Journal of Hydrology (2008) 352, 367– 378

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol

Frequency, electrical conductivity and temperature

analysis of a low-cost capacitance soil moisture
sensor
F. Kizito a, C.S. Campbell b, G.S. Campbell b, D.R. Cobos b, B.L. Teare b,
B. Carter b, J.W. Hopmans a,*

a
Department of Land, Air and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, United States
b
Decagon Devices, Pullman, WA 99163, United States

Received 28 August 2007; received in revised form 13 January 2008; accepted 18 January 2008

KEYWORDS Summary This study evaluated the family of ECH2O sensors (EC-5 and ECH2O-TE) for
Soil moisture; measurement of soil moisture content (h), bulk electrical conductivity (ECb) and temper-
Soil salinity; ature for a range of soils, across a range of measurement frequencies between 5 and
Soil temperature; 150 MHz. Measurement frequency is one of the primary factors affecting the sensitivity
Calibration; of capacitance sensor measurements to soil variables such as soil texture, electrical con-
ECH2O-TE probe ductivity, and temperature. Measurements in both soil and solution demonstrated that the
ECH2O EC and TE measurements were accurate. Using a measurement frequency of
70 MHz, a single calibration curve was determined for a range of mineral soils, indepen-
dent of soil salinity, suggesting there might be no need for a soil specific calibration. When
combining all data for each soil type, the R2 values remained high (R2 = 0.98) with little
probe to probe variability. After laboratory calibration, the error for h was about 2%, inde-
pendent of soil ECb, up to a soil solution EC of about 12 dS/m. Our results showed that a
single calibration curve could be used for all tested mineral soils, independent of soil
salinity. The bulk soil ECb – water content data were excellently described by a polyno-
mial expression. Measurements of temperature sensitivity to soil water content and ECb
were sufficiently small. For example, for a temperature change of 10 C, measurements
of h and ECb were affected by about 0.02 cm3 cm3 and 0.02 dS/m, respectively. Limited
sensor calibration requirements are important, when large networks of soil moisture sen-
sors are being deployed. It is concluded that an accurate, cost-effective soil moisture sen-
sor is available that operates at a measurement frequency of 70 MHz, with a low
sensitivity to confounding soil environmental factors.
ª 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 530 752 5262.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J.W. Hopmans).

0022-1694/$ - see front matter ª 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.01.021
368 F. Kizito et al.

Introduction ent aspects of measurement sensitivity (i.e. temperature,

salinity, and soil texture), thereby arriving at different con-
Accurate soil water content measurements are critical for clusions. Yet, the general outcome of all studies was that
estimation of energy and water balances, as well as for high measurement frequencies are required for accurate
understanding chemical and biological processes in vadose soil water content measurement, while minimizing sensitiv-
zone, plant root zones, and in groundwater. Reviews of ity to changes in soil electrical conductivity and
the state-of-the-art soil moisture measurement techniques temperature.
were presented in Hopmans et al. (1999) and Robinson Several benefits are achieved by combining dielectric
et al. (in press), including geophysical and remote sensing with soil temperature and electrical conduction measure-
techniques. Recent advances in dielectric and electrical ments. First, by measuring several parameters at the same
conductivity measurements in soils using time domain time and place, the coupling of related transport properties
reflectometry (TDR) was presented by Robinson et al. are determined in concert, thereby allowing examination of
(2003). Other promising techniques include ground pene- the nature of their interdependency, such as for the coupled
trating radar (Huisman et al., 2003), electromagnetic induc- transport of water and solute, as well as water and heat.
tion, DC resistivity and electrical resistivity tomography Second, by using the same instrument for various measure-
(ERT), passive and active remote sensing, and heat pulse ments within approximately the same measurement volume
sensors (Mori et al., 2003). Among all the techniques devel- at about the same time, the need to interpolate different
oped to measure soil water content (h), electromagnetic measurement types in space and time is largely eliminated
methods to infer water content have received the most (Šimůnek et al., 2002; Mortensen et al., 2006). Third,
attention. The ability of electromagnetic waves to deter- including temperature and EC measurements allows correc-
mine characteristics of porous media has been recognized tion for the capacitive measurements, if so required.
for most of the last century and earlier (Maxwell, 1881; The recent development of the-ECH2O-TE sensor (Deca-
Fricke, 1924; Velick and Gorin, 1940; Fricke, 1952; The- gon Devices Inc), as used in the current study, allows for de-
vanayagam, 1995), while the identification of the most tailed monitoring of soil water content, solute concentration
effective measurement frequencies has been more recent and temperature. However, little is known about the accu-
(Rinaldi and Francisca, 1999). Because of the measurement racy of this sensor, and the dependency of measurements
ease and datalogging capabilities, TDR and capacitance on soil type and temperature, for example as evaluated for
measurements are increasingly becoming the method of TDR (Topp et al., 1980; Pepin et al., 1995; Or and Wraith,
choice. 1999; Seyfried and Murdock, 2004). Typically, prior to field
Capacitance and frequency domain reflectometry tech- deployment, soil water monitoring devices will require a rig-
niques offer an excellent alternative to TDR, because of orous laboratory evaluation and calibration for a range of
their lower cost, among other reasons such as allowing con- soil types. Evaluation of soil moisture sensors were con-
tinuous monitoring, data logging capabilities, repeatability, ducted by Leib et al. (2003), Jones et al. (2005), and Blon-
and applicability to a wide range of soil types (Nadler and La- quist et al. (2005). Various ECH2O probe models were
pid, 1996; Mohamed et al., 1997; Seyfried and Murdock, recently evaluated by Bogena et al. (2007), pointing out
2001; Seyfried and Murdock, 2004). But, because these sen- the sensitivity of sensor readings to supply voltage, temper-
sors often operate at the low end of or below the frequency ature and bulk soil electrical conductivity. Because of the
range of TDR, they are often criticized for being more sus- advancing field of wireless and sensor technologies, there
ceptible to soil environmental effects (Chen and Or, 2006). is the also the increasing need to deploy distributed soil
Still, both types of measurement are widely used in research moisture sensor networks across increasing spatial cover-
and commercial applications. Studies continue to determine ages. Consequently, soil moisture sensor costs is becoming
the effects of soil environment variables like temperature, among the more important sensor qualities.
electrical conductivity (EC), and soil type that effect the The objective of the presented study was to evaluate the
accuracy and reliability of the measurement (Topp et al., accuracy of the family of ECH2O probes for soil moisture
2000; Funk, 2001; Seyfried and Murdock, 2004; Zhang measurements, and to determine effects of measurement
et al., 2004; Jones and Or, 2004; Chandler et al., 2004; Logs- frequency in 5–150 MHz range. Moreover, we determined
don and Laird, 2004; Kelleners et al., 2005). calibration relationships of bulk soil EC for various soil
Measurement frequency is one of the primary factors types. Laboratory experiments were designed to determine
affecting the sensitivity of capacitance sensor measure- the accuracy of this particular sensor and the variation be-
ments to soil variables such as soil texture, electrical con- tween probes, including temperature effects, and to cali-
ductivity, and temperature. Considerable work has been brate the soil moisture sensor for a wide range of soil
done to determine optimal measurement frequencies, but water content, soil salinity and temperature conditions.
some has been contradictory. Campbell (1990) determined We anticipate that the results from this study will lead to
that a measurement frequency of 50 MHz was required to better use of these sensors in future field soil water, EC
result in stable real soil dielectric permittivity values. How- and temperature monitoring programs, while facilitating
ever, Kelleners et al. (2005) concluded that measurement better interpretation of data currently being collected.
frequencies must be above 500 MHz for stable dielectric
permittivity values, whereas Chen and Or (2006) concluded Materials and methods
that measurement frequency should be equal or greater
than 100 MHz to minimize Maxwell–Wagner polarization. The fundamental relationship between soil dielectric per-
Interestingly, each of these three studies focused on differ- mittivity and volumetric water content, h, is well under-
Frequency, electrical conductivity and temperature analysis of a low-cost capacitance soil moisture sensor 369

