Sensors and Actuators B 114 (2006) 316–325

A comparative analysis of one-port Colpitt and two-port

Pierce SAW oscillators for DMMP vapor sensing
A.T. Nimal ∗ , Mohan Singh, U. Mittal, R.D.S. Yadava
Solid State Physics Laboratory, Lucknow Road, Timarpur, Delhi 110054, India

Received 2 December 2004; received in revised form 27 May 2005; accepted 30 May 2005
Available online 21 July 2005

Abstract

This paper reports an experimental study on chemical sensitivity and noise behavior of Colpitt and Pierce SAW oscillators based on
433.92 MHz one-port and two-port SAW resonator devices, respectively. The oscillators are characterized for phase noise as well as Allan
variance. The sensitivity for DMMP (di-methyl methyl phosphonate) vapor is imparted by providing a diallyl-bisphenol polymer precursor
as a selective interface coated on to both the SAW devices in an identical manner. Comparative vapor sensing experiments are carried out
under simultaneous exposure to the same DMMP vapor stream in different ranges of vapor concentration and duration. A new data acquisition
method is employed which is wireless and automated. It uses an antenna pickup at the input of a spectrum analyzer with PC control interface.
The results show that the two-port Pierce oscillator is more stable but less sensitive than the one-port Colpitt oscillator. It is found that under
the conditions of analyte exposure durations longer than 30 s the one-port Colpitt oscillator yields higher signal to noise ratios. The results
are interpreted in terms of phase response characteristics and different sensitivities of the one-port and two-port SAW devices towards mass
loading and viscoelastic effects.
© 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: SAW oscillator; DMMP sensor; Phase noise; Allan variance; Mass and viscoelastic loading

1. Introduction the minimum level of an analyte that can be detected. The

Surface acoustic wave (SAW) chemical sensors employ
polymer coated SAW devices as frequency control elements
in oscillator circuits. These are rf oscillators operating at
frequencies in the range of few MHz to about a GHz. They
work on the principle of mass loading and are highly sensitive
to minute quantities of chemical analyte loading on the SAW
propagation path. The shift in SAW velocity due to surface
loading leads to a shift in phase, which in turn generates a shift
in frequency of the oscillator. This shift in frequency under
analyte exposure is the sensor signal. Important features
that define the performance of these sensors are selectivity,
sensitivity, stability, response time and dynamic range. The
selectivity for a target analyte depends solely on the polymer
coating. The sensitivity along with the stability determines
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 011 23960609; fax: +91 011 23913609.
E-mail address: atnimal@yahoo.com (A.T. Nimal).
sensor oscillators should be free of frequency drifts (during
at least the measurement duration) in order to differentiate
the chemical signal from any spurious frequency shift. The
stability should be high so as to achieve high signal to noise
ratio, which would lead to low detection limits. The dynamic
range depends upon the mass sensitivity as well as the range
over which the oscillator can be pulled from its operating
point. The improvement of the sensitivity is achieved
through innovations on the adsorbent coating [1,2], increas-
ing the frequency of operation [3] and device characteristics
[4–6].
All these characteristics however cannot be optimized
independently, and several trade-offs are needed. The sta-
bility can be improved by using SAW devices with high Q
factors, but this will compromise the dynamic range due to
low oscillator pullability (narrow bandwidth of operation).
Improvement in sensitivity can also be achieved through
improvisations in oscillator designs. Riebel et al. [7] have

0925-4005/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.snb.2005.05.021
 A.T. Nimal et al. / Sensors and Actuators B 114 (2006) 316–325 317

recently reported improvement of sensitivity by tuning the

phase point of oscillation in the pass band of a sensing SAW
resonator device. The fast sensor response would be obtained
through weak vapor–polymer interactions, but this will also
result in poor sensitivity. In the present paper we report on the
construction and behavior of two different oscillator config-
urations (Colpitt and Pierce) using 434 MHz SAW resonator
(one-port and two-port) devices. The oscillators are compared
for their stability in both the frequency and time domains.
Their performance towards sensitivity for DMMP (di-methyl
methyl phosphonate) analyte vapor is compared by coating a
diallyl-bisphenol polymer precursor on both oscillators under
identical conditions. This study aims at analyzing the rela-
tion between stability and sensitivity of SAW vapor sensors
based on one-port and two-port resonator devices, and seeks
optimum conditions of operation that can result in the lowest
level of detection.

