| Literature DB >> 30935138 |
Jean-Marc Tulliani1,2, Barbara Inserra3,4, Daniele Ziegler5,6.
Abstract
Humidity sensors are wpan> class="Species">idespread in many industrial applications, ranging from environmental and meteorological monitoring, soil water content determination in agriculture, air conditioning systems, food quality monitoring, and medical equipment to many other fields. Thus, an accurate and reliable measurement of water content in different environments and materials is of paramount importance. Due to their rich surface chemistry and structure designability, carbon materials have become interesting in humidity sensing. In addition, they can be easily miniaturized and applied in flexible electronics. Therefore, this short review aims at providing a survey of recent research dealing with carbonaceous materials used as capacitive and resistive humidity sensors. This work collects some successful examples of devices based on carbon nanotubes, graphene, carbon black, carbon fibers, carbon soot, and more recently, biochar produced from agricultural wastes. The pros and cons of the different sensors are also discussed in the present review.Entities:
Keywords: biochar; carbon black; carbon fibers; carbon nanotubes; carbon soot; carbon-based materials; flexible electronics; graphene; humidity sensor
Year: 2019 PMID: 30935138 PMCID: PMC6523924 DOI: 10.3390/mi10040232
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Figure 1Fields of application of humidity and moisture sensors. Reproduced with permission from [1], published by Elsevier, 2016.
Figure 2Calibration curve of a sensor exposed to increasing concentrations of an analyte. Elaboration from [2], published by ACS Publishing, 2019.
Figure 3Sensor’s response of a sensor exposed to increasing concentrations of an analyte. Elaboration from [2], published by ACS Publishing, 2019.
Figure 4Resistance changes in function of temperature for PIC30 sensor. Reproduced with permission from [32], published by Elsevier, 2011.
Sensitivity of MWCNTs/PI composites. Reproduced with permission from [33], published by Elsevier, 2010.
| CNT Concentration (wt%/PI) | p-MWCNTs/PI Sensitivity (1/RH%) | MWCNTs/PI Sensitivity (1/RH%) |
|---|---|---|
| 0.1 | 0.00127 | 0.00092 |
| 0.2 | 0.00149 | 0.00103 |
| 0.3 | 0.00305 | 0.00182 |
| 0.4 | 0.00466 | 0.00218 |
Figure 5Scheme of the conduction mechanism of p-MWCNT/PI composite devices. Reproduced with permission from [33], published by Elsevier, 2010.
Figure 6Dynamic response curve for the MWCNTs/PVP film sensor heat-treated at 350 °C at different RH% values. Reproduced with permission from [36], published by Wiley Online Library, 2016.
Figure 7Single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT)/Poly (Vinyl Alcohol) (PVA) filament sensor response. Reproduced with permission from [37], published by ACS Publishing, 2017.
Figure 8Sensitivities of humidity sensors as a function of relative humidity. (a) and as a function of time; (b) between 10 and 90% RH. Reproduced with permission from [38], published by Elsevier, 2015.
Figure 9Dynamic response under 30% RH: (a) response in terms of conductance’s changes in the range 3–30% RH; (b) for different graphene-based sensors. Reproduced with permission from [39], published by Elsevier, 2012.
Figure 10Impedance changes of GO-based sensors. Reproduced with permission from [42], published by Elsevier, 2012.
Figure 11Impedance change of GO-based sensors. Reproduced with permission from [46], published by Wiley Online Library, 2016.
Figure 12Sensing curves of rGO and MS-GO composites and of MoS2 when RH switched from 0% to 50%. Reproduced with permission from [52], published by Elsevier, 2018.
Figure 13FESEM images of n-C films (thickness 550 nm) grown under CH4 (57.5 Pa). Nanoparticles with 80 nm size on the surfaces of carbon nanosheets can be observed (a). n-C films with 210 nm thickness grown in vacuum, nanohoneycomb structures are visible in (b). Reproduced with permission from [4], published by Elsevier, 2013.
Figure 14Humidity sensing properties of carbon nanosheets and nanohoneycombs-based sensors. Reproduced with permission from [4], published by Elsevier, 2013.
Figure 15The conductivity of the CQDs film as a function of the relative humidity at room temperature. Reproduced with permission from [63], published by Elsevier, 2013.
Figure 16The resistances of CB-PVP/PVA composite films with different contents of CB as a function of RH%. Reproduced with permission from [64], published by Elsevier, 2014.
Figure 17Sensor response (SR%) towards relative humidity for SWP700 biochar with 10 wt% of PVP. Reproduced with permission from [21], published by MDPI, 2017.
Figure 18Sensor response (SR%) towards relative humidity for a coffee ground biochar sensor during adsorption and desorption cycles. Reproduced with permission from [66], published by MDPI, 2019.
