## Responsivity-based criterion for accurate calibration of FTIR emission spectra: theoretical development and bandwidth estimation |

Optics Express, Vol. 19, Issue 6, pp. 5451-5463 (2011)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1364/OE.19.005451

Acrobat PDF (1165 KB)

### Abstract

An analytical expression for the variance of the radiance measured by Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) emission spectrometers exists only in the limit of low noise. Outside this limit, the variance needs to be calculated numerically. In addition, a criterion for low noise is needed to identify properly calibrated radiances and optimize the instrument bandwidth. In this work, the variance and the magnitude of a noise-dependent spectral bias are calculated as a function of the system responsivity (*r*) and the noise level in its estimate (σ*
_{r}
*). The criterion σ

*/*

_{r}*r*<0.3, applied to downwelling and upwelling FTIR emission spectra, shows that the instrument bandwidth is specified properly for one instrument but needs to be restricted for another.

© 2011 OSA

## 1. Introduction

1. H. E. Revercomb, H. Buijs, H. B. Howell, D. D. Laporte, W. L. Smith, and L. A. Sromovsky, “Radiometric calibration of IR Fourier transform spectrometers: solution to a problem with the High-Resolution Interferometer Sounder,” Appl. Opt. **27**(15), 3210–3218 (1988). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2. L. A. Sromovsky, “Radiometric errors in complex Fourier transform spectrometry,” Appl. Opt. **42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

4. R. O. Knuteson, H. E. Revercomb, F. A. Best, N. C. Ciganovich, R. G. Dedecker, T. P. Dirkx, S. C. Ellington, W. F. Feltz, R. K. Garcia, H. B. Howell, W. L. Smith, J. F. Short, and D. C. Tobin, “Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) Part II: instrument performance,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. **21**(12), 1777–1789 (2004). [CrossRef]

5. D. L. Cohen, “Noise-equivalent change in radiance for sampling noise in a double-sided interferogram,” Appl. Opt. **42**(13), 2289–2300 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2. L. A. Sromovsky, “Radiometric errors in complex Fourier transform spectrometry,” Appl. Opt. **42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

2. L. A. Sromovsky, “Radiometric errors in complex Fourier transform spectrometry,” Appl. Opt. **42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*r*) and the uncertainty (σ

*) in the measurement-based estimation of*

_{r}*r*(

*r*). In addition, the variance and bias in calibrated radiances due to noise in raw spectra are determined numerically as a function of σ

_{m }*/*

_{r}*r*. In section 2, a rationale for setting the criterion in terms of σ

*/*

_{r}*r*is discussed, after introducing the notation that will be used here and expressing the variance in the limit of low noise in this notation. In section 3, the error in the calibrated radiance due to noise in the raw spectra is derived. It is shown that high noise causes biases in calibrated spectra; the magnitude of the bias is calculated numerically, as a function of σ

*/*

_{r}*r*. The variance of the calibrated radiance is determined as a function of three error terms that are calculated numerically and depend, in turn, on σ

*/*

_{r}*r*. The variance is used to set a quantitative criterion for low noise. In section 4 this criterion is applied to downwelling and upwelling FTIR emission spectra to choose an optimal bandwidth, which is then compared to that specified for each instrument. Finally, section 5 presents conclusions of this work. A companion paper ([6

6. P. M. Rowe, Department of Geography, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, Moscow, Idaho 83844, S. P. Neshyba, C. J. Cox, and V. P. Walden are preparing a manuscript to be called, “A responsivity-based criterion for accurate calibration of FTIR emission spectra: identification of in-band low-responsivity wavenumbers.”

## 2. A criterion for accurate calibration in terms of responsivity

**42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*/*

_{r}*r*as a figure of merit for the instrument. Finally, we examine measurements of the system responsivity.

### 2.1 Notation

**42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*x*is replaced with

*h*for the raw spectrum measured when viewing the hot calibration source,

*c*for the cold source, or

*s*for the scene. Furthermore,

*η*is the overall system efficiency,

*R*is the detector response,

_{d}*L*is the radiance,

_{x}*ϕ*is the instrument phase, and

*R*is the background or instrument spectrum. The term

_{d}O*t*represents the transmittance of air inside the instrument, which is not included in [2

_{AI}**42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*0.5ηR*defines the system responsivity,

_{d}t_{AI}*r*.

*n*exp(

_{x}*iϕ*), which is the detector noise for an average of

*M*coadded spectra; that is, the detector noise for a single scan divided by the square root of

*M*. Thus the standard deviations of

*n*,

_{h}*n*, and

_{c}*n*should be the same if the number of coadds are the same. For the purpose of this paper, we assume that the same number of coadditions will be taken for the hot and cold calibration sources (

_{s}*M*and

_{h}*M*are the same) but a different number may be used for the scene (

_{c}*M*may differ), thus the standard deviation of

_{s}*n*may be different. Although errors exist in uncalibrated spectra due to other sources, in this work we focus on detector noise.

