() R e p ro d u c e d f ro m V a d o s e Z o n e J o u rn a l P u b lis h e d b y S o il S c ie n c e S o c ie ty o f A m e ri c a A ll c o p y ri g h ts r e s e rv e d Evaluation of a Capacitance Pro[.]
Published online November 16, 2005 Evaluation of a Capacitance Probe Frequency Response Model Accounting for Bulk Electrical Conductivity: Comparison with TDR and Network Analyzer Measurements Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal Published by Soil Science Society of America All copyrights reserved D A Robinson,* T J Kelleners, J D Cooper, C M K Gardner, P Wilson, I Lebron, and S Logsdon ABSTRACT cil, 2001) A great deal of effort has been expended in trying to determine water content at a range of scales Many measurement methods have been reviewed by Gardner et al (2001) and Topp and Ferre (2002), among others Two of the more commonly used electromagnetic methods for determining water content at the sample scale are the TDR method (Topp et al., 1980; Jones et al., 2002; Robinson et al., 2003) and the capacitance probe method (Wobschall, 1978; Dean et al., 1987; Bell et al., 1987; Evett and Steiner, 1995; Paltineanu and Starr, 1997; Kelleners et al., 2004) A surface capacitance insertion probe (SCIP) (Robinson and Dean, 1993; Dean, 1994; Robinson et al., 1998) is used in this work Capacitance probes such as the EnviroSCAN (Sentek, Stepney, Australia) have become popular for irrigation scheduling (Evett and Steiner, 1995; Paltineanu and Starr, 1997; Kelleners et al 2004) Hence, an understanding of the response of this instrument provides some insight into the operation and performance of similar sensors Both TDR and capacitance sensors attempt to measure the permittivity of the soil medium Because they may not so perfectly, the measurement yielded by the instrument is termed the apparent permittivity Many calibration equations to relate apparent permittivity to water content have been presented in the literature (Topp et al., 1980; Roth et al., 1992; Jacobsen and Schjonning, 1993; Malicki et al., 1996) Many of these equations are used interchangeably among different types of sensors Water content determination is a twostep process—from sensor response to permittivity (Jones et al., 2005; Blonquist et al., 2005), and from permittivity to water content Errors or invalid assumptions in the first step will lead to difficulty in making interpretations at the next step In this study we compared measurements made using a surface capacitance insertion probe and TDR in 12 soils The initial objective of this work was to evaluate a calibration model developed for the SCIP This uses well-defined dielectric solutions and dielectric solutions with ionic conductivity to determine whether accounting for EC measured at kHz improves permittivity measurement Solution electrical conductivity changes by about 2% ⬚C⫺1 and can have a strong impact on the apparent permittivity measurement Eliminating it from the apparent permittivity measurement can considerably improve water content determination The second objective was therefore to evaluate the model permittivity predictions with and without accounting for bulk soil EC to determine whether accounting for EC could improve the permittivity and water content cali- Soils ranging in texture from sand to clay were used to compare permittivity measurements made using a Surface Capacitance Insertion Probe (SCIP) and time domain reflectometer (TDR) Measurements were made using the same electrodes embedded in each soil, making the measurements directly comparable The objective of the work was to test a model describing the frequency response of the SCIP to both permittivity and electrode conductance, and to compare results with TDR and network analyzer measurements The model was tested using liquids of known permittivity and in saline, dielectric solutions Surface Capacitance Insertion Probe and TDR determined permittivity values are similar for sandy soils but diverge for loam and clay soils Using Topp’s values as a reference, the SCIP-determined permittivities for loams and clays lay close to the curve at water contents ⬍0.25 m3 m⫺3, then often rose above the curve with increasing water content Surface Capacitance Insertion Probe permittivity correction, using electrical conductivity (EC) measured at kHz, corrected the results in sands reasonably well but not enough in loams and clays for reliable calibration We propose three possible reasons for the higher than expected permittivity values observed using the SCIP: (i) higher than expected real permittivity created by dielectric dispersion, (ii) a large contribution of the imaginary permittivity due to relaxation processes assumed to be negligible, and (iii) poor model prediction of permittivity due to excessive damping of the oscillator circuit with high EC and dielectric losses Results from network analyzer measurements for one of the clay soils were used to aid data interpretation The TDR measurements were much more consistent, producing apparent relative permittivity values below those of the Topp curve for the finer textured soils T he life-sustaining reservoir for plant and microbial communities is soil water, a key component of the hydrological cycle As such, knowledge of soil water content is required for using global circulation models to estimate heat and vapor fluxes in what has been referred to as the “critical zone” (Committee on Basic Research Opportunities in the Earth Sciences, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, National Research CounD.A Robinson and I Lebron, Dep of Plants, Soils and Biometeorology, Utah State University, Logan, UT, USA; T.J Kelleners, George E Brown Jr Salinity Lab USDA-ARS, Riverside CA, USA; J.D Cooper, Instrument Section, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxon, UK; C.M.K Gardner, IAHS Press, Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxon, UK; P Wilson, School of Environmental Sciences, University of Ulster, Coleraine, Co Londonderry, N Ireland, UK; S Logsdon, National Soil Tilth Lab USDA-ARS, Ames/Ankeny, IA, USA Received 14 Sept 2004 *Corresponding author (darearthscience@yahoo.com) Published in Vadose Zone Journal 4:992–1003 (2005) Special Section: Soil Water Sensing doi:10.2136/vzj2004.0131 Soil Science Society of America 677 S Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA Abbreviations: EC, electrical conductivity; SCIP, Surface Capacitance Insertion