the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impact Comparison of Different Aerosol Types on Atmospheric Correction of Landsat 8 over Land
Abstract. The official Landsat 8 surface reflectance (SR) product, generated by the Land Surface Reflectance (LaSRC) algorithm, is the most extensively utilized medium-resolution dataset and serves as a benchmark to cross-validate the accuracy of other SR products. However, the accuracy of the Landsat 8 SR products did not meet the expectations of the previous studies under specific conditions. Consequently, it is necessary to analyze the Urban Clean aerosol-type assumption implemented in the LaSRC algorithm and comprehensively re-evaluate the accuracy of the Landsat 8 SR. Therefore, this study leverages Landsat 8 data over 600 scenes acquired at 100 Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) sites globally and conducts a comprehensive analysis of how different aerosol types—MOD04-based (used in the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) Atmosphere Levelā2 Aerosol Optical Depth Product), MOD09-based (used in MODIS Terra Atmospherically Corrected Surface Reflectance Product), and Urban Clean (used in LaSRC)—affect the accuracy of atmospheric correction (AC) for the first time. The results indicated that, in terms of aerosol optical depth (AOD), the MOD04 aerosol type exhibited the highest accuracy, with an R² of 0.762, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.0437, and bias of 0.0876. The accuracy, precision, and uncertainty of the SR products corresponding to the three aerosol types were within the ranges of 0.00036–0.00043, 0.02382–0.02468, and 0.02337–0.02425, respectively. The MOD04-based aerosol type demonstrated the highest overall accuracy in the visible and near-infrared (VNIR) bands. The MOD09-based aerosol type outperformed the others in the bright surface regions. The Urban Clean aerosol type showed a comparable but slightly inferior performance to that of the MOD09-based aerosol type, with limited advantages in specific reflectance ranges. Moreover, LaSRC-derived SR demonstrated higher stability and accuracy in the shortwave infrared (SWIR) bands compared to its inferior performance in the VNIR. These findings emphasize the critical importance of aerosol-type assumptions in AC workflow. A mixed strategic implementation framework is proposed as follows: (1) adopt MOD04-based aerosol types for AOD retrieval and VNIR SR retrieval, (2) utilize MOD09-based aerosol types to process data acquired over bright surface processing, and (3) leverage SWIR SR products derived by LaSRC. Our findings provide actionable guidelines for dynamic aerosol-type selection to enhance the AC performance across diverse environments.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(1918 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1918 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1320', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Apr 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shuning Zhang, 24 Apr 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1320/egusphere-2026-1320-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC4: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2026
The authors have carefully addressed all comments point by point. And there are also detailed clarifications and supplementary explanations in the revised manuscript. I am very satisfied with it.
Thank you!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1320-RC4 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC4', Shuning Zhang, 14 May 2026
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive feedback. As noted in our previous responses, all comments have been carefully addressed, and we are pleased that the reviewer finds our clarifications satisfactory.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1320-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC4', Shuning Zhang, 14 May 2026
-
RC4: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2026
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shuning Zhang, 24 Apr 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1320', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Apr 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1320/egusphere-2026-1320-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Shuning Zhang, 05 May 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1320/egusphere-2026-1320-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Shuning Zhang, 05 May 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1320/egusphere-2026-1320-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Shuning Zhang, 05 May 2026
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1320', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2026
The authors have carefully addressed all comments point by point. And there are also detailed clarifications and supplementary explanations in the revised manuscript. I am very satisfied with it.
Thank you!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1320-RC3 -
AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Shuning Zhang, 14 May 2026
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive feedback. As noted in our previous responses, all comments have been carefully addressed, and we are pleased that the reviewer finds our clarifications satisfactory.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1320-AC5
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Shuning Zhang, 14 May 2026
Peer review completion
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1320', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Apr 2026
In this study, a comprehensive analysis of how different aerosol types (MOD04, MOD09, and Urban Clean) affect the accuracy of atmospheric correction (AC) is conducted using Landsat 8 data acquired at 100 Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) sites for the first timeļ¼and some meaningful results are obtained as well.
The authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new contribution.
The findings of the study emphasize the critical importance of aerosol-type assumptions in AC workflow. And also, a mixed strategic implementation framework that can serve as a novel concept or idea is proposed.
The description of experiments and calculations is sufficiently complete to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists since the datasets used in this work are publicly available remote sensing and ground-based observation products, and also further information about the datasets used in this study can be provided by the authors upon reasonable request.
