4.8 Review

The role of morphology and crystallographic structure of metal oxides in response of conductometric-type gas sensors

Journal

MATERIALS SCIENCE & ENGINEERING R-REPORTS
Volume 61, Issue 1-6, Pages 1-39

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.mser.2008.02.001

Keywords

metal oxides; polycrystalline; one-dimensional; gas sensor; sensor response; morphology and crystallographic structure influence

Funding

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea [2007-208-D00023] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review paper discusses the influence of morphology and crystallographic structure on gas-sensing characteristics of metal oxide conductometric-type sensors. The effects of parameters such as film thickness, grain size, agglomeration, porosity, faceting, grain network, surface geometry, and film texture on the main analytical characteristics (absolute magnitude and selectivity of sensor response (S), response time (tau(res)), recovery time (tau(rec)), and temporal stability) of the gas sensor have been analyzed. A comparison of standard polycrystalline sensors and sensors based on one-dimension structures was conducted. It was concluded that the structural parameters of metal oxides are important factors for controlling response parameters of resistive type gas sensors. For example, it was shown that the decrease of thickness, grain size and degree of texture is the best way to decrease time constants of metal oxide sensors. However, it was concluded that there is not universal decision for simultaneous optimization all gas-sensing characteristics. We have to search for a compromise between various engineering approaches because adjusting one design feature may improve one performance metric but considerably degrade another. (c) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available