Probe; TDR, time domain reflectometer 992 993 Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal Published by Soil Science Society of America All copyrights reserved www.vadosezonejournal.org bration Predictions of permittivity are compared directly with TDR measurements using the same electrodes and also with some independent network analyzer measurements As far as possible, we develop and use physical principles and models to provide understanding of what is being measured By doing this we hope to identify deficiencies in knowledge of what is being measured and make recommendations for sensor improvements The TDR method is a transmission line technique, which determines an apparent TDR permittivity (Ka) from the travel time of an electromagnetic wave that propagates along a transmission line, usually two or more parallel metal rods embedded in a dielectric (Topp and Ferre, 2002; Robinson et al., 2003) The propagation velocity of a broadband (20 kHz–1.5 GHz) (Heimovaara, 1994) electromagnetic signal determined by fitting tangent lines to the wave form is analogous to the phase velocity, vp, of an electromagnetic plane wave through a dielectric material: √or ε o ε r ⫽ c √rεr 2l c ⫽ t √ε r 2l √ε r c [4] L ⫺ Hence the permittivity can be determined by measuring the time it takes the signal to traverse the probe Surface Capacitance Insertion Probe The SCIP is a series resonance, frequency shift capacitance probe operating between 70 and 150 MHz (Robinson and Dean, 1993; Dean 1994; Robinson et al., 1998; Gardner et al., 1998) The frequency response is a function of the electrode capacitance; from this, an apparent soil permittivity (KSCIP) is obtained The most attractive features of capacitance probes are their simplicity of concept and use compared with the TDR, and their more 冣 [5] ⫽0 C [6] which can be solved either for the angular frequency, , or the total circuit capacitance C: ⫽ 2F ⫽ C⫽ √LC [7a] 2L [7b] The impedance of the SCIP oscillator circuit can be written as (e.g., Dean, 1994; Dean et al., 1987) Z ⫽ jL ⫹ 1 ⫹ jCm ⫹ jCs jCb [8] where Cm is the capacitance of the electrodes, Cs is a capacitance due to stray electric fields, and Cb is the capacitance of the circuit board Equation [8] can be written Z⫽ [3] 冢 1 ⫽ j L ⫺ jC C where j ⫽ 公⫺1, is the angular frequency (⫽ 2F, with F being the frequency) At the resonance frequency, the imaginary part of the impedance (Eq [6], from Eq [5]) is zero: [2] where l is the length of the line and t is the time for a round trip (back and forth) Rearranging Eq [2] gives the round trip propagation time (t) of the wave as a function of both the length of the transmission line (l) and the relative permittivity of the material: t⫽ Z ⫽ jL ⫹ [1] where c is the velocity of light in vacuo (3 ⫻ 108 m s⫺1), ε o is the electric constant (8.854 pF m⫺1), ε r is the relative permittivity, o is the magnetic permeability of vacuum (1.257 ⫻ 10⫺6 H m⫺1), and r is the relative magnetic permeability, which can be taken as unity in almost all soils (Roth et al., 1992) The TDR signal propagates down the transmission line and is reflected from its end; the returning signal is sampled in the TDR device From Eq [1], the velocity of the signal in a perfect, nonmagnetic dielectric is v⫽ Cm ⫽ gm ε r ε o where Cm is the capacitance, gm is a geometric factor, and ε o is defined previously The impedance, Z, of an inductance, L, and capacitance, C, in series is given by THEORY Time Domain Reflectometry vp ⫽ adaptable electrode configuration (Robinson et al., 1998; Whalley et al., 1992) The capacitance of a pair of electrodes is a function of the relative permittivity, ε r, of the material in which the electrodes are embedded and the geometric configuration of the electrodes: j(⫺2LCb[Cm ⫹ Cs] ⫹ Cm ⫹ Cs ⫹ Cb) ⫺Cb(Cm ⫹ Cs) [9] At the resonance frequency, the imaginary part of the impedance (Eq [10], from Eq [9]) is again zero: ⫺2LCb[Cm ⫹ Cs] ⫹ Cm ⫹ Cs ⫹ Cb ⫽ [10] The solution of Eq [10] for the angular frequency, , and the electrode capacitance, Cm , is: ⫽ 2F ⫽ C ⫹C ⫹C 冪LC (C ⫹ C ) [11] Cs(2LCb ⫺ 1) ⫺ Cb ⫺2LCb ⫹ [12] m s b Cm ⫽ m b s Complex Dielectric Permittivity Many materials, including soils, not constitute a perfect dielectric Energy losses arising from dielectric relaxation and ionic conductivity need to be taken into account The relative permittivity of the material should then be represented by a complex quantity ε r* with a 994 VADOSE ZONE J., VOL 4, NOVEMBER 2005 Table Soil sites, description, and texture with soil horizon and classification according to the N Irish soil survey (Cruickshank, 1997), Soil Survey of England and Wales (Avery, 1980) Texture classification according to U.S Soil Taxonomy (Soil Survey Staff, 1975) Soil Horizon N Irish Soil Survey/ Soil Survey of England and Wales Portrush a Portrush b Antrim Hills Herringswell White Park Bay Portstewart Glenwherry Wallingford Toombebridge Giants Causeway a Giants Causeway b Wytham C B Bs Ap A Ag A A B Bs Bt A Shallow brown earth Shallow brown earth Peaty podsol Redlodge series Surface water gley Ground water gley Brown earth Fladbury series Diatomite Ferric ranker Ferric ranker Denchworth series Location grid reference Sand (⬎63 m) 24 878405 24 877401 34 160275 TL 698713 34 013438 24 825357 34 277005 SU 617897 23 995918 24 944445 24 944445 SP 487094 98.9 96.1 65.4 93.5 65.0 54.6 13.7 36.7 2.5 38.1 16.1 16.1 Silt (2–63 m) Clay (⬍2 m) Texture 0.0 2.4 32.5 4.2 16.9 24.0 58.1 37.9 64.5 38.8 32.5 20.6 0.7 0.4 1.1 0.3 6.0 8.4 2.9 13.6 27.2 12.3 31.8 54.0 sand sand sandy loam sand sandy loam sandy loam silt loam sandy silt loam silty clay loam sandy silt loam clay clay Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal Published by Soil Science Society of America All copyrights reserved % 10 11 12 real part ε r⬘ describing energy storage and an imaginary part ε r″ describing energy losses: ε r* ⫽ ε r⬘ ⫺ jε r″ [13] The ε r″ term in Eq [13] is the sum of a conductivity term and a relaxation term: ε r″ ⫽ ⫹ ε r,rel ″ ε o [14] where is the ionic conductivity and ε″r,rel is the loss due to dielectric relaxation The electrode capacitance, Cm , is now also a complex quantity: C*m ⫽ C⬘m ⫺ j 冢g ⫹ g ε″ ε 冣 m m r,rel o [15] where C *m is the complex electrode capacitance, C ⬘m is the real part of the material capacitance, and gm was previously defined Multiplication of both sides of Eq [15] with j gives [16] jC*m ⫽ jC⬘m ⫹ G where G ⫽ gm ⫹ gmε″r,rel ε o The impedance of