Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Sep 6;19(18):3848.
doi: 10.3390/s19183848.

Solid State Electronic Sensors for Detection of Carbon Dioxide

Ami Hannon  1 , Jing Li  2
Affiliations

Solid State Electronic Sensors for Detection of Carbon Dioxide

Ami Hannon et al. Sensors (Basel). .

Abstract

Detection of carbon dioxide (CO2) is very important for environmental, health, safety and space applications. We have studied novel multiwall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) and an iron oxide (Fe2O3) nanocomposite based chemiresistive sensor for detection of CO2 at room temperature. The sensor has been miniaturized to a chip size (1 cm × 2 cm). Good sensing performance was observed with a wide detection range of CO2 concentrations (100-6000 ppm). Structural properties of the sensing materials were characterized using Field-Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy, Fourier-Transform Infrared and Raman spectroscopies. The greatly improved sensitivity of the composite materials to CO2 can be attributed to the formation of a depletion layer at the p-n junction in an MWCNT/iron oxide heterostructure, and new CO2 gas molecules adhere to the high surface area of MWCNTs due to the concentration gradient. The test results showed that the CO2 sensor possesses fast response, compact size, ultra-low power consumption, high sensitivity and wide dynamic detection range.

Keywords: CO2 sensor; carbon dioxide sensor; chemiresistive sensor; electronic nose; functionalized nanotubes; gas sensor; nanocomposite; room temperature gas sensing; smartphone sensor.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Gas sensor test set-up.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Response of a sensor chip to 100, 200, 400, 1000, 3000 and 6000 ppm CO2. Each line is an average of full identical channels.
Figure 3
Figure 3
FE-SEM images for (A) oxidized MWCNTs deposited onto a silicon substrate, (B) iron oxide nanoparticles and (C) oxidized MWCNT/iron oxide composite material.
Figure 4
Figure 4
FTIR spectrum of the oxidized MWCNT and the oxidized MWNT/iron oxide composite.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Raman spectra of oxidized MWCNTs and the oxidized MWNT/iron oxide composite.
Figure 6
Figure 6
(A) Responses (ΔR/Ro) to 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3800 and 6000 ppm CO2 with oxidized MWCNT/iron oxide nanocomposite sensors. (B) Comparison of oxidized MWCNT/iron oxide nanocomposite and oxidized MWCNT response to 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3800 and 6000 ppm CO2.
Figure 6
Figure 6
(A) Responses (ΔR/Ro) to 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3800 and 6000 ppm CO2 with oxidized MWCNT/iron oxide nanocomposite sensors. (B) Comparison of oxidized MWCNT/iron oxide nanocomposite and oxidized MWCNT response to 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3800 and 6000 ppm CO2.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Oxidized MWCNT/iron oxide chemiresistive sensor response along with CA-10 CO2 analyzer response.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Four individual oxidized MWCNT/iron oxide composite sensor responses (ΔR/Ro) to the step input of 100, 200, 400, 1000, 2000 and 4000 ppm CO2.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Composite material-based sensor responses (ΔR/Ro) to muiltiple exposure of 4000 ppm CO2.
Figure 10
Figure 10
(A) Comparison of the sensor responses of CO2 and other gases. (B) Sensor response to various concentrations of CO2 at two different relative humidities (RH).
Figure 10
Figure 10
(A) Comparison of the sensor responses of CO2 and other gases. (B) Sensor response to various concentrations of CO2 at two different relative humidities (RH).
Figure 11
Figure 11
Oxidized MWNT/iron oxide composite sensor responses (ΔR/Ro) to 100, 200, 400, 1000, 2000, 4000 and 8000 ppm CO2 on a smartphone device.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Permentier K., Vercammen S., Soetaert S., Schellemans C. Carbon dioxide poisoning: A literature review of an often forgotten cause of intoxication in the emergency department. Int. J. Emerg. Med. 2017;10:10–14. doi: 10.1186/s12245-017-0142-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Carbon Dioxide as a Fire Suppressant: Examining the Risks, Report EPA430-R-00-002. [(accessed on 4 September 2018)]; Available online: https://www.epa.gov.
    1. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Permissible Exposures Limits. [(accessed on 11 November 2018)]; Available online: https://www.osha.gov/dsg/annotated-pels/tablez-1.html.
    1. Delgado-Alonso J., Phillips S., Berry D., DiCarmine P., Chullen C., Quinn G. Continued Development of Compact Multi-gas Monitor for Life Support Systems Control in Space; Proceedings of the 46th International Conference on Environmental Systems; Vienna, Austria. 10–14 July 2016.
    1. Wang Y., Nakayama M., Yagi M., Nishikawa M., Fukunaga M., Watanabe K. The NDIR CO2 monitor with smart interface for global networking. IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. 2005;54:1634–1639. doi: 10.1109/TIM.2005.851474. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources