| Literature DB >> 30717175 |
Chang Wang1,2, Huan Wang3, Dan Zhao4, Xianqi Wei5,6, Xin Li7,8, Weihua Liu9,10, Hongzhong Liu11.
Abstract
A novel hybrid structure sensor based on cobalt carbonate hydroxide hydrate (CCHH) and reduced graphene oxide (RGO) was designed for room temperature NH₃ detection. This hybrid structure consisted of CCHH and RGO (synthesized by a one-step hydrothermal method), in which RGO uniformly dispersed in CCHH, being used as the gas sensing film. The resistivity of the hybrid structure was highly sensitive to the changes on NH₃ concentration. CCHH in the hybrid structure was the sensing material and RGO was the conductive channel material. The hybrid structure could improve signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the sensitivity by obtaining the optimal mass proportion of RGO, since the proportion of RGO was directly related to sensitivity. The gas sensor with 0.4 wt% RGO showed the highest gas sensing response reach to 9% to 1 ppm NH₃. Compared to a conventional gas sensor, the proposed sensor not only showed high gas sensing response at room temperature but also was easy to achieve large-scale production due to the good stability and simple synthesis process.Entities:
Keywords: ammonia; cobalt carbonate hydroxide hydrate; gas sensor; reduced graphene oxide; room temperature
Year: 2019 PMID: 30717175 PMCID: PMC6387293 DOI: 10.3390/s19030615
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Fabrication flowchart of cobalt carbonate hydroxide hydrate (CCHH) with RGO hybrid structure.
Relationship of sensor name and sensing material.
| Sensors | CCHH | CCHH-RGO-0.1 | CCHH-RGO-0.4 | CCHH-RGO-4 | CCHH-RGO-16 | RGO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mass proportion of RGO/CCHH (wt %) | 0 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 4 | 16 | 100 |
Figure 2Schematic diagram of the gas detection system.
Figure 3(a) Scanning electron microscope (SEM) image of CCHH-RGO-0.4; (b) the enlarged SEM image of CCHH-RGO-0.4; (c) X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern of CCHH-RGO-0.4.
Figure 4(a) XPS spectrum of the Co 2p composite; (b) XPS spectrum of the C 1s composite.
Figure 5(a) Gas sensing response of four sensors under six different concentrations of ammonia; (b) Response with different concentrations of ammonia ranging from 1 to 50 ppm.
Figure 6(a) Gas sensing response curve of four sensors to 10 ppm ammonia; (b) Gas sensing response, response time and recovery time of four sensors for 10 ppm ammonia.
Figure 7(a) Gas sensing response of the gas sensor after four continuous cycles under 10 ppm ammonia; (b) Selectivity response when exposed to acetone, isopropanol, ethanol, ammonia and formaldehyde.
Comparison of various indicators between different ammonia sensors.
| Materials | Temperature (°C) | Concentration (ppm) | Response (%) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ag/ZnO | 150 | 10 | 29.5 | [ |
| Pt/SnO2 | 115 | 50 | 25 | [ |
| RGO/Graphene | 25 | 0.5 | 2.88 | [ |
| PANI/SnO2 | 25 | 10 | 5 | [ |
| Modified-CNT | 25 | 1.5 | 0.65 | [ |
| Graphene/TiO2 | 25 | 5 | 1.25 | [ |
| CCHH/RGO | 25 | 1(10) | 9(43) | This Work |