the SCIP oscillator circuit for a material with a complex permittivity is written as Z ⫽ jL ⫹ 1 ⫹ jC⬘m ⫹ G ⫹ jCs jCb [17] Separating the real and imaginary parts gives Z⫽ ⫺CbG ⫺ j[4LCb(C m⬘ ⫹ Cs)2 ⫹ 2LCbG ⫺ 2Cb(C m⬘ ⫹ Cs) ⫺ 2(C m⬘ ⫹ Cs)2 ⫺ G 2] Cb[⫺2(C m⬘ ⫹ Cs)2 ⫺ G 2] [18] As before, the imaginary part of the impedance is zero at the resonance frequency: 4LCb(C⬘m ⫹ Cs)2 ⫹ 2LCbG ⫺ 2Cb(C⬘m ⫹ Cs) ⫺ 2(C⬘m ⫹ Cs)2 ⫺ G ⫽ [19] This is a quadratic equation in both and C⬘m , with solutions (see Appendix) MATERIALS AND METHODS Sample Description and Collection Soils were collected for this project from 12 locations across Northern Ireland and Southern England They represent a broad spectrum of soil textural classes The Northern Ireland soils are derived mainly from drift deposits overlying diverse bedrock The mixing and outcropping of different strata has led to the development of a wide variety of soils, from diatomaceous earths to Fe-rich clays (Cruickshank, 1997) Details of the soils are contained in Table All soil samples were taken from between 10 and 30 cm depth below the soil surface, thereby sampling topsoil below the root mat if present Soil samples were collected to develop a comprehensive data set of repacked soils Approximately kg of soil was collected from each location Once in the laboratory, the soil was sieved onto large plastic trays A 5-mm sieve was used to remove any large stones, while partially maintaining the natural ped structure; it also homogenized the soil The soils were left for wk to air dry in the laboratory Subsamples were removed for physical and chemical characterization Soil Characterization Particle size analysis was performed using the standard sieving and pipette method (Klute, 1986; Loveland and Whalley, 1991) (Table 1) After passing the samples through a 2-mm sieve, all the soil samples were pretreated with dilute acid to remove carbonates and then boiled with hydrogen peroxide to remove the organics (Gee and Bauder, 1986) Soil chemical and mineralogical analyses are presented in Table Soil mineralogy was determined using semi quantitative mineral X-ray diffraction analysis Subsamples of the sand and silt fraction and the clay fraction were analyzed semiquantitatively Soils 10 and 11 contained notably high values of oxide minerals that may be overestimated slightly because they were determined semiquantitatively from X-ray diffraction data, but Soil 10 was formed on a weathered Fe-rich band within the underlying basalt These soils were classified as sandy silt loam (10) and clay (11) However, the iron oxides were not removed during pretreatment and were observed to be cementing the soil Our belief is that both these soils would be more appropriately classified as clays The loss-on-ignition technique (Davies, 1974) was used to determine the percentage of organic matter Soil pH was measured using a soil/water ratio of 1:2.5 (Rowell, 1994) The soil solution electrical conductivity was measured using a standard 1:5 soil/water extract (Landon, 1991) The EC meter (Jenway EC sensor, Jenway, Felsted, Dunmow, England) automatically temperature compensated the readings to 25⬚C Table presents the soil physical properties The bulk density is the average for each of the repacked soils Repacked bulk density values were generally lower than bulk density values found in undisturbed field samples The hygroscopic water content of the soils is given for two values of relative humidity Samples were oven dried at 105⬚C and then allowed to equili- 995 www.vadosezonejournal.org Table Soil mineralogy and chemical properties Sand and silt mineralogy Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal Published by Soil Science Society of America All copyrights reserved Soil 10 11 12 Quartz Portrush a Portrush b Antrim Hills Herringswell White Park Bay Portstewart Glenwherry Wallingford Toombebridge Giants Causeway a Giants Causeway b Wytham 98.5 99.0 97.8 97.9 81.9 78.5 71.7 74.5 67.0 – – 36.6 Clay mineralogy Iron oxide/ hydroxide Trace Trace – – – – – – 76.9 48.6 – Kaolinite Illite % of mineral fraction – – – – Trace Trace – – 4.0 – 2.8 – – – 1.4 – 11.4 – 6.1 1.2 22.3 – 24.3 27.0 Smectite – – – – 2.0 5.6 2.9 12.3 15.8 4.9 9.6 2.7 CaCO3 ⬍5% – ⬍5% ⬍5% ⬍5% Soil organic matter % whole soil 1.07 0.36 1.03 2.06 12.09 13.11 25.36 11.83 5.85 10.8 19.59 9.35 pH 1:2.5 (water) EC 1:5 (water extract) 6.82 8.45 4.82 6.55 5.55 5.36 4.60 6.96 4.88 5.71 6.86 7.20 dS m⫺1 0.022 0.033 0.013 0.295 0.061 0.176 0.042 0.258 0.109 0.189 0.169 0.032 brate at the respective humidity Values for the sands (Soils 1, 2, and 3) were all ⬍0.001% The hygroscopic water content is given as a volumetric percentage based on the average bulk density The external surface area of the soil was measured using nitrogen adsorption (Newman, 1987), with a Gemini III 2375 surface area analyzer (Micrometrics, Londonderry, NH) (1998) To obtain measurements for a range of water contents, the above procedure was repeated with progressively wetter soil, each time adding 80 to 100 g of deionized water to the soil using an atomizer spray gun while continually mixing This process was repeated until a volumetric water content range from air dry to saturation was achieved Sample Repacking and Wetting Instrumentation, TDR, SCIP, and Network Analyzer The use of repacked soil samples for permittivity measurement followed the approach of Gardner et al (1998); similar methods having been used by others (Malicki et al., 1996) Repacking of soil allows measurements to be performed over a wide range of water content and dry bulk density A plastic cylinder, with 0.103-m inside diameter, capped at one end, was packed with air-dried soil to a height of 0.14 m to give a prepared sample 1167 cm3 in volume This was weighed on a balance accurate to 0.1 g A pair of stainless-steel electrodes, 0.1 m in length, was fully inserted vertically into the center of the sample Measurements were taken by TDR and then the SCIP After the measurements, the sample in its core was reweighed and then a temperature probe inserted into the soil to measure soil temperature All work was conducted in a laboratory, whose temperature was maintained at 20 ⫾ 1⬚C A 10-g subsample of soil was removed and oven dried so that the gravimetric water content could be determined The soil was then removed from the cylinder and mixed with the remainder of the soil The cylinder was then repacked with soil to a slightly greater bulk density