| Literature DB >> 36079195 |
Xiaohu Chen1, Ryan Wreyford1, Noushin Nasiri1.
Abstract
The real-time detecting and monitoring of ethylene gas molecules could benefit the agricultural, horticultural and healthcare industries. In this regard, we comprehensively review the current state-of-the-art ethylene gas sensors and detecting technologies, covering from preconcentrator-equipped gas chromatographic systems, Fourier transform infrared technology, photonic crystal fiber-enhanced Raman spectroscopy, surface acoustic wave and photoacoustic sensors, printable optically colorimetric sensor arrays to a wide range of nanostructured chemiresistive gas sensors (including the potentiometric and amperometric-type FET-, CNT- and metal oxide-based sensors). The nanofabrication approaches, working conditions and sensing performance of these sensors/technologies are carefully discussed, and a possible roadmap for the development of ethylene detection in the near future is proposed.Entities:
Keywords: environmental monitoring; ethylene; gas-sensing technologies; nanomaterials; nanostructured gas sensors
Year: 2022 PMID: 36079195 PMCID: PMC9457196 DOI: 10.3390/ma15175813
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1The molecular structure of ethylene.
The state-of-the-art ethylene gas-sensing technologies.
| Type | Materials | Fabrication | OT $ | Interf. Gases ♦ | RH § | Con. * | Response | Res./Rec. + | LOD &
| On-Site Trial | Refs. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GC | Large-capacity-on-chip preconcentrator device | 200 | - | - | 100 | 1.9 #; (ΔI) | - | 50 | - | [ | |
| Gas Chromatographic System | 45 | Ambient air | - | 0.4 | 0.2 V #; (ΔV) | - | 2.3 | - | [ | ||
| Raman | Hollow-core photonic crystal fibers | RT | O2, CO2, NH3 and N2 | - | 1000 | 350 #; (IRaman) a | 600 Φ | 100,000 | - | [ | |
| Acoustic | Quartz-enhanced photoacoustic spectroscopy | 0 | - | - | 85 | ~21 mV; (2f) b | 70 Ψ | ~50 | Apples | [ | |
| Quartz-enhanced photoacoustic spectroscopy | 15 | - | - | 100 | ~250 mV; (2f) b | 30 Ψ | 7 | - | [ | ||
| Quartz-enhanced photoacoustic spectroscopy | RT | CO2 | - | 35 | ~40 mV; (2f) b | 90 Ψ | 8 | - | [ | ||
| CO2 laser photoacoustic spectroscopy system | RT | - | 0 | - | - | - | 3 | - | [ | ||
| Fiber-optic low-frequency acoustic sensor | RT | C2H2, CH4, C2H6, CO and CO2 | - | 30 | 1.65 mV; (2f) b | - | 160 | - | [ | ||
| All-optical photoacoustic system | RT | CH4 | - | 20 | 0.4 nm #; (RMS) c | - | 200 | - | [ | ||
| Au-PPy d | Spin-coating | RT | - | 0–50 | 5 | ~1.4 KHz; (Δf) e | 81/142 | 87 | - | [ | |
| AgBF4/PVP | Drop-casting | RT | C6H14, hexane, ethyl acetate ethanol and diethyl ether | - | 7 | 51 Hz·ppm−1; (Δf/Con.) e | - | 420 | Pear, orange and banana | [ | |
| Optical | Mn:SiO2 | Surface adsorption | RT | Various alkenes and alcohols | 0–0.5 | 0.67 vol% | ~4700; (ICTL) f | - | 10,000 | - | [ |
| Pd(II)-SiO2 | Ultrasonic spray pyrolysis (USP) | RT | NOx, SO2, H2S and C2H2 | 0–90 | 50 | 300 #; (RGB) g | 1200/- | 170 | Bananas | [ | |
| PCDA/PCDA-SH Liposomes h | Wet chemistry and probe sonication | RT | Air, N2 and CO2 | NG-NA Δ | 1000 | 1.38; ((R/B)/(R0/B0)) i | - | ~600,000 | Kiwis | [ | |
| Potentiometric | Fe0.7Cr1.3O3|8YSZ|Pt j | Sol–gel, ball milling, and screen-printing | 550 | CO | 0, 3 | 200 | 23.49 mV; (Vcell) | - | - | [ | |
| Ni-Fe0.7Cr1.3O3|8YSZ|LSM k | Sol–gel, Ball milling, screen-printing, and drop-casting | 550 | CO | 3 | 200 | 65 mV #; (Vcell) | - | - | - | [ | |
| rGO-LSC|YSZ|Pt l | Screen-printing | 500 | NH3, NO2 and CO | 10–30 | 0.025 | ~30 mV; (Vcell) | 80/- | 10 | - | [ | |
