sensors

Article
Characterization of Low-Cost Capacitive Soil
Moisture Sensors for IoT Networks
Pisana Placidi * , Laura Gasperini, Alessandro Grassi, Manuela Cecconi and Andrea Scorzoni
Dipartimento di Ingegneria, University of Perugia, via G. Duranti, 93, 06125 Perugia, Italy;
[email protected] (L.G.); [email protected] (A.G.);
[email protected] (M.C.); [email protected] (A.S.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 31 May 2020; Accepted: 23 June 2020; Published: 25 June 2020


Abstract: The rapid development and wide application of the IoT (Internet of Things) has pushed
toward the improvement of current practices in greenhouse technology and agriculture in general,
through automation and informatization. The experimental and accurate determination of soil
moisture is a matter of great importance in different scientific fields, such as agronomy, soil physics,
geology, hydraulics, and soil mechanics. This paper focuses on the experimental characterization of
a commercial low-cost “capacitive” coplanar soil moisture sensor that can be housed in distributed
nodes for IoT applications. It is shown that at least for a well-defined type of soil with a constant solid
matter to volume ratio, this type of capacitive sensor yields a reliable relationship between output
voltage and gravimetric water content.

Keywords: moisture sensor; capacitive measurement; capacitive moisture sensor; soil water content
measurement techniques; geotechnical investigation; SKU:SEN0193 sensor

1. Introduction
The development of the Internet of Things (IoT) refers to a global network of intelligent objects,
or “things,” based on sensors, i.e., microcontrollers augmented with networking capabilities. In this
framework, communication technologies can improve the current methods of monitoring, supporting
the response appropriately in real time for a wide range of applications [1–4]. Sensors are designed
for collecting information (e.g., temperature, pressure, light, humidity, soil moisture, etc.) whereas
network-capable microcontrollers are able to process, store, and interpret information, building
intelligent wireless sensor networks (WSN) [5–7].
WSNs have extensively been adopted in agriculture since their first introduction in the new
century [8,9]. A distinct advantage of wireless transmission is a significant reduction and simplification
in wiring and harness, a required feature for smart farming [10,11], where installation flexibility for
sensors is not an option. A description of a modular IoT architecture for several applications including
but not limited to healthcare, health monitoring, and precision agriculture is reported in previous
works [12,13].
In this scenario, soil moisture or soil water content is a matter of great importance. In fact, water is
considered as one of the most critical resources for sustainable development because in forthcoming
years fresh water will increasingly be used in irrigated areas, in towns for domestic purposes, and in
the industry. Furthermore, the efficiency of irrigation is very low. It is well known that only a fraction
of the irrigation water is actually used by the crops. Hence, the sustainable use of irrigation water is
a main concern for agriculture and not only under scarcity conditions. Considerable efforts have been
allocated over time to increase water efficiency based on the assertion that “more can be achieved with
less water through better management” [14].

Sensors 2020, 20, 3585; doi:10.3390/s20123585 www.mdpi.com/journal/sensors

Sensors 2020, 20, 3585 2 of 14

Modernization and automated scheduling of irrigation systems demands for sensor-based

equipment. Traditionally, sensor data are associated with environmental conditions and soil water
status to provide information about the full crop water requirements [15]. The most commonly used
soil parameter sensors exploit dielectric properties, since they are relatively cheap and flexible [16,17].
Their correct operation requires complex calibration, taking into account aspects such as soil texture
and structure, temperature, and water salinity [10,17–19], as well as the spatial variability of soil
conditions [20]. Thermal and multispectral cameras, satellites, or infrared radiometers (IR) are also
used to estimate water crop needs [21–24].
Nonetheless, the experimental and accurate determination of soil moisture is also a matter of
great importance in different scientific fields, such as agronomy, soil physics, geology, hydraulics,
and soil mechanics. Physical, chemical, mineralogical, and biological properties are also affected by
the soil water content. A summary of the state of the art soil moisture measurement techniques has
been previously reported [24–28]. The thermo-gravimetric technique is the classical soil moisture
(or water content) measurement method for geotechnical engineering applications. Modern techniques
include soil resistivity detection, neutron scattering, tensiometers, infrared moisture balance, dielectric
techniques like frequency domain reflectometry, time domain reflectometry, heat flux soil moisture
sensors, optical techniques, and modern micro-electromechanical systems. In particular, several
reviews have been published in the literature on dielectric methods [29–31].
Our paper focuses on the experimental characterization of a commercial, low-cost “capacitive”
soil moisture sensor that can be housed in distributed nodes for IoT applications with the aim to
validate its performance and soundness in the determination of soil physical properties. IoT sensor
nodes should be deployed in large numbers and the cost of the components of the nodes should be
minimized. The chosen sensor, identified as SKU:SEN0193, is the cheapest and most easily available
in the market. However, detailed information on the sensor operation is not available. Therefore,
it is useful to investigate its performance and understand its limits both for irrigation management
and for soil moisture determination, e.g., in geotechnical applications. To the best of our knowledge,
the sensor studied in the present paper has been characterized only once before [32], when it as
evaluated for accuracy and reliability under laboratory conditions. The authors found that this sensor
did not perform acceptably in predicting soil moisture content in a laboratory soil mixture prepared
by mixing organic-rich soil and vermiculite, while it can estimate soil water in gardening soil in the
so-called “field capacity” range. The present paper adds an in-depth characterization of the electrical
circuit of the sensor and a statistical analysis on a number of nominally identical samples with the aim
to better understand its limits and applicability with silica sandy soil.

2. Soil Water Content Measurements

Undoubtedly, water plays an essential role in the chemical-physical-mechanical properties of soil.
With regard to the upper soil volumes close to the ground table, plant growth, organization of natural
ecosystems, and biodiversity, are surely affected by soil moisture quantity and its variations. In the
agriculture sector, application of adequate and timely irrigation, depending upon the soil-moisture-plant
environment, is essential for crop production. More generally, soil vegetation is certainly affected by
soil moisture, among others. Therefore, quantitative evaluation of soil water content from the ground
surface to larger depths is a key-issue for the comprehension and assessment of many phenomena
depending on the interaction soil-vegetation-atmosphere, such as soil erosion, runoff, and soil water
infiltration. The subject is complex since the study of these processes requires specific skills in
the field of soil physics, agronomy, hydraulics, and soil mechanics. Soil vegetation modifies the
hydrological balance of the involved area due to both the aerial plant apparati to capture part of the
water rainfall and the capacity of the plants to adsorb water from the surrounding soil and transfer it
to the atmosphere through evapotranspiration. The latter mechanism may yield a reduction of the soil
degree of saturation (an increase of suction) and consequently an increase of the soil shear strength.
Sensors 2020, 20, 3585 3 of 14

Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW

Thus, soil vegetation may also have an important effect in the engineering field of slope stability3and of 14

environmental protection [33,34].

