J. ugric. Engng Res.

(1988) 41, 151-172

Remote, Non-contact and in-situ Measurement

of Soil Moisture Content: a Review

J.V. STAFFORD*

The range of techniques available for measuring soil moisture content is reviewed.
Consideration is given to in situ, remote and non-contact methods. Emphasis is placed on the
last method as the aim of the review was to identify possible techniques for the rapid
determination of soil moisture content to depths of lo-100 mm below the surface by equipment
mounted on mobile field machinery with a view to routine operational use on the farm. Of the
techniques available, active microwave scattering/absorption and near infra-red reflectance
methods have potential for development into suitable sensors.

1. Introduction
Agricultural soils are three component materials consisting of solid (mineral and organic),
water and gas. As such, their mechanical, physical and chemical behaviour is complex and is
critically determined by the proportion of water in the soil matrix. Determination of
moisture content is thus critical to soil related topics. Water is normally held in soil in one of
two forms. First, free water is contained in the pores of the soil matrix and is mobile within
that matrix. Thus, free water drains readily and is easily available to crop roots. Secondly,
water can be “bound” to the soil particles owing to chemical and physical attractive forces.
Such forces decrease rapidly with distance from a given particle and thus bound water may
exist as a layer only a few molecules thick around each particle/aggregate. Such water is not
readily removable via evapotranspiration routes and does not drain freely through the soil
profile. Because of the greater degree of chemical activity in fine particle soils (clays and silts)
more bound water is held in such soils. The total moisture content of a soil is therefore the
sum of bound and free water contents. Some techniques measure total water content and
some only free water content. This fact may well dictate the type of technique that is used.
The measurement of moisture content is required in many different areas of agriculture for
both research and development requirements and for routine on-farm monitoring. These
include irrigation scheduling, evapotranspiration studies, studies of the effect of cultivation
implements, meteorological studies, yield forecasting, water run-off and infiltration studies,
field trafficability and workability, and soil compaction studies. In some of these areas,
simple volumetric or weight basis moisture content is required. However, in some, such as
evapotranspiration studies, a more appropriate indicator of moisture availability is soil
moisture tension since the ability of a root to extract moisture from the soil matrix depends
on the moisture tension rather than on the total moisture content of the soil. Thus moisture
tension or potential is a more relevant parameter to measure in some cases. However, in
many situations, measurement of total moisture content is easier and more practicable than
measurement of moisture tension.
References to measurement of soil moisture content are widespread in the literature and a
number of reviews have been produced on the subject, including those by Schmugge et al.,’
McKim et aZ.,* Wheeler and Duncan,’ Erbach4 and Gardner.’ These reviews very
adequately cover the literature up to recent years and it is not the intention of the present
* AFRC Institute of Engineering Research, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford MK45 4HS, UK
Received 6 October 1987; accepted in revised form 3 July 1988
151
0021~8634/88/ II01 51 + 22 $03.00/O 0 1988 The British Society for Research in Agricultural Engineering
152 MEASUREMENT OF SOlL MOISTURE CONTENT

review to cover the whole area of soil moisture measurement. The present review was
motivated by the requirement for non-contact soil moisture sensors having a rapid response
for on-farm monitoring. Such sensors are necessary to enable dynamic measurement of soil
moisture content from mobile field machinery. Primary applications include sensing the
moisture profile for drilling of seed such that seed depth may be suitably controlled,
monitoring for irrigation scheduling, and for spray and fertilizer application. Studies have
shown’ that improved seed placement through monitoring soil moisture content could lead
to savings of ;E14m per annum in establishing UK arable crops. Similarly, improvements in
irrigation scheduling through a knowledge of soil moisture could lead to yield improvements
in summer brassicas alone equivalent to f3m (1984 prices).
For the applications described in the previous paragraph, a high level of accuracy is not
necessarily required. For instance, for control of seed drills, it is only necessary to know that
seed is being placed in a moist zone, in soil with a moisture content greater than, say, 15%
w/w in a sandy soil. However, it would be necessary to sense the moisture profile within the
seed depth limits to an accuracy of, say, 10 mm. In the case of moisture sensing for irrigation
purposes, then accuracies of 24% w/w may be required, with moisture content being sensed
to determine both when to start and when to stop irrigation.

2. Modes of measurement
Methods of measuring soil moisture content may be divided into three different categories,
viz. sampled, in situ, and remote. Remote measurement encompasses both non-contact
methods and measurement from a great distance.
In sampled systems, the measurement technique is essentially laboratory based.
Representative samples are collected in the field and stored in moisture proof containers
prior to moisture determination in the laboratory. The most common technique, gravimetric
determination using oven drying, is accurate and is the British Standard preferred method.7
In-situ methods generally involve semi-permanent installation of probes such as moisture
blocks or neutron probe access tubes. In some methods, such as time domain reflectometry
(TDR) and electrical capacitance, probes are inserted in the soil for the duration of the test
only. With semi-permanent installation of probes, representative testing across a field is
limited because of sensor cost. Methods based on temporary insertion of probes are labour-
intensive if representative results are to be obtained.
The term “remote sensing” is usually applied to situations where the sensor is situated
metres to kilometres away from the soil surface. Monitoring from aircraft or satellite is
useful for soil moisture mapping of large areas at relatively low resolution and accuracy. The
term “non-contact” is usually applied to situations where the sensor is mounted on a field
machine to provide continuous and localized monitoring across a field. Remote and non-
contact methods are based on the reflection/absorption of electro-magnetic radiation (from
microwave frequencies through to visible radiation) and generally relate to surface or near-
surface moisture only.

3. Measurement techniques
3.1. Gravimetric
Gravimetric techniques in which a sample of soil is weighed and then the moisture is
removed by some means and weighed again, are widely used as reference methods. In
particular, BS 1377 : 1975 (Ref. 7) standardizes the procedure for weighing, oven drying and
reweighing soil samples. The standard requires that samples are oven dried for a period of
usually 16-24 h at 105°C and hence the process is slow. Various methods are used in place of
J. V. STAFFORD 153

oven drying to produce more rapid results. Such methods include the use of microwave
ovens and of desiccants to drive off the moisture.
Gardner’ gives a detailed description of gravimetric techniques and also questions their
use as reference methods. The questions centre around the problem of determining how
much bound water is removed by oven drying.
Gravimetric techniques do not come under the heading of non-contact or in-situ rapid
methods and therefore will not be considered further.