than previously This procedure was repeated for repacked soil at five bulk densities with the same gravimetric water content Volumetric water content and bulk density were calculated from the gravimetric water content and the wet mass of the repacked mixture contained in the known volume of the cylinder following the same procedure as Gardner et al Measurements were made with both TDR and SCIP using the same electrodes These were stainless steel, mm in diameter and 100 mm in length, with a 25-mm center spacing; they were inserted vertically into the soil They had female sockets in the upper end, which mated with male connectors, so that each instrument could be used to make measurements in the soil without disturbing the electrodes EC was measured across the electrodes using a 1-kHz bridge (ESI Inc., Portland, OR) The sensor measurements were calibrated for conductivity () in solutions of potassium chloride A cell constant (gm) of 0.1246 m was determined by comparison with measurements using a conductivity bridge (Robinson et al., 1998) The SCIP was described in more detail by Dean (1994) and Robinson et al (1998) Normally, the instrument has two 100-mm stainless-steel electrodes secured in a 30-mm-thick plastic housing at the base of the probe body The circuitry is contained above the electrodes inside the main body of the instrument The oscillation frequency of the instrument is displayed on an LCD screen at the top of the instrument The whole instrument weighs less than 1.5 kg and is housed in a robust, water resistant, plastic casing The 30-mm-thick plastic electrode-mounting block of this experimental SCIP was cut in half and the main body was fitted with two male connectors These could be inserted into the female connectors in the detachable electrodes The instrument was calibrated in air and water following the procedure developed by Robinson et al (1998) The value of Cb was fixed at 15 pF, and Cm was determined according to Cm ⫽ gm ε o ε r (Dean, 1994) The values L and Cs were 0.3794 H and 2.566 pF respectively, determined using Eq [11] The response of the SCIP was tested in a range of dielectric liquids at 25⬚C (white paraffin, 2.2; hexanol, 13.3; 2-propanol, 18.3; 1-propanol, 20.1; acetone, 20.7; methanol, 32.6; glycol, 37.7; glycerol, 42.5) and in dielectric liquids containing potassium chloride within the EC range of to 2.8 dS m⫺1 Time domain reflectometer measurements were made using a Tektronix 1502C system (Tektronix, Beaverton, OR) It was connected to the electrodes, which in this case formed the probe, by a 1-m length of coaxial cable The TDR was used to measure apparent relative permittivity (Ka) using software developed by Heimovaara and de Water (1993) Each wave- Table Soil physical properties Soil 10 11 12 Portrush a Portrush b Antrim Hills Herringswell White Park Bay Portstewart Glenwherry Wallingford Toombebridge Giants Causeway a Giants Causeway b Wytham Hygroscopic water Bulk Surface density Humidity 67% Humidity 40% area (N) g cm⫺3 1.40 1.45 1.28 1.48 0.96 0.94 0.73 0.96 0.51 1.02 0.71 0.98 – – – – 0.015 0.025 0.044 0.032 0.033 0.077 0.045 0.028 – – – – 0.012 0.019 0.036 0.026 0.020 0.058 0.033 0.019 m2 g⫺1 ⬍1.0 ⬍1.0 ⬍1.0 ⬍1.0 3.7 4.5 24.8 3.0 22.1 46.2 44.3 16.4 Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal Published by Soil Science Society of America All copyrights reserved 996 VADOSE ZONE J., VOL 4, NOVEMBER 2005 Fig Frequency response of the SCIP modeled according to Eq [19] Closed circles represent measurements in dielectric solutions and show excellent agreement with the model The sequence of lines demonstrates the damping of the frequency response that occurs as salinity increases form was downloaded to a PC and interpreted using this software Measurements were also made using a dielectric probe (Hewlett-Packard 85070B, Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, CA) attached to a network analyzer (Hewlett-Packard 8753B) The network analyzer measures the real (ε r⬘) and imaginary (ε ″r , Eq [14]) permittivity independently between 10 MHz and GHz using the dielectric probe Samples of Soil 10 (Giants Causeway a ) were wetted and repacked into a 3.17-cm3 sample holder mounted on top of the dielectric probe The low frequency electrical conductivity was measured across the sample using a 1-kHz bridge (ESI Inc.) and found to correspond with measurements made with the TDR RESULTS SCIP Model Calibration in Dielectric Fluids A comparison of the frequency response of the SCIP predicted by Eq [A2] in the appendix and the measured data is presented in Fig and shows excellent agreement The response of the SCIP in electrically conducting solutions is also presented to demonstrate how bulk EC reduces the frequency response of the instrument The frequency response for electrical conductivity ⬎2.0 dS m⫺1 becomes very flat and suggests that permittivity measurement will be difficult in conductive soils Figure shows the frequency response to changes in electrical conductivity of saline (KCl) dielectric solutions; the lines indicate the modeled response Again the model and data are in excellent agreement Measured Apparent Permittivity in Soils Measurements for the sandy soils are presented in Fig Three of these soils had very low values of bulk EC, generally below 0.1 dS m⫺1 The fourth, from Herringswell, had a bulk EC that rose to 0.45 dS m⫺1 at high water content Topp’s curve for mineral soils (Topp et al., 1980) provides the reference in Fig 3, and the data follow it closely as expected and previously presented Fig Measured frequency response of the SCIP in four dielectric fluids with potassium chloride used to raise the EC The lines represent the modeled response using Eq [19] (Robinson et al., 1999) If the apparent relative permittivity measured by both the TDR and SCIP were the same, the small triangles representing the TDR data should fall inside the large open circles These circles represent the SCIP-derived permittivity corrected for the effects of electrical conductivity In the first three of the figures this is the case; one or two points lie outside, which may be due to experimental error, but there is no consistent deviation The data demonstrate that in sandy soils with low bulk EC (⬍0.1 dS m⫺1), permittivity measurements from both sensors correspond and that there was negligible correction to the SCIP measurements for electrical conductivity In the case of the Herringswell soil, the