Embodiments of the present invention generally relate to environmental monitoring devices.
In a number of industrial work environments workers are at risk of being exposed to a variety of hazardous environmental substances such as toxic or highly combustible gases, oxygen depleted environments, or radiation, etc. that pose a serious threat to worker safety. In order to keep workers safe, specialized environmental monitoring devices are used to alert workers of dangerous changes in their immediate environment.
Current practice involves using fixed point monitoring devices that monitor the environment around where they are deployed or portable monitoring devices that are carried by the workers to monitor their immediate vicinity. Fixed point monitoring devices are typically used around potential hazard locations such as confined spaces to warn workers of the environment before they enter. Portable monitoring devices are often used for personal protection. These monitoring devices may have a single sensor to monitor one specific substance or multiple sensors (typically two to six) each monitoring a distinct substance.
Given that these environmental monitoring devices are life critical, it is important the device functions properly and accurately. Current practice involves periodic bump testing and calibration of monitoring devices to guarantee proper functioning. Bump tests involve exposing the monitoring device to a measured quantity of gas and verifying that the device responds as designed, i.e., it senses the gas and goes into alarm. Calibration involves exposing the device to a measured quantity of gas and adjusting the gain of the sensors so it reads the quantity of gas accurately. The purpose of calibration is to maintain the accuracy of the monitoring device over time.
Current best practice followed by leading manufacturers of environmental monitors recommends bump testing the monitoring device before every days work and calibrating the device once at least every thirty days. While a number of manufacturers sell automated docking stations that automatically perform calibration and bump testing when a monitoring device is docked, there are still a number of disadvantages to the current practice.
A fixed bump and calibration policy, such as currently practiced, does not take into account the actual state of the sensors or the environmental monitoring device. Such a fixed policy (bump test every day and calibrate every thirty days) by its very nature is a compromise that is too stringent in many cases and too liberal in many others.
Given that the docking operation requires the user to bring the monitor to a central location, which typically is outside the work area, to perform the bump test and calibration, there is value in minimizing/optimizing this operation as much as possible without compromising safety.
Threshold limit values (TLV), namely the maximum exposure of a hazardous substance repeatedly over time which causes no adverse health effects in most people is constantly being reduced by regulatory authorities as scientific understanding and evidence grows and we accumulate more experience. Often these reductions are quite dramatic as in the case of the recent (February 2010) reduction recommended by the American Congress of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) for H2S exposure. The ACGIH reduced the TLV for H2S from a time weighted average (TWA) of 10 ppm to 1 ppm TWA averaged over eight hours. The effect of such reductions puts a premium on accuracy of measurements. Current practice of a fixed calibration policy, such as calibrate every thirty days, may not be enough to guarantee the level of accuracy to meet the more stringent emerging TLV's. While a blanket reduction in the frequency of the calibration interval, i.e., from thirty days, will help to improve accuracy, it would add significant cost to the use and maintenance of the environmental monitoring devices.
One solution to this problem, pursued by some, is to use newer and more advanced technology sensors with a higher degree of accuracy and tolerance to drift that minimize the need for calibration and bump testing. While there certainly is value in this approach, the cost of these emerging sensor often preclude its widespread use, particularly in personal monitoring applications where a large number of these monitors need to be deployed.
For all the aforementioned reasons there is value in developing monitors that use current low cost sensor technologies while still meeting emerging TLV regulations and allow for a more adaptive calibration/bump policy that takes into account the state of the sensors and monitoring devices.
In one general aspect, embodiments of the present invention generally pertain to a monitoring device having at least two sensors for each substance to be detected, a display, a processing unit, and an alarm. The sensors may be positioned on more than one plane or surface of the device. The processing unit may auto or self calibrate the sensors. Another embodiment relates to a network of monitoring devices. Other embodiments pertain to methods of monitoring a substance with a monitoring device having at least two sensors for that substance and auto or self calibrating the sensors.
Those and other details, objects, and advantages of the present invention will become better understood or apparent from the following description and drawings showing embodiments thereof.
The accompanying drawings illustrate examples of embodiments of the invention. In such drawings:
Various embodiments of the present invention pertain to a monitoring device and methods used for environmental monitoring of substances, such as, for example and without limitation, gases, liquids, nuclear radiation, etc.
In an embodiment, as illustrated in
In another embodiment the monitoring device 90, as shown in
In further embodiments, the monitoring device 90, as shown in
Then, the processing unit may display possible actions that need to be taken based on the actual reading derived, for example and without limitation, activate the alarm, request calibration by user, indicate on the display that the sensors are not functioning properly, indicate the current reading of gas or other substance in the environment, auto calibrate sensors that are out of calibration, etc.
