Measurement of light absorption by chromophoric dissolved organic matter using a type-II liquid capillary waveguide: assessment of an achievable accuracy

Rüdiger Röttgers; Michael G. Novak; Mathias Belz

doi:10.1364/AO.516580

Applied Optics
Vol. 63,
Issue 14,
pp. 3811-3824
(2024)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/AO.516580

Measurement of light absorption by chromophoric dissolved organic matter using a type-II liquid capillary waveguide: assessment of an achievable accuracy

Rüdiger Röttgers, Michael G. Novak, and Mathias Belz

Not Accessible

Your library or personal account may give you access

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Rüdiger Röttgers, Michael G. Novak, and Mathias Belz, "Measurement of light absorption by chromophoric dissolved organic matter using a type-II liquid capillary waveguide: assessment of an achievable accuracy," Appl. Opt. 63, 3811-3824 (2024)

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

Check for updates

Abstract

Light absorption by chromophoric dissolved organic matter (CDOM) in the ocean is often measured using liquid waveguide capillary cells coupled to spectral array detectors. This type of optical setup is affected by several sources of uncertainties related to the waveguide and the detector. Uncertainties from the waveguide arise from errors in the effective path length and the effects of water salinity, while errors related to the detector are due to the non-linearity in the response, internal stray light, and wavelength accuracy. Here, uncertainties in the measurements of the spectral absorption coefficient of CDOM due to the optical setup itself were investigated in detail. The related systematic errors were very often significant (2–15%) and larger than expected from simple measurement uncertainty (${\pm}{1}\%$). However, they can be corrected by characterizing the detector’s response for non-linearity and stray light, regularly performing calibrations for the detector’s wavelength response, and routinely measuring the waveguide’s effective path length. Including such corrections and timely calibrations reduces the uncertainties related to the spectrophotometric measurements to about ${\pm}{2}\%$. Uncertainties related to the necessary handling of samples are not included here.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Uncertainty budgets for liquid waveguide CDOM absorption measurements

Ina Lefering, Rüdiger Röttgers, Christian Utschig, and David McKee
Appl. Opt. 56(22) 6357-6366 (2017)

Continuous hyperspectral absorption measurements of colored dissolved organic material in aquatic systems

Gary J. Kirkpatrick, Cristina Orrico, Mark A. Moline, Matthew Oliver, and Oscar M. Schofield
Appl. Opt. 42(33) 6564-6568 (2003)

Determination of the absorption coefficient of chromophoric dissolved organic matter from underway spectrophotometry

Giorgio Dall’Olmo, Robert J. W. Brewin, Francesco Nencioli, Emanuele Organelli, Ina Lefering, David McKee, Rüdiger Röttgers, Catherine Mitchell, Emmanuel Boss, Annick Bricaud, and Gavin Tilstone
Opt. Express 25(24) A1079-A1095 (2017)

Previous Article Next Article

Supplementary Material (1)

Name	Description
Supplement 1	Methodology details

Data availability

Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors (RR) upon reasonable request.

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 (9)

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 (2)

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

	Manufacturer’s Calibration		New Measurements
LWCCs/n, Type	Path Length (m)	Uncertainty (m) (Specification, 2%)^a	Path Length (m);(% Deviation)^b	Uncertainty ( $1 σ$ , m)
154952, −3250	2.503	−, (0.05)	2.501 (−0.1%)	0.013 (0.5%; $n = 14$ )
133722, −2100	0.964	0.002, (0.02)^c	1.010 ( $+ 4.8 %$ )	0.006 (0.6%; $n = 12$ )
97339, −2050	0.501	0.002, (0.01)	0.488 (−3.0%)	0.002 (0.4%; $n = 15$ )
97340, −2050	0.508	0.002, (0.01)	0.490 (−2.6%)	0.002 (0.4%; $n = 15$ )
164179, −3050	0.503	−, (0.01)	0.498 (−2.0%)	0.002 (0.4%, $n = 15$ )

Data Set	Comparison	Slope	Se	offset	Se	$r^{2}$
1	250 cm versus 50 cm ^b(not corrected)	1.023	0.0087	−0.0010	0.0042	0.9962
1	250 cm versus 50 cm ^b(corrected)	1.035	0.0069	−0.0160	0.0034	0.9976
2	250 cm versus 50 cm ^c(not corrected)	0.942	0.0037	0.0175	0.039	0.9992
2	250 cm versus 50 cm ^c(corrected)	0.995	0.0014	−0.0003	0.015	0.9999
3	250 cm versus 50 cm ^d(not corrected)	0.972	0.0026	−0.0042	0.0011	0.9996
	250 cm versus 50 cm ^d(corrected)	0.967	0.0025	−0.0043	0.0011	0.9997
	100 cm versus 50 cm ^d(not corrected)	1.054	0.0026	0.0007	0.0011	0.9997
	100 cm versus 50 cm ^d(corrected)	1.027	0.0022	−0.0008	0.0010	0.9998
	250 cm versus 100 cm (not corrected)	0.920	0.0020	−0.0048	0.0009	0.9998
	250 cm versus 100 cm (corrected)	0.939	0.0014	−0.0012	0.0006	0.9999

	Manufacturer’s Calibration		New Measurements
LWCCs/n, Type	Path Length (m)	Uncertainty (m) (Specification, 2%)^a	Path Length (m);(% Deviation)^b	Uncertainty ( $1 σ$ , m)
154952, −3250	2.503	−, (0.05)	2.501 (−0.1%)	0.013 (0.5%; $n = 14$ )
133722, −2100	0.964	0.002, (0.02)^c	1.010 ( $+ 4.8 %$ )	0.006 (0.6%; $n = 12$ )
97339, −2050	0.501	0.002, (0.01)	0.488 (−3.0%)	0.002 (0.4%; $n = 15$ )
97340, −2050	0.508	0.002, (0.01)	0.490 (−2.6%)	0.002 (0.4%; $n = 15$ )
164179, −3050	0.503	−, (0.01)	0.498 (−2.0%)	0.002 (0.4%, $n = 15$ )

Data Set	Comparison	Slope	Se	offset	Se	$r^{2}$
1	250 cm versus 50 cm ^b(not corrected)	1.023	0.0087	−0.0010	0.0042	0.9962
1	250 cm versus 50 cm ^b(corrected)	1.035	0.0069	−0.0160	0.0034	0.9976
2	250 cm versus 50 cm ^c(not corrected)	0.942	0.0037	0.0175	0.039	0.9992
2	250 cm versus 50 cm ^c(corrected)	0.995	0.0014	−0.0003	0.015	0.9999
3	250 cm versus 50 cm ^d(not corrected)	0.972	0.0026	−0.0042	0.0011	0.9996
	250 cm versus 50 cm ^d(corrected)	0.967	0.0025	−0.0043	0.0011	0.9997
	100 cm versus 50 cm ^d(not corrected)	1.054	0.0026	0.0007	0.0011	0.9997
	100 cm versus 50 cm ^d(corrected)	1.027	0.0022	−0.0008	0.0010	0.9998
	250 cm versus 100 cm (not corrected)	0.920	0.0020	−0.0048	0.0009	0.9998
	250 cm versus 100 cm (corrected)	0.939	0.0014	−0.0012	0.0006	0.9999

Abstract

Supplementary Material (1)

Data availability

Cited By

Figures (9)

Tables (2)

Applied Optics