stood. Because the dielectric of water is about 80, while 2 (EC-5) to 3. A thermistor installed in the sensor body pro-
other soil constituents are between 1 and 5, changes in soil vided for soil temperature (C/F), and two pairs of gold-
dielectric permittivity are highly correlated with soil water plated electrodes on the surface of two prongs of the
content. However, it is well known that other soil environ- ECH2O-TE types acted as a four-probe array to measure bulk
mental factors affect the measurement, such as soil tex- soil electrical conductivity, ECb (dS m1). Reported calibra-
ture, electrical conductivity (EC), and temperature tion experiments were conducted with five randomly se-
(Seyfried and Murdock, 2001; Seyfried and Murdock, 2004; lected probes for each of the 2 sensor types. Whereas the
Chandler et al., 2004; Czarnomski et al., 2005). results of the EC-5 were achieved over a range of measure-
Consequently, many dielectric techniques require soil ment frequencies from 5 to 150 MHz, the ECH2O-TE probe
specific calibrations which create an added level of soil in- measured dielectric permittivity measurements at 70 MHz
put that is not necessarily available. In addition, permittiv- solely. Unless otherwise stated, experiments were con-
ity is a function of temperature, so that temperature ducted in a laboratory with an average air temperature of
changes affect the measured h, however, it has proven dif- approximately 22 ± 1 C, and measured h (m3 m3) was
ficult to deal with, because of the complex nature of the determined from the mineral soil factory calibration for
underlying processes. Or and Wraith (1999) reported on the ECH2O-TE sensor. All presented soil moisture data for
the complex interactions between soil particle surfaces the EC-5 are reported in mV output. A known amount of
and surrounding water molecule dipoles that cause water water was added to a fixed mass of dry soil to achieve
to be invisible to the TDR measurement at high measure- pre-determined soil water content values, followed by care-
ment frequencies. Changes in the complex dielectric con- ful packing of the soil-solution mixture around the sensor
stant due to temperature and electrical conductivity have (Cobos, 2006). Care was taken to pack the soil evenly so
also been reported at frequencies below 100 MHz (The- as not to bias the measurements.
vanayagam, 1995; Rinaldi and Francisca, 1999; Chen and
Or, 2006). This study combines two sets of experiments with Measurement frequency analysis: EC-5
different capacitive soil moisture sensors of the same family
of ECH2O probes, which combined yield a comprehensive A specially designed EC-5 probe was fabricated to deter-
evaluation of the effects of frequency, EC, and temperature mine the effect of changing ECb on probe output for a range
on the soil moisture measurement. of measurement frequencies, by submersion in solutions at
The ECH2O family of sensors measures the water content different electrical conductivities. Data were normalized
of the soil using a capacitance technique (Campbell and to an EC of 1 dS/m, to facilitate comparison of the acquired
Greenway, 2005; Bogena et al., 2007). By rapidly charging data. Additional comparisons were conducted in rockwool
and discharging a positive and ground electrode (capacitor) (Master, Grodan, Roermond, the Netherlands), to further
in the soil, an electromagnetic field is generated whose test the effect of EC on probe output across a wide range
charge time (t) is related to the capacitance (C) of the soil of water content values.
by EC-5 sensors were calibrated by adapting the technique
  recommended by Starr and Paltineanu (2002). After a read-
V  Vf
t ¼ RC ln ð1Þ ing was taken from the sensor, volumetric water content (h)
Vi  Vf
was determined after oven-drying (Topp and Ferre, 2002).
where R is the series resistance, V is voltage at time t, Vi is Four mineral soils (dune sand, Patterson Sandy Loam, Pa-
the starting voltage and Vf is the applied or supply voltage. louse Silt Loam, and Houston Black Clay) were collected
Further, for a capacitor with a geometrical factor of F, the to represent a broad range in soil types (Table 1). Soils were
capacitance is related to the dielectric permittivity (e) of crushed in a soil grinder to allow for uniform packing in a 1 L
the medium between the capacitor electrodes by beaker with bulk density ranging between 1.2 g cm3 and
C ¼ e0 eF ð2Þ 1.6 g cm3 for the various soil types. To achieve a range
in bulk soil salinity, water solutions were prepared with dif-
where e0 is the permittivity of free space. Thus, the e of the ferent EC values, ranging from about 1 to near 12 dS/m, by
soil can be determined by measuring the change time (t) of dissolving pre-determined amounts of salts (Miracle-Grow
a sensor buried in the soil. Consequently, as water has a All Purpose Plant Food (15-30-15), Marysville, OH), prior
dielectric permittivity that is much greater than soil miner- to soil mixing. After the permittivity measurements, soils
als or air, the charge time t in the soil of Eq. (1) can be cor-
related with soil water content.

