Atmospheric correction (AC) for coastal waters is an important issue in ocean color remote sensing. AC performance is fundamental in retrieving reliable water-leaving radiances and then bio-optical parameters. Unlike polar-orbiting satellites, geostationary ocean color sensors allow high-frequency (15–60 min) monitoring of ocean color over the same area. The first geostationary ocean color sensor, i.e., the Geostationary Ocean Color Imager (GOCI), was launched in 2010. Using GOCI data acquired over the Yellow Sea in summer 2017 at three principal overpass times (02:16, 03:16, 04:16 UTC) with ±1 and ±3 h match-up times, this study compared four GOCI AC algorithms: (1) the standard near infrared (NIR) algorithm of NASA (NASA-STD), (2) the Korea Ocean Satellite Center (KOSC) standard algorithm for GOCI (KOSC-STD), (3) the diffuse attenuation coefficient at 490 nm Kd (490)-based NIR correction algorithm (Kd-based), and (4) the Management Unit of the North Sea Mathematical Models (MUMM). The GOCI-estimated remote sensing reflectance (Rrs), aerosol parameters [aerosol optical thickness (AOT), Angström Exponent (AE)], and chlorophyll-a (Chla) were validated using in situ data. For Rrs, AOT, AE, and Chla, GOCI-retrieved results performed well within the ±1 h temporal window, but the number of match-ups was extended within the ±3 h match-up window. For ±3 h GOCI-derived Rrs, all algorithms had an absolute percentage difference (APD) at 490 and 555 nm of 60%). Compared with in situ values, the APD of the Rrs(490)/Rrs(555) band ratio was 40% and >200%, respectively. Of the four algorithms, the KOSC-STD algorithm demonstrated satisfactory performance in deriving Rrs for the region of interest (Rrs APD: 22.23%–73.95%) in the visible bands. The Kd-based algorithm worked well obtaining Ocean Color 3 GOCI Chla because Rrs(443) is more accurate than the KOSC-STD. The poorest Rrs retrievals were achieved using the NASA-STD and the MUMM algorithms. Statistical analysis indicated that all methods had optimal performance at 04:16 UTC.

The accuracy of remote-sensing reflectance ( $R_{rs}$ ) estimated from ocean color imagery through the atmospheric correction step is essential in conducting quantitative estimates of the inherent optical properties and biogeochemical parameters of seawater. Therefore, finding the main source of error is the first step toward improving the accuracy of $R_{rs}$ . However, the classic validation exercises provide only the total error of the retrieved $R_{rs}$ . They do not reveal the error sources. Moreover, how to effectively improve this satellite algorithm remains unknown. To better understand and improve various aspects of the satellite atmospheric correction algorithm, the error budget in the validation is required. Here, to find the primary error source from the OLCI $R_{rs}$ , we evaluated the OLCI $R_{rs}$ product with in-situ data around the China Sea from open ocean to coastal waters and compared them with the MODIS-AQUA and VIIRS products. The results show that the performances of OLCI are comparable to those MODIS-AQUA. The average percentage difference (APD) in $R_{rs}$ is lowest at 490 nm (18%), and highest at 754 nm (79%). A more detailed analysis reveals that open ocean and coastal waters show opposite results: compared to coastal waters the satellite $R_{rs}$ in open seas are higher than the in-situ measured values. An error budget for the three satellite-derived $R_{rs}$ products is presented, showing that the primary error source in the China Sea was the aerosol estimation and the error on the Rayleigh-corrected radiance for OLCI, as well as for MODIS and VIIRS. This work suggests that to improve the accuracy of Sentinel-3A in the coastal waters of China, the accuracy of aerosol estimation in atmospheric correction must be improved.

Phytoplankton are the main factors influencing light under the sea surface in Case Ι water. The ocean reflectance model (ORM), which takes into account the chlorophyll a concentration data, can calculate the remote sensing reflectance of Case Ι water. In this study, we examined the differences and performance of four ORMs, including Morel and Maritorena (2001, MM01), Morel and Gentili (2007, MG07), Mobley (2014, MO14), and Hydrolight Abcase1 Lookup Tables. The differences between the four ORMs in terms of their absorption and backscattering coefficients were evaluated. Preformation of the four ORMs was compared using the NASA bio-Optical Marine Algorithm Dataset and in situ data from the South China Sea. The results showed that preformation of MM01 was the best.