_{s}### 2.2 Error in calibrated spectra in the low-noise limit

*V*, is accomplished using spectra of hot and cold blackbodies,

_{s}*V*and

_{h}*V*, of known radiances,

_{c}*L*and

_{h}*L*. The calibration equation is given by Revercomb et al. [1

_{c}1. H. E. Revercomb, H. Buijs, H. B. Howell, D. D. Laporte, W. L. Smith, and L. A. Sromovsky, “Radiometric calibration of IR Fourier transform spectrometers: solution to a problem with the High-Resolution Interferometer Sounder,” Appl. Opt. **27**(15), 3210–3218 (1988). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*L*due to noise,

_{s}*ε*. Using Eq. (2) for

_{L}*V*,

_{s}*V*and

_{h}*V*in Eq. (3) and solving for

_{c}*ε*yieldsIn the limit that (

_{L}*n*-

_{h}*n*)/

_{c}*r*<<

*L*-

_{h}*L*, which we will hereafter refer to as the “low-noise limit”, Sromovsky [2

_{c}**42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

**42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*ε*

_{L}^{2}>-<

*ε*>

_{L}^{2}, where <

*ε*> represents the bias (brackets represent the mean over a large number of samples).

_{L}*ε*> = 0, since <Re[

_{L}*n*]> = 0, indicating that no bias exists in calibrated spectra due to noise. Sromovsky develops an analytical expression for <

*ε*

_{L}^{2}>, (which is thus the variance in the low-noise limit),where the

*σ*terms represent the standard deviations of the real parts of

_{n}*n*,

_{s}*n*, and

_{h}*n*. (For the derivation, see [2

_{c}**42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*σ*can be calculated from the standard deviations of

_{n}*V*,

_{s}*V*and

_{h}*V*over a short enough time period that

_{c}*L*,

_{s}*L*, and

_{h}*L*are expected to be fairly constant. The variance in the low-noise limit given by Eq. (6) is useful because it can be calculated for real measurements. It is therefore important to determine when the requirement for low noise is met.

_{c}### 2.3 Rationale for setting a criterion in terms of the system responsivity

*n*-

_{h}*n*)/[

_{c}*r*(

*L*-

_{h}*L*)] << 1. The system responsivity cannot be measured directly but can be estimated from a measurement we term

_{c}*r*(in contrast to Revercomb et al. [1

_{m}1. H. E. Revercomb, H. Buijs, H. B. Howell, D. D. Laporte, W. L. Smith, and L. A. Sromovsky, “Radiometric calibration of IR Fourier transform spectrometers: solution to a problem with the High-Resolution Interferometer Sounder,” Appl. Opt. **27**(15), 3210–3218 (1988). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*n*-

_{h}*n*)/[

_{c}*r*(

*L*-

_{h}*L*)] << 1 can then be expressed succinctly in terms of

_{c}*r*and the standard deviation of

*r*as shown below. This makes the system responsivity a useful quantity for setting the criterion for low noise.

_{m},**27**(15), 3210–3218 (1988). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*r*,where the (complex) error in

_{m}*r*is given byWe can then express the requirement for low noise in the compact form

_{m}*e*/

_{r}*r*<< 1.

*n*cannot be measured, we need to relate

*e*/

_{r}*r*to quantities that are experimentally accessible. The variance of

*r*is given bywhere we have left out a subscript “

_{m}*m*” from

*e*and σ

_{r}*for notational convenience. The asterisk represents the complex conjugate. We can insert Eq. (8) for*

_{r}*r*into Eq. (10) to show thatwhere the double vertical bars indicate magnitude, and we have assumed that the phase is constant over the average and noted that <

_{m}*e*> = 0. Thus we can write a criterion for low noise in terms of quantities that are experimentally accessible as Equation (12) is a statistical statement of the condition (

_{r}*n*-

_{h}*n*)/[

_{c}*r*(

*L*-

_{h}*L*)] << 1. It is experimentally accessible, in that we can estimate

_{c}*r*and σ

*from measured values of*

_{r}*r*(σ

_{m}*can also be estimated from <||*

_{r}*e*||>, if known). Moreover, the value of σ

_{r}*/*

_{r}*r*incorporates important instrument characteristics and experiment protocols, as described in the introduction. In particular, σ

*depends on detector noise, number of coadditions*

_{r}*M*, and the temperature-dependent radiance difference between hot and cold calibration sources. The system responsivity,

*r*, depends on detector sensitivity, the optical system, and the influence of trace gases in the instrument. Thus, σ

*/*

_{r}*r*represents uncertainties embedded in each of these factors into a comprehensive, wavenumber-dependent figure of merit, which allows us to define a quantitative criterion for low noise. Next, we examine these quantities using experimental measurements to identify a practical threshold for the inequality appearing in Eq. (12).

