This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been
fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIM.2020.2986143, IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
Dual-frequency sensor for thick rind fruit
quality assessment
Chainarong Kittiyanpunya, Member, IEEE, Chuwong Phongcharoenpanich, Member, IEEE, and
Monai Krairiksh, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—This research proposes a novel multi-beam dual-
frequency sensor system to assess the quality of thick rind fruits
based on phase difference between lower- and higher-frequency
reflection coefficients (12). The proposed sensor system consists
of five dual-band antennas and a customized circuit that
approximates lower- and higher-frequency phase difference. The
main components of the customized circuit are down-conversion
mixers and phase detector module. For comparison, simulations
were initially carried out using single- (1 GHz) and dual-frequency
(1 GHz/2.3 GHz) sensor systems, and results indicated lower
accuracy in classification of thick rind fruits of the single-
frequency scheme. As a result, a dual-frequency sensor prototype
was fabricated and experimented with normal and granulated
plastic pomelo models and real pomelo fruits. The experimental
results revealed that the average 12 of the normal and granulated
pomelos are almost identical, while the standard deviation (SD) of
12 of the granulated pomelo is significantly larger than the
normal pomelo. SD is thus used as the determinant of pomelo
quality. The multi-beam 1 GHz/2.3 GHz dual-frequency sensor
system efficiently differentiates between normal and granulated
pomelo fruits. As such, the proposed sensor system is operationally
appropriate for quality control of thick rind fruits.
Index Terms—Microwave sensor, fruit classification, dielectric
constant variation, dual-band antenna.
I. INTRODUCTION
T oday information technology plays a key role in smart
agriculture. Wireless sensor network [1] and internet of
things (IoT) [2]-[3] are increasingly being used in monitoring
and logistics of agricultural produce.
Growing global consumption of thick rind fruits has
contributed to their greater economic significance. There are a
variety of thick rind fruits, such as pomelo, watermelon, and
durian. To command premium prices, quality control of the
fruits is paramount. Conventionally, fruit quality assessment
relies on human sensory input. However, the practice is
subjective, leading to inconsistent fruit quality and reputation
damage.
Manuscript received xxxxxx xx, xxxx; revised xxxxxx xx, xxxx; accepted
xxxxxx xx, xxxx. Date of publication xxxxxx xx, xxxx; date of current version
xxxxxx xx, xxxx. The associate editor coordinating the review of this paper and
approving it for publication was xxxxxxxxxx.
Chainarong Kittiyanpunya is with the Department of Mechatronics
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Rajamangala University of Technology
Rattanakosin, Salaya 73170, Thailand (e-mail: chainarong.kit@rmutr.ac.th)
0018-9456 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on April 29,2020 at 11:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
1
Sensory-based quality control methods of thick rind fruits
include technologies based on physicochemical and textural
properties [4], machine vision for sorting fruit [5], fruit aroma
using electronic nose [6], vibration response [7], and acoustic
response and peels [8]. In [4], a physicochemical and textural-
based technique is proposed to determine quality of pomelos by
using total soluble solid and acidity. The method is accurate but
requires the destruction of the samples. In [5], the quality of
mango fruits is determined by the color of the peel using
imaging technology. The result is relatively satisfactory but is
subject to the effect of sunlight. In [6], electronic nose
technology based on aroma is used to assess fruit ripening. The
technology is operated in a closed system where the aroma (i.e.,
gases released by the fruit) is analyzed by the sensor. Vibration
response [7] and acoustic impulse response [8] are also used to
classify immature and mature fruits. However, the sensor must
be attached to the fruit, rendering it impractical for use in a
continuous process.
Advanced high-accuracy techniques have also been
proposed, including X-ray imaging [9] and magnetic resonance
imaging (MRI) [10]. Despite high accuracy, these advanced
technologies are prohibitively costly for real use. Furthermore,
visible (VIS) and near-infrared (NIR) bands were deployed to
non-destructively assess the fruit quality [11], but VIS and NIR
are more suitable for thin rind fruits. The measurement is less
reliable for thick rind fruits due to low penetrability of VIS and
NIR (i.e., the inability to reach the flesh layer) [12]. Indeed, the
quality of fruits should be evaluated based on their flesh.
Free space microwave measurement is a non-destructive
technique which is not subject to the effect of sunlight and
requires no direct contact with the fruit. Despite lower accuracy
compared with X-ray imaging, MRI, VIS, and NIR, the free
space microwave technology is cost-effective and is
particularly suitable for thick rind fruits.
There are several non-destructive techniques to assess the
content of a material using microwave frequency [13]-[19].
Besides, microwave frequency can be applied in contact or non-
contact mode. In contact mode, an open-ended probe technique
Chuwong Phongcharoenpanich and Monai Krairiksh are with the Faculty of
Engineering, King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok
10520, Thailand (e-mail: chuwong.ph@kmitl.ac.th; monai.kr@kmitl.ac.th;
kkmonai47@gmail.com).
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIM.2020.2986143, IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
can measure over a wide frequency range with moderate
accuracy, but the test material must be sufficiently thick and the
contact surface must be flat and without air gap [13]-[15]. In
non-contact mode, the free-space technique in [16] is suitable
for assessment of fruits. In [17], a microwave sensor with
coupled patch antenna and artificial neural network was
developed to characterize fruit tastes. In [18]-[19], microwave
sensors based on wireless communication technology were
used to determine the fruit quality; however, the captured
signals were reflected from both the rind and flesh. In addition,
a closer investigation of raw data also revealed that the
measured results contained nuances and overlaps, while the
relative permittivity ( r − j r) of rind-free flesh indicated
measurement discrepancies.
Specifically, this research proposes a dual-frequency sensor
system to assess the quality of thick rind pomelo fruits. The
principle of the proposed sensor system is based on phase
difference between lower- and higher-frequency reflection
coefficients. For comparison purposes, simulations were
carried out with single- (1 GHz) and dual-frequency (1 GHz/
2.3 GHz) sensor systems. The results indicated that the single-
frequency scheme achieved lower accuracy in classification of
pomelo fruits. As a result, a prototype of dual-frequency sensor
system was fabricated, and experiments were carried out with
plastic pomelo models and real pomelo fruits.
The novelty of this study lies in the development and
application of 1 GHz/2.3 GHz dual-frequency sensor based on
phase difference between lower- and higher-frequency
reflection coefficients to assess the quality of thick rind fruit.
The dual-frequency sensor system is made up of five dual-band
antennas and a customized circuit for phase difference
approximation.
The organization of this research is as follows: Section I is
the introduction. Section II describes the theory and principle
of reflection coefficients. Section III simulates the effects of
single- and dual-frequency sensors, and of different dual-
frequency schemes. Section IV deals with the sensor design and
development, and Section V discusses the experimental results
using dual-frequency sensor prototype. The concluding
remarks are provided in Section VI.
II. PRINCIPLE OF REFLECTION COEFFICIENTS
The reflected waves of a typical dielectric sphere consist of
four scattering contributors: front axial reflection, rear axial
reflection, glory refraction, and internal surface wave [20].
Meanwhile, a conducting sphere comprises two scattering
contributors: front axial reflection and creeping wave.
For lossless and low-loss spherical media, the dominant
scattering contributors are front axial reflection, rear axial
reflection, multiple internal (glory) reflection, and surface
wave. For lossy spherical medium, only front axial reflection is
the main contributor, disregarding surface wave, rear axial
reflection, and internal reflection without loss of generality.
Let us consider a layered medium of spherical structure with
outer layer thickness d, representing a pomelo fruit (Figure 1).
The dielectric properties of the outer layer (rind) are µ1, ε1 and
0018-9456 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on April 29,2020 at 11:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2
σ1, and those of the inner layer (flesh) are µ2, ε2, and σ2. The
structure is illuminated by a uniform plane wave in free space,
where the dielectric properties are µ0, ε0, and σ0 (σ0 = 0 S/m).
Figure 1 shows the derivation of the reflection coefficient. The
input reflection coefficient (Γin ) at the outer surface is
expressed in equation (1) [21].
Fig. 1 A typical thick rind fruit and reflection analysis
n
in  in =  01 + T01T10  12
i i −1 −2i1d − j 2i1d
10 e e + RGI (1)
i=1
where |Γin | and ∠Φ𝑖𝑛 are the magnitude and phase of reflection
coefficient at the outer surface, Γ01 and Γ10 are the reflection
coefficients between the free space and the outer layer, T01 and
T10 are the transmission coefficients between the free space and
the outer layer, Γ12 is the reflection coefficient at the boundary
of the two media, 𝛼1 and 𝛽1 are the attenuation constant and
phase constant in the outer medium, and RGI is the total effect
of rear axial reflection, glory refraction, and internal surface
wave.
Since all the reflection and transmission terms in the
summation have a magnitude less than 1, the summation
becomes negligible as the order increases. As a result, the
summation in equation (1) can be eliminated and the expression
is rewritten in equation (2) [22].
in in = 01 + T01T10 12 e− j 21d + RGI
01 + 12 01e−21d e− j 2 1d (2)
= + RGI
1 + 0112 e−21d e− j 2 1d
In equation (2), in is the sum of reflection coefficients of the
rind and flesh. If in is used to assess the quality of a thick rind
fruit, the result would be less accurate because 01 and T10
(belonging to the rind) are inadvertently accounted for. Rather,
12, which belongs to the flesh layer, should be used in thick-
rind fruit quality assessment.
Rewriting equation (2), one can solve for Γ12 as shown in
equation (3). For simplicity, RGI of lossy material could be
eliminated without loss of generality
in − 01
12 12 = . (3)
( 01 − in 01 ) e−2 d e− j 2 d
1 1
In equation (3), all the reflection coefficients (in, 01, and
12) are complex numbers, and in and 01 must be known
before deriving the magnitude (|12|) and phase (12) of 12 for
assessment of the flesh quality of thick rind fruits.
Due to the ability of higher frequency to penetrate the rind
but fail to reach the flesh, the reflection coefficient of higher
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIM.2020.2986143, IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 3