3.2. Nucleonic methods

In the neutron method, a source of fast neutrons and a detector of thermal neutrons are
employed. The fast neutrons impact hydrogen atoms in the soil resulting in emission of
thermal neutrons which are detected. In its usual form, the source and detector are
contained adjacent to each other in a cylindrical probe which can be inserted into the soil via
a previously installed access tube. Such an arrangement is typified by the Wallingford
probe.* As the main hydrogen containing constituent of the soil is water, the instrument
indicates the level of moisture content. However, there are other sources of hydrogen
containing materials such as organic matter, which is normally present in topsoils. Thus,
neutron probes have to be calibrated for specific soil types. For applications where moisture
has to be determined at various depths in the soil over an extended period of time, the
neutron probe together with permanently installed access tubes, provides a convenient and
accurate method of moisture content determination. The method is described well in
Graecen’ and the errors associated with the method are discussed by Parkes and Siam.”
The sphere of influence of a neutron probe is difficult to define as it depends on the
distribution and level of moisture in the soil together with the type of soil and organic
material present. Gardner’ has indicated that the neutron count is primarily influenced by a
sphere of soil of radius 0.16 m at near saturation and 0.7 m at near zero moisture content.
Klenke et al.” attempted to collimate the radiation from a neutron probe by simple
shielding and achieved an effective zone of influence of O-2 m horizontal by O-4 m vertical
over an influence angle of 150”. The zone was defined as the volume from which 95% of the
neutrons returned to the detector.
Moisture content may also be determined using gamma ray attenuation, a method
normally used for determining soil wet bulk density. For the method to be applicable to
measurement of moisture content, the soil dry bulk density must remain reasonably
constant. This is not normally true for agricultural topsoils and therefore the method is not
applicable.

3.3. Thermal methods

As thermal inertia (thermal conductivity* x heat capacity*) of a porous medium depends
on moisture content, soil surface temperature can be used as an indication of moisture
content. Idso et al.” installed thermocouples in irrigated plots and observed that the
maximum daily temperature was inversely proportional to moisture content in both the
O-20 and O-40 mm soil layers. The thermocouple data correlated well with remotely sensed
infra-red temperatures. Such methods are not appropriate where vegetative cover is present
because of the effects of both the cover and of evapotranspiration. Phene et al.13 described
an indirect thermal method for measuring moisture potential. A block of ceramic embedded
in soil and in equilibrium with soil moisture potential contained a heater and a
thermocouple. Thermal dissipation, as indicated by temperature, was proportional to the
moisture content of the block and hence to the moisture potential of the surrounding soil.
Thermal emission from a soil surface in the microwave region may be detected remotely
by the use of microwave radiometry. The parameter which is effectively measured is the
154 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT

20 40 60 60 100 120
Soil moisture, % of field capacity

Fig. I. Aircraft observations of brightness temperature over agricultural fields. Dawn flights. observed
values on 18 March (0) and 22 March (A), 1975. Calculated values for smooth (a) and rough (m)
surfaces (from Ref. 17)

brightness temperature, i.e. the product of the temperature and emissivity of the surface.
Thermal microwave emission in the surface layers (fractions of a wavelength) is moderated
by the dielectric gradients in the soil which in turn are dependent on soil moisture content.
Njoku and Kong” have modified the theory of microwave thermal emission for a soil with
non-uniform moisture and temperature distribution and have validated the model from
ground-based radiometric observations at frequencies below 4 GHz, for a sand varying in
moisture content from 0 to 300/,. Change in surface emissivity with soil moisture content has
also been observed by Schmugge et al. using both aircraft based” and satellite based”
radiometers. An example of results from aircraft based radiometers is shown in Fig. I
(Choudhury et a/.“) where emission at a wavelength of 21 cm was sensed. The calculated
values for brightness temperature were obtained from Wilheit’s’* numerical solution of the
model for emission from a soil surface.’ The model, which uses experimentally determined
soil moisture and temperature profiles, showed that the brightness temperature was
essentially determined by the top 20 mm of soil.
The spatial resolution with aircraft based sensors if, of course, low and is even lower with
satellite-based radiometers (tens of kilometres).
J. V. STAFFORD I55

3.4. Nuclear magnetic resonance techniques

The use of nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to monitor moisture content centres
around the ability of the technique to identify the concentration of hydrogen atoms and thus
of moisture in the soil. Although the method has similar disadvantages to the neutron
method (see Section 3.2 above) such as being sensitive to organic matter, it has the
advantage of being able to analyse between hydrogen atoms and water molecules in different
binding states such as tightly bound hydrated water, loosely bound adsorbed water and
mobile free water. The NMR method that has been applied to measurement of soil moisture
content is the pulsed technique and Matzkanin and Paetzold” have used equipment
applying both 90” and 180” pulsed reorientation methods to relate moisture content to both
the spin echo and free induction decays. Using laboratory equipment, they obtained a linear
relationship with moisture content for both methods.
The same authors (Paetzold et aL2’ and Paetzold et aLn) developed a tractor-mounted,
pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance instrument for determining soil moisture content. The
sensed material (the soil) then has to be external to both the magnet and RF coil and a flat
configuration was developed which rested in contact with the soil. By controlling the
strengths of magnetic and RF fields, soil moisture content could be measured at depths of
38, 51 and 63 mm. To improve the magnetic field uniformity, and hence the measurement
accuracy, extension pole pieces could be added which penetrated 10 cm into the soil. The
authors did not indicate the volume of influence in either configuration other than to state
that the sensitivity of the instrument to water content decreased with depth.
The equipment was used for mapping soil moisture over large areas and comparing with
remote sensing from aircraft or satellite. Initial tests on the equipment in the field showed
good correlation between the NMR signal and gravimetrically determined moisture content
although physical problems of contact between soil and the bottom of the sensor were
experienced when working in more cohesive soils such as a clay loam. Wear of the pole
pieces in more abrasive soils would presumably cause accuracy problems, although the
authors do not comment. Further limited comparisons between NMR and gravimetrically
determined moisture content in five fields did not indicate good accuracy for the NMR
method.”
The NMR technique does appear to have the potential for non-contact rapid
measurement of moisture content. However, the technique, although developing rapidly over
recent years, is still not at a point where a practical field machine-mountable instrument can
be used. The equipment used by Paetzold et al. 20 had a mass of 300 kg primarily because of
the magnet design, required pulsing at 3 MHz at a power level of 200 kW and needed
cultivator discs to loosen soil in front of the pole pieces of the magnet.

