Orthogonal gas sensor arrays by chemoresistive material design
Gas sensor arrays often lack discrimination power to different analytes and robustness to interferants, limiting their success outside of research laboratories. This is primarily due to the widely sensitive (thus weakly-selective) nature of the constituent sensors. Here, the effect of orthogonality on array accuracy and precision by selective sensor design is investigated. Therefore, arrays of (2–5) selective and non-selective sensors are formed by systematically altering array size and composition. Their performance is evaluated with 60 random combinations of ammonia, acetone and ethanol at ppb to low ppm concentrations. Best analyte predictions with high coefficients of determination (R2) of 0.96 for ammonia, 0.99 for acetone and 0.88 for ethanol are obtained with an array featuring high degree of orthogonality. This is achieved by using distinctly selective sensors (Si:MoO3 for ammonia and Si:WO3 for acetone together with Si:SnO2) that improve discrimination power and stability of the regression coefficients. On the other hand, arrays with collinear sensors (Pd:SnO2, Pt:SnO2 and Si:SnO2) hardly improve gas predictions having R2 of 0.01, 0.86 and 0.28 for ammonia, acetone and ethanol, respectively. Sometimes they even exhibited lower coefficient of determination than single sensors as a Si:MoO3 sensor alone predicts ammonia better with a R2 of 0.68.
KeywordsGas sensor Ethanol Acetone Ammonia SnO2 MoO3 WO3 Flame spray pyrolysis Electronic nose
This study was financially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant No.170729 & 159763) and by an ETH Research Grant (No. ETH-21 18-1).
Compliance with ethical standards
The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.
- 5.Pizzini A, Filipiak W, Wille J, Ager C, Wiesenhofer H, Kubinec R, Blaško J, Tschurtschenthaler C, Mayhew CA, Weiss G, Bellmann-Weiler R (2018) Analysis of volatile organic compounds in the breath of patients with stable or acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. J Breath Res 12(3):036002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1752-7163/aaa4c5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Pearce TC, Schiffman SS, Nagle HT, Gardner JW (2003) Handbook of machine olfaction: electronic nose technology. WiILEY-VCH, Weinheim. https://doi.org/10.1002/3527601597
- 16.Mädler L, Roessler A, Pratsinis SE, Sahm T, Gurlo A, Barsan N, Weimar U (2006) Direct formation of highly porous gas-sensing films by in situ thermophoretic deposition of flame-made Pt/SnO2 nanoparticles. Sens Actuators B Chem 114(1):283–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.snb.2005.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Mardia KV, Kent JT, Bibby JM (1979) Multivariate analysis. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- 28.Itoh T, Miwa T, Tsuruta A, Akamatsu T, Izu N, Shin W, Park J, Hida T, Eda T, Setoguchi Y (2016) Development of an exhaled breath monitoring system with semiconductive gas sensors, a gas condenser unit, and gas chromatograph columns. Sensors 16(11). https://doi.org/10.3390/s16111891