1
A Low-Cost Sensor Network for Real Time
Monitoring and Contamination Detection in
Drinking Water Distribution Systems
Theofanis P. Lambrou, Member, IEEE, Christos C. Anastasiou , Christos G. Panayiotou , Senior Member, IEEE,
and Marios M. Polycarpou, Fellow, IEEE
Abstract This paper presents a low cost and holistic approach
to the water quality monitoring problem for drinking water
distribution systems as well as for consumer sites. Our approach
is based on the development of low cost sensor nodes for real time
and in pipe monitoring and assessment of water quality on the fly.
The main sensor node consists of several in-pipe electrochemical
and optical sensors and emphasis is given on low cost, lightweight
implementation and reliable long time operation. Such implemen-
tation is suitable for large scale deployments enabling a sensor
network approach for providing spatiotemporally rich data to
water consumers, water companies and authorities. Extensive
literature and market research is performed to identify low cost
sensors that can reliably monitor several parameters which can
be used to infer the water quality. Based on selected parameters
a sensor array is developed along with several microsystems
for analog signal conditioning, processing, logging, and remote
presentation of data. Finally, algorithms for fusing on-line multi
sensor measurements at local level are developed to assess the
water contamination risk. Experiments are performed to evaluate
and validate these algorithms on intentional contamination events
of various concentrations of escherichia coli bacteria and heavy
metals (arsenic). Experimental results indicate that this inexpen-
sive system is capable of detecting these high impact contaminants
at fairly low concentrations. The results demonstrate that this
system satisfies the on-line, in-pipe, low deployment-operation
cost and good detection accuracy criteria of an ideal early
warning system.
Index Terms On line, In Pipe, Water Monitoring, Flat surface
Sensors, Turbidity Sensor, Multi-Sensor System, Wireless Sensor
networks, Arsenic - Bacteria Contamination Detection.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Clean drinking water is a critical resource, important for the
health and well-being of all humans. Drinking water utilities
are facing new challenges in their real-time operation because
of limited water resources, intensive budget requirements,
growing population, ageing infrastructure, increasingly strin-
gent regulations and increased attention towards safeguarding
water supplies from accidental or deliberate contamination.
There is a need for better on-line water monitoring systems
given that existing laboratory-based methods are too slow to
T. Lambrou, C. Panayiotou and M. Polycarpou are with the KIOS Research
Center for Intelligent Systems and Networks and the Department of Electrical
and Computer Engineering, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
E-mail: {faniseng,christosp,mpolycar}@ucy.ac.cy
Christos C. Anastasiou is with the Department of Civil Engineering,
Frederick University, Nicosia, Cyprus.
E-mail: c.anastasiou@frederick.ac.cy
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the IEEE SENSORS 2012.
Manuscript received December 19, 2013.
develop operational response and do not provide a level of
public health protection in real time. Rapid detection (and
response) to instances of contamination is critical due to the
potentially severe consequences to human health. Breaches in
physical and hydraulic integrity of a water distribution system
can lead to the influx of contaminants across pipe walls,
through breaks, and via cross connections. Drinking water
can serve as a transmission vehicle for a variety of hazardous
(biological, chemical, etc) agents which can produce adverse
effects in humans due to multiple routes (ingestion, inhalation
and dermal) of exposure.
Traditional methods of water quality control involve the
manual collection of water samples at various locations and
at different times, followed by laboratory analytical techniques
in order to characterize the water quality. Such approaches are
no longer considered efficient [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Although,
the current methodology allows a thorough analysis including
chemical and biological agents, it has several drawbacks: a) the
lack of real-time water quality information to enable critical
decisions for public health protection (long time gaps between
sampling and detection of contamination) b) poor spatiotem-
poral coverage (small number locations are sampled) c) it is
labor intensive and has relatively high costs (labor, operation
and equipment). Therefore, there is a clear need for continuous
on-line water quality monitoring with efficient spatio-temporal
resolution. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
has carried out an extensive experimental evaluation [6] of
water quality sensors to assess their performance on several
contaminations. The main conclusion was that many of the
chemical and biological contaminants used have an effect on
many water parameters monitored including Turbidity (TU),
Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP), Electrical Conductivity
(EC) and pH. Thus, it is feasible to monitor and infer the water
quality by detecting changes in such parameters.
Water quality monitoring systems should provide good bal-
ance between cost and ease of implementation-maintenance,
however to ensure their survival must demonstrate operational
benefits (such as better water quality, decreased operating
costs or reduced customer complaints). Given the absence
of reliable, in-line, continuous and inexpensive sensors for
monitoring all possible biological and chemical contaminants,
our approach is to measure physicochemical water parameters
that can be reliably monitored with low cost sensors and
develop low cost networked embedded systems (sensor nodes)
as well as contamination detection algorithms to fuse these