Hence, the determination of soil water content, degree of saturation, and their variations upon
Hence, the determination of soil water content, degree of saturation, and their variations upon
environmental conditions is crucial in the different fields dealing with the soil behavior. Pore
environmental conditions is crucial in the different fields dealing with the soil behavior. Pore pressures
pressures pertaining to the soil fluid phase (gas + water) also play a fundamental role in the
pertaining to the soil fluid phase (gas + water) also play a fundamental role in the mechanical behavior
mechanical behavior of soils. In turn, the latter impacts the performance of geotechnical structures
of soils. In turn, the latter impacts the performance of geotechnical structures and systems, such as
and systems, such as foundations, earth retaining walls, slopes, and so on.
foundations, earth retaining walls, slopes, and so on.
Looking at the scale of a soil element, by being a porous material, this is intrinsically multiphase.
Looking at the scale of a soil element, by being a porous material, this is intrinsically multiphase.
Typically, three distinct phases are recognized: solid (mineral particles), liquid (usually water), and
Typically, three distinct phases are recognized: solid (mineral particles), liquid (usually water),
gas. In the framework of soil mechanics, the relationships among the soil phases are schematically
and gas. In the framework of soil mechanics, the relationships among the soil phases are schematically
represented in Figure 1, which facilitates the definition of the phase relationships. Although the
represented in Figure 1, which facilitates the definition of the phase relationships. Although the
quantities plotted in the figure and their relationships are very well established in the fields of soil
quantities plotted in the figure and their relationships are very well established in the fields of soil
mechanics, for the sake of completeness it is only the case to recall the definitions of the main
mechanics, for the sake of completeness it is only the case to recall the definitions of the main quantities
quantities addressed in this paper. With regard to volume-relationships, porosity, voids ratio, degree
addressed in this paper. With regard to volume-relationships, porosity, voids ratio, degree of saturation,
of saturation, and volumetric water content, they are defined as follows. By considering a soil
and volumetric water content, they are defined as follows. By considering a soil element, porosity (n) is
element, porosity (n) is the ratio of voids (pores) volume to total volume, while the voids ratio (e) is
the ratio of voids (pores) volume to total volume, while the voids ratio (e) is the ratio of voids volume
the ratio of voids volume to solid volume. The degree of saturation (Sr) is defined as the percentage
to solid volume. The degree of saturation (Sr ) is defined as the percentage of the voids volume filled
of the voids volume filled with water (Sr = 0 for a dry soil; Sr = 1 for a saturated soil; Sr < 1 for a partially
with water (Sr = 0 for a dry soil; Sr = 1 for a saturated soil; Sr < 1 for a partially saturated soil). On the
saturated soil). On the other hand, the most useful relationship between phases in terms of weights
other hand, the most useful relationship between phases in terms of weights is the gravimetric water
is the gravimetric water content of a soil element: in geotechnics and soil science it is defined as the
content of a soil element: in geotechnics and soil science it is defined as the weight of water divided by
weight of water divided by the weight of solid.
the weight of solid.

volumes weights
𝑉 gas (air) 𝑊 ≅0
𝑉
𝑉 liquid (water) 𝑊
𝑉 𝑊

𝑉 soil 𝑊

Figure 1. Soil-phase relationships.

Figure 1. Soil-phase relationships.
Based on weight measures, the gravimetric water content is readily obtained in
Based on
a laboratory weight measures, the gravimetric water content is readily obtained in a laboratory
environment:
environment: Ww W − Ws
w= = , (1)
Ws W
𝑤= = s , (1)
This is accomplished by weighing the natural soil (w), drying it in an oven, then weighing the
Thismeasuring
dry soil, is accomplished by weighing
the weight the natural
ws , and computing thesoil (𝑤),content
water drying according
it in an oven, then weighing
to Equation (1). Let the
us
define γdrymeasuring
dry soil, as the drythe weight𝑤and
unitweight γw computing
, and the water
as the unit weight content
of water kN/m3 ):to Equation (1). Let
according
(10
us define 𝛾 as the dry unit weight and 𝛾 as the unit weight of water (≅10 kN/m3):
Ws Ww
γdry
𝛾 = =V γw = 𝛾 V=w , , (2)
(2)

Finally,the
Finally, thevolumetric
volumetricwater content(θ(θww))isisthe
watercontent theratio
ratioof
ofthe
thewater
watervolume
volumeto
tothe
thetotal
totalvolume:
volume:
𝑉 𝛾
𝜃 =Vw = 𝑤 ∙γdry (3)
θw = 𝑉= w · 𝛾 (3)
V γw
We underline in Equation (3) the gas volume of the soil is included in the dry unit weight 𝛾 .
We underline in Equation (3) the gas volume of the soil is included in the dry unit weight γdry .
real part of permittivity (ε ) quantifies the amount of energy from an external electric field being
stored in a material. The imaginary part of permittivity (ε ), also dubbed the “loss factor”, measures
how dissipative or lossy a material is to an external electric field: ε > 0. Losses are associated with
two main processes: molecular relaxation and electrical conductivity. Permittivity is dependent on (i)
frequency,
Sensors (ii)3585
2020, 20, moisture, and the (iii) salinity and ionic content of the soil. 4 of 14
A number of lossy dielectric mechanisms contribute to the global permittivity, being that the
ionic and the rotational dipolar effects the most significant ones (see Figure 2). For increasing
3. Capacitive
frequency only,Moisture
the fastSensor
mechanisms survive. Every cutoff frequency is characterized by a sudden
decrease of 𝜀 and a peak
In this paper, a capacitance of 𝜀 .probe has been used for sensing moisture. It is well known [35] that
The electrical
the output equivalent
of a capacitive moisturecircuit of adepends
sensors capacitive
on the sensor always
complex includes
relative an element
permittivity whose
ε∗r of the soil
capacitance can
(dielectric medium): be written as:
σdc
!
0 𝜀 ∗ 𝜀 00𝐺
ε∗r = ε0r − jεr =𝐶ε=
00
r − j ε + , (5)
(4)
relax 2π f ε0
where 𝐺 is a geometric
00 factor and 𝜀 is the permittivity in a vacuum.
where ε0r and εr are the real and the imaginary part of the permittivity, respectively (Figure 2), σdc is
The dielectric is able to store 00 energy when an external electric field is applied. If an AC sinusoidal
the electrical conductivity, εrelax , the molecular relaxation contribution (dipolar rotational, atomic
voltage source 𝑣 of frequency f is placed across the capacitor (no relaxation √ medium) a charging
vibrational,
current ic and and electronic
a loss current energy
il that arestates),
relatedj istothe
theimaginary numberwill−1,
dielectric constant beand
madef is
up.the frequency.
The real part of permittivity (ε0r ) quantifies the amount of energy from an external electric field being
stored in a material. The imaginary part 𝑖 = 𝑗𝜔𝐶𝑣 = 𝑗𝜔𝜀 +(ε
of permittivity 𝜔𝜀00 𝜀 𝐺 𝑣 (6)
r ), also dubbed the “loss factor”, measures
00
how
where dissipative or lossyvelocity
ω is the angular a material
ω = is2πftoand
an external electric
v and i are phasors.field: εr > 0. Losses are associated with
two main processes: molecular relaxation and electrical conductivity. Permittivity is dependent on (i)
frequency, (ii) moisture, and the (iii) salinity and ionic content of the soil.

Figure 2.
Figure 2. Dielectric
Dielectric mechanisms
mechanisms contributing
contributing toto dielectric
dielectric behavior
behavior atat the
the microscopic
microscopic level.
level. Molecular
Molecular
relaxation (dipolar rotational, atomic vibrational and electronic energy states) have been highlighted.
relaxation (dipolar rotational, atomic vibrational and electronic energy states) have been highlighted.
With respect
With respecttotoa similar
a similar picture
picture in [36],
in [36], different
different branches
branches of 𝜀drawn,
of εr are
00
are corresponding
drawn, corresponding to
to different
values of soil electrical conductivity σdc . Electromagnetic wave ranges have also been emphasized.

