Feature: Industrial and agricultural electronics


Reliable field electronics result from cumulative component-level decisions rather than any single protective feature


Electronics for the outdoors Mechanical protection alone can’t guarantee long-term field reliability. Agricultural electronics are continuously exposed to condensation, fertiliser residues, temperature fluctuations and mechanical vibration, gradually degrading electrical performance; see Figure 1. Designing for outdoor use therefore begins at component and PCB level, before enclosure selection enters the discussion. Among the key design requirements are silicone conformal coatings to accommodate thermal expansion, industrial-grade passive components with conservative derating margins, locking connectors and strain- relieved cable assemblies, TVS protection located close to external interfaces, and pressure-equalisation vents to minimise internal condensation. Environmental protection extends


beyond enclosure strength. While IP67 ratings are adequate for many distributed sensing applications, equipment exposed to prolonged immersion or aggressive washdown procedures may require IP68 or IP69K protection. Selecting the appropriate enclosure rating depends on expected operating conditions rather than simply targeting the highest available specification. Completely sealed enclosures can trap moisture generated during repeated day-night temperature cycles, accelerating corrosion around connectors and exposed conductors. Balanced mechanical protection, thermal management and moisture control typically deliver better long-term reliability than enclosure strength alone. Growing adoption of these practices


across agricultural monitoring platforms demonstrates an important engineering principle: reliable field electronics result from cumulative component-level decisions rather than any single protective feature.


Power management Power architecture oſten determines deployment success more than sensing capability. Remote monitoring nodes must balance continuous operation with limited energy availability, making every subsystem responsible for extending battery life rather than just consuming it. Unlike factory equipment supplied by


continuous mains power, agricultural electronics operate within a fixed energy budget. Battery chemistry, solar harvesting efficiency, power conversion losses and firmware scheduling collectively influence operational lifetime, oſten determining maintenance intervals more than sensing accuracy or processor performance. When it comes to power optimisation,


the workflow is as follows: Energy harvesting → Battery management → Ultra-low-power MCU → Sensor sampling → Wireless transmission → Deep sleep Each stage influences overall energy


consumption. High-efficiency power management ICs (PMICs) minimise conversion losses, while real-time clocks schedule sensor sampling without keeping processors active. Firmware further reduces consumption by powering only required peripherals during each acquisition cycle. Duty cycling remains one of the most effective optimisation techniques. Instead of transmitting continuously, sensing nodes collect measurements, process essential data


locally, and activate radio modules only when communication becomes necessary. Firmware contributes as much to


energy efficiency as hardware. Real-time clocks schedule sensing events without keeping processors continuously active, whilst peripherals are powered only when measurements or communication are required. Duty cycling remains one of the most effective optimisation techniques, allowing sensing nodes to collect measurements, process essential data locally and activate radio modules only when transmission becomes necessary. A recent TinyML-enabled precision


irrigation framework demonstrated this approach using an ESP32 microcontroller for on-device inference. By processing sensor data locally and transmitting only essential information, the architecture reduced communication overhead while enabling reliable irrigation decisions under low-power, connectivity-constrained conditions.


Connectivity Reliable communication across farms demands different networking strategies than factory automation. Coverage gaps, vegetation, terrain and infrastructure limitations oſten influence communication performance more than bandwidth requirements. Selecting a wireless technology therefore involves more than comparing communication range or bandwidth. Network availability, antenna design, transmission intervals and expected battery life must all align with application requirements before deployment decisions are finalised; see Table 2. Communication performance depends


on more than protocol selection. Antenna placement, enclosure materials, ground-


Table 2: Key considerations to align with application requirements before finalising the deployment decisions


www.electronicsworld.co.uk November 2026 31


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44