Probe types Table 1 Soil texture and ECw of tested soils

Soil Sand Silt Clay ECw
Several prototype soil moisture probes were constructed
following the basic design of the original ECH2O EC-20 probe kg kg1 dS m1
(Decagon Devices Inc., Pullman, WA), with the new probes Dune sand 0.87 0.03 0.10 0.04
having 5.2 cm long prongs. Testing was done with two types Patterson sandy loam 0.79 0.09 0.12 0.34
of commercialized sensors (EC-5, with a supply voltage of Palouse silt loam 0.03 0.71 0.26 0.12
3.0 V, and ECH2O-TE), each having the same water content Houston black clay 0.13 0.34 0.53 0.53
measurement circuitries, but different designs because of Oso flaco sand 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
the added soil EC and temperature measurements for the Columbia silt loam 0.68 0.22 0.10 0.33
ECH2O-TE, so that the number of prongs was increased from
370 F. Kizito et al.

were oven dried, crushed, and a saturation extract was used water at a range of temperatures. Sensor response was
to determine soil EC (U.S.Salinity Laboratory Staff, 1954). measured in the standard digital output of the ECH2O-TE
sensor (Counts) that has a range of 400 in air to 1300
Sensor calibration: ECH2O-TE in water. To test the temperature response in soil, air-dry
soil samples of the Dune sand, Patterson sandy loam and Pa-
A simple evaluation of sensor performance was obtained by louse silt loam (Table 1) were mixed with predetermined
partial vertical immersion of each sensor’s prongs in known amounts of water and packed into 250 ml beakers. After
salt solutions. The resulting water content output should complete insertion of the ECH2O-TE sensor, the soil surface
approximately agree with the fraction of prongs immersed was covered with paraffin wax to prevent soil drying by
relative to the total prong length (Baker and Lascano, evaporation and the beaker was placed in the temperature
1989). For example, it is expected that immersion of 1 cm chamber. Soil temperature ranged from +10 to +40 C. Subse-
of the sensor corresponds with a sensor output water con- quently, two volumetric soil samples were extracted and
tent of about 20%. This evaluation of the sensor was done oven dried to determine the gravimetric h and these values
for solution concentrations of 0, 0.01, 0.03, 0.06, 0.08, were averaged to determine h. The slope, Dh/DT, was
and 0.1 M KCl. Corresponding salinity values when express- determined by linear regression of sensor h (using the fac-
ing ECw in dS/m were 0.0, 1.2, 3.5, 7.0, 9.3, and 11.6 dS/m. tory calibration) versus temperature for several thermal cy-
A 3 cm tall and 8 cm diameter plexiglass column, with a cles (>100 data points).
volume of 0.134 L was used for all soil measurements with
the ECH2O TE. The predetermined soil bulk density used Temperature sensitivity of ECb
was 1.39 and 1.33 g cm3 for the Oso Flaco sand and Colum-
bia loam soil, respectively. For each of the pre-determined For the ECH2O-TE sensor, the temperature effect on sensor
water content values, sensor measurements were con- response was determined by immersion of a column with
ducted for a series of 6 solution concentrations (ECw) by saturated Oso Flaco sand (0.03 M KCl solution) and the
adding pre-determined amounts of KCl. Approximate soil ECH2O TE sensor in a temperature-controlled water bath
water content and soil solution concentrations (ECw) were (68 cm · 40 cm · 37 cm). This was done to evaluate the
0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 25%, 30%, and 45%, and 0.0, 1.2, 3.5, internal temperature correction of the ECH2O TE probe for
7.0, 9.3, and 11.6 dS/m, respectively. Separate soil samples EC measurements. For each set temperature level, the soil
were prepared for each h  ECw combination for a total of was given ample time to equilibrate before the EC measure-
210 soil cores. The measured bulk electrical conductivity ment. Temperature data were fitted to a relationship simi-
(ECb) data were fitted to the Rhoades et al. (1976) relation- lar to that suggested by Heimovaara et al. (1995) and
ship, using the Solver algorithm of MS Excel (Wraith and Or, Amente et al. (2000)
1998):
ECTb ¼ ECref ref
b ½1 þ aðT  T Þ ð4Þ
2
ECb ¼ c1 ECw h þ c2 ECw h þ c3 ð3Þ where ECTb is the measured bulk electrical conductivity at a
given temperature, ECref
b is the measured bulk EC at a refer-
where c1, c2, and c3 are the regression coefficients, with c1
ence temperature (25 C) and a is the temperature coeffi-
and c2 related to the soil’s tortuosity (Tuli and Hopmans,
cient of the bulk electrical conductivity (1/C). The
2004), and c3 corresponding to the surface conductance of
temperature coefficient was estimated from regression of
the soil particles.
ECTb vs. (T  Tref). We note that bulk soil resistance was
internally corrected for temperature using a polynomial fit
Temperature effects: ECH2O-TE to the saturation paste data presented in US Salinity Labora-
tory Staff (1954).
Since both the EC-5 and ECH2O-TE have identical water con-
tent measurement circuitries, tests were conducted with
the ECH2O-TE only. However, two separate temperature Results and discussions
sensitivity experiments were conducted that combined as-
sessed the temperature sensitivity to both h and soil ECb. Measurement frequency analysis: EC-5

