International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and

Geoinformation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jag

Research paper

Retrieval of land surface temperature (LST) from landsat TM6 and

TIRS data by single channel radiative transfer algorithm using satellite
and ground-based inputs
R.S. Chatterjee a,∗ , Narendra Singh a , Shailaja Thapa a , Dravneeta Sharma a ,
Dheeraj Kumar b
a
Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Kalidas Road, Dehradun 248001, India
b
Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School of Mines), Dhanbad 826004, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The present study proposes land surface temperature (LST) retrieval from satellite-based thermal IR data
Received 28 July 2016 by single channel radiative transfer algorithm using atmospheric correction parameters derived from
Received in revised form 15 February 2017 satellite-based and in-situ data and land surface emissivity (LSE) derived by a hybrid LSE model. For
Accepted 20 February 2017
example, atmospheric transmittance (␶) was derived from Terra MODIS spectral radiance in atmospheric
Available online 1 March 2017
window and absorption bands, whereas the atmospheric path radiance and sky radiance were estimated
using satellite- and ground-based in-situ solar radiation, geographic location and observation conditions.
Keywords:
The hybrid LSE model which is coupled with ground-based emissivity measurements is more versatile
Land surface temperature (LST)
Land surface emissivity (LSE)
than the previous LSE models and yields improved emissivity values by knowledge-based approach. It
Jharia Coalfield uses NDVI-based and NDVI Threshold method (NDVITHM ) based algorithms and field-measured emissivity
India values. The model is applicable for dense vegetation cover, mixed vegetation cover, bare earth including
coal mining related land surface classes. The study was conducted in a coalfield of India badly affected by
coal fire for decades. In a coal fire affected coalfield, LST would provide precise temperature difference
between thermally anomalous coal fire pixels and background pixels to facilitate coal fire detection and
monitoring. The derived LST products of the present study were compared with radiant temperature
images across some of the prominent coal fire locations in the study area by graphical means and by
some standard mathematical dispersion coefficients such as coefficient of variation, coefficient of quar-
tile deviation, coefficient of quartile deviation for 3rd quartile vs. maximum temperature, coefficient of
mean deviation (about median) indicating significant increase in the temperature difference among the
pixels. The average temperature slope between adjacent pixels, which increases the potential of coal
fire pixel detection from background pixels, is significantly larger in the derived LST products than the
corresponding radiant temperature images.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
During the last few decades, land surface temperature (LST)
retrieval techniques for satellite-based thermal infra-red (TIR) data
have matured significantly with the availability of improved algo-
rithms for retrieval of atmospheric effects (Gordon, 1978; Gordon
and Clarke, 1981; Waggoner et al., 1981; Gordon et al., 1988; Gum-
ley et al., 1990; Richter, 1990; Kaufman and Gao, 1992; Mansor
et al., 1994; Chen et al., 1999; Brunsell and Gillies, 2002; Barsi et al.,
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: rschatterjee@iirs.gov.in (R.S. Chatterjee).
2003, 2005; Gao and Kaufman, 2003; Jimenez-Munoz and Sobrino,
2003; Sobrino and El Kharaaz, 2003; Mao et al., 2005; Moradizadeh
et al., 2008; Hadjimitsis and Clayton, 2009; Jimenez-Munoz et al.,
2014; Martin, 2014) and thermal emissivity modelling in single-
channel LST retrieval algorithm approaches (Sobrino et al., 1990;
Van de Griend and Owe, 1993; Valor and Caselles, 1996; Sobrino
et al., 2004; Chatterjee, 2006; Sobrino et al., 2008; Yu et al., 2014).
The atmospheric effects in top of atmosphere (TOA) spectral
radiance are essentially governed by atmospheric transmittance
(␶), atmospheric path radiance (Lu ) and sky radiance (Ld ). Water
vapour, ozone, methane, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and other
gases affect atmospheric transmittance of electromagnetic radia-
tion in thermal infrared (TIR) region. However, the concentration

