| Literature DB >> 28788098 |
Teng Li1, Min Xia2, Jiahong Chen3, Yuanjie Zhao4, Clarence de Silva5.
Abstract
An Internet of Things (IoT) platform with capabilities of sensing, data processing, and wireless communication has been deployed to support remote aquatic environmental monitoring. In this paper, the design and development of an IoT platform with multiple Mobile Sensor Nodes (MSN) for the spatiotemporal quality evaluation of surface water is presented. A survey planner is proposed to distribute the Sampling Locations of Interest (SLoIs) over the study area and generate paths for MSNs to visit the SLoIs, given the limited energy and time budgets. The SLoIs are chosen based on a cellular decomposition that is composed of uniform hexagonal cells. They are visited by the MSNs along a path ring generated by a planning approach that uses a spanning tree. For quality evaluation, an Online Water Quality Index (OLWQI) is developed to interpret the large quantities of online measurements. The index formulations are modified by a state-of-the-art index, the CCME WQI, which has been developed by the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME) for off-line indexing. The proposed index has demonstrated effective and reliable performance in online indexing a large volume of measurements of water quality parameters. The IoT platform is deployed in the field, and its performance is demonstrated and discussed in this paper.Entities:
Keywords: IoT platform; quality indexing; survey planner; water quality monitoring
Year: 2017 PMID: 28788098 PMCID: PMC5579500 DOI: 10.3390/s17081735
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1The proposed Internet of Things (IoT) platform: (a) Architecture of the platform for water quality monitoring; (b) Workflow diagram of the platform.
Figure 2An execution example of the proposed hexagonal grid-based survey planner: (a) Hexagonal tessellation with Sampling Locations of Interest (SLoIs); (b) The created Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) vertices and the constructed relative MST; (c) Generation of the circumnavigation path based on the MST. The solid circle on the path denotes a selected starting point; (d) The overall path ring after path update.
MST Vertex Creation.
| Coarse Cell | Condition & Strategy |
|---|---|
| SLoIs exist in 1, 2, 3, 4 fine-cells. A vertex is created at the midpoint of the edge between 2 and 3 fine-cells. | |
| Left (Right) figure: SLoIs exist in 1, 3 (2, 4) fine-cells. A vertex is created at the left (right) side of the coarse cell if its left (right) neighboring coarse cell has four SLoIs. | |
| Left (Right) figure: SLoIs exist in 1, 2 (3, 4) fine-cells. A vertex is created at the bottom (top) side of the coarse cell if its bottom (top) neighboring coarse cell has four SLoIs. | |
| Left (Right) figure: SLoIs exist in 1, 2, 3 (2, 3, 4) fine-cells. A vertex is created with the same strategies by considering this coarse cell as a 1, 2 and 1, 3 (2, 4 and 3, 4) coarse cell. If two vertices are created, select a random one and remove the other one. | |
| Left (Right) figure: SLoIs exist in 1, 2, 4 (1, 3, 4) fine-cells. A vertex is created with the same strategies by considering this coarse cell as a 1, 2 and 2, 4 (1, 3 and 3, 4) coarse cell. If two vertices are created, select a random one and remove the other. |
Figure 3Possible MST vertices and edges surrounding a coarse cell.
Factor sensitivity of the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME) Water Quality Index (WQI).
| Factor | Factor Sensitivity |
|---|---|
| Scope | |
| Frequency | |
| Amplitude 1 |
1 The derivation of the sensitivity is given in the appendix.
Factor sensitivity of the Online Water Quality Index (OLWQI).
| Factor | Factor Sensitivity |
|---|---|
| Scope |
|
| Frequency |
|
| Amplitude |
Figure 4(a) The design framework of the Mobile Sensor Nodes (MSN); (b) The developed MSN in the IoT platform.
Figure 5(a) The design framework of the Base Station (BS); (b) The developed BS in the IoT platform.
Figure 6Field deployment of the developed platform at the Yosef Wosk Reflecting Pool: (a) Deployment of the MSN in the pool; (b) Deployment of the platform in the field.
