| Literature DB >> 26457707 |
Xiang Wu1, Fangming Deng2, Yong Hao3, Zhihui Fu4, Lihua Zhang5.
Abstract
This paper presents a wireless humidity sensor tag for low-cost and low-power applications. The proposed humidity sensor tag, based on radio frequency identification (RFID) technology, was fabricated in a standard 0.18 μm complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) process. The top metal layer was deposited to form the interdigitated electrodes, which were then filled with polyimide as the humidity sensing layer. A two-stage rectifier adopts a dynamic bias-voltage generator to boost the effective gate-source voltage of the switches in differential-drive architecture, resulting in a flat power conversion efficiency curve. The capacitive sensor interface, based on phase-locked loop (PLL) theory, employs a simple architecture and can work with 0.5 V supply voltage. The measurement results show that humidity sensor tag achieves excellent linearity, hysteresis and stability performance. The total power-dissipation of the sensor tag is 2.5 μW, resulting in a maximum operating distance of 23 m under 4 W of radiation power of the RFID reader.Entities:
Keywords: complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS); humidity sensor; radio frequency identification (RFID); rectifier; sensor interface
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26457707 PMCID: PMC4634491 DOI: 10.3390/s151025564
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Architecture of the proposed wireless sensor.
Figure 2ASK backscattering scheme.
Figure 3Proposed humidity sensor: (a) humidity sensor structure and (b) top view of the humidity sensor.
Figure 4Schematic of the proposed rectifier: (a) two-stage rectifier and (b) bias-voltage generator.
Figure 5Proposed capacitive sensor interface: (a) architecture and (b) schematic of current-starved oscillator.
Figure 6Photo of the proposed wireless humidity sensor.
Figure 7Measurement environment.
Figure 8Measured humidity sensor performance: (a) linearity; (b) hysteresis; (c) response time and (d) stability.
Comparison of integrated humidity sensors.
| Design | Sensor Structure | Process | Sensitivity | Fabrication Post-Processing | On-Chip Readout Circuit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | Interdigitated | 3 µm | 5 fF/%RH | Yes | No |
| [ | Parallel Plate | 0.5 µm | 303 fF/%RH | Yes | No |
| [ | Interdigitated | 0.35 µm | 0.11 MHz/%RH | Yes | No |
| [ | Woven Mesh | 0.15 µm | 1.78 mV/%RH | No | Yes |
| [ | Interdigitated | 0.16 µm | 7.43 fF/%RH | No | Yes |
| [ | Interdigitated | 0.6 µm | 30 fF/%RH | No | Yes |
| This work | Interdigitated | 0.18 µm | 18.75 fF/%RH | No | Yes |
Figure 9Performance comparison between conventional rectifier and this work: (a) power conversion efficiency and (b) output voltage.
Performance comparison of capacitive sensor interfaces.
| Interface | Process (µm) | Supply (V) | Area (mm2) | ENOB (bits) | FOM (pJ/conv) | Power (µW) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 0.16 | 1.2 | 0.15 | 12.5 | 8300 | 10.3 |
| [ | 0.09 | 1.0 | N/A | 10.4 | 1.4 | 3.0 |
| [ | 0.35 | 3.0 | 0.09 | 9.3 | 3.4 | 54.0 |
| [ | 0.32 | 3.0 | 0.52 | 9.8 | 4.5 | 84.0 |
| This work | 0.18 | 0.5 | 0.01 | 6.8 | 1.6 | 1.1 |
Figure 10Duty cycle of backscatter signal versus relative humidity.