Simulation of Tomographic Reconstruction Algorithms for Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy

Chuling Deng; Jingjing Tong; Minguang Gao; Xiangxian Li; Yan Li; Xin Han; Wenqing Liu

doi:10.3788/AOS201939.0707001

Journals >Acta Optica Sinica >Volume 39 >Issue 7 >Page 0707001 > Article

Acta Optica Sinica
Vol. 39, Issue 7, 0707001 (2019)

Simulation of Tomographic Reconstruction Algorithms for Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy

Chuling Deng^1、2, Jingjing Tong^1、*, Minguang Gao¹, Xiangxian Li¹, Yan Li¹, Xin Han¹, and Wenqing Liu¹

Author Affiliations

¹ Key Laboratory of Environmental Optics and Technology, Anhui Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Hefei, Anhui 230031, China

² University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China

show less

DOI: 10.3788/AOS201939.0707001 Cite this Article Set citation alerts

Chuling Deng, Jingjing Tong, Minguang Gao, Xiangxian Li, Yan Li, Xin Han, Wenqing Liu. Simulation of Tomographic Reconstruction Algorithms for Open-Path Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy[J]. Acta Optica Sinica, 2019, 39(7): 0707001 Copy Citation Text

show less

Fig. 1. Reconstruction model

Download full size

Fig. 2. (a) Light path arrangement and (b) single-peak gas concentration field

Download full size

Fig. 3. Effect of relaxation factors α on reconstruction results. (a) Effect on nearness A; (b) effect on correlation coefficient R

Download full size

Fig. 4. Reconstruction results under different grid resolutions. (a)-(c) ART; (d)-(f) MLEM

Download full size

Fig. 5. Reconstruction results under different concentration fields. (a) Original concentration field of single peak; (b) original concentration field of double peak; (c) single peak, ART algorithm; (d) double peak, ART algorithm; (e) single peak, MLEM algorithm; (f) double peak, MLEM algorithm

Download full size

Fig. 6. Error analysis under different noise levels. (a) A; (b) R

Download full size

Resolution	Nearness A		Correlation coefficient R		Running time T /s
Resolution	ART	MLEM	ART	MLEM	ART	MLEM
5×5	0.236			0.073			0.972	0.998	0.153	0.061
7×7	0.227			0.056			0.978	0.999	0.185	0.064
10×10	0.197			0.055			0.981	0.999	0.236	0.066

Table 1. Overall reconstruction accuracy under different grid resolutions

Resolution	Peak value /(mg·m^-3)		Peak error /%		Peak location error /m
Resolution	ART	MLEM	ART	MLEM	ART	MLEM
5×5	39.7			45.3			20.60	9.40	4	4
7×7	38.7			44.6			22.60	10.80	5	5
10×10	39.1			45.6			21.80	8.80	4	4

Table 2. Detail reconstruction accuracy under different grid resolutions

Source location	Nearness A		Correlation coefficient R		Running time T /s
Source location	ART	MLEM	ART	MLEM	ART	MLEM
(75,25)	0.167			0.044			0.986	0.999	0.219	0.063
(53,53)	0.200			0.057			0.980	0.998	0.218	0.064
(30,70)	0.180			0.051			0.983	0.999	0.217	0.067
Mean	0.182			0.049			0.983	0.999	0.218	0.065

Table 3. Overall reconstruction accuracy of different source locations

Source location	Peak value /(mg·m^-3)		Peak error /%		Peak location error /m
Source location	ART	MLEM	ART	MLEM	ART	MLEM
(75,25)	41.3			47.4			17.40	5.20	0	0
(53,53)	38.5			45.9			23.00	8.20	3.0	3.0
(30,70)	37.7			42.2			24.60	15.60	7.0	7.0
Mean	39.2			45.2			21.67	9.67	3.3	3.3

Table 4. Detail reconstruction accuracy of different source locations

Source location	Nearness A		Correlation coefficient R		Running time T /s
Source location	ART	MLEM	ART	MLEM	ART	MLEM
(55,75)	0.177			0.044			0.984	0.999	0.233	0.063
(35,55),(75,55)	0.263			0.069			0.964	0.998	0.228	0.065

Table 5. Overall reconstruction accuracy of different concentration fields

Source location	Peak value /(mg·m^-3)		Mean peak error /%			Peak location
Source location	ART	MLEM	ART	MLEM		ART	MLEM
(55,75)	64.90				75.40			17.40	5.20	(55,75)	(55,75)
(35,55),(75,55)	49.40,72.30				50.30,91.10			14.45	4.75	(35,55),(75,55)	(35,55),(75,55)