2. Construction and characterization of SAW

oscillators

The 434 MHz SAW resonator devices used in this study

were obtained from RF Monlithics. The one port SAW
resonator RO2101 is used for making a common base Colpitt
oscillator and the two port SAW resonator RF1172 is used for
making a Pierce oscillator [8]. Hereafter, the two oscillators
will be referred to as OPC (One Port Colpitt) and TPP (Two
Port Pierce) oscillators. Fig. 1 shows the circuit used for real-
izing these oscillators. Single stage rf transistor amplifiers
have been used. The design uses surface mount components,
and both the oscillators operate at 3 V power supply. The
SAW devices in TO-39 package are inserted from one side of
the PCB (Printed Circuit Board) so that the solder pins appear
on the opposite side where all other electronic components
are placed. The two oscillators are placed closely on a single
PCB so as to accommodate the two sensor devices in a single
sensor cell with a minimum dead volume. Tuning of the Fig. 1. Schematic circuit diagram of (a) a pierce oscillator with two-port
inductances and capacitors are crucial for the operation of SAW resonator (TPSR) and (b) a colpitt oscillator with one-port SAW res-
these oscillators. In the OPC oscillator, the tank circuit LC , onator (OPSR) devices at 433.92 MHz.
C1 and C2 are fine tuned by placing a short at the location of
the SAW device. Once the frequency of oscillation is brought provide the remaining phase shift to make it 360◦ . The phase-
close to that of the SAW resonator, the short is replaced by loop condition is satisfied by the two-port SAW device and
the device. In case of the TPP oscillator the device is placed the two tuning inductors L1 and L2 . The shunt elements here
in the feedback loop and fine-tuning of the feedback network are the IDT capacitances and other parasitic capacitances. For
is carried out. The outputs of the oscillators are monitored by this feedback network to operate successfully it is required
using a spectrum analyzer, an oscilloscope and a frequency that the reactance of series elements and the shunt elements
counter. have opposite signs. The SAW device is forced to operate
In general, the Pierce oscillator configuration is more in the positive reactance condition assuring the maximum
stable than the Colpitt [9,10]. The two configurations used phase slope. These aspects are discussed in detail in Section
in this study have different features that lead to variations in 8.1.2.2 of reference [10]. In the OPC oscillator, Fig. 1(b),
their stability or noise figures. In the TPP oscillator, Fig. 1(a), the tuning network in the collector circuit effectively limits
the two-port SAW device and the associated tuning network the bandwidth of the oscillator. The transfer phase of the
form the band pass phase inverting feedback network. The common base stage remains near zero. The impedance
transfer phase of the transistor is ideally 180◦ (practically presented to the SAW branch by the emitter is relatively
exceeds this value) and the feedback filter network must low and hence the phase slope of the feedback network is
318 A.T. Nimal et al. / Sensors and Actuators B 114 (2006) 316–325

Fig. 4. SSB phase noise spectrum of the one-port Colpitt and two-port Pierce
oscillators used in this study.

the two-port device used in the TPP oscillator has a larger

phase slope. This results in the higher oscillator stability.
The phase noise and Allan variance measurements of the two
Fig. 2. Frequency and phase response of the one-port and two-port oscillators are shown in Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. The phase
433.92 MHz SAW resonators. noise measurements were done by using the Aeroflex PN9000
setup. The measurements were performed in the phase lock-
not seriously degraded. In contrast to the TPP oscillator, the
ing mode using Hanning window. Stable dc power supply
SAW device in the OPC oscillator is not a resonant network,
for the oscillators is obtained from Agilent model E3620A.
and therefore does not carry circulating currents.
The Allan variance measurements were performed by using
The stability or noise figures of these oscillators also
Fluke PM6681 timer counter and ‘Time View’ software. The
depend on the phase characteristics of the SAW devices used.
‘Time View’ is a statistical data collection and analysis soft-
The measured amplitude and phase response of the devices
ware. The oscillators were powered on and allowed to warm
used in this study are shown in Fig. 2. The one-port resonator
up for a minimum period of 1 h before taking measurements.
used in the OPC circuit has a single amplitude transfer peak
The phase noise behavior of the two SAW oscillators
and the oscillation is setup close to it. The two-port device
shown in Fig. 4 is consistent with the Allan variance charac-
used in the TPP oscillator has two peaks close to each other.
teristics in Fig. 5. It can be seen that the phase noise of the
No external matching networks are used here. However, this
TPP oscillator is consistently lower than the OPC oscillator
device with a proper matching network is reported to be a
in the measured offset range from 1 Hz to 200 kHz. A similar
filter with a single 600 kHz pass-band [11]. To realize oscil-
trend can be noted for the Allan variance as well in Fig. 5
lator operation with this device the first frequency peak is
over the range of measurement durations from 0.1 ms to 5 s.
used where the insertion loss is minimal. The phase slopes
This range of duration corresponds to 0.2 Hz to 10 kHz on the
−dφ/dω of these devices are shown in Fig. 3. It is clear that