multi-sensor data in order to infer possible contamination
events. Even though this approach may suffer from some false
alarms, it can be compensated/eliminated by the large scale
deployment and the possibility of correlating the decisions
from various sensor nodes which is the topic of our future
work.
A limited number of on-line, reagent-free water moni-
toring systems are commercially available [7] (e.g. Hach
HST GuardianBlue [8], J-MAR BioSentry [9], etc), but these
systems are bulky (sensors are installed in flow cells located
in cabinets) and remain cost prohibitive for large scale de-
ployments (cost tens of thousands of dollars per unit). It is
worth mentioning that cost is mostly attributed not to sensing
probes but to instrumentation-automation controllers (analyz-
ers) and panels. Such systems can take frequent samples
of the water quality at a very limited number of locations.
However, substantial proportion of contamination problems is
attributable to problems within distribution systems and due
to the limited spatio-temporal sampling, it is impossible for
the water companies and consumers to know the quality of
potable water delivered to consumer households.
A number of bare multi-parametric sensor arrays have been
developed and presented in the literature based on various sen-
sor technologies. A recent review on multi-parametric solid-
state sensors for water quality is given [3]. A chemical sensor
array for water quality monitoring based on thick-film technol-
ogy is presented in [29], [30] and [31], [32], these sensors are
very low cost, though they have limited lifetime (few months)
and require a conventional glass reference electrode to operate
accurately. Along similar lines, a multi-parametric sensor
array based on semiconductor ruthenium oxide nanostructures
is presented in [33]. In addition, several water monitoring
microsystems (sensor nodes) have been developed for large
scale water monitoring based on wireless sensor networks
(WSNs) technology. In [35] a sensor node (CSIRO Fleck-3)
is developed for monitoring salinity in ground waters as well
as the water temperature in surface waters. Finally, a multi-
sensor system for monitoring coastal water quality in rivers
and lakes is presented in [34].
Apart from the on going research towards the design and
development of sensors and microsystems another parallel
research direction is that of the development of software and
algorithms for the detection of water quality anomalies and
contamination events. A thorough survey on recent advances
in this area is provided in [36]. A limited number of event
detection software is commercially available (Hach Event
Monitor [8], BlueBox [11]). A currently freely available tool
is CANARY software [12] developed at Sandia National
Laboratories in collaboration with the USEPA. CANARY
indicates possible contamination events by using a range of
mathematical and statistical techniques to identify the onset
of anomalous water quality incidents from online raw sensor
data. Other event detection and data validation methodologies
are given in [37] and references therein. However, additional
event detection methods can be developed based on multi-
sensor data fusion methods [38].
Given the size of the water distribution networks (pipe
length) and the number of households served, we consider
2
important that the spatio-temporal sampling should be signif-
icantly increased in order to collect water quality samples
at significantly more locations (if possible at all consumer
sites). Therefore, the main challenge is to develop reliable
and low-cost sensing systems for accurate and continuous
in-pipe water quality monitoring. The system developed is
intended to be used as a part (sensor node) of a low cost
water sensor network to provide water quality information
to consumers, water companies and authorities. The spatio-
temporal data provided by such network can support complex
decisions concerning the quality of drinking water, including
the detection of the location/source of hazardous agents and
pathogens, raising awareness, and encouraging better water-
handling and management.
The main contribution of this paper is twofold. First,
it proposes the need for a shift in the current monitoring
paradigm and propose the idea of monitoring the quality of
water delivered to consumers, using low cost, low power
and tiny sensors. We argue that this approach can achieve
more reliable quality monitoring due to the large spatially
distributed deployment and the possibility of correlating the
quality measurements from various sensors. Second, it presents
the first step towards this goal which is the design and
development of a low cost system that can be used at the
premises of consumers. The embedded systems developed can
also be used in a consumer-oriented manner to continuously
monitor qualitative water parameters and fuse multi-parametric
sensor response in order to assess the water consumption risk
at consumer level, locally and independently from other con-
sumer measurements. In particular, the contributions regarding
the low cost system is the design and development of low
cost networked embedded systems as well as optical sensors
(turbidity) for water quality monitoring, the development of
event detection algorithms using fusion techniques and the
experimental evaluation and validation of system performance
in various concentrations of microbiologically (E.coli) and
chemically (Arsenic) contaminated drinking water.
The remaining of this paper is organized as follows. Sec-
tion II presents the methodology and justification for the selec-
tion of water quality parameters to be monitored. Section III
presents the experimental implementation of the hardware
and software modules and validates the performance of the
developed system. Finally the paper ends with the conclusion.
II. M ETHODS
Drinking water quality standards are determined according
to World Health Organization (WHO) [13] guidelines for
drinking-water quality as well as other pertinent organizations
(i.e. EU [14], USEPA [15]). These organizations set the stan-
dards for drinking water quality parameters and indicate which
microbiological, chemical and indicator parameters must be
monitored and tested regularly in order to protect the health
of the consumers and to make sure the water is wholesome
and clean.
For the developed system, the selection of the physico-
chemical parameters to be monitored was based on extensive
scientific literature review [6], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]

