IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. GE-23, NO.

1, JANUARY 1985 35

Microwave Dielectric Behavior of Wet Soil-Part II:

Dielectric Mixing Models
MYRON C. DOBSON, MEMBER, IEEE, FAWWAZ T. ULABY, FELLOW, IEEE,
MARTTI T. HALLIKAINEN, MEMBER, IEEE, AND MOHAMED A. EL-RAYES

Abstract-This paper is the second in a series evaluating the micro- have been made to model the observed behavior in terms con-
wave dielectric behavior of soil-water mixtures as a function of water sistent with a physical soil model. Ideally, an eloquent model
content and soil textural composition. Part II draws upon the data pre-
sented in Part 1 [13] to develop appropriate empirical and theoretical
formulation would account for the observed effects of various
dielectric mixing models for the 1.4- to 18-GHz region. A semiempirical soil components on the complex dielectric behavior of the soil-
mixing model based upon the index of refraction is presented, requiring water-air system as a function of frequency. Such factors
only easily ascertained soil physical parameters such as volumetric mois- would include soil bulk density (compaction), soil composition
ture and soil textural composition as inputs. In addition, a theoretical (particle size distribution and mineralogy), the volume fraction
model accounting explicitly for the presence of a hydration layer of of soil water components, the salinity of the soil solution, and
bound water adjacent to hydrophilic soil particle surfaces is presented.
A four-component dielectric mixing model treats the soil-water system temperature.
as a host medium of dry soil solids containing randomly distributed and An examination of several of the classical mixing formulas
randomly oriented disc-shaped inclusions of bound water, bulk water, available in the literature [9] has shown that they inadequately
and air. The bulk water component is considered to be dependent upon describe at least one of the observed effects at frequencies of
frequency, temperature, and salinity. The soil solution is differentiated 1.4 and 5 GHz.
by means of a soil physical model into 1) a bound component and 2)
a bulk soil solution. Since these formulas consider the mixing of a two-component
The performance of each model is evaluated as a function of soil system only, i.e., soil with free water, it is not surprising that
moisture, soil texture, and frequency, using the dielectric measurements they fail to account for the complex behavior of a soil medium
of five soils ranging from sandy loam to silty clay (as presented in Part I consisting of soil particles with variable packing densities en-
[13]) at frequencies between 1.4 and 18 GHz. veloped by a film of adsorbed water and having the larger pore
The semiempirical mixing model yields an excellent fit to the measured
data at frequencies above 4 GHz. At 1.4 GHz, the model does not fully spaces filled with either bulk solution or air (depending on the
account for the dielectric properties of bound water at low moisture matric potential of the system).
contents, and hence the soil-dependent differences in the observed di- More recently, Wang and Schmugge [9] have offered an
electric behavior are underpredicted. This simple model, however, should empirical mixing formula at 1.4 and 5 GHz that explicitly treats
be adequate for most applications requiring estimated soil dielectric
properties for use in emission and scattering calculations. Application a bound water layer and an air volume fraction in addition to
of the theoretical model shows that it is an appropriate formulation and the dry soil and bulk water components. In their treatment,
that the inclusions do in fact behave as discs. The theoretical model the complex dielectric constants of all components are linearly
yields values that correlate well with the observed effects of soil type combined over two separate moisture regions: 1) for water
and frequency; however, it also produces systematic prediction errors contents less than or equal to the maximum bound water frac-
caused by uncertainty about the dielectric properties of bound water.
The model shows that bound water is dielectrically dissimilar to either tion and 2) for water contents in excess of the bound water
ice or free water, supporting the hypothesis that bound water is not fraction. In addition, the maximum bound-water fraction of a
completely irrotational and therefore may exhibit a dielectric relaxation given soil is treated as a free parameter that is shown to be
at microwave frequencies. correlated to soil texture via the estimated wilting point of each
soil examined. A second free parameter accounts for the
I. INTRODUCTION change in conductivity loss as a function of water content for
IN SPITE of the relatively large number of measurements each soil; furthermore, an examination of the Wang and
made of the relative permittivity of soil-water mixtures at Schmugge data shows that at 1.4 GHz the free conductivity
microwave frequencies in recent years [1] -[8], few attempts parameter at is positively correlated with the measured clay
content, with a linear correlation coefficient r = 0.86. While
Manuscript received February 25, 1983; revised April 24, 1984. This
work was supported by the Army Research Office, Research Triangle this empirical mixing model does not consistently predict the
Park, NC, under Grant DAAG29-81-K-0142. measured behavior of the imaginary part of the dielectric con-
M. C. Dobson and M. El-Rayes are with the Remote Sensing Labora- stant, the model demonstrates the importance of considering
tory, University of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, KS
66045. the bound-water volume as a distinct dielectric constituent of
F. T. Ulaby was with the Remote Sensing Laboratory, University of the soil-water system and indicates that the effective conduc-
Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, KS 66045. He is now with tivity loss is dependent upon both soil type and water content.
the Radiation Laboratory and the Department of Electrical and Com- Additionally, the model shows that both the bound-water
puter Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
M. Hallikainen is with the Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, fraction and the effective conductivity loss are positively cor-
Finland. related with clay content.
0196-2892/84/0001-0035$01.00 © 1984 IEEE
36 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. GE-23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1985
A different approach was taken by Wang [10], wherein the
soil-water system is described by a Debye-type relaxation over
a finite band of relaxation frequencies using a model developed
by Schwarz [11] at low frequencies. When given appropriate
estimates of the static dielectric constant of the mixture es and
the high-frequency limit e0, this approach was found to ade-
quately describe data measured at frequencies between 0.3 and
1.4 GHz when two free parameters were adjusted, namely, the
width of the activation energy of the soil solution and the mean
relaxation frequency of the soil-water mixture at a given fre-
quency and for a given soil and water content. Applying this
approach to measured data from sandy and high-clay-content
soils, Wang [10] concluded that both the effective net activa-
tion energy and the mean relaxation frequency increase with
soil water content and that these values are soil specific such
that the range of mean relaxation frequencies required to fit
the data is lower for clay soils (1.8-9.6 GHz) than for sandy
soils (5.5-23.7 GHz). It was observed that activation energy
is relatively constant for sands as a function of water content,
whereas it increases markedly for clay soil. These results are
to be expected, considering the impact of the soil's specific
surface area (which can be an order of magnitude higher for
some clays than for sands) on the addition of incremental
monolayers of soil water, each being less bound (and thus
more similar to bulk water) than the preceding layer.
A third approach, which implicitly recognizes the importance
of bound water, was taken by Wobschall [12] in a multiple
mixing model combining soil solids, nondispersed "crevice"
water, dispersed water enveloping soil particles, nondispersed
water filling larger soil pores, and air. These components are
progressively combined in four stages, using two-phase dielectric
mixing models. For each soil, the approach requires three ad-
justable parameters: the crevice water fraction, the conductivity
of crevice water, and the dispersed water fraction. The model
is found to yield satisfactory fits to data at frequencies well
below the relaxation frequency of pure water (1-100 MHz).
Each of the preceding dielectric mixing approaches allows
the relative permittivity and loss of the soil solution to vary as
a function of net water content for given soil types. However,
from a practical standpoint wherein the objective is to estimate
the dielectric properties of a soil when given measurements of
that soil's physical properties only, the usefulness of the pre-
ceding approaches is limited by their dependence upon adjust-
able soil- and frequency-specific parameters. The intent of this
paper is to introduce soil dielectric models that are effective at
microwave frequencies and are driven by measurable soil phys-
ical parameters. The purposes for developing such models in-
clude 1) providing a convenient means for predicting a soil's
dielectric behavior for use in microwave emission and scattering
calculations and 2) presenting a cogent physically based theo-
retical mixing model that is dependent upon measurable soil
parameters only (i.e., requiring no adjustable parameters) and
can be used as a research model.
The first purpose is fulfilled by an empirical model using a
dielectric mixing approach proposed by Birchak [29] and
dependent upon readily measured soil characteristics such as
soil gravimetric moisture mg, soil bulk density Pb, and weight-
percent of the sand and clay fractions. The second purpose is
,Clay Particles
,Ciay Coating
Fig. 1. Sketch of the soil medium.
achieved via a four-component dielectric mixing of soil solids,
air, bulk water, and bound water, wherein the quantities and
characteristics of the bulk- and bound-water fractions are de-
termined by a soil physical model. Each of these models is
evaluated as a function of moisture content and frequency
using the data described in Part I [13] as obtained for five soils
at frequencies from 1 .4 to 18 GHz by waveguide and free-space
transmission techniques.
II. SOIL MODEL
In order to meet the objectives of this study, a soil model is
presented to apportion the soil solution into a bound water
volume fraction and a bulk water volume fraction. Further-
more, since isomorphic substitution within the clay's crystal
lattice structure and bond breakage at the edges of soil particles
produce particle surface charge densities of the order of 103 to
104 ESU cm-2, the Stern-Gouy double-layer theory [16]-
[18] is employed to describe the ionic charge distribution
within the soil solution adjacent to the soil particle surfaces.
The double-layer theory provides a convenient methodology
for estimating the effective conductivity loss as an explicit
function of both soil composition and the measured conduc-
tivity of an extract from a saturated soil paste.
A. Soil Structure and Bound Water Fraction
The generalized structure of the soil is sketched in Fig. 1.
Soil solids having various shapes, a distinctive particle size dis-
tribution, and a characteristic specific density p5 are randomly
packed into a structure with a bulk density Pb. The clay min-
eral fraction can exist both as discrete particles and as coatings
on coarser particles. The net void fraction of the system, or
porosity Vp is given by
Vp = 1 - Pb/Ps (1)
where the ratio Pb/Ps is the volume fraction of soil solids Vs.
Assuming either a nonswelling or a confined soil, the pore vol-
ume fraction remains constant and is variably filled with water
and/or air.
Depending upon the nature of the available measured soil
physical characteristics for a given soil, an appropriate soil
model can be chosen to apportion the soil solution into bound
water and bulk water. The simplest such model is a plate model,
which treats the entire soil particle surface (both external and,
in the case of clay minerals, internal) as being planar, with a
net specific surface As in m2 g-1 The pore volume is con-
sidered to be uniformly distributed adjacent to this surface to
a maximum depth dsat defined by the soil's porosity
DOBSON et aL: MICROWAVE DIELECTRIC BEHAVIOR OF WET SOIL-PART II 37

