| Literature DB >> 30544777 |
Yu Yu1,2, Yating Zhang3,4, Lufan Jin5,6, Zhiliang Chen7,8, Yifan Li9,10, Qingyan Li11,12, Mingxuan Cao13,14, Yongli Che15,16, Junbo Yang17, Jianquan Yao18,19.
Abstract
Humidity sensors allow electronic devices to convert the water content in the environment into electronical signals by utilizing material properties and transduction techniques. Three-dimensional graphene foam (3DGF) can be exploited in humidity sensors due to its convenient features including low-mass density, large specific surface area, and excellent electrical. In this paper, 3DGF with super permeability to water enables humidity sensors to exhibit a broad relative humidities (RH) range, from 0% to 85.9%, with a fast response speed (response time: ~89 ms, recovery time: ~189 ms). To interpret the physical mechanism behind this, we constructed a 3DGF model decorated with water to calculate the energy structure and we carried out the CASTEP as implemented in Materials Studio 8.0. This can be ascribed to the donor effect, namely, the electronic donation of chemically adsorbed water molecules to the 3DGF surface. Furthermore, this device can be used for user interaction (UI) with unprecedented performance. These high performances support 3DGF as a promising material for humidity sensitive material.Entities:
Keywords: fast response; humidity sensor; three-dimensional graphene foams; user interaction
Year: 2018 PMID: 30544777 PMCID: PMC6308605 DOI: 10.3390/s18124337
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1(a) FTIR spectra of 3D graphene with or without water molecule. (b) Field emission scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images of 3DGF.
Figure 2(a) Testing equipment used for the electrical characterization of 3DGF humidity sensors. (b) Output characteristic of the device decorated with or without water molecules.
Figure 3(a) Channel current response measurement of the 3DGF humidity sensor with varying different RH. (b) Response and recovery times of the device at 85% RH and the drain voltage was fixed at 1 V.
Comparison of different reported humidity sensors with graphene series materials.
| Reference | Material | Sensing Range | Response/Recovery Time |
|---|---|---|---|
| Smith [ | Graphene | 1–96% | 0.6 s/0.4 s |
| Ghosh [ | Graphene | 4–84% | 180 s/180 s |
| Cai [ | reduced graphene oxide (rGO)/graphene oxide (GO)/rGO | 6.3–100% | 1.9 s/3.9 s |
| Zhang [ | Graphene oxide foam | 36–92% | 2 s/10 s |
| Trung [ | rGO-polyurethane composites | 10–70% | 3.5 s/7 s |
| Leng [ | GO/Nafion composite | 11.3–97.3% | 100–300 s/not shown |
| Bi [ | GO | 15–95% | 10.5 s/41 s |
| Naik [ | GO | 30–95% | 100 s/not shown |
| Yu [ | GO/poly (sodium 4-styrenesulfonate) (PSS) composite | 20–80% | 60 s/50 s |
| Zhang [ | rGO/poly(diallylimethyammonium chloride) PDDA composite | 11–97% | 108 s/94 s |
| Guo [ | rGO | 10–95% | 50 s/3 s |
| This work | 3DGF | 0–85.9% | 89 ms/189 ms |
Figure 4Relative humidity effect on the device performance. (a) Channel currents (I) with the relationship of RH (b) The variation in sensitivity of the device for different RH values.
Figure 5(a) The bonding mechanism between the graphene and water molecules. (b) The electronic band structure of graphene decorated with water. (c) The energy gap at the K point location.