A number of lossy dielectric mechanisms contribute to the global permittivity, being that the ionic
and the rotational dipolar effects the most significant ones (see Figure 2). For increasing frequency
only, the fast mechanisms survive. Every cutoff frequency is characterized by a sudden decrease of ε0r
00
and a peak of εr .
The electrical equivalent circuit of a capacitive sensor always includes an element whose
capacitance can be written as:
C = ε∗r ε0 G0 (5)

where G0 is a geometric factor and ε0 is the permittivity in a vacuum.

The dielectric is able to store energy when an external electric field is applied. If an AC sinusoidal
voltage source v of frequency f is placed across the capacitor (no relaxation medium) a charging current
ic and a loss current il that are related to the dielectric constant will be made up.

i = jωCv = ( jωε0r + ωεr )ε0 G0 v

00
(6)
 Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14
Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

different values of soil electrical conductivity 𝜎 . Electromagnetic wave ranges have also been
Sensorsdifferent values of soil electrical conductivity
2020, 20, 3585 𝜎 . Electromagnetic wave ranges have also been5 of 14
emphasized.
emphasized.
In Figure 3 the used commercial, blade-shaped, “Capacitive Soil Moisture Sensor v1.2” is
whereIn is the angular
ωFigure velocity
3 the used ω = 2πf and
commercial, v and i are phasors.
blade-shaped, “Capacitive Soil Moisture Sensor v1.2” is
portrayed.
In Figure
portrayed. 3 the used commercial, blade-shaped, “Capacitive Soil Moisture Sensor v1.2” is portrayed.

Figure 3. A “capacitive” soil moisture sensor. The grazing light image shows the coplanar concentric
Figure
Figure 3. A
3.
capacitor Aof“capacitive”
“capacitive” soil moisture
the sensor. soil moisture sensor.
sensor. The
The grazing
grazing light
light image
image shows
shows the
the coplanar
coplanar concentric
concentric
capacitor of
capacitor of the
the sensor.
sensor.
To the best of our knowledge, a data sheet for this type of sensors is only available for version
To the
To
1.0 [37],the best of
best of our
manufacturedour knowledge,
knowledge,
by DFROBOT aa data
dataand
sheet
sheet for this
for this type
advertised type
with of the
of sensors
sensors
name is only
is only available for
available
SKU:SEN0193. for version
version
The only
1.0
1.0 [37],manufactured
[37],
significantmanufactured
specifications by DFROBOT
by DFROBOT
given and
in the and advertised
advertised
datasheet arewith the
a powerwith
name the
supply name
SKU:SEN0193.
between SKU:SEN0193.
3.3The
andonly The only
5.5 significant
V, output
significant
specifications specifications
given in the given in
datasheet the
are datasheet
a power are
supply a power
between supply
3.3 between
and 5.5 V, 3.3
output
voltage between 0 and 3 V, and the recommended depth in soil. A detailed analysis of the electrical and 5.5
voltage V, output
between
0voltage
and 3 V,
circuits between
ofand
the the 0recommended
sensorand 3 V,
was and depth
initiallythe recommended
in soil. A in
accomplished depth
detailed
order in
getsoil.
analysis
to A the
of detailed
acquainted analysis
electrical
on how of the
circuits electrical
of the
the sensor sensor
operates
circuits
was of
4).theaccomplished
initially
(Figure sensor was initially
in orderaccomplished in order
to get acquainted on tohowgetthe
acquainted on how (Figure
sensor operates the sensor
4). operates
(Figure 4).

