sensors

Article
CSRR-Based Microwave Sensor for Dielectric
Materials Characterization Applied to Soil Water
Content Determination
João G. D. Oliveira 1 , Erica N. M. G. Pinto 2 , Valdemir P. Silva Neto 1 and
Adaildo G. D’Assunção 1, *
1 Department of Communication Engineering, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Caixa Postal 1655,
Natal CEP 59078-970, RN, Brazil; gjoao187@gmail.com (J.G.D.O.); vpraxedes.neto@gmail.com (V.P.S.N.)
2 Avenida Universitária Leto Fernandes, Federal Rural University of the Semi-Arid, Caraúbas CEP 59780-000,
RN, Brazil; erica.gurgel@ufersa.edu.br
* Correspondence: adaildo@ct.ufrn.br or adaildo@ymail.com; Tel.: +55-84-99983-2893




Received: 14 November 2019; Accepted: 18 December 2019; Published: 1 January 2020


Abstract: A new and compact sensor based on the complementary split-ring resonator (CSRR)
structure is proposed to characterize the relative permittivity of various dielectric materials,
enabling the determination of soil water content (SWC). The proposed sensor consists of a
circular microstrip patch antenna supporting a 3D-printed small cylindrical container made out of
Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) filament. The principle of operation is based on the shifting of
two of the antenna resonant frequencies caused by changing the relative permittivity of the material
under test (MUT). Simulations are performed enabling the development of an empirical model of
analysis. The sensitivity of the sensor is investigated and its effectiveness is analyzed by characterizing
typical dielectric materials. The proposed sensor, which can be applied to characterize different types
of dielectric materials, is used to determine the percentage of water contained in different soil types.
Prototypes are fabricated and measured and the obtained results are compared with results from
other research works, to validate the proposed sensor effectiveness. Moreover, the sensor was used to
determine the percentage of water concentration in quartz sand and red clay samples.

Keywords: soil water content; SWC; CSRR; microwave sensor; relative permittivity measurement;
slotted circular patch antenna

1. Introduction
Recent technological advances related to wireless and mobile communication technologies,
increasingly demanding high transmission rates and low latency, have aroused the interest of researchers
worldwide in the development of sensors that can get information on the electromagnetic characteristics
of dielectric materials present in the communication channel or used in the manufacture of microwave
devices and circuits.
Several analysis techniques have been developed but the most interesting are those with
noninvasive and nondestructive characteristics with respect to the material under test (MUT). Planar
sensors can be classified into several groups according to their application, principle of operation,
or even the intrinsic characteristics of the used resonator. Among them, there is the group of
planar sensors used in the characterization of microfluidics, which has been considered by several
researchers [1–5]. Usually, substrate integrated waveguide (SIW) sensors are developed to characterize
the complex permittivity of microfluidics [1,2] or are submerged in the liquid under test (LUT) [4,5].

Sensors 2020, 20, 255; doi:10.3390/s20010255 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2020, 20, 255 2 of 16

Similarly, the recent development of sensors can be highlighted for several applications such as
characterization of NaCL as solute in concentration in very dilute solutions [6–8], identification of the
depth of burns in biological tissues [9], and characterization of chemical and organic materials [10,11].
Another group of sensors that has been widely investigated is that of sensors using typical
resonator elements such as split-ring resonator (SRR) [12–14] or its complementary (CSRR), which
consists of the negative image of the SRR [15–20]. Recently, SRR- and CSRR-based devices have
attracted a great deal of attention from researchers due to their electrical characteristics, where in
the resonance band the electric and magnetic fields appear concentrated nearby the ring opening,
causing a subtle change in the electrical characteristics of the medium near this region to cause major
disturbances in the resonance frequency of the element [17–19].
This work proposes a circular patch microstrip antenna based on the addition of a cut-out type
CSRR in the resonant element, applied to the measurement of the relative permittivity of different
materials (solid and sandy soils). The antenna sensitivity is verified by placing different MUT over the
patch to shift its resonant frequencies at 2.26 GHz and 3.5 GHz. The proposed sensor has a high quality
factor. In addition, an empirical model is proposed to obtain the relative permittivity results, based on
the combination of the sensitivity results obtained for each of the two resonances. The performance
of the sensor proposed in this work was validated by measuring the dielectric constant of three
materials commonly used in literature—which are FR-4, Roger RO4003C, and glass—confirming the
effectiveness of the proposed model. The proposed sensor is compared with another sensor presented
in the literature [21] and the comparison results are in good agreement.
Moreover, the proposed sensor is used to characterize the water percentage in two different soil
samples, which are quartz sand and red clay, taken from a coastal region in the Northeast of Brazil.
In addition to the relative permittivity for different water concentrations, salinity measurements of the
two soil samples were performed. The antenna sensor is simulated using Ansoft HFSS commercial
software. Prototypes are fabricated and measured, and good agreement between simulation and
measurement results is observed. The proposed sensor can be used in several types of measurement.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sensor Design

The proposed sensor was initially modeled as a circular microstrip antenna patch antenna
(Figure 1a), operating at 3.1 GHz, with a quarter-wavelength impedance matching circuit and a
complementary split-ring resonator (CSRR) slotted element, as shown in Figure 1b, which caused a
resonance frequency shift to 2.26 GHz and the emergence of a second resonance at 3.5 GHz. The choice
of the microstrip antenna operating frequency at 3.1 GHz is related to the interest in developing a
compact, low weight, low cost, and easy to manufacture narrowband antenna sensor to operate in the
near field. In addition, the antenna sensor operating frequencies at 2.26 GHz and 3.5 GHz are in the
same microwave range used in studies available in the literature [2,4].
Thereafter, a small cylindrical box made of Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS) TP20280
filament (Figure 1c) was made and placed over the patch to hold the MUT. The antenna dimensions
are given in Table 1. The circular patch radius dimension was found using Equations (1) and (2), given
in [22].
F
a= n h   io1/2 (1)
2t πF
1+ πεr F ln 2t +1.7726

8.791 × 109
F= √ (2)
fr εr
In (1), a is the patch antenna radius in cm, fr is the operating resonant frequency in GHz, F is
given in cm, and the dielectric substrate parameters are thickness, t, in cm; relative permittivity, εr ;
and loss tangent, tanδ. In this work, a FR-4 substrate is used with t = 0.158 cm, εr = 4.4, and tanδ = 0.02.
Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

and loss
Sensors 2020, 20, 255 tan𝛿. In this work, a FR-4 substrate is used with t = 0.158 cm, 𝜀 = 4.4, and tan𝛿
tangent, =
3 of 16
0.02.

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Proposed
Proposed sensor:
sensor: (a)
(a) Circular
Circular patch
patch antenna;
antenna; (b)
(b) double
double CSRR
CSRR element;
element; (c)
(c) sensor
sensor structure
structure
with the ABS 3D-printed container to hold the material under test (MUT).

Table 1.
Table Proposed sensor
1. Proposed sensor structural
structural parameters.
parameters.