### 2.4 The responsivity estimation

*r*|| and estimates of σ

_{m}*for both a ground-based and a space-borne FTIR spectrometer. The ground-based spectrometer is an AERI [3*

_{r}3. R. O. Knuteson, H. E. Revercomb, F. A. Best, N. C. Ciganovich, R. G. Dedecker, T. P. Dirkx, S. C. Ellington, W. F. Feltz, R. K. Garcia, H. B. Howell, W. L. Smith, J. F. Short, and D. C. Tobin, “Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) Part I: instrument design,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. **21**(12), 1763–1776 (2004). [CrossRef]

4. R. O. Knuteson, H. E. Revercomb, F. A. Best, N. C. Ciganovich, R. G. Dedecker, T. P. Dirkx, S. C. Ellington, W. F. Feltz, R. K. Garcia, H. B. Howell, W. L. Smith, J. F. Short, and D. C. Tobin, “Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) Part II: instrument performance,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. **21**(12), 1777–1789 (2004). [CrossRef]

7. G. Lesins, L. Bourdages, T. Duck, J. Drummond, E. Eloranta, and V. Walden, “Large surface radiative forcing from topographic blowing snow residuals measured in the High Arctic at Eureka,” Atmos. Chem. Phys. **9**(6), 1847–1862 (2009). [CrossRef]

8. A. Shimota, H. Kobayashi, and S. Kadokura, “Radiometric calibration for the airborne interferometric monitor for greenhouse gases simulator,” Appl. Opt. **38**(3), 571–576 (1999). [CrossRef]

9. V. P. Walden, R. L. Tanamachi, P. M. Rowe, H. E. Revercomb, D. C. Tobin, and S. A. Ackerman, “Improvements in the data quality of the Interferometric Monitor for greenhouse Gases,” Appl. Opt. **49**(3), 520–528 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*r*|| for a summertime AERI measurement, while the dashed curve is an estimate of σ

_{m}*based on the standard deviation of sequential measurements of*

_{r}*r*. The bandwidths of instruments vary, depending on the characteristics of the optics and detector, the number of coadditions, and the error tolerance of the user. For this particular AERI, the lower bandwidth limit has been specified as 500 cm

_{m}^{−1}[10

10. P. Rowe, L. Miloshevich, D. Turner, and V. Walden, “Dry bias in Vaisala RS90 radiosonde humidity profiles over Antarctica,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. **25**(9), 1529–1541 (2008). [CrossRef]

^{−1}) and carbon dioxide (667 cm

^{−1}), the responsivity drops to very low values due to absorption by these gases in the instrument; this is discussed in RNCW. Away from strong line centers,

*r*varies slowly with wavenumber. Outside the sensitive region of the detector,

*r*is close to 0 and thus ||

*r*|| = ||

_{m}*e*exp(

_{r}*iϕ*)||.

*r*|| for band 1 of the IMG instrument. The dashed curve is an estimate of σ

_{m}*based on the standard deviation of ||*

_{r}*r*|| about neighboring spectral data points (in ~10 cm

_{m}^{−1}intervals) from 2350 to 2500 cm

^{−1}. Assuming the noise level <||

*n*||> is fairly constant with wavenumber, this can be used to estimate σ

*at all wavenumbers, since*

_{r}*L*and

_{h}*L*are known (

_{c}*L*= 0, since the cold calibration source is space for the IMG). Vertical dash-dotted lines represent the bandwidth specified for the instrument [8

_{c}8. A. Shimota, H. Kobayashi, and S. Kadokura, “Radiometric calibration for the airborne interferometric monitor for greenhouse gases simulator,” Appl. Opt. **38**(3), 571–576 (1999). [CrossRef]

^{−1}),

*r*is still large but σ

*has also become large, as*

_{r}*L*decreases with wavenumber (i.e.

_{h}*r*has become very noisy). Overall, σ

_{m}*/ ||*

_{r}*r*|| is considerably larger in-band than for the AERI.

_{m}*/*

_{r }*r*~0.5 at ~3000 cm

^{−1}, thus calling into question whether this meets the low-noise criterion σ

*/*

_{r }*r*<<1 [Eq. (12)]. Outside the low-noise limit, Eq. (6) does not apply and an alternate estimate of the variance is needed. However, a method for calculating <

*ε*> and <ε

_{L}^{2}*> outside the low-noise limit has not been previously published. An estimate of the variance that applies to all error levels can also be used to set the criterion for how much less than 1 the inequality must be for the low-noise limit to be valid. In addition, an estimate of <ε*

_{L}*> is needed to determine if a bias exists in calibrated spectra outside the low-noise limit. These issues are addressed in section 3.*

_{L}## 3. Bias and variance for all noise levels

*> and <*

_{L}*ε*> are derived that are valid for all noise levels. The expressions are written in terms of three dimensionless quantities that can be calculated independently of any experiment, as a function of σ