frequency could be assumed 01. in is the reflection coefficient granulated flesh (  r _ Granulated = 39.61-j9.14 at 1 GHz). The
of lower frequency due to its penetrability through the rind to relative permittivities were used to construct the pomelo
the flesh. Thus, dual-frequency technology is required to simulation models.
determine the reflection coefficient of the flesh layer (Γ12 ).

III. SIMULATION BASED ON PROPOSED PRINCIPLE

Figure 2 illustrates the simulation schematic of this research.
A waveguide port functions as the transmitter/receiver, and
CST studio suite [23] calculates the reflection coefficients from
the pomelo fruit model. The waveguide port is guided by two
perfect electric conductors (PEC) and two perfect magnetic
conductors (PMC) to generate incident transverse
electromagnetic (TEM) wave.

(a)

Fig. 2 The simulation schematic of this research

Thick rind fruits, e.g., pomelo, watermelon, are typically of

spherical shape or, specifically, concentric dielectric sphere
with rind as the outer layer and flesh as the inner layer. In this
research, simulations were carried out using a pomelo fruit
model whose outer and inner diameters are 16 and 12 cm, which (b)
are the typical size of pomelo fruit.
The flesh portion of a typical pomelo fruit consists of 15
sections, and the simulations are to differentiate between
normal and granulated pomelo fruits. Granulation is a condition
in which juice vesicles become dry and tough, which makes the
fruit unpalatable. In the simulation, the pomelo that contains
one granulated section (out of 15 sections) is regarded as
failing.
Prior to simulation, the relative permittivity of real pomelo
fruits (three each for normal and granulated pomelos) were
determined using Agilent 85070E dielectric probe connected to
N9916A FieldFox microwave vector network analyzer (Figure
3(a)). The relative permittivity of the rind and flesh was (c)
Fig. 3 Measured relative permittivity of real pomelo fruit: (a) Experiment with
measured using the dielectric probe, given the temperatures of
dielectric probe (b) Dielectric constant (  r ) (c) Loss factor (  r )
25°C and 32°C. To obtain accurate relative permittivity, the
pomelo fleshes were homogenously pressed prior to
A. Comparison between single and dual frequency
measurement by the dielectric probe. The experiments were
carried out under two different temperature conditions to Figure 4 illustrates the simulated reflection coefficients of
investigate the effect of temperature on relative permittivity. thin- and thick-rind pomelo fruits relative to frequency. For the
The results demonstrated that temperature has minimal impact thin rind model, the outer and inner diameters are 16 and 15 cm,
on the relative permittivity, as shown in Figures 3(b) and (c). resulting in a rind thickness of 5 mm. The difference between
Figures 3(b) and (c) show the relative permittivity ( r − j r) |S11| of normal and granulated thin-rind pomelos over 0.9 - 1.1
GHz is large, making fruit classification (sorting) possible. The
of the rind and the flesh over 0.5 GHz – 5 GHz. The relative reflection coefficient of the thin rind model (Γ01 ) is negligible.
permittivity of the rind is between 23.20-j7.38 and 22.39- Meanwhile, for the thick rind model, |S11| of the normal and
j10.67. The relative permittivity of normal pomelo flesh granulated pomelos are almost identical, making it very
(  r _ Normal = 68.28-j10.62 at 1 GHz) is higher than that of the difficult to differentiate between passing and failing fruits.