Parameter
Parameter Description
Description Value
Value (mm)
(mm)
WW Substrate
SubstrateWidth
Width 48 48
LL SubstrateLength
Substrate Length 64 64
R Patch Radius 13.12
R Patch Radius 13.12
WL Microstrip Line Width 3
L𝑊L
Microstrip
Microstrip Line
Line Width
Length 3 5
W𝐿t Microstrip
Quarter Line LengthWidth
Wave Transformer 5 1
L𝑊t Quarter
Quarter WaveTransformer
Wave Transformer Length
Width 1 21
d𝐿 QuarterCSRR
Waveoffset from source
Transformer Length 21 6
R1 CSRR External Radius 5
d CSRR offset from source 6
R2 CSRR Internal Radius 3
s𝑅 CSRR External
CSRR Width Radius 5 1
g𝑅 CSRR Internal Radius
CSRR Air-gap 3 1
hs ABS recipient
CSRR Width height 1 5
g CSRR Air-gap 1
The simulated andhmeasured results
ABSof recipient height
the reflection 5 of the proposed circular
coefficient, S (dB),
11
patch antenna and sensor (with the slotted double CSRR element) are presented in Figure 2a, showing
The
an 840 simulated
MHz decrease and measured
in the resonantresults of the
frequency of reflection
the antennacoefficient, S11 (dB), ofof the
and the occurrence proposed
a second one,
circular patchtoantenna
both related and sensor
the insertion (with element,
of the CSRR the slotted doubleinCSRR
resulting element)behavior.
a dual-band are presented in Figure
2a, showing an 840
The results MHzindecrease
shown Figure 2in the resonant
indicates frequency
that the proposed of antenna
the antenna
has and the occurrence
a high-quality ofQ,
factor, a
second one, both related to the insertion of
which can be calculated using Equation (3) [23]. the CSRR element, resulting in a dual-band behavior.

f0
Q= (3)
BW3dB

where f0 represents the resonant frequency and BW3dB describes the upper and lower frequencies
bandwidth at 3 dB below peak. The value obtained for the quality factor of the first resonance was
105 and for the second one was 89. This parameter is commonly used in the characterization of
the complex permittivity of materials [3,10]. Therefore, it was not used as one of the soil dielectric
constant determination parameters, being used the analysis based on two resonance frequencies of the
proposed sensor.
Sensors 2020, 20, 255 4 of 16
Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15

2. (a)
Figure 2. (a)Simulated
Simulatedandandmeasured
measured results of the
results reflection
of the coefficient,
reflection S11 (dB),
coefficient, of theofcircular
S11 (dB), patch
the circular
antenna and the proposed sensor with the double complementary split-ring resonator (CSRR)
patch antenna and the proposed sensor with the double complementary split-ring resonator (CSRR) element;
(b) photograph
element; of the proposed
(b) photograph sensor antenna.
of the proposed sensor antenna.

2.2. Principle of Operation and Sensitivity

The results shown in Figure 2 indicates that the proposed antenna has a high-quality factor, Q,
whichIncan be calculated
microwave using Equation
resonators (3) resonant
and at the [23]. frequency, the energy of both electric and the
magnetic field stored in the structure must be equal to𝑓each other. Thus, Equation (4), which relates the
permeability and permittivity of the medium to 𝑄 the
= varying resonance frequency of the element, can (3) be
𝐵𝑊
used to extract information from the properties of external materials that may cause these disturbances
when 𝑓 represents
whereinteracting withthe
theresonant frequency
electromagnetic and
field 𝐵𝑊
[24]. describes the upper and lower frequencies
bandwidth at 3 dB below peak. The value obtained for the quality factor of the first resonance was
R
105 and for the second one was 89. ∆ fThis
r (∆εE1 ·E0 +
parameter ∆µH1 ·H0 )dvused in the characterization of the
is commonly
complex permittivity of materialsf [3,10]. = v RTherefore,
 it (4)
was not used as one of the soil dielectric
r ε |E0 |2 + µ0 |H0 |2 dv
v 0 the
constant determination parameters, being used analysis based on two resonance frequencies of
the proposed
In (4), ∆ fsensor.
corresponds to the observed variation in the resonant frequency, f ; ∆ε is the change
r r r
in the relative permittivity; ∆µ is the change in the magnetic permeability; and ε0 and µ0 are the
2.2. Principle of Operation and Sensitivity
permittivity and permeability of free space, respectively. Moreover, E0 and H0 are the electrical
and In microwave
magnetic fieldsresonators and without
distributions at the resonant
externalfrequency,
disturbances,the energy of both
respectivel; E1 electric
and H1 and are the
magnetic field stored in the structure must be equal to each other. Thus, Equation (4),
corresponding electrical and magnetic fields distributions with external disturbances; and v represents which relates
the disturbed
permeability and permittivity
volume, which meansofthe
thevolume
medium of to
thethe varying
cavity that resonance
is in contactfrequency of the Similarly,
with the MUT. element,
can be used to extract
the capacitance between information
the ends offrom the properties
the resonator element of has
external materials
a strong that may
dependence on thecause these
medium
disturbancesand
permittivity when theinteracting with the
induced current electromagnetic
in the resonator elementfield has
[24].a direct dependence on the medium
permeability. Therefore, it can be said that (∆𝜀𝐸 CSRR∙elements have
𝐸 + ∆𝜇𝐻 ∙ 𝐻 )𝑑𝑣 higher sensitivity to changes in the
∆𝑓
permittivity of the medium to which they = are inserted [16], which justifies the application of CSRR(4) in
𝑓 (𝜀 |𝐸 | + 𝜇 |𝐻 | )𝑑𝑣
the proposed sensor geometry.
The(4),
In ∆𝑓 corresponds
proposed sensor was used to observed
to the characterize samples in
variation of different materials
the resonant 𝑓 ; ∆𝜀
which were
frequency, separately
is the
insertedininto
change thethe container
relative permittivity; ∆𝜇 is
placed over thethe
patch of the
change in microstrip
the magnetic antenna. and 𝜀 and
The simulation
permeability; 𝜇
of the
sensor
are thestructure with and
permittivity the materials samples
permeability was performed
of free using the Moreover,
space, respectively. Ansoft HFSS 𝐸 software.
and 𝐻 are the
electrical and magnetic fields distributions without external disturbances, respectivel; 𝐸 and 𝐻
are the corresponding electrical and magnetic fields distributions with external disturbances; and v
represents the disturbed volume, which means the volume of the cavity that is in contact with the
MUT. Similarly, the capacitance between the ends of the resonator element has a strong dependence
on the medium permittivity and the induced current in the resonator element has a direct
dependence on the medium permeability. Therefore, it can be said that CSRR elements have higher
 sensitivity to changes in the permittivity of the medium to which they are inserted [16], which
justifies the application of CSRR in the proposed sensor geometry.
The proposed sensor was used to characterize samples of different materials which were
separately
Sensors 2020, 20,inserted
255 into the container placed over the patch of the microstrip antenna.5 ofThe 16
simulation of the sensor structure with the materials samples was performed using the Ansoft HFSS
software.
In the simulation, the relative permittivity εr of the MUT confined in the ABS filament container
In the simulation, the relative permittivity εr of the MUT confined in the ABS filament container
(Figure 1c) fabricated using a 3D printer was varied from 1 to 10 with a step of 1. The cylindrical
(Figure 1c) fabricated using a 3D printer was varied from 1 to 10 with a step of 1. The cylindrical
container where the MUT is confined has an inner radius of 18 mm and a thickness of 1.2 mm.
container where the MUT is confined has an inner radius of 18 mm and a thickness of 1.2 mm. As the
As the proposed antenna has two resonant frequencies ( f r1 and f r2 ), the changes observed in the
proposed antenna has two resonant frequencies (𝑓𝑟 and 𝑓𝑟 ), the changes observed in the two
two resonance bands were analyzed separately enabling the development of an empirical model for
resonance bands were analyzed separately enabling the development of an empirical model for the
the MUT characterization. The simulated results for the variation of the proposed antenna resonant
MUT characterization. The simulated results for the variation of the proposed antenna resonant
frequencies, f r1 and f r2 , as functions of the MUT relative permittivity are shown in Figure 3a,b,
frequencies, fr1 and fr2, as functions of the MUT relative permittivity are shown in Figure 3a,b,
respectively. In the carried out simulation, dielectric losses are neglected.
respectively. In the carried out simulation, dielectric losses are neglected.

