| Literature DB >> 31795069 |
Sulaiman Khan1,2,3, David Newport1, Stéphane Le Calvé2,3.
Abstract
Several gas molecules of environmental and domestic significance exhibit a strong deep-UV absorption. Therefore, a sensitive and a selectiveEntities:
Keywords: BTEX; LEDs; NO2; SO2; VOC; absorption spectrophotometry; deep ultraviolet; hollow core waveguides; ozone; photodiodes; spectroscopy; ultraviolet light sources
Year: 2019 PMID: 31795069 PMCID: PMC6929016 DOI: 10.3390/s19235210
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Comparison of different gas detection techniques [12,14,15].
| Method/Technique | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Metal Oxide Semiconductor | Good sensitivity. | Relative low selectivity. |
| Electro-Chemical | Relative sensitive. | Zero drift. |
| PID | High sensitivity to aromatics. | Low selectivity, all the gases with IP equal or lower the photon may be detected (total VOC concentration). |
| Piezoelectric | Good sensitivity. | Large measurement noise. |
| Optical sensors | Excellent sensitivity. | Size |
Figure 1The ultraviolet (UV) absorption spectrum of different gases. The absorbance of each gas is normalized by the respective maximum absorption coefficient of the gas. The data of each molecule were obtained from HITRAN [18] and then plotted on a wavelength scale.
Figure 2Variation of relative intensity with the length of a gas cell.
Figure 3Schematics of UV absorption spectrophotometry. The plots on the left and right represent the signal from the emission source and the final signal recorded at the photodetector after passing through the gas cell, respectively.
Figure 4A spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. The spectral range of different UV region is represented.
Figure 5The output intensity of different UV sources. LED (80 µW, Mightex System US) data were obtained from Khan et al. [24] and other data were sourced from Hamamatsu Photonics. Mercury Xenon lamp (L2423, 200 W), Xenon flash lamp (L11957, 20 W), Deuterium Lamp (L9519, 30 W) [25].
Comparison of UV sources for portable spectrophotometry.
| LED | Deuterium Lamp | Xenon Flash Lamp | Mercury Lamp | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wavelength | Single peak | Relatively wide spectrum | Broad-spectrum | Broad-spectrum |
| Stability of light output | Excellent temporal and spatial stability. | Good. | Relatively poor. | Relatively poor. |
| Warm-up time | Instantaneous | 20–30 min | Instantaneous | 1–15 min |
| Life (hours) | 3000–10,000 | 2000–4000 | 400–5000 | 500–3000 |
| Input wattage (W) | DC powered | 5–150 | 2–60 | 50–500 |
| Thermal effect on samples | None. LEDs do not emit forward heat | Sample can be affected by the heat from the lamp | None | Sample can be affected by the heat from the lamp |
| Cost | Low | High | High | Low |
| Drive electronics | Simple | Complex | Complex | Complex |
| Safety | Low voltage and cold light source | High power supply (Input wattage 5–150 W) and hot lamp surface | High voltage supply (Input wattage 2–300 W): sparking risk | High voltage supply (Input wattage 50–500 W) and contains mercury in fragile quartz envelop |
Figure 6(a) The emission spectrum of different LEDs with different peaks [32]. (b)The power output of various LEDs at different wavelength [32]. (c) Output UV spectrum with parasitic emissions for aluminum nitride (AlN)-based LEDs (dashed lines) and sapphire-based LEDs (solid lines) [23]. Adapted with permission from Elsevier.
Figure 7(a) Leaky mode hollow core waveguides (HCW) and (b) Attenuated total-reflection (ATR) HCW.
Figure 8(a) Optical losses for glass HCW with inner walls coated with aluminium (red), silver (yellow) and SiO2 (green) [57]. (b) Optical losses of glass HCW coated with aluminum for different length of HCW [58].
Figure 9(a) i-HCW developed on the aluminum substrate [65]. (b) Setup gas detection with substrate-integrated hollow-core waveguides (i-HCW) with IR emission source and detector. Adapted with permission from [65], copyright 2019 American Chemical Society.
Figure 10HCW with high contrast grating on a silicon substrate. Adapted with permission from [66], Copyrights 2011–2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH.