on the relation between certain physicochemical parameters
and chemical or biological contaminations that present in
water. Table I enumerates the suggested parameters to be
monitored from high to low correlation significance when
interpreting water contaminations (assess hazard). Table I also
presents the measurement cost (for purchase and maintenance)
associated with these parameters based on recent review [24]
of measurement and instrumentation methods, compensation
and calibration procedures and probe lifetime concerning these
parameters. Therefore, the parameters selected to be monitored
are the following: 1) Turbidity, 2) Oxidation Reduction Poten-
tial (instead of Free Chlorine), 3) Temperature 4) pH, and 5)
Electrical Conductivity.
Parameter Units Quality Range Meas. Cost
1 Turbidity NTU 05 Medium
2 Free Residual Chlorine mg/L 0.2 2 High
3 ORP mV 650 800 Low
4 Nitrates mg/L <10 High
5 Temperature oC Low
6 pH pH 6.5 8.5 Low
7 Electrical Conductivity S/cm 500 1000 Low
8 Dissolved Oxygen mg/L Medium
TABLE I
S UGGESTED PARAMETERS TO BE M ONITORED . Q UALITY RANGE IS
SUGGESTED BY WHO [13] GUIDELINES AND EU STANDARDS [14].
The importance of the selected parameters as well as their
correlation to water quality is briefly described next.
Turbidity (TU) is a measure of cloudiness of the water
sample caused by suspended particles and microscopic
organisms. Turbidity is determined by measuring the
intensity of infrared light scattered at 90o angle to the
traversing beam (ISO 7027 method) and is expressed in
Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). Turbidity is an
important water quality indicator as excessive turbidity in
potable water can provide food and shelter to microbes
and thus pathogens are more likely to be present in highly
turbid waters. Turbidity in distribution system should be
maintained under 5 NTU.
Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) is a measure of
the oxidizing or reducing power of the water and is
measured in mV (i.e. is the tendency of a solution
to acquire electrons). Oxidation refers to any chemical
action in which electrons are transferred between atoms.
Oxidation and reduction always occur together. ORP
is a reliable and cost effective method to measure the
effectiveness of water disinfection sanitizers (chlorine,
sodium hypochlorite, bromine and ozone) in real time.
As the measured value of ORP increases, the solution
has more potential to oxidize and thus to destroy any
unwanted organisms. WHO adopted an ORP standard
for drinking water disinfection of 650 mV. Research has
shown that at 650-700 mV of ORP, bacteria such as E.
coli and Salmonella are killed on contact, while tougher
organisms (listeria, yeasts, molds) may require 750 mV or
higher in order to be killed. A combined ORP electrode
is used and temperature compensation is not needed for
3
ORP measurements.
Temperature (T) measurement is important because bio-
logical and chemical activities are heavily influenced by
the temperature of water. Moreover the measurements
of many water quality sensors (e.g. pH, EC) depend
on temperature and therefore temperature compensation
is needed to obtain accurate results. The most widely
used sensor in water quality monitoring is the platinum
(Pt) Resistive Temperature Detector (RTD) because is the
most accurate, linear and stable over time and temperature
sensor. A constant current must be passed through the
RTD and the change of voltage determines the tempera-
ture.
pH (pH) is the measure of the acidity or alkalinity of the
water and is defined as the negative decimal logarithm of
the hydrogen ion activity (concentration) in a water so-
lution. The minimum and maximum allowable pH range
for portability is 6.58.5. No health effects are associated
with pH, unless dealing with extreme cases of alkaline
or acidic conditions; however a sudden change of more
than 0.5 pH units indicates a possible contamination.
Low pH allows a more effective disinfection provided
by chlorination. A combined pH glass electrode is used
for pH measurement and temperature compensation is
needed for accurate measurements.
Electrical Conductivity (EC) is the measure of the ability
of water to conduct electrical current and is an indicator
of the concentration of total dissolved solids (TDS) (e.g.
ions) in water. Conductivity is determined by applying
an AC voltage (in the low kHz region) and measuring
the resulting current on the electrode. Conductivity is
expressed in S/cm. Drinking water conductivity should
be between 500 to 800 S/cm (max 1050 S/cm). There
are basically two types of sensors for measuring water
conductivity: conductive sensors and toroidal - inductive
sensors. Conductive sensors are more sensitive and low
cost but more prone to fouling. Inductive sensors use a
magnetic field (coils) to sense conductivity and toroidal
coils are not in contact with water which makes the
sensor virtually immune to fouling, however these sensors
are more expensive and lack the sensitivity of contact-
ing sensors. Both types of sensors require temperature
compensation for accurate measurements. The presence
of minerals in drinking water (hardness or high EC) is
preferred not only because of the health benefits, but also
the flavor. On the other hand, soft water (low EC) tastes
salty and is sometimes not suitable for drinking. On the
other hand, excess water hardness often causes deposits
in pipes and in household appliances, which can, in time,
harbor microbial communities.
It is noted that Free Chlorine concentration (HOCl) can be
approximated based on the ORP, pH and temperature measure-
ments. Free chlorine monitoring using amperometric sensors
is expensive because it is very sensitive in the pH, temperature,
flow and pressure of the sample. Therefore accurate free chlo-
rine measurements require a flow cell with additional pH and
temperature sensors for compensation. Furthermore, sensors