Figure4.4.Schematic
Figure Schematic of
of the
thecapacitive
capacitive sensors.
sensors. Resistance values are directly taken from component
component
Figure
labels. 4. Schematic
Capacitance of the
values capacitive
have been sensors.
measuredResistance
with an values are directly
impedentiometer attaken
50 from
kHz component
after
labels. Capacitance values have been measured with an impedentiometer at 50 kHz after removal removal
from
labels.
afrom Capacitance
a particular
particular values
samplesample
and are have
and been measured
are affected
affected with
by ordinary
by ordinary an impedentiometer
manufacturing
manufacturing errors.errors.at 50 kHz after removal
from a particular sample and are affected by ordinary manufacturing errors.
AAlow lowdropout
dropout3.3 3.3V V voltage
voltage regulator
regulator supplies
supplies aa TL555I CMOS timer whose output signal feeds feeds
aalow
lowApasslowfilter
pass dropout
filter(10(10kΩ3.3 Vresistor
voltage
kΩresistor and regulator
andthethe supplies
moisture
moisture sensinga TL555I
sensingcoplanarCMOS
coplanar timer whose
capacitor).
capacitor). TheThe output
main main signal
function
functionoffeeds
this
of
athis
lowstage
stage ispass filter
to produce (10 a kΩ resistor
stationary and the
sawtooth moisture sensing
double-exponential coplanar
waveform
is to produce a stationary sawtooth double-exponential waveform whose average value iscapacitor).
whose The main
average function
value is of
the
this
the stage
same same
average is tovalue
average produce
value
of the aofstationary
the TL555I
TL555I sawtooth
output. output.
However,double-exponential
However,
the peak peakwaveform
thetopeak to ofwhose
peak voltage
voltage ofaverage
the waveform value is
the waveform
depends
the
on same
depends
the average
effective value of
on thedielectric
effective the TL555I
dielectric
constant of the output.
constant ofHowever,
soil. Then, thea soil. the peak
peakThen,
voltage a peakto peak
detectorvoltage voltage of the
detector
provides the waveform
provides
analog the
output
depends
analogthat
signal onwethe
output effective
signal
acquire thatdielectric
through wethe constant
acquire
ADC of theofmicrocontroller.
through the
thesoil.
ADC Then,
of thea peak
During voltage detector
microcontroller.
electrical During provides
characterization the
electrical
with
characterization
analog
the sensor outputprobe with
in airthe
signal wesensor
that probe
we acquire
noted in
that when air an
through weoscilloscope
noted
the ADC that when thean
ofprobe isoscilloscope
introducedprobe
microcontroller. During
between is introduced
electrical
the 10 kΩ
between
characterization
resistor andthethe10 kΩ withresistor
diode, the
then and
the the
sensor diode,
probe
output in then
air
voltage wethe output
isnoted
heavily thatvoltage
when is
modified, anheavily modified,
oscilloscope
thus indicating probe
thatthusis
the indicating
introduced
14–18 pF
that10
between
and theMΩ 14–18
theof10thepF and
kΩprobe 10significantly
resistor MΩand ofthe
thediode,
probe
modify significantly
then thecircuit
the output modify theThis
voltage
behavior. iscircuit
canbehavior.
heavily be easilyThis
modified, thuscanindicating
understood be easily
since
understood
that
the the 14–18
sensor since
pF and
capacitance the10 sensor
inMΩ capacitance
of
air at the MHz
1.5 inofair
theatorder
probeissignificantly 1.5 modify
MHz
of 6.5ispF of(athe
the order
circuit
value of 6.5
behavior.
to be pF
This
confirmed (acan
value to be
bybefurther
easily
confirmed by
understood
measurement further
since
and the measurement
sensor
electromagnetic capacitanceand electromagnetic
in air which
simulations, at 1.5 areMHzsimulations,
outisofofthe which
thescope
order ofofare
the out
6.5 pFof(athe
present valuescope
paper). to of
be
the present
confirmed
The CPROBE bypaper).
further measurement
component of Figureand 4electromagnetic
corresponds tosimulations,
the section of which are out
the sensor of the scope
immersed in theof
The CPROBE
the present
soil. However, paper).
it mustcomponent
be underlinedof Figure
that 4CPROBE
corresponds couldtonotthebesection
directly ofassociated
the sensortoimmersed
the capacitancein the
soil.
of However,
The
Equation CPROBE(6).itInmust bethe
component
fact, underlined
of Figure
solder that4dielectric
resist CPROBE
corresponds could
of thetonot
thebesection
sensor directly ofassociated
separates thethe soiltofrom
sensor the capacitance
immersed in the
the copper
of Equation
soil. However,
electrodes of (5).
the In
it must fact,
sensingbethe solder resist
underlined
capacitor dielectric
that CPROBE
and takes ofinthe
partcould the sensor
not separates
be directly
equivalent the soil
associated
electric tofrom
circuit the the
the copper
of capacitance
sensor.
of Equation
Moreover, this(5). In fact, the
equivalent solder
circuit resist
should dielectric
also include of the sensor
parasitic separatesasthe
capacitances, soil in
shown from the the
firstcopper
figure
of [35].
constant frequency, the Vout voltage will for sure depend on water content, porosity, and
salinity/ionic content of the soil. The chosen “absolute value” measuring method is not capable of
discerning among these contributions.
Please note that there is no DC path to ground in the peak detector. In fact, the lower node of R4
is connected to a printed circuit board capacitor with parasitic AC interconnects to both GND6 of
Sensors 2020, 20, 3585 and 14
Vcc and acts as a voltage divider between Vcc and GND at 1.5 MHz, being the parasitic capacitor
impedance of the order of 30 to 60 kΩ, i.e., much smaller than the 1.8 MΩ or 880 kΩ series resistance.
This The
could peak detector of as
be interpreted Figure 4 calculates
design fault of theansensor.
analogTo absolute
confirmvalue of the waveform
this conclusion, a recentmeasured
(May 2020) on
CPROBE at a constant frequency of about 1.5 MHz. The phase shift caused by
batch of v.1.2 sensors shows that R4 is connected to the ground. We removed the passivation of two the CPROBE equivalent
circuit
sensorsisbelonging
actually lost in the
to the twoVout voltage
different of thisFigure
batches. peak detector. Therefore,
5 clearly shows a real and
the missing R4 imaginary
ground path partin
of CPROBE cannot be distinguished
the older version of the sensor. using this measurement method. If we add the fact that the
equivalent circuitsignal
The output of CPROBE is presently
of the TL555I unknown,waveform
is a trapezoidal the only conclusion
running at we could
about draw
a 1.5 MHzis (Figure
that at
constant
6a). Thisfrequency,
trapezoidal theprofile
Vout voltage
and thewill for sure
related depend on waterduty-cycle
out-of-specification content, porosity,
of about and salinity/ionic
33% (the duty-
content
cycle of a 555 should always be greater than 50%) are likely caused by the close vicinity among
of the soil. The chosen “absolute value” measuring method is not capable of discerning of the
these contributions.
operating frequency to the physical frequency limit for the TL555I device. On the other hand, it is
well Please
knownnote thatthat there issoil
capacitive no DC path tosensors
moisture groundshould
in the operate
peak detector.
at a highIn fact, the lower
frequency; the node
higherof the
R4
is connected to a printed circuit board capacitor with parasitic AC interconnects
operating frequency, the lower the effect of losses related to the imaginary part of the permittivity. to both GND and
Vcc and actsthe
Moreover, as aslew
voltage
ratedivider between
restraint of theVcc and GND
waveform at 1.5inMHz,
helps being thethe
minimizing parasitic capacitor
electromagnetic
impedance of the order of 30 to 60 kΩ, i.e., much smaller than the 1.8 MΩ
interference (EMI), which is possibly generated by the sensor in a non-ISM band and would be or 880 kΩ series resistance.
This couldin
beneficial becase
interpreted as design fault
of EMI compliance test.of the sensor. To confirm this conclusion, a recent (May 2020)
batchFigure
of v.1.26bsensors
shows shows that R4
the double is connected
exponential to the ground.
waveform We removed
on the anode the passivation
of the diode of Figure 4 of twoa
with
sensors belonging to the two different batches. Figure 5 clearly
10 MΩ, 14–18 pF probe connected to the node when the sensor is suspended in air. shows the missing R4 ground path in
the older version of the sensor.

(a) (b)

Figure 5. (a) Older and (b) recent soil moisture sensor v.1.2. The thin metal path to grounded capacitor
Figure 5. (a) Older and (b) recent soil moisture sensor v.1.2. The thin metal path to grounded capacitor
plate is clearly visible only in (b).
plate is clearly visible only in (b).
The output signal of the TL555I is a trapezoidal waveform running at about a 1.5 MHz (Figure 6a).
This trapezoidal profile and the related out-of-specification duty-cycle of about 33% (the duty-cycle
of a 555 should always be greater than 50%) are likely caused by the close vicinity of the operating
frequency to the physical frequency limit for the TL555I device. On the other hand, it is well known
that capacitive soil moisture sensors should operate at a high frequency; the higher the operating
frequency, the lower the effect of losses related to the imaginary part of the permittivity. Moreover,
the slew rate restraint of the waveform helps in minimizing the electromagnetic interference (EMI),
which is possibly generated by the sensor in a non-ISM band and would be beneficial in case of EMI
compliance test.
Sensors 2020, 20, 3585 7 of 14
Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14

(a)

(b)

Figure 6.
Figure 6. (a)
(a)TL555I
TL555Ioutput
output waveform.
waveform. The
The peak
peak voltage
voltage exceeds
exceeds theV 3.3
the 3.3 V supply
supply voltagevoltage of the
of the TL555I.
TL555I. (b) Double exponential waveform on the anode of the diode of Figure 4 measured
(b) Double exponential waveform on the anode of the diode of Figure 4 measured with a 10 MΩ, with a 10
MΩ, 14–18 pF probe connected to the node when the sensor is suspended
14–18 pF probe connected to the node when the sensor is suspended in air. in air.