TABLE I
THE PHYSICAL PARAMETERS OF SOIL
Soil Designation: 2 3 4 5
Textural Class:
------ Sandy Loam Loam Si l t Loam Silt Loam Silty Clay
% Sand 51.51 41.966 30.63 17.16 5.02
% Silt 35.06 49. 51 55.89 63.84 47.60
% Clay 13.43 8.5: 3 13.48 19.00 47.38
Cation Exchange Capacity
CEC(.01 meq g ) 8.2 7.6 11.4 20. 5 34.8
Specific Surface, AS(m2 g-1) 52 49 66 119 252
Specific Density p (g Cr-3) 2.66 2.70 2.59 2.66 2.56
Maximum Gravimetric Moisture
in Stern Layer (g g-l) 0.0156 0. 0147 0.0198 0.0357 0. 0756
Conductivity of Soil Paste,
bublk(mS cm'1) 1.070 0.792 1.080 1.153 0.937
ApproximateSalinity of
Soil Paste, S (x/0x) 0.685 0. 507 0.691 0.738 0.600
Ion Concentration of Bulk
Solution, no(ions cm- ) 3.22 * 1018 2.385 * 10l 3.252 * 1018 3.472 * 1010 2.8t21 * 1018
Surface Cha-ge Density,
a(esu cm ) 4.565 * 104 4.483 * 104 4.993 * 104 4.980 * 104 3.992 * 104
Stern-layer Charge Density,
a1(esu cm- ) 3.972 * 104 3.890 * 104 4.397 * 104 4.384 * 104 3.405 * 104
Gouy-layer Charge Density,
°2(esu cm ) 5.928 * 103 5.933 * 103 5.960 * 103 5.955 * 10' 5.872 * 103
Organic Carbon (%) 0. 58 0.62 0.98 1.48 1.74
O

Calculations assume: p = 0.1 eV, d6 = 3A, cwo = 80.1, T = 20'C, and divalent calcium cations.
Clay minerals are predominantly montmorillonite (- 70%) with lesser quantities of 10 - A illite and 7A kaolinite.
Sand, silt, and clay fractions based upon USDA classification.