bulk EC has a significant impact on the apparent permittivity measured by the SCIP The model corrections for EC reduce the apparent permittivity from 23 to 18 at saturation After correction, the SCIP permittivity values are closer to those obtained with the TDR The data clearly indicate the requirement for correction to retrieve permittivity from capacitance sensors in soils where bulk soil EC interferes with the determination of the apparent soil permittivity Results for the loamy soils are presented in Fig These soils had lower average bulk density than the sandy soils (0.73–0.96 g cm⫺3) The soils also offered a range of bulk EC at saturation, ranging from 0.1 dS m⫺1 for the soil from Glenwherry to 1.3 dS m⫺1 for the Wallingford soil This time, clear divergence between the measurements can be observed for all four soils Electrical conductivity is observed to influence the SCIP measurements from White Park Bay, Portstewart, and Wallingford After correction for EC, the SCIP-determined permittivity still exceeds the TDR results at the higher water contents Permittivity measurements from the Glenwherry soil also deviate similarly at higher water contents, but it is clear that electrical conductivity plays no role in this as the uncorrected permittivity values (solid circles) lie inside the corrected values (open circles) The apparent permittivity estimates from the TDR lie consistently below those predicted by Topp’s curve for Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal Published by Soil Science Society of America All copyrights reserved www.vadosezonejournal.org 997 Fig The permittivity, bulk electrical conductivity, and bulk density for four coarse soils Symbols (first column): SCIP apparent permittivity (solid circles), SCIP apparent permittivity corrected for EC (open circles) TDR apparent permittivity (solid triangles) all the soils This is most probably a density effect; the Glenwherry soil is high in organic matter content and has an average bulk density of 0.73 g cm⫺3 (Table 3) and gives the lowest permittivity values Results for the four fine textured soils are presented in Fig Again, these soils represent a range of bulk density (0.51–1.02 g cm⫺3) and bulk EC at saturation (0.4–2.7 dS m⫺1) The geometry of the Toombebridge soil is fascinating—it is composed of silica tubes that are the remains of diatoms (Fig 6) As a result, the soil has a particularly low bulk density Bulk EC has little impact on the permittivity measurements in this soil All the measurements, from both TDR and SCIP, lie below Topp’s curve, probably because of the low bulk density However, at the higher water contents, the SCIP measurements become higher than those found using TDR The two soils from the Giants Causeway both had high bulk electrical conductivity near saturation After Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal Published by Soil Science Society of America All copyrights reserved 998 VADOSE ZONE J., VOL 4, NOVEMBER 2005 Fig The permittivity, bulk electrical conductivity and bulk density for medium textured soils Symbols (first column): SCIP apparent permittivity (solid circles), SCIP apparent permittivity corrected for EC (open circles) TDR apparent permittivity (solid triangles) accounting for this in the SCIP measurement, relative permittivity values as high as 275 and 70 were obtained at saturation for Soils a and b, respectively Measurements from Soil a lie above those of Topp’s curve; above a water content of 0.25 m3 m⫺3, the apparent permittivity increases dramatically Soil b measurements follow Topp’s curve to a water content of about 0.25 m3 m⫺3 and then diverge upward in a similar but less sharp manner The TDR results for these soils both lie below Topp’s curve; however, at the higher water contents the per- mittivity values for Soil a rise above Topp’s curve This is similar to the observations of Dirksen and Dasberg (1993) for TDR measurements in montmorillonite The heavy clay soil from Wytham also shows deviation between the TDR measurements and the corrected SCIP measurements, the highest relative permittivity value from the SCIP being 43, and from the TDR being 20 These results indicate good correspondence between measurements made in sandy soils using both instruments However, in the wetter clay soils, deviation be- Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal Published by Soil Science Society of America All copyrights reserved www.vadosezonejournal.org 999 Fig The permittivity, bulk electrical conductivity and bulk density for heavy textured soils Symbols (first column): SCIP apparent permittivity (solid circles), SCIP apparent permittivity corrected for EC (open circles) TDR apparent permittivity (solid triangles) tween the values of permittivity is very pronounced In the next section we examine some explanations for this observed deviation Frequency Domain Results We obtained preliminary data using the network analyzer to try to gain further insight into the measurements made in the Giants Causeway a This soil produced SCIP measurements that differed the most from the TDR results Network analyzer measurements are helpful because the real and imaginary permittivities are measured separately It provides separate measurements of both the real and imaginary permittivity, against which apparent permittivity from other instruments can be compared and interpreted Measurements for the Giants Causeway a are presented in Fig for water contents of 0.08 and 0.46 and bulk density of approximately 1.0 g Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal Published by Soil Science Society of America All copyrights reserved 1000 VADOSE ZONE J., VOL 4, NOVEMBER 2005 Fig Scanning electron micrograph image of the Toombebridge diatomaceous silty soil The tubes are about 10 m in diameter cm⫺3 This bulk density and the water content of 0.46 closely resemble the final measurement in Fig (Giants Causeway a) This soil is clearly a dispersive dielectric; that is, its dielectric properties change with frequency Dispersion of this nature has been reported for clay minerals and heavy textured clay soils (Saarenketo, 1998; Logsdon and Laird, 2002) At a water content of 0.46, the relative permittivity measured at about 68 MHz corresponds to a value of 52 This is much lower than the value of 277 obtained with the SCIP, which seems to be improbably high The corresponding imaginary relative permittivity due to relaxation is