Figure3.3.Reflection
Figure Reflectioncoefficient,
coefficient,SS1111 (dB),
(dB), results
results for
for different
different(MUT)
(MUT)relative
relativepermittivity’s
permittivity’svalues
valuesat
at
resonantfrequencies
resonant (a) f 𝑓𝑟
frequencies(a) (b)f r𝑓𝑟
and(b)
r1 and 2.
.

Figure3a,b
Figure 3a,bshow,
show, respectively,
respectively, thatthat
the the resonance
resonance frequencies
frequencies 𝑓𝑟 f and
f r1 and r2 of 𝑓𝑟 of the proposed
the proposed sensor
sensor
have have
their theirdecreased
values values decreased as the relative
as the relative permittivitypermittivity
value ofvalue of the container-confined
the container-confined MUT sample MUT
issample is increased,
increased, as the totalascapacitance
the total capacitance
of the patchof the patch
element element also
also increases. Theincreases. The resonant
resonant frequency f r1
frequency
changed from𝑓𝑟 2.26
changed
GHz tofrom 1.68 2.26
GHz,GHzwhentothe1.68 GHz,permittivity
relative when the value relative εr changed
permittivity
fromvalue
1 to 10,𝜀
changed
which from 1 ato25.8%
represents 10, which represents
reduction a 25.8%
in the value reduction
of the in the value
lower resonant of theoflower
frequency resonant
the proposed
frequency
sensor. of the 3b,
In Figure proposed sensor.
it is possible to In Figure
notice that3b,
theit resonance
is possiblefrequency
to notice that the resonance
f r2 decreased from frequency
3.46 GHz
𝑓𝑟2.73
to decreased
GHz when fromthe3.46 GHzpermittivity
relative to 2.73 GHzof when the relative
the confined MUT permittivity of thechanged
in the container confinedfromMUT1 in to the
10,
container
which changed
represents from 1reduction
a 21.1% to 10, which represents
in the a 21.1% reduction
higher resonant frequency in ofthe
thehigher
proposedresonant
sensor. frequency
of theTheproposed
sensitivitysensor.
evaluation of the proposed sensor (Figure 2b) was performed for each MUT by
The sensitivity
analyzing the variation evaluation
observed of in
theresonant
proposed sensor (Figure
frequency 2b) percentage
(∆fr ), the was performed for each
change MUT by
in resonance
analyzing(PRFS),
frequency the variation observed of
the enhancement inthe
resonant
percentagefrequency
change (∆f r), the percentage
in resonance frequencychange
(PRFSE),in sensitivity
resonance
frequency
(S), (PRFS),enhancement
and sensitivity the enhancement of the
(SE). Then, thepercentage
results obtainedchange werein compared
resonancewith frequency
those of(PRFSE),
another
sensitivity
work carried (S),
outand sensitivity
using enhancement
a dual-band (SE). Then,
antenna sensor the resultsthe
to characterize obtained
relative were compared
permittivity with
of solid
those of [21],
materials another work carried
according out using
to Equations a dual-band antenna sensor to characterize the relative
(5)–(9).
permittivity of solid materials [21], according to Equations (5)–(9).
∆ fr = fru − frl (5)
∆𝑓 = 𝑓 𝑓 (5)
∆ fr fru − frl
PRFS = ∆𝑓= 𝑓 𝑓 × 100% (6)
𝑃𝑅𝐹𝑆 = r = fru
f × 100% (6)
𝑓 𝑓
PRFSproposed
PRFSE = (7)
PRFSre f erence
∆ fr fru − frl
S= = (8)
∆εr εru − εrl
Sensors 2020, 20, 255 6 of 16

Sproposed
SE = (9)
Sre f erence
where fru is the resonant frequency of the proposed antenna (or of the reference antenna shown in [21])
without MUT samples and frl is the resonant frequency of the proposed antenna (or of the reference
antenna) with MUT samples, εru is the relative permittivity of the medium when the antennas are
without MUT samples, and εrl is the relative permittivity of the medium when the antennas are without
MUT samples. The parameter values shown in Figure 3a,b are summarized in Table 2 along with
results presented in [21].

Table 2. Simulated fr (GHz) range values for changes in relative MUT permittivity.

εr
Antenna F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Reference [21] f r1 2.5 2.384 2.287 2.202 2.128 2.063 2.003 1.949 1.899 1.854
Reference [21] f r2 3.466 3.376 3.303 3.243 3.189 3.142 3.099 3.06 3.024 2.991
Proposed f r1 2.264 2.173 2.089 2.017 1.957 1.891 1.831 1.788 1.740 1.692
Proposed f r2 3.466 3.321 3.207 3.105 3.033 2.961 2.895 2.846 2.798 2.750

Then, the simulated fr results shown in Table 2 were used in Equations (4)–(8) to determine the
proposed sensor sensitivity parameters dependencies on the relative permittivity, as shown in Figure 4.
In addition, the results of the dual-band sensor presented in [21] were included for comparison purpose.
The shift in resonant frequency (∆fr ) at f r1 and f r2 are presented in Figure 4a–c exhibit, respectively,
the PRFS and PRFSE results at the sensor’s two resonance bands. Results of the sensors sensitivity (S)
and sensitivity enhancement (SE) are shown in Figure 4d,e. In this case, only the sensitivity results at
resonant frequency f r2 are presented because the f r1 value of the proposed sensor is different from that
of the sensor developed in [21], not allowing a direct comparison.
According to Figure 4a,b, at the first resonant frequency f r1 , the resonance frequency shift ∆ fr and
the percentage change in resonance frequency (PRFS) of the proposed sensor and of that presented
in [21] are in good agreement. At the second resonant frequency f r2 , the proposed sensor-obtained
results are much better than those of the sensor developed in [21]. In Figure 4a, when the MUT relative
permittivity εr is 8, the resonance frequency shift ∆ fr at f r1 is 0.5 GHz for the proposed sensor and
0.551 GHz for the sensor presented in [21] while, at f r2 , when the MUT relative permittivity εr is 5,
the resonance frequency shift ∆ fr of the proposed sensor is 0.433 GHz and that of the sensor developed
in [21] is 0.277 GHz.
In Figure 4c, for relative permittivity values greater than 8, the proposed sensor enhanced
percentage change in resonance frequency (PRFSE) results at f r1 are closer than those of the sensor
presented in [21]. Additionally, when the relative permittivity value is 5, PRFSE = 0.91. At f r2 ,
PRFSE results are greater than 1.5 for the relative permittivity values in the range from 1 to 10.
Figure 4d,e show that the sensitivity of the proposed sensor is higher for small values of the relative
permittivity and exhibits a nonlinear dependence, as expected [19]. In addition, for a MUT sample
with εr = 2, the sensitivity S of the proposed sensor at the resonant frequency f r2 is 0.144 GHz, while
the corresponding value of the sensor presented in [21] is 0.09 GHz. The enhanced sensitivity SE of the
proposed sensor is 1.604.
Sensors 2020, 20, 255 7 of 16
Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 15

