www.nature.

com/scientificreports

OPEN De‑embedding method

for a sensing area characterization
of planar microstrip sensors
without evaluating error networks
Ugur C. Hasar 1*, Hamdullah Ozturk 1,2, Huseyin Korkmaz 1, Vahid Nayyeri 3* &
Omar M. Ramahi 4
A de-embedding method for determining all scattering (S-) parameters (e.g., characterization) of a
sensing area of planar microstrip sensors (two-port network or line) is proposed using measurements
of S-parameters with no calibration. The method requires only (partially known) non-reflecting
line and reflecting line standards to accomplish such a characterization. It utilizes uncalibrated
S-parameter measurements of a reflecting line, direct and reversed configurations of a non-reflecting
line, and direct and reversed configurations of the sensing area. As different from previous similar
studies, it performs such a characterization without any sign ambiguity. The method is first validated
by extracting the S-parameters of a bianisotropic metamaterial slab, as for a two-port network (line),
constructed by split-ring-resonators (SRRs) from waveguide measurements. Then, it is applied for
determining the S-parameters of a sensing area of a microstrip sensor involving double SRRs next to
a microstrip line. The root-mean-square-error (RMSE) analysis was utilized to analyze the accuracy of
our method in comparison with other techniques in the literature. It has been observed from such an
analysis that our proposed de-embedding technique has the lowest RMSE values for the extracted
S-parameters of the sensing area of the designed sensor in comparison with those of the compared
other de-embedding techniques in the literature, and have similar RMSE values in reference to those
of the thru-reflect-line calibration technique. For example, while RMSE values of real and imaginary
parts of the forward reflection S-parameter of this sensing area are, respectively, around 0.0271
and 0.0279 for our de-embedding method, those of one of the compared de-embedding techniques
approach as high as 0.0318 and 0.0324.

Keywords Planar sensors, Sensing area, S-parameters

Microwave sensors are used in various fields including navigation ­systems1, ­bioengineering2, food ­science3,
and civil ­engineering4. In comparison with optical and mechanical sensors, microwave sensors have unique
advantages such as relatively higher sensitivity, more resistance to environmental changes (pollution, dust, and
dirt), and comparatively lower ­cost5. For a broadband material characterization, various microwave sensors
based on reflection-transmission measurements such as conventional waveguide/coaxial line measurements,
free-space methods, open-ended waveguide or coaxial line measurements, and planar structure measurements
can be utilized. For example, conventional microwave waveguide methods are highly accurate. However, they
are bulky require accurate and elaborate sample machining to eliminate gap effect between waveguide walls
and sample lateral s­ urfaces6,7. To alleviate sample preparation process, free-space methods can be ­used8–10.
Nonetheless, these methods necessitate a sample transverse area greater than the foot print of the antenna at
the examined frequency to eliminate diffraction effects at the sample corners or edges. Besides, open-ended
waveguide or coaxial measurements can be conveniently implemented especially for liquid samples or samples
with planar s­ urfaces11,12. These measurements necessitate, in general, close contact with the sample under test.

1
Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep 27310,
Turkey. 2Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, Gaziantep Islam Science and Technology
University, Gaziantep 27010, Turkey. 3School of Advanced Technologies, Iran University of Science and Technology,
Tehran 1684613114, Iran. 4Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Waterloo, Waterloo,
ON N2L 3G1, Canada. *email: [email protected]; [email protected]

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 1

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Additionally, theoretical analysis essentially assumes that the sample is semi-infinite and extends to infinity at
the probe ­opening12. On the other hand, microwave sensors based on planar topologies take advantage of being
low profile and relatively inexpensive, allowing ease of fabrication, and providing a simple means of sensing or
characterization by measuring the effect of the sample near the sensing ­area13–20.
Measurement setups used in sensor applications in general require some sort of calibration before starting to
measurements. Depending on criteria of applicability, feasibility, bandwidth, and accuracy, a suitable calibration
procedure should be applied to eliminate systematic errors in the measurement system. While short-open-
load-thru (SOLT) and short-open-load-reciprocal (SOLR) calibration techniques are convenient for coaxial
line configurations, thru-reflect-line (TRL), multiline TRL, line-reflect-line (LRL), thru-reflect-match (TRM),
line-reflect-match (LRM), thru-match-reflect-reflect (TMRR), and line-reflect-reflect-match (LRRM) and sliding
short calibration techniques are feasible for probe wafer and waveguide ­configurations21–26. The common goal of
these techniques is to first determine error networks between the vector network analyzer (VNA) and the device
under test using some calibration standards with well-known characteristics. These techniques use at least three
(partially or fully known) standards for device characterization.
In addition to calibration techniques some of which are presented above, de-embedding methods based on
relative measurements could also be applied for a direct transmission line or sample ­characterization27–45 or a
direct two-port device (or network) ­characterization46–49. These methods, contrary to calibration techniques,
do not require an explicit solution of error networks or coefficients to characterize a transmission line, sample,
or full two-port device or network (or line)46. Because the de-embedding methods in the s­ tudies27–45 are limited
to a transmission line or sample characterization, from this point on we will mainly focus on the de-embedding
methods in the s­ tudies46–49 which can be applied for a direct two-port device (or network) characterization (see
Table 1). The de-embedding method proposed in the ­study46 was based on uncalibrated scattering (S-) parameter
measurements of a thru, a non-reflecting line, and the two-port network (a coplanar waveguide discontinuity).
However, it considers that the network has reflection-symmetric property. To generalize this methodology for
a reflection-asymmetric two-port network, we applied a methodology relying on uncalibrated measurements
of a thru, a non-reflecting line, and the two configurations of the device (direct and reversed configurations)47.
Although it is possible to extract forward and backward S-parameters S11 and S22 of a device (in addition to its
forward and backward transmission S-parameters S21 and S12), there are two sign ambiguities in the expressions
of S11 and S22 (four solutions for each of S11 and S22). This necessitates a prior knowledge of S11 and S22 to resolve
this sign ambiguity. To eliminate this drawback, we also proposed two de-embedding ­methods48,49. While the
first ­one48 uses uncalibrated S-parameters of a thru, a non-reflecting line, the device, and a reflecting reference
material next to the device, the second one utilizes uncalibrated S-parameters of a thru, a non-reflecting line,
the direct and reversed configurations of the device. They either fail to remove the sign ambiguity in S11 and S22
measurements at some discrete frequencies or reduce the sign ambiguity problem to two possible solutions of
S11 or S22.
Many of the recent microwave sensor applications require planar resonators (or sensors)13–20 to detect a
variety of sample properties. SMA connectors are generally used for carrying electromagnetic signals from
a VNA through coaxial lines to the planar structure. Calibration techniques such as SOLT or SOLR can be
applied to eliminate systematic errors to the end of the SMA connectors or to the SMA taper or l­auncher50,
as shown in Fig. 1. Nonetheless, it fails to fully remove the effects of SMA taper/launcher and microstrip feed
lines for an accurate full two-port sensing area (device or network (or line)) characterization. In a recent
­study13, the effects of SMA tapers/launchers were de-embedded from planar microwave sensor measurements
by applying a simple procedure based on the T-matrix approach. However, this procedure necessitates some
simplifications in the theoretical analysis. First, it assumed that the reflection coefficient was much smaller than
the transmission coefficient at the SMA connector. Second, it assumed that the SMA tapers or launchers welded
to the stripline were identical. Although both of these assumptions might be in general valid for a typical SMA
taper or launcher section, for a more accurate measurements, a theoretical model taking into account the case
that these two assumptions may not be satisfied should be addressed. Besides, TRL, LRL, TRM, LRM, TMRR,
and LRRM techniques with standards implemented directly at the microstrip section could be effectively applied
for removing the effects of launchers/tapers and even microstrip feedlines next to the sensing area (see Fig. 1).
However, they require at least three different calibration standards to evaluate error networks prior to a full two-
port characterization of the sensing area (see Table 1). Our concern in this study is to perform a full two-port
characterization of a sensing area, as for the two-port device or network shown in Fig. 1, of planar microstrip
sensors (or in general planar microwave sensors) by a de-embedding technique using uncalibrated S-parameters.
Such a characterization is a necessity for a more accurate sample property analysis. To meet such a requirement, in
this study, we propose a deembeeding method to uniquely extract (without any sign ambiguity) all S-parameters
of the sensing area of microstrip sensors (see Fig. 1) from uncalibrated (raw) S-parameter measurements of
(partially known) two different standards without the need for evaluating error networks a priori. As standards,
a reflecting line (with partial reflection) and direct and reversed configurations of a non-reflecting line, whose
propagation constant can be determined, are utilized.

