| Literature DB >> 33615149 |
Fereshteh Vajhadin1, Mohammad Mazloum-Ardakani1, Abbas Amini2.
Abstract
Exhaled breath test is a typical disease monitoring method for replacing blood and urine samples that may create discomfort for patients. To monitor exhaled breath markers, gas biomedical sensors have undergone rapid progress for non-invasive and point-of-care diagnostic devices. Among gas sensors, metal oxide-based biomedical gas sensors have received remarkable attention owing to their unique properties, such as high sensitivity, simple fabrication, miniaturization, portability and real-time monitoring. Herein, we reviewed the recent advances in chemoresistive metal oxide-based gas sensors with ZnO, SnO2 and In2O3 as sensing materials for monitoring a range of exhaled breath markers (i.e., NO, H2, H2S, acetone, isoprene and formaldehyde). We focused on the strategies that improve the sensitivity and selectivity of metal oxide-based gas sensors. The challenges to fabricate a functional gas sensor with high sensing performance along with suggestions are outlined.Entities:
Keywords: exhaled breath marker; gas medical sensor; metal oxide; nanomaterial; non‐invasive disease diagnosis; point‐of‐care device; selective detection
Year: 2021 PMID: 33615149 PMCID: PMC7883254 DOI: 10.1002/mds3.10161
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Devices Sens ISSN: 2573-802X
Exhale breath markers and corresponding diseases
| Biomarker | Disease | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Acetone (OC(CH3)2) | Diabetes, lung cancer, congestive heart failure | Hanh et al. ( |
| Isoprene | Blood cholesterol level, lipid disorder, fibrosis and cirrhosis | Alkhouri et al. ( |
| Nitrogen monoxide (NO) | Asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lung disease, airway inflammation, hypertension, rhinitis, cystic fibrosis | Barnes et al. ( |
| Formaldehyde (HCHO) | Lung cancer | Wehinger et al. ( |
| Hydrogen (H2) | Intestinal upset, indigestion in infants | Wang and Sahay ( |
| Hydrogen sulphide (H2S) | Asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) | Bulemo et al. ( |
ZnO, SnO2 and In2O3‐based gas sensors
| Sensitive material | Target gas | Operational temperature | Detection range (ppm) | LOD (ppm) | RH% | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
3D inverse opal ZnO‐CuO | Acetone | 310°C | 0.2–50 | 0.1 | 93 | Xie et al. ( |
| Ti‐ZnO | Isoprene | 325°C | 20–500 | 9.3 | 90 | Guntner et al. ( |
| Ce‐ZnO | Acetone ethanolamine |
RT RT |
1–100 1–500 |
1 – |
54 54 | Kulandaisamy et al. ( |
|
Pt‐ZnO Cu‐ZnO La‐ZnO |
Acetone Acetone NO |
450°C 450°C 400°C |
1–5 1–5 1–5 |
– – – |
95 95 95 | Cho et al. ( |
| ZnO hierarchical | Acetone | RT and 200°C | 1–5 | 1 | 5 | Chen et al. ( |
|
3D inverse opal ZnO‐Fe3O4 | Acetone | 485°C | – | 0.1 | 20 | Zhang et al. ( |
| Ag nanowire‐ZnO nanorods | NO | RT | 0.01–0.1 | 0.01 | 10 | Singh et al. ( |
| Nanospiral ZnO film | NO | 150C | 10–100 | 10 | 40 | Luo et al. ( |
| Pt‐SnO2 nanotubes | H2S | 300°C | 0.1–0.6 | 0.1 | 95 | Bulemo et al. ( |
| Pd‐SnO2 nanowires | H2 | 150°C | 10–100 | – | – | Nguyen et al. ( |
| RGO‐SnO2 | Ethanol | 300°C | 43–100 | – | 98 | Zito et al. ( |
| SnO2 nanoparticles | H2 | 450°C | 100–500 | 1 | 80 | Vasiliev et al. ( |
| PdAu‐SnO2 |
Formaldehyde Acetone |
110°C 250°C |
– – |
45 30 |
94 94 | Li et al. ( |
| Au@WO3SnO2 nanofibres | Acetone | 150°C | 0.2–10 | – | 90 | Shao et al. ( |
| SnO2/rGO/PANI | H2S | RT | 0.05–10 | 0.05 | 97 | Zhang et al. ( |
| Pt@In2O3 core–shell nanowires | Acetone | 320°C | – | 0.01 | 100 | Liu et al. ( |
| Pt‐In2O3 mesoporous nanofibres | Acetone | 180°C | 0.01–50 | 0.01 | 85 | Liu et al. ( |
| PA/Gr/nanoribbon/In2O3 | NH3 | RT | 0.65–1.69 | 0.65 | – | Xu and Wu ( |
Abbreviations: Gr, graphene; PANI, polyaniline; RGO, reduced graphene oxide; RT, room temperature.
FIGURE 1ZnO metal oxide preparation approach for gas sensors. A. (a) Schematic of the preparation process of Ti‐doped ZnO by the flame spray in which the products were directly deposited on the sensing platform. (b) STEM morphology image of Ti‐doped ZnO. Elemental mapping of Zn distribution (red) in (c) and Ti distribution (green) in (d). EDX (e, f) of the selected area in (d); reproduced from Guntner et al. (2016) with the permission from The Royal Society of Chemistry. B. Schematic of the preparation process of nanomaterials with a protein template named apoferritin. (g) The SEM image of Pt‐ZnO nanofibres after calcination (Cho et al., 2017)
FIGURE 2Gas sensor based on Pt‐decorated SnO2 nanotubes. (A) Schematic of the preparation process of Pt‐decorated SnO2 nanotubes. (B) Electrospinning nanofibres. (C) SiO2‐cored SnO2 nanofibres. (D) SnO2 nanotubes, (E) TEM image of Pt‐SnO2 nanotubes, EDS mapping of Pt‐SnO2 (F); reprinted with the permission from Bulemo et al. (2017), Copyright (2017) American Chemical Society
FIGURE 3Metal oxide‐based gas sensor. (a) Fabrication of the sensor chip on the glass substrate. (b) SEM images of SnO2 nanowires as sensing material prepared through growing on a chip. (c, d) Sensor packaging. (e) Schematic of the setup of sensor chip (Nguyen et al., 2017)
FIGURE 4Schematic illustration of ethanol monitoring using reduced graphene oxide‐SnO2 nanocomposites substrate in dry and humid conditions (Zito et al., 2017). Electron transfers from SnO2 to reduced graphene oxide that results in increasing depletion layer in SnO2. In humid conditions, the formation of Sn‐OH led to a reduction in the depletion layer of SnO2 hallow nanospheres and thereby reduction in the resistance resulting in the decrease in ethanol responses
FIGURE 5(A) Schematic illustration of the interaction between p‐type and n‐type materials to H2S. (B) P‐n heterojunction in the SnO2/rGO/PANI nanocomposite (Zhang et al., 2019). In the presence of the H2S, the thickness of the electron depletion layers is decreased resulting in a decrease in the sensor resistance
FIGURE 6A portable gas sensor based on Pt@In2O3 nanowire for real‐time acetone monitoring (Liu et al., 2018). (A) Schematic of the gas sensor performance. The senor response for measuring acetone in exhaled breath of healthy (B) and diabetic (C) volunteers