Building a Low‐Cost, Internet‐of‐Things, Real‐Time Groundwater Level Monitoring Network

Abstract

This column reviews the general features of PHT3D Version 2, a reactive multicomponent transport model that couples the geochemical modeling software PHREEQC-2 (Parkhurst and Appelo 1999) with three-dimensional groundwater flow and transport simulators MODFLOW-2000 and MT3DMS (Zheng and Wang 1999). The original version of PHT3D was developed by Henning Prommer and Version 2 by Henning Prommer and Vincent Post (Prommer and Post 2010). More detailed information about PHT3D is available at the website http://www.pht3d.org. The review was conducted separately by two reviewers. This column is presented in two parts.

Domestic Wells – Introduction and Overview

“…Internet-of-Things devices and low-cost sensors are now being used to monitor real-time groundwater levels in domestic wells (Drage and Kennedy, 2020).…”

“…sampled approximately 3,670 domestic wells in addition to public supply wells and monitoring wells to assess the water quality of principal aquifers of the United States(DeSimone et al, 2014). Domestic wells have also been used to build community-based groundwater level monitoring networks, which are operated by either non-government groups, or as partnerships between domestic well owners and government researchers(Drage and Kennedy, 2020).…”

Development of IOT-based low-cost MEMS pressure sensor for groundwater level monitoring

“…Thus, a comprehensive regional or national monitoring plan remains costly. With the advances in sensing technology in recent years, several studies have been conducted to develop low-cost monitoring systems [10,[16][17][18][19][20]. Having a low-cost sensor with the capability of real-time monitoring is of primary interest to not only minimise operation costs but to also overcome shortcomings of the existing sensor, as well as enhance the reliability and accuracy of monitoring.…”

“…To overcome existing shortcomings, usage of the other types of sensors, such as fibre optic sensors [26][27][28][29], ultrasonic sensors [16,17,30,31] and microelectromechanical system (MEMS) pressure sensors [32,33], is feasible. Each type has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice ultimately depends on several factors such as accuracy, sensitivity, operating conditions, power consumption, and cost considerations.…”

“…For example, ultrasonic sensors are the proper choice for lowrange monitoring where high precision and resolution are needed. They work based on the transmission and reception of high-frequency electromagnetic or sound waves through a noncontact measurement, which means that they do not need physical contact with the water surface [16,34,35]. This is beneficial because it avoids any disturbance to the water or the need for intrusive installations such as probes or floats.…”