Fig. 3. Phase slope of the two-port and one-port SAW resonators derived Fig. 5. Allan variance plot of the same two oscillators as shown in Fig. 4.
from phase responses shown in Fig. 2. The shaded area shows the spread of measurements.
 A.T. Nimal et al. / Sensors and Actuators B 114 (2006) 316–325
Table 1
Different noise components and their regions of influence in 434 MHz TPP and OPC oscillators based on phase noise and Allan variance measurements in
Figs. 4 and 5
Noise component Dependence TPP oscillator
SSB phase noise
Offset frequency (Hz)
White phase f0 20 k–1 M
Flicker phase f −1 τ −1 6–20 k
White frequency f −2 τ −1/2 2–6 k
Flicker frequency f −3 τ0 10–2 k
Random walk and aging f −n , n ≈ 4 τ n , n ≥ 1/2 1–10
offset frequency scale, which overlaps with the frequency
region mentioned above in Fig. 4. The portions of phase
noise spectrum above 10 kHz and Allan variance spectrum
below 1 s do not have mutually reciprocating information in
Figs. 4 and 5. Therefore, the results of both measurements
taken together provide complimentary information about
the behavior of the oscillators. Table 1 presents a summary
of these characteristics in terms of different noise types and
regions of their performance. These values are obtained
by smoothening the phase noise curves after removing the
spikes and then by fitting to corresponding straight lines. The
frequency range values in log scale have up to 3% errors. A
similar fitting is done for Allan variance measurements also.
The gate time range values in log scale have up to 12% error.
It is not possible to differentiate between the white phase
noise and flicker phase noise since they both have the same
slope τ −1 [12].
Transitions between different regions are not clear. How-
ever one can demarcate three regions as indicated in Fig. 5.
In the context of SAW sensor applications these regions can
be referred to as short term, medium term and long term
stability regions. The significance of these regions depends
on the signal frequencies and associated readout times. For
instance, for ∼1 s readout time the TPP oscillator offers
nearly one order of magnitude higher frequency stability,
Fig. 5. However, the OPC oscillator may prove better in case
of low signal frequencies (<0.1 Hz, in the long-term region).
This is unlikely to be of much significance in SAW sensors,
which typically involve higher frequency signals. Owing to
the wider τ 0 region however the OPC oscillator exhibits fairly
constant stability over wide dynamic range of signal varia-
tions. This may result in more robust sensor performance.
3. Polymer coating and sensor packaging
The devices in TO-39 package were cut open in order
to gain access to the device surface. The DMMP-selective
material was coated on the SAW devices to make them
sensors. The material used is a diallyl-bisphenol polymer
precursor, which is hydrogen-bond acidic and a structural tar-
get for many of the BSP hybrid organic-inorganic polymers
[13]. This material has earlier been evaluated as a stationary
phase for gas chromatography. It is a slightly brownish,
319
OPC oscillator
Allan variance SSB phase noise Allan variance
Gate time (s) Offset frequency (Hz) Gate time (s)
34 k–1 M
0.0001–0.1
9–34 k
0.0001–0.02
7–9 k
0.1–1 0.02–8
10–7 k
1–200 1–10 8–300
transparent viscous liquid. It has been found to be stable for
more than 2 years. The device surfaces were plasma cleaned
for 30 min to remove surface contaminants and to improve
the film adhesion and uniformity. A plasma cleaner system
Roth & Rau AK350 with Ar ion plasma was used for this
purpose. The freshly cleaned devices are then coated with
the polymer dissolved in methanol by a drop dry method.
Several other organic solvents such as dichloromethane,
carbon tetrachloride, acetone and benzene were also tried.
With them, however, the deposits were always discontinuous
and comprising mostly globular/droplet like structure as
shown typically in Fig. 6. The methanol solution produced
a smooth and continuous film with no visible feature when
examined under an optical microscope up to 80X. The poly-
mer to solvent ratio was 1 mg/100 ml. The amount dispensed
was at 0.3 ␮l/mm2 (optimized beforehand by independent
experiments). The solution was dropped to cover the entire
surface of the device without spilling along periphery. After
visible evaporation of methanol the coated devices were
baked at 90 ◦ C for 5 h in a dry nitrogen ambience. This
resulted in an estimated film thickness of 3 nm.
The coated devices were then soldered to the oscillator
pcb. A sensor cell was then attached to the PCB as shown
in Fig. 7. The sensor cell is made of stainless steel with two
holes for the two devices. The cell sits on the PCB with the
Fig. 6. A typical optical micrograph of the polymer deposited on ST-quartz
crystal surface by dissolving it in dichloromethane. The arrows demarcate
the drop boundary.
320 A.T. Nimal et al. / Sensors and Actuators B 114 (2006) 316–325
Fig. 7. Schematic of the sensor cell fitted to PCB which can accommodate
two SAW sensors and has minimum dead volume.
two open devices inside the cell. Care is taken to avoid strain
on PCB due to the placement of the cell. Teflon and silicone
rubber ‘O’ rings are used to seal the cell. The inlet and outlet
of the cell are designed such that the gas does not hit the
devices directly. The design of the cell is such that the dead
volume is minimized.
4. Vapor generation and delivery system
A laboratory-made vapor generation and delivery system
shown in Fig. 8 is used for carrying out DMMP sensing
experiments. Dry nitrogen is used as the carrier gas to carry
the test vapor to the sensor. A little quantity of the volatile
DMMP liquid is placed at the bottom of a corrugated glass
container, and the carrier gas is continuously passed through
headspace as shown. The liquid is loaded by using a syringe
inserted through the silicone rubber septum at the top of the
container. Corrugations of the container facilitate mixing of
the carrier and analyte vapor. The carrier gas from the source
is bifurcated into two paths, controlled by individual flow
controllers, one carrying the test gas and the other only the
carrier. The flow rates along the two paths are maintained at
250 ml/min. The three-way solenoid valve V3 is used to open
one of the two paths and its outlet is connected to the sensor.
Fig. 8. Schematic of the vapor generator/delivery system used for the char-
acterization of SAW sensors. V1 and V2 are two-port solenoid valves and
V3 is a three-port solenoid valve. M1 and M2 are flow meter and controllers.
When one path is closed the corresponding two-way vent
valve (V1 , V2 ) is opened simultaneously to vent out gases.
Fast switching solenoid valves operated by microcontroller-
based electronic control circuits are used in this system. This
ensures continuous flow of gases along the two paths with
negligible flow disturbance during switching of the solenoids.
When the test gas is passed to the sensor it is considered as
‘On’ state and when the carrier is passed it is ‘Off’ state. The
‘On/Off’ durations can be set as desired. The complete vapor
generation and delivery system is kept at room temperature.
This arrangement gives reasonably stable DMMP vapor
concentration till the source liquid is present in the container.
Depending on the DMMP liquid load stable vapor concen-
tration condition was obtained from a few minutes to nearly
an hour for different experiments. When the volatile liquid is
taken in very small quantities the vapor concentration keeps
decreasing with time until finally the liquid completely evap-
orates. This feature is advantageously used to examine the
sensor behavior over a wide range of analyte concentration.
By taking larger quantities of the volatile liquid and main-
taining the quantity in the container it is possible to maintain
the vapor concentration at a fixed level for reasonable
duration needed for various measurements. The maximum
DMMP vapor concentration under stable source condition
was estimated to be ∼0.5 ppm. The estimation is based on
DMMP vapor pressure data given in [14] (153 Pa at 300 K).
5. Wireless data acquisition using spectrum analyzer
The frequency data acquisition from the two sensors is car-
ried out through a radiation pickup using a spectrum analyzer
interfaced with PC, schematically shown in Fig. 9. A copper
wire about the length of the wavelength of the oscillators
connected to an rf coaxial cable is used as an antenna. The
spectrum analyzer (HP 8591E) receives the radiation through
the antenna and displays the two frequency peaks. The fre-
quencies can be measured with high resolution by zooming
to the peak position and using “peak search” option. In this
method the oscillators are not loaded by the output network,
and needs for matching and/or amplification are avoided.
Moreover, mechanical strain on PCB due to connecting
Fig. 9. Schematic of the data acquisition setup.
 A.T. Nimal et al. / Sensors and Actuators B 114 (2006) 316–325 321