One example of the artificial intelligence logic method would be for the greater readings of the two sensors 200a and 200b or the greater readings of a multitude of sensors 200a-n to be compared with a threshold amount, and if the sensor reading crosses the threshold amount, an alarm mechanism would be generated. Another example of AI logic entails biasing the comparison between the sensor readings and the threshold amount by weights that are assigned based on the current reliability of the sensors 200a-n, i.e., a weighted average. These weights can be learned, for example and without limitation, from historic calibration and bump test performance. Standard machine learning, AI, and statistical techniques can be used for the learning purposes. As an example, reliability of the sensor 200 may be gauged from the span reserve or alternatively the gain of the sensor 200. The higher the gain or lower the span reserve, then the sensor 200 may be deemed less reliable. Weights may be assigned appropriately to bias the aggregate substance concentration reading (or displayed reading) towards the more reliable sensors 200a-n. Consider R to denote the displayed reading, Ri to denote the reading sensed by sensor I, and wi to denote the weight associated by sensor i:
where the weight wi (0<w≧1) is proportional to span reading of sensor i or inversely proportional to the gain Gi. Alternatively, wi can be derived from historical data analysis of the relationship between the gain wi and span reserve or gain Gi. Historical data of bump tests and calibration tests performed in the field, for example and without limitation, can be used to derive this data.
In addition, as illustrated in
In some circumstances, for example and without limitation, in the case of an oxygen sensor, the minimum reading of a multitude of sensors 200a-n may be used to trigger an alarm to indicate a deficient environment.
In another embodiment, the monitoring device 90 may have an orientation sensor, such as, for example and without limitation, an accelerometer, that would allow the artificial intelligence logic to factor in relative sensor orientation to account for the fact that heavier than air gases, for example, would affect sensors in a lower position more than on a higher position and lighter than air sensors would. The degree of adjustment to the reading based on orientation can be learned, for example and without limitation, from the calibration data, field testing, distance between sensors, etc. and used to adjust readings from multiple positions on the device 90 to give the most accurate reading at the desired location, such as the breathing area of a user or a specific location in a defined space using the environmental monitoring device 90 as a personnel protection device.
Another embodiment pertains to a network 500 having the plurality of sensors 200a-n that detect a single substance housed in separate enclosures, placed in the vicinity of one another, e.g., from inches to feet depending on the area to be monitored, and communicate with one another directly and/or the central processing unit through a wireless or wired connection. See
Based on the plurality of sensor readings 200a-n, the processing unit, using standard AI and machine learning techniques, etc., will adjust the gain of the sensors 200a-n to match closer to the majority of sensors 200a-n for each substance, i.e., minimize variance among the sensors. The variance may be, for example and without limitation, a statistical variance, other variance metrics such as Euclidean distance, or calculated from the average, weighted average, mean, median, etc. readings of the sensors. This would allow auto or self calibration of outlying sensors 200a-n without the use of calibration gas using a manual method or a docking station. In an example, if n sensors 200a-n sensing a particular gas, such as H2S, are considered and Ri is the reading that represents the concentration of H2S sensed by sensor i and M is the median value of the reading among the n sensors, then the gain, given by Gi, of each sensor can be adjusted so that the reading Ri moves towards the median value by a small amount given by weight w(0<w≧1). For each sensor i in (1,n):
Performing such gain adjustment whenever the monitoring device 90 is exposed to a substance in the field, for example, as part of day-to-day operation will reduce the frequency of calibrations required, thus saving money both directly from the reduction in calibration consumption, such as gas, and also costs involved in taking time away to perform the calibration. Current monitoring devices that use a single gas sensor for detecting each gas type require a more frequent calibration schedule, thereby incurring significant costs.
While presently preferred embodiments of the invention have been shown and described, it is to be understood that the detailed embodiments and Figures are presented for elucidation and not limitation. The invention may be otherwise varied, modified or changed within the scope of the invention as defined in the appended claims.
The following discussion illustrates a non-limiting example of embodiments of the present invention.
A single gas monitor that is used as a small portable device worn on the person and used primarily as personal protection equipment may be used to detect the gases within the breathing zone of the bearer of the device. The gas monitor is designed to monitor one of the following gases:
The sensors are placed on two separate planes of the monitoring device, for example as depicted in
If the reading is higher (or lower in the case of oxygen) than a user defined alarm threshold, then an audio and visual alarm is generated.
Further, if reading>0.5*abs(alarmThreshold−normalReading) and if
then an auto calibrate function based on gain as described below is performed. The auto calibration may be done, based on a user defined setting in the monitoring device, without further input from the user of the monitoring device, and/or the user will be informed that the gas monitor has detected an anomaly and requests permission to auto calibrate.
If
then a message is displayed to the user to calibrate the gas monitor immediately using a calibration gas.