Temperature sensitivity of h There were considerable differences in sensor output be-

tween measurement frequencies, when immersed in water
A small thermally isolated chamber (43 cm · 37 cm · 20 cm) (data not shown). The 10 MHz sensor changed from approx-
was constructed to control temperature. A sinusoidal tem- imately 10% full scale (FS) in distilled water to 5% FS in
perature cycle was programmed into the controlling 21X 5 dS m1 water. The sensitivity of the probe to changing
micrologger (Campbell Scientific, Logan, UT) to mimic diur- salinity decreased with increasing frequency, reaching less
nal temperature changes. Because the 21X controlled air than +/ 2% FS for the 75 MHz probe, with results similar
temperature in the range of +5–45 C, peak-to-peak media to Bogena et al. (2007). Further increases in measurement
temperature varied depending on thermal properties, but frequency did not reduce the probe sensitivity any further.
was typically in the range of ±15 C. Testing sensor output in rockwool made it possible to
To test the sensitivity of the electronics to temperature, determine the effect of ECb on sensor output for a wide
two dielectric sensors were placed in air for several temper- range of water content values. Since measurements for all
ature cycles. Subsequently, to evaluate the temperature three frequencies were taken simultaneously, any second-
sensitivity in water, sensors were placed in a beaker of ary effects as caused by probe insertion and heterogeneities
Frequency, electrical conductivity and temperature analysis of a low-cost capacitance soil moisture sensor 371

were eliminated. Rockwool was used for this test, to mini- was noticeably reduced for water content values larger than
mize sensor interactions with the solid phase, because of 0.05 cm3 cm3 at the ECw value of 7.6 dS m1. However, if a
its high porosity and thus low contribution to bulk dielectric measurement frequency of 70 MHz was applied (Fig. 2C), EC
permittivity, and negligible ion interactions in solution. Re- effects were negligible or absent, as was found for the rock-
sults for a single sensor in rockwool showed the same re- wool experiment. Results for the Palouse soil did not show
duced sensitivity to bulk EC with increasing measurement much difference between the 10 and 70 MHz frequencies
frequency (Fig. 1), as was observed in water. Interestingly, (Fig. 2B and D), though the scattering for the lower fre-
although the 33 MHz measurement frequency showed some quency was slightly larger. These data support earlier find-
scatter, the 66 and 132 MHz measurements both showed ings by Campbell (2001), who concluded that the EC
very little EC effects across the volumetric water range be- effect was small for a silt loam, using a measurement fre-
tween 0 and 0.8 cm3 cm3. Therefore, we expect little quency of 10 MHz. We speculate that the reduced EC sensi-
advantage in further increasing measurement frequency. tivity for the silt loam is related to the soil’s buffering
A single sensor evaluated in dune sand showed similar re- capacity.
sults (Fig. 2A and C) to earlier analyses, with a considerable The calibration results of five standard EC-5 sensors for
salinity effect at 10 MHz (Fig. 2A), especially for soil satura- the four soil types combined (Table 1) for a range of ECw
tion extract (ECw) values larger than 0.65 dS/m. In fact, levels are shown in Fig. 3. A least squares analysis of the
probe sensitivity to changes in volumetric water content data provided a linear fit with a model accuracy of +/
0.033 m3 m3 (95% confidence interval). No significant sen-
sor to sensor variation was determined between all tested
probes. Statistical comparisons between the slopes of the
1 calibration curves for individual soil type/EC combinations
33 MHz A showed no significant difference between 11 of the 12 cali-
0.8 bration curves (Table 2). The lack of significant differences
between calibration curves for the different salinity levels
0.6 1.0 dS/m was not surprising, considering the results of Figs. 1 and 2.
1.37 dS/m Though, we were generally surprised with the similarity of
0.4 2.74 dS/m calibrations between the different soils tested, in contrast
4.09 dS/m to similar calibration tests conducted using the EC-20 sensor
0.2 5.9 dS/m that showed considerable differences between soil types
8.0 dS/m (Campbell, 2001). It should be noted that the range of the
0 water contents in this dataset was limited to h values of less
200 300 400 500 600 700
than 0.30 m3 m3, so it is not clear if these findings will hold
1 true for near soil saturation.
66 MHz B In a similar study, Bogena et al. (2007) collected EC-5
Volumetric Water Content

0.8 sensor output for a wide range of dielectric solutions

(2.2–41.3). Fig. 3 also includes their fitted function
0.6 (calculated from fitting parameters given in their Table 2
(m3 m-3)

at a supply voltage of 3.0 and converted to h using Topp

0.4
et al. (1980)) in comparison to the soil calibration. Interest-
ingly, our data for h > 0.20 m3 m3 approximated the
0.2
Bogena et al. (2007) function very well, however, for h <
0.08 m3 m3 there is a considerable offset between the
0
200 300 400 500 600 liquid dielectric fit (dashed line in Fig. 3) and our linear soil
calibration (solid line). We propose two possible causes,
1
with the first one less likely. The first cause of the discrep-
132 MHz C ancy in the low water content range might be related to the
0.8
effect of the sealed plastic sensor body (‘‘head’’) on the EC-
5 sensor reading. Whereas, we buried the entire sensor body
0.6
for the soil calibration, we expect that the plastic sensor
body was not exposed to the dioxane solution in the immer-
0.4
sion tests of Bogena et al. (2007). However, effects are
expected to account for differences less than 0.01 m3 m3
0.2
and would have to apply across the whole tested water
content range. The second cause for differences could be
0
150 250 350 450 related to the possible interactions between measurement
Sensor Output (mV)
frequency and dielectric solution type. Specifically, Bogena
et al. (2007) used dioxane below a dielectric of 10.8
Figure 1 Changes in sensor output voltage over a range of (0.203 m3 m3), while 2-isopropoxyethanol–water mixtures
volumetric water contents and solution electrical conductivi- were used for the higher water content range. Interestingly,
ties in rockwool. A single sensor was programmed to measure our data in Fig. 3 coincide with the dielectric data of Bogena
dielectric permittivity at 33 (A), 66 (B), and 132 (C) MHz et al. (2007) for h values larger than 0.20 m3 m3. Further
measurement frequency simultaneously. investigation is warranted.
372 F. Kizito et al.

0.25 0.3
0.16 dS/m 0.2 dS/m
0.65 dS/m 0.25 0.35 dS/m
0.2
Water Content (m3 m-3)
2.2 dS/m 0.7 dS/m
7.6 dS/m 0.2 5.13 dS/m
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1

0.05
0.05
(A) Sand, 10MHz (B) Palouse, 10MHz
0 0
300 400 500 600 700 800 900 300 400 500 600 700 800

0.25 0.3

0.25
0.2
Water Content (m3 m-3)

0.2
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1

0.05
0.05
(C) Sand, 70 MHz (D) Palouse, 70 MHz
0 0
500 550 600 650 700 750 500 550 600 650 700 750
Probe Output (mV) Probe Output (mV)

Figure 2 Effect of varying electrical conductivity on the output of 10 (A, B) and 70 (C, D) MHz prototype sensors in dune sand (A, C)
and Palouse silt loam (B, D) over a range of water content values.