cell is used for the two sensors the sensing conditions are
identical. The inlet and outlet ports of the sensor cell can
be interchanged; and such an interchange produced the same
result. The vapor delivery system is made to pass the carrier
gas over the devices. The sensor oscillators are switched on
and allowed to stabilize for about an hour. The antenna is
placed as close as possible to the sensor oscillators to obtain
adequate signal power for the automated measurement. Data
acquisition software is run to record the oscillator frequen-
cies. The time taken for a measurement was ∼2 s and one
set of reading from both the oscillators takes ∼4 s. The ‘On’
(test + carrier gas passage over the sensor) and ‘Off’ (only
carrier gas passage over the sensor) durations are set on the
control circuit of the vapor delivery system. The ‘Off’ dura-
tion is kept at least three times that of the ‘On’ duration for
any measurement cycle. The data is continuously captured
and stored for analysis.

6.2. Observations

When these sensor oscillators are simultaneously exposed

to the same DMMP vapor stream the frequencies of the
two oscillators decrease by different amounts. Fig. 11 shows
typical response cycles with the analyte exposure (‘On’) dura-
tions of 30 s, 60 s, 7 min, 20 min and 43 min. For these mea-
surements a small quantity of DMMP liquid was loaded at the
bottom of the source container (Fig. 8). The 30 and 60 s dura-
tion measurements were recorded at an early stage of analyte
vaporization when the vapor concentration is fairly stable.
Fig. 10. Flow diagram of the software written in VB to acquire data from
spectrum analyzer through GPIB.
The 7, 20 and 43 min observations correspond to the stage
when no trace of liquid is visible and only the remnant con-
tamination of the container produces low vapor concentration
shielded cables are avoided. Thus the oscillators are electri- (∼0.1 ppm). Though these concentrations are not precisely
cally independent of the measurement and data acquisition measured, it is immaterial in the present context as our inter-
system. During sensing experiments the frequencies change est is basically to compare the relative behavior of the TPP
fast, and therefore the measurements need to be faster. To
facilitate this, an IEEE 488 interface is setup between the
spectrum analyzer and a PC. Software written in Visual
Basic is used to acquire the data from the spectrum analyzer.
The program flow of the software is shown in Fig. 10. The
two frequencies are noted sequentially by zooming to their
positions for the maximum resolution. A drawback of this
type of acquisition is that the minimum interval between
two consecutive readings is about 2 s. However it is possible
to increase the speed of acquisition at the cost of resolution.
The frequency data in the present study were recorded with
resolution of 3 Hz. Note that this readout time corresponds to
the medium term stability region of the oscillators (Fig. 5).