directly installed in-pipe with no flow cell to condition the
sample provide erratic responses as the readings are both flow
and pressure dependent. In addition, amperometric sensors are
more prone to fouling due to their specific construction and
this results in increased cleaning and calibration frequency.
In [16], a new low cost ruthenium oxide thin film chlorine
ion measurement system was presented, however the sensor is
again sensitive to pH, temperature and time.
Nitrates, though considered as an important parameter for
human health is not selected because measurement methods
are subjected to failures (Ion-Selective electrodes) or are cost
prohibitive (UV spectrophotometric method). In [17], a new
promising method is presented based on a PCB planar electro-
magnetic sensor. Finally, dissolved oxygen is not selected due
to several compensations and frequent membrane replacement
needed for accurate measurements.
Convectional combined electrodes (for ORP and pH) have
been widely used due to their good sensitivity, selectivity,
stability and long lifetime. However, convectional pH glass
electrodes have several disadvantages due to the intrinsic
nature of the glass membrane. For example, they have limited
pressure tolerance, exhibit a sluggish response, require a high
input impedance signal conditioning circuits and it is difficult
to miniaturize based on current manufacturing technologies.
Therefore, a number of emerging-alternative sensor technolo-
gies in various stages of research and development have been
proposed in the literature.
Thick film chemical sensor arrays developments show that it
is possible to develop a single miniaturized multi-parametric
sensor probe in a cost effective manner, however thick film
chemical sensors have limited lifetime (few months), suffer
from electrode drift (due to salt loss) and the development of
a stable reference electrode is not possible so far [30].
ISFET based microsensors (developed using MOSFET
semiconductor technology) offer advantages such small size
(mass fabrication and compact probes), robustness (no glass
membranes), low output impedance and rapid response, how-
ever they have several limitations as they require a glass refer-
ence electrode to operate robustly (REFET designs suffer from
short lifetime and residual ionic sensitivity) and encapsulation
is difficult, which increases dramatically the final cost of the
sensors [39].
Nano-sensors based on nanostructures of noble metals
and their oxides (like Pt, Ru, Ir) is a recent - promising
concept however developments so far suffer from several
drawbacks like temperature dependent delay response and non-
deterministic potential drift (electrolysis of water on oxide
surfaces and unpredictable temperature dependence) [33].
Therefore, despite the recent advances in sensor develop-
ment technologies, the reliability and performance of convec-
tional glass electrodes is still unsurpassed for continuous wa-
ter quality monitoring [7]. Therefore, convectional (pH,ORP)
glass electrodes and solid-state sensors (TU, EC, T) are used
in this work as they provide the most reliable technology.
In line water sensors illustrate the need for efficient and
periodic probe cleaning to maintain reliable measurements.
Cleaning mechanisms constitute an important cost parameter
which can consume as high as 50% of the operational budgets.
4
Conventionally, ultrasonic, brush, water-jet, or chemical type
of automatic cleaners [25] are used to remove coatings from
the sensor probes. Recently, several alternative cost effec-
tive methods have been proposed that can either actively
remove fouling (e.g. electrolysis) or passively prevent fouling
(copper mesh or CuO2 doped materials). In this work, flat
measuring surface probe method [28] is used because is
the most cost effective, passive self-cleaning method and is
based on the mechanical package and design of the probe.
When the electrodes flat measuring surface is exposed to
turbulent flow, the resulting scrubbing action provides a self-
cleaning effect in most applications under medium range
flows. The flat sensing surface virtually eliminates deposits
that can foul the electrode and significantly reduces necessary
maintenance. This simple, but effective method has no moving
parts, requires no power and also prolongs electrode life
and eliminates breakage. Additional antifouling technologies
have be proposed for solid-state and optical sensors based on
nano-scale materials possessing super-hydrophobic properties
[26]. Moreover, super-hydrophobic surfaces have found to also
prevent biofouling [27].
III. R ESULTS
A. System and Sensors Development and Integration
A modular but holistic approach is adopted for the design
and development of the system. Modularity enables the simul-
taneous instrumentation and sampling of all parameters and the
decomposition of several operations like calibration, upgrades
and repair or replacement of faulty parts.
Fig. 1. System architecture.
The overall system architecture under discussion in pre-
sented in Fig. 1 and is comprised of the following three
subsystems: a central measurement node (PIC32 MCU based
board) that collects water quality measurements from sensors,
implements the algorithm to assess water quality and trans-
mits data to other nodes, a control node (ARM/Linux web-
server based platform) that stores measurement data received

from the central measurement node in a local database and
provides gateway to the internet, visualize data (charts), and
sends email/sms alerts and finally a tiny notification node(s)
(PIC MCU based board) that receives information from the
central measurement node through an interconnected ZigBee
RF transceiver and provides local near-tap notifications to the
user (water consumer) via several interfaced peripherals (LED,
LCD, Buzzer).
It should be noted that the central measurement node serves
as the sensor node. The idea is to installed these sensor nodes
in many consumer sites in a spatially-distributed manner to
form a WSN that will monitor the drinking water quality in
the water distribution system from the source to the tap.
. eliminate errors (interferences) due to IR emitter intensity drift
(a) Central measurement node. (b) Notification node.
Fig. 2. Nodes photos.
A photo of the central measurement and notification node
prototypes are presented in Fig. 2. The control node is tiny
ARM/Linux based computer (Raspberry Pi). Fig.3 presents
the multi-parameter sensor array probes comprised of the
Turbidity(TU), ORP, pH, Electrical Conductivity(EC) and
Temperature(T) sensors. The in-pipe Turbidity sensor is con-
structed from scratch based on our previous work [1] while the
other sensor probes obtained from SensoreX Corpr . The pH
sensor embeds an RTD sensor which is used for temperature
sensing and temperature compensation of pH and Electrical
Conductivity measurements. TU, ORP, pH and toroidal EC
sensors have flat measuring surfaces for cost effective self-
cleaning. The complete system photo, with TU, ORP, pH, EC
and T sensors as well as a rotor-flow sensor mounted in a
plastic pipe, is shown in Fig 4.
Fig. 3. Sensor photos. TU, ORP, pH and inductive EC have flat sensing
surfaces for cost effective self-cleaning.
Turbidity Sensor Development: Although there is plenty
of turbidity measuring instruments available on the market
at the moment, most of them are expensive and not di-
rectly compatible with in-pipe, in-line requirements as well
as wireless sensor networks technology. Therefore, the goal
is to develop a low cost, easy to use and accurate enough
5
Fig. 4. Complete System Photo.
turbidity sensor for continuous in pipe turbidity monitoring
in water distribution systems using commercial off-the self-
components. The turbidity sensor development was based
on the ratio turbidimeter design (see Fig. 5(a)) where both
transmitted and scattered light intensities are measured to
and sample absorption characteristics. An infrared (860nm)
narrow beam LED emits light through an optical gap to the
water sample and two IR photodiodes separated around 1cm
from the emitter receive simultaneously the 90o scattered
and 0o transmitted light. The photodiodes spectral sensitivity
are selected to fit with that of the IR light source. The
instrumentation and analog signal conditioning of the sensor
is as follows: The IR emitter is pulsed at 1kHz with a square
wave signal and the photodiodes convert the light directly
into electrical current, then a high-gain, low-noise CMOS
(Complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor) transimpedance
amplifier with background light rejection is used to convert
the each photocurrent to voltage output. The ac output of each
transimpedance amplifier is then converted to a dc signal using
a precision active peak detector. Finally the 90o scattered dc
signal is further conditioned by an instrumentation amplifier
for 0 NTU offset nulling and additional amplification. The
conditioned voltage outputs are then sampled by a 10 bit A/D
converter with reference voltage of 1.1V and the sensor output
V90o
voltage V = c.V 0o
is given as the signal ratio of the scattered
V90o to the transmitted V0o voltage, c is calibration coefficient.
An indirect method for the sensor calibration was employed,
in order to avoid the use of the carcinogen and expensive
chemical formazin solutions. Therefore, a number of samples
were created and the turbidity of each sample is measured both
by the turbidity sensor under calibration and by a laboratory
turbidimeter (Lutron TU-2016) used as reference. Then the
relationship between turbidity (in NTU) and the voltage output
(in mV) of the turbidity sensor is extracted and given by
T U = 0.1035V 0.292 (1)
The sensor generates an output voltage proportional to the
turbidity or suspended particles and has a linear response in
the range of 0-100 NTU with 0.1 NTU resolution. Finally, as
shown in Fig. 5 the turbidity sensor probe was mounted in a
 6