VP X 104 1
C Near-Spherical
dsX = , A. (2) C) Particles and
As Pb Cylindrical Pores
E
Assuming that a maximum bound water layer of uniform thick- E
w

ness d8 in angstroms exists and the initial increments of solu- e~n

tion to the dry soil become bound water, the volume fractions
of bound water VbW and bulk water VfW can be calculated at In_

a given volumetric soil moisture m0 by CLn

Vbw =mv<d6AsPb X 104, g cmn3 (3) Plate -Like Particles

X and Pores
VfW =mVd ASPb X1Q4, gIcm3 (4)
Soil Surface Area
m0 Pb WW/Ws, g cm-3 -

(5) (cm2 g-1)

where W,,IW/ is the mass ratio of water to dry soil solids.
The use of the plate model requires either measurement of
the soil specific surfaceAs (which, although readily measurable
by adsorption techniques, is not commonly available) or an
estimate of As from knowledge of clay mineralogy and soil
particle size distribution. Values of As as measured by reten-
tion of ethylene glycol are given in Table I for the five soils
examined in this study.
Alternate soil physical models exist based upon the distribu-
tion of the sizes of the pores that can be occupied by the soil
solution [14], [1 51, [28]. Such models are dependent upon
detailed measurements of soil particle size distribution, and
although they tend to be computationally cumbersome, they
provide a superior description of water volume fraction as a
function of distance from soil particle surfaces of nonuniform
size and shape. Since, however, As is dominated by the plate-
like clay fraction as shown in Fig. 2, the plate model is used
here as a good first-order approximation.
B. Bound Water Layer
In a dry soil, adsorbed cations are tightly held by negatively
charged particle surfaces composed predominantly of clay.
Fig. 2. Effect of soil particle size and shape on soil surface area.
Cations in excess of those required to satisfy the surface-charge
density a and their associated anions are present as salt precip-
itates. When water is introduced into the system, the salt pre-
cipitates go into solution, and the adsorbed cations partially
diffuse into the solution adjacent to the particle surfaces. The
electrostatic field defined by the particles, however, inhibits
this diffusion and results in a charge distribution defined by
the Boltzmann and Poisson equations. Given the large surface-
charge densities commonly present in soils, the cation distribu-
tion defined by the double-layer model can increase the ion
concentration in the bulk solution by an order of magnitude
or more relative to that measured for a solution extracted from
a saturated soil paste. The Stern-Gouy double-layer theory
[16]-[18] accounts for the effects of the surface-charge den-
sity, type of cation absorbed, and salinity of the bulk soil
solution upon the distribution of ions as a function of distance
from particle surfaces.
Assuming that the surface charge is uniformly distributed,
the surface-charge density a of a soil is related to its cation ex-
change capacity CEC and its specific surface by
38 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. GE-23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1985

CECAveX 10-9 ESU cm2

As
(6)
where CEC is cation exchange capacity in 0.01 meq . g-1, A,
is the number of charges per equivalent, and e is 4.8 X 10-1o Gouy Layer
ESU per charge. Since As is dominated by the clay fraction,
a GI + G2 esu cmr2
the surface-charge density can be treated as being both constant I

a = CEC -A- e-109/A,

and non-pH-dependent. The Poisson equation describes the c
-a

decay in electric potential 4 with distance from a particle sur-

face x as IS

d240 47rr (7)

d x2 etw
where ewo = the static dielectric constant of water.
The concentration of ions n as a function of potential is given I d6 12 24 36 48
by the Boltzmann equation as Distance from Soil Particle Surface,
(a)
-xVe)0 i 3
(8)
kT
where no is the ion concentration of an extract from a saturated
paste, V is the valence, k is Boltzmann's constant, and T is
absolute temperature.
The application of (7) and (8) would lead to impossibly high U

ion concentrations at the particle surfaces, since these equa-

tions are for point charges. Therefore, a consideration of c

common cations with hydrated radii of the order of 3-10 A

leads to a modification of these equations by defining the pres-
ence of the so-called "Stern layer" adjacent to the particle sur-
faces wherein a finite number of cations are closely packed.
Beyond the Stern layer, the concentration of cations decreases
exponentially with distance and is referred to here as the Gouy
layer. In Fig. 3, the electric potential and ion concentration as
predicted by the Stern-Gouy double-layer model are shown as
a function of distance from a particle surface.
Distance from Soil Particle Surface A
Since cations in both the Stern and Gouy layers must com-
(b)
pensate for the surface-charge density
Fig. 3. Effect of the Stern-Gouy double-layer model on (a) electric
a U1 + 2, ESU cm-2 (9) potential and (b) ion concentration as a function of distance from
hydrophilic soil-particle surfaces.
where the subscripts 1 and 2 refer to the Stern and Gouy layers,
respectively.
These charge densities can be calculated at a given tempera- bulk Au X 10- 3
no =
ions cm (15)
ture by

B [y +(1.6 ;X 10-12) (10) The surface adsorption potential is in electronvolts, M is the

molecular weight of water, Orbulk is the conductivity of a soil
and extract in mS * cm-', and 045 is the electric potential at the
boundary between the Stern and Gouy layers.
02 = X sinh (Y6 /2) (11) Substituting (10) and (11) into (9) yields a transcendental
where expression that is numerically solved by iteration for seed
values of Y6 until convergence is obtained.
(cwonokT )1/2 (12) For a given soil, the constants B and X are calculated from
the measured cation exchange capacity, specific surface, and
conductivity of a soil extract assuming values of V 2 for =

B
Mno eV CEC X 10-9 (13) calcium-saturated soils, = 0.1 eV, ewo = 80.1, T= 200C, and
As d,5 3 A. Table I lists the resultant charge densities in the
=

Stern and Gouy layers as computed by the preceding approach

TVe (14) for the five soils. Although in the present discussion is as-
=kT sumed to be constant, it may actually be soil-specific.
DOBSON et aL: MICROWAVE DIELECTRIC BEHAVIOR OF WET SOIL-PART II 39

The average conductivity in the Gouy layer at saturation aG mineral fraction dominates both the distribution and nature of
is proportional to the specific surface as soil water, the inclusions are assumed to be disc-shaped, which
leads to Aj = (0, 0, 1). In addition, e* has a potential range of
As at2 X 109 es . * .< em, and it is assumed that e* = em. For a four-com-
UG A(lI -/p5-Asd6 X 104)' Ms (16) ponent system with inclusions of bound Stern-layer water, bulk
Gouy4ayer water, and air, (20) can be written
The net conductivity at saturation is the sum of aG and Ubulk,
and at volumetric moisture mv the conductivity can be calcu- 3es + 2 VfW (efw es) + 2 Vbw (Ebw - es) + 2 Va (Ca - es)
lated at high moisture contents by Emm
= )+ VbW(" l)Va
+ Vfew 1)+Vwew~l+
33+fW( Vaea i1
=(UGV Ubulk)(ml
(>mvu
+ l-Pb/Ps-PbAsd8 X 104)
(21)
- PbAS d6 104
X