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2017.02.017
0303-2434/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277
Fig. 1. The study area Jharia Coalfield, Jharkhand, India is seen on Landsat 8 OLI standard FCC image of 11 November 2013. Black bold outline shows the Jharia coal basin
boundary.
of water vapour is highly variable in the atmosphere unlike carbon
dioxide, ozone and other gases. Therefore, the dynamics of water
vapour content in the atmosphere strongly affect atmospheric
transmittance of TIR radiation. By adopting a satellite-based band
ratio algorithm using absorption and window channels, the water
vapour content of the atmosphere may be estimated (Kaufman
and Gao, 1992; Kaufman et al., 1994; Gao and Kaufman, 2003;
Sobrino and El Kharaaz, 2003; Mao et al., 2005; Moradizadeh et al.,
2008). The empirical relation between the spectral radiance of
Terra MODIS TIR bands and atmospheric water vapour content (Qin
et al., 2001; Mao et al., 2005) can be useful to estimate band-width
weighted atmospheric transmittance of Landsat TIR bands.
The thermal emissivity of the Earth’s surface is controlled by
a number of factors such as water content in surface materials,
colour and albedo of the surface materials and vegetation density
(Chatterjee, 2006). In a single channel case, Thermal Emissivity Sep-
aration (TES) algorithm (Gillespie et al., 1998) is not applicable. In
such cases, land surface emissivity (LSE) needs to be modelled as a
function of vegetation cover and density or based on land use land
cover classes in the study area and their emissivity values. In the
present study, we adopted a knowledge-based hybrid LSE model
which is applicable for varying degree of vegetation cover includ-
ing mixed pixel, bare earth without vegetation cover, coal mining
related land surface classes and surface water bodies.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Study area
One of the major applications of satellite-based thermal remote
sensing is detection and monitoring of coal fire. The study area
Jharia Coalfield (JCF), India is severely affected by coal fire for
decades. The coalfield is known for hosting the maximum num-
ber of coal fires among all the coalfields in India. The coalfield lies
265
between latitudes 23◦ 35 N and 23◦ 55 N and longitudes 86◦ 05 E
and 86◦ 30 E covering an area of 450 km2 approximately (Fig. 1). A
versatile LST retrieval algorithm for single channel satellite-based
TIR data such as Landsat TM6 and Landsat TIRS10 data those are
consistently available since 1982 till date will enable to obtain a
large number of LST images for decades for the coal fire affected
coalfields.
This will facilitate coal fire detection and monitoring over the
years by highlighting subtle temperature difference between ther-
mally anomalous coal fire pixels and background pixels.
2.2. Satellite data
2.2.1. TIR data
We used Landsat-5 TM6 thermal infrared (TIR) Level 1 (L1)
data acquired on 5 November 2005 (WRS Path/Row 140/044, scene
centre time 04:31:30 GMT) and Landsat Data Continuity Mission
(LDCM) or Landsat-8 TIRS thermal infrared data of 11 November
2013 (140/44, 4:45:05 GMT). Landsat-5 TIR (band 6) and Landsat-
8 TIRS (bands 10 & 11) data have spatial resolutions of 120 m and
100 m, saturation temperatures of 343 K and 360 K, and least counts
(NET) at 280 K of 0.17–0.30 and 0.05–0.06 K respectively. Landsat-
8 TIRS 1T data product as available from USGS portal (http://landsat.
usgs.gov/) is resampled to 30 m to match Operational Land Imager
(OLI) spectral bands. We used Landsat-8 band 10 TIRS data as
band 11 data is significantly more contaminated by thermal energy
from outside the normal field of view (stray light) than band 10
(USGS, 2015a) which is also corroborated by the vicarious calibra-
tion results (Barsi et al., 2014).
2.2.2. VNIR data
We used visible-near infrared (VNIR) and short-wave infrared
(SWIR) data with spatial resolution 30 m for NDVI and land use land
cover mapping as follows: (i) Landsat-5 TM data (bands 1, 2, 3, 4,
266 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277
5 and 7) of 5 November 2005, and (ii) Landsat-8 OLI multi-spectral
data (bands 1–7 and band 9) of 11 November 2013 corresponding
to respective TIR data.
2.2.3. MODIS data products
In this study, Terra MODIS spectral radiance data of two
atmospheric window bands such as bands 2 (0.875 ␮m) and 5
(1.24 ␮m) and three atmospheric absorption bands namely bands
17 (0.905 ␮m), 18 (0.936 ␮m) and 19 (0.940 ␮m) of the same dates
and closely similar data acquisition time as Landsat TM and TIRS
data were used for estimating atmospheric transmittance for the
respective TIR data. We used MODIS spectral radiance data avail-
able from the MOD021 K Level 1 B data products processed at 1 km
spatial resolution from the nearest data acquisition time corre-
sponding to respective TIR data.
2.3. Field data
In situ observation of radiant and kinetic temperatures was col-
lected by a thermal IR gun attached with a thermocouple probe.
Ground based thermal emissivity was estimated for each land cover
class using radiant and kinetic temperature data. We used a Raytek
make high precision photographic infrared thermometer gun Pho-
toTemp MX6 TD with a K & J type thermocouple probe to measure
radiant temperature and land surface temperature. Radiant tem-
perature was measured in TIR range (8–14 ␮m range) at a height
of 1.15 m and with a distance: spot ratio 60:1 whereas the kinetic
temperature was measured by the thermocouple probe. The instru-
ment has a laser beam pointer which facilitates precise targeting for
radiant temperature and corresponding kinetic temperature mea-
surement of the land surface. The working temperature range of
the thermal IR gun is −30 to 900 ◦ C (−25 to 1600 ◦ F) which is well
within the ground temperature range including coal fire areas in the
study area. The accuracy of measurement of the instrument is 0.75%
of the reading for radiant temperature measured in TIR region and
kinetic temperature measured by the probe. For field-based tem-
perature measurements, field survey was conducted for a period
15 days during 05–20 November 2013 which overlapped Landsat 8
data acquisition date. A large number of observations were made
for different land surface classes from different parts of the areas
during the pre-dawn – early-morning period (0500–0800 h of the
day). From the individual set of measurements, the emissivity of
land surface was retrieved and the average emissivity was deter-
mined.
2.4. Retrieval of spectral radiance
Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) spectral radiance (L␭ ) can be
obtained from L1 data products with calibrated digital num-
bers (Qcal ) using the radiometric rescaling calibration coeffi-
cients or post-calibration dynamic ranges of spectral radiance
(Lmin␭ –Lmax␭ ) of the bands (Markham and Barker, 1986; Chan-
der and Markham, 2003). The post-calibration dynamic ranges
of spectral radiance for U.S. processed Landsat-5 TM band 6 TIR
(10.45-12.42 ␮m) data acquired after May 5, 2003 (Chander and
Markham, 2003) was used to convert calibrated Digital Numbers
(Qcal ) to TOA spectral radiance using the quantization range of the
band (Qcalmin − Qcalmax ).
 Lmax − Lmin 
␭ ␭
L␭ = (Qcal − Qcalmin ) + Lmin␭
Qcalmax − Qcalmin
OrL = Grescale × Qcal + Brescale
Where, Grescale and Brescale are band-specific rescaling gain factor
and bias factor respectively.
It may be noted that the rescaling calibration coefficients for
band 6 TIR data remains unchanged for the periods before and after
05 May 2003. Prior to 05 May 2003, the calibration of TM bands was
done by IC-based approach on a scene-by-scene basis to determine
gain and offset to be applied. Any change in response was treated
as a change in response of the individual detector. It was therefore
advisable to use the calibration parameters of individual detectors
(4 detectors in case of thermal band) or their average on a scene-
by-scene basis (available in the scene header) to retrieve spectral
radiance (Chatterjee, 2006). Subsequently, a further revision of cal-
ibration was done on April 2, 2007 (Chander et al., 2007) when the
radiometric scaling coefficients for bands 1 and 2 were changed for
the data acquired during 1984–1991. Also, a sensor offset correc-
tion of 0.092 W/(m2 sr ␮m) was added to all Landsat-5 TM band 6
data acquired since April 1999 (Barsi et al., 2007; Chander et al.,
2009).
Landsat-8 OLI and TIRS data products are distributed as quan-
tized calibrated digital numbers (Qcal ) in 16-bit unsigned integer
format. Landsat-8 TIRS band 10 (10.60–11.19 ␮m) data were con-
verted to TOA spectral radiance (L␭ ) using the radiometric rescaling
coefficients such as band-specific multiplicative rescaling factor
(ML ) and band-specific additive rescaling factor (AL ) provided in
metadata file (USGS, 2015a).
L␭ = ML Qcal + AL (1c)
From the uncorrected TOA spectral radiance, radiant temperature
of a pixel can be retrieved.
2.5. Radiative transfer equation (RTE)
For obtaining land surface temperature (LST), at-satellite or top
of atmosphere (TOA) spectral radiance needs to be corrected from
atmospheric effects to obtain surface-leaving spectral radiance
(Richter, 1990; Mansor et al., 1994; Barsi et al., 2003, 2005; Jimenez-
Munoz and Sobrino, 2003). The relation between TOA spectral
radiance (LTOA ) and surface-leaving spectral radiance (␧ × LT ) may
be described as follows (Brunsell and Gillies, 2002; Barsi et al., 2003,
2005):
LTOA=·␧·LT +Lu +(1−ε)·Ld (2)
Where ␶ is atmospheric transmittance, LT is surface-leaving
spectral radiance of a blackbody target (for ␧ = 1.0) of kinetic tem-
perature T, Lu is upwelling or atmospheric path radiance, Ld is
downwelling or sky radiance, ␧ is emissivity of land surface, and
LTOA is TOA spectral radiance measured by the instrument.
2.5.1. Retrieval of atmospheric transmittance
Atmospheric transmittance (␶) describes the magnitude of
attenuation of radiance passing through the atmosphere. The
water vapour content in the atmosphere primarily governs atmo-
spheric transmittance of electromagnetic radiation in TIR region.
In this study, we retrieved atmospheric water vapour content
from descending pass Terra MODIS data to estimate atmospheric
transmittance which is orbiting the Earth similar to Landsat orbit
(705 km) and time of pass (10:30 am). Among the 36 MODIS
channels, channels 2 (0.875 ␮m) and 5 (1.24 ␮m) are atmosphere
window bands, while channels 17 (0.905 ␮m), 18 (0.936 ␮m) and
(1a)
19 (0.940 ␮m) are absorption bands. A two band ratio of an absorp-
(1b) tion channel with a window channel or a three band ratio of an
absorption channel with a combination of two window channels
can be used to retrieve water vapour transmittance of the absorp-
tion channel ␶obs (i) as follows when the surface reflectance remains
 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277 267