Figure 11Classification of UV photodetectors.
Figure 12Principle of operation of the semiconductor-based photodetector and photo-emissive photodetector.
Advantages and disadvantages of photovoltaic UV detectors [67,68,69,70].
| Photodetector | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Photoconductor | Simple design, easy process control, high gain | Large dark current, slow time response |
| Schottky UV detector | Low dark current, quick time response, high sensitivity, and quantum efficiency | Higher absorption losses, shallow-semiconductor contact |
| p-n and p-i-n detectors | Fast time response, high impedance, low dark current, low bias operation, high-frequency operation, easier fabrication | The response is dependent on the dopant used which impairs the spectral response |
| Metal-semiconductor-metal (MSM) | Fast time response, minimally affected by bias, simple fabrication process, low cost, easy integration | Lower gain and spectral response |
Figure 13Schematics of the photomultiplier tube.
Figure 14Photosensitivity spectrum of Si-photodiode (Data Source: Hamamatsu Photonics [25]).
Figure 15Spectral response of several silicon carbide (SiC) UV photodiodes (Data source: Sglux [73]).
Different exposure limits recommended by different organization.
| Molecules | NIOSH-Recommended Exposure Limit (ppm) a | OSHA -Permissible Exposure Limit (ppm) b | ACGIH-Threshold Limit Value (ppm) c | ANSES (VGAI) France-Long Exposure (ppm) d |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.05–0.2 e | - |
|
| 1 | 5 | 0.2 | - |
|
| 2 [TWA] | 5 | 0.25 | - |
|
| 0.1 | 1 | 0.5 | 0.0006 |
|
| 100 | 200 | 20 | 5.31 |
|
| 10 | 10 | 10 | 0.345 |
|
| 100 | 100 | 100 | - |
a National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)-recommended exposure limit is an exposure for 8 or 10-h time weighted-average(TWA); b Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit are expressed as a time-weighted average; the concentration of a substance to which most workers can be exposed without adverse effect averaged over a normal 8-h workday or a 40-h workweek; c American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) threshold limit value are expressed as a time-weighted average; the concentration of a substance to which most workers can be exposed without adverse effects; d National Agency for Food Safety, Environment and Labor (ANSES) Interior Air Quality Guide Values (VGAI) France; e Depend on time and workload.
Comparison of different deep-UV absorption spectrometry for ozone, NO2, SO2, and BTEX.
| S. | Molecules Detected | Source | Peak Wave Length | Detector | Gas Cell (Materials) | Optical Path Length | Characterization | Remarks | Ref. | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Limit of Detection | Sensitivity | Linearity | Time Response | |||||||||
| 1 | BTEX | Deep UV LED | 260 nm | Photodiode | Aluminum | 40 cm | Benzene = 1.2 ppm | Benzene -62 | 934 ppb-60 ppm | fast | Good reproducibility of RSD 2%. | [ |
| 2 | Toluene | Deep UV LED | 260 nm | spectrometer | Aluminum and glass HCW with aluminum coatings | 25 cm | 8.1 ppm | 200 | 10–100 ppm | - | Good | [ |
| 3 | SO2, NO2, Ammonia, Ethyl benzene, bromobenzene, cis-decahydronaphtalene, trans-decahydronaphtalene, Buthyrophenone, diphenylsulfoxide, carbon disulphide | Deuterium lamp | 175–210 nm | spectrometer | Aluminum-coated silica HCW | 1 m | 1.1 ppm of SO2 was analyzed | - | - | - | UV and IR absorption were compared. | [ |
| 4 | BTX | UV D2 lamp | 230–270 nm | UV spectrometer | Pyrex wafer with Platinum coating | 2 cm | 4 ppm for toluene | - | - | 20 sec for detection cell (The total analysis time is different and depend on the pre- concentration time) | Microfluidics-based device. Pre-concentrator enhanced the LOD from 4 ppm to 100 ppm for toluene. | [ |