6. DMMP sensing experiment

6.1. Setup
Fig. 11. Responses of the TPP and OPC sensor oscillators for simultaneous
The sensor cell is connected to the vapor generator keep- exposure to DMMP vapors in dry nitrogen at 250 ml/min, and for exposure
ing minimum distance between the two. Since a single small durations as indicated.
322 A.T. Nimal et al. / Sensors and Actuators B 114 (2006) 316–325

Fig. 13. Rise profiles of the TPP sensor upon exposure to DMMP test vapor
Fig. 12. The shift in frequencies of the TPP and OPC sensor oscillators normalized to the corresponding rise profiles of the OPC sensor for many
under identical DMMP exposure conditions for many continuous cycles cycles. The shaded area shows wide spread in the normalized values having
with exposure durations of 30 s, 60 s, 7 min, 20 min and 43 min. a general trend. Inset shows the averaged rise profile of many cycles and S/N
ratio crossover.
and OPC oscillator configurations under identical conditions
of experimentations. The low concentration of the analyte
tive time intervals. Though within 10 s of exposure though
vapor for long duration exposure cycles also avoids satura-
the average signal of TPP is seen higher than OPC, it can
tion of the sensors due to excessive loading.
be ignored as they lie within the error range of measurement
Fig. 12 shows the frequency shifts (signal) of the two oscil-
and normalization. The signal rise can be considered about
lators for several cycles of the different exposure durations.
the same for both the oscillators initially. For longer expo-
The reduction in magnitude of shifts with increasing time
sures, from the downward trend of the STPP /SOPC curve, it
(or cycle number) is due to reduction in vapor concentra-
is clear that the signal buildup in the OPC oscillator contin-
tion as the source slowly depletes with time. Shifts for single
ues while the TPP oscillator tends to stabilize (refer Fig. 11
cycles of long exposure durations of 7, 20 and 43 min at
also). Fig. 14 shows a similar ratio for the 43 min exposure
lower concentration are also shown in Fig. 12. Two points
duration (single cycle) at low concentration (∼0.1 ppm). The
are quite evident from these results: (i) the OPC oscillator
signal builds up faster in OPC oscillators than TPP oscillators
sensor generates nearly two times more shift compared to
up to nearly 200 s. Beyond 200 s the STPP /SOPC curve seems
the TPP oscillator for each exposure cycle of measurement.
to flatten, which means the buildup in both the oscillators
This means the sensitivity of the OPC oscillator is nearly
are the same. Beyond 1000 s, however, the STPP /SOPC curve
twice as high as the TPP oscillator for exposure durations of
shows an upward trend, though small, which means the sig-
at least 30 s and beyond; (ii) the fluctuation in signal level
nal in TPP oscillator is continuing to build up while the OPC
over several cycles of observation is also more for OPC than
oscillator is stabilizing. The presentation of data in ratios also
TPP. This is consistent with the Allan variance characteris-
eliminates uncertainty from lack of knowledge about precise
tics of the two oscillators reported in Section 2. From Fig. 5
vapor concentration.
one can notice that the Allan variance for the OPC oscilla-
tor is also about 2.5 times (on the average) that of the TPP
oscillator in the medium term region. This indicates that the
factors that are causing more fluctuations in OPC oscillators
are also responsible for generating more signals. Implicitly
these observations also suggest that the noise in both the oscil-
lators is limited by the SAW devices.
An interesting feature can be noted about the time depen-
dence of signal buildup in the two oscillators. Fig. 13 shows
the percentage ratio of the signal rise profiles of the two oscil-
lators for multiple cycles of 30 and 60 s exposure. This is
obtained by normalizing the frequency shift of TPP in the
‘On’ duration (STPP ) to that of the OPC oscillator (SOPC ) at
respective time intervals (i.e., STPP (t)/SOPC (t)%). The indi-
vidual fine traces in the shaded region correspond to different
cycles. The shaded area indicates the spread of such curves
and represents the approximate trend. The inset shows the Fig. 14. Rise profile of the TPP sensor for 43 min exposure to test DMMP
average of all the fine traces (normalized ratios) at respec- vapor normalized to the corresponding rise profile of the OPC sensor.
 A.T. Nimal et al. / Sensors and Actuators B 114 (2006) 316–325
The fluctuations in the frequencies of the two oscillators
were monitored while exposing only to the carrier gas (‘Off’)
for long durations over several measurements. Similar to the
above, the fluctuations (or noise) in consecutive frequency
readings of TPP oscillators (NTPP ) are normalized to that
of the OPC oscillator (NOPC ) at respective time intervals
(i.e., NTPP (t)/NOPC (t)%). It is found that the average of these
noise ratios of the two oscillators over several measurement
cycles has a value of 68%. It is noted that the Allan variance
measurements reported in Section 2 were performed under
static conditions when no gas is flown over the device. The
fluctuations measured during passage of carrier gas over