constant or varies linearly with wavelength (Kaufman et al., 1994; with increasing water vapour content in the atmosphere (Mao
Kaufman and Gao, 1992): et al., 2005). A linear and exponential relation between atmospheric
transmittance of MODIS bands 31 and 32 with the change in atmo-
 (i) L (i)
obs (i) = =  (3a) spheric water vapour content was established by Qin et al. (2001)
 (2) L (2)
and Mao et al. (2005) respectively. Since the exponential relation
 (i) L (i) shows a better fit with higher R2 values (0.99748 and 0.99685
obs (i) = = (3b)
[C1 ·  (2) + C2 ·  (5)] [C1 · L (2) + C2 · L (5)] respectively for MODIS band 31 and 32), we used the exponential
Where, ␳(i) represents surface reflectance of the absorption bands relation of Mao et al. (2005) in this study as follows:
−w
(for i = 17, 18, 19), ␳(2) and ␳(5) represent surface reflectance of 31 = 2.89798 − 1.88366e
− −2122704
(7a)
the window bands 2 and 5. L␭ (i), L␭ (2) and L␭ (5) represent spectral
w
− −32.70639
radiance of the corresponding absorption and window bands. C1 32 = 3.59289 + 4.60414e (7b)
and C2 are the coefficients (equal to 0.8 and 0.2 as obtained from
In this study, we used the atmospheric transmittance of MODIS
linear approximation between three bands’ reflectance values on
band 31 for Landsat-8 band 10 (TIRS 10) as their bandwidths are
ground) (Mao et al., 2005).
closely similar. On the other hand, in case of Landsat-5 TM band 6,
The water vapour content of the atmosphere (w) is related to the
we used band-width weighted average atmospheric transmittance
transmittance of the absorption band with respect to the window
of MODIS bands 31 and 32 as given below:
band as follows (Kaufman and Gao, 1992):
 √  ␭TIRS10
obs (i) = exp ˛ − ˇ w (4) LS8 TIRS10 = MODIS31 · (8a)
MOD31
Where, ␣ and ␤ are the constants and are approximated to 0.02 and MODIS31 · MOD31 + MODIS32 · MOD32 TM6
0.651 respectively for complex ground with R2 = 0.999 for absorp- LS5 TM6 = · (8b)
( MOD31 + ·MOD32 ) ( MOD31 + MOD32 )
tion band 19 and window band 2 (Kaufman and Gao, 1992).
Now, we can obtain water vapour content of the atmosphere as 2.5.2. Retrieval of path radiance or upwelling radiance
follows: Considering single scattering model and ignoring direct sun
 ˛ − ln 2 glint (Gordon, 1978; Gordon and Clarke, 1981; Gordon et al.,
obs
w= (5) 1988; Gumley et al., 1990), the total atmospheric path radiance
ˇ
or upwelling radiance (Lu ) may be described as follows:
Where, w is the water vapour content of the atmosphere in gm/cm2
Lu () = Lr () + La () (9)
and ␶obs is computed from MODIS spectral radiance data of absorp-
tion and window bands. Where, Lr (␭) and La (␭) are Rayleigh scattered path radiance and
It may be noted that the three absorption bands have different aerosol scattered path radiance respectively.
water vapour sensitivities under the same atmospheric condition. The Rayleigh scattered path radiance may be described as fol-
The strong absorption channel, band 18 (0.936 ␮m) is most sensi- lows (Chen et al., 1999):
tive under dry condition while the weak absorption channel, band
r () F0 Pr
17 (0.905 ␮m) is most sensitive under humid condition (Gao and Lr () = (10)
4
cosv
Kaufman, 2003). Consequently, the water vapour content of the
atmosphere obtained from the three absorption channels individ- Where, tr (␭) represents Rayleigh scattering optical depth under dif-
ually can be different. Therefore, a weighted average water vapour ferent pressure, F0 represents solar flux, Pr represents scattering
content of the atmosphere may be estimated as follows (Sobrino phase function, and uv represents satellite view angle. The aver-
and El Kharaaz, 2003) which may be used to retrieve atmospheric age solar flux (F0 ) for the date of TIR data acquisition was retrieved
transmittance: by interpolation of monthly average data at 6 min longitude and
 6 min latitude intervals available from the Solar Energy Centre,
W= f(i) ∗ W(i) (6) Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Govt. of India (http://
mnre.gov.in/sec/solar-assmnt.htm). The monthly average data was
Where, W represents total water vapour content of the atmosphere,
developed by U.S. National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
W(i) and f(i) represent water vapour content and weighting function
in cooperation with India’s Ministry of New and Renewable Energy
of the individual absorption bands (for i = 17, 18 and 19). The fi
based on hourly data from weather satellites and 45 solar radia-
(weighting functions) values for bands 17, 18 and 19 are estimated
tion ground stations spread over the country (those are managed
using MODTRAN radiative transfer code (Moradizadeh et al., 2008).
by India Meteorological Department). Rayleigh scattering optical
The weighting functions are defined as follow:
depth tr (␭) depends on the atmospheric pressure at the site of
(i) i observation (Bodhaine et al., 1999) and can be determined using
f(i) = with (i) = | |
(i) W sensor altitude as described by Guzzi et al. (1987):
 
where, W is the difference between the maximum and mini- r () =
2
1 − exp(−0.1188h◦ −0.00116h◦ ) · 0.0088(−4.15+0.2) ,
mum atmospheric water vapour contents and ␶i is the difference
between the transmissivities in maximum and minimum water Where, ho represents sensor altitude (in km) and ␭ represents
vapour contents obtained in the corresponding absorption bands wavelength (in micrometre).
(Kaufman and Gao, 1992). The Rayleigh phase function Pr may be described as follows
The MODIS bands 31 and 32 with band widths 10.78–11.28 ␮m (Hadjimitsis and Clayton, 2009):
and 11.77–12.27 ␮m respectively together match with the band
width of Landsat 5 TM band 6 (10.4-12.5 ␮m) and individually 3  
Pr = · 1 + cos2 ,
match with the band widths of Landsat 8 bands 10 (TIRS 1) and 4
11 (TIRS 2) with band widths 10.6–11.2 ␮m and 11.5–12.5 ␮m where ␺ is the scattering angle. For nadir viewing satellite sys-
◦
respectively. It was observed that the atmospheric transmittance tems like Landsat 5 and Landsat 8, ␪v ∼
= 0 and ␺ ∼= 180◦ –␪o , where
of MODIS bands 31 and 32 are different for the same water ␪o is the solar zenith angle (Gilabert et al.,
 1994). Therefore,
 the
vapour content in the atmosphere and the difference increases Rayleigh phase function, Pr becomes = 34 · 1 + cos2 ◦ .
268 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277
On the other hand, in case of aerosol scattering, the size of the
scattering particles is comparable to the wavelength of the electro-
magnetic radiation as described by Mie theory. Aerosol scattered
path radiance can be obtained using aerosol optical depth ␶a (␭),
aerosol scattering phase function Pa , aerosol scattering albedo ␻a ,
solar flux F0 and satellite view angle ␪v as follows (Martin, 2014):
a () ␻a F0 Pa
La () =
4
cosv
It is not possible to develop a generalized parameterization of
aerosol optical depth because it varies as a function of the geo-
graphic location and observation condition (Gumley et al., 1990).
However, an estimate of ␶a (␭) at different pressure and meteoro-
logical visibility condition can be made as follow:
⎡   −5.5 
 3.912  0.55 H1 1 − exp
˛−3
⎢ H1
a () =
V
− 0.0116 (

