skip to main content
research-article
Public Access

Energy-Efficient Aquatic Environment Monitoring Using Smartphone-Based Robots

Published:26 July 2016Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Monitoring aquatic environment is of great interest to the ecosystem, marine life, and human health. This article presents the design and implementation of Samba—an aquatic surveillance robot that integrates an off-the-shelf Android smartphone and a robotic fish to monitor harmful aquatic processes such as oil spills and harmful algal blooms. Using the built-in camera of the smartphone, Samba can detect spatially dispersed aquatic processes in dynamic and complex environment. To reduce the excessive false alarms caused by the nonwater area (e.g., trees on the shore), Samba segments the captured images and performs target detection in the identified water area only. However, a major challenge in the design of Samba is the high energy consumption resulted from continuous image segmentation. We propose a novel approach that leverages the power-efficient inertial sensors on smartphones to assist image processing. In particular, based on the learned mapping models between inertial and visual features, Samba uses real-time inertial sensor readings to estimate the visual features that guide image segmentation, significantly reducing the energy consumption and computation overhead. Samba also features a set of lightweight and robust computer vision algorithms, which detect harmful aquatic processes based on their distinctive color features. Last, Samba employs a feedback-based rotation control algorithm to adapt to spatiotemporal development of the target aquatic process. We have implemented a Samba prototype and evaluated it through extensive field experiments, lab experiments, and trace-driven simulations. The results show that Samba can achieve a 94% detection rate, a 5% false alarm rate, and a lifetime up to nearly 2 months.

