| Literature DB >> 36110243 |
Nitesh K Chourasia1, Narendra Bihari2,3, Ritesh Kumar Chourasia2.
Abstract
Since, chemically complex environments, the aroma has been a difficult task so far. Therefore, in the present communication, an optofluidic Bragg fiber artificial nose for perceiving the temperature-functional molar fraction of an adulterated binary composition of hydrated mono-alcohols is optimized and reported. The task is theoretically predicted over an optofluidic Bragg fiber sensor having geometrical defects by creating an asymmetry in mid of periodic cylindrical Bragg reflectors. In a cylindrical coordinate system, Henkel function (HF) and transfer matrix technique (TMT) are used to simulate a multilayer concentric hollow-core Bragg fiber (HCBF). The variation in refractive index (RI) of the adulterated binary mono-alcohol fuel is connected to the temperature-functional molar concentration, which is again anticipated by making use of several models, including the most suitable Dale-Gladstone, Lorentz-Lorenz, etc. A prominent sensing signal of which has the full width at half maximum (FWHM) equal to 0.1 nm is observed in the examined photonic bandgap (PBG). The signal is responsive to fluctuations in optofluidic core RI in the vicinity of a structural defect layer. The suggested sensor's temperature-dependent maximum sensitivity (due to varied weather circumstances) for ethanol fuel rather than methanol fuel is 1057.32 nm/RIU. Furthermore, the surface plasmon-based static temperature sensor is compared. Due to the smallest FWHM of output signal around 0.1 nm, other sensing performance metrics such as detection accuracy and quality parameters are also enhanced in the proposed sensor device.Entities:
Keywords: Adulteration; Bragg fiber sensor; Defect mode; Detection accuracy; Henkel formalism; Mono-alcohols fuel; Quality parameter; Sensitivity
Year: 2022 PMID: 36110243 PMCID: PMC9468401 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10532
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1aThickness and RI profile of HCBF with geometrical defect layer and hydrated mono alcohols filled optofluidic core.
Figure 1bSchematic setup to optimize the temperature-functional concentration of adulterant in hydrated mono alcohols using HCBF adulteration optofluidic sensor device.
Sensing signal position measurement for the various molar fraction of Methanol at different temperatures.
| S. No. | Methanol | Methanol | Methanol | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R.I. | Sensing signal (nm) | R.I. | Sensing signal (nm) | R.I. | Sensing signal (nm) | ||
| 1 | 1.3446 | 1092.00 | 1.3425 | 1093.01 | 1.3326 | 1103.01 | |
| 2 | 1.3438 | 1092.04 | 1.3411 | 1094.04 | 1.3312 | 1104.04 | |
| 3 | 1.3419 | 1093.08 | 1.3403 | 1095.01 | 1.3293 | 1106.00 | |
| 4 | 1.3410 | 1094.05 | 1.3379 | 1097.09 | 1.3281 | 1107.05 | |
| 5 | 1.3396 | 1096.00 | 1.3368 | 1099.08 | 1.3264 | 1109.01 | |
| 6 | 1.3382 | 1097.04 | 1.3356 | 1100.02 | 1.3250 | 1110.04 | |
| 7 | 1.3371 | 1098.05 | 1.3337 | 1102.02 | 1.3231 | 1112.02 | |
| 8 | 1.3363 | 1099.03 | 1.3329 | 1103.00 | 1.3216 | 1113.04 | |
| 9 | 1.3344 | 1101.09 | 1.3306 | 1104.03 | 1.3203 | 1115.02 | |
| 10 | 1.3334 | 1103.00 | 1.3299 | 1105.01 | 1.3185 | 1116.04 | |
Sensing signal position measurement for the various molar fraction of Ethanol at different temperatures.
| S. No. | Ethanol | Ethanol | Ethanol | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| R.I. | Sensing signal (nm) | R.I. | Sensing signal (nm) | R.I. | Sensing signal (nm) | ||
| 1 | 1.3653 | 1070.01 | 1.3696 | 1065.06 | 1.3670 | 1068.01 | |
| 2 | 1.3630 | 1072.02 | 1.3675 | 1067.04 | 1.3648 | 1070.04 | |
| 3 | 1.3618 | 1073.01 | 1.3661 | 1069.00 | 1.3627 | 1072.01 | |
| 4 | 1.3597 | 1075.03 | 1.3640 | 1071.01 | 1.3612 | 1074.05 | |
| 5 | 1.3582 | 1077.05 | 1.3618 | 1073.03 | 1.3593 | 1076.03 | |
| 6 | 1.3564 | 1079.04 | 1.3600 | 1075.00 | 1.3572 | 1078.04 | |
| 7 | 1.3549 | 1081.01 | 1.3582 | 1077.01 | 1.3559 | 1079.05 | |
| 8 | 1.3528 | 1082.09 | 1.3561 | 1079.02 | 1.3538 | 1081.02 | |
| 9 | 1.3511 | 1084.06 | 1.3536 | 1082.08 | 1.3520 | 1083.01 | |
| 10 | 1.3496 | 1086.07 | 1.3518 | 1084.01 | 1.3500 | 1085.04 | |
Figure 4Representation of sensing signal vs. temperature at a different concentration of Methanol in binary hydrated fuel.
