Expand this Topic clickable element to expand a topic
Skip to content
Optica Publishing Group
Journal Home About Issues in Progress Current Issue All Issues Feature Issues

Polarized light in coastal waters: hyperspectral and multiangular analysis

Alberto Tonizzo, Jing Zhou, Alexander Gilerson, Michael S. Twardowski, Deric J. Gray, Robert A. Arnone, Barry M. Gross, Fred Moshary, and Samir A. Ahmed

Open Access Open Access

Abstract

Measurements of the underwater polarized light field were performed at different stations, atmospheric conditions and water compositions using a newly developed hyperspectral and multiangular polarimeter during a recent cruise in the coastal areas of New York Harbor -Sandy Hook, NJ region (USA). Results are presented for waters with chlorophyll concentrations 1.3-4.8μg/l and minerals concentrations 2.0-3.9mg/l. Angular and spectral variations of the degree of polarization are found to be consistent with theory. Maximum values of the degree of polarization do not exceed 0.4 and the position of the maximum is close to 100° scattering angle. Normalized radiances and degrees of polarization are compared with simulated ones obtained with a Monte Carlo radiative transfer code for the atmosphere-ocean system and show satisfactory agreement.

©2009 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article
More Like This
Measurements and simulations of polarization states of underwater light in clear oceanic waters

Yu You, Alberto Tonizzo, Alexander A. Gilerson, Molly E. Cummings, Parrish Brady, James M. Sullivan, Michael S. Twardowski, Heidi M. Dierssen, Samir A. Ahmed, and George W. Kattawar
Appl. Opt. 50(24) 4873-4893 (2011)

Determination of biogeochemical properties of marine particles using above water measurements of the degree of polarization at the Brewster angle.

Malik Chami and David McKee
Opt. Express 15(15) 9494-9509 (2007)

Estimating particle composition and size distribution from polarized water-leaving radiance

Alberto Tonizzo, Alex Gilerson, Tristan Harmel, Amir Ibrahim, Jacek Chowdhary, Barry Gross, Fred Moshary, and Sam Ahmed
Appl. Opt. 50(25) 5047-5058 (2011)

View More...

Cited By

Optica participates in Crossref's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from Optica Publishing Group journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.


Figures (14)
Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. Geometry of observation. θSun is the solar zenith angle; θd is the detector, or viewing zenith angle; θsca is the scattering angle; φ is the detector azimuthal angle.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2. The underwater instrument developed by the Optical Remote Sensing group at City College of New York. (a) The instrument on the deck of R/V “Connecticut”, (b) a detail of the Satlantic Hyperspectral sensors, (c) the instrument under water.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Absorption and attenuation spectra recorded with the WetLabs package.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. GER total reflectance spectra.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. Comparison of MASCOT measurements and standard Petzold functions.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 6.
Fig. 6. Spectral dependence of the signal recorded by the Satlantic Hyperspectral sensors when the scattering angle is 0° (a) and when it’s 90° (b). The instrument is positioned in the main scattering plane, 1m below water.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 7.
Fig. 7. Dependence of normalized radiance components on the scattering angle

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 8.
Fig. 8. Spread of the data points acquired during a set of measurements. Data are shown for Station 1, λ=550nm.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 9.
Fig. 9. (a)-(d) Plots of the DOP vs. scattering angle. The instrument is located in the principal plane 1m below water. (e) Downwelling spectral irradiance recorded at the same stations.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 10.
Fig. 10. Plots of the DOP vs. scattering angle for Station 4: (a) 1m above water, (b) 1m below water. The instrument is located in the principal plane.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 11.
Fig. 11. Spectral dependence of the DOP: (a) Station 1 and (b) Station 7. The normalized total absorption spectrum (anorm ) and the total absorption spectrum divided by the total attenuation spectrum (atot /ctot ) are also shown.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 12.
Fig. 12. Comparison of modeled and measured data for 510 nm, Station 1, (a) DOP, (b) normalized radiance. Station 7, (c) DOP, (d) normalized radiance.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 13.
Fig. 13. Comparison of modeled and measured data for 676nm, Station 1, (a) DOP, (b) normalized radiance.

Download Full Size | PDF

Fig. 14.
Fig. 14. Spectral comparison of modeled (circles) and measured (solid lines) DOP for four relevant scattering angles, Station 1.

Download Full Size | PDF

Tables (2)

Tables Icon

Table 1. Coordinates and solar zenith angles of the sampling stations.

View Table | View all tables in this article
Tables Icon

Table 2. Minerals and chlorophyll concentrations estimations.

View Table | View all tables in this article

Equations (4)

Equations on this page are rendered with MathJax. Learn more.

DOP = Q 2 + U 2 I .
I = I 0 + I 90 .
DOP = ( I 0 − I 90 ) 2 + ( 2 I 45 − I 90 − I 0 ) 2 I .
DOP = I 0 − I 90 I .
Select as filters
Select Topics Cancel
Top
       
© Copyright 2024 | Optica Publishing Group. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies.
Privacy | Terms of Use