the device includes additional noise due to factors like flow
rate, pressure and temperature. Therefore, the observation
that NTPP < NOPC implies that the OPC oscillator is more
susceptible to these spurious perturbations. Horizontal lines
corresponding to this noise ratio of 68% shown in the inset
of Fig. 13 and in Fig. 14 intersect the signal ratio curve
at about 30 and 50 s of exposure duration, respectively.
This shows that up to these exposure durations the S/N
ratio of the TPP oscillator is more than the OPC oscillator
(STPP /SOPC > NTPP /NOPC or STPP /NTPP > SOPC /NOPC or
(S/N)TPP > (S/N)OPC ) and beyond these durations it is
the reverse. The significance of these observations is
that the TPP oscillators are better suited for making fast
responding sensor systems involving small durations of
analyte contact. However, the OPC oscillators can yield
a lower limit of detection if longer exposure durations
are employed. The choice of oscillator configuration and
analyte contact time depends on the concentration range
of interest.
7. Discussion
The phase noise characteristics of both the oscillators can
be explained in terms of the Leeson’s model as summarized
in [15]. The lower SSB phase noise of the TPP oscillator at
low offset frequencies (below 100 kHz) arises from the larger
phase slope of the two-port resonator device in its control
circuit compared to that of the one-port resonator device used
in OPC oscillator (Fig. 3). For a SAW resonator the quality
factor Q at the resonance is defined as Q = 1/2ω0 (−dφ/dω)
where ω0 denotes the angular frequency of resonance. The
white frequency (f−2 ) and flicker frequency (f−3 ) noise
components of a SAW resonator oscillator are inversely
proportional to (Q/ω0 )2 or (−dφ/dω)2 [15]. Therefore,
the TPP oscillator would obviously be less noisy, or more
stable. In the f0 region beyond 20 kHz, however, both
the spectra converge to the same floor level of nearly
−142 dBc/Hz. According to equation (18.7) of reference
[15], this indicates that at higher offset frequencies both
the oscillators are limited by the amplifier noise in the
circuit.
The difference in mass sensitivity of the two oscillators
can also be explained in terms of the phase slopes of the
323
Fig. 15. The representative phase curves of a one-port and a two-port device
before and after vapor loading simulated from the equivalent circuit of SAW
resonators (inset).
SAW resonator devices. Fig. 15 shows the equivalent circuit
of SAW resonators along with representative phase curves of
a one-port and a two-port device. Note that the equivalent cir-
cuit of the SAW resonator is consisted of a motional arm (LM ,
CM , RM ) in parallel with a static arm (CO for one-port and
CP for two-port) due to static IDT capacitances. For making
sensor oscillators the static capacitances are either tuned out
or made insignificant, and the oscillators are controlled by
the motional arm alone. Modification of an equivalent circuit
of the SAW resonator under vapor mass loading and polymer
viscosity has been studied in detail by Reibel et al. in [7].
Their model assumes that the adsorption of the vapor causes
increases in the inductance and resistance (or adds additional
inductance and resistance in series). Pure mass loading
appears as a change in motional inductance. The increase
of inductance causes the phase curves shift towards lower
frequency, while the increase of resistance causes broadening
or flattening of the phase curve. It is reported that the vapor
adsorption with thin coating merely moves the phase curve
of the resonator towards lower frequency, whereas thick film
coating causes the phase curve to flatten also [7]. It should be
noted that the polymer coatings used in our case are very thin
and therefore the dominant change in the equivalent circuit
would appear on the inductive part. Our observations on vapor
sensitivity can be explained by considering the phase curves
in Fig. 15. The values of the motional components for the one-
port SAW resonator device are obtained from the data sheet
[11] of the manufacturer. For the two-port SAW resonator
these values are calculated for the first peak by matching the
phase slope. The values of RI and RL were adjusted slightly
to match the measured phase slope and they were kept the
same for both the devices. Parasitic capacitances are not
taken into account. The estimated value of inductance for
the two-port resonator is 3.16 times to that of one-port. The
dotted curves correspond to the case of vapor mass loading
causing an increase in inductance by ␦L = 20 nH. The phase
curves of both the SAW devices are shifted towards the
324 A.T. Nimal et al. / Sensors and Actuators B 114 (2006) 316–325
lower frequency by different amounts. The one-port device
with a lower phase slope is shifted more. In order to maintain
the loop phase condition in oscillator configuration the
frequency would decrease by 50 kHz for OPC and by 16 kHz
for the TPP for the assumed change in LM . That is, the OPC
oscillator is more than three times more sensitive than the TPP
oscillator.
From Figs. 12 and 13 we have seen that the OPC oscillator
shows 2.5 times higher sensitivity than the TPP oscillator. A
small increase in the resistance value of the motional arm in