The analysis of the method

Five different measurement configurations composing of two different standards and one device in the
implementation of our method are schematically depicted in Fig. 2. Figure 2a corresponds to the configuration
where a (reciprocal) reflecting line (R-Line) is connected between two unknown error networks X and Y,
which are complex functions of VNA source and load mismatches, impedance change at the connections, SMA
connectors and tapers or launchers, feed lines, etc. Figure 2b illustrates the configuration where a non-reflecting

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 2

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 1.  A planar microstrip sensor with a sensing area (double ring resonators) with feedlines and SMA
tapers or launchers. Here, TX and TY account for the effects of microstrip lines, SMA tapers or lauchers, coaxial
lines with SMA connectors, and VNA systematic errors.

Calibration Technique De-embedding Technique

Parameter SOLT21 TRL22 (or LRL) 46 47–49
PM
Error network Analysis Yes, needed to evaluate No need to evaluate
Number of Standards 4 3 2 2 or 3 2
Full Two-Port Characterization Yes No Yes Yes
Sign Ambiguity No Yes Sometimes No
Realization of Standards Partly difficult Simpler Simpler
New Design Requirement No Yes

Table 1.  Comparison of the proposed method (‘PM’) with other calibration and de-embedding techniques in
the literature.

Figure 2.  Measurement configurations: (a) A reflecting line (R-Line) between error networks X and Y, (b) a
non-reflecting line (NR-Line) next to the R-Line between X and Y, (c) and (d) direct and reversed connections
of a device between X and Y, and (e) the reversed configuration in (b).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 3

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

line (NR-Line) is positioned next to the R-Line between X and Y. Figure 2c,d present the direct and reversed
configurations of the device between X and Y. Finally, Fig. 2e demonstrates the reversed configuration in Fig. 2b.

Wave‑cascaded matrix representation

The well-known wave-cascaded matrix (WCM) representation based on 8-term error model (directivity,
source match, reflecting tracking, transmission) could be used to examine the theoretical a­ nalysis22. For the
configurations in Fig. 2a–e, one obtains
Ma =TX TRL TY , Mb = TX TNRL TRL TY , Mc = TX TD TY , (1)

Md =TX TDinv TY , Me = TX TRL TNRL TY , (2)

where Ma, Mb, Mc , Md , and Me are the WCMs corresponding to the configurations in Fig. 2a–e, respectively; TX
and TY are the WCMs of the error networks X and Y; TRL and TNRL are the WCMs of the reflecting- and non-
reflecting lines; and TD and TDinv are the WCMs of the direct and reversed configurations of the device. Ma , Mb ,
Mc , Md , and Me are related to measured S-parameters:
 
1 S21k S12k − S11k S22k S11k
Mk =
−S22k 1
, (3)
S21k
where k is a, b, c, d, or e. Using (3), it is possible to express TRL , TNRL , TD , and TDinv as
 2
P − Ŵ 2 Ŵ(1 − P 2 )

1
TRL = 2 2 2
(1 − Ŵ 2 )P −Ŵ(1 − P ) 1 − Ŵ P
    (4)
�1 �2 P 0
= , TNRL = 0 ,
−�2 �3 0 1/P0

Ŵ = (zeff − 1)/(zeff + 1), P = e−γeff Lr , P0 = e−γeff,0 Lnr , (5)

√ √
γeff = ik0 εeff , γeff,0 = ik0 εeff,0 , (6)
 D D D SD SD
  D

1 S21 S12 − S11 22 11
1 −D S11
TD = D D 1
= D D , (7)
S21 −S22 S21 −S22 1

D
 
1 −D S22
TDinv = D −SD 1
D D
, D = S11 D D
S22 − S21 S12 . (8)
S12 11

Here, P and Ŵ are the propagation factor of and the first reflection coefficient at the R-Line; P0 is the propagation
factor of the NR-Line; zeff , γeff , εeff , and Lr are the effective normalized impedance, effective propagation constant,
effective permittivity, and length of the R-Line while γeff,0, εeff,0, and Lnr are the effective propagation constant,
effective permittivity, and length of the NR-Line; and S11 D , SD , SD , and SD are the S-parameters of the device.
21 12 22

Elimination of the effects of error matrices X and Y

Using WCMs in (1) and (2), it is possible to eliminate TY 28,30:

Mb Ma−1 =TX TNRL TX−1 , (9)

Me Mb−1 =TX TRL TNRL TRL

−1 −1
TNRL TX−1 , (10)

Mc Mb−1 =TX TD TRL

−1 −1
TNRL TX−1 , (11)

Md Mb−1 =TX TDinv TRL

−1 −1
TNRL TX−1 , (12)

−1 −1 −1
Mc Me−1 =TX TD TNRL TRL TX , (13)

−1 −1
Mc Ma−1 =TX TD TRL TX , (14)

Md Ma−1 =TX TDinv TRL

−1 −1
TX , (15)
where ‘ ⋆−1’ denotes the inverse of the square matrix ‘ ⋆’.
Using the trace operation of a square matrix, which corresponds to the sum of its eigenvalues, one can
­ etermine28,30
eliminate the effect of TX and d

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 4

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

�0 =Tr(Mb Ma−1 ) = Tr(TNRL ), (16)

