| Literature DB >> 35013398 |
Justin M Curtiss1, Darren K Emge2.
Abstract
Generation and control of humidity in a testing environment is crucial when evaluating a chemical vapor sensor as water vapor in the air can not only interfere with the sensor itself, but also react with a chemical analyte changing its composition. Upon constructing a split-flow humidity generator for chemical vapor sensor development, numerous issues were observed due to instability of the generated relative humidity level and drift of the humidity over time. By first fixing the initial relative humidity output of the system at 50%, we studied the effects of flowrate on stabilization time along with long term stability for extended testing events. It was found that the stabilization time can be upwards of 7 h, but can be maintained for greater than 90 h allowing for extended experiments. Once the stabilization time was known for 50% relative humidity output, additional studies at differing humidity levels and flowrates were performed to better characterize the system. At a relative humidity of 20% there was no time required to stabilize, but when increased to 80% this time increased to over 4 h. With this information we were better able to understand the generation process and characterize the humidity generation system, output stabilization and possible modifications to limit future testing issues.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35013398 PMCID: PMC8748804 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-04073-2
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.996
Figure 1Conceptual water sparger design.
Figure 2Humidity generator/controller schematic.
Initial equilibration—50% RH.
| Flowrate (L/min) | Target RH (%) | Starting RH (%) | Equilibrium RH (%) | Δ RH1 | Equilibrium time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 50 | 50 | 48 | 2 | 0 |
| 2 | 50 | 50 | 49 | 1 | 0 |
| 3 | 50 | 50 | 47 | 3 | 420 |
| 4 | 50 | 50 | 47 | 3 | 420 |
| 4.5 | 50 | 50 | 45 | 5 | 480 |
| 5 | 50 | 51 | 44 | 300 | |
| 5 | 50 | 50 | 43 | 210 | |
| 5 | 50 | 51 | 46 | 5 | 240 |
| 7 | 50 | 50 | 45 | 5 | 500 |
| 7 | 50 | 50 | 45 | 5 | 500 |
| 7 | 50 | 51 | 47 | 4 | 350 |
| 8.5 | 50 | 50 | 44 | 6 | 350 |
| 8.5 | 50 | 50 | 45 | 5 | 500 |
| 8.5 | 50 | 50 | 45 | 5 | 500 |
| 10 | 50 | 51 | 44 | 400 | |
| 10 | 50 | 50 | 43 | 375 | |
| 10 | 50 | 50 | 43 | 420 |
1Bold values denote greatest change from starting to equilibrium RH.
Figure 3Example data readout of temperature and RH over 22 h, 10 L/min at 50% RH.
Figure 4Example compensation for humidity drop starting at 58% and decreasing to 51% over 8 h with stability for additional 8 h.
RH vs. flowrate results.
| Flowrate (L/min) | Target RH (%) | Starting RH (%) | Equilibrium RH (%) | Equilibrium time (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 20 | 20 | 20, 20, 20 | 0, 0, 0 |
| 5 | 20 | 20 | 21, 21, 21 | 0, 0, 0 |
| 10 | 20 | 20 | 18, 19, 18 | 0, 0, 0 |
| 2 | 50 | 50 | 48, 51, 49 | 0, 0, 0 |
| 5 | 50 | 51 | 44, 43, 46 | 300, 210, 240 |
| 7 | 50 | 50 | 45, 45, 47 | 500, 500, 350 |
| 8.5 | 50 | 50 | 44, 44, 45 | 350, 500, 500 |
| 10 | 50 | 50 | 44, 43, 43 | 400, 375, 420 |
| 2 | 80 | 80 | 76, 77, 76 | 310, 230, 260 |
| 5 | 80 | 80 | 70, 69, 69 | 280, 490, 500 |
| 7 | 80 | 80 | 67, 65, 64 | 450, 430, 470 |
| 8.5 | 80 | 80 | 64, 66, 69 | 500, 550, 590 |
| 10 | 80 | 79 | 60, 62, 62 | 410, 350, 445 |
Figure 5Equilibration time of system versus flow rate and starting humidity.