| Literature DB >> 26690176 |
Fengmei Li1, Yaoguang Wei2, Yingyi Chen3, Daoliang Li4, Xu Zhang5.
Abstract
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is a key factor that influences the healthy growth of fishes in aquaculture. The DO content changes with the aquatic environment and should therefore be monitored online. However, traditional measurement methods, such as iodometry and other chemical analysis methods, are not suitable for online monitoring. The Clark method is not stable enough for extended periods of monitoring. To solve these problems, this paper proposes an intelligent DO measurement method based on the fluorescence quenching mechanism. The measurement system is composed of fluorescent quenching detection, signal conditioning, intelligent processing, and power supply modules. The optical probe adopts the fluorescent quenching mechanism to detect the DO content and solves the problem, whereas traditional chemical methods are easily influenced by the environment. The optical probe contains a thermistor and dual excitation sources to isolate visible parasitic light and execute a compensation strategy. The intelligent processing module adopts the IEEE 1451.2 standard and realizes intelligent compensation. Experimental results show that the optical measurement method is stable, accurate, and suitable for online DO monitoring in aquaculture applications.Entities:
Keywords: dissolved oxygen; fluorescent quenching; intelligent compensation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26690176 PMCID: PMC4721757 DOI: 10.3390/s151229837
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Overall design of the optical DO sensor.
Figure 2Schematic of the fluorescence quenching detection module.
Figure 3Schematic of the signal conditioning module.
Figure 4Model of data correction.
Figure 5Line chart of the DO content and output voltage signal.
Figure 6Fitting curve of the slope.
Figure 7Pressure compensation test.
Figure 8Salinity compensation test.
Accuracy test.
| Samples | Measurements | AVG | Absolute Error | Relative Error | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ||||
| 5.02 | 4.86 | 4.79 | 4.89 | 4.93 | 4.89 | 4.91 | 5.09 | 4.98 | 4.92 | 0.1 | 1.99% |
| 9.98 | 10.12 | 10.09 | 10.21 | 9.89 | 10.06 | 9.91 | 9.89 | 10.13 | 10.04 | 0.06 | 0.60% |
| 18.03 | 17.85 | 17.83 | 17.91 | 17.87 | 17.96 | 17.87 | 17.93 | 18.03 | 17.91 | 0.12 | 0.67% |
Figure 9Stability test.
Precision test.
| Sample | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | AVG Average average | RSD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 5.56 | 5.62 | 5.60 | 5.44 | 5.49 | 5.51 | 5.50 | 5.82 | 5.71 | 5.60 | 5.59 | 1.97% |
| B | 9.96 | 9.91 | 9.89 | 10.22 | 10.15 | 10.04 | 10.00 | 9.98 | 10.02 | 10.15 | 10.03 | 1.10% |
| C | 18.90 | 18.85 | 18.86 | 18.74 | 18.69 | 18.56 | 18.74 | 18.63 | 18.60 | 18.59 | 18.73 | 0.64% |
Figure 10Precision test.
Stability test.
| Samples | Measurement Results | Relative Error | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
| 2.51 | 2.54 | 2.5 | 2.44 | 2.56 | 2.62 | 2.48 | 2.63 | 2.55 | 2.59 | 2.63 | 1.59% |
| 9.24 | 9.22 | 9.19 | 9.16 | 9.13 | 9.33 | 9.25 | 9.23 | 9.22 | 9.16 | 9.13 | 0.43% |
| 12.51 | 12.49 | 12.44 | 12.45 | 12.44 | 12.67 | 12.71 | 12.58 | 12.55 | 12.49 | 12.51 | 0.16% |
Figure 11Speed Test.
Figure 12On-site Test.