| Literature DB >> 35746373 |
Zhifeng Yu1,2, Qiyu Huang1, Xiaoxue Peng1, Haijian Liu1,2, Qin Ai1, Bin Zhou1,2, Xiaohong Yuan1,2, Meihong Fang1,2, Ben Wang1.
Abstract
To improve the ability of remote sensing technology in recognizing black-odorous water bodies in Hangzhou, this study analyzed the typical spectral characteristics of black-odorous water in Hangzhou based on measured spectral data and water quality parameters, including the transparency, dissolved oxygen, oxidation reduction potential, and ammonia nitrogen. The single-band threshold method, the normalized difference black-odorous water index (NDBWI) model, the black-odorous water index (BOI) model, and the color purity on a Commission Internationale de L'Eclairage (CIE) model were compared to analyze the spatial and temporal distribution characteristics of the black-odorous water in Hangzhou. The results showed that: (1) The remote sensing reflectance of black-odorous water was lower than that of ordinary water, the spectral curve was gentle, and the wave peak shifted toward the near-infrared direction in the wavelength range of 650-850 nm; (2) Among the aforementioned models, the normalized and improved normalized black-odorous water index methods had a higher accuracy, reaching 87.5%, and the threshold values for black-odorous water identification were 0.14 and 0.1, respectively; (3) From 2015 to 2018, the quantity of black-odorous water in the main urban area of Hangzhou showed a decreasing trend, and black-odorous water was mainly distributed in the Gongshu District and tended to appear in narrow rivers, densely populated areas, and factory construction sites. This study is expected to be of great practical value for the rapid tracking and monitoring of urban black-odorous water by using remote sensing technology for future work.Entities:
Keywords: GF-2; black-odorous water; remote sensing
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35746373 PMCID: PMC9230946 DOI: 10.3390/s22124593
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Measured water points distribution.
GF-2 satellite payload technical indicators.
| Parameter | Indicators | |
|---|---|---|
| Spectral range | Panchromatic | 450–900 nm |
| Multispectral | Band 1: 450–520 nm | |
| Band 2: 520–590 nm | ||
| Band 3: 630–690 nm | ||
| Band 4: 770–890 nm | ||
| Spatial resolution | Panchromatic | 1 m |
| Multispectral | 4 m | |
| Bandwidth | 45 km | |
Image information of the study area.
| Imaging Time | Location of Image Center | Image Range |
|---|---|---|
| 2 August 2015 | lon: 120.136° E |
|
| 16 March 2016 | lon: 120.292° E |
|
| lon: 120.067° E |
| |
| 14 May 2018 | lon: 120.232° E |
|
| lon: 119.974° E |
|
Figure 2Reflectance spectra of black-odorous water and normal water.
Figure 3Comparison of black-odorous water with normal water.
Figure 4Comparison of the first derivative between the average spectrum of black-odorous water and the average spectrum of normal water.
DO content of black-odorous water body and general water.
| Water Type | DO Content (mg/L) |
|---|---|
| Black-odorous water | 3.4028 |
| General water | 7.0950 |
Figure 5GF-2 simulation comparison of the mean reflectance of black-odorous water and general water.
Figure 6Single-band threshold method.
Figure 7Normalized black-odorous water index.
Figure 8Normalized black-odorous water index after correction.
Figure 9CIE colorimetry.
Accuracy evaluation.
| Sample Name | Single-Band Threshold Method | NDBWI | BOI | CIE | Actual Water Quality | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calculation Results (sr−1) | Identification Results | Calculation Results | Identification Results | Calculation Results | Identification Results | Calculation Results | Identification Results | ||
| P1 | 0.0539 | normal | 0.1333 | normal | 0.087 | normal | 504 | normal | normal |
| P2 | 0.0187 | odorous | 0.1353 | normal | 0.096 | normal | 550 | normal | odorous |
| P3 | 0.0168 | odorous | 0.2036 | odorous | 0.144 | odorous | 542 | normal | odorous |
| P4 | 0.0362 | odorous | 0.1681 | odorous | 0.109 | odorous | 502 | normal | odorous |
| P5 | 0.0409 | normal | 0.1615 | odorous | 0.125 | odorous | 537 | odorous | odorous |
| P6 | 0.0346 | odorous | 0.1240 | normal | 0.096 | normal | 499 | normal | normal |
| P7 | 0.0667 | normal | 0.1383 | normal | 0.090 | normal | 500 | normal | normal |
| P8 | 0.0152 | odorous | 0.2303 | odorous | 0.183 | odorous | 558 | normal | odorous |
Figure 10Recognition results of black-odorous water by different algorithms.
Figure 11Distribution map of black-odorous water in 2015.
Figure 12Distribution map of black-odorous water in 2016.
Figure 13Distribution map of black-odorous water in 2018.