�1 =Tr(Me Mb−1 ) = Tr(TRL TNRL TRL

−1 −1
TNRL ), (17)

�2 =Tr(Mc Mb−1 ) = Tr(TD TRL

−1 −1
TNRL ), (18)

�3 =Tr(Md Mb−1 ) = Tr(TDinv TRL

−1 −1
TNRL ), (19)

−1 −1
�4 =Tr(Mc Me−1 ) = Tr(TD TNRL TRL ), (20)

−1
�5 =Tr(Mc Ma−1 ) = Tr(TD TRL ), (21)

�6 =Tr(Md Ma−1 ) = Tr(TDinv TRL

−1
). (22)

Obtaining information about calibration standards

We determined from (4) and (16)

P0 = e−γeff,0 Lnr = �0 /2∓ (�0 /2)2 − 1. (23)

Correct sign in (23) can be specified after evaluating γeff,0 and enforcing ℜe{γeff,0 } ≥ 0 for a passive non-reflecting
line. In fact, it is possible to obtain from (4) and (17)

�1 = 2�1 �3 + (P02 + 1/P02 )�22 . (24)

Taking into account that the reflecting line is reciprocal (that is, 1 3 + 22 = 1), then one can derive

�22 = (�1 − 2)/(P02 + 1/P02 − 2). (25)

This means that considering (3) and (4), only one information about the S-parameters (e.g., S11 or S21) of a
reflecting reciprocal line is needed in the implementation of our method.

Determination of S‑parameters of the device

Substituting (4)–(8) into (16)–(22), one can evaluate
D D
 D
(26)

�2 = P0 (�1 + �2 S22 ) + (−�3 �D + �2 S11 )/P0 /S21 ,

D D
 D
(27)

�3 = P0 (�1 + �2 S11 ) + (−�3 �D + �2 S22 )/P0 /S12 ,

D D
 D
(28)

�4 = P0 (�1 + �2 S11 ) + (−�3 �D + �2 S22 )/P0 /S21 ,

D D
 D
(29)

�5 = (�1 + �2 S22 ) + (−�3 �D + �2 S11 ) /S21 ,

D D
 D
(30)

�6 = (�1 + �2 S11 ) + (−�3 �D + �2 S22 ) /S12 .

From (26)–(30), one can determine

�2 P 2 (�1 + �2 S22
D ) + (−� � + � SD )
3 D 2 11
�1 = = 02 D ) + (−� � + � SD )
, (31)
�4 P0 (�1 + �2 S11 3 D 2 22

�2 P 2 (�1 + �2 S22
D ) + (−� � + � SD )
3 D 2 11
�2 = = 0 D ) + (−� � + � SD )
, (32)
�5 P0 (�1 + �2 S22 3 D 2 11

�3 P 2 (�1 + �2 S11
D ) + (−� � + � SD )
3 D 2 22
�3 = = 0 D D)
, (33)
�6 P0 (�1 + �2 S11 ) + (−�3 �D + �2 S22

where P0 can be ascertained from (23).

One can find D from (31)–(33) that

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 5

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

P02 �1 (1 − �1 ) + �2 (1 − P02 �1 )S11

D + � (P 2 − � )SD
2 0 1 22
�D =
�3 (1 − �1 )
�1 (P0 − �2 ) + �2 (1/P0 − �2 )S11 D + � (P − � )SD
2 0 2 22
= (34)
�3 (1/P0 − �2 )
D + � (1/P − � )SD
�1 (P0 − �3 ) + �2 (P0 − �3 )S11 2 0 3 22
= .
�3 (1/P0 − �3 )
Using the equality in (34), one obtains S22
D

D D D
S22 =(�2 S11 + �3 )/�1 = (�5 S11 + �6 )/�4 , (35)

(1 − P02 ) (�1 − P0 �2 )
�1 = , (36)
(1 − �1 ) (1 − P0 �2 )

1 − P02 �1 P0 �2 (1 − P02 )
 
�2 =�1 , �3 = , (37)
1 − �1 �2 (1 − P0 �2 )

4 =1 − P0 3 , 5 = 1 − P0 2 , (38)

�1
�6 = P0 (�3 − �2 ). (39)
�2
Here, 1 and 2 are the quantities in functions of Ŵ and P of the reflecting line in (4) and (5).
After, S11
D is uniquely found from (35)

D
S11 = (�1 �6 − �3 �4 )/(�2 �4 − �1 �5 ). (40)
D is calculated from (40), SD and  can be determined in a simple manner from (34) and (35). Finally,
Once S11 22 D
S21 and S12
D D can be evaluated from (26)–(30). It is noted that (23) can be utilized to determine γ
eff,0 as a byproduct.
Finally, it should be stressed that when P0 approaches unity, as other calibration methods such as the TRL
calibration ­technique22, our proposed method breaks down (2 = 4 = 5 and 3 = 6 ). Therefore, it is
not possible to determine meaningful S11 D , SD , SD , and SD from (26)–(40). Discussion of this point is given in
21 12 22
Section Validation.

Validation
Measurement setup
The rectangular waveguide setup operated at X-band (8.2- 12.4 GHz, a = 22.86 mm, b = 10.16 mm, and
fc = 6.557 GHz) was constructed for validation (see Fig. 3c). The VNA used in our measurements (Keysight
Technologies – N9918A) has a frequency range between 30 kHz and 26.5 GHz. Two longer phase stable coaxial
lines were employed to carry signals. Besides, two coax-to-waveguide adapters were secured to two longer
additional waveguide straights (approximately 200 mm) to suppress high-order modes, if present. Details about
the measurement setup are available i­ n51.

Constructed bianisotropic metamaterial (MM) Slab

S-parameters of a bianisotropic metamaterial (MM) slab loaded into an X-band rectangular waveguide section,
considered as for the device, were performed for the validation of our method. This slab was constructed
by a unit cell with a square edge-coupled split-ring-resonator (SRR), as shown in Fig. 3a with the following
geometrical parameters: Lm = 2.00 mm, w = g = 0.30 mm, ux = d + tm, uy = 2.54 mm, and uz = Lsub = 8.10
mm. Here, tm = 35µm corresponds to the metal thickness (copper material with conductivity σ = 5.8 × 107
S/m) while d = 1.50 mm and Lsub denote, respectively, the substrate thickness and length (FR4 material with
εr,sub = 4.3(1 − i0.025)). Each sub-unit (four SRRs positioned in the y−direction) was fabricated using the
conventional printed circuit ­technology51. As shown in Fig. 3b, the MM slab was formed by locating fourteen
sub-units in cascaded manner in the x−direction. This slab is identical to that in the s­ tudy52, which is just used
here for validation.
The reason for using four SRRs in the y−direction, with fourteen times repetition in the x−direction, was to
ensure a homogeneous material. According to the effective medium ­theory51, repetition periodicity of the unit
cell over a transverse plane should be smaller than one-tenth of the wavelength in order for the intrinsically
inhomogeneous MM slab to be considered as a homogeneous MM slab. In our case, the constructed MM slab
has ux = 1.535 mm and uy = 2.54 mm where ux and uy are the periodicities in the x− and y−directions. Both
ux and uy are considerably less than the wavelength of free-space (around 30 mm) at the middle frequency.
This means that the MM slab satisfies the effective medium assumption. Two extra FR4 substrates (without any
metallic design) with 10.16 × 8.10 × 0.55 mm3 were inserted at the left and right side guide walls for eliminating
air gap ­effect51,52.
While electromagnetic wave is propagating through the MM slab inside a rectangular waveguide, it interacts
with the edge-coupled SRRs. This interaction interaction occurs in the following m ­ anner53. Electric field of the