) ⎣  −5.5  
+H2 exp
H1
where, V represents meteorological visibility range (in km), ␣ rep-
resents exponent of Junge distribution (=3.8), H1 is empirically
determined (=0.886 + 0.0222·V) and H2 is a constant (=3.77 km);
Pa (␺) is aerosol phase function at scattering angle ␺ and may be
described as
     
Pa ␺ = af , g1 + (1 − a) f , g2
where, a, g1 and g2 are constants (0.983, 0.82 and −0.55 respec-
    − 3
tively), and f , gi = 1 − gi2 1 + gi2 − 2gi cos 2 with i = 1 and
2. The aerosol scattering albedo va ranges from 0.73 to 0.87 in
urban and residential areas whereas 0.89–0.95 in remote areas
(Waggoner et al., 1981). Due to high intensity opencast mining
activities and moderately dense settlement in the area, the value
of va may be assumed similar to residential areas (say, va = 0.8). We
used a uniform value of va = 0.8 for the study area.
2.5.3. Downwelling radiance or sky radiance
The downwelling radiance Ld may be estimated using the atmo-
spheric profile over the study area at the time of data acquisition.
Barsi et al. (2003, 2005) developed a model based atmospheric cor-
rection tool using National Centers for Environmental Prediction
(NCEP) atmospheric global profile (http://atmcorr.gsfc.nasa.gov/).
It may be noted that the downwelling radiance Ld is comparable to
the upwelling radiance Lu but a multiplication factor of (1-land sur-
face emissivity ␧) makes it less significant in the correction of TOA
spectral radiance to surface leaving spectral radiance. In the present
study, due to non-availability of the atmospheric profile over the
study area, we used Barsi et al. (2003, 2005) model for estimating
downwelling radiance based on NCEP atmospheric global profile.
2.5.4. Thermal emissivity modelling
2
A couple of approaches are available for modelling and retrieval
of LSE from vegetation cover (Van de Griend and Owe, 1993;
Valor and Caselles, 1996). Normalized difference vegetation index
(NDVI) is considered as one of the most widely used vegetation
index. Areas of bare rock, sand and soil usually show very low
NDVI values (≤0.1). Sparse vegetation such as shrubs, grasslands
or senescing crops give moderate NDVI values (e.g., 0.2–0.5). High
NDVI values (e.g., >0.5–0.9) correspond to dense vegetation cover
(USGS, 2015b). Van de Griend and Owe (1993) proposed an NDVI
based emissivity retrieval algorithm for the land surface. A log-
arithmic empirical relation between thermal emissivity (␧) and
pixel-integrated NDVI was established in a monotonous Savana
environment as follows: ε = 1.0094 + 0.047 · ln (NDVI). Using the
theoretical model of Caselles and Sobrino (1989), Valor and Caselles
(1996) defined the effective emissivity (␧) for heterogeneous land
surface as follows:
ε = ε◦ + dε,
where ␧o represents the emissivity corresponding to direct radia-
tion from the land surface and d␧ represents the residual emissivity
corresponding to the indirect radiation from the land surface by
(11) means of internal reflections. For a given vegetation fraction Pv , the
emissivity of a pixel can be determined from the emissivity of pure
vegetation (␧v ) and ground (␧g ) as follows: εo = εv Pv + εg (1 − Pv ).
On the other hand, d␧ takes into account the so-called cavity effect
of the rough surface and is controlled by the shape factors of rough
 −5.5  ⎤
+ 12.5 exp
H1 ⎥
−  ⎦
(h0 − 18)
1 − exp
H2
surface. For a vegetation pixel, this is governed by the length, height
and separation of vegetation blocks. However, in many cases, as for
example in Jharia Coalfield, the areas affected by coal fire are in gen-
eral devoid of vegetation. In such cases, the NDVI value approaches
zero. Besides, in case of surface water bodies and water logged areas
in and around the coalfield, the NDVI becomes negative. For areas
with no vegetation cover where NDVI values are ≤0, the above
algorithm is not applicable. With this consideration, a knowledge-
based emissivity map was prepared using NDVI based emissivity
values in case of vegetation cover land surface pixels and assuming
standard emissivity values for non-vegetated land surface pixels
(Chatterjee, 2006). Sobrino et al. (2004, 2008) proposed a modifi-
cation of the existing NDVI based LSE retrieval methods (Van de
Griend and Owe, 1993; Valor and Caselles, 1996). This is known as
the NDVI Thresholds method (NDVITHM ), which shows a good oper-
ability in comparison to NDVI based emissivity retrieval for a single
vegetation cover class. The method considers three different land
surface classes depending on NDVI values: bare soil (NDVI <0.2),
mixed pixels (NDVI ≥0.2 to ≤0.5) and fully vegetation cover class
(NDVI >0.5).
(a) For bare soil with NDVI <0.2, the emissivity (␧) is obtained from
the reflectivity in red region (␳red ).
(b) For complete vegetation cover class with NDVI >0.5, a constant
emissivity of 0.985 has been assumed.
(c) Mixed pixels with NDVI ≥0.2 to ≤0.5: The pixels are consid-
ered as a mixture of bare soil and vegetation and the emissivity
is calculated based on vegetation fraction in the pixels as fol-
lows: ε = εv Pv + εs (1 − Pv ) + dε, where ␧v and ␧s represent the
emissivity of vegetation and bare soil pixels. Pv represents
the vegetation proportion in the pixel and calculated as fol-
NDVI−NDVIMin
lows (Carlson and Ripley, 1997): Pv = NDVIMax −NDVIMin
, where
NDVIMax and NDVIMin are 0.5 and 0.2 respectively. The term
d␧ includes the effect of geometrical distribution of the natural
surface and internal reflections. For rough and heterogeneous
surface, d␧ can go up to 2% of emissivity (Sobrino, 1989 in
Sobrino et al., 2004). A good approximation of d␧ is given by
Sobrino et al. (1990) as follows: dε = (1 − εs ) (1 − Pv ) · F · εv ,
where F is a shape factor with mean value 0.55 considering
different kinds of geometrical distributions.
In the present study, we adopted a hybrid algorithm for retrieval
of LSE: (a) for high NDVI land surface (NDVI >0.5), instead of using
a constant emissivity of 0.985 (Sobrino et al., 2004, 2008) we used
 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277 269

Table 1
Average upwelling and downwelling radiance values corresponding to TIR data sets.