0018-9456 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on April 29,2020 at 11:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIM.2020.2986143, IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 4

Table II presents ∆|12| and ∆12 when the incident wave is

unaligned with the granulated section (inclined angle = 45°).
∆|12| is 0.019 and ∆12 is 2.15°. The detection performance
decreases when compared with the aligned case (∆|12| = 0.038
and ∆12 = 3.874°). Similar to the aligned case, the detection
performance of the dual-frequency system is better than the
single-frequency scheme.
B. Effect of variable dual frequency schemes
Simulations were further carried out under variable dual
frequencies using thick rind pomelo fruit model: 0.9 GHz/
2.45 GHz, 1 GHz/2.3 GHz, and 1.1 GHz/1.5 GHz. The
Fig. 4 Simulated reflection coefficient of pomelo fruit lower/higher-frequency penetration depths of 0.9GHz/2.45GHz
and 1 GHz/2.3 GHz schemes are 35 mm/8.9 mm and
The result of the thick rind model shows two peaks at around 32 mm/10 mm, indicating the lower frequency could penetrate
1 and 2.3 GHz, with the penetration depths of the rind of 32 and to the flesh layer while the higher frequency could not, given
10 mm, respectively [24]. For the thick rind model, the lower the rind thickness of 20 mm. The lower/higher-frequency
frequency penetrates to the flesh layer, while the higher penetration depths of 1.1 GHz/1.5 GHz scheme are 32 and 20.5
frequency fails to reach the flesh layer. Specifically, at 1 GHz, mm, with the higher frequency (1.5 GHz) penetrating to the
the reflection coefficient belongs to the rind and the flesh, while flesh layer.
at 2.3 GHz, it belongs to the rind. Both frequencies (1 and 2.3
GHz) are thus selected for subsequent experiment. TABLE III
Simulated magnitude and phase of variable dual frequency schemes
TABLE I
Simulated magnitude and phase difference under aligned incident wave and 0.9GHz/2.45GHz dual frequency scheme
granulated section Case |12| 12 ∆|12| ∆12
Single frequency at 1 GHz Granulated 0.489 174.845°
0.023 0.910°
Case |1 GHz| 1 GHz ∆|1 GHZ| ∆1 GHz Normal 0.466 175.755°
Granulated 0.282 134.149°
0.008 1.89° 1GHz/2.3GHz dual frequency scheme
Normal 0.274 136.039°
Case |12| 12 ∆|12| ∆12
Dual frequency at 1 GHz and 2.3 GHz Granulated 0.501 186.031°
0.038 3.874°
Case |12| 12 ∆|12| ∆12 Normal 0.539 189.905°
Granulated 0.501 186.031°
0.038 3.874° 1GHz/1.5GHz dual frequency scheme
Normal 0.539 189.905°
Case |12| 12 ∆|12| ∆12
Table I compares the simulated reflection coefficients of Granulated 0.371 135.150°
0.010 1.258°
single- (1 GHz) and dual-frequency (1 and 2.3 GHz) sensor Normal 0.361 136.408°
systems. The incident wave was directly aligned with the
granulated section. ∆|1GHZ| and ∆|12| denote the difference In Table III, the 1 GHz/2.3 GHz scheme achieves the largest
between the magnitude of reflection coefficient of normal and simulated ∆|12| and ∆12 as the lower frequency (1 GHz) could
granulated pomelo fruits of single- and dual-frequency sensor penetrate the rind through to the flesh, and the higher frequency
systems, respectively. ∆1GHz and ∆12 are the difference (2.3 GHz) could penetrate the rind but does not reach the flesh.
between the corresponding reflection coefficient phases. In The maximum reflection coefficients are achieved at 1 and 2.3
Table I, ∆|1GHZ| and ∆1GHz are 0.008 and 1.89°; and ∆|12| and GHz (Figure 4), indicating that the wavelengths of the front
∆12 are 0.038 and 3.874°. By comparison, the detection axial reflection, rear axial reflection, glory refraction, and
performance of the dual-frequency system is higher than the internal surface wave are in-phase [20], thus enhancing the
single-frequency scheme. reflection coefficient.
As shown in Table III, the simulated ∆|12| and ∆12 of
TABLE II 0.9 GHz/2.45 GHz and 1 GHz/1.5 GHz schemes are lower due
Simulated magnitude and phase difference under unaligned incident wave and
granulated section
to lower reflection coefficients. In addition, the higher
frequency of the 1 GHz/1.5 GHz scheme achieves a penetration
Dual frequency at 1 GHz and 2.3 GHz depth of 20.5 mm, slightly penetrating the flesh layer. As a
Case |12| 12 ∆|12| ∆12 result, the 0.9 GHz/2.45 GHz and 1 GHz/1.5 GHz schemes are
Granulated 0.520 187.755° less ideal. The 1 GHz/2.3 GHz scheme is thus adopted for
0.019 2.15°
Normal 0.539 189.905° sensor development.

