Particle size distribution of river-suspended sediments determined by in situ measured remote-sensing reflectance

Yuanzhi Zhang; Zhaojun Huang; Chuqun Chen; Yijun He; Tingchen Jiang

doi:10.1364/AO.54.006367

Applied Optics
Vol. 54,
Issue 20,
pp. 6367-6376
(2015)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.54.006367

Particle size distribution of river-suspended sediments determined by in situ measured remote-sensing reflectance

Yuanzhi Zhang, Zhaojun Huang, Chuqun Chen, Yijun He, and Tingchen Jiang

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Yuanzhi Zhang, Zhaojun Huang, Chuqun Chen, Yijun He, and Tingchen Jiang, "Particle size distribution of river-suspended sediments determined by in situ measured remote-sensing reflectance," Appl. Opt. 54, 6367-6376 (2015)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Abstract

Suspended sediments in water bodies are classified into organic and inorganic matter and have been investigated by remote-sensing technology for years. Focusing on inorganic matter, however, detailed information such as the grain size of this matter has not been provided yet. In this study, we present a new solution for estimating inorganic suspended sediments’ size distribution in highly complex Case 2 waters by using a simple spectrometer sensor rather than a backscattering sensor. An experiment was carried out in the Pearl River Estuary (PRE) in the dry season to collect the remote-sensing reflectance ( $R_{rs}$ ) and particle size distribution (PSD) of inorganic suspended sediments. Based on Mie theory, PSDs in the PRE waters were retrieved by $R_{rs}$ , colored dissolved organic matter, and phytoplankton. The retrieved median diameters in 12 stations show good agreement with those of laboratory analysis at root mean square error of 2.604 μm (27.63%), bias of 1.924 μm (20.42%), and mean absolute error of 2.298 μm (24.37%). The retrieved PSDs and previous PSDs were compared, and the features of PSDs in the PRE waters were concluded.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Variability of apparent and inherent optical properties of sediment-laden waters in large river basins – lessons from in situ measurements and bio-optical modeling

Sylvain Pinet, Jean-Michel Martinez, Sylvain Ouillon, Bruno Lartiges, and Raul Espinoza Villar
Opt. Express 25(8) A283-A310 (2017)

Remote-sensing reflectance of turbid sediment-dominated waters. Reduction of sediment type variations and changing illumination conditions effects by use of reflectance ratios

David Doxaran, Jean-Marie Froidefond, and Patrice Castaing
Appl. Opt. 42(15) 2623-2634 (2003)

Model for the interpretation of hyperspectral remote-sensing reflectance

Zhongping Lee, Kendall L. Carder, Steve K. Hawes, Robert G. Steward, Thomas G. Peacock, and Curtiss O. Davis
Appl. Opt. 33(24) 5721-5732 (1994)

Previous Article Next Article

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (7)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (4)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Equations (15)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Station	TSM $(g / m^{3})$	SPM $(g / m^{3})$	Chl-a $(mg / m^{3})$	CDOM ^a $(m^{- 1})$	Water Depth $(m)$
D1	6.72	6.44	2.53	0.3549	4.8
D2	5.09	3.25	2.73	0.4234	5.3
D3	2.50	2.23	1.87	0.3390	6.1
D4	2.00	1.80	1.94	0.4317	6.4
D5	3.46	3.42	4.99	0.2297	7.0
D6	1.76	1.66	3.82	0.3628	7.0
D7	2.12	1.82	3.44	0.2476	15.7
D8	7.22	5.74	2.35	0.5412	6.1
D9	6.88	6.68	1.24	0.3367	4.3
D10	5.77	5.43	1.46	0.4254	7.8
D11	2.62	2.56	0.56	0.3375	5.0
D12	1.24	1.18	0.46	0.4471	12.5