mS - cm-'. (17) where the subscripts bw, fwv, a, and s refer to bound Stern-
layer water, free Gouy-layer water, air, and soil, respectively.
Equation (17) provides an accurate description only for very The volume fractions of each component are computed for
high moisture contents for which the assumption of an infinite each soil at a given water content and bulk density by the soil
solution adjacent to particle surfaces is approximately satisfied; physical model presented earlier; Ca is 1.0 and es is determined
it does not account for the progressive displacement of cations by an empirical fitting of the data presented in Part I for
from the Gouy layer into the Stern layer for decreasing soil soils having extremely low moisture contents. The resultant
moistures (where the double layers of adjacent particles in- expression
creasingly interact). This condition is better approximated by
es = (1.01 + 0.44 p,)2 - 0.062 (22)
am (OG + Oabulk) ( Pb/Ps
Pb As
d6X104)
-
yields es3 4.7 at the specific densities given in Table 1. Equa-
tion (22) is nearly identical to that obtained by Shutko [21]
mS - cm-'. (18) and Krotikov [22] for other soils. efw is derived at a given
frequency assuming a Debye-type relaxation as modified by
which does not go to infinity when mu = Pb As d6 104 (the Lane and Saxton [23] to account for ionic conductivity losses
water volume fraction of the Stern layer).
Finally, an approximate average salinity of the Gouy-layer
ekIw= W. + 1~~ew0
-
6w-o
volume fraction VfW is given by [191 I (27r fr )2
+
o
(23)
Sm -0.64umv 0/00 (1 9) and
assuming that all hydrated ions have equivalent specific con- , 27Trrffrw (ewo ew-
E) am
ductances. (24)
6fw = 1+ (2r fr,) 27rrof
III. FOUR-COMPONENT DIELECTRIC MIXING MODEL
where
The macroscopic dielectric behavior of the soil system is
described by the single mixing of the four components esta- I
is the real part of the relative permittivity of water,
blished by the physical soil fhodel, i.e., dry soil solids, bound ef7 is the imaginary part of the relative permittivity of
water in the Stern layer, bulk water in the Gouy layer, and air. water,
Mixing is accomplished by means of an approach that de Loor
[201 found useful in describing heterogeneous aqueous mix- ewoo the high-frequency limit of ew,
is
tures. ewo is the static dielectric constant of water,
The soil solids are considered a host medium containing ran- f is the frequency in hertz,
domly distributed and oriented inclusions. The general form i-w is the relaxation time of water,
of the model for calculating the dielectric constant of the mix- amv is the effective conductivity of water in S m-
ture Em is given by de Loor [20] as and
e0 is the permittivity of free space equal to 8.854 X
3 Vi 3- 1 1o-12 F m-1.
Em =es + (ei -
es)Z (e/ 1 (20)
i=i 3j=1 +
E* The effective ionic conductivity is calculated for the Gouy
layer from its average ion concentration as described earlier.
where e. and ej are the relative permittivities of the host (soil The optical limit of ew has been found to be independent of
solids) and the inclusions (air, bound water, and free water) temperature and salinity [23], [24], with ew°° = 4.9. The
respectively, e* is the effective relative permittivity near known temperature and salinity effects on the static dielectric
boundaries, Ai represents the depolarization ellipsoid factors, constant of water ewos the relaxation time Tw, and the ionic
and Vi refers to the volume fractions of the inclusions. conductivity amv are calculated from empirical expressions de-
Since, according to the soil physical model, the plate-like clay rived by Stogryn [24], and their impact on the frequency
40 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. GE-23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1985

120r An I
El El'
- S 60/°oo
-
Field 5 - Silty Clay A
S = 300/oo
31 100 F * Emeas
w
4-
-- S 60/o 25 -* Ec,, Assuming Lb, = Eice
U: S 0%o
4)
=
A Ecaic Assuming Lebw=ater m
m
3: 80 - with Salinity of 5%.. *
16 2
Frequency: 6.0 GHz
-~~~~~~~~
c
:2 60 -
4,1U_ ?O
1^
c
0
u
li
.L- 40 -
t; 15 -
a,
W
m C-)
20
As ^ At
10.5 tL_
E ^^,
U. .....,..
1 2 5 10 20
Frequency (GHz)
Fig. 4. Effect of salinity on the dielectric properties of bulk water at AA S
20'C (from Stogryn [241). 0~~~~~

O0*
0.1
0.0 0.20l2* 0.3 0.4 0.5 ,35
Volumetric Moisture my (cm3 cm-3)
Fig. 6. Moisture dependence of e calculated by the four-component
mixing model with various assumptions for ebw at 6 GHz.

tions of soil type, density, and moisture content, with no

E 64
E
I be simplistic in view of the measurements made by Hoekstra
5
I (bi Equation
3. 2
'Is
18
0.00.2 0.3
0.1 0.4
Volumetric Moisture, g cm-3
0.5 0.6
Fig. 5. Effective conductivity and salinity of Gouy-layer water as a
function of volumetric water content for loam (Field 2) and silty clay
(Field 5).
behavior of the dielectric constant of water at 200C is shown
in Fig. 4 for salinities from 0 to 60 0O/o.
The effective conductivity, as computed earlier, is shown in
Fig. 5 as a function of the volumetric water content mu for
loam and silty clay. It is assumed that the conductivity Umr <
200 mS cm-', which corresponds to a salinity of approxi-
mately 128 0/00 from (19). Ion concentrations in excess of
those needed to yield am v = 200 mS * cm1i are assumed to
lead to the precipitation of salts. Note that the measured con-
ductivity of extracts from saturated soil pastes abulk is approx-
imately 1.0 mS cm-' for the soils shown in Fig. 5, whereas
- errors is shown in Fig. 7 for silty clay (Field 5) at m, = 0.1 and
the effective average conductivity in the Gouy layer Umr is
shown to be at least an order of magnitude greater, even at
saturation, due to the diffusion of cations in the double layer.
As a consequence, the dramatic frequency dependence of saline
solutions, and especially of the imaginary part of the dielectric
constant, observed in Fig. 4 may partially account for the large
unexplained dielectric losses observed at low frequencies by
various investigators [2], [4], [8], [9], [26]
The preceding discussion presents the methodology for cal-
culating macroscopic soil dielectric properties as explicit func-
adjustable parameters. In addition to the assumptions listed
previously, the model, as implemented, tacitly assumes that
there is no distinctive relaxation for bound water, which may
32
[4], [27].
12.8 The four-component mixing model was used to estimate the
dielectric constant for each of the 809 measurements presented
6.4 in Part I for the five soils between 1 .4 and 18 GHz. Since the
dielectric properties of bound water Ebw are not known, the
following assumptions were tested: 1) Ebw = eice (3.15 - j0),
2) Ebw = e of saline water at S = 5 0/00 and T = 220C, and 3)
Cbw= 35- j15.
A sample comparison between the measured (Emeas) and cal-
culated (ecaic) values is shown in Fig. 6 for silty clay at a fre-
quency of 6 GHz. Any assumptions concerning the nature of
Eb, will have a small effect on the model calculations for sandy
soils, since VbW is always small. For soils with a greater clay
content and hence a greater As, however, the effect of ebW
becomes apparent. For all five soils, the use of ebw = Eice leads
to an underprediction of e' at all frequencies with a magnitude
of Ae' = Eneas - Ecalc that is dependent on soil type. Ec'c
agrees well with me assuming that ebw = Eice at all fre-
quencies and for all soils except for silty clay (Field 5) for
which e" is underpredicted by a quantity that increases slightly
with frequency. The frequency dependence of prediction
03. Since the mixing model is dependent upon soil bulk den-
sity, the calculated curves shown in Fig. 7 are based upon the
mean Pb of the samples measured by the waveguide and free-
space techniques at each m, and for each soil. The point values
shown in Fig. 7 are those calculated from second-order poly-
nomial expressions dependent upon mu,, and soil texture, which
were presented in Part I [13] at each frequency.
. When Ebw is assumed to be that of a saline solution, Fig. 6
and 7 show ecalc (both real and imaginary parts) to be greater
than 6meas by a quantity that decreases as a function of fre-
DOBSON et al.: MICROWAVE DIELECTRIC BEHAVIOR OF WET SOIL-PART I4 41