the equivalent circuits can cause flattening of the phase slope
and lessen the effect. Also the reason for the observation that
for longer durations of vapor exposure the OPC oscillators
continue building up the signal and attain higher S/N ratios for
exposure durations beyond 30 s is not immediately obvious.
It can be explained in terms of the viscoelastic effects if (i)
polymer stiffening becomes significant during the later part
of vapor exposure, and (ii) the two oscillators have different
sensitivities for this effect. As is known the sign of frequency
shift due to viscoelastic stiffening is opposite to that due to the
mass loading [16]. Therefore, for a given analyte exposure
the mass loading increases the signal and the viscoelastic
stiffening reduces it. Note that the viscoelastic effects will
appear at later stages of the exposure as it involves analyte
homogenization in the polymer matrix following the initial
sorption in the top surface layer. It seems that the one-port
OPC oscillator is less sensitive to the viscoelastic loading than
the two-port TPP. If this is true then the mass loading effect
will be retarded more effectively in the TPP oscillator, and the
saturation will set in earlier than that in the OPC oscillator.
At lower concentrations the time taken for the viscoelastic
effects to be appreciable is more, and thus the S/N crossover
is delayed (Figs. 13 and 14).
The oscillator configuration may have indirect contribu-
tion to the signal generation through setting the phase point
of oscillation and the pullability. If the slope of the phase
response is smaller, then more chemically sensitive oscilla-
tors are realizable. However this also results in much noise,
and a trade off is necessary. In the present study the OPC
oscillators were found to be more sensitive and at the same
time noisier than the TPP oscillators for shorter durations.
However, by employing longer duration for vapor polymer
interaction it was found that the OPC sensors could yield bet-
ter S/N performance. It was also experienced that realizing
the OPC oscillator is easier than the TPP due to complex tun-
ing involved in the later. Another interesting aspect in favor
of OPC oscillators seems to be their apparent insensitivity to
the viscoelastic effects. This will ensure the mass loading to
be the main transduction process over a wide range of analyte
concentrations. This feature will be helpful in making reliable
a SAW sensor array for electronic nose applications where
analyte information is desired to be uniquely coded in differ-
ent sensors of the array. Several transduction mechanisms in
a sensor will mingle the information and make the data pro-
cessing for pattern classification and chemical identification
difficult.
8. Conclusion
In this study we find that the one-port SAW resonator-
based Colpitt oscillator makes a more sensitive chemical
sensor than the two-port SAW resonator-based Pierce oscil-
lator. Even though the noise (SSB phase noise and Allan
variance) for the Colpitt oscillator is more, this oscillator
offers better S/N ratios for vapor exposure durations beyond
30 s. It is concluded that this behavior is due to differences in
the phase slopes and the viscoelastic stiffening effects for the
one-port and two-port resonator devices. During initial stages
of vapor exposure the pure mass loading effect generates the
signal. At later stages when the analyte homogenization and
polymer stiffening sets in the effect of mass loading is reduced
due to the opposite sign of the viscoelastic effect. This cancel-
lation appears more effective in the two-port resonator device.
That means a two-port resonator device is more sensitive to
viscoelastic effects. The differences in the mass sensitivity
and noise behavior of the two oscillators have been explained
in terms of phase response characteristics. The higher phase
slope of the two-port device results in lower phase noise (or
better stability). However for the same reason the two-port
has poorer mass sensitivity. The one-port resonator device
has higher mass sensitivity and lower viscoelastic sensitivity.
This makes the one-port Colpitt oscillator to become a better
sensor.
Acknowledgements
The authors are thankful to the Director, SSPL for his kind
permission to publish this work. The authors are grateful to
Defense Research and Development Establishment, Gwalior,
India, for support in various ways.
References
[1] N. Levit, D. Pestov, G. Tepper, High surface area polymer coat-
ings for SAW-based chemical sensor applications, Sens. Actuators
B, Chem. 82 (2002) 241–249.
[2] E.J. Houser, R.A. McGill, V.K. Nguyen, R. Chung, D.W. Weir,
Recent developments in sorbent coatings and chemical detectors at
the Naval Research Laboratory for explosives and chemical agents,
Proc. SPIE—Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 38 (Pt. 1–2) (2000) 504–510.
[3] F.L. Dickert, P. Forth, W.E. Bulst, G. Fischerauer, U. Knauer, SAW
devices-sensitivity enhancement in going from 80 MHz to 1 GHz,
Sens. Actuators B, Chem. 46 (1998) 120–125.
[4] J.P. Black, B. Chen, R. Quinn, M. Madou, R.M. White, Compari-
son of the performance of flexural plate wave and surface acoustic