3.5. Optical methods

3.5.1. Polarized light
Scholefield” has described a polarized light sensor for determining surface soil moisture
content. It is based on the principle that the presence of moisture at a surface of reflection
tends to cause polarization in the reflected beam. In his device, an achromatic light source is
directed at the soil surface. The reflected light passes through a polarizer onto a photocell.
The polarizer can be rotated so that horizontal and vertical polarization signals can be
determined by the photocell. The percentage of polarized visible light is determined from
these two measurements and has been found to relate to moisture content, although the
calibration is also affected by soil type and the roughness of the surface. The source and
detectors are contained in a light proof enclosure which is placed on the soil surface. The
author does not refer to the accuracy of the method.
156 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT

3.5.2. Fibre optic sensors

Prunty and Alessi w have indicated the potential of optical fibres for sensing soil moisture
content. A section of unclad fibre is embedded in soil; Prunty and Alessi used a 1 mm
diameter quartz rod. Light attenuation in the fibre varies with the amount of soil water in
contact with the fibre because of its effect on refractive index and thus on the critical angle of
internal reflection. The authors only reported tests on small samples of remoulded soil in the
laboratory where the results indicated a monotonic relationship between light transmission
and moisture content.
3.5.3. Near infra-red methods
As there are a number of water absorption bands in the near infra-red (NIR), the strongest
being at 1450, 1940 and 2950 nm, near infra-red reflectance techniques may be used for
monitoring soil moisture content. Such methods depend on molecular absorption at distinct
wavelengths by water in the surface layers and are therefore not applicable where the
moisture distribution is very non-homogeneous. The use of near infra-red reflectance is a
very well developed laboratory technique for determining the proportion of moisture (as well
as other constituents) and commercial instruments are available for measurements on
sampled material. However, Bowman et al.** and Stafford et al.” have developed the near
i&a-red technique for use in non-contact sensing systems by incorporating light emitting
diodes (LEDs) emitting in the near infra-red as sources. Such instruments can be designed to
be all solid state with no electro-mechanical. components and thus have potential for
application to soil moisture measurement. Whalley26 has used a modified form of the
instrument developed by Bowman et aL” to determine its ability to monitor soil moisture
content using prepared soil samples in the laboratory. Although using a ratio method, he
observed that the relationship between reflectance ratio and moisture content depended on
the soil type. Further analysis indicated that the reflectance ratio was influenced by the soil
“micro relief” or small-scale roughness. The reflectance ratio was found to vary with the
number of water filled pores on the soil surface and thus with the moisture release
characteristic of the soil. Whalleyt6 suggested that near infra-red reflectance would thus give
a better relationship with moisture tension than with moisture content.
Christensen and Hummel*’ have described a soil moisture sensor based on near infra-red
reflectance which uses a conventional light source and chopper disc together with a fibre
optic bundle to convey the light to the sensing point and to route reflected radiation to
detectors via suitable filters. Samples from 30 soil types were investigated in the laboratory
and the ideal wavelength pair for moisture determination was derived by regression analysis
(2066 and 1880 nm). The difference in optical density at the two wavelengths was related to
moisture content of the samples. A quartic regression model was used to relate the two but
there was considerable experimental scatter in the relationship.
A portable soil moisture meter based on NIR reflectance was described by Kano et al.”
using one wideband light source and two lead sulphide detectors with 10 nm interference
filters set at 1800 and 1940 nm. Limited measurements on clay and loam samples indicated a
linear response using the ratio technique up to 35% moisture content but the paper lacks
description of certain essentials such as the method of chopping the output from the light source.
The published material on near infra-red reflectance of soils indicates that the method has
potential as a non-contact rapid moisture sensing technique but with the apparent
disadvantages of dependence on surface roughness, indication of surface moisture only and
non-linear effects due to water filled pores at the surface.

3.6. Electrical techniques

Various electrical methods may be used for measuring soil moisture content and they form
a very important sub-group of measurement methods. All the methods rely on the effect of
J. V. STAFFORD 157

24 -

/ II

1 I’

20 -

lmaglnary part

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Soil moisture, g/cm3

Fig. 2. Representative dielectric constant values as a function of volumetric water content. Frequency:
1.3 GHz. Soil type: -, sand; - - -, loam: - - - -, clay (from RejI 28)

moisture content on a component of soil permittivity; either dielectric constant or dielectric

loss. The complex permittivity, E, may be described by:
s(O) = s’(u) +js”(O), (1)
where E’is the real part, the dielectric constant; E” is the imaginary part, the dielectric loss; j
is the complex operator; w is the angular frequency.
Both the real and imaginary parts of the permittivity are sensitive to moisture content.
The dielectric constant of dry soil is around 3 to 4, whereas that of pure water is around 80;
thus the dielectric constant of a moist soil depends on the proportion of moisture. The
dielectric loss depends on the conductivity of the medium which in soil is affected by the
proportion of moisture present.
The dielectric constant of a soil depends not only on its volumetric moisture content but
also on its temperature and density, on the soil texture and amount of organic matter. There
is considerable literature on the effect of moisture content on dielectric constant which all
shows that it increases with soil moisture content; there is no agreement, however, on the
form of the relationship. Cihlar and Ulaby2’ surveyed the available literature in 1974 and
published data on the effects of moisture content, density, soil type, temperature and
frequency on dielectric constant. Fig. 2 from their paper typifies the effect of moisture
content on dielectric constant; the effect of temperature was small. The effect of soil type was
also small at higher frequencies (> 4 GHz). The effect of density was small but significant
158 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT

10’0
Frequency, Hz

(0)

108 109 IO’0 IO” 10’2

Frequency, Hz

(b)

