Traditional vs Automated Sensors for Environmental Monitoring

The use of sensors has become increasingly important for environmental monitoring in biotechnology. Traditional sensors have been used for decades, but with the advancement of technology, automated sensors have become an attractive option. In this blog post, we will compare traditional and automated sensors for environmental monitoring, providing an unbiased analysis of their effectiveness.

Traditional Sensors

Traditional sensors are usually stationary and require manual collection of data. A common example of a traditional sensor is the mercury thermometer. These sensors measure temperature, humidity, and air quality and give instant readings when manually inspected. Besides, traditional sensors are generally less expensive to install and maintain than automated sensors.

However, traditional sensors have limited functionality and their measurements can be affected by external factors such as human error, weather, and other environmental conditions. Additionally, traditional sensors are generally less accurate than automated sensors as they are significantly influenced by the collection method.

Automated Sensors

Automated sensors are designed to be hands-off, which means they collect data automatically and transmit it wirelessly to a central database. Examples of automated sensors include wireless temperature and humidity gauges and air-quality sensors. Automated sensors have become popular in recent times due to their high accuracy and continuous monitoring capability. The sensors can be remotely accessed, reprogrammed, and adjusted from anywhere globally with a high-level security system.

Automated sensors run consistently with a low margin of errors and can detect slight variations in the environmental conditions the sensors are used to track. However, the installation and maintenance of these sensors are relatively costly than traditional sensors.

Comparison

In summary, traditional sensors are less costly but less technologically advanced than automated sensors. Automated sensors offer continuous measurement with high accuracy and less vulnerable to external factors. As a result, there has been a market shift towards the use of automated sensors in environmental monitoring.

While traditional sensors still serve a purpose in the industry, automated sensors have far fewer limitations and offer a more accurate and continuous dataset.

Conclusion

Both traditional and automated sensors occupy important spaces in the field of biotechnology-based environmental monitoring. If it is a case of needing an isolated measurement per time or low investment, traditional sensors might be the preferred option. In contrast, automated sensors offer superior accuracy and functionality, making them the optimal choice for critical and continuous monitoring of the environment.

References

1. Kinney, P., & Ross, J. (2011). Automated sensor networks in environmental monitoring. Journal of Biological Engineering, 5(1), 5.
2. Nisbit, T. R., & Weissburg, M. J. (2016). The new age of environmental monitoring: drones, sensors, and machine learning. Integrative and Comparative Biology, 56(4), 615-630.
3. Wang, J., Zhang, Y., Li, N., Liu, Y., Li, Y., & Chu, X. (2019). Application of IoT technology in environmental monitoring. IEEE Access, 7, 123524-123535.