| 5 | BTX | UV D2 lamp | 230–270 nm | UV spectrometer | Pyrex wafer with the Platinum coating | 2 cm | 0.05 ppm for toluene | - | - | Sampling time 30 min | Air-cooled traps were placed to avoid adsorbed gases dilution. | [ |
| 6 | BTX | UV D2 lamp | 230–270 nm | UV spectrometer | Channel in glass substrate with platinum coating | 2 cm | 10 ppb for benzene | - | 10–100 ppb | 50 min total sampling time | Several parameters were optimized to enhance the LOD to 10 ppb. | [ |
| 7 | Ozone | Deuterium lamp | Wavelength range | Spectrometer with filter | PTFE | 40 cm | 0.1 ppm | 0.1–10 ppm | The optical path was increased by using a reflector on one side. | [ | ||
| 8 | Ozone | Low -pressure Hg lamp | 255 nm | Photodiode with an interference filter | Aluminum with Quartz lining | 15 cm | Precision is less than 2 ppb | - | - | 10 s | The device is small in size with low power consumption. | [ |
| 9 | Ozone | LED | 280 nm | AlGaN detector | - | 20 cm | 0.1 ppm | - | 0–1 ppm form plot | - | Photodiodes were discussed in detail. | [ |
| 10 | Ozone | LED | 254 nm | SiC photdiodes | Teflon tubes | 48.8 cm | - | - | - | - | Optoelectronics and data acquisition were discussed in detail | [ |
| 11 | Ozone | LED | 255 nm | photodiode | Aluminum | 40 cm and 4 cm | Sub ppb to 100 ppm | - | - | - | - | [ |
| 12 | NO2, SO2 | Deuterium/halogen lamp and LED | Spectrometer and photodiode | Multi-pass spherical gas absorption | 40–50 cm (Effective optical path length) | 4 ppm NO2 | NA | 0–50 ppm | 2–4 sec | Integrating sphere (multi-pass gas cell) was tested. | [ | |
| 13 | NO2, SO2 | LED | 255 nm, 285 nm, 320 nm, 405 nm and 590 nm | photodiode | Aluminum | 20 cm and 8 cm | Resolution 1 ppm | Up to 100 ppm | 10 ms | Carrier gas: N2 | [ | |
Figure 16(a) Experimental setup with the optical source and detector at one side using a reflector on the other side. (b) Variation of the signal for 0.25 ppm change of ozone concentration. (c) Calibration curve obtained for different ozone concentrations in the range 0.2–10 ppm [76].
Figure 17(a) The experimental setup with lamp and photodiode as a source and detector, respectively, with mirrors at the corners. Aluminum coated with Quartz was employed as a gas cell. (b) Calibration curve for different concentration of ozone. Adapted with permission from [59], copyright 2019 American Chemical Society.
Figure 18Experimental setup showing the optical and fluidics configuration of the ozone sensor [78].
Figure 19Ozone monitoring obtained during a calibration procedure [79].
Figure 20(a) Experimental setup for detection of ozone. (b) Signal for different flushing routine of ozone. (c) Calibration for different ozone concentrations up to 1 ppm [80].
Figure 21Experimental setup with the spherical gas cell for NO2 and SO2 detection [87].
Figure 22Experimental setup with a multiple-pass cell with LEDs and photodiodes [88].
Figure 23Setup for ozone measurement with ozone generator and ozone reference device. The sensor is shown at the left corner [89].
Figure 24Experimental setup for detection of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX). Detection cell was connected with pre-concentrator and UV-spectrometer. Adapted with permission from [101], copyright 2019 American Chemical Society.
Figure 25Pre-concentration cell with air-cooled air trap. Adapted with permission from [102], copyright 2019 American Chemical Society.
Figure 26Setup for the detection of aqueous benzene [103].
Figure 27(a) Schematic of the experimental setup with Gas Chromatography. (b) Chromatograph obtained for different molecules (red line represents a magnified version (8 times) of the chromatogram) [108,109,110].
Figure 28(a) Experimental setup using photodiodes for a measurement and a reference signal. (b) Variation of absorbance with the concentration of gaseous toluene. Adapted with permission from [111], copyrights 2019 Elsevier.
Figure 29(a) Experimental setup with aluminum HCWs. (b) Calibration curve for different concentration of gaseous toluene [24].