Figure4. 4.Sensitivity
Figure parameters
Sensitivity parametersresults: (a) Resonant
results: (a) Resonant (∆ fr );(∆𝑓
shiftshift (b));percentage relative
(b) percentage frequency
relative shift
frequency
(PRFS); (c) percentage resonant frequency shift enhancement (PRFSE); (d) sensitivity (S);
shift (PRFS); (c) percentage resonant frequency shift enhancement (PRFSE); (d) sensitivity (S); (e) (e) sensitivity
enhancement (SE).
sensitivity enhancement (SE).
3. Mathematical Model and Validation
3. Mathematical Model and Validation
3.1. Obtaining Relative Permittivity as a Function of Resonant Frequency
3.1. Obtaining Relative Permittivity as a Function of Resonant Frequency
According to the results shown in Section 2, the variation of the MUT relative permittivity with the
sensorAccording
resonance to theisresults
shift shown in
characterized bySection 2, thebehavior.
a nonlinear variationTheof the MUT relative
minimum values permittivity with
of the reflection
coefficient (in dB) of the first and second resonance bands when the MUT relative permittivity the
the sensor resonance shift is characterized by a nonlinear behavior. The minimum values of is
reflection coefficient (in dB) of the first and second resonance bands when
εMUT = 2 are 2.167 GHz and 3.316 GHz, respectively. Similarly, when the MUT relative permittivity the MUT relative
ispermittivity
εMUT = 8, the is 𝜀first and
= 2 second
are 2.167 GHz and
resonance 3.316
bands of GHz, respectively.
the proposed sensorSimilarly, whenGHz
occur at 1.765 the MUT
and
relative
2.283 GHz, permittivity
respectively.is 𝜀Thus,=this 8, the first andvariation
frequency second resonance
can be used bands of the proposed
to determine the MUT sensor occur
relative
at 1.765 GHzAsand
permittivity. the2.283 GHz,sensor
proposed respectively.
has twoThus, this frequency
resonance bands and variation
each one can
hasbea used to determine
different level of
the MUT relative permittivity. As the proposed sensor has two resonance bands
sensitivity with respect to the MUT relative permittivity, each case is analyzed separately, using and each one has a
curve
different
fitting. Thelevel of sensitivity
obtained curves used with respect
to fit to the MUT
each resonance bandrelative
resultspermittivity,
are shown ineach
Figurecase is analyzed
5a,b, and the
separately, using curve fitting. The obtained curves
second-degree polynomials (expressions) are presented in Table 3. used to fit each resonance band results are
shown in Figure 5a,b, and the second-degree polynomials (expressions) are presented in Table 3.
 Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15

The results shown in Figure 4 confirm that each of the proposed sensor resonances has different
sensitivity levels when exposed to different electrical permittivity values. Thus, it is possible to
analyze each one separately and use the results in a two-parameter analysis in order to make
Sensors 2020, 20, 255
the
8 of 16
final result more reliable.

Figure5.5.Fitted
Figure Fittedcurves
curvesto
todescribe
describethe
thedependence
dependenceof ofthe
theproposed
proposedsensor
sensorresonant
resonantfrequency
frequencywith
with
respectto
respect todifferent
differentvalues
valuesofofthe
thepermittivity
permittivityvalue
valueatat(a) and(b)
(a)f r𝑓𝑟and (b)f r𝑓𝑟 .
1 2.

3. Fitting
Tableshow
Figure 5a,b thatcurves
the two to obtain permittivity
resonance bandsas have
function of resonance
different frequency.
nonlinear behaviors for the
variation of the MUT permittivity. Thus, the resonance bands polynomials2expressions of εr1 and εr2
Curve Fitting R
given in Table 3 are used to determine the polynomial expression for εr, enabling the calculation of
the final values of theεr1
2
= 7.965 f r1 − 46.52 f r1 + 65.49 0.9995
MUT permittivity, along with the regression coefficient of determination, R2.
εr2 = 10.31 f r2 − 75.79 f r2 + 140
2 0.9994
εr = 0.8427εr1 + 0.1596εr2 − 0.01068 0.9995
Table 3. Fitting curves to obtain permittivity as function of resonance frequency.

The results shown in Figure 4 confirm Curve thatFitting

each of the proposed sensor 𝑹𝟐 resonances has different
sensitivity levels when exposed 𝜀 to=different
7.965𝑓𝑟electrical
46.52𝑓𝑟 + 65.49 values.
permittivity 0.9995Thus, it is possible to analyze
each one separately and use the 𝜀 results
= 10.31𝑓𝑟 75.79𝑓𝑟 + 140
in a two-parameter analysis0.9994
in order to make the final result
more reliable. 𝜀 = 0.8427𝜀 + 0.1596𝜀 0.01068 0.9995
Figure 5a,b show that the two resonance bands have different nonlinear behaviors for the variation
of3.2.
theProposed Sensor Validation
MUT permittivity. Thus, the resonance bands polynomials expressions of εr1 and εr2 given in
Table Then,
3 are used
the to determine the
effectiveness polynomial
of the proposed expression
sensor was for εevaluated
r , enablingby themeasuring
calculation the of the final
relative
2.
values of the MUT
permittivity permittivity,
of samples alongdielectric
of various with the regression
materials withcoefficient
results of available in theRliterature
determination, for
comparison purposes. Three dielectric materials commonly used as substrates in RF
3.2. Proposed Sensor Validation
circuits—namely, FR-4 epoxy fiberglass, Rogers RO4003C, and glass—were analyzed. The used
measurement setup is shown
Then, the effectiveness inproposed
of the Figure 6a,sensor
and thewasmeasured
evaluatedresults are shown
by measuring in Figure
the relative 6b. In the
permittivity
ofsimulation, samplesdielectric
samples of various of dielectric materials
materials withavailable
with results 4.8-mminheight were for
the literature analyzed.
comparison Thus, in the
purposes.
measurement characterization of FR-4 and Rogers RO4003C samples, multilayer
Three dielectric materials commonly used as substrates in RF circuits—namely, FR-4 epoxy fiberglass, geometries with 3
identical
Rogers dielectricand
RO4003C, layers of 1.57 mm
glass—were were used.
analyzed. The used measurement setup is shown in Figure 6a,
and the Themeasured
results of the resonant
results are shown frequencies
in Figure 6b. shownIn theinsimulation,
Figure 6b samples
allow to ofcalculate
dielectricthe relative
materials
permittivity of each MUT. Thus, for the FR-4 sample, the measured
with 4.8-mm height were analyzed. Thus, in the measurement characterization of FR-4 and Rogers value of the first resonant
RO4003C 𝑓𝑟 , which
frequencysamples, is 1.995geometries
multilayer GHz, enabled with 3usidentical
to calculate the relative
dielectric layers ofpermittivity
1.57 mm were value
used. 𝜀 as
4.3835.
TheSimilarly,
results of the at the second
resonant resonance,shown
frequencies the measured
in Figurevalue
6b allowforto𝑓𝑟calculate
whichthe is 3.12 GHzpermittivity
relative enabled us
oftoeach
obtain
MUT. theThus,
value the𝜀 FR-4
forof as sample,
3.8969. theUsing the calculated
measured value of the values for 𝜀 and
first resonant 𝜀 , the
frequency f r1 ,relative
which
ispermittivity
1.995 GHz,ofenabled
the FR-4 ussubstrate is calculated
to calculate the relative as 4.3052 which,value
permittivity εr1 aswith
compared the typical
4.3835. Similarly,oneatofthe4.4
second resonance, the measured value for f r2 which is 3.12 GHz enabled us to obtain the value of εr2
(available in the literature), indicates a percentage error of 2.2%, validating the developed work.
The same
as 3.8969. Usingprocedure was applied
the calculated values for to εthe
r1 and εr2 ,obtained
results in the
the relative measurement
permittivity of theofFR-4
glasssubstrate
and Roger is
RO4003C as
calculated samples. The calculated
4.3052 which, comparedvalues
with the oftypical
these materials relative permittivity’s
one of 4.4 (available 𝜀 (glass) a=
are indicates
in the literature),
5.8207 anderror
percentage 𝜀 (Roger
of 2.2%,RO4003C) = 3.4563.
validating Usually, work.
the developed the glass-relative permittivity varies from 5 to 10,
The same procedure was applied to the results obtained in the measurement of glass and Roger
RO4003C samples. The calculated values of these materials relative permittivity’s are εr (glass) = 5.8207
and εr (Roger RO4003C) = 3.4563. Usually, the glass-relative permittivity varies from 5 to 10, depending
Sensors 2020, 20, 255 9 of 16
Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15