This manuscript sits between a methods paper and an application or survey paper. Overall, the manuscript was well written, however, some of the issues (as stated below) need to be solved/ clarified:
- As shown in Line 20 of the Abstract, āThe results indicated that, in terms of aerosol optical depth (AOD), the MOD04 aerosol type exhibited the highest accuracy, with an R² of 0.762, Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) of 0.0437, and bias of 0.0876. The accuracy, precision, and uncertainty of the SR products corresponding to the three aerosol types were within the ranges of 0.00036ā0.00043, 0.02382ā0.02468, and 0.02337ā0.02425, respectively.ā These key data related to the research conclusions, such as R² of 0.762, RMSE) of 0.0437, bias of 0.0876, A(0.00036ā0.00043), P(0.02382ā0.02468), U(0.02337ā0.02425), cannot be found in the main text (in line 439, āThe total A, P, and U values for the four SR products are 0.00036ā0.00377, 0.02382ā0.02544, and 0.02337ā440 0.2598, respectivelyā, Table 4 and 6?).
- Line 156, āā¦ā¦after rigorous spatiotemporal matching (e.g., image selection based on site coordinatesā¦ā¦)ā Due to the significant impact of scene screening on evaluation results, please provide additional information on the spatiotemporal matching method between Landsat 8 scenes and AERONET sites in this study, as well as the quality control method for cloud detection (or explain which cloud detection product was used and how accurate it is?).
- The Figure caption is inconsistent with the textual description in the main text. Ā e.g., Line 475, āFig. 7 illustrates the results: the x-axis represents SR values within the 0-1 range, the left y-axis denotes the number of pixels (with tick marks at 10ā“, 10āµ, 10ā¶, 10ā·, and 10āø), and the right y-axis presents accuracy metrics.ā Line 578, āFigure 7: A, P, and U (y left axis) and the number of pixels (y right axis) of the four surface reflectance products within the 0.1 Surface Reflectance Range.ā
- Line 476, āGray bars denote pixel counts per interval, and the red, green, while red, green, and blue dashed lines represent A, P, and U, respectively.āĀ Ā Delete āand the red, green,ā ?
- Line 584, āā¦ā¦as shown in Fig. 8ā9ā¦ā¦.. across different surface types.ā Line 636, āFigure 8: Scatter Plot of Measured vs. 6S-Simulated SR over Building-Surfaceāā. Line 639, āFigure 9: Scatter Plot of Measured vs. 6S-Simulated SR over Snow-Surfaceā.ā
- Regarding geographical regions and land cover types, vegetation and snow cover exhibit significant seasonal and interannual variations. Will there be corresponding changes in the accuracy of aerosol types? How to conduct further evaluation?
Ā
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1320-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shuning Zhang, 24 Apr 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1320/egusphere-2026-1320-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC4: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2026
The authors have carefully addressed all comments point by point. And there are also detailed clarifications and supplementary explanations in the revised manuscript. I am very satisfied with it.
Thank you!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1320-RC4 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC4', Shuning Zhang, 14 May 2026
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive feedback. As noted in our previous responses, all comments have been carefully addressed, and we are pleased that the reviewer finds our clarifications satisfactory.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1320-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC4', Shuning Zhang, 14 May 2026
-
RC4: 'Reply on AC1', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1320', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Apr 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1320/egusphere-2026-1320-RC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Shuning Zhang, 05 May 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1320/egusphere-2026-1320-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Shuning Zhang, 05 May 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-1320/egusphere-2026-1320-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Shuning Zhang, 05 May 2026
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1320', Anonymous Referee #2, 30 Apr 2026
The authors have carefully addressed all comments point by point. And there are also detailed clarifications and supplementary explanations in the revised manuscript. I am very satisfied with it.
Thank you!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1320-RC3 -
AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Shuning Zhang, 14 May 2026
We sincerely thank the reviewer for their positive feedback. As noted in our previous responses, all comments have been carefully addressed, and we are pleased that the reviewer finds our clarifications satisfactory.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1320-AC5
-
AC5: 'Reply on RC3', Shuning Zhang, 14 May 2026
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 372 | 119 | 51 | 542 | 24 | 28 |
- HTML: 372
- PDF: 119
- XML: 51
- Total: 542
- BibTeX: 24
- EndNote: 28
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Shuning Zhang
Hao Zhang
Bing Zhang
Zhenzhen Cui
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1918 KB) - Metadata XML
In this study, a comprehensive analysis of how different aerosol types (MOD04, MOD09, and Urban Clean) affect the accuracy of atmospheric correction (AC) is conducted using Landsat 8 data acquired at 100 Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) sites for the first timeļ¼and some meaningful results are obtained as well.
The authors give proper credit to related work and clearly indicate their own new contribution.
The findings of the study emphasize the critical importance of aerosol-type assumptions in AC workflow. And also, a mixed strategic implementation framework that can serve as a novel concept or idea is proposed.
The description of experiments and calculations is sufficiently complete to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists since the datasets used in this work are publicly available remote sensing and ground-based observation products, and also further information about the datasets used in this study can be provided by the authors upon reasonable request.
This manuscript sits between a methods paper and an application or survey paper. Overall, the manuscript was well written, however, some of the issues (as stated below) need to be solved/ clarified:
Ā