Figure 5Signature of sensing signal vs. temperature at various concentrations of Ethanol in binary hydrated fuel.
Sensing performance parameters estimation of HCBF optofluidic adulteration sensor for optimizing the temperature-functional concentration of mono alcohols in hydrated binary fuel mixtures.
| Average sensing parameters | Methanol | Ethanol | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (S) (nm/RIU) | 982.14 | 952.38 | 943.26 | 1057.32 | 1039.32 | 1017.65 |
| Detection Accuracy (D.A.) | 110.0 | 120.0 | 133.0 | 166.0 | 185.0 | 173.0 |
| Q.P. (RIU−1) | 9.82 × 103 | 9.52 × 103 | 9.43 × 103 | 1.05 × 104 | 1.03 × 104 | 1.01 × 104 |
Figure 2Finding sensing signal position for the different fractions of hydrated Methanol fuel at various temperatures by using HCBF spectrum.
Figure 3Finding sensing signal position for the different fractions of hydrated Ethanol fuel at various temperatures by using HCBF spectrum.
Experimental measurements data of density (ρ) and mixture RIs (n) for Methanol (fuel) + Water pseudo-binary mixtures (hydrated mono-alcohol) along with the values obtained for n, n, Δn, ΔR and V at a temperature of 298.15 K [14].
| S. | Δ | Δ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | (kg.m−3) | (m3.mol−1) | (m3.mol−1) | |||||
| 1 | 0.0000 | 997.02 | 1.3326 | 1.33260 | 1.33260 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
| 2 | 0.3330 | 917.74 | 1.3396 | 1.34063 | 1.32931 | −0.00103 | −0.04050 | −0.89700 |
| 3 | 0.6635 | 840.72 | 1.3360 | 1.33538 | 1.32737 | 0.00062 | −0.01115 | −0.84819 |
| 4 | 1.0000 | 786.62 | 1.3264 | 1.32637 | 1.32640 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
Experimental measurements data of density (ρ) and mixture RIs (n) for Ethanol (fuel) + Water pseudo-binary mixtures (hydrated mono-alcohol) along with the values obtained for n, n, Δn, ΔR and V at a temperature of 298.15 K [14].
| S. | Δ | Δ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | (kg.m−3) | (m3.mol−1) | (m3.mol−1) | |||||
| 1 | 0.0000 | 997.02 | 1.3326 | 1.33260 | 1.33261 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
| 2 | 0.3332 | 894.81 | 1.3582 | 1.36071 | 1.34914 | −0.00251 | −0.06492 | −1.02180 |
| 3 | 0.6664 | 825.77 | 1.3618 | 1.36111 | 1.35685 | 0.00069 | −0.00134 | −0.67725 |
| 4 | 1.0000 | 785.08 | 1.3593 | 1.35930 | 1.35892 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 | 0.00000 |
The RI variations with the temperature of the soluble mono-alcohol fuel for each of the specified molar fractions (x).
| S. No. | Methanol ( | Ethanol ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 1.3446 | 1.3425 | 1.3326 | 1.3653 | 1.3696 | 1.3670 | |
| 2. | 1.3438 | 1.3411 | 1.3312 | 1.3630 | 1.3675 | 1.3648 | |
| 3. | 1.3419 | 1.3403 | 1.3293 | 1.3618 | 1.3661 | 1.3627 | |
| 4. | 1.3410 | 1.3379 | 1.3281 | 1.3527 | 1.3640 | 1.3612 | |
| 5. | 1.3396 | 1.3368 | 1.3264 | 1.3582 | 1.3618 | 1.3593 | |
| 6. | 1.3382 | 1.3356 | 1.3250 | 1.3564 | 1.3600 | 1.3572 | |
| 7. | 1.3371 | 1.3337 | 1.3231 | 1.3549 | 1.3582 | 1.3559 | |
| 8. | 1.3363 | 1.3329 | 1.3216 | 1.3528 | 1.3561 | 1.3538 | |
| 9. | 1.3344 | 1.3306 | 1.3203 | 1.3511 | 1.3536 | 1.3520 | |
| 10. | 1.3334 | 1.3299 | 1.3185 | 1.3496 | 1.3518 | 1.3500 | |
Figure 6Representation of sensing performance metrics of proposed HCBF optofluidic adulteration sensor.