Cf

flat surface PTFE housing and sealed in a hydraulic Tee fitting Rf

Rf
for inline installation. EC Probe

Rl
2 R 2
TU Probe
1 1
LED D Vout Vout
3 3
Vexc

(a) Turbidity preamplifier (b) Conductivity preamplifier

Precision current
source <1mA
R1 R2 R1 R2
Vout

2 2 Temp Probe
ORP Probe pH Probe NTC or RTD
1 1
Vout Vout
(a) Ratio turbidimeter measurement principle R 3 R 3

(c) ORP preamplifier (d) pH preamplifier (e) Temperature

Fig. 6. The first stage of analog signal conditioning circuitry for each
parameter

(b) Probe board with (c) Probe mounted in (d) Housing sealed
optoelectronic com- a flat surface PTFE in a hydraulic Tee
ponents (teflon) housing fitting for inline in-
stallation

Fig. 5. Turbidity sensor

Apart from TU sensor, analog signal conditioning circuits,

calibration and compensation procedures were developed for
pH, OPR, RTD and conductive/inductive EC sensors. Con-
siderable attention is given to acquire linear response, reduce
noise and attain high resolution and accuracy. A dedicated PIC
based microsystem is developed for each parameter to accom-
plish this task. The first stage of analog signal conditioning
circuitry for each parameter is presented in Fig. 6 while Table
II shows the results regarding laboratory evaluation (using
standard buffer solutions and reference instruments) of each
parameter along with the quality range suggested by WHO
guidelines and EU standards. The overall power consumption
of the central measurement sensor node with the on board
LEDs off and the RF Xbee transceiver module sending water
quality data every 5s is about 50mA at 5V operating voltage,
however further improvements are planned to minimize the
power consumption.
The software platform developed for the control node is
illustrated in Fig. 7. This platform enables real time measure-
ment charts of monitored parameters, real time assessment
of water quality and sensor calibration instructions through
a Graphical User Interface (GUI). It also logs sensor data in
a local database and posts data to web using Pachube open
source web platform. Using Pachube scripts the user can setup
various thresholds for sending notifications via sms or email.
Fig. 8 illustrates the main window of the internet platform.
B. Contamination Event Detection Algorithms
Two event detection algorithms were developed to fuse on-
line multi-sensor measurements in order to assess the water
contamination risk when anomalies are detected. An event
Fig. 7. Software Platform.
detection algorithm enables the system to act as an early
warning system for possible potable water quality deteriora-
tion at the point of installation (e.g. homes). A flowchart of
the two algorithms is illustrated in Fig. 9. Both algorithms are
based on normalized sensor outputs given by
|Si i |
Ni = (2)
i i
where Si is the current measurement of parameter i
{T U, ORP, pH, EC}, i , i are the mean and standard de-
viation over a moving time window w and i is a sensor
based parameter associated with measurement accuracy of
each parameter i. Normalized sensor outputs Ni are used to
filter baseline (i.e mean) fluctuations.
The objective of the event detection algorithms is to activate
a trigger event (alarm) when normalized sensor outputs exhibit
sudden and significant changes, given that these changes are
bounded within the quality ranges suggested by drinking water
quality standards (see Table II, quality range). The detection
of water quality changes that are outside the expected quality
ranges (min/max violations) is easier and can be done by
a weighted multi-parameter cost function in the form of
 7

Parameter Measurement principle Units Range Resolution Accuracy Quality Range

Turbidity Optical/infrared scattering NTU 0 100 0.1 0.5 05
ORP Galvanic cell, platinum electrode mV -2000 2000 2 10 600 800
pH Galvanic cell, glass electrode pH 0 14 0.05 0.1 6.5 8.5
Conductivity Conductive cell S/cm 100 20000 10 5% 500 1000
Conductivity Inductive cell S/cm 200 3000 10 5% 500 1000
Temperature RTD resistance oC -5 100 0.1 0.1
Flow Magnetic rotor, hall effect sensor L/min 1115 0.0015 15%
TABLE II
S PECIFICATIONS AND ACCOMPLISHED PERFORMANCE FOR EACH MONITORED PARAMETER .