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 6

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 3.  (a) Dimensions of the examined cell, (b) the MM slab formed by cascaded connection of fourteen
individual units with length Lsub = 8.10 mm, each of which has four SRRs along y−direction (a and b,
respectively, refer to broader and narrower dimensions of the waveguide cross section)52, (c) a picture of the
measurement setup operating at X-band, (d) a picture of the designed TRL calibration kit for microstrip
measurements, (e) electric field distribution around the SRRs (side view), and (f) surface current distribution on
the surface of the metals of SRRs (side view) at 11.867 GHz.

dominant TE10 mode in the y−axis (normal to the slit axis) forces charges with opposite polarities to accumulate
at opposite sides (w.r.t. the z−axis) of both rings (electric excitation). This will in turn produce circulating
currents and then create a magnetic dipole in the x−axis. Figure 3e illustrates electric field distribution (at
the instant of maximum variation) on the plane of SRRs (electric flux lines originating from and ending with
the SRRs) at the frequency of 11.867 GHz around which transmission S-parameter ( S21) has a ­dip51. Besides,
magnetic field of the dominant TE10 mode in the x−direction, which is normal to the plane of SRRs, influences
charges to circulate within the metal of the SRRs (magnetic excitation). This in turn will induce a non-zero net
electric dipole moment in the y−axis. Figure 3f presents surface current distribution (at the instant of maximum
variation) on the surface of the metals of SRRs (circulating current) at the same frequency (11.867 GHz). As
a consequence of such coupling mechanism of electric and magnetic fields over the waveguide cross section,
a non-zero magneto-electric coupling will be p ­ resent53, resulting in a non-identical forward and backward
reflection S-parameters51.

Analysis
Figure 4a–f illustrate the simulated S-parameters (‘Sim.’ with solid lines), measured S-parameters after the TRL
calibration (‘Meas. (TRL)’ with dashed lines), and extracted S-parameters by the proposed method (‘Ext. (PM)’

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 7

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

with dotted lines) of the constructed bianisotropic MM slab. In application of the TRL calibration t­ echnique22,
a waveguide section with a length of 9.4 mm was utilized as for the line standard. Then, calibrated S-parameters
of the constructed bianisotropic MM slab were measured. In application of our method, we implemented the
measurement configurations in Fig. 2a–e using uncalibrated S-parameter measurements with (and without)
the rolling average (RA) procedure applied for frequency range of approximately 42 ­MHz54 calculated from
Nint (fmax − fmin )/Nf where Nint , fmax , fmin, and Nf denote, respectively, the number of intervals (the number of
frequency points), maximum and minimum frequencies the measurements are conducted, and the number of
total intervals (frequency points). In measurements, Nint = 10 (deliberately selected partly greater than the value
used in the s­ tudy54 for better smoothed data), fmax = 12.4 GHz, fmin = 8.2 GHz, and Nf = 1001.
While an empty waveguide section with a length of Lnr = 9.4 mm was used as for the NR-Line, a waveguide
section with a length of Lr = 7.7 mm with a polyethylene (PE) sample (3.85 mm) flushed at its right terminal
was considered as the R-Line. In selection of the length of the NR-Line, as discussed in Section The Analysis of
the Method, we considered the point that P0 does not approach unity. In obtaining simulated S-parameters, the
Computer Simulation Technology (CST) Microwave Studio was ­utilized51. Et = 0 boundary conditions were
applied over the transverse plane ( x = 0, x = a, y = 0, and y = b planes) to imitate hollow metallic waveguide.

Figure 4.  Simulated S-parameters (‘Sim.’ with solid lines), measured S-parameters after the TRL calibration
technique (‘Meas. (TRL)’ with dashed lines), and extracted S-parameters by the proposed method for Lnr = 9.4
mm (‘Ext. (PM) Without RA’ by dashdot lines for the result without RA and ‘Ext. (PM) With RA’ by dotted lines
for the result with RA) of the constructed bianisotropic MM slab. (a) Real and (b) imaginary parts of S11
D , (c) real
and (d) imaginary parts of S21 (= S12), and (e) real and (f) imaginary parts of S22.
D ∼ D D

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 8

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Waveguide ports were positioned at appropriate positions at the z−direction. The adaptive mesh option was set
active in the solver with an accuracy of 10−12 (3rd order solver).
It is noted from Fig. 4a–f that simulated, measured, and extracted S-parameters of the MM slab (S21 D ∼ SD ),
= 12
which has S11 D = SD due to bianisotropic ­behavior51, are in good agreement with each other over entire frequency
22
band. This validates our proposed method. Relatively smaller discrepancies between the simulated and measured/
extracted S-parameters are chiefly a cause of fabrication ­process51. Because our method assumes that P0 = 1.0,
it would be instructive to examine its behavior. Figure 5a demonstrates the real and imaginary parts of P0 of the
used NR-Line with length Lnr = 9.4 mm over frequency. It is seen from Fig. 5a that P0 differs from unity over
the entire frequency band.
In order to examine the effect of Lnr on the extracted S11
D , SD , SD , and SD , we also extracted these S-parameters
21 12 22
for the constructed bianisotropic MM slab by our method using an NR-Line (an empty waveguide section) with
Lnr = 10.16 mm. Figure 6a–f illustrate the extracted S11, S21 (∼
D D
= S12), and S22
D D after applying the RA procedure
for frequency range of approximately 42 MHz. It is noted from Fig. 6a–f that the extracted S11 D , SD , and SD for
21 22
Lnr = 10.16 mm are similar to those for Lnr = 9.4 mm given in Fig. 4a–f (with maximum variation less than 3%).
This indicates not only the non-dependence of our method on Lnr (provided that P0 = 1.0) but also its stability.