Date of Observation Average upwelling radiance (W/m2 /sr/␮m) Average downwelling radiance (W/m2 /sr/␮m)

05/11/2005 1.61 2.24

11/11/2013 1.76 1.99

Table 2
Thermal emissivity of land surface classes by red spectral band reflectivity based estimates and ground-based measurements.

Land surface cover Red spectral band reflectivity based thermal Ground-based measurements
emissivity estimate (mean ± S.D.) of average thermal emissivity
(±S.D.) (n = sample size)

for Landsat 5 TM6 band for Landsat 8 TIRS10

of 05 November 2005 band of 11 November
2013

Barren land 0.97 ± 0.002 0.95 ± 0.003 0.93 ± 0.01 (n = 25)

Bare soil 0.97 ± 0.001 0.96 ± 0.002 0.94 ± 0.01 (n = 27)
Fallow land 0.96 ± 0.004 0.95 ± 0.005 0.92 ± 0.01 (n = 24)
Overburden 0.97 ± 0.001 0.96 ± 0.002 0.94 ± 0.02 (n = 20)
River bed (dry sand + wet sand) 0.97 ± 0.003 0.95 ± 0.004 0.93 ± 0.02 (n = 30)
Settlement (mixed) 0.96 ± 0.005 0.95 ± 0.006 0.91 ± 0.03 (n = 24)
Water body 0.97 ± 0.001 0.96 ± 0.001 0.96 ± 0.01 (n = 26)
Opencast quarry/Coal dump/Coal waste 0.98 ± 0.002 0.98 ± 0.003 0.98 ± 0.02 (n = 32)

the algorithm of Van de Griend and Owe (1993) for retrieval of
emissivity as a function of vegetation density, (b) for mixed pixel
land surface with moderate NDVI (0.2 ≤ NDVI ≤ 0.5), we used the
algorithm of Sobrino et al. (2004, 2008), (c) for low NDVI land sur-
face (NDVI <0.2) pixels such as bare soil, barren land, fallow land,
overburden rocks, river bed, settlements, coal dump-coal waste-
opencast quarry, and surface water body, we estimated thermal
emissivity values by red spectral band reflectivity based models
(Sobrino et al., 2004, 2008; Yu et al., 2014) and compared with
ground-measured emissivity values.
Red spectral band reflectivity was retrieved for Landsat 5 TM
band3 data of 05 November 2005 and Landsat 8 OLI band4 data
 (12)
of 11 November 2013 taking scene-specific atmospheric correc-
(Lsat −Lp )
tion into consideration: sur = E cos (Chavez, 1996 in Sobrino
◦ z Tz
et al., 2004) where, ␳sur represents at-surface red spectral band
reflectivity, Lsat represents at-satellite or TOA spectral radiance,
Lp represents atmospheric path radiance (=scene-specific mini-
mum spectral radiance, Lmin –L1% ), d is average Earth-Sun distance,
E0 is TOA solar spectral irradiance, ␪z is solar zenith angle and
Tz is atmospheric transmissivity (approximated to 0.85 for red
spectral region). L1% is given by 0.01cos2z Tz E◦ for Tz = 0.85 (Chavez,
d
1996). Subsequently, red spectral band reflectivity based emis-
sivity values of Landsat 5 TM6 and Landsat 8 TIRS10 bands
were estimated based on the established empirical relationships
as follows: εTM6 = 0.979–0.035TM3 (Sobrino et al., 2008) and
εTIRS10 = 0.973–0.047OLIb4 (Yu et al., 2014).
It may be noted that the thermal emissivity of water surface
ranges from 0.97 for natural lake water (Raphael, 1962; Davies
et al., 1971) to 1.0 for pure fresh water (Marlatt, 1967). In the study
area, the water bodies in and around the coal mines and coal wash-
eries are contaminated with coal dust and coal waste. We found
thermal emissivity of water bodies in the range of 0.95–0.98 in
the study area. Similarly, the thermal emissivity of high-grade coal
approaches 0.99. In the study area, we found thermal emissivity of
coal cover and coal waste related land surface cover in the range of
0.97-0.99. For retrieval of mixed pixel emissivity under category (b)
above, we considered the emissivity of the highest NDVI pixels as
obtained by Van de Griend and Owe (1993) algorithm as the emis-
sivity for pure vegetation pixel. Similarly, the ground-measured
average emissivity of bare soil pixels was used for retrieval of mixed
pixel emissivity.
2.6. Land surface temperature retrieval
The intensity of thermal radiation emitted by a black body is
given by Planck’s Function. For terrestrial objects, the amount of
thermal radiation is a function of kinetic temperature of the mate-
rials, wavelength of radiation and thermal emissivity of the land
surface. After atmospheric correction, we got surface leaving spec-
tral radiance (␧·LT␭ ) of the target pixel. From the atmospherically
corrected surface-leaving radiance, land surface temperature (TLST )
was calculated by Planck’s radiation law as follows:
hc/k
TLST =
2hc 2 .−5
. ln ε.LT
+1
Where, h is Planck’s constant, c is speed of electromagnetic radia-
tion, k is Boltzmann constant, ␭ is mean wavelength of the spectral
region under investigation, ␧·LT␭ is surface leaving spectral radi-
ance for the spectral band with mean wavelength ␭.
3. Results and discussion
Landsat-5 TM6 and Landsat-8 TIRS10 data were first converted
to spectral radiance images using the rescaling calibration coef-
ficients. For correcting atmospheric effects, we used band-width
weighted atmospheric transmittance of descending pass Terra
MODIS band 31 for Landsat-8 TIRS10 and band-width weighted
atmospheric transmittance of Terra MODIS bands 31 and 32 for
Landsat-5 TM6 (Fig. 2) due to their similar orbit and similar
time of pass. The upwelling or atmospheric path radiance for
the study area, which consists of Rayleigh scattering and aerosol
scattering optical depths, were calculated using satellite- and
ground-based in-situ solar radiations (10.06 and 10.05 kwh/m2 /day
for 05 November 2005 and 11 November 2013 respectively), geo-
graphic location and observation conditions (Table 1). The average
downwelling or sky radiance of the study area was obtained from
the atmospheric correction tool developed by Barsi et al. (2003,
2005) based on NCEP atmospheric global profile.
Thermal emissivity of the land surface was obtained by the pro-
posed hybrid LSE model using NDVI-based, NDVI Threshold method
(NDVITHM ) based and land surface classification based algorithms
aided by ground-measured average emissivity values. We gener-
ated an NDVI image and a land surface classification image using
visible, NIR and SWIR data (Figs. 3 and 4). For low NDVI (NDVI
270 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277

Fig. 2. Band-width weighted average atmospheric transmittance of MODIS bands 31 and 32 corresponding to Landsat 5 TM6 data of 05 November 2005 (a) and Landsat 8
TIRS10 data of 11 November 2013 (b) for atmospheric correction.