Therefore, the risk indicator RIV DA is given by

{
1 if ||N N0 ||2 > d
RIV DA = (3)
0 otherwise
Note that VDA algorithm requires the normalized control
signal vector N0 as well as a calibration threshold d (obtained
from a learning phase) to execute.
The second event detection algorithm is denoted as Polygon
Area Algorithm (PAA) and the risk indicator RIP AA function
used in this algorithm is estimated based on the ratio of the
polygon area AN formed by the N vector components (when
projected (displayed) on a two-dimensional spider graph with
four (TU, ORP, pH, EC) axes starting from the same point) to
the polygon area A1 formed by the 1 ones vector components
(i.e 1 = [1111]T ). Therefore, the risk indicator RIP AA is given
by {
P AA 1 if A A1 > 1
N
RI = (4)
0 otherwise
Note that PAA algorithm does not require any further infor-
mation to execute.

Fig. 8. On-line Web Platform.

RO = i wOi Ji , where Ji are binary variables that indicate
whether parameter i has been violated and wOi are non-
negative weights which imply the significance of the violation
of each parameter i. If RO = 0 no violation is assumed,
however as RO > 0 increases the water contamination risk
is also increases.
As previously indicated, the objective in this paper is
to detect anomalies when water quality changes are inside
the expected quality ranges by fusing the multi-sensor data.
Therefore a risk indicator RI function is defined that takes a Fig. 9. Risk Assessment Algorithms.
value RI = 1 if a contamination event is detected or RI = 0
otherwise.
The first event detection algorithm is denoted as Vector Dis-
tance Algorithm (VDA) and the risk indicator RIV DA function C. Experimental Validation
used in this algorithm is estimated based on the Euclidian In this section we present the results of the experimen-
distance between the normalized sensor signal vector N and tal trials performed to validate the behavior and evaluate
the normalized control signal vector N0 of pure (clean) water. the performance of the developed hardware and algorithms
 8

on intentional contamination events. The experimental setup E.coli

8.4

ORP (mV) TU (NTU)

consists of the sensor node (central measurement node) that 6.3
4.2
takes samples every 5s from potable water flowing through 2.1
0
a flow cell. Intentional contamination of two important con-
591
taminants (escherichia coli bacteria and arsenic) of various 528
465
concentrations was injected at discrete time intervals and the 402
performance of the event detection algorithms is evaluated on 8.38
8.28
real time. Escherichia coli bacteria and arsenic contamination 8.18

pH
8.08
7.98
in drinking water is very severe problem causing serious 7.88

EC (S/cm)
poisoning to large numbers of people all over the world [23]. 1053
Currently there are no sensors that can detect all biolog- 983
913
ical and chemical contaminants, even when single-specific 843
5x102cfu/mL

5x101cfu/mL

5x100cfu/mL

5x101cfu/mL

5x103cfu/mL5x104cfu/mL1x107cfu/mL

contaminants are concerned and sensors do exist, there is 30.15

T (C)
29.75
an absence of reliable, in-line, continuous and inexpensive 29.35
28.95
sensors. In fact, developing and deploying sensors for all 28.55
0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500
Time (s)
contaminants would not be feasible (too many contaminants
which translates to very high cost). On the other hand, many (a) Sensors responses to E.coli bacteria contaminated water.
contaminants cause changes in some parameters of the water 5x102cfu/mL 5x101cfu/mL 5x100cfu/mL 5x101cfu/mL 5x103cfu/mL5x104cfu/mL1x107cfu/mL
3.5

that can be easily monitored. Therefore, by monitoring these
changes we can infer possible contamination events, even 3
though this approach may suffer from some false alarms, it
can be compensated/eliminated by the large scale deployment 2.5

and the possibility of correlating the decisions from various

sensor nodes which is the topic of our future work. 2 ||N N0 ||2
AN /A1
1) Microbiologically (E.coli) contaminated drinking water:
I
R

RVI DA
RPI AA
The first experiment considers the case of microbiologically 1.5

(E.coli) contaminated drinking water. Most E. coli strains are

in general harmless to humans, but some types can cause 1

serious food and water poisoning. However, the presence of

E.coli is used to indicate that other pathogenic organisms 0.5

may be present (often of faecal origin). According to WHO

guidelines & EU Drinking Water Directive E.coli parametric
value is 0 CFU/100mL.
Fig. 10(a) presents the measurements received using the
developed sensor node when the following concentrations of
E.coli were injected: 5x102 , 5x101 , 5x100 , 5x101 , 5x103 ,
5x104 , 1x107 CFU/mL. It is evident that TU and EC sensors
responded well when microbiological contaminants injected
in chlorinated potable water. ORP sensors has responded with
delay and pH sensor has a spiky type of response. Fig. 10(b)
presents the output signals of the Vector Distance Algorithm
(VDA) and Polygon Area Algorithm (PAA). The results of
Fig. 10(b) indicate that both algorithms miss the detection of
5x102 CFU/mL because sensors responses were very close to
background levels (no anomalies occurred). It should be noted
that the performance of PAA algorithm is better and given that
it utilizes less information, PAA algorithm is better than the
VDA algorithm.
2) Chemically (Arsenic) contaminated drinking water:
The second experiment considers the case of chemically
(Arsenic) contaminated drinking water. Water contamination
by toxic heavy metals and especially arsenic contamination
is a common problem encountered in many countries due
to undue deposition of mining, agricultural, industrial and
urban wastes in water resources. Arsenic is known to affect
negatively the mental and central nervous system function, to
damage the blood composition, lungs, kidneys, liver, and other
vital organs, as well as it contributes to certain neurological
0
0 500 1000 1500
Time (s)
(b) E.Coli bacteria contamination detection.
Fig. 10. Experiments with E.coli bacteria.
degenerative processes and causes skin cancer. According to
WHO guidelines & EU Drinking Water Directive Arsenic
parametric value is 10g/L (it was 50g/L in the previous
directives).
Fig. 11(a) presents the measurements received using the
developed sensor node when the following concentrations of
Arsenic were injected: 5, 10, 25, 50, 125, 500, 1000 g/L. Ar-
senic solutions created from a standard solution of 1000mg/L
As. Unfortunately, almost all sensors did not respond at low
arsenic contamination. However, at concentrations above 25
g/L ORP and pH sensors have responded and at higher
concentrations (above 500 g/L) all sensors responded well.
Fig. 11(b) presents the output signals of the Vector Distance
Algorithm (VDA) and Polygon Area Algorithm (PAA). The
results of Fig. 11(b) indicate that both algorithms miss the
detection of 5 and 10 g/L because sensors responses were
very sluggish and close to background levels and that the
VDA algorithm exhibits two false alarms. Therefore, the
performance of PAA algorithm is again better (sharp response,
no false alarms) than the VDA algorithm.
 9

