| Literature DB >> 31013883 |
Julien George1, Aymen Abdelghani2, Prince Bahoumina3, Olivier Tantot4, Dominique Baillargeat5, Kamel Frigui6, Stéphane Bila7, Hamida Hallil8, Corinne Dejous9.
Abstract
This paper presents the feasibility of a fully inkjet-printed, microwave flexible gas sensor based on a resonant electromagnetic transducer in microstrip technology and the impact of the printing process that affects the characteristics of the gas sensor. The sensor is fabricated using silver ink and multi-wall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) embedded in poly (3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) polystyrene (PEDOT: PSS-MWCNTs) as sensitive material for Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) detection. Particular attention is paid to the characterization of the printed materials and the paper substrate. The manufacturing process results in a change in relative permittivity of the paper substrate by nearly 20%. Electrical characterization, made in the presence of gas, validates our theoretical approach and the radiofrequency (RF) gas sensor proof of concept.Entities:
Keywords: Flexible substrate; PEDOT: PSS-MWCNT; RF structure; dielectric characterization; gas sensor; heating influence; inkjet printing
Year: 2019 PMID: 31013883 PMCID: PMC6515026 DOI: 10.3390/s19081768
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Overview of the operating principle of the differential microwave chemical gas sensor.
Figure 2Split resonant cavity.
Figure 3The resonant cavities used for dielectric characterization for Epson paper.
Evolution of electrical properties.
| At Room Temperature (RT) | After 60 °C Cycle | After 100 °C Cycle | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency (GHz) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.45 | 3.3 | 0.12 | 3.24 | 0.117 | 2.66 | 0.0364 |
| 4.7 | 3.1 | 0.09 | 3.01 | 0.1 | 2.66 | 0.0045 |
| 10 | 2.86 | 0.017 | 2.8 | 0.094 | 2.57 | 0.0038 |
Figure 4Design of the gas sensor.
Figure 5Simulation of the gas sensor’s electrical behavior. (Reference resonator).
Figure 6Magnitude of electrical fields in the structure.
Figure 7Location of the sensitive layer: 1st and 2nd mode.
Figure 8Simulation of the gas sensor’s electrical behavior. (Sensitive resonator with PEDOT: PSS-MWCNTs).
Figure 9Illustration of the structure with the sensitive layers located at the maximum electric (E) fields of both modes.
Figure 10Measurements of the first mode without PEDOT: PSS-MWCNTs (red) and with it (blue).
The difference between simulation and measurement.
| SIMULATION | MEASUREMENT | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| FrS21r (GHz) | FrS21s (GHz) | FrS21r (GHz) | FrS21s (GHz) |
| 3.06 | 3.16 | 3.06 | 3.169 |
Figure 11The measuring bench under gas.
Frequency shift versus ethanol concentration.
| C(ppm) | FrS21r (GHz) | FrS21s (GHz) |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 3.06 | 3.169 |
| 500 | 3.0595 | 3.167 |
| 1000 | 3.059 | 3.1655 |
| 1300 | 3.0584 | 3.163 |
Variation of the conductivity as a function of the resonance frequency.
| Conductivity Variation | FrS21s (GHz) |
|---|---|
| −30% | 3.154 |
| −20% | 3.157 |
| −10% | 3.159 |
| 0% | 3.16 |
Figure 12Comparison between measurement and simulation.