Fig. 3. The dielectric spectrum of water at two temperatures. (a) Dielectric constant; (6) dielectric loss
(from Ref 28)

with dielectric constant increasing with density. Frequency also had a large effect on
dielectric constant; the effect on water is shown in Fig. 3 and on moist soil in Fig. 4. Njoku
and Kong” also studied the effect of frequency on dielectric constant and dielectric loss for
various soil moisture contents and their results are shown in Fig. 5. They show reasonable
agreement with Fig. 4 in the shape of the relationship (over a more restricted frequency
range), although the dielectric loss curve is shifted to higher frequencies.
J. V. STAFFORD 159

‘OS\
\
\
\
IO4 - \,lmaglnary part
\
\
IO3 J \
\
\
\
2 \
; \ \
\
z- IO’- . \
2 /-N ..\
i5 \ ‘;L13t
a \
IO’ - \
; \
a \
E Loss tangent \
\
0” loo- \

10-l - “\,_T

I I I I I I I
IO+
IO' IO4 105 IO6 IO' IO8 109 IO'O IO"

Frequency, Hz

Fig. 4. Components of the complex permittivity as a function of frequency for a silty clay at 15% w/w
moisture content (from Ref. 28)

Cihlar and Ulaby” observed that dielectric constant varied with free water content of the
soil and was little affected by bound moisture. This is significant because it is the free water
that is of interest in studies of crop growth.
The measurements of Newton,= typified by Fig. 6, show that the dielectric constant/
moisture content relationship has two pronounced regions due possibly to the proportion of
free water in the soil. The transition from one slope to another varied with the type of soil
and probably relates to the chemo-physical activity of soil particles.
Topp et al.” used time domain reflectometry to determine apparent dielectric constant for
a number of soil types at different moisture contents and some of their results are shown in
Fig. 7. Dielectric constant varied from about 3 up to 40 for a moisture content range of
O-50%; there was negligible effect of soil type. Their results did not show the two region
behaviour observed by Newton.= Topp et al. ” found no significant effect of density,
temperature or soluble salt content on dielectric constant. They deduced a regression
equation from their experimental data as
E, = 3.03 + 9.38, + 146.oe,’- 76.7e,”) (2)
where E, is the apparent dielectric constant, 0, is the volumetric moisture content.
Ansoult et aLJ2 developed a theoretical relationship between apparent dielectric constant
and soil moisture content which predicted Topp’s experimental results very well.
More recently, Hallikainen et dss redetermined dielectric constant over the microwave
frequency range of 1418 GHz for five soil types over a range of soil moisture content. Their
purpose was to clarify the discrepancies between earlier reported dielectric constant/soil
moisture content relationships and to relate dielectric constant directly to soil physical
properties. Fig. 8 illustrates their results which were obtained using both wave guide and free
space measuring techniques.
Fig. 9 illustrates the effect of frequency on both dielectric constant and dielectric loss
where opposite effects were observed. Bulk density did not significantly affect the
160 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT

Moisture content

18

; 12-

0 -30
-25
-20
-15
P - IO
*
4” -5
-0.3
2-

0.5 I.0 2.0 5.0 IO 20

Frequency. GHz

(0)

Moisture content
wd

0.01 I 0.5 I.0 2.0 5.0 IO 20

Frequency, GHz

(b)

Fig. 5. Complex permittivity of soil as a function of frequency and moisture content. (a) Dielectric
constant; (6) dielectric loss (from ReJ 14)
J. V. STAFFORD 161

20 -

I5 -

1
s
z
is
s
La
s
;j- io-
z
az

0 5 IO 15 20 25 30 :
Percent moisture (by weight)

Fig. 6. Relative permittivity of clay loam as a function of moisture by weight. Frequency, 1.4 GHz; real
part, ??; imaginary part, e (from Ref. 30)

relationship between volumetric moisture content (m,) and E’or E”. Dielectric constant is a
function of the water volume fraction in the soil. Hence dry bulk density (p) affects the
gravimetric moisture content (m,)/dielectric constant relationship as:
m,=pm,. (3)
Soil texture had a greater effect on the .z’/m, relationship at low frequencies than at high,
as in Fig. 2. At a given moisture content, E’was found to be approximately proportional to
sand content.
In the second part of their paper, Hallikainen et al. M developed both a four-component
mixing model and a semi-empirical model to predict dielectric constant. The mixing model
took account of the dielectric contribution from both bound and free water in the soil matrix
but produced systematic prediction errors. The semi-empirical model, however, predicted
the experimental values very well above 4 GHz.
3.6.1. Dielectric loss methods
3.6.1.1. Resistance blocks. The d.c. resistance of soil varies with moisture content but, due
to polarizing effects at the electrodes, resistance methods use a.c. excitation. At lower
frequencies, electrodes have to be implanted in the soil and problems with obtaining uniform
162 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT

0 0-I 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Water content

Fig. 7. Relationship between apparent dielectric constant and volumetric moisture content. Solid line,
empirical best-fit equation. Dashed lines, spread of measured values with different soils (from RejI 31)

soil to electrode contact means that such methods cannot be used for accurate determination
of moisture content. Thus, resistance soil moisture sensors are normally formed by
embedding two electrodes in a rigid porous medium which is then buried in the soil. Over a
period of time, equilibrium is achieved between the porous block and the surrounding soil
and the impedance between the electrodes relates to the moisture content of the block.
Porous materials used include gypsum, fibre glass matt and open pore ceramics. Such
sensors have been reviewed by Storm and Younos. ss Although it would be expected that the
moisture content of sensors is proportional to soil moisture tension, Coulson and Salemj6
demonstrated good correlation with soil moisture content. They compared the output of a
gypsum block sensor with a neutron probe and gravimetric determination on one plot over
35 days at soil depths of 5 and 40 cm.
Nadler3’ has described a four-electrode sensor which can be inserted directly into the soil
which is claimed to accurately measure volumetric moisture content. However, there are few
details in his paper. Resistance sensors are sensitive to temperature and correction is
necessary. A correction model has been described by Storm et al.=
3.6.1.2. Electromagnetic loop. Foerster et al. ~9 have described, in very brief detail, the use
of an electromagnetic loop to determine soil moisture content. This is based on the same
principle as the classic metal detector where the proximity of a conducting medium to a coil
affects its power factor.