_{L}^{2}*. In the low-noise limit when σ*

_{r }/r*<<1, we show that these results are equivalent to those of previous work [2*

_{r }/r**42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*e*≡

_{c}*n*/(

_{c}*L*-

_{h}*L*) and

_{c}*e*≡ (

_{s}*n*/

_{s}*s*) /(

*L*-

_{h}*L*), and where

_{c}*s*is defined so that

*n*/

_{s}*s*has the same standard deviation as

*n*. We can then write ε

_{h}*in a more compact form,*

_{L}### 3.1 Bias error

*, < ε*

_{L}*>, represents the mean bias in spectra, that is, the bias if many spectra are averaged. If*

_{L}*s*,

*L*,

_{h}*L*, and

_{c}*L*are assumed to be constant with time, thenIn the low-noise limit, the approximate expressions for the <

_{s}*f*>, <

_{s}*f*>, and <

_{r}*f*> are zero, indicating that errors average to zero, and no bias exists. Outside of the low-noise limit, the terms can be calculated numerically. For example, the expectation value for

_{c}*f*iswhere each integral sign actually represents two integrations, over the real and imaginary parts, each from -∞ to ∞ and where the probability distributions,

_{s}*P*, are complex Gaussians. Taking the real part of the term in brackets and rearranging gives a sum of terms, one multiplied by an integral whose integrand is odd about Re(

*e*) and the other an integrand that is odd about Im(

_{s}*e*). The two terms, and therefore <

_{s}*f*>, are zero. Thus, Eq. (18) reduces toThe value of <

_{s}*f*> can be shown to be proportional to <

_{c}*f*> as follows. We define a term <

_{r}*f*> by analogy to <

_{h}*f*> so that <

_{c}*f*> = <

_{r}*f*> = <

_{h-c}*f*>-<

_{h}*f*>. Because we are taking the mean, and

_{c}*n*and

_{h}*n*are statistically identical, we can interchange them in <

_{c}*f*> and replace each with its negative, since they are equally likely to be positive or negative. Thus <

_{h}*f*> = -<

_{h}*f*>. Then <

_{c}*f*> = -<

_{r}*f*>-<

_{c}*f*>, or <

_{c}*f*> = −0.5<

_{c}*f*>. Substituting −0.5<

_{r}*f*> for <

_{r}*f*> in Eq. (20) and rearranging givesThe expectation value for

_{c}*f*can be calculated numerically and is found to be finite. (The singularity in the expression for <

_{r}*f*> at

_{r}*e*= −1 is integrable). Figure 2 shows

_{r}*<f*as a function of σ

_{r}>*/*

_{r}*r*. Figure 2(a) shows the increase in <

*f*> from ~0 to ~1 as σ

_{r}*/*

_{r}*r*increases from 0.1 to 30. In Fig. 2(b), the y-axis has been converted to a log scale to emphasize the rapid decrease in

*<f*as σ

_{r}>*/*

_{r}*r*decreases, for small σ

*/*

_{r}*r*.

*L*and

_{h}*L*are approximately constant (i.e. the temperatures of the calibration sources are constant), and

_{c}*L*is constant (i.e. the scene radiance is constant), then the mean error is given by Eq. (21). Thus, this represents the mean bias in the calibrated radiance due to noise.

_{s}*f*≈Re[

_{r}*e*/

_{r}*r*], and <

*f*> ≈0, since the real part of the error is random. Therefore, in the low-noise limit, biases are zero, as mentioned in section 2. This is borne out in the numerical calculations shown in Fig. 2, where

_{r}*<f*approaches zero as σ

_{r}>*/*

_{r}*r*decreases.

*/*

_{r}*r*must be calculated at each wavenumber and the corresponding values of

*<f*determined from Fig. 2. Finally, these, together with an estimate of

_{r}>*L*, can be inserted into Eq. (21) to obtain the bias.

_{s}*/*

_{r}*r*increases,

*<f*approaches unity, which givesIn this limit, the expected average of calibrated radiances, <

_{r}>*L*+ ε

_{s}*>, has no dependence on the scene radiance, but approaches 0.5(*

_{L}*L*+

_{h}*L*).

_{c}*L*+

_{h}*L*) (red dashed curve) is greater than the blue curve at most wavenumbers within the band (black vertical dashed lines). Outside the band, at wavenumbers smaller than 492 cm

_{c}^{−1}and greater than 1820 cm

^{−1},

*r*~0 because the instrument is unresponsive. Thus, in these regions σ

*/*

_{r}*r*is quite large, and we expect <

*L*+ ε

_{s}*> to be close to 0.5(*

_{L}*L*+

_{h}*L*). In the figure, the blue curve and red dashed curve are approximately the same in these regions, showing that this is indeed the case and validating the result predicted by Eq. (22). There are also wavenumbers near strong absorption line-centers in-band where the mean is close to 0.5(

_{c}*L*+

_{h}*L*); these are discussed in RNCW.

_{c}*/*

_{r}*r*is small, the bias will be negligible. For example, at 1835 cm

^{−1}, for the AERI measurement of 0357 UTC on 1 July 2008, σ

*/*

_{r}*r*= 0.34 corresponds to an uncertainty σ

*(in the low-noise limit) of 1.9 radiance unit [RU; 1 RU = mW m*

_{L}^{−1}sr

^{−1}(cm

^{−1})

^{−1}], but only corresponds to a bias error of ~0.0008 RU [noting from Fig. 2 that

*f*= 10

_{r}^{−4}, and further that

*L*+

_{h}*L*= 11.5 and

_{c}*L*~

_{s}*L*~5.9 RU, and using Eq. (21)]. However, at 1841 cm

_{c}^{−1}(above the standard cut-off for AERI instruments of 1800 cm

^{−1}), the uncertainty is 6.0 RU (in the low-noise limit) and the bias is 2.1 RU. It is therefore important to restrict the spectral range so that it only includes wavenumbers where σ

*/*

_{r}*r*is small enough that the bias error is negligible compared to the total error budget; such a decision will likely depend on how the data will be used. In particular, it is desirable that the bias be smaller than the random component of the noise after the averaging of calibrated spectra or spectral data points, or removal of noise through techniques such as principal component analysis [11

11. P. Antonelli, H. E. Revercomb, L. A. Sromovsky, W. L. Smith, R. O. Knuteson, D. C. Tobin, R. K. Garcia, H. B. Howell, H. L. Huang, and F. A. Best, “A principal component noise filter for high spectral resolution infrared measurements,” J. Geophys. Res. **109**(D23), D23102 (2004). [CrossRef]

12. D. D. Turner, R. O. Knuteson, H. E. Revercomb, C. Lo, and R. G. Dedecker, “Noise reduction of Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) observations using principal component analysis,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. **23**(9), 1223–1238 (2006). [CrossRef]

### 3.2 Variance

_{L}^{2}= <

*ε*>-<ε

_{L}^{2}*>*

_{L}^{2}, which is approximately equal to <

*ε*>. Squaring Eq. (17) and taking the mean leads toLike <

_{L}^{2}*f*>, all averages that include

_{s}*f*to the first power are zero: <

_{s}*f*> = <

_{s}f_{r}*f*> = <

_{s}f_{c}*f*> = 0. Reducing Eq. (23) then givesIf we omit a small region about the singularity to allow numerical computation (i.e., calculate a truncated mean), the integrations can be performed for <

_{h}f_{s}*f*

_{s}^{2}>, <

*f*

_{c}^{2}>, <

*f*

_{r}^{2}>, and <

*f*>.

_{c}f_{r}*/*

_{r}*r,*all truncated-mean terms converge to the low-noise approximations for the <

*f*

^{2}> terms and the cross-term in Eq. (24). For example, in the low-noise limit, <

*f*

_{s}^{2}> ~<Re[

*e*]

_{s}^{2}>. To set a threshold for what is considered low noise, we can compare the uppermost curves in Fig. 4 (equivalent to ignoring errors that occur once in 100,000 measurements) to those for the low-noise approximation. At σ

*/*

_{r}*r*= 0.3, the differences are less than about 20% for the four terms, and thus the variance of the calibrated spectrum (σ

_{L}^{2}) can reasonably be approximated by that for the low-noise limit [Eq. (6)]. Outside this limit, <

*ε*

_{L}^{2}> can be calculated by determining σ

*/*

_{r}*r*, choosing appropriate expectation values from the four plots, and plugging the results into Eq. (24). The variance will actually be slightly smaller, since <

*ε*>

_{L}^{2}, which is generally much smaller than <

*ε*

_{L}^{2}>, also needs to be estimated (as described above) and subtracted. Thus, the low-noise criterion is set to σ

*/*

_{r}*r*< 0.3, corresponding to a variance that agrees with that for the low-noise approximation to within about 20% for 99.999% of all data.

*f*> terms are used, plugging these into Eq. (24) and rearranging gives the expression for the variance in the low-noise limit given by Sromovsky [2

^{2}**42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*f*> terms and the cross-term, <

^{2}*f*>, each have non-integrable singularities (at

_{c}f_{r}*e*/

_{r}*r*= −1), resulting in infinite values [13]. For an actual measurement, ignoring the singularity in the low-noise limit (σ

*/*

_{r}*r*

*<<*1) amounts to assuming that |

*e*/

_{r}*r*| will never be close to 1. As σ

*/*

_{r}*r*gets larger, the probability increases of |

*e*/

_{r}*r*| being close to 1, corresponding to the possibility of arbitrarily large errors in measurements (one extreme example is an error of 2800 RU observed in a calibrated AERI spectrum on 1 July 2008; more moderate errors are shown in Fig. 2(a) of RNCW).