<0.2) land surface pixels, red spectral band reflectivity based esti- uniform overestimation by 0.03–0.04 and 0.02–0.03 in red spectral
mates and ground-based measurements (Table 2) were compared band reflectivity based emissivity values for Landsat 5 TM6 band
to assign the emissivity values of the pixels. We observed an overall of 05 November 2005 and Landsat 8 TIRS10 band of 11 November
agreement in the relative order of emissivity values with a near- 2013 respectively for all the land surface classes except for sur-
 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277 271

Fig. 3. Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) image of Jharia Coalfield corresponding to Landsat 5 TM6 data of 05 November 2005 (a) and Landsat 8 TIRS10 data of
11 November 2013 (b) for emissivity modelling.

face water and coal cover related land surface classes. In case of
coal cover and surface water related land surface classes under low
NDVI category (NDVI <0.2), red spectral band reflectivity values are
very low and red spectral reflectivity model based emissivity values
are comparable with ground-measured average emissivity values.
For other land surface classes under low NDVI category (NDVI <0.2),
we found appreciably low reflectivity in red spectral band perhaps
due to the presence of a thin coal dust cover resulting from intense
opencast as well as underground mining operations in the study
area. Intense mining operations also lead to high aerosol content in
272 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277

Fig. 4. Land use land cover map of Jharia Coalfield produced by ISODATA clustering unsupervised classification corresponding to Landsat 5 TM6 data of 05 November 2005
(a) and Landsat 8 TIRS10 data of 11 November 2013 (b) for emissivity modelling.

the atmosphere and lower transmissivity of electromagnetic radi-
ation. Perhaps, the above two factors significantly contributed to
subtle over-estimation in the red spectral band reflectivity model
based emissivity values in case of non-water non-coal land surface
classes. Hence, we used ground-measured average emissivity val-
ues for all the land surface classes under low NDVI category (NDVI
<0.2) for LST retrieval (Fig. 5).
Using the atmospheric correction parameters such as atmo-
spheric transmittance (␶), upwelling and downwelling radiances
(Lu and Ld ), and land surface emissivity (␧), TOA spectral radiance
was corrected to obtain surface-leaving spectral radiance (␧·LT ). In
the study area, surface leaving spectral radiance ranges from 7.72 to
11.09 W/m2 /sr/␮m and 8.96–15.0 W/m2 /sr/␮m in case of Landsat
5 TM6 data of 05 November 2005 and Landsat 8 TIRS10 data of 11
November 2013 respectively. Finally, from the surface leaving spec-
tral radiance, LST images were generated (Fig. 6). Similarly, radiant
temperature images were also generated from the corresponding
uncorrected TOA spectral radiance images for comparison of the
results (Fig. 6). We observed that LST values derived from Landsat
8 TIRS10 data of 11 November 2013 is higher than radiant temper-
ature values whereas in case of Landsat 5 TM6 data of 05 November
2005, it is lower than radiant temperature values. This is primarily
due to higher atmospheric transmittance in 2005 and substantially
lower in 2013. We also observed that in Landsat 8 TIRS10 temper-
 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277 273

Fig. 5. Thermal emissivity image of Jharia Coalfield produced by the proposed hybrid model corresponding to Landsat 5 TM6 data of 05 November 2005 (a) and Landsat 8
TIRS10 data of 11 November 2013 (b).

ature products, the temperature range particularly the maximum and subtle contribution of contaminated thermal energy or stray
temperature is substantially higher than that of the Landsat 5 TM6 light effect.
temperature products. It may be due to higher saturation tempera- We compared between derived LST and radiant temperature
ture of Landsat 8 TIRS10 sensor compared to Landsat 5 TM6 sensor values across some of the prominent coal fire locations in the
274 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277

Fig. 6. Radiant temperature and derived LST of Landsat 5 TM6 data of 05 November 2005 (a and b respectively) and Landsat 8 TIRS10 data of 11 November 2013 (c and d
respectively) of Jharia Coalfield. A-A to E-E and F-F to J-J are selected transects across prominent coal fire locations shown over the LST images of 05 November 2005 and 11
November 2013 respectively.

Table 3
Comparison between LST of present study and radiant temperature across 5 prominent coal fire locations of the study area for Landsat 5 TM6 and Landsat 8 TIRS10 data of
05 November 2005 and 11 November 2013 respectively.

Data Description Test Site Temperature Coefficient of Coefficient of Coefficient of quartile Coefficient of
(Date of Product variation quartile deviation for 3rd quartile vs. mean deviation
Observation) deviation maximum temperature (about median)

Landsat 5 TM6 Block-II Colliery Radiant temperature 0.08 0.06 0.57 0.06
(05/11/2005) (Block-II Project Area) LST (present study) 0.13 0.09 1.06 0.10
Shatabdi Colliery Radiant temperature 0.10 0.05 1.19 0.06
(Barora Area) LST (present study) 0.15 0.06 1.74 0.09
Gaslitand Colliery Radiant temperature 0.08 0.02 0.36 0.05
(Katras Area) LST (present study) 0.13 0.04 0.85 0.08
Kujama Colliery Radiant temperature 0.09 0.03 0.66 0.06
(Bastacolla Area) LST (present study) 0.13 0.05 1.04 0.08
Bhulan Bararee Colliery Radiant temperature 0.08 0.03 0.50 0.06
(Lodna Area) LST (present study) 0.13 0.07 1.31 0.09

Landsat 8 TIRS10 Block-II Colliery Radiant temperature 0.07 0.04 0.44 0.05
(11/11/2013) (Block-II Project Area) LST (present study) 0.13 0.11 1.47 0.10
Shatabdi Colliery Radiant temperature 0.10 0.08 0.93 0.09
(Barora Area) LST (present study) 0.11 0.10 1.26 0.10
East Katras Colliery Radiant temperature 0.21 0.13 4.45 0.16
(Katras Area) LST (present study) 0.23 0.14 6.15 0.17
Kujama Colliery Radiant temperature 0.11 0.08 0.83 0.09
(Bastacolla Area) LST (present study) 0.13 0.10 1.21 0.11
Bhulan Bararee Colliery Radiant temperature 0.10 0.04 0.61 0.07
(Lodna Area) LST (present study) 0.12 0.05 1.15 0.08

study area to demonstrate significant increase in the temper- of variation, coefficient of quartile deviation and coefficient of
ature difference among the pixels. The improvement in subtle mean deviation (about median). The coefficient of variation (CV)
temperature difference between adjacent pixels will facilitate the is a standardized measure of dispersion and is defined as the

detection of coal fire related thermally anomalous pixels from
. The coeffi-
background pixels. We compared the results graphically (Fig. 7)
as well as mathematically by a number of standard statistical
dispersion coefficients to show significant increase in the subtle
temperature difference among the pixels in the derived LST images
(Table 3). We used normalized dispersion coefficients those are
dimensionless and invariant to scale factor such as coefficient
ratio of standard deviation to the mean: CV =
cient of quartile deviation is an important measure of relative
dispersion between two data sets. It is defined as the ratio of
quartile difference (between upper quartile, Q3 and lower quar-
tile, Q1) to the quartile sum: Coeff.ofquartile deviation = Q 3−Q 1
Q 3+Q 1
.
In the present study, we introduced a coefficient of quartile
deviation for 3rd quartile vs. maximum temperature of the
 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277 275

Fig. 7. (I) and (II) Comparison between LST obtained in the present study and radiant temperature values of Landsat 5 TM6 data of 05 November 2005 (I) and 11 November
2013 (II) across some of the prominent coal fire locations in Jharia Coalfield. (a and f: Block-II Project area, b and g: Barora area, c and h: Katras area, d and i: Bastacolla area,
e and j: Lodna area).