3.6.2. Dielectric constant methods

3.6.2.1. Capacitance. Soil moisture content may be determined via its effect on dielectric
constant by measuring the capacitance between two electrodes implanted in the soil. Where
the soil moisture is predominantly in the form of free water, such as in sandy soils, then
dielectric constant is directly proportional to moisture content. A number of such
capacitative sensors have been described in the literature with excitation frequencies from
less than 1 kHz up to 10’s of MHz. Such an example is that described by Bell and Deanm
J. V. STAFFORD 163

0
.A
IO -

t-
% . r( &-.I,
??a
0 AA-w 1 I I I
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Volumetric moisture, cm’ cme3

Fig. 8. Comparison of soil dielectric measurements made by the waveguide (A) andfree space techniques
(a). Frequency, 6 GHz; soil, loam (from RejI 33)

who developed a cylindrical probe with two annular electrodes spaced 12 mm apart on the
probe. The probe is lowered down an access tube (as used for neutron moisture probes-see
Section 3.2) so that the moisture content can be determined at any depth thus yielding a
moisture profile. The capacitative sensor forms part of a circuit resonating at 14-18 MHz;
the electronics are contained within the tubular probe. The probe is claimed to give much
better resolution than a neutron probe and to yield moisture content comparing well with
gravimetric moisture determination.
Wobschall” developed a similar system working at 30 MHz and based around an
implantable sensor with cylindrical electrodes. The oscillator and frequency shift circuit
boards were mounted within the body of the sensor. Halbertsma et al.” also used a number
of capacitative devices with cylindrical electrodes implanted at various depths between 2 and
60 cm below the soil surface. The closest vertical spacing of the probes was 1 cm but
evidence was not presented that such resolution might be achievable with a capacitative
probe. The accuracy of the sensor was shown to be l-2% volumetric moisture content.
Walsh et al.- considered both low (kHz) and high (So-100 MHz) frequency excitation for
capacitative soil moisture probes and briefly described the advantages and disadvantages.
3.6.2.2. Time domain rejlectometry (TDR). In time domain reflectometry (TDR), a pulse
of radio frequency energy is injected into a transmission line and its propagation velocity is
measured by detecting the reflected pulse from the end of the line and measuring delay time
between transmitted and reflected pulses. The velocity depends on the dielectric constant and
loss of the transmission line dielectric, as well as on the frequency. Where the loss is small
relative to dielectric constant E’, the velocity, u, may be approximated by
v = c/T, (4)
where c is the velocity in free space (i.e. 3 x 10’ m/s).
Topp et al.= used a coaxial transmission line containing soil as dielectric material and
164 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT

Volumetric mmture
content,
cm’ cm-’ _
A0.02 00.27
00.08 00.34

32

6- 24

4- 16

2-

0 4 8 12 16 ”
Frequency f, GHZ

(b)

Fig. 9. Measured real (a) and imaginary (6) parts of the complex permittivity as a function of frequency
with volumetric moisture as a parameter. Soil, loam; temperature, 23°C; free-space method, 3-18 GHz;
waveguide method, I.4 GHz (from ReJ 34)

determined the relationship between soil moisture content and dielectric constant. They
utilized commercial TDR equipment operating in the range 30 MHz-l GHz and obtained
results as shown previously in Fig. 7. Soil type (four mineral soils), density, temperature and
salinity had no significant effect on the moisture versus dielectric relationship.
Topp et al.” modified the technique for field use by using parallel transmission lines in the
form of twin probes separated by 51 mm, which were manually inserted into the soil. By
using different lengths of probe, they were able to measure moisture content at different
depths (50-300 mm). Moisture content determined by TDR correlated well with gravimetric
moisture content (r >> 0.9) but there was considerable scatter. Experimental results indicated
J. V. STAFFORD 165

I-- -III
50.0

E
f
k?
n
c --
;; I.3 GHz
---___

- -_ 4.0 GHz
i
0.01 -

0.005 - -- IO.0 GHz

- I

O.OOll I I I 1 a I I I I ,

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

Soil moisture, g/cm3

Fig. IO. Skin depth as a function of volumetric water content, frequency and soil type. Sand, -;
loam, - - --; clay, - - - - (from ReJ 29)

that an accuracy of 2% volumetric moisture content can be achieved with TDR.” Using the
parallel transmission line arrangement, the volume of soil influencing the velocity of
propagation is a cylinder the length of the probes and with a diameter of 1.4 times the probe
spacing.45
Simpson and Meyera made a systematic comparison between the TDR method using
twin probes and a nuetron probe in an irrigated cotton crop. Twenty TDR probes were
installed at five depths (0.08-0.68 m) in close proximity to a neutron probe. Measurements
were made every other day for 3 months. Although the correlation between neutron and
TDR measurements was high (rZ -O-96), there was significant scatter which may have been
partly due to the problems in neutron probe calibration. Nonetheless, the results justify the
use of TDR in place of neutron probe.
Topp et al. ” have also used the TDR technique to determine wetting fronts and steep
moisture gradients in soil.

3.6.2.3. Active microwave (radar). The attenuation of microwave energy may be used to
indicate the moisture content of porous media because of the effect of moisture content on
dielectric constant. In essence, a source of microwave energy is directed at the sample under
test which attenuates the transmission or reflection of the energy in proportion to the
dielectric constant. Such an arrangement can be set up in a transmission, forward reflection
or back scatter mode although, in the case of in situ soil measurement, the forward reflection
and back scatter modes are the only practical ones. The attraction of using microwave
methods is that they are non-contact and, as remote sensing techniques from aircraft or
satellite, they are not affected by time of day or weather. Their disadvantage is primarily
based on the shallow depth to which microwaves penetrate. Generally speaking, microwave
166 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT

Incidence angle

IO 15 20 30
Percent moisture content by weight, m.