## 4. Application to FTIR emission spectra

*/*

_{r}*r*for (a) the AERI and (b) the IMG. Vertical dashed lines indicate the limits specified for the bands, as discussed previously. The horizontal dashed line in each panel represents σ

*/*

_{r}*r*= 0.3. Thus the values indicated by asterisks show the bandwidths that would result in σ

*/*

_{r}*r*< 0.3 everywhere within the band, so that bias errors are negligible and the variance due to noise is within ~20% of that for the low-noise limit. For this particular AERI, the bandwidth specified for the instrument, 500 to 1800 cm

^{−1}[10

10. P. Rowe, L. Miloshevich, D. Turner, and V. Walden, “Dry bias in Vaisala RS90 radiosonde humidity profiles over Antarctica,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. **25**(9), 1529–1541 (2008). [CrossRef]

^{−1}. For the IMG the lower bandwidth (2325 cm

^{−1}[8

8. A. Shimota, H. Kobayashi, and S. Kadokura, “Radiometric calibration for the airborne interferometric monitor for greenhouse gases simulator,” Appl. Opt. **38**(3), 571–576 (1999). [CrossRef]

^{−1}[8

**38**(3), 571–576 (1999). [CrossRef]

^{−1}.

*/*

_{r}*r*< 0.3. To validate this result using AERI measurements, Fig. 6 shows an expanded view from 480 to 520 cm

^{−1}of the standard deviation for an AERI measurement calculated using both Eq. (6) and Eq. (24), where we have omitted 0.001% of the total probability in calculating Eq. (24). Also shown is an estimate of the bias, calculated numerically according to Eq. (21). As expected, where σ

*/*

_{r}*r*> 0.3 (between 480 and 492 cm

^{−1}) the two variance estimates disagree (by as much as 100%), while where σ

*/*

_{r}*r*< 0.3 (above 492 cm

^{−1}) the two variance estimates agree to within better than 20%. Furthermore, the bias indicated by <ε

*> is found to be less than 0.01 RU for wavenumbers greater than 492 cm*

_{L}^{−1}.

*/*

_{r}*r*depends on the accuracy with which the noise in raw spectra can be estimated as well as the stability of the instrument temperature and phase. In particular, σ

*/*

_{r}*r*becomes more difficult to estimate as it gets larger; that is, as

*r*gets smaller. In addition, since

*r*is complex, it must be taken into account that ||

_{m}*r*|| may overestimate

_{m}*r*by as much as σ

*[2*

_{r}**42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*/*

_{r}*r*is especially important given that σ

*/*

_{r}*r*can change quickly (for example, by an order of magnitude over 40 cm

^{−1}, as shown in Fig. 6) and that small changes may correspond to shifts from a value that corresponds to a negligible bias and statistically predictable errors to one that results in a large bias and the potential of arbitrarily large errors, as shown in Figs. 2 and 4.

*/*

_{r}*r*< 0.3 can be used as a check on the bandwidth, or to set a maximum range for the bandwidth. However, since σ

*only includes random errors in raw spectra of hot and cold calibration sources, and therefore does not account for other sources of error, it will often be desirable to restrict the bandwidth further than indicated by σ*

_{r}*/*

_{r}*r*. In particular, sources of error other than noise may cause a bias that can be observed in averages of calibrated spectra. For example, for a measurement made using band 3 of the IMG instrument, a bias of ~0.25

*L*is evident at 1900 cm

_{h}^{−1}even though σ

*/*

_{r}*r*~0.1, which should indicate a negligible bias, and a bias of ~0.5

*L*is evident at 2100 cm

_{h}^{−1}, where σ

*/*

_{r}*r*~0.2 Such biases could be due to a background spectrum [

*R*in Eq. (1)] that is different for calibration and scene views, or to other sources of error such as detector nonlinearity. For the IMG instrument, evidence for such errors can be seen in the raw spectra.

_{d}O## 5. Conclusions

**42**(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]

*n*/

*r*) is small compared to

*L*–

_{h}*L*. In this paper, we restate this requirement as σ

_{c}*/*

_{r}*r*<< 1 where

*r*is the theoretical, real, noise-free system responsivity, estimated from a measurement-derived responsivity

*r*, and where σ

_{m}*is the standard deviation of*

_{r}*r*. We use numerical simulations to show that as σ

_{m}*/*

_{r}*r*gets larger, the likelihood of biases and arbitrarily large noise spikes in calibrated radiances increases. Numerical simulations are used to calculate the magnitude of the mean bias as a function of σ

*/*

_{r}*r*, showing that the bias is negligible (compared to typical error budgets) for σ

*/*

_{r}*r*< 0.3. However, for large σ

*/*

_{r}*r*, the mean calibrated radiance approaches 0.5(

*L*+

_{h}*L*), regardless of the actual sky radiance. In confirmation, averages of many calibrated radiances measured with surface and satellite-based instruments are found to be ~0.5(

_{c}*L*+

_{h}*L*) outside the detector bandwidth. Numerical simulations are used to calculate the variance, excluding a small region of probability where the error due to noise is infinite. This variance is found to agree with the low-noise approximation to the variance to within 20% for 99.999% of measurements when σ

_{c}*/*

_{r}*r*= 0.3. Thus a reasonable criterion for the low-noise approximation is given as σ

*/*

_{r}*r*< 0.3.