distribution to compare the temperature difference in high tem-
perature pixels (potentially coal fire pixels) of two data sets:
Coeff.of quartile deviation for 3rd quartilevs.Max.temperature =
Max−Q 3
Q 3+Q 1
. The coefficient of mean deviation (about median) is
defined as the ratio of the mean deviation about median to
the median of the distribution. The coefficient of mean devia-
tion (about median) can be used as a good measure of subtle
temperature difference among the pixels with respect to the
median of the distribution potentially representing background
temperature. All the four mathematical coefficients conclusively
inferred a significant increase in the temperature difference among
the pixels along prominent coal fire transects in the study area
276 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277
(Table 3) which would facilitate more precise and improved coal
fire detection. We also compared between the derived LST and
radiant temperature images in terms of average temperature
slope between adjacent pixels to infer on detection potential of
thermally anomalous coal fire pixels from background pixels. We
found a substantial increase in the average temperature slope in
the derived LST products (of present study) compared to that in
radiant temperature images: in case of Landsat 5 TM6 data of 05
November 2005, the average temperature slope increases from
0.5 ± 0.40 (Max.: 7.7) to 0.9 ± 0.71 (Max.: 9.6) whereas in case of
Landsat 8 TIRS10 data of 11 November 2013, it increases from
0.5 ± 0.47 (Max.: 9.9) to 1.0 ± 0.89 (Max.: 14.6).
4. Conclusions
A rigorous atmospheric correction strategy as per radiative
transfer equation was adopted for Landsat-5 TM6 and Landsat-
8 TIRS10 data using atmospheric correction parameters such as
atmospheric transmittance (␶), atmospheric path radiance (Lu)
and sky radiance (Ld ), and land surface emissivity (LSE). Con-
sidering the differences in water vapour sensitivities of three
MODIS absorption bands (bands 17, 18 and 19) and differences
in the band widths of MODIS (bands 31 and 32) and Landsat
thermal bands (TM6 and TIRS10), the weighted average estimate
of atmospheric water vapour content using MODTRAN radiative
transfer code based weighting functions and band-width weighted
transmissivities improve the algorithm. Similarly, satellite- and
ground-based in-situ solar radiation and local observation condi-
tions facilitate further refinement of atmospheric path radiation
and sky radiation values by the proposed algorithm. Moreover,
the hybrid LSE model adopting NDVI-based and NDVI Threshold
method (NDVITHM ) based algorithms, red spectral band reflectiv-
ity based estimation and field-based measurements satisfactorily
produced a versatile and more representative thermal emissivity
of the pixels covering diverse land surface cover including vegeta-
tion cover pixels, vegetation cover mixed pixels, bare earth pixels
without vegetation cover, coal mining related land surface classes
and surface water bodies.
In a coal fire affected coalfield, a versatile and refined LST prod-
uct instead of calibrated digital number, thermal radiance or radiant
temperature product, highlights the subtle temperature difference
between thermally anomalous coal fire pixels and background pix-
els. In the derived LST products, the subtle temperature difference
among the pixels has been increased significantly compared to
the corresponding radiant temperature images as manifested by
graphical comparison of temperature values across some promi-
nent coal fire locations in the study area and by comparing the
values of some of the indicative normalized dispersion coefficients
such as coefficient of variation, coefficient of quartile deviation and
coefficient of mean deviation. A substantial increase in the aver-
age temperature slope between adjacent pixels compared to that
in the corresponding radiant temperature images also suggests an
increase in the thermal anomaly contrast in the derived LST prod-
ucts.
Acknowledgements
The research was carried out under Indian Space Research Orga-
nization (ISRO) funding. The authors acknowledge Indian Institute
of Remote Sensing (IIRS), ISRO, India, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. (Coal
India Ltd.), India and Indian Institute of Technology (Indian School
of Mines), India for providing laboratory facility and field support
for conducting the research.
References
Barsi, J.A., Barker, J.L., Schott, J.R., 2003. An atmospheric correction parameter
calculator for a single thermal band Earth-sensing instrument. In: IGARSS03,
21–25 July 2003, Centre De Congres Pierre Baudis, Toulouse, France (3p.).
Barsi, J.A., Schott, J.R., Palluconi, F.D., Hook, S.J., 2005. Validation of a web-based
atmospheric correction tool for single thermal band instruments, Proceedings
of SPIE, vol. 5882 (SPIE, Bellingham, WA, 2005), Ed.: James Butler,
58820E-1–58820E-7. 10.1117/12.619990.
Barsi, J.A., Hook, S.J., Schott, J.R., Raqueno, N.G., Markham, B.L., 2007. Landsat-5
thematic mapper thermal band calibration update. IEEE Geosci. Rem. Sens.
Lett. 4 (4), 552–555.
Barsi, J.A., Schott, J.R., Hook, S.J., Raqueno, N.G., Markham, B.L., Radocinski, R.G.,
2014. Landsat-8 thermal infrared sensor (TIRS) vicarious radiometric
calibration. Rem. Sens. 6, 11607–11626, http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs61111607.
Bodhaine, B.A., Wood, N.B., Dutton, E.G., Slusser, J.R., 1999. On Rayleigh optical
depth calculations. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol. 16, 1854–1861.
Brunsell, N.A., Gillies, R.R., 2002. Incorporating surface emissivity into a thermal
atmospheric correction. Photogramm. Eng. Rem. Sens. 68 (12), 1263–1269.
Carlson, T.N., Ripley, D.A., 1997. On the relation between NDVI, fractional
vegetation cover, and leaf area index. Rem. Sens. Environ. 62, 241–252.
Caselles, V., Sobrino, J.A., 1989. Determination of frosts in orange groves from
NOAA-9 AVHRR data. Rem. Sens. Environ. 29, 135–146.
Chander, G., Markham, B.L., 2003. Revised Landsat-5 TM radiometric calibration
procedures and post-calibration dynamic ranges. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem.
Sens. 41 (11), 2674–2677.
Chander, G., Markham, B.L., Barsi, J.A., 2007. Revised landsat 5 thematic mapper
radiometric calibration. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens. 44, 490–494.
Chander, G., Markham, B.L., Helder, D.L., 2009. Summary of current radiometric
calibration coefficients for Landsat MSS, TM, ETM+ and EO-1 ALI sensors. Rem.
Sens. Environ. 113, 893–903.
Chatterjee, R.S., 2006. Coal fire mapping from satellite thermal IR data –a case
example in Jharia Coalfield, Jharkhand, India. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Rem. Sens.
60, 113–128.
Chavez, P.S., 1996. Image-based atmospheric correction −revisited and improved.
Photogramm. Eng. Rem. Sens. 62 (9), 1025–1036.
Chen, Y., Jing, L., Bo, Y., Shi, P., Zhang, S., 1999. Detection of coal fire location and
