# Hypersentized Metamaterials Based on a Corona-Shaped Resonator for Efficient Detection of Glucose
## 4 Numerical and Experimental Studies of the Proposed Sensor for Glucose Detection
In addition, it was localized at the transmitting side (port 1) of the transmission line compared with at the other side at the resonance frequency of 6.18 GHz,  
Figure 5:2 A comparison of resonance frequency shift versus the glucose concentration in blood: (**a**) simulation and (**b**) measurement. Figure 5:3 Transmission level variation, \(\Delta|\mathrm{S}_{21}|\), in dB as a function of the glucose concentration in water: (**a**) simulated and (**b**) measured. as shown in Figure 18b. Electric field distribution was highly concentrated on the resonator (especially the inner and outer rings). Hence, the proposed structure was able to sense any small changes in the electrical characteristics of the sample placed in the sensor layer. The simulated magnetic field distribution for the proposed sensor at resonance frequencies of 3.6 GHz and 6.18 GHz is shown in Figure 5:4 The magnetic field distribution was strongly localized at the upper and lower parts of the resonator at the resonance frequency of 3.6 GHz, as shown in Figure 19a. However, when the resonance frequency was increased to 6.18 GHz, the magnetic fields were mostly concentrated at the resonator as shown in Figure 19b. A comparison between this work and other similar published work in term of size, materials substrate, frequency range, sensitivity and application procedure has been shown in Figure 5:5  
Figure 5:6 (a) Simulated and (b) measured transmission level variation, \(\Delta|S_{21}|,dB\) against the glucose concentration in blood. Figure 5:7 Simulated surface current distribution for the proposed corona-shaped sensor at (a) 3.6 GHz and (b) 6.16 GHz. Figure 5:8 Simulated magnetic field distribution for the proposed corona-shaped sensor at **(a)** 3.6 GHz and **(b)** 6.16 GHz. Figure 5:9 Electric field distribution for the proposed corona-shaped sensor at two different resonance frequencies: (**a)** 3.6 GHz and **(b)** 6.16 GHz. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline
**Ref.** & **Size (mm)** & **Substrate Materials** & **Frequency Range (GHz)** & **Sensitivity** & **Application Procedure** & **Remarks** \\ \hline
[6] & 46 \(\times\) 46 & FR-4 & 0.7–1.2 & 0.033 MHz g/L & Noninvasive & Split Ring Resonator (SRR)-based microwave & Split Ring Resonator (SRR)-based \\  & & & & & & microwave \\  & & & & & & fluoride sensors \\
[7] & 20 \(\times\) 20 & Rogers RO43508 & 2–5 & 0.037 GHz 30 mg/dL & Noninvasive & Sensing capacity with double negative (DNG) property and minimal absorption & \\  & & & & & & Whispering Gallery \\
[10] & 40 \(\times\) 40 & Silicon & 50–67 & Range 2.2–7.7 mg/mL & Noninvasive & Modes (WCMs) launched in a dielectric disc resonator (DDR) & \\
[17] & 50 \(\times\) 20 & Rogers RT6006 & 1–5 & 0.026 MHz mg/dL & Noninvasive & Metamaterial-inspired microwave & microfluidic SRR \\
[18] & 20 \(\times\) 15 & Rogers RT5880 & 1–2 & 1.6 MHz1–15 g/dL & Glucose-sensing & SR resonator \\
[20] & 40 \(\times\) 20 & FR-4 & 1–3 & Range 20–100 mg/mL & Invasive & Microwave filter as a sensor device \\ This work & 35 \(\times\) 35 & Rogers RT5880 & 1–8 & 1.51 GHz 100–500 mg/dL & Glucose-sensing & Corona resonator based on metamaterials \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison study of the proposed glucose sensor with those reported in literature.