*/*

_{r}*r*< 0.3 is applied to downwelling radiance spectra (measured by an AERI at Eureka) and upwelling spectra (measured by the IMG). The bandwidth specified for the AERI, 500 to 1800 cm

^{−1}, is found to be within the bandwidth meeting the criterion, 492.3 to 1829.8 cm

^{−1}. For the IMG the bandwidth specified is 2325 to 3030 cm

^{−1}but the range meeting the criterion is 2156 to 2853 cm

^{−1}, indicating that the upper bandwidth needs to be reduced. If other sources of error are small and well known and if σ

*/*

_{r}*r*can be calculated with good accuracy, as for the Eureka-AERI instrument, this criterion can be used to push the limits of the bandwidth when it is desirable to use data near its limits. More generally, uncertainty in the estimate of σ

*/*

_{r}*r*and the presence of other errors (as for the IMG) make the criterion most useful as a check on the bandwidth and to set its maximum range.

## Acknowledgments

## References and links

1. | H. E. Revercomb, H. Buijs, H. B. Howell, D. D. Laporte, W. L. Smith, and L. A. Sromovsky, “Radiometric calibration of IR Fourier transform spectrometers: solution to a problem with the High-Resolution Interferometer Sounder,” Appl. Opt. |

2. | L. A. Sromovsky, “Radiometric errors in complex Fourier transform spectrometry,” Appl. Opt. |

3. | R. O. Knuteson, H. E. Revercomb, F. A. Best, N. C. Ciganovich, R. G. Dedecker, T. P. Dirkx, S. C. Ellington, W. F. Feltz, R. K. Garcia, H. B. Howell, W. L. Smith, J. F. Short, and D. C. Tobin, “Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) Part I: instrument design,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. |

4. | R. O. Knuteson, H. E. Revercomb, F. A. Best, N. C. Ciganovich, R. G. Dedecker, T. P. Dirkx, S. C. Ellington, W. F. Feltz, R. K. Garcia, H. B. Howell, W. L. Smith, J. F. Short, and D. C. Tobin, “Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) Part II: instrument performance,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. |

5. | D. L. Cohen, “Noise-equivalent change in radiance for sampling noise in a double-sided interferogram,” Appl. Opt. |

6. | P. M. Rowe, Department of Geography, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, Moscow, Idaho 83844, S. P. Neshyba, C. J. Cox, and V. P. Walden are preparing a manuscript to be called, “A responsivity-based criterion for accurate calibration of FTIR emission spectra: identification of in-band low-responsivity wavenumbers.” |

7. | G. Lesins, L. Bourdages, T. Duck, J. Drummond, E. Eloranta, and V. Walden, “Large surface radiative forcing from topographic blowing snow residuals measured in the High Arctic at Eureka,” Atmos. Chem. Phys. |

8. | A. Shimota, H. Kobayashi, and S. Kadokura, “Radiometric calibration for the airborne interferometric monitor for greenhouse gases simulator,” Appl. Opt. |

9. | V. P. Walden, R. L. Tanamachi, P. M. Rowe, H. E. Revercomb, D. C. Tobin, and S. A. Ackerman, “Improvements in the data quality of the Interferometric Monitor for greenhouse Gases,” Appl. Opt. |

10. | P. Rowe, L. Miloshevich, D. Turner, and V. Walden, “Dry bias in Vaisala RS90 radiosonde humidity profiles over Antarctica,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. |

11. | P. Antonelli, H. E. Revercomb, L. A. Sromovsky, W. L. Smith, R. O. Knuteson, D. C. Tobin, R. K. Garcia, H. B. Howell, H. L. Huang, and F. A. Best, “A principal component noise filter for high spectral resolution infrared measurements,” J. Geophys. Res. |

12. | D. D. Turner, R. O. Knuteson, H. E. Revercomb, C. Lo, and R. G. Dedecker, “Noise reduction of Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) observations using principal component analysis,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. |

13. | M. Jackson, Mathematics Department, University of Puget Sound, 1500 N. Warner, Tacoma, WA 98416 (personal communication, 2010). |

**OCIS Codes**

(120.0280) Instrumentation, measurement, and metrology : Remote sensing and sensors

