Comparative Analysis of Moving Average and Exponential Moving ‎Average in a Soil Moisture Monitoring System

  • Muhammad Wahyu Ardiansyah Mawarni Universitas Negeri Surabaya
  • Lusia Rakhmawati
  • Farid Baskoro
  • Rifqi Firmansyah
  • Lilik Anifah
Keywords: Capacitive sensor, Arduino Uno, Raw ADC, signal smoothing, parameter sensitivity

Abstract

Low-cost capacitive soil moisture sensors can produce short-term fluctuations that reduce the readability of monitoring displays. This study evaluated the internal signal behavior of Moving Average (MA) and Exponential Moving Average (EMA) filters in an Arduino-based soil moisture monitoring system; it did not assess calibrated soil-moisture accuracy. Three repeated acquisition runs were conducted using fresh 2 kg Regosol samples, a capacitive sensor v1.2, and one-second sampling during staged water addition. The primary comparison aligned Raw ADC, MA5, and EMA with α = 0.2 over samples 5–300, yielding 888 observations. Parameter sensitivity was examined using MA windows of 3, 5, 7, and 10 and EMA coefficients of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.5 over 873 aligned observations. MA5 produced lower internal deviation than EMA with α = 0.2, with MAD values of 2.141 versus 3.851 ADC and RMSD values of 6.754 versus 9.367 ADC. MA5 also showed a shorter lag and empirical T50, whereas EMA with α = 0.2 produced slightly smaller point-to-point changes. Sensitivity analysis confirmed systematic trade-offs between smoothing strength, tracking fidelity, and response delay. Therefore, filter selection should be based on the operational objective, while calibration remains necessary before Raw ADC values are interpreted as physical soil-water content.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abdelmoneim, A. A., Al Kalaany, C. M., Khadra, R., Derardja, B., & Dragonetti, G. (2025). Calibration of ‎low-cost capacitive soil moisture sensors for irrigation management applications. Sensors, 25(2), ‎Article 343. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25020343‎

Adla, S., Bruckmaier, F., Arias-Rodriguez, L. F., Tripathi, S., Pande, S., & Disse, M. (2024). Impact of ‎calibrating a low-cost capacitance-based soil moisture sensor on AquaCrop model performance. ‎Journal of Environmental Management, 353, Article 120248. ‎https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120248‎

Kenali, E. W., Rofianto, D., Amaliah, K., Fitra, J., Fathoni, H., Khoerunnisa, T. K., & Sari, H. P. (2026). IoT-‎based smart irrigation and fertilization system with realtime cloud integration. Jurnal Nasional ‎Teknik Elektro dan Teknologi Informasi, 15(1), 34–43. ‎https://doi.org/10.22146/jnteti.v15i1.23124‎

Li, J., & Liang, W. (2024). Effectiveness of virtual laboratory in engineering education: A meta-analysis. ‎PLOS ONE, 19(12), Article e0316269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316269‎

Liu, J., Gao, Z., Li, Y., Lv, S., Liu, J., & Yang, C. (2024). Ranging offset calibration and moving average filter ‎enhanced reliable UWB positioning in classic user environments. Remote Sensing, 16(14), Article ‎‎2511. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs16142511‎

Mane, S., Das, N., Singh, G., Cosh, M., & Dong, Y. (2024). Advancements in dielectric soil moisture sensor ‎calibration: A comprehensive review of methods and techniques. Computers and Electronics in ‎Agriculture, 218, Article 108686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2024.108686‎

Nalakurthi, N. V. S. R., Abimbola, I., Ahmed, T., Anton, I., Riaz, K., Ibrahim, Q., Banerjee, A., Tiwari, A., & ‎Gharbia, S. (2024). Challenges and opportunities in calibrating low-cost environmental sensors. ‎Sensors, 24(11), Article 3650. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24113650‎

NIST/SEMATECH. (2012a). What are moving average or smoothing techniques? In NIST/SEMATECH e-‎Handbook of statistical methods. ‎https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section4/pmc42.htm

NIST/SEMATECH. (2012b). What is exponential smoothing? In NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of ‎statistical methods. https://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmc/section4/pmc43.htm

Oppenheim, A. V., & Schafer, R. W. (2010). Discrete-time signal processing (3rd ed.). Pearson.‎

Ranjan, R., Shin, D., Jung, Y., Kim, S., Yun, J.-H., Kim, C.-H., Lee, S., & Kye, J. (2024). Comparative analysis ‎of integrated filtering methods using UWB localization in indoor environment. Sensors, 24(4), ‎Article 1052. https://doi.org/10.3390/s24041052‎

Simić, M., Ouni, C., Ammar, N., Keutel, T., Stojanović, G., & Kanoun, O. (2025). Embedded hardware-‎based adaptive filtering for noise reduction in bioimpedance data. Computers in Biology and ‎Medicine, 197, Article 110850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2025.110850‎

Strat, T. T. S., Henriksen, E. K., & Jegstad, K. M. (2024). Inquiry-based science education in science ‎teacher education: A systematic review. Studies in Science Education, 60(2), 191–249. ‎https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2023.2207148‎

Strypsteen, G., Persson, M., Miroshnychenko, M., & Rakonjac, N. (2026). Field performance and ‎calibration strategies for low-cost capacitive soil moisture sensors. Sensors, 26(11), Article 3291. ‎https://doi.org/10.3390/s26113291‎

Zhang, X., Feng, G., & Sun, X. (2024). Advanced technologies of soil moisture monitoring in precision ‎agriculture: A review. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 18, Article 101473. ‎https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2024.101473‎

Published
2026-09-30
How to Cite
Mawarni, M. W. A., Lusia Rakhmawati, Farid Baskoro, Rifqi Firmansyah, & Lilik Anifah. (2026). Comparative Analysis of Moving Average and Exponential Moving ‎Average in a Soil Moisture Monitoring System. ISEJ : Indonesian Science Education Journal, 7(3), 343-358. https://doi.org/10.62159/isej.v7i3.2226