change based on multi-temporal thermal remotely sensed data and field
measurements. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 28 (15), 3173–3179.
Davies, J.A., Robinson, P.J., Nunez, M., 1971. Field determination of surface
emissivity and temperature for Lake Ontario. J. Appl. Meteorol. 10, 811–819.
Gao, B.C., Kaufman, Y.J., 2003. Water vapor retrievals using moderate resolution
imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) near-infrared channels. J. Geophys. Res.
108 (D13), 4-1-4-10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JD003023.
Gilabert, M.A., Conese, C., Maselli, F., 1994. An atmospheric correction for the
automatic retrieval of surface reflectances from TM images. Int. J. Rem. Sens.
15 (10), 2065–2086.
Gillespie, A.R., Rokugawa, S., Matsunaga, T., Cothern, J.S., Hook, S., Kahle, A.B., 1998.
A temperature and emissivity separation algorithm for advanced spaceborne
thermal emission and reflection radiometer (ASTER) images. IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Rem. Sens. 36 (4), 1113–1126.
Gordon, H.R., Clarke, D.K., 1981. Clear water radiances for atmospheric corrections
of CZCS imagery. Appl. Opt. 20, 4175–4180.
Gordon, H.R., Brown, J.W., Evans, R.H., 1988. Exact Rayleigh scattering calculations
for use with the Nimbus-7 coastal zone color scanner. Appl. Opt. 27, 862–871.
Gordon, H.R., 1978. Removal of atmospheric effects from satellite imagery of the
oceans. Appl. Opt. 17, 1631–1636.
Gumley, L.E., Moeller, C.C., Menzel, W.P., 1990. Monitoring of Mississippi delta
coastal geomorphology using high resolution Multispectral Atmospheric
Mapping Sensor (MAMS) data. In: 5th Australian Remote Sensing Conference,
Perth, Australia, pp. 738–745.
Guzzi, R., Rizzi, R., Zibordi, G., 1987. Atmospheric correction of data measured by a
flying platform over the sea: elements of a model and its experimental
validation. Appl. Opt. 26, 3034–3051.
Hadjimitsis, D.G., Clayton, C., 2009. Determination of aerosol optical thickness
through the derivation of an atmospheric correction for short-wavelength
Landsat TM and ASTER image data: an application to areas located in the
vicinity of airports at UK and Cyprus. Appl. Geomater. 1, 31–40, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1007/s12518-009-0004-2.
Jimenez-Munoz, J.C., Sobrino, J.A., 2003. A generalized single-channel method for
retrieving land surface temperature from remote sensing data. J. Geophys. Res.
108 (D22), 4688–4695, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003JD003480.
Jimenez-Munoz, J.C., Sobrino, J.A., Skokovic, D., Mattar, C., Cristobal, J., 2014. Land
surface temperature retrieval methods from Landsat-8 thermal infrared sensor
data. IEEE Geosci. Rem. Sens. Lett. 11 (10), 1840–1843, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1109/LGRS.2014.2312032.
Kaufman, Y.J., Gao, B.C., 1992. Remote sensing of water vapor in the near IR from
EOS/MODIS. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens. 30, 871–884.
Kaufman, Y.J., Gitelson, A., Karnieli, A., Ganor, E., Fraser, R.S., Nakajima, T., Mattoo,
S., Holben, B.N., 1994. Size distribution and scattering phase function of aerosol
particles retrieved from sky brightness measurements. J. Geophys. Res. 99D,
10341–10356.
Mansor, S.B., Cracknell, A.P., Shilin, B.V., Gornyi, V.I., 1994. Monitoring of
underground coal fires using thermal infrared data. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 15 (8),
1675–1685.
 R.S. Chatterjee et al. / International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 58 (2017) 264–277
Mao, K., Qin, Z., Shi, J., Gong, P., 2005. A practical split-window algorithm for
retrieving land-surface temperature from MODIS data. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 26
(15), 3181–3204.
Markham, B.L., Barker, J.L., 1986. Landsat MSS and TM post calibration dynamic
ranges, exoatmospheric reflectances and at-satellite temperature. In: EOSAT
Landsat Technical Notes 1, August 1986, Earth Observation Satellite Co.,
Lanham, Maryland, pp. 3–8.
Marlatt, W.E., 1967. Remote and in-situ temperature measurements of land water
surfaces. J. Appl. Meteorol. 6, 272–279.
Martin, S., 2014. An Introduction to Ocean Remote Sensing, 2nd edition. Cambridge
University Press, 489p.
Moradizadeh, M., Momeni, M., Saradjian, M.R., 2008. Estimation of atmospheric
column and near surface water vapour content using the radiance values of
MODIS, 2008. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Rem. Sens. Spatial Inf. Sci. XXXVII (B8),
523–527.
Qin, Z., Dall’Olmo, G., Karnieli, A., Berliner, P., 2001. Derivation of split window
algorithm and its sensitivity analysis for retrieving land surface temperature
from NOAA-AVHRR data. J. Geophys. Res. 106 (D19), 22655–22670.
Raphael, J.M., 1962. Prediction of temperature in rivers and reservoirs. Proceedings
American Society of Civil Engineers, Journal Power Division, PO2, 157–181.
Richter, R., 1990. A fast atmospheric correction algorithm applied to Landsat TM
images. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 1, 159–166.
Sobrino, J.A., El Kharaaz, J., 2003. Surface temperature and vapour retrieval from
MODIS data. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 24 (24), 5161–5182.
Sobrino, J.A., Caselles, V., Becker, F., 1990. Significance of the remotely sensed
thermal infrared measurements obtained over a citrus orchard. ISPRS J.
Photogramm. Rem. Sens. 44 (6), 343–354.
277
Sobrino, J.A., Jimenez-Munoz, J.C., Paolini, L., 2004. Land surface temperature
retrieval from LANDSAT TM 5. Rem. Sens. Environ. 90, 434–440.
Sobrino, J.A., Jiménez-Muñoz, J.C., Sòria, G., Romaguera, M., Guanter, L., Moreno, J.,
Plaza, A., Martínez, P., 2008. Land surface emissivity retrieval from different
VNIR and TIR sensors. IEEE Trans. Geosci. Rem. Sens. 46 (2), 316–327.
Solar Energy Centre, 2017. Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, Govt. of India,
URL: http://mnre.gov.in/sec/solar-assmnt.htm (last date accessed: 15 February
2016).
USGS, 2015a. Landsat 8 (L8) Data Users Handbook. Department of the Interior, U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) (LSDS-1574, Ver. 1.0, 106p.).
USGS, 2015b. Remote Sensing Phenology,
http://phenology.cr.usgs.gov/ndvi foundation.php (Last date accessed on 20
July 2015).
Valor, E., Caselles, V., 1996. Mapping land surface emissivity from NDVI:
application to European African and South American areas. Rem. Sens. Environ.
57, 167–184.
Van de Griend, A.A., Owe, M., 1993. On the relationship between thermal
emissivity and the normalized difference vegetation index for natural surfaces.
Int. J. Rem. Sens. 14 (6), 1119–1131.
Waggoner, A.P., Weiss, R.E., Ahlquist, N.C., Covert, D.S., Will, S., Charlson, R.J., 1981.
Optical characteristics of atmospheric aerosols. Atmos. Environ. 15,
1891–1909.
Yu, X., Guo, X., Wu, Z., 2014. Land surface temperature retrieval from Landsat 8
TIRS −comparison between radiative transfer equation-based method, split
window algorithm and single channel method. Rem. Sens. 6, 9829–9852.