Main features of humidity sensors based on carbonaceous materials. n.d.–not determined.
| Sample | Sensor Response | Response Time | Recovery Time | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MWCNTs in a PAA matrix in a ratio 1:4 | 930 Ω increase of the resistance when RH changed from 30% to 90% | 680 s when RH increased from 50% to 90% | 380 s when RH decreased from 90% to 50% | [ |
| MWCNTs CVD grown on quartz substrates | ~267% increase of resistance under 100 RH% | 2–3 min | Few hours | [ |
| 3 wt% MWCNTs in a PI matrix | ~10% increase of resistance when RH changed from 30% to 90% | < 5 s when RH increased from 30% to 90% | n.d. | [ |
| 0.4 wt% MWCNTs in a PI matrix | ~40% increase of resistance when RH changed from 10% to 90% | n.d. | n.d. | [ |
| 9 wt% MWCNTs in a HEC matrix | ~300% increase of resistance change ratio when RH changed from 23% to 80% | ~1500 s when RH increased from 0% to 90% | n.d. | [ |
| MWCNTs in a PVP matrix in a ratio 1:9 | 4000% current ratio at 94 RH% | 15 s | 1.8 s | [ |
| SWCNTs/PVA filaments in a molar ratio 1:5 | Resistance increase of 24 times | 40 s | n.d. | [ |
| MnO2-coated CNT yarn | Resistance variation of 65% under 90% of RH | 20 s | 30 s | [ |
| Defect graphene on alumina substrate with gold electrodes | Relative conductance ratio of 3.33 when RH changed from 3% to 30% | n.d. | ~150 s when RH% decreased from 30% to 3% | [ |
| Spin-coated GO films on PET substrates + laser treatment, 0.2 W | ~20 kΩ increase of resistance when RH changed from 11% to 95% | 3 s when RH% increased from 11% to 95% | 10 s when RH% decreased from 95% to 11% | [ |
| GO foam | ~37% decrease of the current when RH increased from 0% to 85.9% | 89 ms when RH% increased from 0% to 85.9% | 189 ms when RH% decreased from 85.9% to 0% | [ |
| rGO on PDMS substrate | ~2750% increase of the capacitance when RH increased from 20% to 90% | n.d. | n.d. | [ |
| GO on polyethylene naphthlate by by drop casting and spray coating methods | The sensor response was normalized | < 100 ms | < 100 ms | [ |
| Single layer of graphene on SiO2 by CVD | Relative resistance variation of 1.2% in the range 8–85 RH% | 0.6 s | 0.4 s | [ |
| Tin dioxide/reduced graphene oxide (RGO) nanocomposite film | Capacitance from 246.53 pF at 11% of RH to 138,267 pF at 97% | 102 s | Several s | [ |
| Graphene/methyl-red composite | SR % 96.36 in terms of reistance and 2869500% in terms of capacitance | 0.251 s | 0.35 s | [ |
| GO modified with poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) poly(styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT: PSS) and Ag colloids | 4.97% under 97 RH% | 31 s | 72 s | [ |
| Reduced graphene oxide and MoS2 hybrid composites were synthesized by hydrothermal method and drop-cast | 21% under 50 RH% | 30 s | 253 s | [ |
| rGo/MoS2 composites by sonication | 872.7% under 50 RH% | 6.3 s | 30.8 s | [ |
| C nanofibers sprayed on a PI substrate | ~16% increase of relative resistance ratio when RH increased from 5% to 100% | n.d. | n.d. | [ |
| C nanosheets produced by physical vapor deposition | Resistance increase of 225% under 95 RH% | 30 s when RH% increased from 11% to 40% | 90 s when RH% decreased from 40% to 11% | [ |
| Amorphous carbon film by DC magnetron sputtering | ~200% increase of capacitance when RH increased from 11% to 95% | 3 minutes when RH% increased from 33% to 95% | 4 minutes when RH% decreased from 95% to 33% | [ |
| Hydrogenated amorphous carbon (a-C:H) film | Resistance decrease of 97.3% under 80 RH% | n.d. | n.d. | [ |
| N-doped carbon spheres (N-CSs- PVA) by drop coating (0.1 mm gap IDEs) | Conductance increased by 4 order of magnitude in th eRH range 9–97% | 19 s | 178 s | [ |
| Screen-printed commercial composite ink (ESL RS12113) made of epoxy resin and carbon powder | Resistance increase of 4.8% under 80 RH% | n.d. | n.d. | [ |
| Carbon quantum dots film made by electrochemical ablation of graphite | Resistivity decrease of 48% under 90 RH% | 25 s when RH% increases from 7% to 43% | 60 s when RH% decreases from 43% to 7% | [ |
| Pyrolyzed bamboo | Resistance decrease of 91% under 95% RH | 2 min | 2 min | [ |
| Pyrolyzed mixed softwood pellets | Impedance decrease of 97.7% under 97.5% RH | 1 min | 1 min | [ |
| Oil seed rape | Impedance decrease of 94.5% under 99% RH | 50 s | 70 s | [ |
| Coffee ground biochar | Impedance decrease of 51% under 98% RH | 4.5 min | 1 min | [ |