0018-9456 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on April 29,2020 at 11:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIM.2020.2986143, IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 5

Generally, a detector module should be able to detect signal
with the resolution of response greater than or equal to the
hundredths of decimal unit. However, in this research, ∆|12| is
in decimal hundredths and thousandths, rendering it too small
to be used in the real sensor. As a result, 12 of 1 GHz/2.3 GHz
scheme is used in the quality assessment of thick rind fruits.
IV. SENSOR DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT
Given multiple pomelo flesh sections, the fruit quality
assessment using the 1 GHz/2.3 GHz sensor system should be
carried out in a sequential multi-angular fashion. The phase of
reflection coefficient of granulated flesh is different from that
of normal flesh. As a result, the average phase of multi-angular
reflection coefficients (A) of normal and granulated pomelo
flesh are different, and the standard deviation (SD) of phase of
multi-angular reflection coefficients of granulated pomelo is
larger due to different dielectric properties. Indeed, A and SD
could potentially be used for classification between passing and
failing pomelo fruits.
In the normal pomelo model using four-beam dual-frequency
sensor, the simulated relative permittivity of the flesh section is
uniform, resulting in identical 12 and SD of 0. However, the
simulated relative permittivity of granulated flesh is not
uniform, with A = 189.09° and SD = 2.43. For comparison
purposes, simulations were further undertaken using eight-
beam dual-frequency sensor, and A and SD of granulated flesh
are 189.29° and 1.68.
By comparison, the four-beam sensor is capable of detecting
granulation in pomelo fruits and less bulky, with half-power
beamwidth of the antenna (85°) adequately covering each
quadrant of the spherical fruit [25]. As a result, the four-antenna
switchable system is adopted in the sensor development.
The simulated lower- and higher-frequency reflection
coefficients of four-beam dual-frequency sensor system are
0.27  136.04° and 0.20  91.04°, and the product of in and
01 is very small (0.05  47.08°). As a result, this product term
in equation (3) can be eliminated and Γ12 can be rewritten as in
equation (6).

A=
1
P
N
( in − 01 ) A
i (4) 12   e2 d    e j A e 2 d  (6)
N i =1 01 01
N
1
( P − A)
The simulated higher frequency reflection coefficient (01) is
SD =
2
(5)
N i =1
i
lower than in (01<in). The lower 01 is attributable to low
relative permittivity of the rind. The subtraction term
where Pi is 12 of a reflected wave around the fruit (P1, P2,…, ( A e jA ) in equation (6) corresponds to the lower frequency
PN) received by a receiver from N directions, where N
reflection coefficient, indicating that the phase of lower
represents the number of beams.
frequency coefficient (Low freq) belongs to the rind and the
flesh, and that of higher frequency coefficient (High freq)
ΓLow freq_2 ΓHigh freq_2
belongs to the thick rind. Thus, the difference between Low freq
and High freq is an approximation of 12 of the flesh layer.
o
90

j  Low freq (
j  Low freq −  High freq )
Γ12_2 in e in e
12 e j12  j  High freq
=
ΓHigh freq_3 6 5 4 3 ΓLow freq_1 01 e  01 (7)
Γ12_3 7

12  (  Low freq −  High freq )

2
o 8 o
180 9
1 0
15 Γ12_1
ΓLow freq_3 10
11 12 13 14 ΓHigh freq_1
Figure 6 (a) illustrates the design architecture of 1 GHz/
Γ12_4 2.3 GHz dual-frequency sensor circuit using AD8302 phase
detector module in which a voltage signal is generated to
270o approximate the phase difference. The lower- and higher-
ΓHigh freq_4 ΓLow freq_4
frequency reflected waves are synchronized before phase
difference estimation, requiring down-conversion mixers
Fig. 5 Simulated four-beam dual-frequency sensor system As seen in Figure 6 (a), the lower (1 GHz) radio frequency
(RF) is fed into power divider #3, which is further divided into
Prior to the sensor development, the optimal number of two outputs and fed to the local oscillator (LO) of mixer #2 and
beams was determined using dual-band unidirectional cross to the 3rd port of power divider #4 prior to RF switch. The RF
dipole antenna [25] at 1 GHz and 2.3 GHz and with the switch sequentially feeds antennas #2 - 5 (Ports 2 - 5) which are
simulated normal and granulated pomelo fruit models. Figure 5 arranged encircling the fruit (Figure 6 (b)). Antennas #2 - 5
illustrates four target locations where irradiation was carried out irradiate lower radio frequency and sequentially capture
using 1 GHz/2.3 GHz dual-frequency sensor system (N = 4). antenna#1-generated higher radio frequency which is reflected
The average reflection-coefficient phase from the target from the rind (Figure 6 (c)).
locations are calculated by equation (4) and standard deviation
by equation (5).

0018-9456 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on April 29,2020 at 11:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIM.2020.2986143, IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 6

employed in front of phase detector module to attenuate

unwanted frequency. In addition, intermediate frequency
should be higher than the noise floor of the phase detector
module to avoid measurement inaccuracy, so amplifiers are
used to enhance IF prior to determining the phase difference by
the phase detector module.
In the proposed architecture (Figure 6 (a)), the phase detector
module is used for measuring the signal ratio of IF Low freq to IF
High freq. However, the signal ratio fails to correspond to equation
(7). As a result, the signals (IF Low freq and IF High freq) need to be
converted into reflection coefficients (in and 01) by dividing
the signals (IF Low freq and IF High freq) by the incident wave signal
(IFinc), as shown in equation (8).

j  Low freq
IFLow Freq e j1
in e =
IFinc_Low Freq e j3
(8)
j  High freq
IFHigh Freq e j2
 01 e =
IFinc_High Freq e j4

where 1 and 2 are the phase of IF Low freq and IF High freq ; IF
inc_Low freq and IF inc_High freq are the incident wave of lower