Algorithm Performance.
| Visited SloIs | Total Length | Algo. Time Cost | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HGSP | TSP | HGSP | TSP | HGSP | TSP | |||
| 2.6 m | 4.5 m | 73 | 72 | 73 | 324 m | 332 m | 0.53 s | 2.64 s |
| 2.4 m | 4.2 m | 88 | 88 | 88 | 366 m | 366 m | 0.60 s | 3.17 s |
| 2.2 m | 3.8 m | 101 | 100 | 101 | 381 m | 385 m | 0.72 s | 26.24 s |
| 2.0 m | 3.5 m | 127 | 126 | 127 | 436 m | 442 m | 0.93 s | 335.57 s |
| 1.8 m | 3.1 m | 159 | 159 | 159 | 496 m | 496 m | 1.31 s | 178.1 s |
| 1.6 m | 2.8 m | 203 | 203 | 203 | 563 m | N/A | 1.79 s | N/A |
N/A: Computation did not complete within the limit of 1000 s. The time cost is the average time consumption of 10 executions.
Figure 7Generated survey plan using Hexagonal Grid-based Survey Planner (HGSP) and Travelling Salesman Problem (TSP) with respect to different cell sizes: (a) m, m; (b) m, m; (c) m, m.
Figure 8Graphic User Interface (GUI).
Figure 9Comparison of the CCME WQI and the OLWQI: (a) Quality indexing results; (b) Factor scores due to the failed tests.
Indexing Results using Data Collected at the First Landing Station in CBIBS.
| Date & Time |
|
|
| CCME WQI |
|
|
| OLWQI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6/20/2017 13:00 | 16.67 | 6.94 | 0.92 | 90 | 0 | 6.94 | 7.46 | 94 |
| 6/20/2017 14:00 | 16.67 | 6.94 | 0.92 | 90 | 0 | 6.94 | 7.46 | 94 |
| 6/20/2017 15:00 | 16.67 | 6.94 | 0.92 | 90 | 0 | 6.94 | 7.46 | 94 |
| 6/20/2017 16:00 | 16.67 | 7.64 | 0.99 | 89 | 0 | 7.64 | 8.01 | 94 |
| 6/20/2017 17:00 | 16.67 | 8.33 | 1.20 | 89 | 16.67 | 8.33 | 9.59 | 88 |
| 6/20/2017 18:00 | 16.67 | 9.03 | 1.50 | 89 | 16.67 | 9.03 | 11.75 | 87 |
| 6/20/2017 19:00 | 16.67 | 9.03 | 1.52 | 89 | 16.67 | 9.03 | 11.89 | 87 |
| 6/20/2017 20:00 | 16.67 | 9.03 | 1.52 | 89 | 16.67 | 9.03 | 11.89 | 87 |
| 6/20/2017 21:00 | 16.67 | 9.03 | 1.52 | 89 | 16.67 | 9.03 | 11.86 | 87 |
| 6/20/2017 22:00 | 16.67 | 9.03 | 1.53 | 89 | 16.67 | 9.03 | 11.95 | 87 |
Stepwise Regression Analysis: Final Index versus Three Factors.
| CCME WQI | OLWQI | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Single Station | Candidate | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | Candidate | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 |
|
| −0.5808 | −0.5742 | −0.5744 |
| −0.8511 | −0.2145 | −0.2378 | |
|
| −0.0690 | −0.0611 |
| −0.9327 | −0.4381 | |||
|
| −0.0520 |
| −0.3588 | |||||
|
| 98.00% | 99.91% | 99.92% |
| 83.97% | 98.75% | 99.81% | |
| Multiple Stations | Candidate | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 | Candidate | Step 1 | Step 2 | Step 3 |
|
| −0.5966 | −0.5502 | −0.5528 |
| −0.8347 | −0.3192 | −0.3002 | |
|
| −0.1821 | −0.1536 |
| −1.4212 | −0.3049 | |||
|
| −0.0690 |
| −0.4066 | |||||
|
| 98.47% | 99.94% | 99.95% |
| 85.43% | 97.95% | 99.89% | |
Statistical Results of the Factor Effects on the Final Index.
| CCME WQI | OLWQI | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 79.89% | 3.64% | 7.57% | 15.75% | 36.98% | 37.88% |