Duty cycle
Figure and output
6b shows voltage
the double of nine different
exponential waveformsensors (S1,anode
on the S2, S5,ofS6,
theS7, S9, S10,
diode S13 and
of Figure S14)
4 with
awere electrically
10 MΩ, 14–18 pF characterized as a function
probe connected of frequency.
to the node when the Other
sensorsensors (S3, S4,in
is suspended S8,air.
S11 and S12) were
modified
Duty by removing
cycle and output the voltage
TL555I ofandnineother related
different components
sensors in S6,
(S1, S2, S5, order to S10,
S7, S9, driveS13them
and with
S14)
laboratory
were waveform
electrically generators,
characterized or microcontroller
as a function of frequency.boards. The sensor
Other sensors (S3, S4,output
S8, S11voltage
and S12)ofwere
the
unmodified
modified sensors was
by removing themeasured
TL555I and in other
three related
different “standard”inconditions:
components sensor
order to drive them suspended in air,
with laboratory
sensor suspended
waveform generators,in air
orwithin a Delrin® cylinder
microcontroller boards. The(with 1.5” inner
sensor output diameter
voltage and
of the3”unmodified
height), andsensors
sensor
suspended
was measuredin the samedifferent
in three Delrin cylinder
®
“standard”filled with distilled
conditions: sensorwater. Resultsinare
suspended air,shown
sensorinsuspended
Figure 7. in
Sensors 2020,
Sensors 2020, 20,
20, 3585
x FOR PEER REVIEW 88 of
of 14
14

air within a Delrin® cylinder (with 1.5” inner diameter and 3” height), and sensor suspended in the
Sensors 2020, 20,®x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14
same Delrin cylinder filled with distilled water. Results are shown in Figure 7.

(%)cycle (%)
duty cycleduty
(a) (b)

Figure 7. (a) Output voltage and (b) duty cycle as a function of frequency.

(a) (b)
Only a single sensor (S1) featured an operating frequency and a duty cycle differed from the
other sensors (equal to 1.22
Figure (a)MHz
7. (a) Outputand 37.1%,and
voltage respectively).
(b) duty cycleThe
duty cycle as aaaverage
functionoperating
of frequency.
frequency.frequency and duty
Figure 7. Output voltage and (b) as function of
cycle of the other sensors were 1.53 MHz and 34.48%, respectively, with sample standard deviations
of 1% Only
andaa single
2.2%, sensor (S1) featured aninspection
operating frequency
the S1 and a duty cycle differed from the other
Only singlerespectively. Electric
sensor (S1) featured an operating of frequency sensor
and adid dutynotcycle
showdiffered
any remarkable
from the
sensors
difference(equal to 1.22
in (equal
R2 and MHz and
R3 resistance37.1%, respectively).
values,respectively).The
compared with average operating frequency and duty
thatcycle
other sensors to 1.22 MHz and 37.1%, The the otheroperating
average sensors, frequency
indicatingand the
duty
of the other
component sensors
most were
probably 1.53 MHz and
responsible 34.48%,
for the respectively,
“freak” behaviorwith sample
was the standard
C3 capacitor deviations
or the of 1%
TL555I
cycle of the other sensors were 1.53 MHz and 34.48%, respectively, with sample standard deviations
and 2.2%, respectively. Electric inspection of the S1 sensor did not show any remarkable difference in
itself.
of 1% and 2.2%, respectively. Electric inspection of the S1 sensor did not show any remarkable
R2 and R3 resistance
Figure values, compared with(difference
the other sensors, indicating that the component most
difference in8 shows
R2 andthe R3sensor output
resistance range
values, compared between
with the output voltage
other sensors, inindicating
air and in that
distilled
the
probably
water) asresponsible
a most
function forduty
of the “freak”
cycle atbehavior
1.5for
MHz wasonethe C3thecapacitor or the TL555I itself.by an external
component probably responsible the for
“freak”of modified
behavior was the sensors, driven
C3 capacitor or the TL555I
Figure generator.
waveform 8 shows theAsensorsquareoutput
input range (difference
waveform between
was used in thisoutput
case,voltage
with ain3.3 airVandpeakin distilled
to peak
itself.
water)
voltage, as a function
slightly lowerof duty cycle at 1.5 MHz for one of the modified sensors, driven by an external
Figure 8 shows the than
sensor theoutput
peak voltage of Figure between
range (difference 6. The peak of the
output output
voltage inrange
air and ofinthe sensor
distilled
waveform
lays around generator.
duty A square
cycle = 37%, input waveform
which was was used
slightly in this
higher than case,
the with a 3.3 duty
average V peak to peak
cycle of voltage,
the non-
water) as a function of duty cycle at 1.5 MHz for one of the modified sensors, driven by an external
slightly lower
modified sensors. than the peak voltage of Figure 6. The peak of the output range of the sensor lays around
waveform generator. A square input waveform was used in this case, with a 3.3 V peak to peak
duty cycle = 37%, which was slightly higher than the average duty cycle of the non-modified sensors.
voltage, slightly lower than the peak voltage of Figure 6. The peak of the output range of the sensor
lays around duty cycle = 37%, which was slightly higher than the average duty cycle of the non-
modified sensors.

Figure 8. Difference between output voltage in air and in distilled water as a function of duty cycle at
Figure 8. Difference between output voltage in air and in distilled water as a function of duty cycle at
1.5 MHz for a modified sensor driven by laboratory instrumentation.
1.5 MHz for a modified sensor driven by laboratory instrumentation.
For the characterizations of the rest of the paper, we used only two sensors featuring operating
For the characterizations of the rest of the paper, we used only two sensors featuring operating
frequency
Figureand duty cycle
8. Difference shown
between in Table
output 1. in air and in distilled water as a function of duty cycle at
voltage
frequency and duty cycle shown in Table 1.
1.5 MHz for a modified sensor driven by laboratory instrumentation.

For the characterizations of the rest of the paper, we used only two sensors featuring operating
frequency and duty cycle shown in Table 1.
Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

Table 1. Selected sensors characteristics.

id. f (MHz) Duty Cycle

Sensors 2020, 20, 3585 S2 1.53 35.6% 9 of 14
S10 1.51 35%

4. Experimental Characterization with

Table Silica Sandy
1. Selected sensorsSoil
characteristics.

The experimental characterization

id. was planned with
f (MHz) theCycle
Duty aim to understand how the chosen
sensor works in a well-controlled S2 soil environment.
1.53 To this purpose,
35.6% we chose to operate with a clean
silica sandy soil. In particular, theS10
mineralogical
1.51 constituents of
35% the soil were SiO2 96% mi., Fe2O3 1%
max, Al2O3 0.5% max, CaO + MgO 1.5% max, and Na2O + K2O 1.0% max. Commercial distilled water
was used for sample
4. Experimental preparation. with Silica Sandy Soil
Characterization
We chose to prepare our samples using the gravimetric water content (GWC) principle. For
volumeThemeasurements,
experimental characterization
we used a 1000was
mLplanned
graduatedwith the aimwith
cylinder to understand how the
20 mL grading chosen sensor
divisions.
works in a well-controlled soil environment. To this purpose, we chose to operate with a clean silica
sandy soil. Calibration
4.1. Sensor In particular, the
with mineralogical
Constant GWC constituents of the soil were SiO2 96% mi., Fe2 O3 1% max,
Al2 O3 0.5% max, CaO + MgO 1.5% max, and Na2 O + K2 O 1.0% max. Commercial distilled water was
The first experimental characterization of our work regarded the study of the sensor response
used for sample preparation.
with constant GWC of 7.5% using the total sample volume as a parameter. Dry sand was prepared in
We chose to prepare our samples using the gravimetric water content (GWC) principle. For volume
an oven at 110 °C, then 950 g of material was poured into the graduated cylinder and a gravimetric
measurements, we used a 1000 mL graduated cylinder with 20 mL grading divisions.
7.5% of water was added (Figure 9). The sample was mixed by hand. Then five different samples
wereSensor
4.1. prepared in sequence,
Calibration through
with Constant GWC dynamic compaction in a graduated cylinder by means of a
mortar. For each volume, two capacitive sensors were driven into the soil in two different positions
The first experimental characterization of our work regarded the study of the sensor response
and repeated measurements were acquired.
with constant GWC of 7.5% using the total sample volume as a parameter. Dry sand was prepared in
It should be underlined that the active volume of influence of the coplanar sensor capacitor was
an oven at 110 ◦ C, then 950 g of material was poured into the graduated cylinder and a gravimetric
much smaller than the total volume of the sample placed in the graduated cylinder.
7.5% of water was added (Figure 9). The sample was mixed by hand. Then five different samples were
Sensors were kept sufficiently far apart in order to have no mutual influence between their
prepared in sequence, through dynamic compaction in a graduated cylinder by means of a mortar.
measurements. After insertion of one sensor in the soil, we determined the minimum distance such
For each volume, two capacitive sensors were driven into the soil in two different positions and
that the introduction of the second sensor did not change the reading of the first one.
repeated measurements were acquired.

