Thermal band selection for the PRISM instrument: 1. Analysis of emissivity‐temperature separation algorithms

One of the missions being planned by the European Space Agency (ESA) within the framework of its Earth Observation Programme is the Processes Research by Imaging Space Mission (PRISM). The PRISM instrument consists of a thermal sensor whose main objective is to retrieve accurate land surface temperatures (LST) and whose band positions are 3.5-4.1 /m, 8.1-9.5/m, 10.3-11.3/m, and 11.5-12.5/m. We have studied the optimal design of this instrument to retrieve accurate LSTs. First, we have analyzed several emissivity-temperature separation methods (part 1) and atmospheric and emissivity correction algorithms (part 2). Finally, we have identified the optimal band configuration (part 3). This paper is the first of a series of three and addresses the question of the emissivity-temperature separability. Among all the existing algorithms, we have studied the "absolute methods," which are able to estimate the absolute value of emissivity at satellite scale and can yield better results in the emissivity estimate. These methods are the algorithm based on the temperature-independent thermal infrared spectral index (TISI), the alpha coefficients method, and the algorithms which use visible, near-infrared, and shortwave infrared data to estimate the thermal emissivity (vegetation cover method (VCM)). The study consisted of an analysis of both random and systematic errors of each method. The results indicate that emissivity can be obtained with an error of _+1.7-5% using the alpha coefficients, _+1.7-3% using the TISIs, and _+0.5-1.4% using the VCM, depending on the spectral region. In all cases the error decreases with wavelength, and the lowest errors are achieved in the 10-12/m spectral region, due to small variability of emissivity. It is necessary that the two first methods use radiosondes simultaneous with the satellite overpass to perform the atmospheric corrections on the thermal data; in addition, they show important sources of systematic errors, which will increase the uncertainty in the emissivity estimate (even in the best possible case). The VCM does not use radiosondes and does not present important sources of systematic error. It appears to be the procedure with the most favorable error propagation characteristics. Thus the VCM could be the most adequate method for retrieving the land surface emissivity (LSE), within the framework of this work.

[1]  J. Soha,et al.  Middle infrared multispectral aircraft scanner data: analysis for geological applications. , 1980, Applied optics.

[2]  A. Prata.  Land surface temperatures derived from the advanced very high resolution radiometer and the along‐track scanning radiometer: 1. Theory , 1993 .

[3]  A. Karnieli,et al.  A review of mixture modeling techniques for sub‐pixel land cover estimation , 1996 .

[4]  Ghassem R. Asrar,et al.  Theory and applications of optical remote sensing. , 1989 .

[5]  John B. Adams,et al.  Quantitative subpixel spectral detection of targets in multispectral images. [terrestrial and planetary surfaces] , 1992 .

[6]  Z. Li,et al.  Temperature-independent spectral indices in thermal infrared bands , 1990 .

[7]  J. Labed,et al.  Spectral properties of land surfaces in the thermal infrared: 2. Field method for spectrally averaged emissivity measurements , 1990 .

[8]  A. Huete.  A soil-adjusted vegetation index (SAVI) , 1988 .

[9]  M. P. Stoll,et al.  Angular variation of land surface spectral emissivity in the thermal infrared: laboratory investigations on bare soils , 1991 .

[10]  K. Watson.  Two-temperature method for measuring emissivity , 1992 .

[11]  Didier Tanré,et al.  Atmospherically resistant vegetation index (ARVI) for EOS-MODIS , 1992, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[12]  A. Gillespie,et al.  Lithologic mapping of silicate rocks using TIMS , 1986 .

[13]  M. Sidran.  Atmospheric Effects on Ocean Surface Temperature Sensing from the NOAA Satellite Scanning Radiometer G:oaA. MAUL Physical Oceanography Laboraty, Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratories Natio.nal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Miami, Florida 33149 , 1973 .

[14]  Eva Rubio,et al.  Thermal band selection for the PRISM instrument: 3. Optimal band configurations , 1998 .

[15]  J. Norman,et al.  Directional infrared temperature and emissivity of vegetation: Measurements and models , 1994 .

[16]  K. Masuda,et al.  Emissivity of pure and sea waters for the model sea surface in the infrared window regions , 1988 .

[17]  Albert Olioso,et al.  Simulating the relationship between thermal emissivity and the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index , 1995 .

[18]  Eva Rubio,et al.  Emissivity measurements of several soils and vegetation types in the 8–14, μm Wave band: Analysis of two field methods , 1997 .

[19]  Bhaskar J. Choudhury,et al.  Relative sensitivity of normalized difference vegetation Index (NDVI) and microwave polarization difference Index (MPDI) for vegetation and desertification monitoring , 1988 .

[20]  Eva Rubio,et al.  Thermal band selection for the PRISM instrument 2. Analysis and comparison of existing atmospheric and emissivity correction methods for land surface temperature recovery , 1997 .

[21]  P. S. Kealy,et al.  A comparison of techniques for extracting emissivity information from thermal infrared data for geologic studies , 1992 .

[22]  J. Labed,et al.  Spectral properties of land surfaces in the thermal infrared: 1. Laboratory measurements of absolute spectral emissivity signatures , 1990 .

[23]  J. Salisbury,et al.  Emissivity of terrestrial materials in the 3–5 μm atmospheric window☆ , 1992 .

[24]  R. A. Sutherland,et al.  Significance of Vegetation in Interpreting Thermal Radiation from a Terrestrial Surface , 1977 .

[25]  José A. Sobrino,et al.  On the atmospheric dependence of the split-window equation for land surface temperature , 1994 .

[26]  Z. Li,et al.  Feasibility of land surface temperature and emissivity determination from AVHRR data , 1993 .

[27]  P. S. Kealy,et al.  Separating temperature and emissivity in thermal infrared multispectral scanner data: implications for recovering land surface temperatures , 1993, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[28]  V. Caselles,et al.  Mapping land surface emissivity from NDVI: Application to European, African, and South American areas , 1996 .

[29]  Thomas J. Schmugge,et al.  Imation of land surface emissivity differences in the split-window channels of AVHRR , 1994 .

[30]  K. Watson,et al.  Spectral ratio method for measuring emissivity , 1992 .

[31]  José A. Sobrino,et al.  A physical model for interpreting the land surface temperature obtained by remote sensors over incomplete canopies , 1992 .

[32]  Z. Li,et al.  Towards a local split window method over land surfaces , 1990 .

[33]  Z. Li,et al.  Properties and comparison of temperature-independent thermal infrared spectral indices with NDVI for HAPEX data , 1990 .

[34]  José A. Sobrino,et al.  Determination of frosts in orange groves from NOAA-9 AVHRR data , 1989 .

[35]  A. Colton.  Effective thermal parameters for a heterogeneous land surface , 1996 .

[36]  Manfred Owe,et al.  On the relationship between thermal emissivity and the normalized difference vegetation index for natural surfaces , 1993 .

[37]  R. E. Walker,et al.  Color enhancement of highly correlated images. I - Decorrelation and HSI contrast stretches. [hue saturation intensity , 1986 .