Inter-Comparison of Field- and Laboratory-Derived Surface Emissivities of Natural and Manmade Materials in Support of Land Surface Temperature (LST) Remote Sensing
Correct specification of a target’s longwave infrared (LWIR) surface emissivity has been identified as one of the greatest sources of uncertainty in the remote sensing of land surface temperature (LST). Field and laboratory emissivity measurements are essential for improving and validating LST retri...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2020-12-01
|
| Series: | Remote Sensing |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/24/4127 |
| _version_ | 1797544430789459968 |
|---|---|
| author | Mary F. Langsdale Thomas P. F. Dowling Martin Wooster James Johnson Mark J. Grosvenor Mark C. de Jong William R. Johnson Simon J. Hook Gerardo Rivera |
| author_facet | Mary F. Langsdale Thomas P. F. Dowling Martin Wooster James Johnson Mark J. Grosvenor Mark C. de Jong William R. Johnson Simon J. Hook Gerardo Rivera |
| author_sort | Mary F. Langsdale |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Correct specification of a target’s longwave infrared (LWIR) surface emissivity has been identified as one of the greatest sources of uncertainty in the remote sensing of land surface temperature (LST). Field and laboratory emissivity measurements are essential for improving and validating LST retrievals, but there are differing approaches to making such measurements and the conditions that they are made under can affect their performance. To better understand these impacts we made measurements of fourteen manmade and natural samples under different environmental conditions, both in situ and in the laboratory. We used Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers to deliver spectral emissivities and an emissivity box to deliver broadband emissivities. Field- and laboratory-measured spectral emissivities were generally within 1–2% in the key 8–12 micron region of the LWIR atmospheric window for most samples, though greater variability was observed for vegetation and inhomogeneous samples. Differences between laboratory and field spectral measurements highlighted the importance of field methods for these samples, with the laboratory setup unable to capture sample structure or inhomogeneity. The emissivity box delivered broadband emissivities with a consistent negative bias compared to the FTIR-based approaches, with differences of up to 5%. The emissivities retrieved using the different approaches result in LST retrieval differences of between 1 and 4 °C, stressing the importance of correct emissivity specification. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-10T14:00:24Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-c3501adf066d421bbe2b4a73d93d50d8 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2072-4292 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-10T14:00:24Z |
| publishDate | 2020-12-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Remote Sensing |
| spelling | doaj.art-c3501adf066d421bbe2b4a73d93d50d82023-11-21T01:15:05ZengMDPI AGRemote Sensing2072-42922020-12-011224412710.3390/rs12244127Inter-Comparison of Field- and Laboratory-Derived Surface Emissivities of Natural and Manmade Materials in Support of Land Surface Temperature (LST) Remote SensingMary F. Langsdale0Thomas P. F. Dowling1Martin Wooster2James Johnson3Mark J. Grosvenor4Mark C. de Jong5William R. Johnson6Simon J. Hook7Gerardo Rivera8NERC National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO), c/o Department of Geography, King’s College London, London WC2B 4BG, UKNERC National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO), c/o Department of Geography, King’s College London, London WC2B 4BG, UKNERC National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO), c/o Department of Geography, King’s College London, London WC2B 4BG, UKNERC National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO), c/o Department of Geography, King’s College London, London WC2B 4BG, UKNERC National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO), c/o Department of Geography, King’s College London, London WC2B 4BG, UKNERC National Centre for Earth Observation (NCEO), c/o Department of Geography, King’s College London, London WC2B 4BG, UKNational Aeronautics and Space Administration-Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA-JPL), 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USANational Aeronautics and Space Administration-Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA-JPL), 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USANational Aeronautics and Space Administration-Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA-JPL), 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109, USACorrect specification of a target’s longwave infrared (LWIR) surface emissivity has been identified as one of the greatest sources of