(a)

(b) (c)

Figure 9.
Figure 9. The
Thegraduated
graduatedcylinder:
cylinder:(a)
(a)nonocompaction;
compaction;(b)(b) maximum
maximum compaction,
compaction, soilsoil volume
volume is mL;
is 620 620
mL;
(c) (c)volume
soil soil volume
is 680ismL
680with
mL with two sensors
two sensors driven
driven into. into.

It should be underlined that the active volume of influence of the coplanar sensor capacitor was
much smaller than the total volume of the sample placed in the graduated cylinder.
Sensors 2020, 20, 3585 10 of 14

SensorsSensors
2020, 20, xwere keptREVIEW
FOR PEER sufficiently far apart in order to have no mutual influence between10their of 14
measurements. After insertion of one sensor in the soil, we determined the minimum distance such
Figure
that the 10 shows the
introduction obtained
of the secondmeasurement
sensor did notresults.
changeDifferent colors
the reading of represented
the first one.the two sensors.
Repeated
Figuremeasurements of a single
10 shows the obtained sensor appeared
measurement results.toDifferent
be verycolors
precise, with verythe
represented low
twostandard
sensors.
deviation (always lower of
Repeated measurements than 3.3 mV).
a single sensorHowever,
appearedmeasurements of the
to be very precise, twovery
with sensors differed
low standard
significantly, evenlower
deviation (always more than
than 3.3
5%.mV).
ThisHowever,
was mostmeasurements
likely due to theof non-uniformity of the water
the two sensors differed content
significantly,
within the soil
even more thansample;
5%. Thispresumably, the two
was most likely sensors
due to thecaught soil regions
non-uniformity of in
thethe measurement
water cylinder
content within the
whereas, due to a different distribution of the pores filled with water, the water content
soil sample; presumably, the two sensors caught soil regions in the measurement cylinder whereas, differed too.
due to a different distribution of the pores filled with water, the water content differed too.
sensor output voltage (V)

Figure 10. Sensor

Sensor output
output voltage
voltage as
as a function of soil volume at constant gravimetric water content
(GWC) of 7.5%.

The results
resultsshown
shownin in
Figure 10 indicate
Figure that sample
10 indicate preparation
that sample strongly strongly
preparation influencesinfluences
the capacitive
the
sensor measurements.
capacitive Different levels
sensor measurements. of soil sample
Different levels compaction induced
of soil sample significant
compaction relative significant
induced differences
of the sensor
relative output voltage.
differences For thisoutput
of the sensor reason, voltage.
we decided
Fortothis
continue thewe
reason, experimental
decided to characterization
continue the
using a constant
experimental sample volume.
characterization using a constant sample volume.

4.2. Sensor
4.2. Sensor Calibration
Calibration at
at Constant
Constant Soil
Soil Volume
Volume
When the
When the capacitive
capacitive sensor
sensor volume
volume of of influence
influence diddid not
not change
change during
during measurements,
measurements, we we
supposed we
supposed we operated
operated at at aa constant
constant soilsoil volume.
volume. ThisThis experimental
experimental section
section is
is devoted
devoted to to constant
constant
volume measurement with GWC
volume measurement with GWC as a parameter. as a parameter.
Similarly, to ◦ C,
Similarly, to the
the procedure
proceduredescribed
describedininSection
Section4.1, dry
4.1., drysand
sand was prepared
was prepared in an oven
in an at 110
oven at 110
thenthen
°C, 950 950
g of gsilica sandsand
of silica was poured into the
was poured graduated
into cylinder,
the graduated and eight
cylinder, anddifferent weights weights
eight different of distilled
of
water were added, spaced of 2.5%, starting from 2.5% up to 20.0%. The
distilled water were added, spaced of 2.5%, starting from 2.5% up to 20.0%. The soil-water mixture soil-water mixture were
obtained
were by hand.
obtained Then,Then,
by hand. each sample
each sampletwo capacitive sensors
two capacitive were driven
sensors into the
were driven soilthe
into sample in two
soil sample
different positions and repeated measurements were acquired.
in two different positions and repeated measurements were acquired. Figure 11 shows the Figure 11 shows the experimental
results. The correlation
experimental results. The coefficient
correlation of the data wasof−0.945,
coefficient the datarelatively far from
was −0.945, −1, suggesting
relatively far from a low
−1,
probability afor
suggesting low a linear relationship
probability between
for a linear the output
relationship voltage
between and
the the GWC.
output voltageError
andbars represented
the GWC. Error
threerepresented
bars times the sample standard
three times deviation,
the sample i.e., 0.124
standard V, calculated
deviation, i.e., 0.124with respect towith
V, calculated a second
respectorder
to a
fitting polynomial V = A · GWC 2 + B · GWC + C. An additional three-parameter exponential fitting
second order fittingoutpolynomial 𝑉 = 𝐴 ∙ 𝐺𝑊𝐶 + 𝐵 ∙ 𝐺𝑊𝐶 + 𝐶 . An additional three-parameter
Vout = A · eGWC/B
exponential fitting+ C𝑉 was = also /
𝐴 ∙ 𝑒attempted + 𝐶 and
waswe obtained
also a veryand
attempted similar
we threefold
obtained sample
a verystandard
similar
deviation of 0.122.
threefold sample standard deviation of 0.122.
Sensors 2020, 20, 3585 11 of 14
Sensors 2020, 20, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 14

Figure 11.
Figure 11. Sensor output voltage as a function of
of GWC
GWC at
at constant
constant soil
soil volume.
volume.

