Measurement uncertainties in PSICAM and reflective tube absorption meters

Ina Lefering, Rüdiger Röttgers, Christian Utschig, Michael S. Twardowski, David McKee

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The nature and magnitude of measurement uncertainties (precision and accuracy) associated with two approaches for measuring absorption by turbid waters are investigated here: (a) point source integrating cavity absorption meters (PSICAM), and (b) reflective tube absorption meters (AC-9 and AC-s – both WET Labs Inc., USA). Absolute measurement precision at 440 nm was quantified using standard deviations of triplicate measurements for the PSICAM and de-trended, bin averaged time series for the AC-9/s, giving comparable levels (< 0.006 m-1) for both instruments. Using data collected from a wide range of UK coastal waters, PSICAM accuracy was assessed by comparing both total non-water absorption and absorption by coloured dissolved organic material (CDOM) measured on discrete samples by two independent PSICAMs. AC-9/s performance was tested by comparing total non-water absorption measured in situ by an AC-9 and an AC-s mounted on the same frame. Results showed that the PSICAM outperforms AC-9/s instruments with regards to accuracy, with average spread in the PSICAM total absorption data of 0.006 m-1 (RMSE) compared to 0.028 m-1 for the AC-9/s devices. Despite application of a state of the art scattering correction method, the AC-9/s instruments still tend to overestimate absorption compared to PSICAM data by on average 0.014 m-1 RMSE (AC-s) and 0.043 m-1 RMSE (AC-9). This remaining discrepancy can be largely attributed to residual limitations in the correction of AC-9/s data for scattering effects and limitations in the quality of AC-9/s calibration measurements.
LanguageEnglish
Pages24384-24402
Number of pages19
JournalOptics Express
Volume26
Issue number19
Early online date4 Sep 2018
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 17 Sep 2018

Fingerprint

point sources
alternating current
tubes
cavities
coastal water
organic materials
scattering
standard deviation

Keywords

  • measurement uncertainties
  • absorption
  • point source integrating cavity absorption meters (PSICAM)
  • reflective tube absorption meters

Cite this

Lefering, I., Röttgers, R., Utschig, C., Twardowski, M. S., & McKee, D. (2018). Measurement uncertainties in PSICAM and reflective tube absorption meters. Optics Express, 26(19), 24384-24402. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.26.024384
Lefering, Ina ; Röttgers, Rüdiger ; Utschig, Christian ; Twardowski, Michael S. ; McKee, David. / Measurement uncertainties in PSICAM and reflective tube absorption meters. In: Optics Express. 2018 ; Vol. 26, No. 19. pp. 24384-24402.
@article{ce1faeb0460b48aeb677ca3889e23638,
title = "Measurement uncertainties in PSICAM and reflective tube absorption meters",
abstract = "The nature and magnitude of measurement uncertainties (precision and accuracy) associated with two approaches for measuring absorption by turbid waters are investigated here: (a) point source integrating cavity absorption meters (PSICAM), and (b) reflective tube absorption meters (AC-9 and AC-s – both WET Labs Inc., USA). Absolute measurement precision at 440 nm was quantified using standard deviations of triplicate measurements for the PSICAM and de-trended, bin averaged time series for the AC-9/s, giving comparable levels (< 0.006 m-1) for both instruments. Using data collected from a wide range of UK coastal waters, PSICAM accuracy was assessed by comparing both total non-water absorption and absorption by coloured dissolved organic material (CDOM) measured on discrete samples by two independent PSICAMs. AC-9/s performance was tested by comparing total non-water absorption measured in situ by an AC-9 and an AC-s mounted on the same frame. Results showed that the PSICAM outperforms AC-9/s instruments with regards to accuracy, with average spread in the PSICAM total absorption data of 0.006 m-1 (RMSE) compared to 0.028 m-1 for the AC-9/s devices. Despite application of a state of the art scattering correction method, the AC-9/s instruments still tend to overestimate absorption compared to PSICAM data by on average 0.014 m-1 RMSE (AC-s) and 0.043 m-1 RMSE (AC-9). This remaining discrepancy can be largely attributed to residual limitations in the correction of AC-9/s data for scattering effects and limitations in the quality of AC-9/s calibration measurements.",
keywords = "measurement uncertainties, absorption, point source integrating cavity absorption meters (PSICAM), reflective tube absorption meters",
author = "Ina Lefering and R{\"u}diger R{\"o}ttgers and Christian Utschig and Twardowski, {Michael S.} and David McKee",
year = "2018",
month = "9",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1364/OE.26.024384",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "24384--24402",
journal = "Optics Express",
issn = "1094-4087",
publisher = "Optical Society of America",
number = "19",

