4.6 Article

E-Nose Sensing of Low-ppb Formaldehyde in Gas Mixtures at High Relative Humidity for Breath Screening of Lung Cancer?

Journal

ACS SENSORS
Volume 1, Issue 5, Pages 528-535

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.6b00008

Keywords

formaldehyde; cancer; breath analysis; indoor air quality monitoring; E-nose; gas sensor; flame spray pyrolysis; doped SnO2

Funding

  1. European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Program (FP7/, ERC) [247283]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [200021_159763/1]
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [200021_159763] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Formaldehyde (FA) is a potential breath marker for lung cancer and a tracer for indoor air quality monitoring. Its typical concentrations are below 100 ppb posing a sensitivity and selectivity challenge to current portable sensor systems. Here, we present a highly sensitive, selective, and compact electronic nose (E-nose) for real-time quantification of FA at realistic conditions. This E-nose consists of four nanostructured and highly porous Pt-, Si-, Pd-, and Ti- doped SnO2, sensing films directly deposited onto silicon wafer-based microsubstrates by flame spray pyrolysis (FSP). The constituent sensors offer stable responses (24 h tested) and detection of FA down to 3 ppb (signal-to-noise ratio > 25) at breath-realistic 90% relative humidity. Each dopant induces different analyte selectivity enabling selective detection of FA in two-, three- and four-analyte mixtures by multivariate linear regression. In simulated breath (FA with higher acetone, NH3, and ethanol concentrations), FA is detected with an average error <= 9 ppb using the present E-nose and overcoming selectivity issues of single sensors. This device could facilitate easy screening of lung cancer patients and monitoring of indoor FA concentrations.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available