on the glass composition. Nevertheless, for microwave circuit applications, the typically used relative
depending on the glass composition. Nevertheless, for microwave circuit applications, the typically
permittivity values of glass are 5.5 [25] and 6.2 [26]. For Rogers RO4003C laminates, the cited value of
used relative permittivity values of glass are 5.5 [25] and 6.2 [26]. For Rogers RO4003C laminates, the
εr is 3.55 [27]. Therefore, in the characterization of glass, the relative error is 3.08% (assuming εr = 6,
cited value of 𝜀 is 3.55 [27]. Therefore, in the characterization of glass, the relative error is 3.08%
as reference value) and, in the case of the Rogers laminate, the error is 2.71%, showing agreement
(assuming 𝜀 = 6, as reference value) and, in the case of the Rogers laminate, the error is 2.71%,
between usual and calculated values. The performance of the sensor proposed in this work was
showing agreement between usual and calculated values. The performance of the sensor proposed
validated by measuring the dielectric constant of three materials commonly used in literature, which
in this work was validated by measuring the dielectric constant of three materials commonly used in
are FR-4, Rogers RO4003C, and glass, as shown in Figure 6. Agreement is observed between measured
literature, which are FR-4, Rogers RO4003C, and glass, as shown in Figure 6. Agreement is observed
and typical results with relative differences lower than 3.08%.
between measured and typical results with relative differences lower than 3.08%.

Figure 6. Experimental setup and results for the proposed sensor: (a) Measurement setup; (b)
Figure 6. Experimental setup and results for the proposed sensor: (a) Measurement setup; (b) measured
measured results for FR-4, glass, and Rogers RO4003C.
results for FR-4, glass, and Rogers RO4003C.

4.4.Application:
Application:Soil
SoilWater
WaterContent
Content(SWC)
(SWC)and
andDiscussion
Discussion
Recenttechnological
Recent technologicaladvances
advancesare arelargely
largelyrelated
relatedtotoobtaining
obtainingand andusing
usingaccurate
accurateinformation
information
witha ahigh
with highdegree
degreeof of reliability.
reliability. In
In some
someapplications,
applications,this thisissue
issueis is
ofof
vital importance,
vital importance, as in
as the case
in the
of extracting information on soil moisture from the percentage of water
case of extracting information on soil moisture from the percentage of water in the sample. Some ofin the sample. Some of them
include,
them for example,
include, for example, monitoring
monitoringof landslide and and
of landslide agricultural riskrisk
agricultural zones. Thus,
zones. several
Thus, authors
several have
authors
proposed practical and simple ways to perform this type of characterization,
have proposed practical and simple ways to perform this type of characterization, such as a sensor such as a sensor that
extracts
that moisture
extracts moisture from soilsoil
from samples
samplesbased on Kopecky
based on Kopecky cylinders
cylinders[28] [28]
or using high-frequency
or using high-frequency radar
penetration
radar penetration[29]. [29].
The The
amount
amount of water
of water in in
thethesoil
soilcan
canbe be verified
verified by by measuring
measuring the therelative
relative
permittivity
permittivity ofof thethe sample
sample [30],
[30], since
since the the relative
relative permittivity
permittivity of theofwater
the water
is tensisoftens
timesof greater
times greater
than
than
the the permittivity
permittivity of the
of the soil, soil,values
with with values
of 80 forof water
80 for and
water and between
between 2 and 32for anddry
3 for dry sand.
sand.
Thus,a asmall
Thus, smallinteraction
interactionbetween
betweenthe thevery
verydifferent
differentvalues
valuesofofthe therelative
relativepermittivity
permittivityofofwaterwater
and dry sand can cause significant changes in the characteristics of their mixture,
and dry sand can cause significant changes in the characteristics of their mixture, indicating that the indicating that the
sensorsused
sensors usedtotocharacterize
characterizethe therelative
relativepermittivity
permittivityofofdifferent
differentdielectric
dielectricmaterials
materialscan canbebeused
usedtoto
characterize SWC and enabling the use of the sensor developed in this
characterize SWC and enabling the use of the sensor developed in this work in SWC applications. work in SWC applications.
InInthis
this work,
work, measurements
measurements were
were mademadefor for
twotwo different
different soil soil
types,types,
namely,namely,
quartz quartz
sand sand
and redand
red To
clay. clay. To better
better understandunderstand the difference
the difference between between these
these soils, soils,Fluorescence
X-ray X-ray Fluorescence was performed.
was performed. This is
a This is a multi-element
multi-element techniquetechnique used qualitative
used to obtain to obtain qualitative and quantitative
and quantitative informationinformation on the
on the elemental
elemental composition
composition of the samples, of the samples,
based on thebased on theof
production production of characteristic
characteristic X-ray emittedX-ray by theemitted by the
constituent
constituent
elements elements
of the soil. Theof equipment
the soil. The equipment
used used was the
was the Shimadzu Shimadzu
EDX-720 model EDX-720
and the model
results and
of thethe
results of the analysis
analysis are shown in Table 4. are shown in Table 4.
Sensors 2020, 20, 255 10 of 16

Sensors 2020, 20, x FORTable 4. X-ray fluorescence (XFR) analysis of two soils, values in (%).
PEER REVIEW 10 of 15

Soil SiAl Fe k Sr Ca Zr Ti Rb Mn S Cr
Table 4. X-ray fluorescence (XFR) analysis of two soils, values in (%).
Sand 50.106 8.774 12.584 7.738 5.538 4.733 1.988 1.176 1.041 0.179 0.133 -
RedSoil
Clay Si
46.585 Al 18.178
23.725 Fe 1.001k - Sr -Ca 5.038 Zr Ti
3.463 Rb
- Mn - S
0.509 Cr
0.206
Sand 50.106 8.774 12.584 7.738 5.538 4.733 1.988 1.176 1.041 0.179 0.133 -
Red Clay 46.585 23.725 18.178 1.001 - - 5.038 3.463 - - 0.509 0.206
The soils used in this work were obtained in the coast region of Rio Grande do Norte. It is possible
to observe fromused
The soils the chemical
in this work analysis
were that both in
obtained materials
the coast areregion
rich in of Silica, Aluminum,
Rio Grande and ItIron.
do Norte. is
The sand has a larger number of elements because it was removed from the
possible to observe from the chemical analysis that both materials are rich in Silica, Aluminum, and riverbed and may have
been
Iron.contaminated
The sand has by pollutant
a larger numberresidues presentbecause
of elements in the water.
it wasItremoved
is also a from
material
the with a larger
riverbed and grain
may
size,
havecausing water to stayby
been contaminated onpollutant
the grainresidues
surfacepresent
but notin causing particles
the water. to approach.
It is also a material The
withother soil
a larger
used
grain size, causing water to stay on the grain surface but not causing particles to approach. The othera
was red clay, which is composed of a larger amount of aluminum together with silica and has
very
soil small grainred
used was size in relation
clay, which istocomposed
sand. Thisofcauses theamount
a larger grains toof form clumps,
aluminum trapping
together water
with within
silica and
the
hassample, making
a very small thesize
grain material plastic.
in relation The two
to sand. Thissoils studied
causes here are
the grains characterized
to form as sedimentary
clumps, trapping water
rocks
withinand,
thedue to erosion
sample, makingof ourthecoastline,
materialtheir presence
plastic. The twois quite
soilscommon.
studied hereThesearesoils can be used as
characterized for
the manufacture of cement, concrete, landfills, road infrastructure works, and
sedimentary rocks and, due to erosion of our coastline, their presence is quite common. These soils agriculture.
can Measurements
be used for the formanufacture
7 different water concentrations,
of cement, concrete,with dry sand,
landfills, road1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9%,
infrastructure andand
works, 10%
ofagriculture.
water and for red clay with 8 different concentrations with dry clay, with 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9%, 10%,
and 15% of water, thefor
Measurements percentage
7 different calculation is given by (10)
water concentrations, [31,32].
with dry sand, 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9%, and
10% of water and for red clay with 8 different concentrations with dry clay, with 1%, 3%, 5%, 7%, 9%,
mwater
10%, and 15% of water, the percentage SWC (%) = is
calculation given× 100%
by (10) [31,32]. (10)
𝑚 m DrySoil
𝑆𝑊𝐶(%) = × 100% (10)
𝑚
where mwater and mDrySoil is the weight (in gram) of the water and dry soils samples. The quartz sand
where 𝑚 and 𝑚 is the weight (in gram) of the water and dry soils samples. The quartz
setup is shown in Figure 7a, and the measured results of the sand reflection coefficient (S11 , dB) for the
sand setup is shown in Figure 7a, and the measured results of the sand reflection coefficient (S11, dB)
three cases are shown in Figure 7b. The red clay setup is shown in Figure 8a and the results of S11 in
for the three cases are shown in Figure 7b. The red clay setup is shown in Figure 8a and the results of
Figure 8b for reproducibility. Measurements were performed in a climate-controlled room at 24 ◦ C.
S11 in Figure 8b for reproducibility. Measurements were performed in a climate-controlled room at
The measured salinity values of the soil samples were 27.09 mg/L and 13.09 mg/L for quartz sand and
24 °C. The measured salinity values of the soil samples were 27.09 mg/L and 13.09 mg/L for quartz
red clay, respectively.
sand and red clay, respectively.