wave devices as the detector in a gas chromatograph, IEEE Ultrason.
Symp. Proc. 1 (2000) 435–440.
[5] I.D. Avramov, M. Rapp, A. Voigt, U. Stahl, M. Dirschka, Compara-
tive studies on polymer coated SAW and STW resonators for chem-
ical gas sensor applications, in: Proceedings of the 2000 IEEE/EIA
International Frequency Control Symposium and Exhibition, 2000,
pp. 58–65.
[6] Y.V. Gulyaev, R.G. Kryshtal, A.V. Medved, V.W. Shernet, V.E.
Zemlyakov, Gas sensor based on SAW narrow aperture devices,
IEEE Ultrason. Symp. Proc. 1 (2000) 441–444.
 A.T. Nimal et al. / Sensors and Actuators B 114 (2006) 316–325
[7] J. Riebel, S. Stier, A. Voigt, M. Rapp, Influence of phase position
on the performance of chemical sensors based on SAW device oscil-
lators, Anal. Chem. 70 (1998) 5190–5197.
[8] Alexander Glas, Principles of SAWR stabilized oscillators, Applica-
tion note #1, Siemens Matshusita Components (Oct 1998) avail-
able at http://www.web-ee.com/primers/files/saw-based oscillators
and transmitters.pdf.
[9] D.E. Frerking, Crystal oscillator design and temperature compensa-
tion, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York Library of Congress
card No. 77-17876, 1978 (Chapter 7).
[10] W.L. Smith, T.E. Parker, in: E.A. Gerber, A. Ballato (Eds.), Precision
Frequency Control, vol. 2, Academic Press, London, 1985, pp. 53–61
(Chapter 8).
[11] RF 1172-433.92MHz SAW filter and RO 2101-433.92 MHz SAW
resonator data sheets can be obtained from http://www.rfm.com of
rf monolithics Inc.
[12] D.W. Allan, Time and frequency (time-domain) characterization, esti-
mation, and prediction of precision clocks and oscillators, IEEE
Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Contr. 34 (6) (1987) 647–654.
[13] P.K. Gutch, Vinita Dubey, G. Lal, D.K. Jaiswal, K. Shekar, Process
for the preparation of an interface coating material for chemical
sensors, Indian Patent, Application no. 265/DEL/2004.
[14] D.E. Tevault, J.H. Buchanan, L.C. Buettner, Ambient volatility of
DMMP, in: Proceedings of the Fifteenth Symposium On Thermo-
physical Properties, Boulder, CO, USA, June 22–27, 2003. Available
at http:/www.symp15.nist.gov/pdf/p440.pdf.
[15] C.K. Campbell, Surface Acoustic Wave Devices for Mobile and
Wireless Communications, Academic Press, San Diego, 1998 (Chap-
ter 18).
[16] S. Martin, G.C. Frye, S.D. Senturia, Dynamics and response of
polymer coated surface acoustic wave devices: effect of viscoelastic
properties and film resonance, Anal. Chem. 66 (1994) 2201–2219.
Biographies
A.T. Nimal received his BSc (1991) and MSc (1993) in Physics
from Government Arts College, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore and
PhD (2004) in Physics from National Physical Laboratory, Delhi, and
325
University of Delhi, Delhi. He is working as a scientist at Solid State
Physics Laboratory, Delhi since 1997. His present research interests are
in SAW sensor systems and electronic noses, which include development
of low noise SAW oscillators, rf subsystem, digital subsystem (MCU,
PLD and FPGA) and sensor characterization. He has also worked in
the field of high TC superconducting thin films and transition edge
bolometer IR sensors during his PhD.
Mohan Singh was born in Bharatpur, India on August 2, 1972. He
received his BTech in Electrical and Electronics Engineering in 1995
from Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi. Presently he is work-
ing as a scientist in Solid State Physics Laboratory, Delhi, since 2000.
Earlier he was working as a scientist in Defense Laboratory, Jodhpur
(1997–2000). His main area of interest is in design and development of
low phase noise SAW based oscillators for electronic noses and biosensors
and their characterization by Allan Variance, Phase Noise Measurement
and thermal modulation. He has also worked in high-resolution IR target
development for defense applications.
Upendra Mittal was born in Mathura, India in 1974. He received his BE
(1997) from Institute of Engineers, Calcutta and ME (2003) in Electri-
cal Engineering from Delhi College of Engineering, University of Delhi.
He is an Associate of Institution of Engineers (India), Calcutta. Since
1998 he is working in the area of SAW based chemical and biological
sensors in Solid State Physics Laboratory, Delhi. He has developed var-
ious high stability SAW oscillator-based sensor prototypes. He is also
involved in fabrication and characterization of SAW devices (filter, delay
line, resonator). His research interests are rf circuit design and rf char-
acterization. Currently he is working for the development of SAW based
E-nose system.
R.D.S. Yadava received his BSc (Hons) (1974), MSc (1976) and PhD
(1981) in Physics from Benaras Hindu University, Varanasi. He is work-
ing as a scientist at Solid State Physics Laboratory, Delhi. His present
research interests include mainly the SAW devices and sensors, rf sig-
nal processing, pattern recognition and electronic nose. He has worked
in diverse research and development fields: SAW devices (filter, delay
line, resonator) design, fabrication and characterization, HgCdTe crystal
preparation and characterization, IR detectors, MOS devices, fractals in
noise and conduction phenomena, percolation systems, ion implantation
and radiation blistering in metals.