4.7 Article

Establishing and interpreting an electrical circuit representing a TiO2-WO3 series of humidity thick film sensors

期刊

SENSORS AND ACTUATORS B-CHEMICAL
卷 140, 期 1, 页码 128-133

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2009.04.016

关键词

Humidity sensor; TiO(2)-WO(3) thick him; Impedance spectroscopy; Electrical circuit modelling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reports the establishment and interpreting of an equivalent electrical circuit representing the humidity-sensitive electrical properties of TiO(2)-WO(3) thick films. Prototype sensors have been prepared by depositing an emulsion of TiO(2) and WO(3) powders in acetone with cellulous glue onto an alumina substrate, by a spin coating technique using a low spreading speed (250 rpm). Films were prepared with five different atom proportions of Ti and W: 100:0, 100:1, 100:6, 100:18 and 100:36. The oxides thick films were successively fired at the temperatures of 600, 700, 900, 1100 and 1300 degrees C, for 2 h at each of these temperatures. The variation of the electrical signal with humidity in ceramic sensors is originated by the chemical and physical sorptions of water molecules existing in the atmosphere. For all the sensors, the same type of circuit was established based both on circuit theory and on the physical mechanisms underlying conduction and polarization. The best fitting for the Nyquist plots obtained at the temperature of 25 degrees C and various relative humidities (RHs), in the frequency range 0.1 Hz to 40 MHz, was achieved with two R, C parallel circuits in series with two parallels of constant-phase elements (CPEs) and capacitances. As examples, for two of the sensors, TiW2 600 and TiW2 700. the values of the electrical components are presented in tables and graphs. The evaluated values of the components are interpreted and compared, and conclusions could be drawn about the mechanisms of conduction and polarization taking place in the adsorbed water. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据