Figure7.7.Quartz
Figure Quartzsand
sandsample
sampleexperimental
experimental procedure:
procedure: (a) Measurement
Measurement setup;
setup; (b)
(b) S11
11 variation
variationfor
for
different Soil Water Content (SWC).
different Soil Water Content (SWC).
Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15
Sensors 2020, 20, 255 11 of 16

Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 15

Figure 8. Red clay sample experimental procedure: (a) Measurement setup; (b) S11 variation for
different SWC.
Figure8. 8.Red
Figure Redclay
claysample
sampleexperimental
experimentalprocedure:
procedure: (a)
(a) Measurement
Measurement setup;
setup; (b) SS11
11 variation
variation for
for
With theSWC.
different
different results
SWC. obtained experimentally, it was possible to estimate the relative permittivity of
the sand for different concentrations. It can be seen from Figure 8b that for small variations in water
percentage,Withthe
With the results
theresults obtained
sensorobtained
resonances experimentally,
experimentally,
had considerable it
it was possible
wasshifts. Fortoto
possible estimate
estimate
example, the relative
the
with of permittivity
relative
5% at 𝑓𝑟 of
permittivity
water =
the sand for different concentrations. It can be seen from Figure 8b
1.95 GHz and at 10% at 𝑓𝑟 = 1.785 GHz a variation of 165 MHz is observed. The results of the
of the sand for different concentrations. It can be seen from Figure that
8b for small
that for variations
small in water
variations in
percentage,
water
relative percentage,the sensor
permittivity resonances
theofsensor
the two had considerable
resonances
measured had shifts.shifts.
soilsconsiderable
are compared For
withexample,
For with
example,
values 5%
obtained ofinwater
with 5% at 𝑓𝑟 =
theofliterature.
water at
f r1.95
For 1 =
redGHz
1.95 and
GHz
clay, whenat
and10%
aat at 𝑓𝑟
10%
small at =f r11.785
amount =of GHzGHz
1.785
water awas
variation
added,ofdue
a variation 165
of toMHz
165itsMHz is isobserved.
observed.
absorption The
Theresults
results
characteristic, of
the the
ofshift
the
inrelative
relative permittivity
permittivity
the resonance ofofthe
frequency thetwo
two
of measured
measured
the soils are
soils
case between are compared
0%compared
and 7% ofwithwith values obtained
the amount of water in
obtained in the
was literature.
thevery
literature.
small.
For For
The red red clay, when
clay, when
permittivity a small
a small
results amount
amountfor
obtained of water
ofthe
water was
twowas added,
added,
different due
due
soil to its absorption
to its absorption
samples characteristic,
are showncharacteristic,
in Figures 9 and the shift
the10.
shift
ininthe theresonance
resonancefrequency
frequencyofofthe thecase
casebetween
between 0% 0% and
and 7%7% of
of the
the amount
amount of of water
water waswas very
very small.
small.
The The permittivityresults
permittivity resultsobtained
obtainedfor forthe
thetwotwodifferent
differentsoil
soilsamples
samplesare areshown
shownin inFigures
Figures99andand 10.10.

Measured results a Soil sample obtained in the

Figure
Figure 9.
9. Measured results for
for different
different SWC
SWC (%)
(%) with
with quartz
quartz sand.
sand. a Soil sample obtained in the
region of Banat in north-east of Serbia. b The values shown are the mean value of those
those obtained
obtained from
region
Figureof 9.
Banat in north-east
Measured results of
forSerbia.
b TheSWC
different values
(%)shown are thesand.
with quartz meanavalue of
Soil sample obtained infrom
the
measurements. c From Energy Dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis, the sand soil sample is composed of
measurements. c From Energy Dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis, the sand soil sample is
region of Banat in north-east of Serbia. The values shown are the mean value of those obtained from
b composed of
11.5%
11.5% of
of Carbon,
Carbon, 28.1%
28.1% Silicon,
Silicon, 0.1%
0.1% Magnesium,
Magnesium, 0.7%
0.7% Iron,
Iron, and
and 53%
53% of
of Oxygen.
Oxygen.
measurements. From Energy Dispersive X-ray (EDX) analysis, the sand soil sample is composed of
c

11.5% of Carbon, 28.1% Silicon, 0.1% Magnesium, 0.7% Iron, and 53% of Oxygen.
 Sensors 2020, 20, 255 12 of 16
Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 15

Figure 10. Measured results for different SWC (%) with red clay. a Soil obtained in the region of Yingtan,
Figure 10. Measured results for different SWC (%) with red clay. a Soil obtained in the region of
Jiangxi Province of China.
Yingtan, Jiangxi Province of China.
The experimental results presented in this work show good agreement with other authors’
The experimental results presented in this work show good agreement with other authors’
reported works and the small differences in the results are due to the different characteristics of the soil
reported works and the small differences in the results are due to the different characteristics of the
samples, once the electrical characteristics of the soils are directly related to its chemical composition.
soil samples, once the electrical characteristics of the soils are directly related to its chemical
Additionally, the compared soil samples (Figures 9 and 10) have very different chemical characteristics
composition. Additionally, the compared soil samples (Figures 9 and 10) have very different
and were extracted in different places.
chemical characteristics and were extracted in different places.
The values of the soil dielectric constants for different water concentrations are shown in Tables 5
The values of the soil dielectric constants for different water concentrations are shown in Tables
and 6, for quartz sand and red clay, respectively.
5 and 6, for quartz sand and red clay, respectively.
Table 5. Measured results for quartz sand soil samples.
Table 5. Measured results for quartz sand soil samples.
WC (0%) WC (1%) WC (3%) WC (5%) WC (7%) WC (9%) WC (10%)
WC (0%) WC (1%) WC (3%) WC (5%) WC (7%) WC (9%) WC (10%)
f r1 (GHz) 2.130 2.120 2.076 1.950 1.920 1.851 1.785
𝑓𝑟 (GHz) 2.130 2.120 2.076 1.950 1.920 1.851 1.785
f r2 (GHz) 3.315 3.310 3.241 3.120 3.000 2.976 2.970
𝑓𝑟ε (GHz) 3.315
2.450 3.310
2.560 3.241
3.146 3.120
4.877 3.000
5.517 2.976
6.530 2.9707.520
r
𝜺𝒓 2.450 2.560 3.146 4.877 5.517 6.530 7.520
Table 6. Measured results for red clay soil samples.
Table 6. Measured results for red clay soil samples.
WC (%)
WC (%)
0 1 3 5 7 9 10 15
0 1 3 5 7 9 10 15
f r1 (GHz )
𝑓𝑟 (GHz) 2.13 2.103 2.094
2.13 2.103 2.094 2.085 2.029 1.997 1.950
2.085 2.029 1.997 1.950 1.815 1.815
f r2 (GHz) 3.315 3.293 3.279 3.285 3.120 3.095 3.090 2.955
𝑓𝑟 (GHz) 3.315 3.293 3.279 3.285 3.120 3.095 3.090 2.955
εr 2.456 2.775 2.892 2.984 3.890 4.327 4.934 7.105
𝜺𝒓 2.456 2.775 2.892 2.984 3.890 4.327 4.934 7.105