0.4
Sand (0.16, 0.65, 2.2, 7.6 dS/m)

Patterson (0.52, 0.83, 1.7, 5.3 dS/m)

Palouse (0.2, 0.7, 1.5 dS/m)

0.3
Houston Black (0.53 dS/m)
Volumetric Water Content (m3 m-3)

Least squares fit

Bogena et al. 2007

0.2 +95% CI

-95% CI

0.1

0
400 500 600 700

-0.1
Probe Output (mV)

Figure 3 Calibration data for five water content sensors running at 70 MHz in four mineral soils over a range of electrical
conductivities (shown in parenthesis). The fitting curve from Bogena et al. (2007) is show for comparison (dashed line), as are the +/
 95% confidence interval (CI) lines (dotted).
Frequency, electrical conductivity and temperature analysis of a low-cost capacitance soil moisture sensor 373

8
Table 2 Slopes and statistical comparisons between indi- a -1
vidual soil type/electrical conductivity (EC) combinations 1.2 (dS m )
-1
3.5 (dS m )
Soil Type ECw (dS m1) Slope of Calibration -1
7.0 (dS m )
6 -1
Curve (· 104)* 9.3 (dS m )
-1
11.6 (dS m )
Sand 0.16 9.8a

ECw (dSm-1)
Sand 0.65 9.8a
4
Sand 7.6 9.9a
Patterson 5.3 10.3a
Palouse 1.5 10.3a
Sand 2.2 10.5ab 2
Patterson 0.52 11.9ab
Patterson 0.83 12.1ab
Palouse 0.2 12.5ab
0
Patterson 1.7 12.7ab 0 10 20 30 40 50
Houston Black 0.53 12.8ab Fraction of echo probe immersed (%)
Palouse 0.7 13.4b
*
Slopes followed by the same letter are not significantly dif- b De-ionized
ferent (p < 0.01). 50 -1
1.2 (dS m )
-1
3.5 (dS m )
-1
7.0 (dS m )
-1
9.3 (dS m )
-1
40 11.6 (dS m )

Sensor calibration: ECH2O-TE Volumetric water content (%)

Typical results of the partial to full immersion of 5 ECH2O TE 30

probes for a range of solution concentrations are presented y= 1.4895*x
0.8732
in Fig. 4a (ECw) and Fig. 4b (h). Error bars represent the 2
R = 0.9761
standard error of the mean (SE) among the five sensor mea-
20
surements. Although not perfect, the immersion test is a
quick and simple way to evaluate probe performance. How-
ever, we do not suggest that the partial immersion test suf-
fices for soil water content calibration. We specifically note 10
the small SE-values for ECw-values < 2 dS/m (Fig. 4a), and
the presence of a salinity effect on the permittivity readings
(Fig. 4b), with increasing data scatter in the higher water 0
content range. In their work on spatial sensitivity of time 0 10 20 30 40 50
domain reflectometry, Baker and Lascano (1989) revealed Fraction of echo probe immersed (%)
a linear relationship of water content output with the frac-
Figure 4 ECH2O-TE response to partial probe immersion.
tion of prongs immersed relative to the total prong length.
However, our data suggest that the ECH2O TE response was
slightly nonlinear, and was fitted with an exponential func-
tion (Fig. 4b), thus confirming the curvilinear behavior as selected probes and all five probes combined is presented in
modeled by a second order polynomial by the manufacturer Fig. 5 for both Oso Flaco and Columbia soil, for the com-
(Decagon Devices, 2006, 2007). plete range of solution salinity (ECw) between 0 and
Regression of sensor temperature and EC in solutions 11.6 dS/m. The individual data points for specific water
with independently measured temperature and solution EC content values represent the various prepared soil solution
measurements yielded R2 values of 0.996 and 0.997 concentrations. The data show that uncertainty increases
(Table3), respectively, for temperature and EC ranges of with increasing water content, likely because of the corre-
0–45 C and 0–12 dS m1 respectively. For salinity levels sponding increase of bulk soil salinity with larger water
larger than 12 dS m1, the ECH2O TE probe significantly content values. When combining the data of all five sensors
underestimated EC, though such salinity levels are rarely at- into a single calibration, the R2-value remained near 0.98
tained in most agricultural soils. Likely, relatively high salin- (Table 3), indicating that no specific probe calibration might
ity levels are sensitive to the presence of contaminants on be needed. Standard error values varied between 0.012 and
the prong surfaces. In the low soil EC range the effects of 0.026 m3 m3 between the low and high water content
contamination are expected to be relatively small, because ranges. Our calibration results for the two soils combined
the resistance in the soil dominates the total resistance support the earlier conclusion that no soil-specific calibra-
(Decagon Devices, 2007). The manufacturer stipulates that tion is required for the mineral soils tested in this study.
the optimal probe working range would be 0.1–7.3 dS m1 Whereas separate EC calibrations were conducted for
(Decagon Devices, 2006). each probe separately, we present the combined data and
A comparison of the ECH2O TE measurements with fitted calibration for all five sensors combined for the
known volumetric water content values for each of the five Columbia loam (Fig. 6a) and Oso Flaco sand (Fig. 6b).
374 F. Kizito et al.

Table 3 Summary of combined probe calibration functions of the form: y = b0 + b1x

Parameters b0 b1 RMSE* CVa(%) R2
Probe ECw (dS m1) 0.181 1.084 0.26 3.08 0.997
Probe temperature (C) 0.113 1.005 0.09 0.40 0.996
Oso Flaco h (m3 m3) 0.005 0.985 0.0147 2.04 0.969
Columbia h (m3 m3) 0.010 0.961 0.0181 4.43 0.984
Soils h combined 0.003 1.005 0.026 4.58 0.977
*
RMSE: root mean square error.
a
CV: coefficient of variation.

