4.0 Article

Spectral analysis of the Forel-Ule ocean colour comparator scale

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.2971/jeos.2010.10014s

关键词

Forel-Ule scale; reflectance; transmission; ocean colour; chromaticity

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Francois Alphonse Forel (1890) and Willi Ule (1892) composed a colour comparator scale, with tints varying from indigo-blue to cola brown, to quantify the colour of natural waters, like seas, lakes and rivers. For each measurement, the observer compares the colour of the water above a submersed white disc (Secchi disc) with a hand-held scale of pre-defined colours. The scale can be well reproduced from a simple recipe for twenty-one coloured chemical solutions and because the ease of its use, the Forel-Ule (FU) scale has been applied globally and intensively by oceanographers and limnologists from the year 1890. Indeed, the archived FU data belong to the oldest oceanographic data sets and do contain information on the changes in geobiophysical properties of natural waters during the last century. In this article, we describe the optical properties of the FU scale and its ability to cover the colours of natural waters, as observed by the human eye. The recipe of the scale and its reproduction is described. The spectral transmission of the tubes and their respective chromaticity coordinates are presented. The FU scale, in all its simplicity, is found to be an adequate ocean colour comparator scale. The scale is well characterized, stable and observations are reproducible. Thus, the large historic data sets of FU measurements are coherent and well calibrated. Moreover, the scale can be coupled to contemporary multi-spectral observations with hand-held and satellite-based spectrometers. A reintroduction of the FU scale is recommended to expand the historical database and to facilitate a tie-in with present satellite ocean colour observations by tranforming MERIS normalized multi-band reflectance image into a FU indexed image. [DOI: 10.2971/jeos.2010.10014s]

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据