Extracted S‑parameters of a sensing area

The examined topology
After validating our proposed method for a bianisotropic MM slab positioned into a waveguide section, we
then proceeded with extraction of S-parameters of a sensing area (or a two-port network (line)) involving SRR
resonators next to a microstrip line. Figure 7a–c illustrate photos of the fabricated configurations of a R-Line, a
NR-Line, and a device with double SRR resonators next to the microstrip line (grounds are not shown for clarity).
The FR4 material with εr,sub = 4.3(1 − i0.025) and thickness dsub = 1.6 mm was used as a substrate
material. Microstrip line, R-Line, NR-Line, Device, and ground were all constructed by the copper material
(σ = 5.8 × 107 S/m and tm = 35µm). For the R-Line, microstrip line with a width of 10.0 mm and a length of
Lr = 9.7 mm (ws = 3.0 mm, see Fig. 1) was considered. This line having an effective relative dielectric constant
of approximately εeff ∼= 3.618 − i0.085 and an effective impedance of approximately Zeff ∼ = 21.881 + i0.258 ­ohm55
introduces symmetric reflections on both sides of the microstrip line.
For the NR-Line, we considered a microstrip line with a width of ws = 3.0 mm (see Fig. 1), and a length of
Lnr = 9.7 mm. This line having an effective relative dielectric constant of approximately εeff,0 ∼ = 3.263 − i0.074
and an effective impedance of approximately 50.573 + i0.571 ­ohm55 produces essentially near-zero reflection.
Figure 5b shows the magnitudes of simulated S-parameters of the configuration of the NR-line next to the R-Line
in Fig. 7b. For microstrip measurements, the setup in Fig. 3c, except for the waveguide sections, was utilized. In
the simulations, the Frequency-Domain solver of the CST Microwave Studio was utilized. Here, Et = 0 was set at
the ground, open boundary conditions with additional space was used on the top, and open boundary conditions
(without additional space) were applied for all configurations in Fig. 7a–c. Waveguide ports whose dimensions
were calculated using the built-in macro function of port extension coefficient were positioned at beginning of
the microstrip lines. Adaptive mesh refinement was activated in the solver with an accuracy of 10−12 (3rd order
solver). It is seen from Fig. 5b that the configuration in Fig. 7b has reflection-asymmetric behavior (|S11 | � = |S22 |).
For the device, two identical resonators (next to the microstrip line) cascaded in longitudinal direction were
considered. The geometrical parameters of this device, as shown in Fig. 1, are as follows: Lr1 = 9.7 mm, Lr2 = 12.7
mm, w = g = 0.9 mm, s = 1.2 mm, Lg1 = 0.40 mm, and Lg2 = 0.50 mm. Besides, the geometrical parameters of
the microstrip line section are Ls1 = 15.85 mm, Ls2 = 12.85 mm (ws = 3.0 mm), and Ls3 = 2.15 mm (the same
for the R-Line and NR-Line configurations in Fig. 7a,b.
Besides, Fig. 7d,e illustrate, respectively, the spatial distributions of electric field around the SRRs (side view)
and surface current on the surface of the metals of SRRs (side view) at 2.193 GHz where |S21 | has a minimum
value. It is seen from Fig. 7d,e that aside from circulating currents, which augment specially for the SRR segment

Figure 5.  (a) Real and imaginary parts of measured P0 for the NR-Line (an empty waveguide section) with
Lnr = 9.4 mm and the NR-Line composed of a microstrip line with Lnr = 9.7 mm and (b) magnitudes of
simulated S-parameters of the configuration in Fig. 7b.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 9

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 6.  Simulated S-parameters (‘Sim.’ with solid lines), measured S-parameters after the TRL calibration
technique (‘Meas. (TRL)’ with dashed lines), and extracted S-parameters using uncalibrated measurements by
the proposed method for Lnr = 10.16 mm (‘Ext. (PM)’ with dotted lines) of the constructed bianisotropic MM
slab. (a) Real and (b) imaginary parts of S11
D , (c) real and (d) imaginary parts of SD (∼ SD ), and (e) real and (f)
21 = 12
imaginary parts of S22
D.

near the main microstrip feedline) on the SRRs due to magnetic field effect (magnetic excitation), the proximity
of the rings creates interaction (electric field coupling—Fig. 7d) and improves resonance characteristics of the
double SRR configuration. Besides, Fig. 7d,e demonstrate the spatial distributions at the time that the upper SRR
is mainly active. It should be pointed out that only one of the SRR is chiefy active while the other one behaves
almost passive at critical time periods, thus sharing field interaction with time.

Extracted S‑parameters referenced to tapers/launchers

Before presenting extracted S-parameters ( S11 D , SD , SD , and SD ) of the sensing area in Fig. 1, it would be
21 12 22
instructive to show S-parameters ( S11, S21, S12 , and S22 ) of the configuration in Fig. 1 referenced to tapers/
launchers. Figure8a–d illustrate the magnitudes of simulated S-parameters (‘Sim.’ with solid lines) and measured
S-parameters after the SOLT calibration (‘Meas. (SOLT)’ with dashed lines) over 1.5 − 2.5 GHz. The measurement
system was calibrated to tapers/launchers.
It is noted from Fig. 8a–d that |S11 |, |S21 |, |S12 |, and |S22 | do not, respectively, correspond to |S11
D |, |SD |, |SD |,
21 12
and |S22
D | of the sensing area in Fig. 1 (double resonators next to the microstrip line). Furthermore, it is seen
from Fig. 8a–d that although the simulated and measured |S21 | and |S12 | are in good agreement, the simulated
and measured |S11 | and |S22 | have differences over the entire frequency band. There are three main mechanisms

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 10

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 7.  Fabricated microstrip lines: (a) The configuration of the R-Line in Fig. 2a, b the configuration of the
NR-line next to the R-Line in Fig. 2b, c the configuration of the Device or the sensing area (double resonators
next to the microstrip line) in Fig. 2c, and spatial distributions of (d) electric field (V/m) around the SRRs (side
view) and (e) surface current (A/m) on the surface of the metals of SRRs (side view) at 2.193 GHz.

producing such a difference according to the configuration in Fig. 1. First, the SMA tapers or launchers used
to transfer the coaxial line energy to the microstrip lines alter both magnitudes and phases of S-parameters.
Second, microstrip feedline straights mainly influence phases of S-parameters. Third, microstrip feedline bends
introduce changes chiefly in the magnitudes of S-parameters.