}

Lefering, I, Röttgers, R, Utschig, C, Twardowski, MS & McKee, D 2018, 'Measurement uncertainties in PSICAM and reflective tube absorption meters' Optics Express, vol. 26, no. 19, pp. 24384-24402. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.26.024384

Measurement uncertainties in PSICAM and reflective tube absorption meters. / Lefering, Ina; Röttgers, Rüdiger; Utschig, Christian; Twardowski, Michael S.; McKee, David.

In: Optics Express, Vol. 26, No. 19, 17.09.2018, p. 24384-24402.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Measurement uncertainties in PSICAM and reflective tube absorption meters

AU - Lefering, Ina

AU - Röttgers, Rüdiger

AU - Utschig, Christian

AU - Twardowski, Michael S.

AU - McKee, David

PY - 2018/9/17

Y1 - 2018/9/17

N2 - The nature and magnitude of measurement uncertainties (precision and accuracy) associated with two approaches for measuring absorption by turbid waters are investigated here: (a) point source integrating cavity absorption meters (PSICAM), and (b) reflective tube absorption meters (AC-9 and AC-s – both WET Labs Inc., USA). Absolute measurement precision at 440 nm was quantified using standard deviations of triplicate measurements for the PSICAM and de-trended, bin averaged time series for the AC-9/s, giving comparable levels (< 0.006 m-1) for both instruments. Using data collected from a wide range of UK coastal waters, PSICAM accuracy was assessed by comparing both total non-water absorption and absorption by coloured dissolved organic material (CDOM) measured on discrete samples by two independent PSICAMs. AC-9/s performance was tested by comparing total non-water absorption measured in situ by an AC-9 and an AC-s mounted on the same frame. Results showed that the PSICAM outperforms AC-9/s instruments with regards to accuracy, with average spread in the PSICAM total absorption data of 0.006 m-1 (RMSE) compared to 0.028 m-1 for the AC-9/s devices. Despite application of a state of the art scattering correction method, the AC-9/s instruments still tend to overestimate absorption compared to PSICAM data by on average 0.014 m-1 RMSE (AC-s) and 0.043 m-1 RMSE (AC-9). This remaining discrepancy can be largely attributed to residual limitations in the correction of AC-9/s data for scattering effects and limitations in the quality of AC-9/s calibration measurements.

AB - The nature and magnitude of measurement uncertainties (precision and accuracy) associated with two approaches for measuring absorption by turbid waters are investigated here: (a) point source integrating cavity absorption meters (PSICAM), and (b) reflective tube absorption meters (AC-9 and AC-s – both WET Labs Inc., USA). Absolute measurement precision at 440 nm was quantified using standard deviations of triplicate measurements for the PSICAM and de-trended, bin averaged time series for the AC-9/s, giving comparable levels (< 0.006 m-1) for both instruments. Using data collected from a wide range of UK coastal waters, PSICAM accuracy was assessed by comparing both total non-water absorption and absorption by coloured dissolved organic material (CDOM) measured on discrete samples by two independent PSICAMs. AC-9/s performance was tested by comparing total non-water absorption measured in situ by an AC-9 and an AC-s mounted on the same frame. Results showed that the PSICAM outperforms AC-9/s instruments with regards to accuracy, with average spread in the PSICAM total absorption data of 0.006 m-1 (RMSE) compared to 0.028 m-1 for the AC-9/s devices. Despite application of a state of the art scattering correction method, the AC-9/s instruments still tend to overestimate absorption compared to PSICAM data by on average 0.014 m-1 RMSE (AC-s) and 0.043 m-1 RMSE (AC-9). This remaining discrepancy can be largely attributed to residual limitations in the correction of AC-9/s data for scattering effects and limitations in the quality of AC-9/s calibration measurements.

KW - measurement uncertainties

KW - absorption

KW - point source integrating cavity absorption meters (PSICAM)

KW - reflective tube absorption meters

UR - https://www.osapublishing.org/oe/home.cfm

U2 - 10.1364/OE.26.024384

DO - 10.1364/OE.26.024384

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 24384

EP - 24402

JO - Optics Express

T2 - Optics Express

JF - Optics Express

SN - 1094-4087

IS - 19

ER -