about 14 Inclusion of this value of imaginary permittivity does not improve the estimate of the real permittivity One of the major problems is that the oscillation frequency of the SCIP has been damped so much by the EC and imaginary permittivity that a small inaccuracy in the measurements may give a very high (or low) real permittivity estimate This is demonstrated in Fig for an EC of dS m⫺1; at this EC the frequency response of the SCIP is almost flat (i.e., it does not change as a function of the permittivity) In Fig 8, results from the network analyzer for the real permittivity are plotted along with the TDR results (Fig 8A), for different frequencies from the network analyzer (Fig 8B), and adjusted SCIP permittivity (Fig 8C) Dielectric spectra, like the ones in Fig 7, were obtained for the soil at six water contents repacked to a bulk density close to 0.75 g cm⫺3 Results are also shown in Fig 8A and 8C for two higher water contents with the soil repacked to a bulk density of about 1.0 g cm⫺3 The real permittivity was extracted from the spectra at three frequencies for comparison with the TDR, 3.00, 1.01, and 0.26 GHz (Fig 8A), and three frequencies for the SCIP, 1.01, 0.10, and 0.07 GHz (Fig 8C) In Fig 8A, the network analyzer results are compared with the TDR results At water contents above 0.3 the TDR apparent permittivity values increase markedly Dirksen and Dasberg (1993) also observed similar behavior for repacked samples of montmorillonite Our interpretation of this is that the real permittivity increases not only because of higher water content, but also be- Fig Frequency domain analysis of Soil (Giants Causeway a ) for two water contents, 0.08 and 0.46 This is a dielectrically dispersive soil, the real permittivity changes with frequency The real permittivity and imaginary permittivity due to EC and due to relaxation are all separated cause there is a further polarization mechanism that contributes and is itself dependent on bulk density This is over and above the expected increase in permittivity resulting from the reduction in air-filled porosity caused by increasing solid and water Reasonable agreement is found between the TDR measurements and the network analyzer real permittivity for a bulk density around 0.75 g cm⫺3 up to a water content of 0.3; above this water content, the data diverge, with the TDR permittivity rising above Topp’s curve and the network analyzer data remaining below it From Fig (Giants Causeway a, bulk density) one can observe that at water contents higher than this, the bulk density in the packed column is correspondingly greater Network analyzer measurements packed to 1.0 g cm⫺3 in Fig 8A also demonstrate that the real permittivity rises above Topp’s curve for more densely packed samples This may indicate that the increase in permittivity measured by the TDR is simply a function of the increased bulk density The permittivity measured by the TDR appears to correspond well with the real permittivity measured by the network analyzer for a frequency of around 1.0 GHz The change of shape of the calibration curve can be ascribed to the change of bulk density involved in repacking the soils This suggests that in clay soils there is a polarization mechanism that is a function of the bulk density that can significantly affect the real permittivity As this occurs at saturation, a possible physical mechanism explaining it might be that the geometry confines the ions more effectively and their confinement enhances charge storage, that is, the real permittivity Mechanisms such as the MaxwellWagner effect (e.g., Hasted, 1973; Sen, 1984; Haslund, 1996) have been described for low frequencies ⬍100 MHz, but this data indicate that a further mechanism occurs above 100 MHz The network analyzer data for the real permittivity and for a uniform bulk density are presented in Fig 8B The gravimetric water content for the air-dry sample is 1001 www.vadosezonejournal.org Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal Published by Soil Science Society of America All copyrights reserved cant change in the soil dielectric properties at this water content The apparent permittivity from the SCIP measurements, however, rises much more abruptly than those from TDR, and even though the real permittivity measured with the network analyzer is higher at a frequency of 70 MHz, it is not enough to account for the SCIP response DISCUSSION An important objective of this study was to discover if incorporating EC into SCIP calibration was enough to improve water content determination The results from the sandy Herringswell soil are encouraging However, the results from the other medium and heavy textured soils indicate that the use of low frequency EC measurements is not sufficient by itself to produce results close to real permittivity, as measured by a network analyzer or a calibration curve similar to those of Topp et al (1980) As discussed for fine textured soils (Fig 5), there appears to be a critical range of water content from about 0.20 to 0.25 m3 m⫺3 at which the SCIP permittivity results change abruptly This is also the point at which the electrical conductivity increases steeply, perhaps indicating an electrical percolation threshold We propose three explanations that could account for the high values of permittivity obtained with the SCIP measurements: • higher than expected real permittivity created by dielectric dispersion • a large contribution to the imaginary permittivity by relaxation processes assumed to be negligible • failure of the circuit model to provide reliable permittivity determination with such significant oscillator damping Fig (A) TDR results and network analyzer results of the real part of the permittivity as a function of water content for the Giants Causeway a soil Measurements at six water contents are presented and three of frequency (8B) Frequency domain data for the same soil with the air-dry water content of 0.09 subtracted; this demonstrates that the real permittivity at this bulk density follows a Topp shaped curve but rises above Topp as the frequency becomes lower (8C) Data for the same soil for the SCIP and network analyzer results for three frequencies subtracted from all the values The purpose of this is to demonstrate that for a uniform bulk density at a range of frequency values (0.05, 0.10, 0.26, and 1.01 GHz) the data give a Topp shaped curve for the high frequencies (1 GHz), and