Extracted S‑parameters of the sensing area

To eliminate the effect of the SMA connectors on measurements, and to extract only the S-parameters of
the sensing area in Fig. 1, we implemented our proposed method using uncalibrated S-parameters of the
configurations in Fig. 7a–c. Figure 9a–f show the extracted real and imaginary parts of S11 D , SD , SD , and SD
21 12 22
of the sensing area over 1.5-2.5 GHz (after applying the RA procedure to the extracted S-parameters for a
54
frequency range of 10 MHz using Nint = 10 (selected as a higher value than the one used in the ­study to get
more smoothed measurement data), fmax = 2.5 GHz, fmin = 1.5 GHz, and Nf = 100154). Extracted S-parameters
without the RA are not presented here for simplicity. For comparison, in addition to S-parameter simulations, we
applied the TRL calibration ­procedure22 and the de-embedding ­methods46–49. It is noted that the de-embedding
­method46 is restricted to S21
D and SD only. In implementation of the TRL calibration procedure, a calibration kit
12
designed using an FR4 substrate (εr,sub = 4.3(1 − i0.025) and dsub = 1.6 mm), as shown in Fig. 3d, was utilized.
For the thru standard, a 60 mm microstrip line (ws = 3.0 mm and Zeff ∼ = 50 ) was used. For the line standard, a
73.83 mm microstrip line (ws = 3.0 mm and Zeff ∼ = 50 ), which corresponds to an effective length of 13.83 mm
in reference to the thru standard. This line standard, in reference to the thru standard, will produce an effective
bandwidth of 4.44 GHz (between 560 MHz and 5.0 GHz), within which the line phase undergoes a maximum
change of ∓90o56. The reflect line was implemented by a well-soldered via. An additional microstrip with a
sufficient length of 30 mm was used for all standards to measure smoother S-parameters after the TRL calibration.
Among the applied m ­ ethods22 ­and46–49, only the results from the methods i­ n22 ­and47 are presented in Fig. 9a–f
for a clear view. A quantitative analysis of all the m­ ethods22 ­and46–49 will be presented shortly. It is noted from
Fig. 9a–f that the simulated, measured, and extracted S-parameters of the sensing area are close each other over
the entire band. We think that small oscillations observed in the extracted real and imaginary parts of S11 D , SD
21
(∼
= S12D ), and SD of the sensing area might be partly due to tolerances in the fabricated configurations of the
22
R-Line, the NR-Line, and the sensing area. For a quantitative analysis for how well the extracted or measured
S-parameters approach the simulated ones, we calculated the root-mean-square error (RMSE) values for all
considered methods using

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 11

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 8.  Magnitudes of simulated S-parameters (‘Sim.’ with solid lines) and measured S-parameters after
the SOLT calibration technique (‘Meas. (SOLT)’ with dashed lines) referenced to tapers/launchers of the
configuration in Fig. 1) over 1.5 − 2.5 GHz: (a) |S11 |, (b) |S21 |, (c) |S12 |, and (d) |S22 |.


Nf

  
 1 2
χk − χkext/meas , (41)
 ref
χRMSE =
Nf
k=1

where χ stands for ℜe{S11 D }, ℜe{SD }, ℜe{SD }, ℜe{SD }, ℑm{SD }, ℑm{SD }, ℑm{SD }, or ℑm{SD }; and χ ref and
21 12 22 11 21 12 22 k
ext/meas
χk are the reference (simulated) and extracted/measured χ values at the kth frequency.
Table 2 presents the calculated RMSE values of the measured or extracted ℜe{S11 }, ℜe{S21 }, ℜe{S12 }, ℜe{S22
D D D D },
ℑm{S11 }, ℑm{S21 }, ℑm{S12 }, and ℑm{S22 }. It is seen from Table 2 that the extracted S-parameters of our method
D D D D
and the measured ones of the TRL calibration procedure are similar, and both are much closer to the simulated
S-parameters than the extracted S-parameters of the methods ­in46–49. For instance, while RMSE values of ℜe{S11D}
and ℑm{S11 D } are, respectively, around 0.0271 and 0.0279 for our method, those of the de-embedding ­technique48
approach as high as 0.0318 and 0.0324. Besides, the accuracy of our method depends on whether P0 approaches
unity, as discussed in Section The Analysis of the Method. Figure 5a demonstrates the dependence of the real and
imaginary parts of P0 of the NR-Line with Lnr = 9.7 mm over 1.5 − 2.5 GHz. It is seen from Fig. 5a that P0 does
not approach unity over the entire band.

Advantages and disadvantages of the proposed method

Table 1 presents a comparison of our method with two calibration techniques (SOLT and TRL (or LRL))21,22 and
with other de-embedding techniques in the ­studies46–49 in terms of the need for error network analysis, the total
number of standards used in their implementation, capability of full two-port characterization, the possibility
of any sign ambiguity, realization of standards, and requirement of a new design if a new two-port network or
line is utilized. The following points are noted from the results in Table 1. First, our de-embedding technique,
just as other de-embedding techniques in the s­ tudies46–49, does not require determination of error networks
in the characterization of a two-port network (transmission line or sample), whereas calibration techniques
SOLT and TRL (or LRL) (as well as other calibration techniques) do require this determination. Second, while
our method and the de-embedding techniques in the ­studies46–49 necessitate two different standards in their
implementation, the calibration techniques SOLT and TRL (or LRL) (as well as other calibration techniques)
need at least three different calibration standards for their application. Third, our de-embedding technique, the
de-embedding techniques in the ­studies47–49, and calibration techniques SOLT and TRL (or LRL) can perform
full two-port characterization. Nonetheless, the de-embedding ­technique46 is limited to S21 and S12 only. Fourth,
our de-embedding technique together with calibration techniques SOLT and TRL (or LRL) do not have any sign

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 12

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Figure 9.  Simulated S-parameters (‘Sim.’ with solid lines), extracted S-parameters by the proposed method
(‘Ext. (PM)’ with dashed lines), measured S-Parameters by the TRL calibration p ­ rocedure22 (‘Meas. (TRL)’ with
dotted green lines), and extracted S-parameters by the de-embedding m ­ ethod47 (‘Ext. (Ref. 47)’ with dashdot
black lines) of the sensing area (double resonators next to the microstrip line). (a) Real and (b) imaginary parts
of S11
D , (c) real and (d) imaginary parts of SD (∼ SD ), and (e) real and (f) imaginary parts of SD .
21 = 12 22

RMSE Calibration or De-embedding Technique

22 46 47 48 49
values PM
D}
ℜe{S11 0.0260 – 0.0289 0.0318 0.0281 0.0271
D}
ℜe{S21 0.0199 0.0215 0.0218 0.0241 0.0208 0.0206
D}
ℜe{S12 0.0196 0.0219 0.0219 0.0241 0.0207 0.0202
D}
ℜe{S22 0.0254 – 0.0291 0.0306 0.0277 0.0264
D}
ℑm{S11 0.0265 – 0.0295 0.0324 0.0289 0.0279
D}
ℑm{S21 0.0201 0.0212 0.0222 0.0217 0.0211 0.0203
D}
ℑm{S12 0.0199 0.0218 0.0217 0.0244 0.0209 0.0200
D}
ℑm{S22 0.0262 – 0.0282 0.0315 0.0284 0.0271

Table 2.  Calculated RMSE values of ℜe{S11 D }, ℜe{SD }, ℜe{SD }, ℜe{SD }, ℑm{SD }, ℑm{SD }, ℑm{SD }, and
21 12 22 11 21 12
22,46–49
ℑm{S22 } for the ­methods
D and our proposed method.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

ambiguity in the full characterization procedure (determining all S-parameters) of a two-port network or line. On
the other hand, the de-embedding ­techniques46–49 could have such an ambiguity problem. Fifth, while standards
of our de-embedding technique and other de-embedding techniques along with the calibration t­ echnique22 are
relatively easier to realize than those of the calibration ­technique21, because the realization of the open standard
could be partly harder. It should be pointed out here that as the calibration techniques SOLT and TRL (or
LRL) (as well as other calibration techniques), the accuracy of our proposed method and the de-embedding
­techniques46–49 is mainly related to non-unity value of P0 . To eliminate this disadvantage, as a rule of thumb,
shorter NR-Lines, which can be arranged in the design procedure once the frequency range is specified, should
be used to remove this possibility. Finally, the proposed method and the de-embedding ­techniques46–49 share
the common problem of the requirement of a new design if the two-port line modifies (e.g., if the feedline of
the microstrip line changes). The calibration techniques SOLT and TRL (or LRL) (as well as other calibration
techniques) do not have such a problem. Nonetheless, such a drawback is not the main issue in the sensing area
characterization of sensors since, once designed, optimized, and then fabricated, these sensors are utilized only
for a precise a­ pplication13–20.