5.
5. Discussion
Discussion
The
The experimental
experimental results
results shown
shown in in Figure
Figure 10
10 clearly
clearly show
show that
that that
that porosity
porosity severely
severely affects
affects
capacitive
capacitive soil moisture measurements. If not properly taken into account, this undoubtedly
soil moisture measurements. If not properly taken into account, this effect could effect could
invalidate
undoubtedly theinvalidate
results of this type ofof
the results measurements. Referring to the
this type of measurements. experimental
Referring data of Figuredata
to the experimental 11,
even if the error bars are relatively wide, the constant volume concept helped us obtain
of Figure 11, even if the error bars are relatively wide, the constant volume concept helped us obtain a well-defined
trend of the output
a well-defined trendvoltage as a function
of the output voltage of as GWC, withofa GWC,
a function positive influence
with on influence
a positive the accuracy of
on the
the measurement.
accuracy of the measurement.
We
Wepresently
presentlydodo notnot
know precisely
know the active
precisely volume
the active of influence
volume of the coplanar
of influence sensor capacitor.
of the coplanar sensor
Measurements and electromagnetic
capacitor. Measurements simulationssimulations
and electromagnetic are in progress. However,
are in progress.we can assume
However, we this
can volume
assume
as a constant
this volume as even in situ applications,
a constant even in situ at least for theatnecessary
applications, least for period of measurement,
the necessary in the absence
period of measurement,
of soil volume changes due to any applied actions, including environmental
in the absence of soil volume changes due to any applied actions, including environmental loads. loads.
Results
Results shown
shown in in Section
Section 4.2
4.2.demonstrate
demonstratethat, that,at
atleast
leastfor
foraa well-defined
well-defined typetype of
of soil,
soil, silica
silica sand
sand
in case, for a constant γ
in this case, for a constant 𝛾dry (see again Equation (2)), coplanar capacitive sensors yielded aa reliable
this (see again Equation (2)), coplanar capacitive sensors yielded reliable
relationship
relationship between
between output
output voltage
voltage and
and gravimetric
gravimetric water
water content. In addition,
content. In addition, for
for aa given
given soil,
soil, viz.
viz.
for a given value
for a given value of 𝛾 of γdry again, due to Equation (3) our measurements could bring to
again, due to Equation (3) our measurements could bring to a correspondinga corresponding
estimate
estimate ofof the
the volumetric
volumetric water
water content.
content. Of course, for
Of course, for different
different types
types of
of soil
soil and
and for different values
for different values
of the dry unit weight, a calibration is required.
of the dry unit weight, a calibration is required.
6. Conclusions
6. Conclusions
The experimental and accurate determination of soil moisture or soil water content is a matter of
The experimental and accurate determination of soil moisture or soil water content is a matter
great importance in different scientific fields. In this paper, a commercial “capacitive” soil moisture
of great importance in different scientific fields. In this paper, a commercial “capacitive” soil moisture
sensor typically housed in low-cost distributed nodes for IoT applications was experimentally
sensor typically housed in low-cost distributed nodes for IoT applications was experimentally
characterized in order to get acquainted on how the sensor operates. A detailed analysis on the sensor’s
characterized in order to get acquainted on how the sensor operates. A detailed analysis on the
electrical circuit was initially carried out. The sensor response with constant GWC using a varying
sensor’s electrical circuit was initially carried out. The sensor response with constant GWC using a
sample volume was investigated. The obtained results indicated that sample preparation strongly
varying sample volume was investigated. The obtained results indicated that sample preparation
influenced the capacitive sensor measurements; different levels of soil sample compaction induced
strongly influenced the capacitive sensor measurements; different levels of soil sample compaction
significant relative differences of the sensor output voltage. For this reason, constant sample volume
induced significant relative differences of the sensor output voltage. For this reason, constant sample
characterizations were carried out and a well-defined trend of the output voltage as a function of
volume characterizations were carried out and a well-defined trend of the output voltage as a
GWC was found, as shown in Equation (2). Even if the error bars are relatively wide, the constant
function of GWC was found, as shown in Equation (2). Even if the error bars are relatively wide, the
volume concept helped us obtain reproducible results, with a positive influence on the accuracy of
constant volume concept helped us obtain reproducible results, with a positive influence on the
the measurement. Therefore, at least for a well-defined type of soil at constant volume, the coplanar
accuracy of the measurement. Therefore, at least for a well-defined type of soil at constant volume,
capacitive sensors yielded a reliable relationship between output voltage and GWC. Although the
the coplanar capacitive sensors yielded a reliable relationship between output voltage and GWC.
experimental investigation is still in progress, the results obtained from this study appear to be
Although the experimental investigation is still in progress, the results obtained from this study
appear to be promising. A possible use of such capacitive sensors for water content measurements in
the field will be the object of further research.
Sensors 2020, 20, 3585 12 of 14

promising. A possible use of such capacitive sensors for water content measurements in the field will
be the object of further research.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.P., M.C. and A.S.; Methodology, P.P., A.G., M.C. and A.S.; Software,
A.G. and A.S.; Validation, P.P., L.G., A.G., M.C. and A.S.; Formal analysis, P.P., L.G. and A.S.; Investigation,
P.P., L.G., A.G., M.C. and A.S.; Data curation, P.P., L.G., A.G. and A.S.; Writing—original draft, P.P., M.C. and
A.S.; Writing—review & editing, P.P., M.C. and A.S.; Supervision, P.P.; Project administration, P.P.; Resources,
P.P.; Funding acquisition, P.P., M.C. and A.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was partly funded by the Department Of Engineering of the University of Perugia, Italy,
grants “Ricerca di base 2017”, “Ricerca di base 2018” and “Ricerca di base 2019”.
Acknowledgments: Thanks to D. Grohmann and G. Marconi for helpful discussions and technical support.
The technical assistance of Alessandro De Luca, Carmine Villani delle Vergini, Diego Fortunati, Nicola Papini,
Francesco Gobbi and Elena Burani is also gratefully acknowledged.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Perera, C.; Zaslavsky, A.; Christen, P.; Georgakopoulos, D. Sensing as a service model for smart cities
supported by Internet of Things. Trans. Emerg. Tel. Tech. 2014, 25, 81–93. [CrossRef]
2. Rajab, H.; Cinkelr, T. Internet of Things for Smart Cities. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Symposium
on Networks, Computers and Communications (ISNCC), Rome, Italy, 19–21 June 2018.
3. Zgank, A. Bee Swarm Activity Acoustic Classification for an IoT-Based Farm Service. Sensors 2019, 20, 21.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Saab, M.T.A.; Jomaa, I.; Skaf, S.; Fahed, S.; Todorović, M. Assessment of a Smartphone Application for
Real-Time Irrigation Scheduling in Mediterranean Environments. Water 2019, 11, 252. [CrossRef]
5. Ruiz-Garcia, L.; Lunadei, L.; Barreiro, P.; Robla, I. A Review of Wireless Sensor Technologies and Applications
in Agriculture and Food Industry: State of the Art and Current Trends. Sensors 2009, 9, 4728–4750. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
6. Magalotti, D.; Placidi, P.; Dionigi, M.; Scorzoni, A.; Servoli, L. Experimental Characterization of a Personal
Wireless Sensor Network for the Medical X-Ray Dosimetry. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2016, 65, 2002–2011.
[CrossRef]
7. Khan, A.; Aziz, S.; Bashir, M.; Khan, M.U. IoT and Wireless Sensor Network based Autonomous Farming
Robot. In Proceedings of the 2 2020 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Smart Technologies
(ICETST), Karachi, Pakistan, 26–27 March 2020.
8. Wang, N.; Zhang, N.; Wang, M. Wireless sensors in agriculture and food industry—Recent development and
future perspective. Comput. Electron. Agric. 2006, 50, 1–14. [CrossRef]
9. Surendran, D.; Shilpa, A.; Sherin, J. Modern Agriculture Using Wireless Sensor Network (WSN).
In Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Advanced Computing & Communication
Systems (ICACCS), Coimbatore, India, 15–16 March 2019.
10. González-Teruel, J.D.; Sánchez, R.T.; Blaya-Ros, J.; Toledo-Moreo, A.B.; Jiménez-Buendía, M. Design and
Calibration of a Low-Cost SDI-12 Soil Moisture Sensor. Sensors 2019, 19, 491. [CrossRef]
11. BeechamRes. Towards Smart Farming Agriculture Embracing the IoT Vision. Available online: https:
//www.beechamresearch.com/files/BRL%20Smart%20Farming%20Executive%20Summary.pdf (accessed on
24 June 2020).
12. Yelamarthi, K.; Aman, M.S.; Abdelgawad, A. An Application-Driven Modular IoT Architecture.
Wirel. Commun. Mob. Comput. 2017, 1–16. [CrossRef]
13. Zyrianoff, I.D.; Heideker, A.; Silva, D.O.; Kleinschmidt, J.H.; Soininen, J.P.; Cinotti, T.S.; Kamienski, C.
Architecting and Deploying IoT Smart Applications: A Performance-Oriented Approach. Sensors 2020, 20,
84. [CrossRef]
14. Chartzoulakisa, K.; Bertaki, M. Sustainable Water Management in Agriculture under Climate Change.
Agric. Agric. Sci. Procedia 2015, 4, 88–98. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 3585 13 of 14

