Abstract

Infrared oil spill detection utilizes either temperature or emissivity contrast of native and oil-covered water surfaces. In particular, the thickness dependent radiance contrast due to thin film interference has been studied. Together with detection boundaries derived from the radiative transfer equation, we can explain historically observed daytime contrast reversal and our observations during nighttime, better contrast from thin oil slicks than from thick films, which to our knowledge has not been mentioned in the literature. These findings have important implications to long-wavelength infrared (LWIR) instrument design and data interpretation for crude oil spill detection.

© 2008 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. R. H. Goodman, The Remote Sensing of Oil Slicks, A.E.Lodge, ed. (Wiley, 1989), p. 39.
  2. U. Hua, in Proceedings of IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IEEE, 1991), p. 1315.
  3. R. Horvath, Optical Remote Sensing of Oil Slicks: Signature Analysis and Systems Evaluation (University of Michigan, 1971).
  4. J. W. Salisbury, D. M. D'Aria, and F. F. Sabins, Remote Sens. Environ. 45, 225 (1993).
    [CrossRef]
  5. W.-C. Shih and A. B. Andrews, Opt. Express 16, 10535 (2008).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. C. R. Zeisse, C. P. McGrath, K. M. Littfin, and H. G. Hughes, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 16, 1439 (1999).
    [CrossRef]
  7. E. E. Bell, L. Eisner, J. Young, and R. A. Oetjen, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 50, 1313 (1960).
    [CrossRef]

2008

1999

1993

J. W. Salisbury, D. M. D'Aria, and F. F. Sabins, Remote Sens. Environ. 45, 225 (1993).
[CrossRef]

1960

Andrews, A. B.

Bell, E. E.

D'Aria, D. M.

J. W. Salisbury, D. M. D'Aria, and F. F. Sabins, Remote Sens. Environ. 45, 225 (1993).
[CrossRef]

Eisner, L.

Goodman, R. H.

R. H. Goodman, The Remote Sensing of Oil Slicks, A.E.Lodge, ed. (Wiley, 1989), p. 39.

Horvath, R.

R. Horvath, Optical Remote Sensing of Oil Slicks: Signature Analysis and Systems Evaluation (University of Michigan, 1971).

Hua, U.

U. Hua, in Proceedings of IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IEEE, 1991), p. 1315.

Hughes, H. G.

Littfin, K. M.

McGrath, C. P.

Oetjen, R. A.

Sabins, F. F.

J. W. Salisbury, D. M. D'Aria, and F. F. Sabins, Remote Sens. Environ. 45, 225 (1993).
[CrossRef]

Salisbury, J. W.

J. W. Salisbury, D. M. D'Aria, and F. F. Sabins, Remote Sens. Environ. 45, 225 (1993).
[CrossRef]

Shih, W.-C.

Young, J.

Zeisse, C. R.

J. Opt. Soc. Am.

J. Opt. Soc. Am. A

Opt. Express

Remote Sens. Environ.

J. W. Salisbury, D. M. D'Aria, and F. F. Sabins, Remote Sens. Environ. 45, 225 (1993).
[CrossRef]

Other

R. H. Goodman, The Remote Sensing of Oil Slicks, A.E.Lodge, ed. (Wiley, 1989), p. 39.

U. Hua, in Proceedings of IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium (IEEE, 1991), p. 1315.

R. Horvath, Optical Remote Sensing of Oil Slicks: Signature Analysis and Systems Evaluation (University of Michigan, 1971).

Cited By

OSA participates in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (4)

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

(a) Detection boundaries delineated using Eq. (1). See text for detailed discussion. (b) Emissivity of oil covered and native water surfaces (solid curve). Three oil film thicknesses were simulated: 10 μ m (dashed curve), 50 μ m (dotted curve), and 100 μ m (dashed–dotted curve).

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

(a) Total emissivity versus the oil film thickness. (b) Detection boundaries delineated using Eq. (1). See text for detailed discussion.

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

(a) Radiance contrast versus oil film thickness with differential heating T oil , 295 K ; T water , 293 K . (b) Radiance contrast versus oil film thickness without differential heating T oil , 293 K ; T water , 293 K . In both (a) and (b), the dotted lines represent no contrast as compared to the clean water surface. The solid curves represent the calculated contrast, and the dashed curves are polynomial fits to the solid curves for visual guidance.

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

(a) Visible image (with flashlight) taken from 3.3   m away from the targets during nighttime. (b) LWIR image taken from 3.3   m away from the targets during nighttime. The average pixel intensity is obtained: ( A , B , C ) = ( 68.8 , 63.7 , 89.6 ) ; ( D , E ) = ( 81 , 91.2 ) ; ( F , G ) = ( 72 , 82.7 ) ; ( H , I ) = ( 80.8 , 87.2 ) , and ( J , K ) = ( 84.2 , 87.7 ) .

Metrics