Forthe
For thequartz
quartzsand
sandsoil
soilsamples,
samples,measurements
measurementswere weremade
madeup uptotoaaconcentration
concentrationof of10%
10%due
duetoto
the fact
the fact that,
that, with
with the
theconcentration
concentrationofof15% 15%of of
water forfor
water thethe
amount
amountof material in the
of material insensor, free water,
the sensor, free
i.e., not absorbed by the soil sample, drastically influenced the result obtained. The
water, i.e., not absorbed by the soil sample, drastically influenced the result obtained. The values values measured
for the red for
measured clay the
presented
red clay low presented
relative permittivity values
low relative due to the absorption
permittivity values due characteristic and high
to the absorption
conductivity and
characteristic of this type
high of soil, thusofcausing
conductivity higher
this type dielectric
of soil, losses higher
thus causing [29]. dielectric losses [29].
The soil characterization was based on the sensitivity
The soil characterization was based on the sensitivity level of thelevel of the proposed
proposedsensor,
sensor, which
which isis
associated with shifts in resonant frequency. Measurements were performed
associated with shifts in resonant frequency. Measurements were performed on quartz sand and on quartz sand andred
red
clay soil samples for different water concentrations, as performed in [31]. Figure 11 shows a
comparison between the results obtained in this work and those given in [31].
Sensors 2020, 20, 255 13 of 16

clay soil samples for different water concentrations, as performed in [31]. Figure 11 shows a comparison
between the20,results
Sensors 2020, obtained
x FOR PEER in this work and those given in [31].
REVIEW 13 of 15

Figure11.
Figure 11.Measured
Measured results
results forfor
the the resonance
resonance frequency
frequency shift
shift on on quartz
quartz sand
sand and redand
clay red clay soil
soil samples
samples
for for water
different different water concentrations.
concentrations.

In
InFigure
Figure 11,
11, it is possible
possibleto toobserve
observethat
thatfor
forthe
the quartz
quartz sand
sand sample,
sample, thethe sensor
sensor proposed
proposed in
in this
this
workwork
hashas higher
higher sensitivity
sensitivity levels
levels than
than theone
the onedeveloped
developedinin[31],
[31], due
due to the higher
higher resonance
resonance
frequency
frequencyshifts.
shifts.
Table
Table77presents
presentsaacomparison
comparisonof ofthe
thekey
keyparameters
parametersof ofthe
thesensor
sensorproposed
proposedininthis
thiswork
workwith
with
other
othersensors
sensorsreported
reportedin inthe
theliterature.
literature.

Table7.7.Comparison
Table Comparisonof
ofstructural
structuralparameters
parameterswith
withsensors
sensorsreported
reportedininthe
theliterature.
literature.

Ref. Structure Area (mm2) Sensing Parameter

SensingDesign Complexity
Design Char. Char.
Method Two Resonances
Two
Ref.
[1]
Structure N/A Area (mm2 ) 𝑆
Planar Parameter Medium
Complexity Resonance
Method No
Resonances
[2] Planar 55 × 50 𝑆 High Resonance No
[1] Planar 40 × 35 N/A 𝑆
S11 Medium Resonance No
[4] Planar Low Resonance No
[2]
[5]
Planar
Planar N/A
55 × 50 𝑆 S 21 Low
High Resonance
Resonance
No
No
[4]
[6] Planar
Planar 55 × 63 40 × 35 𝑆 S 21 LowLow Resonance
Transmission No
N/A *
[5]
[7] Planar 50 × 92 N/A 𝑆
Planar ** S21 HighLow Resonance
Transmission No
No
[6]
[12] Planar 80 × 40 55 × 63 𝑆
Planar S21 LowLow Transmission
Resonance N/A
Yes *
[7]
[21] Planar 80 × 80 50 × 92 𝑆
Planar S21 DC ** LowHigh Transmission
Resonance No
Yes
[12]
[24] Planar
Planar N/A 80 × 40 𝑆 S 21 LowLow Resonance
Resonance Yes
No
This[21]
Work Planar 48 × 64 80 × 80 𝑆
Planar S11 LowLow Resonance
Resonance Yes
Yes
[24] Planar * UWB sensor; S21 transmission
N/A ** Cross-mode Lowcoefficient.
Resonance No
This Work Planar 48 × 64 S11 Low Resonance Yes
5. Conclusions * UWB sensor; ** Cross-mode transmission coefficient.

A new and compact microwave sensor composed of a circular microstrip patch antenna with
two slotted complementary split-ring resonators (CSRRs) was developed to characterize the relative
permittivity of different dielectric materials and determine different water concentrations in
different soil types. The operating principle is based on the difference between the resonant
frequencies of the sensor with and without MUT samples. The sensitivity characteristics of the
proposed sensor were analyzed and compared with the ones available in the literature, proving that
the developed sensor has a great potential and can be used in several applications due to the
required small amount of MUT sample, low cost, low weight, and ease of fabrication. In addition, an
empirical model was proposed based on the behavior of the sensor at each resonance band, relating
the resonant frequency to the permittivity of the materials under test (MUT). The sensor was used to
characterize dielectric materials with known properties for comparison purpose and a good
Sensors 2020, 20, 255 14 of 16

5. Conclusions
A new and compact microwave sensor composed of a circular microstrip patch antenna with
two slotted complementary split-ring resonators (CSRRs) was developed to characterize the relative
permittivity of different dielectric materials and determine different water concentrations in different
soil types. The operating principle is based on the difference between the resonant frequencies of
the sensor with and without MUT samples. The sensitivity characteristics of the proposed sensor
were analyzed and compared with the ones available in the literature, proving that the developed
sensor has a great potential and can be used in several applications due to the required small amount
of MUT sample, low cost, low weight, and ease of fabrication. In addition, an empirical model was
proposed based on the behavior of the sensor at each resonance band, relating the resonant frequency
to the permittivity of the materials under test (MUT). The sensor was used to characterize dielectric
materials with known properties for comparison purpose and a good agreement between results was
observed. It was also used to determine the percent water concentration in quartz sand and red clay
samples. In addition, the sensor has great potential for use in medical, agricultural, and chemical
applications due to the high sensitivity to small variations in the relative permittivity of different
materials, low profile, small size, and planar structure.
The main contributions of this work are related to the modeling technique used to determine
the dielectric constant based on the behavior of two resonances, the use of a sensor designed to
determine the electrical permittivity of materials in the characterization of percentage soil water content
(SWC), and the size reduction of the proposed sensor when compared to those presented in previous
published works.
As a proposal, it would be interesting to investigate the combined use of CSRR and SRR elements
to include the magnetic permeability characterization in the analysis, once ferromagnetic materials are
present in many types of soils.