(a) frequency and higher frequency; and  3 and  4 are the phase
of IF inc_Low freq and IF inc_High freq.
According to [21], the reflection coefficient of a conductor is
1  180°. In this research, IF Low freq and IF High freq of a conductor
(i.e., conducting plane) are initially determined using the four-
beam 1 GHz/2.3 GHz dual-frequency sensor system. The signal
of incident wave (IFinc) is the ratio of IF Low freq to IF High freq of
the conductor, as expressed in equation (9).
j ( 3 −180)
IFLow freq of conductor e IFinc_Low freq e j3
IFinc = = (9)
(b) (c) IFHigh freq of conductor e j ( 4 −180) IFinc_High freq e j4
Fig. 6 Schematic of four-beam dual-frequency sensor: (a) sensor circuit,
(b) top view, (c) side view of the sensor system
To obtain the reflection coefficient of the flesh layer, the
The higher-frequency reflected waves captured by antennas signal ratio of IF Low freq to IF High freq of pomelo fruit model is
#2 - 5 are transmitted to power divider #4 and to the input radio divided by the incident wave signal (eq.(9)). The reflection
frequency (RF #2) of mixer #2, where intermediate frequency coefficient of pomelo flesh layer is expressed in equation (10),
(IF) is determined by the difference between LO #2 and RF #2 which corresponds to equation (7).
frequencies. The intermediate frequencies of the signal
IFLow freq
captured by antennas #2 - 5 are used in lieu of higher frequency
reflection signal (IF High freq). IFHigh freq
=
( IF Low freq )( IF inc_High freq )
Meanwhile, the higher RF (2.3 GHz) is fed into power IFinc_Low freq ( IF High freq )( IF inc_Low freq ) (10)
divider #1, which is further divided into two outputs to 3 rd port IFinc_High freq
of power divider #2 and to LO of mixer #1. The higher j  Low freq
in e
frequency is subsequently transmitted to antenna #1, which = j  High freq
irradiates higher RF and captures lower RF (irradiated from  01 e
antennas#2-#5) reflected from the rind and the flesh. The
captured lower frequency is transmitted to power divider #2 and Figure 7 depicts a prototype of 1 GHz/2.3 GHz dual-
to input radio frequency (RF #1) of mixer #1, where frequency sensor system where the frequencies are generated
intermediate frequency is determined by the difference between by two TPI version 5 synthesizers with +15 dBm output power,
LO #1 and RF #1. The intermediate frequency of the signal controlled by Raspberry Pi controller. The synthesizers feed
captured by antenna #1 is used in lieu of lower frequency radio frequency to four 1 GHz/2.3 GHz Wilkinson power
reflection signal (IF Low freq). dividers whose insertion loss is less than 1 dB and isolation in
IF High freq and IF Low freq normally suffer from unwanted excess of 20 dB.
frequency, such as interference and harmonics. Filters are thus

0018-9456 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on April 29,2020 at 11:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIM.2020.2986143, IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
Fig. 7 Prototype of four-beam dual-frequency sensor
The dual-frequency sensor system consists of five antennas:
a fixed beam antenna (antenna #1) and four encircling antennas
(antennas #2 - 5). Antenna #1 is a dual-band (1 GHz/2.3 GHz)
unidirectional cross dipole antenna, with HPBW and gain of
82° and 5.1 dBi. Antenna #1 is located at the base of the sensor.
Antennas #2 - 5 are of dual-band (1 GHz/2.3 GHz) quasi Yagi-
Uda antenna, with HPBW and gain of 79° and 5 dBi. Antennas
#2 - 5 are connected to single-pole four-throw (SP4T) antenna
switch which is controlled by the Raspberry Pi controller.
The isolation between antenna #1 and antennas #2 - 5 is
measured without the customized circuit. The isolation is
approximately 8 dB at 1 GHz and 2.3 GHz, indicating high
coupling of the sensor system (antennas #1 - 5) and thus
erroneous measurement. To mitigate the mutual coupling
between antennas, antenna #1 is enclosed with a cylindrical
aluminum shield (Figure 7), thus achieving an 18 dB isolation.
The aluminum shield affects the reflection coefficients of the
antenna, however. The reflection coefficient of antenna #1 with
aluminum shield is below -10 dB over 0.95-1.04 GHz and 2.25-
2.36 GHz; and those of antennas #2 - 5 are also below -10 dB
over 0.98-1.03 GHz and 2.23-2.35 GHz. The reflection
coefficients indicate that, at 1 GHz and 2.3 GHz, antennas
#1 - 5 are capable of radiating and capturing more than 90% of
total power.
The reflected waves captured by antennas # 1 - 5 are then
transmitted to SYM-30DHW mixers to convert the lower-
(1 GHz) and higher-frequency (2.3 GHz) reflected waves into
intermediate frequency reflected waves at 1.3 GHz (IF High freq
and IF Low freq). IF High freq and IF Low freq are transmitted to
bandpass filters to remove unwanted frequencies. The bandpass
filters operate between 1220 MHz and 1340 MHz with insertion
loss less than 2 dB. The filtered IF High freq and IF Low freq are
enhanced by RF amplifiers before entering the phase detector
module.
In case of no RF amplifiers, IF High freq and IF Low freq are
approximately -48 dBm, measured by N9916A FieldFox
microwave vector network analyzer. The results are close to the
noise floor of AD8302 phase detector (-60 dBm). IF High freq and
IF Low freq without RF amplifiers result in a signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR) of 12 dB, which is inadequate for sensor application
0018-9456 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on April 29,2020 at 11:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
7
given that SNR should be in excess of 20 dB [19]. As a result,
a pair of low-noise RF amplifiers (20 dB gain) are used to
enhance SNR to 32 dB. The amplified IF High freq and IF Low freq
are transmitted to AD8302 phase detector to convert into a
voltage signal to represent the phase difference (12). The
voltage signal is subsequently digitally converted by MCP3008
10-bit analog-to-digital converter (ADC); and fed into the
Raspberry Pi controller to derive A and SD of 12. The
Raspberry Pi controller is used to control the TPI synthesizers,
SP4T antenna switch, and calculate A and SD of 12.
The principle of the proposed four-beam 1 GHz/2.3 GHz
dual-frequency sensor system is based on the plane wave
