| Literature DB >> 30995733 |
Samuel Ryecroft1, Andrew Shaw2, Paul Fergus3, Patryk Kot4, Khalid Hashim5, Adam Moody6, Laura Conway7.
Abstract
In 2016, there were 317 serious water pollution incidents in the UK, with 78,000 locations where businesses discharge controlled quantities of pollutants into rivers; therefore, continuous monitoring is vital. Since 1998, the environment agency has taken over 50 million water samples for water quality monitoring. The Internet of Things has grown phenomenally in recent years, reaching all aspects of our lives, many of these connected devices use wireless sensor networks to relay data to internet-connected nodes, where data can be processed, analyzed and consumed. However, Underwater wireless communications rely mainly on alternative communication methods such as optical and acoustic, with radio frequencies being an under-exploited method. This research presents real world results conducted in the Leeds and Liverpool Canal for the novel use of the 433 MHz radio frequency combined with a bowtie antenna in underwater communications in raw water, achieving distances of 7 m at 1.2 kbps and 5 m at 25 kbps.Entities:
Keywords: Bowtie Antenna; Sensor Networks; Under Water Wireless Sensor Network; Underwater Communication; Water Pollutants; Water Quality
Year: 2019 PMID: 30995733 PMCID: PMC6514603 DOI: 10.3390/s19081813
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Bowtie antenna design with dimensions in mm.
Results from field work with averages for the 1.2 kbps, 25 kbps and the overall average, where applicable.
| Distance (m) | 1.2 kbps Average (dBm) | 25 kbps Average (dBm) | Overall Average (dBm) | Standard Deviation 1.2 kbps (dBm) | Standard Deviation 25 kbps (dBm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | −49.00 | −46.00 | −47.50 | 5.71547607 | 2.692582 |
| 2 | −69.33 | −72.00 | −70.67 | 3.8586123 | 3.674235 |
| 3 | −87.33 | −88.33 | −87.83 | 3.68178701 | 3.832427 |
| 4 | −87.67 | −94.00 | −90.83 | 1.24721913 | 5.612486 |
| 5 | −107.00 | −106.33 | −106.67 | 2.1602469 | 1.581139 |
| 6 | −109.67 | N.A | N.A | 1.24721913 | N.A |
| 7 | −110.33 | N.A | N.A | 0.47140452 | N.A |
Figure 2(a) experimental setup; (b) Data capture device; (c) Submerged sensor node.
Signal losses for distances between 10 cm and 50cm at different conductivity levels.
| Distance | 0.4 mS/cm | 0.6 mS/cm | 0.8 mS/cm | 1.0 mS/cm | 5.2 mS/cm |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 | −27.38 | −24.34 | −25.15 | −24.9 | −38.74 |
| 15 | −25.675 | −22.06 | −23.5 | −23.7 | −33.61 |
| 20 | −28.33 | −26.14 | −28.09 | −28.95 | −46.27 |
| 25 | −30 | −28.45 | −29.44 | −29.97 | −47.64 |
| 30 | −33.87 | −30.26 | −32.2 | −34.13 | −51.57 |
| 35 | −41.4 | −34.21 | −35.51 | −36.22 | −48.5 |
| 40 | −41.527 | −38.99 | −38.01 | −41.87 | −50.58 |
| 45 | −41.38 | −44.44 | −42.1 | −43.53 | −51.7 |
| 50 | −46.02 | −44.98 | −43.87 | −44.48 | −50.69 |
Figure 3A graph showing the signal loss across distances with a range of conductivities.