0.6
Probe 1 Prob e 2

0.4

0.2
Oso Flaco sand
Columbia loam

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

0.6
Probe 3 Probe 4
Volumetric water content θ (m 3 m - 3)

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0.6
Probe 5 All Probes

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
Gravimetric water content θ (m m )
3 -3

Figure 5 Comparison of individual and combined probe water content (%) with gravimetrically determined volumetric water
content (h gravimetric) for Oso Flaco sand and Columbia sandy loam.
Frequency, electrical conductivity and temperature analysis of a low-cost capacitance soil moisture sensor 375

5 a 5 b Oso Flaco
Columbia loam
0 dSm -1 0 dSm -1
1.2 dSm -1 1.2 dSm -1
4 3.5 dSm -1 4 3.5 dSm-1
7.0 dSm -1 7.0 dSm -1
9.3 dSm -1 9.3 dSm -1
11.6 dSm -1 11.6 dSm -1
ECb (dS m -1)

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Volumetric water content θ (m3m-3)

Figure 6 Calibration of 5 ECHO2-TE probes combined for measuring ECb as a function of water content and solute concentration
for Columbia sandy loam (a) and Oso Flaco sand (b).

Table 4 Optimized parameters for Eq. (3) of ECH2O-TE probe

Oso Flaco sand probe # Regression coefficients (dS/m) RMSE (dS/m)
* 2
c1 c2 c3 R
1 1.28 0.01 – 0.997 0.115
2 1.25 0.05 – 0.995 0.107
3 1.39 0.05 – 0.992 0.097
4 1.50 0.02 – 0.991 0.114
5 2.29 0.01 – 0.975 0.299
All probes combined 1.45 0.02 – 0.990 0.147

Columbia soil probe #

1 1.04 0.02 0.06 0.999 0.133
2 1.01 0.05 0.07 0.992 0.180
3 1.19 0.02 0.06 0.999 0.161
4 1.18 0.02 0.06 0.996 0.151
5 1.13 0.02 0.05 0.998 0.162
All probes combined 1.12 0.02 0.06 0.997 0.158
*
Oso Flaco sand was assumed to have negligible specific surface conductance.

Regression coefficients for each individual probe are listed Temperature effects: ECH2O-TE
in Table 4. Except for probe five of the Oso Flaco soil, all
R2 values were larger than 0.99, indicating an excellent fit The temperature sensitivities of the soil moisture sensor in
to the general calibration model of Eq. (3). When combining air and water are presented in Fig. 7. The air data test
all data for each soil type, the R2 values remained high shows very little sensitivity to temperature, suggesting little
(R2 = 0.99) with little probe to probe variation as evidenced effect of temperature on sensor electronics (Fig. 7a). The
by the small RMSE values of 0.147 and 0.158 dS/m for Oso temperature sensitivity data in water is consistent with the-
Flaco and Columbia soil, respectively. As expected, ECb in- ory that dielectric of water decreases with temperature
creases with increasing h and ECw, with dependency con- (Fig. 7b). Although Fig. 7b shows some variation in sensor
trolled by the geometry of conducting pore space (soil output, it was only about 1% of the full scale sensor output.
tortuosity) and soil particles surface conductance (C3 in The sensitivity of the ECH2O-TE soil moisture probe to
Eq. (2)), hence, calibrations to infer soil solution salinity temperature for three soils (Table 1) at various water con-
from sensor measurements will be soil specific. tents is shown in Fig. 8, with sensitivity values of Dh/DT
376 F. Kizito et al.

430 6
Sensor 1
a a α =0.006

EC w (dSm )
5.5

-1
425 Sensor 2
Sensor Output (Counts)

5
420
4.5 y = 0.0318x + 5.2984
415 R2 = 0.9542
4
-25 -15 -5 5 15
410 ref o
T- T ( C)
405
1.08
400
b α=0.002

EC b (dSm )
-1
5.0 15.0 25.0 35.0 45.0 1.04
Temperature (ºC)
1
1340 y = 0.0025x + 1.0323
b R2 = 0.8639
0.96
Sensor Output (counts)

1330 -25 -15 -5 5 15

ref o
T- T ( C)

1320 Figure 9 Variation of electrical conductivity with tempera-

ture difference in (a) 0.03 M KCl solution and (b) saturation
paste of Oso Flaco sand.
1310 Sensor 1
Sensor 2

surement because of surface forces. However, with increas-

1300
10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 ing soil temperatures these surface forces reduce in
Temperature (ºC) strength, thereby causing a positive relationship between
water content and temperature. However, Seyfried and
Figure 7 Response of ECH2O-TE sensor to temperature Murdock (2004) found a low temperature sensitivity of an-
variation in air (a) and water (b). Sensor data represent the other capacitance sensor at 50 MHz measurement fre-
standard raw digital output of the sensor (Counts) where the quency. Interestingly, in their analysis the real and
range from air to water is 400 counts to 1300 counts. imaginary portions of the dielectric were separated, and
they used only the real portion to calculate volumetric
water content. Because the imaginary portion of the dielec-
0.006
tric contains an electrical conductivity term that is posi-
Palouse Patterson Sand
tively correlated with temperature, the true source of the
0.004 temperature sensitivity needs further investigation. It
Δθ/ΔT (m3 m-3 C-1)