Gain of each of the sensors is modified as follows in the auto or self calibration process:
This application is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/168,577 entitled “Multi-Sense Environmental Monitoring Device and Method,” filed Jun. 24, 2011, which claims benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/358,729 filed on Jun. 25, 2010 entitled “Multi-Sense Environmental Monitoring Device and Method,” the entire contents of which are hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3960495 | Tantram | Jun 1976 | A |
4406770 | Chan et al. | Sep 1983 | A |
4525872 | Zochowski | Jun 1985 | A |
4587003 | Tantram et al. | May 1986 | A |
4775083 | Burger et al. | Oct 1988 | A |
4963855 | Kojima | Oct 1990 | A |
5005419 | O'Donnell | Apr 1991 | A |
5138559 | Kuehl et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5243152 | Magid | Sep 1993 | A |
5394094 | Wagner | Feb 1995 | A |
5464983 | Wang | Nov 1995 | A |
5662143 | Caughran | Sep 1997 | A |
5668302 | Finbow et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5902467 | Wang et al. | May 1999 | A |
5914019 | Dodgson et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
6031454 | Lovejoy et al. | Feb 2000 | A |
6055840 | Warburton | May 2000 | A |
6096186 | Warburton | Aug 2000 | A |
6119186 | Watts et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6165347 | Warburton | Dec 2000 | A |
6284545 | Warburton et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6319375 | Warburton | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6338266 | Warburton | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6370940 | Warburton | Apr 2002 | B2 |
6402933 | Dowling | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6428684 | Warburton | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6435003 | Warburton | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442639 | McElhattan et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6447659 | Peng | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6629444 | Peng | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6632674 | Warburton | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6666963 | Peng et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6679094 | Wang et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6742382 | Warburton et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6888467 | Green et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6997347 | Peng et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7007542 | Wang et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7041256 | Wang et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7275411 | Peng | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7281404 | Peng et al. | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7534333 | Khalafpour et al. | May 2009 | B2 |
7736479 | Prohaska et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7778431 | Feng et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7880607 | Olson | Feb 2011 | B2 |
8086285 | McNamara et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8174557 | Kieffer et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8180075 | Nelson et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8294568 | Barrett | Oct 2012 | B2 |
8587414 | Bandyopadhyay et al. | Nov 2013 | B2 |
9195866 | Mehranfar et al. | Nov 2015 | B1 |
20010050612 | Shaffer | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020008625 | Adams et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020009195 | Schon | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020126002 | Patchell | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030107483 | Kano | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20040119591 | Peeters | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040128823 | Mole | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040145485 | Tice | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040215396 | Christie et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050202582 | Eversmann | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050252980 | Kim | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060224357 | Taware | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070078608 | Broy | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070171042 | Metes et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20080061965 | Kuhns et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080094210 | Paradiso et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080122641 | Amidi | May 2008 | A1 |
20080240463 | Florencio | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090115654 | Lo | May 2009 | A1 |
20090312976 | Bingham | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100072334 | Le Gette et al. | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100170795 | Cowburn et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20120018303 | Bordo et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20130057391 | Salvador et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20140091939 | Won et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
20140368354 | Skourlis | Dec 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2423400 | Aug 2006 | GB |
2002-344602 | Nov 2002 | JP |
WO-9526492 | Oct 1995 | WO |
WO-0182063 | Nov 2001 | WO |
WO-2011163604 | Dec 2011 | WO |
WO-2014055147 | Apr 2014 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International application No. PCT/US2013/049051, mailed on Apr. 25, 2014. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International application No. PCT/US2001/008634, mailed on Jul. 3, 2001. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International application No. PCT/US2011/041848, mailed on Sep. 28, 2011. |
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International application No. PCT/US2013/049051, mailed on Sep. 26, 2014. |
Anonymous “Solaris Multigas Detector” Jan. 1, 2005, Solaris Multigas Manual pp. 1-54. |
Anonymous “Solaris Multigas Detector” Oct. 1, 2006, Solaris Multigas Manual pp. 1-4. |
Ding et al. “Redundant Sensor Calibration Monitoring using Independent Component Analysis and Principal Component Analysis” Jan. 1, 2004, Real Time Systems, 27:27-47. |
ENMET “RECON/4 Manual” Jun. 22, 2009, 20090622, No. 80006-004 pp. 1-10. |
Giang, “Companies are Pulling Sensors on Employees to Track Their Every Move”, http://www.businessinsider.com/tracking-employees-with-productivity-sensors-2013-3, Mar. 14, 2013, pp. 1-4. |
Peaksoft Technologies, Inc., “Big Idea Seeing Crime Before It Happens”, http://www.pstpl.com/news184.html, Dec. 3, 2011, pp. 1-2. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20150204830 A1 | Jul 2015 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61358729 | Jun 2010 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 13168577 | Jun 2011 | US |
Child | 14676443 | US |