Conclusion
A method is proposed to determine the S-parameters of two-port devices (or networks) using uncalibrated
S-parameter measurements at microwave frequencies. The method requires the use of non-reflecting line and
reflecting line standards (partially unknown) and determines uniquely all S-parameters of a two-port device
without the need for evaluating error coefficients or networks. The method is first validated by S-parameters of
a bianisotropic MM slab (constructed by square-shaped SRRs embedded into a waveguide) as the first device.
After, it is tested for extracting S11
D , SD , SD , and SD of a sensing area involving double SRRs next to a microstrip
12 21 22
line. The TRL calibration procedure and four different de-embedding techniques, supported by S-parameter
simulations, were applied to examine the accuracy and performance of our method. Our method, however,
requires measurements of two (direct and reversed) configurations of the device. Eliminating this need will be
considered for a future study.

Data availibility
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author (U.C.H.)
on reasonable request.

Received: 6 December 2023; Accepted: 25 April 2024

References
1. Heimfarth, T. & Mulato, M. Miniature orthogonal fluxgate sensor in rotation magnetization mode: Modeling and characterization.
Sens. Actuators A Phys. 279, 113–119 (2018).
2. Wang, C., Vangelatos, Z., Grigoropoulos, C. P. & Ma, Z. Micro-engineered architected metamaterials for cell and tissue engineering.
Adv. Eng. Mater. 13, 100206 (2022).
3. Qu, F., Lin, L., Chen, Z., Abdalla, A. & Nie, P. A terahertz multi-band metamaterial absorber and its synthetic evaluation method
based on multivariate resonant response fusion for trace pesticide detection. Sens. Actuators A Phys. 336, 129726 (2021).
4. Hasar, U. C. et al. Mechanical and electromagnetic properties of self-compacted geopolymer concretes with nano silica and steel
fiber additives. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 71, 8003508 (2022).
5. Karami, A. H., Karami Horestani, F., Kolahdouz, M., Horestani, A. K. & Martin, F. 2D rotary sensor based on magnetic composite
of microrods. J. Mater. Sci.: Mater. Electron. 31, 167–174 (2020).
6. Yang, C. & Huang, H. Extraction of stable complex permittivity and permeability of low-loss materials from transmission/reflection
measurements. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 70, 6003608 (2021).
7. Yang, C., Huang, H. & Peng, M. Non-iterative method for extracting complex permittivity and thickness of materials from
reflection-only measurements. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 71, 6002908 (2022).
8. Ghodgaonkar, D., Varadan, V. & Varadan, V. A free-space method for measurement of dielectric constants and loss tangents at
microwave frequencies. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 38, 789–793 (1989).
9. Vakili, I., Ohlsson, L., Wernersson, L. & Gustafsson, M. Time-domain system for millimeter-wave material characterization. IEEE
Trans. Microw. Theory Techn. 63, 2915–2922 (2015).
10. Akhter, Z. & Akhtar, M. J. Free-space time domain position insensitive technique for simultaneous measurement of complex
permittivity and thickness of lossy dielectric samples. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 65, 2394–2405 (2016).
11. Abbas, Z. et al. Complex permittivity and moisture measurements of oil palm fruits using an open-ended Coaxial sensor. IEEE
Sensors J. 5, 1281–1287 (2005).
12. Hasar, U. C. Permittivity determination of fresh cement-based materials by an open-ended waveguide probe using amplitude-only
measurements. Prog. Electromagn. Res. 97, 27–43 (2009).
13. Shete, M., Shaji, M. & Akhtar, M. J. Design of a coplanar sensor for RF characterization of thin dielectric samples. IEEE Sens. J.
13, 4706–4715 (2013).
14. Zarifi, M. H., Sadabadi, H., Hejazi, S. H., Daneshmand, M. & Sanati-Nezhad, A. Noncontact and nonintrusive microwave-
microfluidic flow sensor for energy and biomedical engineering. Sci. Rep. 8, 139 (2018).
15. Galindo-Romera, G., Javier Herraiz-Martinez, F., Gil, M., Martinez-Martinez, J. J. & Segovia-Vargas, D. Submersible printed split-
ring resonator-based sensor for thin-film detection and permittivity characterization. IEEE Sens. J. 16, 3587–3596 (2016).
16. Velez, P. et al. Split ring resonator-based microwave fluidic sensors for electrolyte concentration measurements. IEEE Sens. J. 19,
2562–2569 (2019).
17. Jha, A. K., Lamecki, A., Mrozowski, M. & Bozzi, M. A microwave sensor with operating band selection to detect rotation and
proximity in the rapid prototyping industry. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 68, 683–693 (2021).
18. Baghelani, M., Hosseini, N. & Daneshmand, M. Artificial intelligence assisted noncontact microwave sensor for multivariable
biofuel analysis. IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron. 68, 11492–11500 (2021).
19. Harnsoongnoen, S. Metamaterial-inspired microwave sensor for detecting the concentration of mixed phosphate and nitrate in
water. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 70, 9509906 (2021).