permittivity increases as the frequency reduces These data support the interpretation of the TDR data that the change observed in the shape of the calibration (Fig 8A) is a consequence of the changing bulk density For the bulk density of 0.75 g cm⫺3 measured using the network analyzer at 1.01 GHz, the shape of the water content–permittivity relationship is consistent with the shape of Topp’s curve, but offset by the presence of hygroscopic water Interestingly, the SCIP data in Fig 8C also begin to show dramatic divergence from a Topp-shaped curve at a slightly lower water content of 0.26 The similar response for both the TDR and SCIP around this water content gives more weight to the suggestion of a signifi- The first two have some impact, but they not sufficiently account for the high permittivity values obtained with the SCIP based on the network analyzer results This suggests that the third possibility is the case and that the circuit model can no longer predict accurate permittivity values with such heavy damping of the oscillator response This further suggests that reliable, accurate water content determination using this type of capacitance probe will be limited to soils with low EC and low dielectric relaxation This work demonstrates the need for several improvements in measurements to determine water content from permittivity measurements With so many sensors now available, all purporting to measure permittivity, it is important to develop a standard methodology that can be used to determine the ability of a sensor to measure the real permittivity, especially in dispersive and/or conductive dielectrics One way to this is to use dielectric liquids as in this work with the SCIP and as presented in Jones et al (2005) and Blonquist et al (2005) for seven sensors A further important contribution is the need for “truth.” This means we need to understand permittivity behavior in the frequency domain and particularly how geometry and hygroscopic water affect measurements In our opinion this should be based on measurements with a network analyzer to measure the real permittivity 1002 VADOSE ZONE J., VOL 4, NOVEMBER 2005 Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal Published by Soil Science Society of America All copyrights reserved Huisman et al (2004) indicated that the network analyzer results are much better than equivalent measurements with TDR Although some work has been done on the effect of dielectric dispersion on TDR (Lin, 2003), it is far from being fully understood CONCLUSIONS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to acknowledge funding provided in part by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland (C.A.S.T., Ph.D award), the Institute of Hydrology National Research Initiative Competitive Grant no 2002-35107-12507 from the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service and by the Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-4810 Approved as journal paper no 7733 Thanks are due to those landowners (Royal Portrush Golf Club, The National Trust, Mr D Black and Dep Ag N Ireland, Upton Suffolk Farms) who allowed access to their property to collect soils Guidance on the soils of N Ireland was provided by Dr J Cruickshank and Mr A Higgins, without whom we wouldn’t have found such interesting soils APPENDIX Equation [19] solved for the angular frequency results in 冪⫺b ⫾ √2ab ⫺ 4ac ⫺b ⫾ √b2 ⫺ 4ac 2a [A2] with a ⫽ 4LCb ⫺ 2 b ⫽ 24LCbCs ⫺ 2Cb ⫺ 22Cs c ⫽ 4LCbCs2 ⫹ 2LCbG ⫺ 2CbCs ⫺ 2Cs2 ⫺ G The capacitance probe circuit model was found to give an excellent prediction of instrument response in dielectric solutions and dielectric solutions with salts added The circuit model gives a reasonable permittivity correction in an electrically conductive sandy soil However, in clay soils the inclusion of the bulk soil EC, measured at kHz, improved measurements of the permittivity only marginally We suggest three possible reasons for this: (i) higher than expected real permittivity created by dielectric dispersion, (ii) a large contribution of the imaginary permittivity due to relaxation processes assumed to be negligible, and (iii) poor model prediction of permittivity due to excessive damping of the oscillator circuit In the non-lossy sandy soils, the TDR and SCIP measurements compared very well Because the measurements obtained as input for the SCIP model were unable to compensate fully for the dielectric losses in the heavier soils, the results from the SCIP and TDR did not compare well We believe that the damping of the oscillator brought about by values of bulk EC above dS m⫺1 accounts for a major portion of the discrepancy ⫽ C⬘m ⫽ [A1] with: a ⫽ LCbC⬘m2 ⫹ 2LCbC⬘mCs ⫹ LCbCs2 b ⫽ LCbG ⫺ CbC⬘m ⫺ CbCs ⫺ C⬘m2 ⫺ 2C⬘mCs ⫺ Cs2 c ⫽ ⫺G Equation [19] solved for the real material capacitance C ⬘m results in Hence, the real permittivity is determined according to ε⬘r ⫽ C⬘m gm ε o [A3] REFERENCES Avery, B.W 1980 Soil classification for England and Wales Soil Survey Tech Monogr 14 Soil Surv England and Wales, Harpenden, UK Bell, J.P., T.J Dean, and M.G Hodnett 1987 Soil moisture measurement by an improved capacitance technique: II Field techniques, evaluation and calibration J Hydrol (Amsterdam) 93:79–90 Blonquist, J.M., Jr., S.B Jones, and D.A Robinson 2005 Standardizing characterization of electromagnetic water content sensors: Part Evaluation of seven sensing systems Available at www.vadosezonejournal org Vadose Zone J 4:1059–1069 (this issue) Committee on Basic Research Opportunities in the Earth Sciences, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, National Research Council 2001 Basic research opportunities in earth science National Academy of Science Report National Academy Press, Washington, DC Cruickshank, J.G 1997 Soil and environment: Northern Ireland Agricultural and Environmental Science Division, Dep of Agriculture N Ireland, Environ Sci Dep., Queen’s University of Belfast Davies, B.E 1974 Loss-on-ignition as an estimate of soil organic matter content Soil Sci Soc Am Proc 38:150–151 Dean, T.J 1994 The IH capacitance probe for measurement of soil water content IH Rep 125 Institute of Hydrology, Wallingford, Oxon, UK Dean, T.J., J.P Bell, and A.B.J Baty 1987 Soil moisture measurement by an improved capacitance technique: I Sensor design and performance J Hydrol (Amsterdam) 93:67–78 Dirksen, C., and S Dasberg 1993 Improved calibration of time domain reflectometry soil water