.U I1
1
Field 5 - Silty Clay m= 0.1cm3cCM-3 20 0. 3 CM3 CM-3
Pb =1.2gCM-3
_* EaIc from Polynomial Fits
Ecalc Assuming bw = Ewater with Sal Inity 5%..
4J1 Ecalc Assuming Ebw = Cice w 15
4
-- Ecaic Assuming ebw =35- i 15 41
c
0
E' W
a c
5 0
4z u
10
u * *- *-
r 4.1
13 u

5
- - - - - - -- -
- - - - -- - - -
- - - -

__ u II
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Frequency (GHz) Frequency (GHz )
(a) (b)
Fig. 7. Frequency dependence of e calculated by the four-component
mixing model with various assumptions for ebw for (a) silty clay
with m0 = 0.1 and (b) silty clay with mu = 0.3.

50U , -in .I I %n ,
Field 1 - Sandy Loam Frequency: 6.0 GHz KFrequency: 18.0 GHz
* Cmeas

25 LA Ecalc Semiempirical Mode 25 A 25

- 0 clc Four-Component Moe I
- Frequency: 1.4GHz A

A 'a
, 20 w 20 w 20
A

4.
a 0 A I~E'
A a
LI A LI
15 A 15
qa
a
- ~~A
de I I 2 0 A I "I#C,
.!-
S~~~ A
C.
1-
-!
10 10
A
sC _ Aa
AI A
A
A C"
- ,5 0.
A
a
Ag C.
- A I a 5 - A* *
IA
8
a' a .A -i a
'U0
I
_
I t *iit
().
u ffi-
- .6
I-
-
1
ILi i * a II
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0. .0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Volumetric Moisture my (cm3 cm-3) Volumetric Moisture my (cm3 cM-3) Volumetric Moisture m. (cm3cm-3)
(a) (b) (C)
Fig. 8. Comparison of measured e and that calculated by the semiem-
pirical model and the theoretical four-component model (ebw = 35 -
i15) for sandy loam (Field 1) at (a) 1.4 GHz, (b) 6 GHz, and (c)
18 GHz.

quency for e' and increases as a function of frequency for e". frequencies but the model tends to underpredict Emea by a
Furthermore, the magnitude of Ac is observed to be related to magnitude that increases with frequency, especially for min
clay content via the bound water volume fraction. In spite of 0.3 g cm-3 and for silty clay (Field 5). In Figs. 8-11, errors
these prediction errors, the values of Ecalc closely follow the in predicting the imaginary part of the dielectric constant using
trend of eme, at each frequency and for each soil, which sug- the model are also shown to be dependent upon moisture,
gests that bound water does exhibit a dielectric relaxation at a frequency, and soil. Although c"jl is always greater than "
frequency lower than that of pure water. In addition, it is the magnitude of the difference Ae decreases with increasing
apparent from Fig. 6 that cw is approximately one-half that moisture for m 0.2 g cm-3 Also, the magnitude of Ac _
.

of pure water. tends to increase with increasing frequency for sands and loam
These observations are supported by the dielectric values cal- soils and to decrease with increasing frequency for silty clay.
culated with the assumption that Ebw = 35 - j 15 shown in Fig. A tabulation of Ave and the results of linear regression of ecalc
7, and these values yield a better fit to the measured data than with Eme. are shown at each frequency in Table II.
the previous two assumptions. In Figs. 8 and 9, ecalc is shown Assuming that the physical soil model and the four-compo-
to be approximately equivalent to Cmea at low moisture con- nent mixing model are appropriate formulations, the preceding
tents; for high moisture contents (mi 0.3 g * cm-3) and for prediction errors suggest the following:
f> 4 GHz,- ecalc is generally less than Cmeas. With respect to 1) The trends of Ae' with respect to mv,f, and soil type in-
frequency, ecc agrees well with the measured values at low dicate that the effective conductivity of the bulk solution in
42 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. GE-23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1985

'5n U 30 30 II II II
Field 5 Silty Clay A -I
a Frequency: 6.0 GHz Frequency: 18.0 GHz
- meas I

_A Ecalc Semiempi ricol Model

25 25 25
0 Ecaic Four-Component Model a
0-

Frequency: 1.4 GHz A

As
A
, 20 w 20 w 20
4J1 4-J
C:
s
4J
M El
A
( (-.
15 A 15 A 15 *
a I-
A
u 4-
Ag
A
.a!
10
!
10 cz 1
- ^ A

- * a B"S~ 4
-AA _A

I ;- . C l"
. -~
5 5
AA
5
it at I

*
a."
U 'I-- U
I I nI
-

I
It
C.I
Et
II II
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.40.3 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 O0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Volumetric Moisture m, (CM3 cm-3) Volumetric Moisture mr (cm3 cm-3) Volumetric Moisture mn (cm3 cm-31
(a) (b) (C)
Fig. 9. Comparison of measured e and that calculated by the semiem-
pirical model and the theoretical four-component model (ebw = 35 -
j15) for silty clay (Field 5) at (a) 1.4 GHz, (b) 6 GHz, and (c)
18 GHz.