| Amperometric (FET) | P3HT-Pd m | Spin-coating | RT | Ethyl acetate, methanol and acetone | - | 25 | 30.2%; (ΔId/I0) n | - | - | - | [ |
| SiC/Ir | Magnetron sputtering | 200 | - | - | 2.5 | 1.6 #; (ΔId) n | - | 500 | Apples | [ | |
| MWCNTs | Ink-jet printing and brush coating | RT | - | - | 50 | 18.4%; (ΔR/R0) | 10/60 | - | - | [ | |
| Amperometric (CNT) | SWCNTs/Cu(I) complex o | Drop-casting | RT | Alkenes, ethanol and acetaldehyde | - | 50 | 1.8% #; (ΔG/G0) | - | - | Banana, avocado, apple, pear and orange | [ |
| SWCNTs/Catalytic mixture | Iodonium salt reaction and drop-casting | RT | Variety of VOCs p | 40–80 | 50 | ~59% #; (ΔG/G0) | 60 φ/300 φ | 15 | Lisianthus flowers and carnations | [ | |
| B:MWCNTs | CVD and air brushing | RT | - | - | 7 | 0.05%; (ΔR/R0) | - | - | - | [ | |
| Pd|SWCNTs|HA·HCl q | Impregnation, spin-coating, and drop-casting | 40 | Variety of VOCs | 50 | 100 | ~90% #; (ΔG/G0) | 300 φ/700 φ | 200 | - | [ | |
| Amperometric | ZnO | Electrodeposition and chemical bath deposition | 200 | - | - | 50 | 2.4%; (ΔR/R0) | - | - | - | [ |
| ZnO-Ag | Doping and electrodeposition | RT | - | - | 50 | 19.6%; (ΔR/R0) | 240/480 | - | - | [ | |
| ZrO2/PTh r | In situ chemical oxidative polymerization | RT | n-hexane, dimethylbutanes, and methyl pentanes | ~45 | - | 9 #; (ΔI/I0) | ~80/~60 | - | - | [ | |
| LaFeO3 | Sol–gel | 150 | C2H2, CH4, C2H6, CO, CO2 and H2 | 0–50 | 3000 | 65; (Rg/R0) | - | - | - | [ | |
| Pd:SnO2 | Hydrothermal | 375 | - | - | 100 | 957.96; (R0/Rg) | <10/<60 | - | - | [ | |
| Pd-SnO2 | Coating | 250 | - | 51.9 | 100 | 11.1; (R0/Rg) | 1/103 | 50 | Banana, lemon, apple and pear | [ | |
| Pd-Fe2O3/rGO | Calcination, redox reaction, and mechanical shaking | 250 | Different VOCs | - | 10 | 10; (R0/Rg) | 18 s/50 s | 10 | - | [ | |
| Amperometric | CeOx-SnO2 | Co-precipitation | 350 | H2, C2H2, CH4, H2S, NO2, ethanol and acetone | 0 | 10 | 5.18; (R0/Rg) | 12/- | 300 | - | [ |
| Cr2O3/SnO2 | USP, screen-printing, and beam evaporation | 350 | Trimethylamine, dimethylamine, NH3, ethanol, formaldehyde and CO | 21, 35 | 2.5 | 16.8; (ΔR/Rg) | 6/69 | 24 | Banana, apple, mango, peach, kiwi and blueberry | [ | |
| TiO2–WO3 | Sol–gel | 250 | - | - | 200 | 46.2%; (ΔR/R0) | - | 8000 | Banana, papaya and mango | [ | |
$ OT: Operating temperature. Interf. Gases: Interfering gases. § RH: Relative humidity. * Con.: Concentration. + Resp.: Response time. Rec.: Recovery time. & LOD: Limit of detection; , where RMS is root-mean-square of measurement noise, slope can be obtained from the linear regression fit of sensor response vs. concentration plot. # Data are not available, estimated value from the graph. Φ Exposure time of ethylene gas mixture to the Raman sensor. Ψ Integration time in Allan deviation plot. φ Time represents the exposure duration to the target gas (ethylene) and air. Δ NG: Not given; NA: Not affected by RH. a Intensity of the Raman signal. b Converted voltage signal (2f) via piezoelectric effect. c Root-mean-square value of the photoacoustic signal. d PPy: Polypyrrole. e Δf: Frequency shift. f Integrated CTL intensity; CTL: Cataluminescence. g Euclidean distances (total length of the color difference vector). h PCDA: 10,12-pentacosadiynoic acid; the thiol-functionalized PCDA is denoted as PCDA-SH. i R0, B0, R, and B correspond to the values of the red and blue elements of sensor before and after exposure, respectively. j YSZ: Y2O3-stabilized ZrO2. k LSM: La0.9Sr0.1MnO3. l LSC: Lanthanum Strontium Chromite. m P3HT: Poly(3-hexylthiophene-2,5-diyl). n ΔId = Change of the drain current. o Copper complex featuring a fluorinated tris(pyrazolyl)borate ligand. p VOCs: Volatile organic compounds. q HA: Hydroxylamine. r PTh: polythiophene. s Time was calculated for 1 ppm concentration of ethylene gas.
