Automized Warning System for

Minimizing Noise Pollution

Manila Science High School

Sander Matthew J. Calonzo | Roy D. Diaz | Sanroe M. Estabillo
INTRODUCTIO
Research Questions
• How much amount of decibel required in making the buzzer produce a signaling sound in
varying limit amount of decibel in a program:
 
1.1.      50db;
1.2.      70db; and
1.3.      90db?

• What is the significant difference in the capability of the automized warning system in
minimizing noise pollution in varying amount of decibel?

• How much amount of sound will the sensor receive when the warning system is away from
the sensor at a certain distances:
3.1      1 meter;
3.2.     3 meters; and
3.3.     5 meters?
 
• What is the significant difference in the capability of automized warning system in
minimizing noise pollution at a certain distance from the source of noise?
METHODOLO
GY
Automized Warning System for Minimizing Noise Pollution
Methodological Framework
Arduino Program
const int buzzerpin=11;
const int soundpin=A1;
const int threshold=200;
void setup() {
Serial.begin(9600);
pinMode(buzzerpin,OUTPUT);
pinMode(soundpin,INPUT);
}
void loop() {
int soundsens=analogRead(soundpin);
if (soundsens>=threshold) {
digitalWrite(buzzerpin,HIGH); //turns led on
delay(1000);
}
else{
digitalWrite(buzzerpin,LOW);
}}
Specifications of Materials

COMPONENTS SPECIFICATION
LED (2php/pc) GENERIC
SOUND SENSOR
MODULE LM393 op amp
(150php/pc)
JUMPER WIRES
GENERIC
(3php/pc)
PIEZO BUZZER
3 Volts
(10php/pc)
 COMPONENT SPECIFICATION
ARDUINO UNO (387php/pc)
Microcontroller ATmega328P
Operating Voltage 5V
Input Voltage (recommended) 7-12V

Input Voltage (limit) 6-20V

Digital I/O Pins 14 (of which 6 provide PWM output)

PWM Digital I/O Pins 6

Analog Input Pins 6

DC Current per I/O Pin 20 mA

DC Current for 3.3V Pin 50 mA

Flash Memory 32 KB (ATmega328P) of which 0.5 KB used by bootloader

SRAM 2 KB (ATmega328P)
EEPROM 1 KB (ATmega328P)
Clock Speed 16 MHz
LED_BUILTIN 13
Length 68.6 mm
Width 53.4 mm
Weight 25 g
SCHEMATIC / PICTORIAL
DIAGRAM
Data Gathering Procedure

Figure 1. Collection of Materials Figure 2. Makerlab Electronics, the store

where the materials were bought
Data Gathering Procedure

Figure 3. Assembly of Materials Figure 4. Testing of the Device

RESULTS &
DISCUSSION
Automized Warning System for Minimizing Noise Pollution
Table 1. Recorded decibel of the Automized Warning System under
three trials for the parameter of varying limit amount of decibels in
which the device will produce a signaling sound

Trial Trial Trial Mean

Parameters Units
1 2 3 Data
Varying limit amount of decibels
50 dB 49.9 50.3 51.2 50.47 dB
70 dB 70.6 70.1 71.2 70.63 dB
90 dB 89.8 90.2 91.1 90.37 dB
Table 2. Recorded decibel of the Automized Warning System under
three trials for the parameter of varying distance of the device
from the source of noise

Trial Trial Trial Mean

Parameters Units
1 2 3 Data
Varying distance of the device from the
source of noise with 50dB sound
1m 49.8 50.1 49.5 49.8 dB
3m 47.6 48.1 47.1 47.6 dB
5m 45.1 44.5 44.8 44.8 dB
 Table 3. Test of Significant Difference on the recorded decibel of
the Automized Warning System under three trials for the parameter
of varying limit amount of decibels in which the device will
produce a signaling sound

Sum of
Sources of Mean
Squares df F-Value P-Value Decision Interpretation
Variation Squares
 

Between .109 2 .054 .137 .874 Accept Ho Not significant

column

Within 2.380 6 .397

column
 Table 4. Test of Significant difference on the recorded decibel of the
Automized Warning System under three trials for the parameter of
varying distance of the device from the source of noise

Sum of
Sources of Mean
Squares df F-Value P-Value Decision Interpretation
Variation Squares
 

Between
37.680 2 18.840
column
131.442 .000 Reject Ho Significant
Within
.860 6 .143
column
 Table 5. Post Hoc Test of the Automized Warning System under three
trials for the parameter of varying distance of the device from the source
of noise

Distance P-Value Significant Level Decision Interpretation

1m and 3m .001 .05 Reject Ho Significant
 

1m and 5m .000

3m and 5m .000
CONCLUSION
Automized Warning System for Minimizing Noise Pollution
 The data which had undergone statistical treatment revealed that the second
hypothesis was rejected, which suggests that there is a significant difference between the
efficiency of the automized warning system in its varying distance of the device from the
source of noise. The first hypothesis was accepted, which suggests that there is no
significant difference between the efficiency of the automized warning system in varying
limit amount of decibel of the device.

Therefore, the researchers have established that the Automized Warning System
would be an efficient and ideal device in minimizing noise pollution considering the
distance of the source of noise.
RECOMMENDATI
ON
Automized Warning System for Minimizing Noise Pollution
 After formulating the conclusions, the researchers thought of certain
recommendations for future researchers and the betterment of this study. The
researchers made the following recommendations:

 Use more accurate modules other than the arduino

 Find a larger sensor for more accuracy in the results
 Work on finding a better and larger studio where test and experiments will be done
for more optimized result
 Instead of a buzzer try something like a bell or speaker
 Create a digital device for the adjustment of limit amount of decibel in the program.
REFERENCES
Automized Warning System for Minimizing Noise Pollution
Sättele, M., Bründl, M., & Straub, D. (September 2013). Reliability and effectiveness of
warning systems for natural hazards: Concept and application to debris flow warning.
Reliability Engineering & System Safety.,
Retrieved
from:http://www.era.bgu.tum.de/fileadmin/w00bkd/www/Papers/2013_Saettele_et_al_Relia
bility_EWS.pdf
 
Causes and Effects of Noise Pollution. (2016, December 25).
Retrieved from: https://www.conserve-energy-future.com/causes-and-effects-of-noise-
pollution.php
 
Noise Pollution | Environmental Pollution Centers.(n.d.).
Retrieved from https://www.environmentalpollutioncenters.org/noise-pollution/
 
Petley, D. (2012, May 30). Attempts to predict earthquakes may do more harm than good |
Professor David Petley. Retrieved from
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/may/30/attempts-predict-earthquakes-
harm-good
 
Babisch, W. et. al., (2014, April 1). Cardiovascular effects of environmental noise
exposure
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3971384/
 
Keerthana, et al., (2013, March). An Analysis of noise pollution in Tirupur City
Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0f55/406bd2e5fc682605d7e72730c4413428be3e.p
df
THANK
YOU!
Automized Warning System for Minimizing Noise
Pollution
Manila Science High School
Sander Matthew J. Calonzo | Roy D. Diaz | Sanroe M.
Estabillo