10 in
lU . r-- r-
F iield 1 Sandy Loam
Field 3 - Silt Loom
- m=0.1
a E:,, I from Polynomial Fits at Each Frequency
ECacc from Semilemplrical Model
- ECalc from Four-Component Model 4.1

4)
(A _ E'
4-
o~~~~ a
0
a; 5 5
4 EC, - * _ _ a *
u

V) L
I4,

.Ew
;

u _I_ 0 I I I I I

6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2 4 6 10
8 12 14 16 18
Frequency (GHz) Frequency (GHz)
(a) (b)
10
Field 5 -Sil1ty Clay

4J
n
a
E'
0
(i
5
v

\ "

I
O"I ,I ,,
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Frequency (GHz)
(c)

Fig. 10. Frequency dependence of the semiempirical model and the

theoretical four-component model (ebw = 35 - j15) at low moisture
contents (mi = 0.1), for (a) sandy loam (Field 1), (b) silt loam
(Field 3), and (c) silty clay (Field 5).
DOBSON et

II

20
al.: MICROWAVE DIELECTRIC BEHAVIOR OF WET SOIL-PART II

II~~~~~~~~~~~~ 20 _ Field 3 -Silt Loam

43

15 w 15
Field 1 Sandy Loam _ i
mv =0.3
4-
_*Ec fram Polynomial Fits at Each Frequency
49
10 Ecalc from Seminempirical Model
aJ
0
Ecalc from Four-Component Model
,
-
10
Et
Li C-

5 I_ 5

X,
&ItI v in_
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Frequency (GHz) Frequency (GHz)
(a) (b)
r

20 L Field 5 - Silty Clay

w 15
4.1
_- -__

-----
--
r- -IL C" - - _
_-
5

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
-"t~~ aI

1u _
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Frequency (GHz)
(C)
Fig. 11. Frequency dependence of the semiempirical model and- the
theoretical four-component model (ebw = 35 j 15) at moderately
high moisture content (mi = 0.3) for (a) sandy loam (Field 1),
(b) silt loam (Field 3), and (c) silty clay (Field 5).

TABLE II
ACCURACY OF MODEL PREDICTIONS
AE Emeas calc Emeas = A + B ccalc Four-component model assumes: = 35 - j

Theoretical Four-Component Mixing Model Semiempirical Refractive Mixing Model

Frequency Te: SD0 A B r2 SEE N ScSD A B r0 SEE

1.4 E 0.01 0.49 0.01 1.000 .998 0.50 53 -0.03 3.18 -1.29 1.044 .984 0.92
E -0.20 0.32 -0.17 0.987 .964 0.33 53 0.09 0.38 0.02 1.035 .951 0.38
4 -0.14 2.39 0.66 0.983 .986 0.95 156 -0.63 2.96 -0.68; 1.027 .985 0.98
E -0.52 0.40 -0.27 0.914 .962 0.37 156 -0.11 0.38 -0.27 1.066 .963 0.36
6 E 0.21 2.61 0.43 1.013 .989 0.83 160 -0.13 2.28 -0.84 1.050 .986 0.94
C -0.62 0.43. -00.25 0.895 .979 0.33 160 -0.18 0.34 -0.29 1.034 .979 0.34
8 E 0.52 1.89 0.42 1.022 .982 0.87 74 0.31 2.24 -0.47 1.010 .982 0.89
C -0.53 0.53 -0.09 0.877 .965 0.43 74 -0.19 0.37 -0.11 0.975 .975 0.36
10 E 0.29 1.92 0.42 1.026 .980 0.86 77 0.19 2.12 -0.42 1.008 .979 0.88
C -0.41 0.45 -0.16 0.935 .977 0.41 77 -0.10 0.38 -0.20 1.029 .981 0.37
12 0.25 2.25 0.45 1.025 .971 0.94 89 0.12 2.12 -0.39 1.005 .965 1.05
E" -0.43 0.66 -0.16 0.939 .952 0.63 89 -0.13 0.59 -0.24 1.026 .958 0.59
14 0.48 1.38 0.51 1.015 .980 0.75 62 -0.37 0.80 -0.15 0.976 .977 0.80
C -0.32 0.42 -0.19 0.966 .984 0.41 62 -0.14 0.41 -0.24- 1.028 .984 0.41
16 e 0.40 2.00 0.28 1.072 .981 0.74 50 -0.11 0.79 -0.33 1.027 .979 0.78
e" -0.25 0.39 -0.12 0.968 .988 0.37 50 -0.11 0.36 -0.19 1.022 .989 0.36
18 ' 0.28 2.28 0.25 1.085 .978 0.72 88 -0.17 1.20 -0.38 1.041 .975 0.77

