4.5 Article

Comparison of Aerosol Products Retrieved from AERONET, MICROTOPS and MODIS over a Tropical Urban City, Pune, India

Journal

AEROSOL AND AIR QUALITY RESEARCH
Volume 13, Issue 1, Pages 107-121

Publisher

TAIWAN ASSOC AEROSOL RES-TAAR
DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2012.04.0102

Keywords

Inter-comparison; AOD; MODIS; AERONET; MICROTOPS

Funding

  1. UGC
  2. ISRO-UoP
  3. DST

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) measurements from Aerosol Robotic NETwork (AERONET; level 2.0), Microtops - II sun-photometer and MODerate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) (Terra and Aqua; level 2, collection 5, dark target) were compared and used to characterize aerosols over Pune, India. AODs from Microtops and MODIS were compared with those measured by AERONET to evaluate the measurement quality. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic comparison of MODIS aerosol products over Pune, India. The results of the analysis show that during 2008-10, 68% to 84% of the MODIS AODs fell within an expected error, as defined by the MODIS science team, and thus the retrievals from this system are validated and accepted. In addition, during pre-monsoon periods MODIS retrievals are better-matched with ground-based measurements. On the seasonal scale, MODIS retrievals corroborate well with ground-based measurements, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.62 to 0.93. Despite an overall satellite-ground agreement, MODIS tends to under-estimate AOD during winter, and this may be due to improper assumptions of surface reflectance and the incorrect selection of aerosol types. AERONET retrieved single scattering albedo (SSA) values in winter (0.82-0.86), suggesting the dominance of absorbing aerosols, slightly increased (0.87-0.89) in pre-monsoon season, indicating more scattering type of aerosols. These values are about 8.9%-1.1% lower than those of the assumed SSA values in the MODIS algorithm.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available