uncertainty in the remote sensing of land surface temperature (LST). Field and laboratory emissivity measurements are essential for improving and validating LST retrievals, but there are differing approaches to making such measurements and the conditions that they are made under can affect their performance. To better understand these impacts we made measurements of fourteen manmade and natural samples under different environmental conditions, both in situ and in the laboratory. We used Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectrometers to deliver spectral emissivities and an emissivity box to deliver broadband emissivities. Field- and laboratory-measured spectral emissivities were generally within 1–2% in the key 8–12 micron region of the LWIR atmospheric window for most samples, though greater variability was observed for vegetation and inhomogeneous samples. Differences between laboratory and field spectral measurements highlighted the importance of field methods for these samples, with the laboratory setup unable to capture sample structure or inhomogeneity. The emissivity box delivered broadband emissivities with a consistent negative bias compared to the FTIR-based approaches, with differences of up to 5%. The emissivities retrieved using the different approaches result in LST retrieval differences of between 1 and 4 °C, stressing the importance of correct emissivity specification.https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/24/4127land surface temperatureland surface emissivitymeasurement uncertaintiesemissivity box methodFourier transform infrared spectrometerportable spectrometer |
| spellingShingle | Mary F. Langsdale Thomas P. F. Dowling Martin Wooster James Johnson Mark J. Grosvenor Mark C. de Jong William R. Johnson Simon J. Hook Gerardo Rivera Inter-Comparison of Field- and Laboratory-Derived Surface Emissivities of Natural and Manmade Materials in Support of Land Surface Temperature (LST) Remote Sensing Remote Sensing land surface temperature land surface emissivity measurement uncertainties emissivity box method Fourier transform infrared spectrometer portable spectrometer |
| title | Inter-Comparison of Field- and Laboratory-Derived Surface Emissivities of Natural and Manmade Materials in Support of Land Surface Temperature (LST) Remote Sensing |
| title_full | Inter-Comparison of Field- and Laboratory-Derived Surface Emissivities of Natural and Manmade Materials in Support of Land Surface Temperature (LST) Remote Sensing |
| title_fullStr | Inter-Comparison of Field- and Laboratory-Derived Surface Emissivities of Natural and Manmade Materials in Support of Land Surface Temperature (LST) Remote Sensing |
| title_full_unstemmed | Inter-Comparison of Field- and Laboratory-Derived Surface Emissivities of Natural and Manmade Materials in Support of Land Surface Temperature (LST) Remote Sensing |
| title_short | Inter-Comparison of Field- and Laboratory-Derived Surface Emissivities of Natural and Manmade Materials in Support of Land Surface Temperature (LST) Remote Sensing |
| title_sort | inter comparison of field and laboratory derived surface emissivities of natural and manmade materials in support of land surface temperature lst remote sensing |
| topic | land surface temperature land surface emissivity measurement uncertainties emissivity box method Fourier transform infrared spectrometer portable spectrometer |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/24/4127 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT maryflangsdale intercomparisonoffieldandlaboratoryderivedsurfaceemissivitiesofnaturalandmanmadematerialsinsupportoflandsurfacetemperaturelstremotesensing AT thomaspfdowling intercomparisonoffieldandlaboratoryderivedsurfaceemissivitiesofnaturalandmanmadematerialsinsupportoflandsurfacetemperaturelstremotesensing AT martinwooster intercomparisonoffieldandlaboratoryderivedsurfaceemissivitiesofnaturalandmanmadematerialsinsupportoflandsurfacetemperaturelstremotesensing AT jamesjohnson intercomparisonoffieldandlaboratoryderivedsurfaceemissivitiesofnaturalandmanmadematerialsinsupportoflandsurfacetemperaturelstremotesensing AT markjgrosvenor intercomparisonoffieldandlaboratoryderivedsurfaceemissivitiesofnaturalandmanmadematerialsinsupportoflandsurfacetemperaturelstremotesensing AT markcdejong intercomparisonoffieldandlaboratoryderivedsurfaceemissivitiesofnaturalandmanmadematerialsinsupportoflandsurfacetemperaturelstremotesensing AT williamrjohnson intercomparisonoffieldandlaboratoryderivedsurfaceemissivitiesofnaturalandmanmadematerialsinsupportoflandsurfacetemperaturelstremotesensing AT simonjhook intercomparisonoffieldandlaboratoryderivedsurfaceemissivitiesofnaturalandmanmadematerialsinsupportoflandsurfacetemperaturelstremotesensing AT gerardorivera intercomparisonoffieldandlaboratoryderivedsurfaceemissivitiesofnaturalandmanmadematerialsinsupportoflandsurfacetemperaturelstremotesensing |