Heavy Metal (As) nitrates) and install the system in several locations of the water
4
TU (NTU) distribution network to collect spatiotemporally rich water
3
2
1
0
quality data and characterize system/sensors response in real
field deployments. Moreover, additional risk assessment and
ORP (mV)

237
227
217 anomaly detection algorithms will be investigated as well as
207
197 algorithms for contaminant identification. Finally, we plan to
8.14 investigate a sensor network approach for quality monitoring
7.94
pH

7.74 of drinking water distribution systems. Towards this goal,

7.54
7.34 new fusion algorithms and methodologies to assess the water
EC (S/cm)

630
623 quality over the entire water distribution network (network
616
609 level) will be investigated.
602
5g/L 10g/L 25g/L 50g/L 125g/L 500g/L 1000g/L

21.97 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
T (C)

21.57
21.17
20.77 The authors would like to thank their colleagues Dr. Evdokia
0 150 300 450 600 750 900 1050 1200 1350 1500 1650 1800 1950 2100 2250
Time (s) Kastanos and Dr. Marinos Stylianou for the preparation and
(a) Sensors responses to Heavy metal (As) contaminated water. testing of E.coli and Arsenic contaminated water samples.
This work is partly supported by the European
5g/L 10g/L 25g/L 50g/L 125g/L 500g/L 1000g/L
Project EFFINET (FP7-ICT-2011-8-31855) and by the

3
Cyprus Research Promotion Foundation under grant
EIX/POION/0609/87.
2.5
||N N0 ||2
AN /A1
R EFERENCES
RIV DA
2
RIP AA
[1] T.P. Lambrou, C.C. Anastasiou , C.G. Panayiotou, A Nephelometric
Turbidity System for Monitoring Residential Drinking Water Quality, in
I
R

1.5 Sensor Networks Applications, Experimentation and Logistics, 2009

1
0.5
0
0 500
(b) Heavy metals (As) contamination detection.
Fig. 11. Experiments with Heavy metals (As).
Finally, it should be noted that the signatures of normalized
sensor outputs can be further processed to minimize false
alarms and to identify the type of contaminants, given that
a contamination library is available/developed.
IV. C ONCLUSIONS
In this article, the design and development of a low cost
sensor node for real time monitoring of drinking water quality
at consumer sites is presented. The proposed sensor node
consist of several in-pipe water quality sensors with flat
measuring probes. Unlike commercially available analyzers,
the developed system is low cost, low power, lightweight and
capable to process, log, and remotely present data. Moreover,
contamination event detection algorithms have been developed
and validated to enable these sensor nodes to make decisions
and trigger alarms when anomalies are detected. Such imple-
mentation is suitable for large deployments enabling a sensor
network approach for providing spatiotemporally rich data to
water consumers, water companies and authorities.
In the future, we plan to investigate the performance of the
event detection algorithms on other types of contaminants (e.g.
[2] T.P. Lambrou, C.G. Panayiotou and C.C. Anastasiou, A Low-Cost System
for Real Time Monitoring and Assessment of Potable Water Quality at
Consumer Sites, in IEEE Sensors 2012, 28-31 Oct 2012.
[3] S. Zhuiykov, Solid-state sensors monitoring parameters of water quality
for the next generation of wireless sensor networks, Sensors and Actuators
B: Chemical, Volume 161, Issue 1, pp 1-20, 2012
[4] A. Aisopou, I. Stoianov, N. Graham, In-pipe water quality monitoring in
1000
Time (s)
1500 2000 water supply systems under steady and unsteady state flow conditions: A
quantitative assessment, Water Research, 46(1), pp. 235-246, 2012
[5] S. Panguluri, G. Meiners, J. Hall, J.G. Szabo, Distribution System Water
Quality Monitoring: Sensor Technology Evaluation Methodology and
Results, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/600/R-09/076, 2009
[6] J. Hall, A.D. Zaffiro, R.B. Marx, P.C. Kefauver, E.R. Krishnan, R.C.
Haught, and J.G. Herrmann, On-line Water Quality Parameters as Indi-
cators of Distribution System Contamination, Journal AWWA, 2007
[7] M.V. Storey, B. Gaag, B.P. Burns, Advances in on-line drinking water
quality monitoring and early warning systems, Water Research, Volume
45, Issue 2, January 2011, Pages 741-747, ISSN 0043-1354
[8] Hach HST, GuardianBlue Early Warning System Brochure, 2008
[9] JMAR, BioSentry Contamination Warning System Technical Overview,
2006
[10] i::scan, Multi-parameter spectrophotometer probe, 2012
[11] Whitewater Technologies, BlueBox Intelligent Water Analytics System
Brochure, 2012
[12] D. Hart, S. McKenna, K. Klise, V. Cruz and M. Wilson, CANARY: A
Water Quality Event Detection Algorithm Development Tool. in World
Environmental and Water Resources Congress, 2007.
[13] World Health Organization Guidelines for drinking-water quality, fourth
edition, 2011
[14] European Communities Drinking Water Regulations (No.2), 2007
[15] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012 Edition of the Drinking
Water Standards and Health Advisories, EPA 822-S-12-001
[16] J.C. Chou, C.C. Chen, and C.C. Lee, Development of Microcontroller
Applied to Chlorine Ion Measurement System, IEEE Sensors Journal, vol.
12, no 6, pp. 2215-2221, 2012
[17] M. Yunus and S. Mukhopadhyay, Novel planar electromagnetic sensors
for detection of nitrates and contamination in natural water sources, IEEE
Sensors Journal, vol. 11, no 6, pp. 1440-1447, 2011
[18] C.N. Haas, M.A. Meyer, and M.S. Paller, Microbial alterations in
water distribution systems and their relationship to physical-chemical
characteristics, in Journal of American Water Works Association , 1983
[19] K.N. Power and L.A. Nagy, Relationship between bacterial regrowth
and some physical and chemical parameters within Sydneys drinking
water distribution system, in Water Research, 1999
 10