incident on a pomelo fruit. As a result, the separation between
the sensor system and the fruit must be in the far-field region.
However, due to low transmitting power generated by the
synthesizers (+15 dBm), the separation is optimized and the
optimal distance is 18 cm. Given the far-field region of the
proposed sensor system at 1 GHz of 12 cm or higher, the
distance (18 cm) is in the far-field region. Meanwhile, the
optimal distance (18 cm) is in the near-field region for 2.3 GHz,
given the far-field region of the sensor system at 2.3 GHz of 30
cm or higher. The near-field characteristic of the sensor system
at the higher frequency (2.3 GHz) could result in erroneous
measurement. Indeed, in equation (7), the higher-frequency
reflected wave belongs to the rind as the higher RF fails to reach
the flesh layer. Given the optimal distance between the sensor
system and the rind of 18 cm, the phase difference between
lower and higher frequency (12) corresponds to the reflected
wave of the lower frequency (1 GHz).
V. EXPERIMENTAL RESULT
A. Measured results from plastic spherical-shaped model
Figure 8 (a) illustrates a spherical-shaped plastic thick-rind
pomelo fruit model with two layers (layers 1 and 2). The plastic
model represents a typical pomelo fruit with the outer and inner
diameters of 16 and 12 cm. The plastic model is used to validate
the four-beam 1 GHz/2.3 GHz dual-frequency sensor system.
In the experiment, layer 1 is filled with concentrated syrup with
relative permittivity of 20.71-j9.29 to represent the thick rind,
and layer 2 consists of 15 sections, representing the pomelo
flesh, to allow for alternation of substances representing normal
and granulated flesh.
(a) (b)
Fig. 8 Experimental setup of plastic thick-rind pomelo fruit model: (a) Empty
plastic pomelo model, (b) Filled plastic pomelo model in the dual-frequency
sensor system
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIM.2020.2986143, IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) <
For normal flesh, layer 2 is filled with water whose relative
permittivity is 75.23-j 5.93. For granulated flesh, the granulated
section is filled with syrup whose relative permittivity is
37.8-j12.25. The dielectric constant (  r ) of water is 1.99 times
higher than that of syrup, and 𝜀′𝑟 of normal flesh is 1.73 times
higher than that of granulated flesh. The loss factor (  r ) of
normal flesh is 1.16 times higher than that of granulated flesh,
and  r of syrup is 2.06 times higher than that of water. The
comparison reveals the similarity between the dielectric
properties of water, syrups, normal and granulated pomelo
flesh. As a result, the plastic pomelo fruit model is operationally
suitable for the proposed four-beam dual-frequency sensor
system.
To calibrate the four-beam dual-frequency sensor system, a
copper plate was used to normalize different phases of the
reflected waves of antennas #1 - 5 and to determine IFinc. After
calibration, the copper plate was removed and then replaced
with the thick-rind plastic pomelo fruit model (Figure 8 (b)).
Experiments were carried out with the normal and granulated
pomelo plastic models by rotating the position of granulated
section in 90° increment from 0° to 270°. The granulated model
refers to the pomelo fruit model with one granulated section
(out of 15 sections). Each position was irradiated fifty times and
measurements undertaken.
(a)
(b)
Fig. 9 Phase difference (12) of the normal and granulated plastic models: (a)
Average, (b) SD
Figure 9 (a) illustrates the average 12 (A) of the normal and
granulated plastic models using the four-beam 1GHz/2.3GHz
dual-frequency sensor system. The average 12 of the normal
0018-9456 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on April 29,2020 at 11:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
8
and granulated models are 0.028° - 0.034° and -0.02° - 0.036°.
The average 12 of the normal model overlaps that of the
granulated model. In Figure 9 (b), SD of 12 of the normal and
granulated models are 0.17 - 0.19 and 0.28 - 0.39, respectively.
The result shows that SD of the granulated model is larger than
the normal model, making classification of pomelo fruit
possible.
For illustration, in Figures 9 (a) and (b), ∎ and ▲
respectively represent the normal and granulated pomelo
models. The average 12 of the normal and granulated models
are almost identical (Figure 9(a)), while SD of the granulated
model is substantially larger than that of the normal model. As
a result, SD is used as the determinant of pomelo quality in this
research.
For comparison, Figure 10 illustrates SD of 1GHz of normal
and granulated plastic fruit models using four-beam 1 GHz
single-frequency sensor system, measured by N9916A
FieldFox microwave vector network analyzer. SD of 1GHz of
the normal and granulated pomelo models are 0.19 - 0.21 and
0.193 - 0.24, showing an overlap between SD of the normal and
granulated models. The SD overlap indicates that the four-beam
1GHz single-frequency sensor system is inapplicable to thick
rind fruits but more suitable for thin rind fruits [17]-[19].
Fig. 10 SD of the normal and granulated plastic models using four-beam 1 GHz
single-frequency sensor system
Moreover, in Figures 9 and 10, variations in SD of the normal
and granulated models could be attributed to varying positions
of the granulated section (0°-270°), resulting in different
distances between the antennas and the granulated section.
Besides, the syrup gradually precipitates in the process of the
experiment, affecting SD of the normal and granulated models.
B. Measured results from real pomelo fruits
To validate the proposed four-beam 1 GHz/2.3 GHz dual-
frequency sensor system, 50 real pomelo fruits with an outer
diameter of 16 ± 1 cm were acquired from a pomelo orchard in
Thailand’ central province of Nakhon Pathom. The pomelo
fruits were randomly harvested 210 days after initial bloom.
Experiments were performed with the real pomelo fruits
using the proposed four-beam 1 GHz/2.3 GHz sensor system,
as shown in Figure 11 (a). Prior to the experiment, the sensor
system was calibrated using a copper plate. After calibration,
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIM.2020.2986143, IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 9