(120.3180) Instrumentation, measurement, and metrology : Interferometry

(120.5630) Instrumentation, measurement, and metrology : Radiometry

(120.6200) Instrumentation, measurement, and metrology : Spectrometers and spectroscopic instrumentation

(280.4991) Remote sensing and sensors : Passive remote sensing

**ToC Category:**

Optical Devices

**History**

Original Manuscript: November 17, 2010

Revised Manuscript: February 15, 2011

Manuscript Accepted: February 18, 2011

Published: March 8, 2011

**Citation**

Penny M. Rowe, Steven P. Neshyba, and Von P. Walden, "Responsivity-based criterion for accurate calibration of FTIR emission spectra: theoretical development and bandwidth estimation," Opt. Express **19**, 5451-5463 (2011)

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/oe/abstract.cfm?URI=oe-19-6-5451

Sort: Year | Journal | Reset

### References

- H. E. Revercomb, H. Buijs, H. B. Howell, D. D. Laporte, W. L. Smith, and L. A. Sromovsky, “Radiometric calibration of IR Fourier transform spectrometers: solution to a problem with the High-Resolution Interferometer Sounder,” Appl. Opt. 27(15), 3210–3218 (1988). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- L. A. Sromovsky, “Radiometric errors in complex Fourier transform spectrometry,” Appl. Opt. 42(10), 1779–1787 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- R. O. Knuteson, H. E. Revercomb, F. A. Best, N. C. Ciganovich, R. G. Dedecker, T. P. Dirkx, S. C. Ellington, W. F. Feltz, R. K. Garcia, H. B. Howell, W. L. Smith, J. F. Short, and D. C. Tobin, “Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) Part I: instrument design,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 21(12), 1763–1776 (2004). [CrossRef]
- R. O. Knuteson, H. E. Revercomb, F. A. Best, N. C. Ciganovich, R. G. Dedecker, T. P. Dirkx, S. C. Ellington, W. F. Feltz, R. K. Garcia, H. B. Howell, W. L. Smith, J. F. Short, and D. C. Tobin, “Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) Part II: instrument performance,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 21(12), 1777–1789 (2004). [CrossRef]
- D. L. Cohen, “Noise-equivalent change in radiance for sampling noise in a double-sided interferogram,” Appl. Opt. 42(13), 2289–2300 (2003). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- P. M. Rowe, Department of Geography, University of Idaho, 875 Perimeter Drive, Moscow, Idaho 83844, S. P. Neshyba, C. J. Cox, and V. P. Walden are preparing a manuscript to be called, “A responsivity-based criterion for accurate calibration of FTIR emission spectra: identification of in-band low-responsivity wavenumbers.”
- G. Lesins, L. Bourdages, T. Duck, J. Drummond, E. Eloranta, and V. Walden, “Large surface radiative forcing from topographic blowing snow residuals measured in the High Arctic at Eureka,” Atmos. Chem. Phys. 9(6), 1847–1862 (2009). [CrossRef]
- A. Shimota, H. Kobayashi, and S. Kadokura, “Radiometric calibration for the airborne interferometric monitor for greenhouse gases simulator,” Appl. Opt. 38(3), 571–576 (1999). [CrossRef]
- V. P. Walden, R. L. Tanamachi, P. M. Rowe, H. E. Revercomb, D. C. Tobin, and S. A. Ackerman, “Improvements in the data quality of the Interferometric Monitor for greenhouse Gases,” Appl. Opt. 49(3), 520–528 (2010). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- P. Rowe, L. Miloshevich, D. Turner, and V. Walden, “Dry bias in Vaisala RS90 radiosonde humidity profiles over Antarctica,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 25(9), 1529–1541 (2008). [CrossRef]
- P. Antonelli, H. E. Revercomb, L. A. Sromovsky, W. L. Smith, R. O. Knuteson, D. C. Tobin, R. K. Garcia, H. B. Howell, H. L. Huang, and F. A. Best, “A principal component noise filter for high spectral resolution infrared measurements,” J. Geophys. Res. 109(D23), D23102 (2004). [CrossRef]
- D. D. Turner, R. O. Knuteson, H. E. Revercomb, C. Lo, and R. G. Dedecker, “Noise reduction of Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI) observations using principal component analysis,” J. Atmos. Ocean. Technol. 23(9), 1223–1238 (2006). [CrossRef]
- M. Jackson, Mathematics Department, University of Puget Sound, 1500 N. Warner, Tacoma, WA 98416 (personal communication, 2010).

## Cited By |
Alert me when this paper is cited |

OSA is able to provide readers links to articles that cite this paper by participating in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. CrossRef includes content from more than 3000 publishers and societies. In addition to listing OSA journal articles that cite this paper, citing articles from other participating publishers will also be listed.

« Previous Article | Next Article »

OSA is a member of CrossRef.