Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10397/43759
PIRA download icon_1.1View/Download Full Text
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributorDepartment of Land Surveying and Geo-Informaticsen_US
dc.creatorBilal, Men_US
dc.creatorNichol, JEen_US
dc.date.accessioned2016-06-07T06:23:13Z-
dc.date.available2016-06-07T06:23:13Z-
dc.identifier.issn2169-897Xen_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10397/43759-
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwellen_US
dc.rights©2015. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.en_US
dc.subjectAERONETen_US
dc.subjectAODen_US
dc.subjectBeijingen_US
dc.subjectFine particlesen_US
dc.subjectMYD04 C6en_US
dc.subjectSARAen_US
dc.titleEvaluation of MODIS aerosol retrieval algorithms over the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region during low to very high pollution eventsen_US
dc.typeJournal/Magazine Articleen_US
dc.identifier.spage7941en_US
dc.identifier.epage7957en_US
dc.identifier.volume120en_US
dc.identifier.issue15en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/2015JD023082en_US
dcterms.abstractThis study evaluates the performance of different MODerate resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) aerosol algorithms during fine particle pollution events over the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region using Aerosol Robotic Network aerosol optical depth (AOD). These algorithms include the Deep Blue (DB) Collection 5.1 (C5) and Collection 6 (C6) algorithms at 10 km resolution, the Dark Target (DT) C5 and C6 algorithms at 10 km, the DT C6 algorithm at 3 km, and the Simplified Aerosol Retrieval Algorithm (SARA) at 500 m, 3 km, and 10 km resolutions. The DB C6 retrievals have 34-39% less uncertainties, 2-3 times smaller root-mean-square error (RMSE), and 3-4 times smaller mean absolute error (MAE) than DB C5 retrievals. The DT C6 has 4-8% lower bias, 4-12% less overestimation, and smaller RMSE and MAE errors than DT C5. Due to underestimation of surface reflectance and the use of inappropriate aerosol schemes, 87-89% of the collocations of the DT C6 at 3 km fall above the expected error (EE), with overestimation of 64-79% which is 15-27% higher than that for the DT C6 at 10 km. The results suggest that the DT C6 at 3 km resolution is less reliable than that at 10 km. The SARA AOD has small RMSE and MAE errors with 90-96% of the collocations falling within the EE. Overall, the SARA showed 15-16% less uncertainty than the DB C6 (10 km), 69-72% less than the DT C6 (10 km), and 79-83% less than the DT C6 (3 km) retrievals.en_US
dcterms.accessRightsopen accessen_US
dcterms.bibliographicCitationJournal of geophysical research. Atmospheres, 2015, v. 120, no. 15, p. 7941-7957en_US
dcterms.isPartOfJournal of geophysical research. Atmospheresen_US
dcterms.issued2015-08-16-
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84940416642-
dc.identifier.eissn2169-8996en_US
dc.description.oaVersion of Recorden_US
dc.identifier.FolderNumberRGC-B3-1169-
dc.description.fundingSourceRGCen_US
dc.description.pubStatusPublisheden_US
Appears in Collections:Journal/Magazine Article
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Bilal_Evaluation_MODIS_Aerosol.pdf5.2 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Open Access Information
Status open access
File Version Version of Record
Access
View full-text via PolyU eLinks SFX Query
Show simple item record

Page views

117
Last Week
0
Last month
Citations as of Mar 24, 2024

Downloads

40
Citations as of Mar 24, 2024

SCOPUSTM   
Citations

111
Last Week
0
Last month
Citations as of Mar 28, 2024

WEB OF SCIENCETM
Citations

103
Last Week
0
Last month
Citations as of Mar 28, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.