15. Torres-Sanchez, R.; Hellin, H.N.; Guillamon-Frutos, A.; San-Segundo, R.; Ruiz-Abellón, M.C.; Miguel, R.D. A
Decision Support System for Irrigation Management: Analysis and Implementation of Different Learning
Techniques. Water 2020, 12, 548. [CrossRef]
16. Campbell, J.E. Dielectric properties and influence of conductivity in soils at one to fifty megahertz. Soil Sci. Soc.
Am. J. 1990, 54, 332–341. [CrossRef]
17. Visconti, F.; de Paz, J.M.; Martínez, D.; Molina, M.J. Laboratory and field assessment of the capacitance
sensors Decagon 10HS and 5TE for estimating the water content of irrigated soils. Agric. Water Manag. 2014,
132, 111–119. [CrossRef]
18. Kizito, F.; Campbell, C.S.; Campbell, G.S.; Cobos, D.R.; Teare, B.L.; Carter, B.; Hopmans, J.W. Frequency,
electrical conductivity and temperature analysis of a low-cost capacitance soil moisture sensor. J. Hydrol.
2008, 352, 367–378. [CrossRef]
19. Kargas, G.; Soulis, K.X. Performance evaluation of a recently developed soil water content, dielectric
permittivity, and bulk electrical conductivity electromagnetic sensor. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 213, 568–579.
[CrossRef]
20. Barker, J.B.; Franz, T.E.; Heeren, D.M.; Neale, C.M.U.; Luck, J.D. Soil water content monitoring for irrigation
management: A geostatistical analysis. Agric. Water Manag. 2017, 188, 36–49. [CrossRef]
21. Gavilán, V.; Lillo-Saavedra, M.; Holzapfel, E.; Rivera, D.; García-Pedrero, A. Seasonal crop water balance
using harmonized Landsat-8 and Sentinel-2 time series data. Water 2019, 11, 2236. [CrossRef]
22. Jones, H.G. Use of infrared thermometry for estimation of stomatal conductance as a possible aid to irrigation
scheduling. Agric. For. Meteorol. 1999, 95, 139–149. [CrossRef]
23. García-Tejero, I.F.; Ortega-Arévalo, C.J.; Iglesias-Contreras, M.; Moreno, J.M.; Souza, L.; Tavira, S.C.;
Durán-Zuazo, V.H. Assessing the crop-water status in almond (Prunus dulcis mill.) trees via thermal imaging
camera connected to smartphone. Sensors 2018, 18, 1050.
24. Jackson, R.D.; Idso, S.B.; Reginato, R.J.; Pinter, P.J. Canopy temperature as a crop water stress indicator. Water
Resour. Res. 1981, 17, 1133–1138. [CrossRef]
25. Whalley, J.R.; Dean, T.J.; lzard, P.J. Evaluation of the capacitance technique as a method for dynamically
measuring soil water content. Agric. Eng. Res. 1992, 52, 147–155. [CrossRef]
26. SU, S.L.; Singh, D.N.; Baghini, M.S. A critical review of soil moisture measurement. Measurement 2014, 54,
92–105. [CrossRef]
27. Tarantino, A.; Pozzato, A. Theoretical analysis of the effect of temperature, cable length and double-impedance
probe head on TDR water content measurements. In Proceedings of the 1st European Conference on
Unsaturated Soils, E-Unsat 2008, Durham, UK, 2–4 July 2008; Toll, D.G., Augarde, C.E., Gallipoli, D.,
Wheeler, S.J., Eds.; CRC Press-Taylor and Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2008; pp. 165–171.
28. Tarantino, A.; Ridely, A.M.; Toll, D. Field measurement of suction, water content and water permeability.
Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2008, 26, 751–782. [CrossRef]
29. Gardner, C.M.K.; Robinson, D.A.; Blyth, K.; Cooper, J.D. Soil water content. In Soil and Environmental Analysis:
Physical Methods, 2nd ed.; Smith, K., Mullins, C., Eds.; Marcell Dekker, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2000;
pp. 1–64.
30. Noborio, K.; McInnes, K.J.; Heilman, J.L. Field measurements of soil electrical conductivity and water content
by time-domain reflectometry. Comput. Electron. Agric. 1994, 11, 131–142. [CrossRef]
31. Robinson, D.A.; Jones, S.B.; Wraith, J.M.; Or, D.; Friedman, S.P. A review of advances in dielectric and
electrical conductivity measurement in soils using TDR. Vadose Zone J. 2003, 2, 444–475. [CrossRef]
32. Nagahage, E.A.A.D.; Nagahage, I.S.P.; Fujino, T. Calibration and Validation of a Low-Cost Capacitive
Moisture Sensor to Integrate the Automated Soil Moisture Monitoring System. Agriculture 2019, 9, 141.
[CrossRef]
33. Feddes, R.A.; Hoff, H.; Bruen, M.; Dawson, T.; De Rosnay, P.; Dirmeyer, P.; Jackson, R.B.; Kabat, P.; Kleidon, A.;
Lilly, A.; et al. Modeling root water uptake in hydrological and climate models. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.
2001, 82, 2797–2809. [CrossRef]
34. Cecconi, M.; Napoli, P.; Pane, V. Effects of soil vegetation on shallow slope instability. Environ. Geotech. 2015,
2, 130–136. [CrossRef]
35. Kelleners, T.J.; Soppe, R.W.O.; Robinson, D.A.; Schaap, M.G.; Ayars, J.E.; Skaggs, T.H. Calibration of
Capacitance Probe Sensors using Electric Circuit Theory. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2004, 68, 430–439. [CrossRef]
Sensors 2020, 20, 3585 14 of 14

36. Agilent Technologies, Basics of Measuring the Dielectric Properties of Materials, Application Note. Available
online: http://academy.cba.mit.edu/classes/input_devices/meas.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2020).
37. DFROBOT Capacitive Soil Moisture Sensor SKU:SEN0193 v.1.0. Available online: https://wiki.dfrobot.com/
Capacitive_Soil_Moisture_Sensor_SKU_SEN0193 (accessed on 20 May 2020).

© 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/).