Size Range (μm)	Sand			Silt				Clay
Size Range (μm)	2000–1000	1000–400	400–63	63–32	32–16	16–8	8–4	4–2	2–1	$< 1$
D1			0.007%	0.162%	4.336%	18.852%	30.674%	25.132%	12.115%	8.722%
D2				2.029%	12.041%	32.506%	32.375%	13.633%	4.286%	3.129%
D3			0.202%	3.911%	11.572%	31.330%	30.437%	13.815%	4.870%	3.863%
D4				0.353%	13.219%	40.857%	30.328%	9.501%	3.313%	2.429%
D5				0.437%	9.122%	29.404%	35.530%	17.105%	5.121%	3.281%
D6				1.780%	13.108%	30.553%	30.762%	15.578%	5.224%	2.995%
D7			0.229%	5.204%	4.148%	19.312%	31.571%	22.776%	10.042%	6.718%
D8				3.978%	18.108%	33.066%	26.153%	10.969%	4.411%	3.316%
D9				2.041%	27.949%	42.589%	18.110%	5.046%	2.351%	1.913%
D10				3.472%	30.384%	39.144%	17.049%	5.471%	2.442%	2.038%
D11				3.756%	28.124%	38.362%	18.438%	6.180%	2.849%	2.291%
D12				0.235%	9.507%	31.980%	32.823%	15.653%	6.142%	3.661%

$D_{(i, j)}$		Diameter Size (μm)						$Δ D_{(i)}$ (μm)
Mineral	$j$	1	2	…	21	…	28
Mineral	$i$	1	2	…	21	…	28
Kaolinite	1	0.40	0.58	$0.4 + {0.18}^{*} n_{1}$	4.00	—	—	0.18
Hematite	2	4.10	6.28	$4.1 + {2.18}^{*} n_{2}$	47.70	…	63.96	2.18
Quartz	3	63.00	160.00	$63.00 + {97.00}^{*} n_{3}$	2003.00	—	—	97.00

Stations	Retrieved from $R_{rs}$ , chl-a, and CDOM				Laboratory Analysis
Stations	Sand	Silt	Clay	$d_{50}$ (μm)	Sand	Silt	Clay	$d_{50}$ (μm)
D1	0.17%	63.61%	36.22%	6.280	0.00%	77.52%	22.48%	7.758
D2	0.22%	84.46%	15.32%	10.640	0.00%	78.95%	21.05%	8.396
D3	0.34%	73.12%	26.54%	6.280	0.20%	77.25%	22.55%	8.427
D4	0.09%	96.10%	3.77%	8.460	0.00%	84.76%	15.24%	9.583
D5	0.30%	70.66%	29.04%	6.280	0.00%	74.49%	25.51%	7.330
D6	0.28%	63.20%	36.52%	6.280	0.00%	76.20%	23.80%	8.157
D7	0.40%	34.08%	65.52%	3.460	0.23%	60.23%	39.54%	5.632
D8	0.19%	74.23%	25.58%	8.460	0.00%	81.30%	18.70%	9.909
D9	0.15%	87.83%	12.01%	8.460	0.00%	90.69%	9.31%	13.214
D10	0.15%	91.84%	8.01%	10.640	0.00%	90.05%	9.95%	13.795
D11	0.17%	85.48%	14.35%	8.460	0.00%	88.68%	11.32%	13.183
D12	0.55%	58.44%	41.00%	6.280	0.00%	74.54%	25.46%	7.679

Station	TSM $(g / m^{3})$	SPM $(g / m^{3})$	Chl-a $(mg / m^{3})$	CDOM ^a $(m^{- 1})$	Water Depth $(m)$
D1	6.72	6.44	2.53	0.3549	4.8
D2	5.09	3.25	2.73	0.4234	5.3
D3	2.50	2.23	1.87	0.3390	6.1
D4	2.00	1.80	1.94	0.4317	6.4
D5	3.46	3.42	4.99	0.2297	7.0
D6	1.76	1.66	3.82	0.3628	7.0
D7	2.12	1.82	3.44	0.2476	15.7
D8	7.22	5.74	2.35	0.5412	6.1
D9	6.88	6.68	1.24	0.3367	4.3
D10	5.77	5.43	1.46	0.4254	7.8
D11	2.62	2.56	0.56	0.3375	5.0
D12	1.24	1.18	0.46	0.4471	12.5

Abstract

Cited By

Figures (7)

Tables (4)

Equations (15)

Applied Optics