Author Contributions: J.G.D.O. contributed the idea, simulation, analysis, measurements, and paper writing;
E.N.M.G.P. contributed on the sample preparation and measurements; V.P.S.N. contributed the simulation,
analysis, and assisted in the work development; A.G.D. contributed the data analysis, measurements, and assisted
in the work development and paper writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by CNPq under covenant 573939/2008-0 (INCT-CSF), CAPES,
Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN) and Federal Rural University of the Semi-Arid (UFERSA).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Silavwe, E.; Somjit, N.; Robertson, I.D. A microfluidic-integrated SIW lab-on-substrate sensor for microliter
liquid characterization. IEEE Sens. J. 2016, 16, 7628–7635. [CrossRef]
2. Wei, Z.; Huang, J.; Li, J.; Xu, G.; Ju, Z.; Liu, X.; Ni, X. A High-sensitivity microfluidic sensor based on a
substrate integrated waveguide re-entrant cavity for complex permittivity measurement of liquids. Sensors
2018, 18, 4005. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Chretiennot, T.; Dubuc, D.; Grenier, K. A microwave and microfluidic planar resonator for efficient and
accurate complex permittivity characterization of aqueous solutions. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 2012,
61, 972–978. [CrossRef]
4. Reyes-Vera, E.; Acevedo-Osorio, G.; Arias-Correa, M.; Senior, D.E. A submersible printed sensor based on a
monopole-coupled split ring resonator for permittivity characterization. Sensors 2019, 19, 1936. [CrossRef]
5. Galindo-Romera, G.; Herraiz-Martínez, F.J.; Gil, M.; Martínez-Martínez, J.J.; Segovia-Vargas, D. Submersible
printed split-ring resonator-based sensor for thin-film detection and permittivity characterization.
IEEE Sens. J. 2016, 16, 3587–3596. [CrossRef]
6. Soffiatti, A.; Max, Y.; Silva, S.G.; de Mendonça, L.M. Microwave metamaterial-based sensor for dielectric
characterization of liquids. Sensors 2018, 18, 1513. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 255 15 of 16

7. Vélez, P.; Muñoz-Enano, J.; Gil, M.; Mata-Contreras, J.; Martín, F. Differential microfluidic sensors based on
dumbbell-shaped defect ground structures in microstrip technology: Analysis, optimization, and applications.
Sensors 2019, 19, 3189. [CrossRef]
8. Chahadih, A.; Cresson, P.Y.; Hamouda, Z.; Gu, S.; Mismer, C.; Lasri, T. Microwave/microfluidic sensor
fabricated on a flexible kapton substrate for complex permittivity characterization of liquids. Sens. Act.
A Phys. 2015, 229, 128–135. [CrossRef]
9. Dinh, T.H.N.; Serfaty, S.; Joubert, P.Y. Non-contact radiofrequency inductive sensor for the dielectric
characterization of burn depth in organic tissues. Sensors 2019, 19, 1220. [CrossRef]
10. Helmy, A.A.; Kabiri, S.; Bajestan, M.M.; Entesari, K. Complex permittivity detection of organic chemicals
and mixtures using a 0.5–3-GHz miniaturized spectroscopy system. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 2013,
61, 4646–4659. [CrossRef]
11. Helmy, A.A.; Entesari, K. A 1–8 GHz miniaturized spectroscopy system for permittivity detection and mixture
characterization of organic chemicals. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 2012, 60, 4157–4170. [CrossRef]
12. KT, M.S.; Ansari, M.A.H.; Jha, A.K.; Akhtar, M.J. Design of SRR-based microwave sensor for characterization
of magnetodielectric substrates. IEEE Microw. Wirel. Compon. Lett. 2017, 27, 524–526.
13. Shafi, K.M.; Jha, A.K.; Akhtar, M.J. Improved planar resonant RF sensor for retrieval of permittivity and
permeability of materials. IEEE Sens. J. 2017, 17, 5479–5486. [CrossRef]
14. Liu, W.; Sun, H.; Xu, L. A Microwave method for dielectric characterization measurement of small liquids
using a metamaterial-based sensor. Sensors 2018, 18, 1438. [CrossRef]
15. Haq, T.; Ruan, C.; Zhang, X.; Ullah, S. Complementary metamaterial sensor for nondestructive evaluation of
dielectric substrates. Sensors 2019, 19, 2100. [CrossRef]
16. Boybay, M.S.; Ramahi, O.M. Material characterization using complementary split-ring resonators. IEEE Trans.
Instrum. Meas. 2012, 61, 3039–3046. [CrossRef]
17. Vélez, P.; Su, L.; Grenier, K.; Mata-Contreras, J.; Dubuc, D.; Martín, F. Microwave microfluidic sensor based
on a microstrip splitter/combiner configuration and split ring resonators (SRRs) for dielectric characterization
of liquids. IEEE Sens. J. 2017, 17, 6589–6598. [CrossRef]
18. Ebrahimi, A.; Withayachumnankul, W.; Al-Sarawi, S.; Abbott, D. High-sensitivity metamaterial-inspired
sensor for microfluidic dielectric characterization. IEEE Sens. J. 2013, 14, 1345–1351. [CrossRef]
19. Withayachumnankul, W.; Jaruwongrungsee, K.; Tuantranont, A.; Fumeaux, C.; Abbott, D. Metamaterial-based
microfluidic sensor for dielectric characterization. Sens. Act. A Phys. 2013, 189, 233–237. [CrossRef]
20. Yeo, J.; Lee, J.I. High-sensitivity microwave sensor based on an interdigital-capacitor-shaped defected ground
structure for permittivity characterization. Sensors 2019, 19, 498. [CrossRef]
21. Yeo, J.; Lee, J.I. Slot-Loaded Microstrip Patch Sensor Antenna for high-sensitivity permittivity characterization.
Electronics 2019, 8, 502. [CrossRef]
22. Balanis, C.A. Antenna Theory: Analysis and Design, 4th ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2016;
pp. 815–823.
23. Memon, M.U.; Lim, S. Microfluidic high-Q circular substrate-integrated waveguide (SIW) cavity for radio
frequency (RF) chemical liquid sensing. Sensors 2018, 18, 143. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Ansari, M.A.H.; Jha, A.K.; Akhtar, M.J. Design and application of the CSRR-based planar sensor for
noninvasive measurement of complex permittivity. IEEE Sens. J. 2015, 15, 7181–7189. [CrossRef]
25. Li, Q.L.; Cheung, S.W.; Wu, D.; Yuk, T.I. Optically transparent dual-band MIMO antenna using micro-metal
mesh conductive film for WLAN system. IEEE Ant. Wirel. Propag. Lett. 2016, 16, 920–923. [CrossRef]
26. Mestdagh, S.; De Raedt, W.; Vandenbosch, G.A. CPW-fed stacked microstrip antennas. IEEE Trans. Ant.
Propag. 2004, 52, 74–83. [CrossRef]
27. Saadat-Safa, M.; Nayyeri, V.; Khanjarian, M.; Soleimani, M.; Ramahi, O.M. A CSRR-based sensor for full
characterization of magneto-dielectric materials. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech. 2019, 67, 806–814.
[CrossRef]
28. Kitić, G.; Crnojević-Bengin, V. A sensor for the measurement of the moisture of undisturbed soil samples.
Sensors 2013, 13, 1692–1705. [CrossRef]
29. Zhou, L.; Yu, D.; Wang, Z.; Wang, X. Soil water content estimation using high-frequency ground penetrating
radar. Water 2019, 11, 1036. [CrossRef]
30. Topp, G.C.; Davis, J.L.; Annan, A.P. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: Measurements in
coaxial transmission lines. Water Res. Res. 1980, 16, 574–582. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 255 16 of 16

31. Then, Y.L.; You, K.Y.; Dimon, M.N.; Lee, C.Y. A modified microstrip ring resonator sensor with lumped
element modeling for soil moisture and dielectric predictions measurement. Measurement 2016, 94, 119–125.
[CrossRef]
32. Fratticcioli, E.; Dionigi, M.; Sorrentino, R. A simple and low-cost measurement system for the complex
permittivity characterization of materials. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2004, 53, 1071–1077. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).