4.7 Article

Aerosol Optical Depth Retrieval over Bright Areas Using Landsat 8 OLI Images

Journal

REMOTE SENSING
Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/rs8010023

Keywords

AOD; bright surfaces; Landsat 8 OLI; AERONET; MOD04

Funding

  1. foundation of the Outstanding Youth Fund of Shandong Province [JQ201211]
  2. Graduate Innovation Fund of Shandong University of Science and Technology [YC150103]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conventional methods for Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) retrieval are limited to areas with low reflectance such as water or vegetated areas because the satellite signals from the aerosols in these areas are more obvious than those in areas with higher reflectance such as urban and sandy areas. Land Surface Reflectance (LSR) is the key parameter that must be estimated accurately. Most current methods used to estimate AOD are applicable only in areas with low reflectance. It has historically been difficult to estimate the LSR for bright surfaces because of their complex structure and high reflectance. This paper provides a method for estimating LSR for AOD retrieval in bright areas, and the method is applied to AOD retrieval for Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) images at 500 m spatial resolution. A LSR database was constructed with the MODerate-resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) surface reflectance product (MOD09A1), and this database was also used to estimate the LSR of Landsat 8 OLI images. The AOD retrieved from the Landsat 8 OLI images was validated using the AOD measurements from four AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET) stations located in areas with bright surfaces. The MODIS AOD product (MOD04) was also compared with the retrieved AOD. The results demonstrate that the AOD retrieved with the new algorithm is highly consistent with the AOD derived from ground measurements, and its precision is better than that of MOD04 AOD products over bright areas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available