| Literature DB >> 30322155 |
Turja Nandy1, Ronald A Coutu2, Cristinel Ababei3.
Abstract
Carbon monoxide (CO) is a toxic gas, and environmental pollutant. Its detection and control in residential and industrial environments are necessary in order to avoid potentially severe health problems inEntities:
Keywords: carbon monoxide (CO); cyber-physical system (CPS); metal oxide semiconductor (MOS); microelectromechanical systems (MEMS); non-dispersive infrared (NDIR); photoacoustic spectroscopy (PA)
Year: 2018 PMID: 30322155 PMCID: PMC6211057 DOI: 10.3390/s18103443
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Health problems according to carbon monoxide (CO) concentration and exposure time.
| Concentration of CO (Exposure Time) | Created Health Problems |
|---|---|
| 35 ppm (6–8 h), 100–200 ppm (2–3 h), 400 ppm | Headache, dizziness, nausea, loss of judgment and convulsions |
| 1600 ppm (2 h), 3200 ppm (30 min), 6400 ppm | Respiratory arrest, severe conditions (coma) and death |
Figure 1Basic cyber-physical system (CPS) structure.
Figure 2Example CPS based framework for carbon monoxide detection and control.
Figure 3Components of a whole cyber physical system.
Figure 4Commercial building ventilation system.
Figure 5(a) Metal oxide semiconductors (MOSs); and (b) N-type MOSs, used for gas sensing.
Figure 6Basic block diagram of MOS thin film-based CO gas detection system.
Figure 7Fabricated SnO2 nanowire sensor device structure.
Figure 8Response time of SnO2-Cu/Pt—(a) at different operating temperature to 1000 ppm CO gas; and (b) to different concentrations of CO gas at 250 °C operating temperature.
Figure 9Sensitivity of 2% Pd-doped and 2% Pt-doped Tin Oxide thin film according to different concentrations of CO gas.
Figure 10Effect of calcination (in N2) temperature on Pt-SnO2 to 500 and 1000 ppm CO gas.
Figure 11Sensitivity of two different Au doped SnO2 thick films at different temperatures.
Figure 12Selectivity of Au/SnO2 for CO at 50 °C and 60 °C.
Figure 13Device structure for V/SnO2 CO gas sensor.
Figure 14Sensitivity Comparison among SnO2, G-SnO2 and Ag-SnO2.
Brief summary of the SnO2 based MOS materials for CO detection.
| Study | Material | Performance | Optimum Temperature | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kock et al. [ | SnO2 nano wire | Response time 25 s | 250 °C | Low concentration detection | Resistance suddenly increased |
| Lee et al. [ | SnO2 thin film | Sensitivity 59% | 270 °C | MEMS based structure and good stability | High CO concentration |
| Sharma et al. [ | Cu-SnO2 thin film | Response time 5–10 s | 320 °C | Fast response | High CO concentration and temperature |
| Menini et al. [ | Pd-SnO2 thin film | Sensitivity ~80%, Response time ~50 min | 450 °C | Very high sensitivity | Very slow detection and high operating temperature |
| Wang et al. [ | Pt-SnO2 porous nano solid | Sensitivity (Ra/Rg) 64.5 | Room temperature | Room temperature measurement and good selectivity | Humidity dependency |
| Manjula et al. [ | Au-SnO2 thin film | Sensitivity ~90% | Room temperature | Room temperature measurement, good selectivity and no humidity effect | More doping caused decrease in response |
| Zhao et al. [ | MWCNT-SnO2 nano particle | Sensitivity ~46% | 300 °C | Fast detection and good stability | High operating temperature |
| Ghosh et al. [ | Ca-SnO2 thin film | Difference of Response and Recovery ~25 s | 350 °C | low CO concentration measurement, good selectivity and stability | High operating temperature |
| Nikan et al. [ | ZnO-SnO2 thin film | Difference of response and recovery time ~11 min | 300 °C | Very small doping concentration | Slow recovery and high operating temperature |
| Bai et al. [ | CuO-SnO2 nano composite | Sensitivity (Ra/Rg) ~95 | 235 °C | Low concentration detection and good selective | High annealing temperature |
Figure 15Response time of TiO2 (calcination temperature 600 °C) to 1–15 ppm CO gas at 200 °C.
Figure 16MEMS micro gas sensor device cross-section before etching.
Figure 17Response according to Al/Zn ratio towards 10, 20 and 50 ppm CO gas at 300 °C.
Figure 18Response time for different in doping concentrations. IZO, Indium doped ZnO.
Figure 19Sensor response of WO3-Cu (operating temperature 200 °C) and WO3-V (operating temperature 300 °C) annealed at 400 °C and 700 °C towards 100 ppm CO.
Figure 20Response comparison between Co3O4 nanorod and nanoneedle.
Figure 21Top view of the fabricated CuO gas sensor.
Figure 22CuO sensor response for different humid levels and concentration levels at 325 °C.
Figure 23CeO2-CuO sensor response for different CO concentrations at room temperature and 100 °C.
Summary of the MOS materials for CO detection.
| Study | Material | Performance | Optimum Temperature | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rao et al. [ | TiO2 thin film | Sensitivity 84% | 500 °C | MEMS based structure, low concentration | Very high operating temperature |
| Lee et al. [ | MWCNT-TiO2 thin film | Response time 4 s | 300 °C | Fast and low concentration detection | High operating temperature |
| Hijri et al. [ | Al-ZnO nano particle | Sensitivity (Ra/Rg) ~6 | 300 °C | Fast and low concentration detection | Optimum doping concentration varied |
| Gong et al. [ | Cu-ZnO thin film | Difference of response and recovery time ~100 s | 350 °C | Low concentration detection | High operating temperature |
| Wei et al. [ | Pd-ZnO nano fiber | Response time 25–29 s, Recovery time 12–17 s | 220 °C | Low concentration detection and good selectivity | Moderate sensitivity |
| Kuhaili et al. [ | CeO2-ZnO thin film | Response time 44 s, Recovery time 40 s | 380 °C | High resistance change | High CO concentration and high operating temperature |
| Choi et al. [ | In3O4 micro spheres | Response time 4–8 s, Recovery time 5–10 s | 400 °C | Fast and low concentration detection | High operating temperature |
| Fu et al. [ | Au-In2O3 nano materials | Response ~9, response and recovery time ~30/30 s | 25 °C | Room temperature measurement and very good selectivity | Influence of humidity and detection ability up to 100 ppm |
| Patil et al. [ | Co3O4 nano rod | Response and Recovery time 3–4 and 5–6 s | 250 °C | Fast, low ppm detection and good selective | Low resistance change |
| Steinhauer et al. [ | CuO nano wires | Sensor Response (RCO/Rair) ~1 | 325 °C | No dependency on humidity variation | High operating temperature |
| Tanvir et al. [ | CeO2-CuO thin film | Sensor Response ~80 mV | 24 °C | Room temperature measurement | It needs more investigations as a new material |
Figure 24Quantum cascade laser based CO detection system using absorption methodology. QCL, quantum cascade laser.
Figure 25Non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) based CO detection system.