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 14

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/

20. Loutchanwoot, P. & Harnsoongnoen, S. Microwave microfluidic sensor for detection of high equol concentrations in aqueous
solution. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Cir. Syst. 16, 244–251 (2022).
21. Fitzpatrick, J. Error models for systems measurement. Microw. J. 21, 63–66 (1978).
22. Engen, G. F. & Hoer, C. A. Thru-reflect-line: An improved technique for calibrating the dual 6-port automatic network analyzer.
IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Technol. 27, 983–987 (1979).
23. Marks, R. B. A multiline method of network analyzer calibration. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Technol. 39, 1205–1215 (1991).
24. Eccleston, K. W. A new interpretation of through-line (TL) deembedding. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Technol. 64, 3887–3893
(2016).
25. Rumiantsev, A. & Ridler, N. VNA Calibration. IEEE Microw. Mag. 9, 86–99 (2008).
26. Rytting, D.K. Network analyzer error models and calibration methods. Hewlett Packard (white paper) (1998).
27. Baek, K. H., Sung, H. & Park, W. S. A 3-position transmission/reflection method for measuring the permittivity of low loss
materials. IEEE Microw. Guided Wave Lett. 5, 3–5 (1995).
28. Wan, C., Nauwelaers, B., Raedt, W. D. & Rossum, M. V. Complex permittivity measurement method based on asymmetry of
reciprocal two-ports. Electron. Lett. 32, 1497 (1996).
29. Lee, M. Q. & Nam, S. An accurate broadband measurement of substrate dielectric constant. IEEE Microw. Guided Wave Lett. 6,
168–170 (1996).
30. Wan, C., Nauwelaers, B., Raedt, W. D. & Rossum, M. V. Two new measurement methods for explicit determination of complex
permittivity. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Technol. 46, 1614–1619 (1998).
31. Janezic, M. D. & Jargon, J. A. Complex permittivity determination from propagation constant measurements. IEEE Microw. Guided
Wave Lett. 9, 76–78 (1999).
32. Huynen, I., Steukers, C. & Duhamel, F. A wideband line-line dielectrometric method for liquids, soils, and planar substrates. IEEE
Trans. Instrum. Meas. 50, 1343–1348 (2001).
33. Lanzi, L., Carla, M., Gambi, C. M. C. & Lanzi, L. Differential and double-differential dielectric spectroscopy to measure complex
permittivity in transmission lines. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 73, 3085–3088 (2002).
34. Hasar, U. C. Calibration-independent method for complex permittivity determination of liquid and granular materials. Electron.
Lett. 44, 585–587 (2008).
35. Hasar, U. C. A calibration-independent method for accurate complex permittivity determination of liquid materials. Rev. Sci.
Instrum. 79, 086114 (2008).
36. Farcich, N. J., Salonen, J. & Asbeck, P. M. Single-length method used to determine the dielectric constant of polydimethylsiloxane.
IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Technol. 56, 2963–2971 (2008).
37. Hasar, U. C. A new calibration-independent method for complex permittivity extraction of solid dielectric materials. IEEE Microw.
Wireless Compon. Lett. 18, 788–790 (2008).
38. Caijun, Z., Quanxing, J. & Shenhui, J. Calibration-independent and position-insensitive transmission/reflection method for
permittivity measurement with one sample in coaxial line. IEEE Trans. Electromagn. Compat. 53, 684–689 (2011).
39. Jebbor, N., Bri, S., Sánchez, A. & Chaibi, M. A fast calibration-independent method for complex permittivity determination at
microwave frequencies. Measurement 46, 2206–2209 (2013).
40. Guoxin, C. Calibration-independent measurement of complex permittivity of liquids using a coaxial transmission line. Rev. Sci.
Instrum. 86, 014704 (2015).
41. Hasar, U. C. Explicit permittivity determination of medium-loss materials from calibration-independent measurements. IEEE
Sensors J. 16, 5177–5182 (2016).
42. Hasar, U. C. Thickness-invariant complex permittivity retrieval from calibration-independent measurements. IEEE Wireless
Compon. Lett. 27, 201–203 (2017).
43. Hasar, U. C., Ozturk, H., Korkmaz, H., Izginli, M. & Karaaslan, M. Improved line-line method for propagation constant
measurement of reflection-asymmetric networks. Measurement 192, 110848 (2022).
44. Hasar, U. C. et al. General line-line method for propagation constant measurement of non-reciprocal networks. Measurement 200,
111618 (2022).
45. Hasar, U. C., Ozturk, H., Korkmaz, H., Ozkaya, M. A. & Ramahi, O. M. Determination of propagation constant and impedance
of non-reciprocal networks/lines using a generalized line-line method. Measurement 217, 113021 (2023).
46. Wan, C., Nauwelaers, B. & De Raedt, W. A simple error correction method for two-port transmission parameter measurement.
IEEE Microw. Guided Wave Lett. 8, 58–59 (1998).
47. Hasar, U. C. & Bute, M. Error-corrected reflection and transmission scattering parameters of a two-port device. IEEE Microw.
Wireless Compon. Lett. 27, 681–683 (2017).
48. Hasar, U. C. Determination of full S-parameters of a low-loss two-port device from uncalibrated measurements. Rev. Sci. Instrum.
89, 124701 (2018).
49. Hasar, U. C. et al. Determination of error-corrected full scattering parameters of a two-port device from uncalibrated measurements.
Measurement 190, 110656 (2022).
50. Chevalier, A., Cortes, J., Lezaca, J. & Queffelec, P. Broadband permeability measurement method for ferrites at any magnetization
state: Experimental results. J. Appl. Phys. 114, 174904 (2013).
51. Hasar, U. C., Muratoglu, A., Bute, M., Barroso, J. J. & Ertugrul, M. Effective constitutive parameters retrieval method for
bianisotropic metamaterials using waveguide measurements. IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Technol. 65, 1488–1497 (2017).
52. Hasar, U. C., Ozturk, H., Ertugrul, M., Barroso, J. J. & Ramahi, O. M. Artificial neural network model for evaluating parameters
of reflection-asymmetric samples from reference-plane-invariant measurements. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 72, 6005208 (2023).
53. Hasar, U. C. & Barroso, J. J. Scattering parameter analysis of cascaded bi-anisotropic metamaterials. Opt. Commun. 348, 13–18
(2015).
54. Jebbor, N., Bri, S., Sanchez, A. & Chaibi, M. A fast calibration independent method for complex permittivity determination at
microwave frequencies. Measurement 46, 2206–2209 (2013).
55. Balanis, C. A. Advanced Engineering Electromagnetics. Denver, MA: Wiley (2nd Ed.), pp. 459–466 (2012).
56. Elsherbeni, D., Jordan, L., Hutchcraft, E., Kajfez, D. & Gordan, R. K. The design of a TRL calibration kit for microstrip and its use
for measurement and modeling of active and passive RF components. Appl. Comput. Electromagn. Soc. J. 23, 276–285 (2008).

Acknowledgements
The authors U. C. Hasar, H. Ozturk, and H. Korkmaz thank the Scientific and Technological Research Council
of Türkiye (TUBITAK) under project number 120M763 for supporting this study. The author H. Korkmaz
acknowledges the TUBITAK BIDEB 2211/C program for supporting his studies. Some of the experiments in
this study were implemented by using the VNA whose financial support was granted by the Scientific Research
Unit of Gaziantep University under project no MF.ALT.23.01.

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 15

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol.:(0123456789)
 www.nature.com/scientificreports/

Author contributions
U.C.H., H.O. and H.K conducted the experiments; U.C.H. performed conceptualization analysis; U.C.H., H.O.
and H.K prepared illustrations (visualization); U.C.H., V.N., and O.M.R. analyzed the results; and U.C.H., V.N.,
and O.M.R. supervised the study.

Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to U.C.H. or V.N.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.

© The Author(s) 2024

Scientific Reports | (2024) 14:10062 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-60640-3 16

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
Vol:.(1234567890)
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

[email protected]