E -0.35 0.42 -0.18 0.956 .985 0.40 88 -0.24 0.40 -0.27 1.008 .985 0.40
All -0.21 2.16 0.54 1.005 .985 0.87 809 -0.14 2.25 -0.56 1.023 .982 0.93
e" -0.45 0.47 -0.22 0.937 .972 0.44 809 -0.14 0.41 -0.20 1.019 .988 0.41
44 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. GE-23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1985
the Gouy layer is overestimated for surface adsorption potential
4 = 0.1; therefore, a value of 4 > 0.1 may be more appro-
priate and would result in an increase in e . The moisture-
and soil-dependent magnitudes of Ac" also suggest that either
4 should be greater than 0.1 or that the conductive loss in the
"free" Gouy-layer water is overestimated using (18).
2) Underpredictions of e' at very low mu suggest either e .
4.7 - jO as given by (22) or e, > 35.
3) Overprediction of e" at low m, suggests that e, < 15.
In the case of silty clay, the frequency dependence of Ae" in-
dicates that bound water may undergo dielectric relaxation at
a frequency near that for brine.
While it is possible to invert (21) to calculate an optimum
Ebw for each measured data point, the validity of the result is
heavily dependent upon 1) the measurement accuracy of
emeas and soil physical parameters such as mu, Pb, As, and
CEC, 2) the possible effect of soil organic matter (not ac-
counted for in either the soil or the dielectric mixing models),
and 3) the validity of assumed values for surface adsorbtion
potential and Stern-layer thickness. Such a study would be
more appropriately based on inorganic soils having more strictly
defined physical properties than the agricultural field soils
examined here. Although no attempt has been made to opti-
mize Ebw (f), the assumption that ebW 22 35 - j15 generally
yields prediction errors As within the measurement accuracy
limitations specified in Part I [13] , as shown in Table II.
IV. SEMIEMPIRICAL MODEL
Not all of the input quantities for the theoretical four-com-
ponent mixing model are readily available for specific soils,
and some of these parameters are not constant over time for a
given soil. Therefore, for certain applications, simple empirical
models with input parameters that can be easily determined
are more convenient. The simplest such approach is given by
the polynomial expressions derived in Part I [13] relating the
dielectric constant to the volumetric moisture mu and the
percentage of sand and clay fractions at each frequency. A
more convenient empirical expression that also accounts for
the frequency dependence of c, is presented in the following.
The Birchak mixing model, based upon refractive volumetric
mixing, is given as [29]
em 3Ve
= (25)
where a is a constant shape factor; when a = 0.5, (25) describes
refractive mixing. When applied to moist soil, (25) may be
written as
et es+ Va es+ Vfwetw + Vbw 6b(26)
=Vs
where the subscripts s, a, frw, and bw refer to solid soils, air,
free water, and bound water, respectively. Since the complex
dielectric constant of bound water is not well known, and its
volume fraction is available only after lengthy calculations,
the following approximation is made:
me +fw =- Vfw efw + Vbw ebw (27)
where the value of the empirical constant j3 depends on the
textural composition of the soil.
The value of the shape factor a is established by using the
soil model presented earlier to apportion the soil water into
bound and free volume fractions and to provide estimates of
efw. Inserting these estimates into (26) and optimizing for both
a' and e" over all frequencies and soils yields a = 0.65 as a con-
stant. For a given soil with bulk density Pb and specific density
ps, the final expression for the semiempirical model is
6a 1 + Pb (6-1) + MO ef,, ma.
= (28)
PS
The value of es is calculated for a given ps by (22). The dielec-
tric constant of free water is calculated at a given frequency
and temperature using a modified Debye equation
ewO Ewo, j(eff Ps Pb
(29)
e-e 1 +j27rfxw 27rfeO PS m,
where all terms are defined as in (23) and (24) except that the
effective conductivity Ueff is an empirically derived function of
soil texture.
Using a = 0.65, the values of the soil-texture-dependent co-
efficient ,3 and aeff were optimized for each soil, using (28)
and (29). The resultant values are related to the soil texture
of the five soils by
gel = (127.48 - 0.519S - 0.152C)/100 (30)
gel,= (1.33797 - 0.603S - 0.1 66C)/100 (31)
aeff =1.645+1.939Pb -0.02013S+0.01594C (32)
where S and Care the percentage of sand and clay, respectively.
The regressions for : are based upon the data at all frequencies
from 1.4 to 18 GHz, whereas that for Ueff is based only upon
the 1.4-GHz data, since the effect of ionic conductivity de-
creases rapidly with increasing frequency.
Using ca = 0.65, the semiempirical mixing model defined by
(28)432) is applied to measured m, for each soil and yields
the calculated values plotted in Figs. 8 and 9 as a function of
mV. The semiempirical model is shown in Figs. 8 and 9 to
produce values of ecalc that are more linearly dependent upon
mu than the measured values, as evidenced by the model's
tendency to overestimate e at low moisture contents and
underestimate e at high moisture contents. The magnitude of
the prediction error is also dependent upon soil type; at high
mu Ae' increases with clay fraction and at low mv Ae' is least
for loams. Consequently, the differences between the soil
types observed in the measured data are generally not as dis-
cernible in the values calculated by the modified Birchak model.
The intrinsic problem with this simple semiempirical approach
is its lack of sensitivity to the curvature of the measured e with
respect to mu. The error Ae, however, is shown to be relatively
small in Table II, with a mean of -0.142 and -0.136 and a
standard deviation of 2.248 and 0.409 for c' and e", respec-
tively, over all soils, moistures, and frequencies. The standard
deviation about the mean Ae' is also observed to decrease at
high frequencies, since the curvature related to the difference
between b,, and ef, decreases at high frequencies.
DOBSON et at: MICROWAVE DIELECTRIC BEHAVIOR OF WET SOIL-PART II
The frequency dependence of the semiempirical model is
illustrated by Figs. 10 and 11 and is compared to the depen-
dence calculated by the four-component theoretical model and
to that calculated at specific frequencies using the polynomial
expressions presented in Part I [13] . ecalc is shown to be ap-
proximately equal to eeas at all frequencies except at 1.4
GHz.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Two dielectric models have been presented describing the di-
electric behavior of moist soils at frequencies from 1.4 to 18
GHz. The semiempirical mixing model requires inputs that are
readily available and yields good agreement with the measured
data at frequencies greater than 4 GHz. The model's perfor-
mance at frequencies of less than 4 GHz is limited by the effects
[8] R. E. Newton, and W. R. McClellan, "Permittivity measurements
of bound water, which impart a greater soil-dependent curva-
ture to e(m,) than is predicted by the semiempirical model.
At higher frequencies, the soil-water system displays a dielectric [9] J.complex
behavior similar to the familiar Debye relaxation of bulk water;
the semiempirical model (which requires no distinctive dielec-
tric properties for bound water) yields excellent: agreement [101 J.microwave
with the measured data as a function of frequency and moisture [11] G. Schwarz,frequencies,"
content.
Tests of the theorectical four-component dielectric mixing
model as a research model demonstrate the following:
1) In order to fully account for the frequency and soil de-
pendence of c, it is necessary to treat bound water as a distinct
component of the soil-water system.
2) The dielectric properties of bound water are dissimilar to
those of either ice of saline water. A comparison of model
predictions to measured data indicates that bound water is lossy
and has a real part of the dielectric constant e', of the order
of 20 to 40. Furthermore, there is some indication that bound
water exhibits a dielectric relaxation at a frequency or spread
of frequencies lower than that of bulk water.
3) The de Loor mixing approach, which uses disc-like inclu-
sions of air, bulk water, and bound water, is found to be an
appropriate formulation for describing the curvature of e(m0),
the soil texture and bulk density dependence of e, and the fre-
quency dependence of e from 1.4 to 18 GHz.
4) The soil physical model (assuming a plate-model with a 3-
A-thick bound-water layer) provides reasonable estimates of
both the volume fraction of bound water and the effective
conductive loss of the bulk soil solution. As a result of the
diffusion of cations into the soil solution, the effective con-
ductive loss of the bulk solution isoshown to be at least an order
of magnitude greater than that measured for a solution ex-
tracted from a saturated soil paste. Suggested model refine-
ments include considering 1) the surface adsorption potential
as being soil-specific and 2) the interaction between adjacent
double layers when soil particle separations are small.
[241 A. Stogryn, "Equations for calculating the dielectric constant of
REFERENCES
[25] A. M. Shutko and E. M. Reutov, "Mixture formulas applied in
[1] M. L. Weibe, "Laboratory measurements of the complex dielec-
tric constant of soils," Texas A&M Univ., College Station, TX,
Tech. Rep. RSC-23, Oct. 1971.
45
[2] Y. I. Leschanskiy, G. N. Lebedeva, and V. D. Schumilin, "Elec-
trical parameters of sandy and loamy soils in the range of centi-
meter, decimeter and meter wavelength,"Izv. Vyss. Ucheb. Zaved.
Radiofiz., vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 562-569, 1971.
[3] F. E. Geiger, and D. Williams, "Dielectric constants of soils at
microwave frequencies," Nat. Aeronautics and Space Admin.,
Rep. NASA TMS-65987, Apr. 1972.
[4] P. Hoekstra and A. Delaney, "Dielectric properties of soils at
UHF and microwave frequencies," J. Geophys. Res., vol. 79, pp.
1699-1708, 1974.
[5] J. E. Hipp, "Soil Electromagnetic parameters as a function of fre-
quency, soil density, and soil moisture," Proc. IEEE, vol. 62, pp.
98-103, 1974.
[6] J. R. Lundien, "Terrain analysis by electromagnetic means," U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS,
Tech. Rep. 3-727, Feb. 1971.
[7] J. L. Davis, G. C. Topp, and A. D. Annan, "Electromagnetic de-
tection of soil water content," Progress Rep. II, in Workshop
Proc., Remote Sensing of Soil Moisture and Groundwater, (Royal
York Hotel, Toronto, Canada), 1976.
of soils at L-band," Texas A&M Univer., College Station, TX,
Tech. Rep. RSC-58, June 1975.
R. Wang and T. J. Schmugge, "An empirical model for the
dielectric permittivity of soils as a function of water
content," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol. GE-18, pp.
288-295, 1980.
R. Wang, "The dielectric properties of soil-water mixtures at
Radio Sci., vol. 15, pp. 977-985, 1980.
"A theory of the low-frequency dielectric dispersion
of colloidal particles in electrolyte solution," J. Phys. Chem., vol.
66, pp. 2636-2642, 1962.
[121 D. Wobschall, "A theory of the complex dielectric permittivity of
soil containing water, the semidisperse model," IEEE Trans.
Geosci. Electron., vol. 15,no. 1, pp. 29-58, 1977.
[13] M. T. Hallikainen, F. T. Ulaby, M. C. Dobson, M. A. El-Rayes,
L. Wu, "Microwave dielectric behavior of wet soil, Part I: Empiri-
cal models and experimental observations from 1.4 to 18 GHz,"
IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, this issue, pp. 25-34.
[141 L. M. Arya and J. F. Paris, "A physicoempirical model to predict
the soil moisture characteristic from particle-size distribution
and bulk density data," Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J., vol. 45, no. 6, pp.
1023-1030, 1981.
[15] S. D. Christian and E. T. Tucker, "Micropore distribution analysis
based on gas adsorption measurements, Part II," Amer. Lab, pp.
47-55,Oct. 1981.
[16] H. Van Olphen, An Introduction to Clay Colloid Chemistry.
New York: Wiley, 1963.
[17] K. L. Babcock, "Theory of the chemical properties of soil colloidal
systems at equilibrium," Hilgardia, vol. 34, no. 11, Aug. 1963.
[181 J. K. Mitchell, Fundamentals of SoilBehavior. New York: Wiley,
1976.
[19] C. A. Black, D. D. Evans, J. L. White, L. E. Ensminger, and F. E.
Clark, Methods of Soil Analysis, Part 2: Chemical and Microbio-
logical Properties, Agronomy, no. 9. Madison, WI: Amer. Soc.
Agron., 1965.
[20] G. P. de Loor, "Dielectric properties of heterogeneous mixtures
containing water," J. Microwave Power, vol. 3-2, pp. 67-73,
1968.
[211 A. M. Shutko, "Microwave radiometry of lands under natural and
artificial moistening," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote Sensing, vol.
GE-20, no. ",pp. 18-26, Jan. 1982.
[22] V. D. Krotikov, "Dielectric properties of dry soils," Izv. Vuzov.
Radiophyz., vol. 5, no. 6, p. 1057, 1962.
[23] J. A. Lane and J. A. Saxton, "Dielectric dispersion in pure polar
liquids at very high radar frequencies, III, The effect of electro-
lytes in solution," Proc. Roy. Soc. London, vol. 214, pp. 531-
545, 1952.
saline water," IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory Tech., vol. MTT-19,
pp. 733-736, 1971.
estimation of dielectric and radiative characteristics of soils and
grounds at microwave frequencies," IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote
Sensing, vol. GE-20, no. 1, Jan. 1982.
46 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING, VOL. GE-23, NO. 1, JANUARY 1985