[20] J.B. Cook, J. F. Byrne, R. C. Daamen and E. A. Roehl, Distribution

System Monitoring Research at Charleston Water System, in 8th Annual
Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symposium, 2006
[21] Y.J. Yang, R.C Haught and J.A Goodrich, Real-time contaminant de-
tection and classification in a drinking water pipe using conventional
water quality sensors: Techniques and experimental results, in Journal of
Environmental Management, 2009
[22] C.C. Anastasiou, P. Grafias, T.P. Lambrou, A. Kalli and C. Onisiphorou,
Use of holding tanks and their effect on the quality of potable water in
households; the case study of Cyprus, in Protection and Restoration of
the Environment XI,PRE-XI, 2012
[23] John DeZuane, Handbook of drinking water quality. Wiley.com, 1997.
[24] T.P. Lambrou, A Technical Report for Water Qualitative and Quantitative
Sensors, University of Cyprus, 2011
[25] A. Whelan and F.Regan, Antifouling strategies for marine and riverine
sensors, Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 2006
[26] J. Genser, K. Efimenko, Recent development in superhydrophobic sur-
faces and their relevance to marine fouling: a review, Biofouling vol.22,
pp. 339360, 2006.
[27] A.J. Scardino, H. Zhang, D.J. Cookson, R.N. Lamb, R. de Nys, The role
of nano-roughness in antifouling, Biofouling vol. 25, pp. 757767, 2009.
[28] SensoreX Corp Flat Surface Operating Principles.
[29] M. Sophocleous, M. Glanc, Monika, J. Atkinson and E. Garcia-Breijo,
The effect on performance of fabrication parameter variations of thick-
film screen printed silver/silver chloride potentiometric reference elec-
trodes, Sensors and Actuators A Physical, 197, 1-8, 2013
[30] J. Atkinson, John, M. Glanc,M. Prakorbjanya, M. Sophocleous, R.
Sion and E. Garcia-Breijo, Thick film screen printed environmental and
chemical sensor array reference electrodes suitable for subterranean and
subaqueous deployments. Microelectronics International, 30, (2), 92-98,
2013.
[31] R. Martinez Manez, J. Soto, E. Garcia Breijo, J. Ibanez Civera, E. Gadea
Morant, System for determining water quality with thick-film multisensor,
IEEE Electron Devices 2005.
[32] R. Martinez-Manez, J. Soto, E. Garca-Breijo, L. Gil, J. Ibanez, E. Gadea,
A multisensor in thick-film technology for water quality control, Sensors
and Actuators A: Physical, Volume 120, Issue 2, 2005.
[33] S. Zhuiykov, D. OBrien, M. Best, Water quality assessment by integrated
multi-sensor based on semiconductor RuO2 nanostructures, Meas. Sci.
Tech, nol. 20, 2009.
[34] B. OFlyrm, R. Martinez, J. Cleary, C. Slater, F. Regan, D. Diamond,
H. Murphy, SmartCoast: A Wireless Sensor Network for Water Quality
Monitoring, in 32nd IEEE Conference on Local Computer Networks,
2007.
[35] P. Corke, T. Wark, R. Jurdak, H. Wen, P. Valencia, D. Moore, Envi-
ronmental Wireless Sensor Networks, Proceedings of the IEEE , vol.98,
no.11, pp.1903-1917, Nov. 2010.
[36] S. McKenna, W. Mark and K. Katherine. Detecting changes in water
quality data, Journal of the American Water Works Association, vol. 100,
no.1,pp.74-85, 2008.
[37] A. Jonathan, M. Housh, L. Perelman and A. Ostfeld. A dynamic
thresholds scheme for contaminant event detection in water distribution
systems, in Water research, vol. 47, no. 5,pp. 1899-1908, 2013.
[38] Harvey B. Mitchell, Multi-Sensor Data Fusion: an introduction.
Springer, 2007.
[39] C. Jimenez-Jorquera, J. Orozco and A. Baldi, ISFET Based Microsensors
for Environmental Monitoring. in Sensors, vol.10, pp. 61-83, 2010.