Fig. II. Scattering coe$icient as a function of moisture content to a depth of 50mm. 5.9 GHz
(from RejI 48)

methods can be considered to indicate moisture content to a depth of one skin depth only.
The skin depth is defined as the reciprocal of the microwave attenuation coefficient which is
given by

(5)
where A is the wavelength of the microwave energy. The skin depth varies with wavelength
and with the dielectric constant and loss of the material. As soil moisture content increases,
therefore, the effective depth of measurement decreases. This is illustrated in Fig. IO from
Cihlar and Ulaby.”
Ulaby et al. 4a investigated the potential of microwave back scatter measurement on bare
soil to indicate soil moisture content to skin depth. They used frequencies of 4.7, 5.9 and
7.1 GHz and angles of incidence from 0 to 70”. They related the scattering coefficient, cr, to
soil moisture content as determined gravimetrically. An example is shown in Fig. II where
the microwave signal polarization was horizontal, i.e. the electric field was parallel to the soil
surface. These curves do not make allowance for the fact that the effective depth of
measurement varies with moisture content, hence Ulaby et aLa used a skin depth model to
transform the data. Fig. 12 shows the relationship between scattering coefficient and
volumetric moisture content with fitted regression lines for both horizontal and vertical
polarization (electric field parallel and perpendicular, respectively, to the soil surface). There
was significant scatter in the experimental data. The higher sensitivity to moisture content
was obtained with the lowest back scatter angle.
Ulaby and Batlivala * investigated the effect of soil surface roughness on the back scatter
coefficient by making measurements on three fields of differing roughness level (rms height
variation) in the frequency range 2-8 GHz. Compared with the effect of moisture content,
surface roughness has a significant influence on scattering coefficient. However, the effect of
J. V. STAFFORD 167

b-.()0

o--e 100

- - 300
24 Lx- - 500
w 700
lncldent angle

16 0
/
1. /*
i O /

-E

-IE I I I I I
,O 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4
Effective volumetric moisture content

Fig. 12. Scattering coeficient as a function of effective moisture content, 5.9 GHz. Polarization: left,
horizontal; right, vertical (from Ref 48)

roughness also depends on the angle of incidence with an inversion of the characteristic
between nadir and lo”. The authors conclude that the effect of surface roughness can be
minimized by utilizing an angle of incidence in the range 7-15” and a frequency of 4 GHz.
Their results suggested that the direction of polarization was immaterial.
Koolen et al.” also investigated the effect of surface roughness compared with the
moisture response using an X-band (3 cm 10 GHz) radar mounted on rails alongside
experimental plots. They observed that the shape of the relationship between angle of
incidence and scattering coefficient varied with surface roughness, whilst its level varied with
moisture content. Their results were, however, inconclusive.
Soil moisture content determination by microwave forward reflection was investigated by
Wallender et al.” They set up a 3 GHz transmitter and receiver on towers at a separation of
30 m. The receiver received both a direct beam and a reflected beam thus resulting in
interference. The depth of fading of the intereference waves can be related to the reflection
coefficient and thus to soil moisture content. Analysis of results showed that the coefficient
varied with moisture content but was also affected by surface roughness and the presence of
vegetation on the experimental plot. Although the receiver and transmitter were set for a
grazing angle of 15”, it was observed that an area of approximately 12 m x 12 m actually
influenced the measured reflection coefficient.
In contrast to the microwave methods discussed so far, where the area of influence on the
microwave parameters is relatively large, Parchomchuk and Wallender’* have modelled a
168 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT

microwave sensor for determining soil moisture of a relatively small volume. Their concept is
to use an open ended wave guide operating at around 1 GHz placed near or on the soil
surface. By using directional couplers, the reflection coefficient can be measured in the one
set of wave guide components. They considered a layered soil and derived a reflection
coefficient model for a two-layer soil which accounts for the variation in reflection coefficient
with frequency. Sufficient information on the reflection coefficient, and thus on soil moisture,
can be derived by taking measurements at two frequencies, the frequency shift depending on
the moisture content and thickness of soil layer under consideration. If such a sensor can be
practically implemented, then the method has potential for localized measurement of
moisture content.
Rasmussen and Campbellw have proposed the use of 10 GHz Gunn diode resonant
waveguide cavities as used in Doppler radar systems for speed measurement because of their
low cost. They evaluated the performance of a system set up in transmission made with a soil
sample placed between emitter and detector. Good correlation between microwave
attenuation and moisture content was obtained over a range of 5525% w/w (r2 = 0.94). It is
not made clear in the authors’ paper how this system could be implemented in the field.
Schmugge” has recently reviewed studies of microwave methods to measure soil moisture
content including the effect of sampling depth, vegetation cover and surface roughness. In
the review of literature for this report, the effect of the density of the medium on microwave
transmission/reflection characteristics has not been mentioned. The use of microwave
attenuation to measure moisture content in other materials such as forage and grain has not
been successful because of the influence of density.
Meyer and Schilz ” have shown from experimental data that though dielectric constant
and loss are both affected by moisture content and material density, the function

A(Y) = 7
is density independent. The expression is independent of density because (E’- 1) and a” are
linear functions of density over wide ranges of density and moisture content (‘u). The
function A(Y) can be derived by measurement of transmission loss and phase shift. Practical
measuring systems using waveguide horns based on the technique have been described by
Meyer and Schilz.”

4. Options for non-contact techniques

This review was undertaken because of a requirement for non-contact soil moisture
sensors for relatively localized soil areas. The techniques and studies referred to above
indicate the very wide range of types of moisture sensor that are either available
commercially or have been investigated experimentally. Very few, however, are available
commercially; one example is the neutron probe. For localized, non-contact measurement,
many of the techniques can be discounted. In particular, sampled and in situ methods cannot
be considered and methods that survey or measure moisture over relatively large areas are
not appropriate because discrimination of spatial variation of moisture content is required.
The techniques that come within the scope of the present requirement are those based on
near infra-red reflectance, active microwave attentuation, nuclear magnetic resonance and,
possibly, electromagnetic loops.
Near infrared methods have the advantage of very localized measurement and, utilizing a
light emitting diode as source, are compact and robust instruments. They do, however, only
measure surface moisture which would not be acceptable where soil moisture is not in
equilibrium or where free water is present or where there is a very steep moisture profile with
depth. Measurements are also affected by surface roughness although this can be minimized
J. V. STAFFORD 169