the copper plate was removed and replaced with pomelo fruit. normal and granulated pomelo fruits. The experimental results
The experimental pomelo fruits (after experimented with the also confirm the usefulness and accuracy of the four-beam
sensor system) were unpeeled to visually inspect for 1 GHz/2.3 GHz dual-frequency sensor system in determining
granulation, as shown in Figure 11 (b). the quality of thick rind fruits.

(a)

(a) (b)
Fig. 11 Experiment with real pomelo fruit using the four-beam dual-frequency
sensor system: (a) experimental setup, (b) cross-section of granulated pomelo

Figure 12 (a) compares the average 12 of normal and

granulated pomelo fruits. The average 12 of the normal and
granulated pomelo fruits are between -5.81° and -9.23°; and
between -5.99° and -9.80°. In Figure 12 (b), SD of normal and
granulated pomelo fruits are 0.81 - 1.14 and 1.02 - 1.14. The
SD of granulated pomelo fruits are larger than that of normal
pomelos, and SD of normal pomelo fruits overlaps that of
granulated pomelos. The SD overlap could be attributed to
varying diameters of pomelo fruits (16 ± 1 cm) and extent of
granulation.
Since the four-beam 1 GHz/2.3 GHz sensor system was
designed to classify the granulated pomelo fruit from the
normal pomelo fruit, let SD of 12 be the feature value (x).
Bayesian decision theory can approach to the pattern
classification [26]. This approach is based on quantifying the
tradeoffs between various classification decisions using
probability and the costs that accompany such decisions. In
decision process, half of 50 pomelo fruits were the training
sample to find the threshold value. Each pomelo would emerge
state of nature (ω) either one or the other of the two possible
states, i.e. either pomelo is the granulated pomelo fruit (ω = ω1)
or the normal pomelo fruit (ω = ω2). In general, Bayes’ decision
rule defines that x for threshold value should create the least
probability of error. Given x threshold of 1.06, the least
probability of error is found.
The accuracy rate of the four-beam 1 GHz/2.3 GHz sensor
system is the ratio of correctly identified pomelos to total
number of pomelos. The rest of pomelo fruits from training set
was used as the test sample. Out of 25 pomelo fruits, three
normal fruits were mistaken by the sensor system as granulated
ones and two granulated fruits as normal ones. Meanwhile, the
visual inspection showed 16 normal and 9 granulated pomelo
fruits. The accuracy rate of the sensor system is thus 80% given
an SD threshold of 1.06.
Essentially, SD of 12 could be used to differentiate between
(b)
Fig. 12 Experimental results of the normal and granulated pomelos using
proposed dual-frequency sensor: (a) Average (b) SD
VI. CONCLUSION
This research proposes a four-beam 1 GHz/2.3 GHz dual-
frequency sensor system to assess the quality of thick rind
pomelo fruits. The principle of the proposed sensor system is
based on phase difference between lower- and higher-frequency
reflection coefficients (12). The sensor system consists of five
dual-band antennas and a customized circuit to approximate
12. The main components of the customized circuit are down-
conversion mixers and phase detector module. Simulations
were carried out using single- (1 GHz) and dual-frequency
(1 GHz/2.3 GHz) sensor systems; and the results indicated that
the single-frequency scheme achieved lower accuracy in
classification of pomelo fruits. As a result, a prototype of four-
beam dual-frequency sensor system was fabricated, and
experiments were carried out using plastic pomelo models and
real pomelo fruits. The experimental results showed that the
average 12 of the normal and granulated pomelo fruits are
almost identical, while SD of 12 of the granulated pomelo is
noticeably larger than that of the normal pomelo. As such, SD
is used as the determinant of pomelo quality. In essence, the
four-beam 1 GHz/2.3 GHz dual-frequency sensor system
efficiently differentiates between normal and granulated
pomelo fruits, with an accuracy rate of 80%.

0018-9456 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on April 29,2020 at 11:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIM.2020.2986143, IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 10