References

  1. James Ammerman and William Glover. 2000. Continuous underway measurement of microbial ectoenzyme activities in aquatic ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series 201 (2000), 1--12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Android 2.2 Platform Highlights. 2010. Homepage. Available at http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/sensors/sensors_position.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Android Runtime. 2014. Homepage. Available at http://source.android.com/devices/tech/dalvik/art.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Jeffrey Blum, Daniel Greencorn, and Jeremy Cooperstock. 2013. Smartphone sensor reliability for augmented reality applications. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Systems. 127--138.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Bryan Boyd. 2003. Introduction to Algae. Englewood Cliffs.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Camilla Brekke and Anne Solberg. 2005. Oil spill detection by satellite remote sensing. Remote Sensing of Environment 95, 1 (2005), 1--13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Dongyao Chen, Kyong-Tak Cho, Sihui Han, Zhizhuo Jin, and Kang Shin. 2015. Invisible sensing of vehicle steering with smartphones. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (MobiSys). 1--13. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. John Crank. 1979. The Mathematics of Diffusion. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Matthew Dunbabin and Alistair Grinham. 2010. Experimental evaluation of an autonomous surface vehicle for water quality and greenhouse gas emission monitoring. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). 5268--5274.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Dumitru Erhan, Christian Szegedy, Alexander Toshev, and Dragomir Anguelov. 2014. Scalable object detection using deep neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 2155--2162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Matthew Faulkner, Michael Olson, Rishi Chandy, Jonathan Krause, K. Mani Chandy, and Andreas Krause. 2011. The next big one: Detecting earthquakes and other rare events from community-based sensors. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN). 13--24.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Gliding Robotic Fish. 2013. Homepage. Available at http://nbcnews.to/1fGAomj.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. HABs and Lake Mendota. 2007. Homepage. Available at http://blooms.uwcfl.org/mendota.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaiming He, Xiangyu Zhang, Shaoqing Ren, and Jian Sun. 2015. Spatial pyramid pooling in deep convolutional networks for visual recognition. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 37, 9 (2015), 1904--1916.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Robert Hecky and Peter Kilham. 1988. Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton in freshwater and marine environments: A review of recent evidence on the effects of enrichment. Limnology and Oceanography 33, 4 (1988), 796--822.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Samuli Hemminki, Petteri Nurmi, and Sasu Tarkoma. 2013. Accelerometer-based transportation mode detection on smartphones. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Chuanmin Hu, Frank Müller-Karger, Charles Taylor, Douglas Myhre, Brock Murch, Ana Odriozola, and Gonzalo Godoy. 2003. MODIS detects oil spills in Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 84, 33 (2003), 313--319.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Puneet Jain, Justin Manweiler, Arup Achary, and Kirk Beaty. 2013. FOCUS: Clustering crowdsourced videos by line-of-sight. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Conference on Embedded Networked Sensor Systems (SenSys). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Shinichiro Kako, Atsuhiko Isobe, and Shinya Magome. 2012. Low altitude remote-sensing method to monitor marine and beach litter of various colors using a balloon equipped with a digital camera. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64, 6 (2012), 1156--1162.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Purushottam Kulkarni, Deepak Ganesan, Prashant Shenoy, and Qifeng Lu. 2005. SensEye: A multi-tier camera sensor network. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM). 229--238. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Gilles LaRoche, Ronald Eisler, and Clarence Tarzwell. 1970. Bioassay procedures for oil and oil dispersant toxicity evaluation. Water Pollution Control Federation (1970), 1982--1989.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Dimitrios Lymberopoulos and Andreas Savvides. 2005. XYZ: A motion-enabled, power aware sensor node platform for distributed sensor network applications. In Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN). 449--454. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Raphael Maree, Pierre Geurts, Justus Piater, and Louis Wehenkel. 2005. Random subwindows for robust image classification. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). 34--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Tood Moon. 1996. The expectation-maximization algorithm. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 13, 6 (1996), 47--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. National Ocean Service. 2014. Homepage. Available at http://oceanservice.noaa.gov.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Katsuhiko Ogata. 1995. Discrete-Time Control Systems. Prentice Hall. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Homepage. Available at http://epa.ohio.gov.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Oil Spills and Disasters. 2010. Available at http://infoplease.com/ipa/A0001451.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Trevor Platt, Fuentes-Yaco Csar, and Frank Kenneth. 2003. Marine ecology: Spring algal bloom and larval fish survival. Nature 423, 6938 (2003), 398--399.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Power Tech LED. 2014. Homepage. Available at http://swflashlights.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Daniel Rudnick, Russ Davis, Charles Eriksen, David Fratantoni, and Mary Perry. 2004. Underwater gliders for ocean research. Journal of the Marine Technology Society 38, 2 (2004), 73--84.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  32. Linda Shapiro and George Stockman. 2001. Computer Vision. Prentice Hall. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Yiran Shen, Wen Hu, Mingrui Yang, Bo Wei, Simon Lucey, and Chun-Tung Chou. 2014. Face recognition on smartphones via optimised sparse representation classification. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN). 237--248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. John Smith and Shih-Fu Chang. 1997. VisualSEEk: A fully automated content-based image query system. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM). 87--98. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Southern Regional Water Program. 2011. Homepage. Available at http://srwqis.tamu.edu.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Stargate User’s Manual. 2014. Homepage. Available at http://xbow.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Thiago Teixeira, Eugenio Culurciello, Joon Park, Dimitrios Lymberopoulos, Andrew Barton-Sweeney, and Andreas Savvides. 2006. Address-event imagers for sensor networks: Evaluation and modeling. In Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN). 458--466. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Yu Wang, Rui Tan, Guoliang Xing, Jianxun Wang, Xiaobo Tan, Xiaoming Liu, and Xiangmao Chang. 2014. Aquatic debris monitoring using smartphone-based robotic sensors. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Information Processing in Sensor Networks (IPSN). 13--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Yu Wang, Rui Tan, Guoliang Xing, Jianxun Wang, Xiaobo Tan, Xiaoming Liu, and Xiangmao Chang. 2016. Monitoring aquatic debris using smartphone-based robots. IEEE Transactions on Mobile Computing 15, 6 (2016), 1412--1426.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Yan Wang, Jie Yang, Hongbo Liu, Yingying Chen, Marco Gruteser, and Richard Martin. 2013. Sensing vehicle dynamics for determining driver phone use. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mobile Systems, Applications, and Services (MobiSys). 41--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Energy-Efficient Aquatic Environment Monitoring Using Smartphone-Based Robots

            Recommendations

            Comments

            Login options

            Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

            Sign in

            Full Access

            • Published in

              cover image ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks
              ACM Transactions on Sensor Networks  Volume 12, Issue 3
              August 2016
              304 pages
              ISSN:1550-4859
              EISSN:1550-4867
              DOI:10.1145/2976745
              • Editor:
              • Chenyang Lu
              Issue’s Table of Contents

              Copyright © 2016 ACM

              Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

              Publisher

              Association for Computing Machinery

              New York, NY, United States

              Publication History

              • Published: 26 July 2016
              • Accepted: 1 April 2016
              • Revised: 1 March 2016
              • Received: 1 August 2015
              Published in tosn Volume 12, Issue 3

              Permissions

              Request permissions about this article.

              Request Permissions

              Check for updates

              Qualifiers

              • research-article
              • Research
              • Refereed

            PDF Format

            View or Download as a PDF file.

            PDF

            eReader

            View online with eReader.

            eReader