by using ratio techniques. They require a clear view of the soil surface, viz. they should not
be used where surface vegetation is present.
Active microwave systems have the great advantage of being able to penetrate into the
layers below the surface although the depth of penetration is dependent on frequency and
moisture content. They can also be used as true remote soil moisture sensors in that they can
be mounted on board aircraft or satellites. However, in the traditional back scatter or
forward reflection modes of operation, the microwave “footprint”, or area of influence, is
relatively large. There is clearly potential for overcoming these limitations by the use, for
instance, of open end wave guides. Microwave attenuation techniques are again susceptible
to surface roughness and, perhaps to a lesser extent, to surface vegetation.
Nuclear magnetic resonance is an attractive non-contact technique in that the type of
moisture as well as the amount can be identified. However, for field application,
considerable development in terms of reduction in size and cost will be necessary. The
equipment is, of essence, heavy and expensive because of the requirement for high quality,
powerful magnets. The fact that equipment has been developed for mounting on the back of
a tractor (Paetzold et aLzO) may point the way to future development of miniaturized
equipment.
The electromagnetic loop is a non-contact localized measuring device but it is sensitive to
soil salinity as well as moisture and, of course, to any other conductive objects. There is
insufficient investigation reported in the literature to make a judgement on its potential.
Most consideration in this subject review has been given to the measurement of moisture
content but moisture tension is a more useful parameter for many agricultural applications
such as available moisture for germination and in evapotranspiration studies. There is some
indication that dielectric constant of soil is affected more by free water than by bound water
and therefore methods based on dielectric constant, such as microwave, may well bear
relationship to moisture tension. It has been suggested= that the change in shape of
dielectric constant against moisture content is due to the presence of free water at higher
moisture contents, whereas at lower moisture contents a higher proportion of water is bound
water. There is also the observation from Whalley’* that near infra-red reflectance of the soil
relates more closely to moisture tension than to moisture content.

5. Conclusions
Measurement of soil moisture content is very important for many different applications
both in agriculture and in other disciplines as evidenced by the very large number of
techniques that have been reported in the literature. Methods that are suitable for non-
contact, localized measurement of soil moisture content are limited to near infra-red
reflectance, active microwave methods and nuclear magnetic resonance. The most promising
methods for development into commercial field instruments are near infra-red reflectance
and active microwave attenuation.

References
’ Schmugge, T. J.; Jackson, T. J.; McKim, H. L. Survey of methods for soil moisture determination.
Water Resources Research 1980, 16(6): 961-979
2 McKim, H. L.; Walsh, J. E.; Arion, D. N. Review of techniques for measuring soil moisture in situ.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory,
Special Report 80-31, August 1980
3 Wheeler, P. A.; Duncan, G. L. Interactions of the electromagnetic spectrum with soils. ASAE Paper
No. 84-2078, 1984
4 Erbach, D. C. Measurement of soil moisture and bulk density. ASAE Paper No. 83-1553, 1983
170 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT

s Gardner, W. H. Water content. In: Methods of Soil Analysis. Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical
Methods (Klute, A., ed.). Agronomy Series No. 9. Am. Sot. Agronomy, 2nd edn, 1986,
pp. 493-544
6 Lake, J. R. Sensor needs of the agriculture and food industries-moisture temperature, humidity
and composition. NIAE Div. Note DN 1314, 1986
’ Methods of test for soils for civil engineering purposes. British Standards Institution BS 1377 : 1975
* Bell, J. P. A new design principle for neutron soil moisture gauges: “The Wallingford” neutron
probe. Soil Science 1969, 108(3): 160
s Graecen, E. L. (editor). Soil water assessment by the neutron method. CSIRO, Australia, 1981
lo Parkes, M. E.; Siam, N. Error associated with measurement of soil moisture change by neutron
probe. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 1979, 24( 1): 87-93
” Klenke, J. M.; Flint, A. L.; Nicholson, R. A, A collimated neutron probe for soil-moisture
measurements. Proc. Int. Conf. Measurement of soil and plant water status, Utah State
University, July 1987, Vol. 1, pp. 21-28
‘* Idso, S. B.; Schmugge, T. J.; Jackson, R. D.; Reginato, R. J. The utility of surface temperature
measurement for the remote sensing of soil water status. Journal of Geophysical Research 1975,
80: 3044-3049
l3 Phene, C. J.; Hoffman, G. J.; Austin, R. S. Controlled automated irrigation with soil matric
potential sensor. Transactions of the ASAE 1973, 16(4): 773-776
l4 Njoku, E. G.; Kong, J. Theory for passive microwave remote sensing of near-surface soil moisture.
Journal of Geophysical Research 1977, 82(20): 3108-3118
l5 Schmugge, T. J.; Gloersen, P.; Wilheit, T.; Geiger, F. Remote sensing of soil moisture with
microwave radiometers. Journal of Geophysical Research 1974, 79: 3 17-323
I6 Schmugge, T. J.; Meneely, J. M.; Rango, A.; Neff, R. Satellite microwave observations of soil
moisture variations. Water Resources Bulletin 1977, 13: 265
l7 Choudhury, B.; Schmugge, T. J.; Newton, R. W.; Chang, A. Effect of surface roughness on the
microwave emission from soils. Journal of Geophysical Research 1979, 84: 569995706
‘a Wilheit, T. T. Radiative transfer in a plane stratified dielectric. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
Electronics 1978, GE-16 138-143
ls Matzkanin, G. A.; Paetzold, R. F. Measuring soil water content using pulsed nuclear magnetic
resonance. ASAE Paper No. 82-2619, 1982
2o Paetzold, R. F.; Matzkanin, G. A.; De La Santos, A. Surface soil water content measurement using
pulsed nuclear magnetic resonance techniques. Soil Science Society of America Journal 1985,
49(3): 537-540
21 Paetzold, R. F.; Gish, T. J.; Jackson, T. J. NMR measurement of soil water content. Proc. Int.
Conf. Measurement of Soil and Plant Water Status, Utah State University, July 1987, Vol. 1,
pp. 255-260
22 Scholefield, D. Measurement of surface moisture content using polarised light. British Soil Water
Physics Group Day Meeting, Wallingford, September 1986
23 Prunty, L.; Alessi, R. S. Prospects for fibre optic sensing in soil. Proc. Int. Conf. Measurement of
Soil and Plant Water Status, Utah State University, July 1987, Vol. 1, pp. 261-265
24 Bowman, G. E.; Hooper, A. W.; Hartshorn, R. L. A prototype infrared reflectance moisture meter.
Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 1985, 31: 67-79
26 Stafford, J. V.: Weaving, G. S.: Bull, C. R. A portable solid-state moisture meter for grass and
forage. Int. Conf. onxgric. l&g. Ag Eng 88, Paris, March 1988. Paper No. 88.128 -
26
Whalley, W. R. Estimation of soil moisture status using infrared reflectance. MSc Thesis, Silsoe
College, 1985
27
Christensen, D. A.; Hummel, J. W. A real-time soil moisture content sensor. ASAE Paper No.
85-1589, 1985
Kano, Y.; McClure, W. F.; Skaggs, R. W. A near infra-red reflectance soil moisture meter.
Transactions of the ASAE 1985, 28(6): 1852-1855
Cihlar, J.; Ulaby, F. T. Dielectric properties of soils as a function of moisture content. RSL
Technical Report 17747, 1974, University of Kansas Centre for Research, Lawrence, Kansas,
USA
Newton, R. W. Microwave remote sensing and its application to soil moisture detection. PhD
Thesis, 1977, Texas A&M University, USA
Topp, G. C.; Davis, J. L.; Anan, A. P. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content:
measurements in co-axial transmission lines. Water Resources Research 1980, 16(3): 574-582
J. V. STAFFORD 171

