Skip to main content
. 2018 Aug 13;18(8):2660. doi: 10.3390/s18082660

Table 2.

Comparison of the main features of the most relevant academic HAS and the proposed system (part 1).

System Main Objective Messaging Protocol Actuation Capabilities Open-Source Code Conceived for Fog Computing Cost Relevant Features/Challenges
ZiWi MQTT-based HAS MQTT Yes OpenHAB (Node source code available on GitHub) Yes 180 (whole demonstrator) High flexibility, interoperability and scalability
[19] Intelligent building monitoring Ad hoc Yes No No Low cost Delays due to SMS-based commands
[20] Indoor ambient intelligence monitoring Ad hoc Yes No No Cost-effective Alarm control center, several scenarios
[21] Energy efficiency Ad hoc Yes No No Low-cost Heuristic scheduling algorithm
[22] ZigBee-based HAS Ad hoc No No No Not specified Software designed of the coordinator and terminal node
[23] Gateway for assisted living applications Ad hoc, dependent on the assisted living device Yes No No Not specified Biometrics and actimetry for assisted living
[24] HAS for heterogeneous networking Ad hoc Open API No Cloud capabilities Not specified Integrated home appliances with prediction algorithms
[25] Enabling IoT services in HAS Ad hoc Yes No No Not specified Basic GUI with sensor readings
[41] Power outlet control and monitoring Ad hoc Yes No No 45 (one smart socket) Experimental analysis with theoretical and empirical measurements
[43] Smart building energy efficiency monitoring Ad hoc messages routed with CTP (Collection Tree Protocol) Yes No Decentralized architecture Not specified Decision-making manager and integration of different applications
[44] HAS XMPP Yes Openfire No Low-cost Android app for control units
[45] HAS MQTT Yes OpenHAB No Cost-effective (less than $60 for a Raspberry Pi 2, an SD card and four ESP8266 modules) Overall delay from UI to Node is less than 600 ms
[46] MQTT-based HAS MQTT Yes No No Not specified It makes use of ESP8266 WiFi modules