VII. ACKNOWLEDGMENT [19] C. Kittiyanpunya, P. Leekul, C. Phongcharoenpanich, and M. Krairiksh,

“Beam-scanning reflectometer for detecting granulated fruits,” IEEE
The authors acknowledge with gratefulness the resources Sensors J., vol. 17, no. 5, pp. 1277-1284, Mar. 2017.
provided by the Institute of Research and Development, [20] K. Y. Guo, X. Z. Han, and X. Q. Sheng, “Scattering center models of
backscattering waves by dielectric spheroid objects,” Optics Express, vol.
Rajamangala University of Technology Rattanakosin and Mr. 26, no. 4, pp. 5060-5074, Feb. 2018.
Vichit Lohprapan and for kindly proofreading the manuscript. [21] D. M. Pozar, Microwave Engineering. 4th ed., New York: Wiley, 2011.
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Pichid Kittisuwan is highly appreciated for his [22] P. Yoiyod and M. Krairiksh, “Dielectric properties determination of a
stratified medium,” Radioengineering, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 70-79, Apr.
valuable discussion.
2015.
[23] CST Microwave Studio, 2018.
REFERENCES [24] S. Wang, J. Tang, J.A. Johnson, E. Mitcham, J.D. Hansen, G. Hallman,
S. R. Drake, and Y. Wang, “Dielectric properties of fruits and insect pests
[1] X. Xiao, Q. He, Z. Fu, M. Xu, and X. Zhang, “Applying CS and WSN
as related to radio frequency and microwave treatments,” Biosystems
methods for improving efficiency of frozen and chilled aquatic products
Engineering, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 201-212, Apr. 2003.
monitoring system in cold chain logistics,” Food Cont., vol. 60, pp. 656-
[25] C. Kittiyanpunya, and M. Krairiksh, “Dual-band unidirectional cross
666, Sep. 2015.
dipole antenna,” in Proc. of 2017 IEEE-APS Topical Conference on
[2] J. Ruan, and Y. Shi, “Monitoring and assessing fruit freshness in IOT-
Antennas and Propagation in Wireless Communications, Verona, Sep.
based e-commerce delivery using scenario analysis and interval number
2017, pp. 47-48.
approaches,” Info. Sci., vol. 373, pp. 557-570, July 2016.
[26] R. O. Duda, P. E. Hart, and D. G. Stork, Pattern Classification. 2nd ed.,
[3] P. P. Ray, S. Pradhan, R. K. Sharma, A. Rasaily, A. Swaraj, and A.
New York: Wiley, 2000.
Pradhan “loT based fruit quality measurement system,” Online
International Conference on Green Engineering and Technologies 2016,
Chainarong Kittiyanpunya (M’18) was born in
Nov. 2016.
Nakhon Pathom, Thailand, in 1985. He received the
[4] P. Sirisomboon, and R. Lapchareonsuk, “Evaluation of the
B.Eng. degree from the King Mongkut’s University of
physicochemical and textural properties of pomelo fruit following
Technology Thonburi, Bangkok, Thailand, in 2008,
storage,” Fruits, vol. 67, no. 6, pp. 399-413, Jan. 2012.
and the M.Eng. and D.Eng. degrees from the King
[5] C. S. Nandi, B. Tudu, and C. Koley, “A Machine vision-based maturity
Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang
prediction system for sorting of harvested mangoes,” IEEE Trans.
(KMITL), Bangkok, in 2012 and 2017, respectively.
Instrum. Meas., vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 1722-1730, Jan. 2014.
In 2018, he has been a Visiting Research with the
[6] M. Baietto and A. D. Wilson, “Electronic-nose applications for fruit
Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer
identification, ripeness and quality grading,” Sensors, vol. 15, no. 1, pp.
Science, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA,
899-931, Jan. 2015.
under a Post-Doctoral Fellow Scholarship from
[7] R. Abbaszadeh, A. Moosavian, A. Rajabipour, and G. Najafi, “An
KMITL. He is currently a Lecturer with the
intelligent procedure for watermelon ripeness detection based on
Department of Mechatronics Engineering, Faculty of Engineering,
vibration signals,” J. Food Sci. Technol., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 1075-1081,
Rajamangala University of Technology Rattanakosin, Salaya, Thailand. His
Feb. 2015.
current research interests include antenna design for mobile communication,
[8] J. Hongwiangjan, A. Terdwongworakul, and K. Krisanapook, “Evaluation
microwave in sensor applications, and radar remote sensing.
of pomelo maturity based on acoustic response and peel properties,” Int.
J. of Food Sci. and Technol., vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 782-789, Mar. 2015.
Chuwong Phongcharoenpanich (S’98-M’02)
[9] N. Kotwaliwale, K. Singh, A. Kalne, S. N. Jha, N. Seth, and A. Kar, “X-
received the B.Eng. (Hons.), M.Eng., and D.Eng.
ray imaging methods for internal quality evaluation of agricultural
degrees from the King Mongkut's Institute of
produce,” J. Food Sci. Technol., vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 1-15, Jan. 2014.
Technology Ladkrabang (KMITL), Bangkok,
[10] N. Zur, L. Shlizerman, G. Ben-Ari, and A. Sadka, “Use of magnetic
Thailand, in 1996, 1998, and 2001, respectively. He is
resonance imaging MRI to study and predict fruit splitting in citrus,” The
currently an Associate Professor with the Department
Horticulture Journal, pp. 1-8, Jul. 2016.
of Telecommunications Engineering, KMITL, where
[11] H. Wang, J. Peng, C. Xie, Y. Bao, and Y. He, “Fruit quality evaluation
he also serves as the Leader of the Innovative Antenna
using spectroscopy technology,” Sensors, vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 11889-11927,
and Electromagnetic Applications Research
May 2015.
Laboratory. His research interests are antenna design
[12] H. Z. Chen, Li Li Xu, G. Q. Tang, Q. Q. Song, and Q. X. Feng, “Rapid
for various mobile and wireless communications,
detection of surface color of Shatian pomelo using Vis-NIR spectrometry
conformal antennas, and array antenna theory. He is
for the identification of maturity,” Food Analytical Methods, vol. 9, no. 1,
also a member IEICE and ECTI. He served as the Chair of the IEEE
pp. 192-201, Jan. 2016.
MTT/AP/ED Thailand chapter from 2014 to 2018. He has been the organizing
[13] K. J. Bois, A. Benally, P. S. Nowak, and R. Zoughi, “Cure-state
committee of several international conferences, including the TPC Chair of
monitoring and water-to-cement ratio determination of fresh Portland
2009 International Symposium on Antennas and Propagation (ISAP 2009) and
cement-based materials using near field microwave techniques,” IEEE
a TPC member of ISAP 2012. He was on the Board Committee of ECTI
Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 628-637, June 1998.
Association, from 2008 to 2011 and 2014 to 2015. He was the Associate Editor
[14] K. J. Bois, A. Benally, and R. Zoughi, “Microwave near-field reflection
of IEICE Transactions on Communications and the ECTI Transactions on
property analysis of concrete for material content determination,” IEEE
Electrical Engineering, Electronics, and Communications. He is also the
Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 49-55, Feb. 2000.
Associate Editor of the IEICE ComEx. He is also a Reviewer of many scientific
[15] K. Mubarak, K. J. Bois, and R. Zoughi, “A simple, robust and on-site
journals, including IEEE Transactions Antennas and Propagation, IEEE
microwave technique for determining water-to-cement (w/c) ratio of fresh
Access, IET Microwaves, Antennas and Propagation, Electronics Letters, ECTI
Portland cement-based materials,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 50,
Transactions, and many international conferences, including ISAP and APMC.
no. 5, pp. 1255-1263, Oct. 2001.
[16] D. K. Ghodgaonkar, V. V. Varadan, and V. K. Varadan, “A free-space
Monai Krairiksh (M’93–SM’13) was born in
method for measurement of dielectric constants and loss tangents at
Bangkok, Thailand. He received the B.Eng., M.Eng.
microwave frequencies,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas., vol. 37, no. 3, pp.
and D.Eng. degrees in electrical engineering from
789-793, May 1989.
King Mongkut’s Institute of Technology Ladkrabang
[17] P. Leekul, S. Chivapreecha, and M. Krairiksh, “Microwave sensor for
(KMITL), Thailand in 1981, 1984, and 1994,
tangerine classification based on coupled-patch antennas,” Int. J. of
respectively. He was a visiting research scholar at
Electron., vol. 103, no. 8, pp. 1287-1300, Oct. 2015.
Tokai University in 1988 and at Yokosuka Radio
[18] P. Leekul, S. Chivapreecha, C. Phongcharoenpanich, and M. Krairiksh,
Communications Research Center, Communications
“Rician k-factors-based sensor for fruit classification by maturity stage,”
Research Laboratory (CRL) in 2004. He joined the
IEEE Sensors J., vol. 16, no. 17, pp. 6559-6565, Sep. 2016.
KMITL and is currently a Professor at the Department
of Telecommunication Engineering. He has served as

0018-9456 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on April 29,2020 at 11:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
This article has been accepted for publication in a future issue of this journal, but has not been fully edited. Content may change prior to final publication. Citation information: DOI 10.1109/TIM.2020.2986143, IEEE
Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement
> REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR PAPER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (DOUBLE-CLICK HERE TO EDIT) < 11

the Director of the Research Center for Communications and Information

Technology during 1997-2002. His main research interests are in antennas for
wireless communications and microwave in agricultural applications. Dr.
Krairiksh was the chairman of the IEEE MTT/AP/Ed joint chapter in 2005 and
2006. He served as the General Chairman of the 2007 Asia-Pacific Microwave
Conference, and the advisory committee of the 2009 International Symposium
on Antennas and Propagation. He was the President of the Electrical
Engineering/Electronics, Computer, Telecommunications and Information
Technology Association (ECTI) in 2010 and 2011 and was an editor-in-chief
of the ECTI Transactions on Electrical Engineering, Electronics, and
Communications. He was recognized as a Senior Research Scholar of the
Thailand Research Fund in 2005 and 2008 and a Distinguished Research
Scholar of the National Research Council of Thailand. He served as a
distinguished lecturer of IEEE Antennas and Propagation Society during 2012-
2014.

0018-9456 (c) 2020 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission. See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
Authorized licensed use limited to: University of Canberra. Downloaded on April 29,2020 at 11:29:19 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.