Figure 2(a) Relationship of the absorbity versus the concentration of ethylene gas. Inset: the characteristic absorption spectra, with peaked absorption at the wavenumber of ~949 cm−1. Reproduced from Ref. [62] with permission from the IEEE. (b) Raman spectrum of 250 ppm of ethylene gas mixed with 20% O2 and 500 ppm CO2, and (c) the spectral intensity of ethylene’s vibration band (1343 cm−1) against its concentrations in a mixture of 20% O2 and 500 ppm CO2. Reproduced from Ref. [31] with permission from the Royal Society of Chemistry.
Figure 3(a) Linearity of photoacoustic sensor signals (~949.3 cm−1) to the concentration of ethylene gas under 750 Torr. Inset: typical sensing signals of ethylene at the concentrations of 25, 45 and 85 ppm. Reproduced from Ref. [32] with permission from the Optical Society. (b) The corresponding signals of the ethylene gas at different concentrations. Inset: the intensity of the dominating signal peak against the concentration of ethylene gas. Reproduced from Ref. [33] with permission from the Optical Society. (c) The linear function of the ethylene gas-sensing signal against its concentration. Inset: the schematic and photographic image parylene-C diaphragm-designed, fiber-optic low-frequency sensor head. Reproduced from Ref. [36] with permission from Elsevier. (d) The response of three PPy-based L-SAW sensors to ethylene gas at concentrations of 2, 5 and 10 ppm. Inset: side-view of the spin-coated Au/PPy microstructure. Reproduced from Ref. [38] with permission from Elsevier.
Figure 4(a) CTL signals of a variety of hydrocarbons with a sample concentration of 0.67 vol%. (b) SEM image of the nanostructured 0.32 wt% Mn2+/SiO2 on weighing paper. (c) The CTL sensor performance towards ethylene gas detection in terms of the luminescent intensity versus gas concentration. Reproduced from Ref. [40] with permission from Elsevier. (d) Calculated response (Euclidean distance) as a function of ethylene gas concentration with an exposure time of 20 min. Inset: the schematic diagram of the colorimetric ink preparation via ultrasonic spray pyrolysis (USP). (e) The different color profiles of the colorimetric sensor arrays upon exposure to ethylene gas ranged from 0.5 to 5 ppm for 2 min. Reproduced from Ref. [41] with permission from the American Chemical Society.
Figure 5(a) Cross-sectional image of the potentiometric ethylene gas sensor; (b) magnified SEM image of the rectangular cycle. (c) The dynamic response curve of ethylene gas detection at different concentrations. Reproduced from Ref. [43] with permission from the MDPI AG. (d) SEM image of the modified potentiometric sensor with incorporated Ni nanoparticles. (e) The improved response curve of the modified potentiometric sensor to ethylene gas at varied concentrations. Reproduced from Ref. [44] with permission the American Chemical Society. (f) The ethylene-sensing performance of rGO–Cu composited potentiometric gas sensor toward ppb-level ethylene gas at low (10 RH%) and high (80 RH%) wet conditions. The onset of increase and decrease in ethylene concentrations are indicated by the upward (red) and downward (green) arrows accordingly. (g) The sensing response toward different 25 ppb gases at 80 RH% condition. Reproduced from Ref. [45] with permission the Electrochemical Society.
