of extraneous material (as drift~in) might have been nade. From appearances of the samples, however, the coral component from Shots 1 and 2 was essentially all pyrolyzed coral while that from Shot 3 appeared to contain large amounts of unchanged coral. The surface density of equivalent coral on Shot 1 ranged from about 50 to 3000 mg/sq ft for the lagoon station samples. On Shot 2 (buoy 70