[261 Y. L. Leshchanskii and N. V. YI'Yanychev, "Calculation of the Fawwaz T. Ulaby (M'68-SM'74-F'80), for a photograph and biography,
electrical parameters of sandy-clay soils at meter and centimeter please see page 34 of this issue of this TRANSACTIONS.
wavelengths," Izv. Vyss. Ucheb. Zaved. Radiofiz., vol. 23, no. 5,
pp. 529-532, May 1980.
(271 P. Hoekstra and W. T. Doyle, "Dielectric relaxation of surface
adsorbed water," J. Colloid Interface Sci., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. *
513-521, 1971.
[28] M. C. Dobson, F. T. Ulaby, M. El-Rayes, and M. Hallikainen,
"Microwave dielectric behavior of wet soil, Part II: Four com-
ponent dielectric mixing model," Remote Sensing Laboratory, Martti T. Hallikainen (M'83), for a biography, please see page 34 of this
Univ. of Kansas Center for Research, Inc., Lawrence, KS, RSL issue of this TRANSACTIONS.
Tech. Rep. 545-2, 1983.
[29] J. R. Birchak, C. G. Gardner, J. E. Hipp, and J. M. Victor, "High
dielectric constant microwave probes for sensing soil moisture,"
Proc. IEEE, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 93-98, Jan. 1974. *
*

Myron C. Dobson (M'83), for a photograph and biography, please see Mohamed A. El-Rayes, for a photograph and biography, please see page
page 34 of this issue of this TRANSACTIONS. 34 of this issue of this TRANSACTIONS.