4.7 Article

Hydrothermal synthesis of flower-like In2O3 as a chemiresistive isoprene sensor for breath analysis

期刊

SENSORS AND ACTUATORS B-CHEMICAL
卷 309, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2020.127788

关键词

Advanced fibrosis; Breath analysis; Isoprene; In2O3; Flower-like microsphere; Gas sensor

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [xzd012019020]
  2. Shaanxi Provincial Key Research and Development Program [2019GY-121]
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51675420]
  4. 111 Program [B12016]
  5. Shanghai Rengxin Biological Science and Technology Ltd
  6. International Joint Laboratory for Micro/Nano Manufacturing and Measurement Technologies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Isoprene is a typical biomarker for advanced fibrosis and can be used to screen and grade chronic liver disease (CLD). To detect trace isoprene, the high specific surface area (77.38 m(2)/g), porous flower-like In2O3 hierarchical microsphere material was prepared by simple hydrothermal method. In addition, the sensor based on synthetic flower-like In2O3 microspheres was prepared and gas sensing properties were investigated. The results showed that flower-like In2O3 nanomaterials had the highest response to isoprene at 190 degrees C. The response time was 53 s and repeatability was good. The relatively low operating temperature (190 degrees C) could extend the working life and also facilitate the portable application of the sensor. Meanwhile, the sensor exhibited selectivity over other typical biomarkers (ammonia, ethanol, hydrogen, and carbon monoxide). The unmodified pure flower-like In2O3 material could detect 5 ppb of isoprene at 190 degrees C and the logarithm of the response had good linear relationship with the logarithm of the concentration. Thus, this flower-like In2O3 material was promising to be developed into the portable breath isoprene detector that could be integrated into a micro system for noninvasive rapid screening and grading of CLD.

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