| Literature DB >> 22399917 |
Luis Ruiz-Garcia1, Pilar Barreiro, Jose Ignacio Robla, Loredana Lunadei.
Abstract
Quality control and monitoring of perishable goods during transportation and delivery services is an increasing concern for producers, suppliers, transport decision makers and consumers. The major challenge is to ensure a continuous 'cold chain' from producer to consumer in order to guaranty prime condition of goods. In this framework, the suitability of ZigBee protocol for monitoring refrigerated transportation has been proposed by several authors. However, up to date there was not any experimental work performed under real conditions. Thus, the main objective of our experiment was to test wireless sensor motes based in the ZigBee/IEEE 802.15.4 protocol during a real shipment. The experiment was conducted in a refrigerated truck traveling through two countries (Spain and France) which means a journey of 1,051 kilometers. The paper illustrates the great potential of this type of motes, providing information about several parameters such as temperature, relative humidity, door openings and truck stops. Psychrometric charts have also been developed for improving the knowledge about water loss and condensation on the product during shipments.Entities:
Keywords: ZigBee; cold chain; food; logistics; wireless sensing
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 22399917 PMCID: PMC3292157 DOI: 10.3390/s100504968
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1.Experimental set-up. Side view and top view.
Coefficients used to compute the psychometric data [15].
| R = 22,105,649.25 |
| A = −27,405.526 |
| B = 97.5413 |
| C = −0.146244 |
| D = 0.12558 × 10−3 |
| E = −0.48502 × 10−7 |
| F = 4.34903 |
| G = 0.39381 × 10−2 |
Figure 2.T comparison between motes and sensors.
ANOVA of spatial T data. Fishers’s F for two factors (type of sensor and mote) and their interaction (confidence interval 95%).
| Fishers’s F | 3,833.59 | 28.24 | 140.44 |
ANOVA of RH, pressure, light and acceleration data. Fishers’s F considering node location as a factor (confidence interval 95%).
| Node | 1,406.85 | 387.49 | 91.77 | 1,122.95 |
Figure 3.RH comparison between motes.
Figure 4.Air pressure comparison between motes.
Figure 5.Light detection during the shipment.
Figure 6.Acceleration module for the two motes.
Figure 7.Psychrometric chart (color lines indicate relative humidity; red dots represent mote 4 and blue dots mote 3).