should be noted that our temperature sensitivities were sig-

nificantly lower than those reported by Czarnomski et al.
0.002
(2005), who tested the low-frequency ECH2O sensor. In
practice, soil moisture sensors are buried in the soil, thus
0 dampening air temperature fluctuations.
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 For the temperature range 0–40 oC, ECH2O-TE electrical
conductivity values displayed minimal sensitivity to temper-
-0.002
ature changes with a coefficients of 0.006 and 0.002 in
Measured Vol. Water Content (m3 m-3)
solution (Fig. 9a) and for the Oso Flaco sand (Fig. 9b),
Figure 8 Slopes of the change in h vs. temperature relation- respectively. The increase of a from 0.002 (Oso Flaco) to
ship (Dh/DT) plotted against true h for the ECH2O-TE sensor in 0.006 (solution) may indicate that the temperature effect
three soils at various water contents. increases with bulk EC. However, both a-coefficients were
much smaller than 0.019 (Heimovaara et al., 1995; Amente
et al., 2000), considered to be the default temperature cor-
around 0.002 to +0.004. Hence, a 10-degree temperature rection value for EC. This suggests that the default internal
swing causes a change in measured volumetric water con- compensation for temperature is adequate.
tent of 0.02 (low h) to +0.04 cm3 cm3 (high h). The nega-
tive Dh/DT – relationship for the low surface area wet soils
(Patterson and sand), and positive Dh/DT – relationship for Conclusions
the high surface area wet soils (Palouse) supports the theory
of Or and Wraith (1999) noted earlier. They suggested that The ECH2O-TE probes yielded accurate and repeatable re-
water near the particle surfaces of the finer-textured soils sults hence the calibration equations hold validity for the
is increasingly becoming ‘‘invisible’’ to the dielectric mea- range of soil moisture and electrical conductivity sampled
Frequency, electrical conductivity and temperature analysis of a low-cost capacitance soil moisture sensor 377

in this study. Probe uncertainty increased with increasing Chandler, D., Seyfried, M.S., Murdock, M.D., McNamara, J.P., 2004.
water content and relatively high EC values may also Field calibration of water content reflectometers. Soil Sci. Soc.
attenuate the probe pulse signal. Combined calibration Am. J. 68 (5), 1501–1507.
equations for soil moisture, electrical conductivity and Chen, Y., Or, D., 2006. Geometrical factors and interfacial
processes affecting complex dielectric permittivity of partially
temperature showed high correlation coefficients suggest-
saturated porous media. Water Resour. Res. 42, W06423.
ing that no specific probe calibration is needed. The study
doi:10.1029/2005WR00474.
indicates that the ECH2O-TE probes did not reveal signifi- Cobos, D.R. 2006. Calibrating ECH2O soil moisture sensors [Available
cant differences in h from the two soils studied but need at <http://www.decagon.com/appnotes/echocal.pdf>.
specific soil calibration relationships to infer soil solution Czarnomski, N.M., Moore, G.W., Pypker, T.G., Licata, J., Bond,
salinity, ECw. B.J., 2005. Precision and accuracy of three alternative
Increasing the sensor measurement frequency to 70 MHz instruments for measuring soil water content in two forest
resulted in various desirable affects. Probe sensitivity to soil soils of the Pacific Northwest. Can. J. Forest Res. 35 (8),
electrical conductivity decreased considerably at the higher 1867–1876.
freqencies, both in salt solutions and in soil compared to the Decagon Devices, 2007. Operator’s manual version 2. ECH2O TE/
EC-TM. Water Content, EC and Temperature Sensor. Decagon
lower frequencies, up to about 150 MHz. No additional
Devices, Inc. 950 NE Nelson Court, Pullman, WA 99163.
improvements were found by increasing the measurement
Decagon Devices, 2006. Operator’s manual version 2. ECH2O-TE
frequency further. In addition, using the 70 MHz frequency, Water Content, EC and Temperature Sensor. Decagon Devices,
our results showed that a single calibration curve could be Inc. 950 NE Nelson Court, Pullman, WA 99163.
used for all tested soils, independent of soil salinity. Fricke, H., 1952. The dielectric properties of two-body systems.
Although our calibrations applied to five soil types only, Experientia 3 (10), 376–377.
the data do suggest that sensor calibration is fairly robust Fricke, H., 1924. A mathematical treatment of the electric
over a limited range of soil types, bulk densities, and elec- conductivity and capacitance of disperse systems. Phys. Rev.
trical conductivities. Limited sensor calibration needs will 24, 575.
be an important factor, when large networks of soil mois- Funk, D.B., 2001. An investigation of the nature of the radio-
frequency dielectric response in cereal grains and oilseeds
ture sensors are being deployed.
with engineering implications for grain moisture meters.
Temperature sensitivity did not change as a result of the
Ph.D. Dissertation University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas
higher frequency, but appears to be correctable through City, MO.
data processing. Still, the temperature dampening effect Heimovaara, T.J., Focke, A.G., Bouten, W., Verstraten, J.M., 1995.
of soil will reduce the need for temperature correction in Assessing temporal variations in soil water composition with
many applications. time domain reflectometry. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59, 689–698.
Although other studies have suggested that higher mea- Hopmans, J.W., Hendrickx, J. M.H., Selker, J.S., 1999. Emerging
surement frequencies are attractive to mitigate the effects measurement techniques for vadose zone characterization. In:
soil type, temperature and EC, this study shows significant Parlange, M.B., Hopmans, J.W. (Eds.), Vadose Zone Hydrology:
improvement even at the 70 MHz level. Because the move Cutting Across Disciplines. Oxford University Press, New York,
pp. 279–316.
to higher frequencies is concomitant with increasing ex-
Huisman, J.A., Hubbard, S.S., Redman, J.D., Annan, A.P., 2003.
pense of electronics and therefore sensors, it is an impor-
Measuring soil water content with ground penetrating radar: a
tant conclusion of this work that a sensor can be produced review. Vadose Zone J. 2, 476–491.
to accurately measure volumetric water content with a Jones, S.B., Blonquist Jr., J.M., Robinson, D.A., Philip Rasmussen,
low sensitivity to confounding environmental factors. V., Or, D., 2005. Standardizing characterization of electromag-
netic water content sensors: part I. Methodology. Vadose Zone
J. 4, 1048–1058.
References Jones, S.B., Or, D., 2004. Frequency domain analysis for extending
time domain reflectometry water content measurement in
Amente, G., Baker, J.M., Reece, C.F., 2000. Estimation of soil highly saline soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 68 (5), 1568–1577.
solution electrical conductivity from bulk soil electrical conduc- Kelleners, T.J., Robinson, D.A., Shouse, P.J., Ayars, J.E., Skaggs,
tivity in sandy soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64, 1931–1939. T.H., 2005. Frequency dependence of the complex permittivity
Baker, J.M., Lascano, R.J., 1989. The spatial sensitivity of time and its impact on dielectric sensor calibration in soils. Soil Sci.
domain reflectometry. Soil Science 147, 378–383. Soc. Am. J. 69 (1), 67–76.
Blonquist Jr., J.M., Jones, S.B., Robinson, D.A., 2005. Standardizing Leib, B.G., Jabro, J.D., Matthews, G.R., 2003. Field evaluation and
characterization of electromagnetic water content sensors: part performance comparison of soil moisture sensors. Soil Science
2. Eval. Seven Sens. Syst. Vadose Zone J. 4, 1059–1069. 168, 396–408.
Bogena, H.R., Huisman, J.A., Oberdorster, C., Vereecken, H., 2007. Logsdon, S., Laird, D., 2004. Cation and water content effects on
Evaluation of a low-cost soil water content sensor for wireless dipole rotation activation energy of smectite. Soil Sci. Soc. Am.
network applications. J. Hydrol. 344, 32–42. J. 68 (5), 1586–1591.
Campbell, C.S., 2001. Response of the ECH2O soil moisture probe to Maxwell, J.C., 1881. A treatise on electricity and magnetism, 2nd
variation in water content, soil type, and solution electrical ed. Claredon Press, Oxford, England.
conductivity [available at <http://www.decagon.com/app- Mohamed, S.O., Bertuzzi, P., Bruand, A., Raison, L., Bruckler, L.,
notes/echo_analysis.pdf>]. 1997. Field evaluation and error analysis of soil water content
Campbell, G.S., Greenway, W.C., 2005. Moisture detection appa- measurement using the capacitance probe method. Soil Sci. Soc.
ratus and method. US Patent 6904789, Date Issued: 14 June, Am. J. 61 (2), 399–408.
2005. Mori, Y., Hopmans, J.W., Mortensen, A.P., Kluitenberg, G.J., 2003.
Campbell, J.E., 1990. Dielectric-properties and influence of con- Multi-functional heat pulse probe for the simultaneous mea-
ductivity in soils at one to 50 MHz. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 54 (2), surement of soil water content, solute concentration, and heat
332–341. transport parameters. Vadose Zone J. 2, 561–571.
378 F. Kizito et al.