Figure 6(a) Photographic image of the DPPT-TT thin-film-printed flexible gas sensor on transparent PEN substrate and (b) the corresponding AFM images of a typical DPPT-TT film. (c) Schematic illustration of the thinner OFETs for ethylene gas detection and the corresponding sensing dynamic curves of (d) ethylene, (e) ammonia, and (f) ethanol gases. Reproduced from Ref. [72] with permission from Wiley. (g) Schematic of Pd-decorated porous P3HT OFET sensor with the top view as inset. (h) The gradually improved response after stepwise modifications. Reproduced from Ref. [46] with permission from the American Chemical Society.
Figure 7(a) Schematics of the Cu(I)-complex-based SWCNT-FET ethylene gas sensor. (b) The sensing process and (c) the corresponding molecular formulas of the Cu(I) and Cu(II) complex. (d) The sensor response towards a wide range of other organic compounds. Reproduced from Ref. [13] with permission from the Wiley-VCH GmbH. (e) Typical ethylene gas-sensing dynamic curves of Ir-gated SiC-FET sensor to different ethylene concentrations under 200 and 300 °C. (f) Plots of the response versus ethylene concentration at all tested temperatures (150–350 °C). Reproduced from Ref. [47] with permission from the IEEE.
Figure 8(a) Schematic workflow of the liquid/solid device fabrication: (i) electrodes deposition via thermal evaporator, (ii) SWCNTs are deposited between the electrodes via drop casting, and finally (iii) the reaction mixture is added on top of the SWCNTs. (b) Sensing dynamic curves and (inset) the plot of response against ethylene gas at varied concentrations. (c) The selectivity of the gas sensor toward a wide range of gases including ethylene. Inset: the photograph of SWCNTs with the liquid mixture deposited between Au electrodes on glass. Reproduced from Ref. [16] with permission from the American Chemical Society. (d) Pictorial illustration of the sensing system and (e) the sensing dynamic curves. Reproduced from Ref. [50] with permission from the American Chemical Society.
Figure 9(a) Sensing response of nanostructured LaFeO3-based sensor toward ethylene gas of various concentrations at different temperatures. Inset: SEM image of nanostructured LaFeO3. Reproduced from Ref. [54] with permission from Elsevier. (b) Comparison of ethylene gas-sensing response to its concentration for the devices loaded with (bule dots) and without (black squares) Pd nanoparticles. Inset: the sensing curve of 50 ppb ethylene gas when using Pd-SnO2 (inset). (c) The dynamic curves of SnO2-based ethylene gas sensors loaded with (bottom) and without (top) Pd nanoparticles at different concentrations. Reproduced from Ref. [28] with permission from Elsevier. (d) The response curve against ethylene gas of different concentration. Inset: SEM image of the Pd/rGO/α-Fe2O3 nanostructure. Reproduced from Ref. [56] with permission from Elsevier. (e) The function of response to ethylene gas concentration and (f) the selectivity towards ethylene gas detection among other different VOCs by using the nanocomposite of Cu(I)-MoS2-SWCNTs. Inset: the morphology of the MoS2-SWCNT nanocomposite under SEM and HRTEM. Reproduced from Ref. [84] with permission from the American Chemical Society.
Figure 10TEM (a) and SAED (inset) images of CS3. The relationship of response versus ethylene gas concentration (b), as well as selectivity among a ranged of interfering gases (c) of all CS sensors. Reproduced from Ref. [57] with permission from Elsevier. The schematic formation of nanostructured SnO2 (d) and Cr2O3 overlayer (e). Side views of the Cr2O3-SnO2 bilayer (f) and the magnification (g). Plot of the response against the concentration of ethylene gas (h). Inset: the schematic of the Cr2O3-SnO2 bilayer. Dynamic ethylene sensing transients at different concentrations (i). Reproduced from Ref. [58] with permission from Wiley.