32
Ansoult, M.; Debacca, L. W.; Declerq, M. Statistical relationship between apparent dielectric
constant and water content in porous media. Soil Science Society of America Journal 1985,49( 1):
47-50
33
Hallikaiaen, M. T.; Ulaby, F. T.; Dobson, C. M.; El-Rayes, M. A.; Wu, L. Microwave dielectric
behaviour of wet soil-Part 1: Empirical models and experimental observations. IEEE
Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing 1985, GE-23(l): 25-34
34
Hallikainen, M. T.; Ulaby, F. T.; Dobson, C. M.; El-Rayes, M. A. Microwave dielectric bchaviour
of wet soil-Part 2: Dielectric mixing models. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote
Sensing 1985, GE-23(l): 3546
35
Storm, D. E.; Younos, T. M. Evaluation of soil moisture sensors for use in data acquisition
systems-A technical guide. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA.
Information Series 84-4, 1984
35
Carlson, T. N.; El Salam, J. Measurement of soil moisture using gypsum blocks. Proc. Int. Conf.
Measurement of Soil and Plant Water Status, Utah State University, July 1987, Vol. I,
pp. 193-200
37
Nadler, A. Alternative method for determining soil moisture. Water and Irrigation Review 1984, 3:
22-23
38
Storm, D. E.; Byler, R. K.; Younos, T. M. A temperature correction model for 4 resistance type
soil-moisture sensors. ASAE Paper No. 84-2518, 1984
39 Foerster, E.; Dvoracek, M.; Archer, J. Electromagnetic loop for soil moisture detection. ASAE
Paper No. 85-1540, 1985
40
Bell, J. P.; Dean, T. J. Determination of soil moisture content by capacitance method. British Soil
Water Physics Group Day Meeting, Wallingford, September 1986
41
Wobscball, D. A frequency shift dielectric soil moisture sensor. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience
Electronics 1978, GE-16(2): 112-l 18
42
Halbertsma, J.; Przybyla, C.; Jacobs, A. Application and accuracy of a dielectric soil water content
meter. Proc. Int. Conf. Measurement of Soil and Plant Water Status, Utah State University, July
1987, Vol. 1, pp. 11-15
43
Walsh, J. E.; McQueeney, D.; Layman, R. D.; McKim, H. L. Development of a simplified method
for field monitoring of soil moisture. Proc. 2nd Colloquium of Planetary Water and Polar
Processes, 1979, pp. 40-43
44
Topp, G. C.; Davis, J. L.; Bailey, W. G.; Zebchuk, W. D. The measurement of soil water content
using a portable TDR hand probe. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 1984, 64: 313-321
45
Topp, G. C. The application of time domain reflectometry to soil water content measurement. Proc.
Int. Conf. Measurement of Soil and Plant Water Status, Utah State University, July 1987, Vol. 1,
pp. 85-93
49
Simpson, J. R.; Meyer, J. J. Water content measurements comparing a TDR array to neutron
scattering. Proc. Int. Conf. Measurement of Soil and Plant Water Status, Utah State University,
July 1987, Vol. 1, pp. 111-114
47
Topp, G. C.; Davis, J. L.; Allen, A. P. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content using
TDR: 1. Applications to wetting fronts and steep gradients. Soil Science Society of America
Journal 1982, 46: 672-678
43
Ulaby, F. T.; Sila, J.; Moore, R. K. Active microwave measurement of soil water content. Remote
Sensing of Environment 1974, 3: 185-203
49
Ulaby, F. T.; Batlivala, P. P. Optimum radar parameters for mapping soil moisture. IEEE Trans.
on Geoscience Electronics 1976, GE-14(2): 81-93
so
Koolen, A. J.; Koenigs, F. R.; Bouten, W. Remote sensing of surface roughness and topsoil moisture
of bare tilth soil with an X-band radar. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 1979, 27:
284-296
51
Wallender, W. W.; Sackman, G. L.; Kone, K.; Keminaka, M. S. Soil moisture measurement by
microwave forward-scattering. ASAE Paper No. 84-2523, 1984
52
Parchomchuk, P.; Wallender, W. W. Electromagnetic sensing of sub-surface soil moisture. ASAE
Paper No. 86-2005, 1986
53 Rasmussen, V. P.; Campbell, R. H. A simple microwave method for the measurement of soil
moisture. Proc. Int. Conf. Measurement of Soil and Plant Water Status, Utah State University,
July 1987, Vol. 1, pp. 275-278
54 Schmugge, T. J. Remote sensing of soil moisture: recent advances. IEEE Transactions on
Geoscience and Remote Sensing 1983, GE-21(3): 336-343
172 MEASUREMENT OF SOIL MOISTURE CONTENT

b6 Meyer, W.; Schilz, W. A microwave method for density independent determination of the moisture
content of solids. Journal of Physics (D): Applied Physics 1980, 13: 1823-1830
ss Meyer, W.; Schilz, W. Feasibility study of density-independent moisture measurement with
microwaves. IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques 1981, M’IT-39(7):
132-739