Miniaturized multisensor system with a thermal gradient: Performance beyond the calibration range

M Tonezzer, L Masera, NX Thai, H Nguyen… - Journal of Science …, 2023 - Elsevier
M Tonezzer, L Masera, NX Thai, H Nguyen, N Van Duy, ND Hoa
Journal of Science: Advanced Materials and Devices, 2023Elsevier
Two microchips, each with four identical microstructured sensors using SnO 2 nanowires as
sensing material (one chip decorated with Ag nanoparticles, the other with Pt nanoparticles),
were used as a nano-electronic nose to distinguish five different gases and estimate their
concentrations. This innovative approach uses identical sensors working at different
operating temperatures thanks to the thermal gradient created by an integrated microheater.
A system with in-house developed hardware and software was used to collect signals from …
Abstract
Two microchips, each with four identical microstructured sensors using SnO2 nanowires as sensing material (one chip decorated with Ag nanoparticles, the other with Pt nanoparticles), were used as a nano-electronic nose to distinguish five different gases and estimate their concentrations. This innovative approach uses identical sensors working at different operating temperatures thanks to the thermal gradient created by an integrated microheater. A system with in-house developed hardware and software was used to collect signals from the eight sensors and combine them into eight-dimensional data vectors. These vectors were processed with a support vector machine allowing for qualitative and quantitative discrimination of all gases after calibration. The system worked perfectly within the calibrated range (100% correct classification, 6.9% average error on concentration value). This work focuses on minimizing the number of points needed for calibration while maintaining good sensor performance, both for classification and error in estimating concentration. Therefore, the calibration range (in terms of gas concentration) was gradually reduced and further tests were performed with concentrations outside these new reduced limits. Although with only a few training points, down to just two per gas, the system performed well with 96% correct classifications and 31.7% average error for the gases at concentrations up to 25 times higher than its calibration range. At very low concentrations, down to 20 times lower than the calibration range, the system worked less well, with 93% correct classifications and 38.6% average error, probably due to proximity to the limit of detection of the sensors.
Elsevier
以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果