Mortensen, A.P., Hopmans, J.W., Mori, Y., Simunek, J., 2006. Multi- rated flow – inverse methods. In: Dane, J.H., Topp, G.C. (Eds.),
functional heat pulse probe measurements of coupled vadose Methods of soil analysis, Part 1. Physical Methods, 3rd ed.,
zone flow and transport. Adv. Water Res. 29, 250–267. Madison, WI, SSSA, pp. 1435–1449 (Chapter 6.6).
Nadler, A., Lapid, Y., 1996. An improved capacitance sensor for Starr, J.L., Paltineanu, I.C., 2002. Methods for measurement of
in situ monitoring of soil moisture. Aust. J. Soil Res. 34 (3), 361– soil water content: capacitance devices. In: Dane, J.H.,
368. Topp, G.C. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 4 Physical
Or, D., Wraith, J.M., 1999. Temperature effects on soil bulk Methods. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, WI,
dielectric permittivity measured by time domain reflectometry: pp. 463–474.
a physical model. Water Resour. Res. 35, 371–383. Thevanayagam, S., 1995. Frequency-domain analysis of electrical
Pepin, S., Livingston, N.J., Hook, W.R., 1995. Temperature- dispersion of soils. J. Geotech. Eng. – ASCE 121 (8), 618–628.
dependent measurement errors in time domain reflectometry Topp, G.C., Davis, J.L, Annan, A.P., 1980. Electromagnetic deter-
determinations of soil water. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 59, 38–43. mination of soil water content: measurement in coaxial trans-
Rhoades, J.D., Ratts, P.A.C, Prather, R.J., 1976. Effects of liquid- mission lines. Water Resour. Res. 16, 574–582.
phase electrical conductivity, water content, and surface Topp, G.C., Ferre, T.P.A., 2002. The soil solution phase. In: Dane,
conductivity on bulk soil electrical conductivity. Soil Sci. Soc. J.H., Topp, G.C. (Eds.), Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 4 Physical
Am. J. 40, 651–655. Methods. Soil Science Society of America, Inc., Madison, WI., pp.
Rinaldi, V.A., Francisca, F.M., 1999. Impedance analysis of soil 417–1074.
dielectric dispersion (1 MHz–1 GHz). J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Topp, G.C., Zegelin, S., White, I., 2000. Impacts of the real and
Eng. 125 (2), 111–121. imaginary components of relative permittivity on time domain
Robinson, D.A., Jones, S.B., Wraith, J.A., Or, D., Firedmena, S.P., reflectometry measurements in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 64 (4),
2003. A review of advances in dielectric and electrical conduc- 1244–1252.
tivity measurements in soils using time domain reflectometry. Tuli, A., Hopmans, J.W., 2004. Effect of degree of fluid saturation
Vadose Zone J. 2, 444–475. on transport coefficients in disturbed soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 55,
Robinson, D.A., Campbell, C., Hopmans, J.W., Hornbuckle, B., 147–164.
Jones, S.B., Knight, R., Ogden, F., Selker, J., Wendroth, O., in US Salinity Laboratory Staff., 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of
press. A review and vision for soil moisture measurement for saline and alkali soils. USDA Handbook, 60th ed., US Government
ecological and hydrological watershed scale observations. Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Vadose Zone J. Velick, S., Gorin, M., 1940. The electrical conductance of suspen-
Seyfried, M.S., Murdock, M.D., 2001. Response of a new soil water sions of ellipsoids and its relation to study of avian erythrocytes.
sensor to variable soil, water content, and temperature. Soil Sci. J. Gen. Physiol., 753–771.
Soc. Am. J. 65, 28–34. Wraith, J.M., Or, D., 1998. Nonlinear parameter estimation using
Seyfried, M.S., Murdock, M.D., 2004. Measurement of soil water spreadsheet software. J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 27, 13–19.
content with a 50 MHz soil dielectric sensor. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. Zhang, N., Fan, G., Lee, K.H., Kluitenberg, G.J., Loughin, T.M.,
68 (2), 394–403. 2004. Simultaneous measurement of soil water content and
Šimůnek, J., Jacques, D., Hopmans, J.W., Inoue, M., Flury, M., van salinity using a frequency-response method. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
Genuchten, M.Th., 2002. Solute transport during variably-satu- 68, 1515–1525.