content measurements Soil Sci Soc Am J 57:660–667 Evett, S.R., and J.L Steiner 1995 Precision of neutron scattering and capacitance type soil water content gauges from field calibration Soil Sci Soc Am J 59:961–968 Gardner, C.M.K., T.J Dean, and J.D Cooper 1998 Soil water content measurement with a high-frequency capacitance sensor J Agric Eng Res 71:395–403 Gardner, C.M.K., D.A Robinson, K Blyth, and J.D Cooper 2001 Soil water content measurement In K Smith and C Mullins (ed.) Soil and environmental analysis: Physical methods 2nd ed Marcell Dekker, New York Gee, G.W., and J.W Bauder 1986 Particle-size Analysis In A Klute (ed.) Methods of soil analysis Part 2nd ed Agron Monogr ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI Haslund, E 1996 Dielectric dispersion of salt-water-saturated porous glass containing thin glass plates Geophysics 61:722–734 Hasted, J.B 1973 Aqueous dielectrics Chapman and Hall, London Heimovaara, T.J., and E de Water 1993 A computer controlled TDR system for measuring water content and bulk electrical conductivity of soils Rep 41 Laboratory of Physical Geography and Soil Science, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Prinsengracht Heimovaara, T.J 1994 Frequency domain analysis of time domain reflectometry waveforms Measurement of the complex dielectric permittivity of soils Water Resour Res 30:189–199 Huisman, J.A., W Bouten, J.A Vrugt, and P.A Ferre 2004 Accuracy of frequency domain analysis scenarios for the determination of complex dielectric permittivity Water Resour Res 40:W02401 doi: 10.1029/2002WR001601 Reproduced from Vadose Zone Journal Published by Soil Science Society of America All copyrights reserved www.vadosezonejournal.org Jacobsen, O.H., and P Schjonning 1993 A laboratory calibration of time domain reflectometry for soil water measurement including effects of bulk density and texture J Hydrol (Amsterdam) 151: 147–158 Jones, S.B., J.M Wraith, and D Or 2002 Time domain reflectometry measurement principles and applications 16:141–153 Jones, S.B., J.M Blonquist Jr., D.A Robinson, V Philip Rasmussen, and D Or 2005 Standardizing characterization and calibration of electromagnetic sensors for porous media water content determination: Part Methodology Available at www.vadosezonejournal org Vadose Zone J 4:1048–1058 (this issue) Kelleners, T.J., R.W.O Soppe, D.A Robinson, M.G Schaap, J.E Ayars, and T.H Skaggs 2004 Calibration of capacitance probe sensors using electric circuit theory Soil Sci Soc Am J 68:430–439 Klute, A 1986 Methods of soil analysis Part 2nd ed Agron Monogr ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI Landon, J.R 1991 Booker tropical soil manual Longman Scientific and Technical, Longman House, Harlow, UK Lin, C.-P 2003 Analysis of nonuniform and dispersive time domain reflectometry measurement systems with application to the dielectric spectroscopy of soils Water Resour Res 39(1):1012 doi:10.1029/ 2002WR001418 Logsdon, S.D., and D.A Laird 2002 Dielectric spectra of bound water in hydrated Ca-smectite J Non-Crystalline Solids 305:243–246 Loveland, P.J., and W.R Whalley 1991 Particle size analysis p 271– 328 In K.A Smith and C.E Mullins (ed.) Soil analysis: Physical methods Marcel Dekker, New York Malicki, M.A., R Plagge, and C.H Roth 1996 Improving the calibration of dielectric TDR soil moisture determination taking into account the solid soil Eur J Soil Sci 47:357–366 Newman, A.C.D 1987 Chemistry of clays and clay minerals Mineralogical Society Monograph Longman Scientific and Technical, Longman House, Harlow, UK Paltineanu, I.C., and J.L Starr 1997 Real-time water dynamics using multisensor capacitance probes: Laboratory calibration Soil Sci Soc Am J 61:1576–1585 1003 Robinson, D.A., C.M.K Gardner, and J.D Cooper 1999 Measurement of relative permittivity in sandy soils using TDR, capacitance and theta probes: Comparison, including the effects of bulk soil electrical conductivity J Hydrol (Amsterdam) 223:198–211 Robinson, D.A., C.M.K Gardner, J Evans, J.D Cooper, M.G Hodnett, and J.P Bell 1998 The dielectric calibration of capacitance probes for soil hydrology using an oscillation frequency response model Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 2:83–92 Robinson, D.A., S.B Jones, J.M Wraith, D Or, and S.P Friedman 2003 A review of advances in dielectric and electrical conductivity measurement in soils using time domain reflectometry Available at www.vadosezonejournal.org Vadose Zone J 2:444–475 Robinson, M., and T.J Dean 1993 Measurement of near surface soil water content using a capacitance probe Hydrol Processes 7:77–86 Roth, C.H., M.A Malicki, and R Plagge 1992 Empirical evaluation of the relationship between soil dielectric constant and volumetric water content and the basis for calibrating soil moisture measurements by TDR J Soil Sci 43:1–13 Rowell, D.L 1994 Soil science: Methods and applications Longman Scientific and Technical, Longman House, Harlow, UK Saarenketo, T 1998 Electrical properties of water in clay and silty soils J Appl Geophys 40:73–88 Sen, P.N 1984 Grain shape effects on dielectric and electrical properties of rocks Geophysics 49:586–587 Soil Survey Staff 1975 Soil taxonomy USDA Agric Handb 436 U.S Gov Print Office, Washington, DC Topp, G.C., J.L Davis, and A.P Annan 1980 Electromagnetic determination of soil water content: Measurements in coaxial transmission lines Water Resour Res 16:574–582 Topp, G.C., and P.A Ferre 2002 Water content In J.H Dane and G.C Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis Part SSSA Book Ser SSSA, Madison, WI Whalley, W.R., T.J Dean, and P Izzard 1992 Evaluation of the capacitance technique as a method for dynamically measuring soil water content J Agric Eng Res 52:147–155 Wobschall, D 1978 A frequency shift dielectric soil moisture sensor IEEE Trans on Geoscience Electronics GE-16(2):112–118 ... J.H Dane and G.C Topp (ed.) Methods of soil analysis Part SSSA Book Ser SSSA, Madison, WI Whalley, W.R., T.J Dean, and P Izzard 1992 Evaluation of the capacitance technique as a method for dynamically... in Table Soil mineralogy was determined using semi quantitative mineral X-ray diffraction analysis Subsamples of the sand and silt fraction and the clay fraction were analyzed semiquantitatively... formed the probe, by a 1-m length of coaxial cable The TDR was used to measure apparent relative permittivity (Ka) using software developed by Heimovaara and de Water (1993) Each wave- Table Soil