Open Access

Fabrication and NO2 gas sensing performance of TeO2-core/CuO-shell heterostructure nanorod sensors

  • Sunghoon Park1,
  • Soohyun Kim1,
  • Gun-Joo Sun1,
  • Wan In Lee2,
  • Kyoung Kook Kim3 and
  • Chongmu Lee1Email author
Nanoscale Research Letters20149:638

https://doi.org/10.1186/1556-276X-9-638

Received: 26 August 2014

Accepted: 14 November 2014

Published: 27 November 2014

Abstract

TeO2-nanostructured sensors are seldom reported compared to other metal oxide semiconductor materials such as ZnO, In2O3, TiO2, Ga2O3, etc. TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorods were fabricated by thermal evaporation of Te powder followed by sputter deposition of CuO. Scanning electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction showed that each nanorod consisted of a single crystal TeO2 core and a polycrystalline CuO shell with a thickness of approximately 7 nm. The TeO2/CuO core-shell one-dimensional (1D) nanostructures exhibited a bamboo leaf-like morphology. The core-shell nanorods were 100 to 300 nm in diameter and up to 30 μm in length. The multiple networked TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorod sensor showed responses of 142% to 425% to 0.5- to 10-ppm NO2 at 150°C. These responses were stronger than or comparable to those of many other metal oxide nanostructures, suggesting that TeO2 is also a promising sensor material. The responses of the core-shell nanorods were 1.2 to 2.1 times higher than those of pristine TeO2 nanorods over the same NO2 concentration range. The underlying mechanism for the enhanced NO2 sensing properties of the core-shell nanorod sensor can be explained by the potential barrier-controlled carrier transport mechanism.

PACS

61.46. + w; 07.07.Df; 73.22.-f

Keywords

TeO2 nanorodsCuO shellsGas sensorsResponseNO2

Background

In recent years, one-dimensional (1D) nanostructure-based sensors attracted considerable attention owing to their high surface-to-volume ratios [15]. Considerable effort has been made to develop 1D nanostructured gas sensors with good sensing performances, but further improvements in the sensitivity of 1D nanostructured sensors are needed. The fabrication of heterostructures [68] is a promising technique to improve the sensitivity of the 1D nanostructured sensors. The improved sensing performance of the heterostructured 1D sensors has been attributed to a range of factors including increased potential barriers at the interface of the heterostructure [9, 10], modulated depletion layer [11, 12], band bending due to equilibration of the Fermi energy levels [13], synergistic surface reactions [14], etc.

Paratellurite (α-TeO2) is a metal oxide semiconductor with a distorted rutile structure [15]. TeO2 has applications in optical storage, laser devices and gas sensors, dosimeters, modulators, and deflectors owing to its unique properties such as high refractive index and high optical nonlinearity [16]. TeO2-nanostructured sensors have attracted less attention compared to other metal oxide semiconductor materials such as ZnO, In2O3, TiO2, Ga2O3, etc. In 2007, Liu et al. [17] synthesized TeO2 nanowires that were sensitive to NO2, NH3, and H2S gases. According to their results, TeO2 1D nanostructures are promising for producing low power consumption gas sensors. The incorporation of a surface decoration or heterostructure formation technique can improve their sensing performance further. In this regard, a recent study reported the sensing properties of Pt-doped TeO2 nanorods [16]. On the other hand, this paper reports the synthesis of TeO2-core/CuO-shell nanorods and the sensing properties of multiple networked TeO2-core/CuO-shell nanorod gas sensors toward NO2 gas. The underlying mechanism for the enhanced sensing performance of the core-shell nanorod sensors is also discussed.

Methods

TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorods were synthesized using a two-step process: thermal evaporation of Te powder followed by sputter deposition of CuO. TeO2 nanorods were synthesized on a p-type Si (100) substrate in a quartz tube furnace by thermal evaporation of Te powder at 400°C in air without a metal catalyst or the supply of other gas. The thermal evaporation process was conducted at room temperature for 1 h and the furnace was cooled to room temperature. Subsequently, the TeO2 nanorods were coated with a thin CuO layer by sputtering a CuO target by radio frequency (RF) magnetron sputtering from a CuO target. The base and working pressure was 5.0 × 10-6 Torr and 2.0 × 10-2 Torr, respectively, and the N2 gas flow rate was 20 cm3/min throughout the evaporation process. The RF sputtering power and sputtering time were 100 W and 20 min, respectively.

The structure and morphology of the nanorod samples were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM, Hitachi S-4200, Billerica, MA, USA), transmission electron microscopy (TEM, Philips CM-200, Eindhoven, the Netherlands), and selected area electron diffraction. X-ray diffraction (XRD, Philips X’pert MRD, Eindhoven, the Netherlands) patterns were performed using Cu Kα radiation (0.15406 nm). Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) was carried out to examine the elemental composition of the core-shell nanorod samples. The resistance of multiple networked pristine TeO2 nanorod and TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorod sensors were measured using a Keithley source meter-2612 at a source voltage of 10 V at 150°C and 50% RH. The 50% relative humidity might be somewhat high for sensing tests. A flow-through technique was used to test the gas sensing properties. NO2 gas diluted with synthetic air at different ratios was injected into the testing tube at a constant flow rate of 200 cm3/min. The detailed procedures for sensor fabrication and the sensing test are reported elsewhere [18].

Results and discussion

Figure 1a shows a SEM image of the TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorods prepared by thermal evaporation followed by sputtering. Each 1D nanostructure exhibited a rod-like morphology with a sharp tip, i.e. a bamboo leaf-like morphology. The core-shell nanorods were 100 to 300 nm in diameter and up to 30 μm in length. XRD was performed to determine the crystal structures of the core-shell nanorods. The XRD patterns of the TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorods showed that the TeO2 cores were crystalline, whereas the CuO shells were polycrystalline (Figure 1b). Most of the XRD peaks of the TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorods were assigned to be the reflections of primitive tetragonal-structured rutile-type TeO2. In addition, three small reflection peaks were assigned to the 111, 200, and 022 reflections of monoclinic-structured CuO with lattice constants of a = 0.4689 nm, b = 0.342 nm, c = 0.513 nm, and β = 99.57° (JCPDS No. 89–5899).
Figure 1

SEM image (a) and XRD patterns (b) of TeO 2 /CuO core-shell nanorods.

The low-magnification TEM image of a typical core-shell nanorod showed that the nanorod had a uniform diameter along its length direction (Figure 2a). TEM revealed a shell width of approximately 7 nm. A close examination of the high-resolution TEM (HRTEM) image (Figure 2b) shows a fringe pattern in the core region (the lower darker region), suggesting it to be a single crystal. The clear spots in the corresponding selected area electron diffraction (SAED) pattern were assigned to the primitive tetragonal structured TeO2 with lattice constants of a = 0.4810 nm and c = 0.7613 (JCPDS No. 78–1713) (Figure 2c). On the other hand, the halo-like concentric ring pattern might be due to the polycrystalline CuO shell. The line-scanning EDS concentration profile along the diameter of a typical core-shell nanorod (Figure 2d) revealed a higher Te concentration in the center region and a higher Cu concentration in both edge regions of the nanorod, confirming the TeO2-core/CuO-shell structure.
Figure 2

TEM images, diffraction pattern, and profile of TeO 2 /CuO core-shell nanorods. (a) Low-magnification TEM image, (b) high-resolution TEM image, (c) selected area electron diffraction pattern, and (d) EDS line scanning concentration profile of TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorods.

Figure 3a,b shows the dynamic electrical responses of pristine TeO2 nanorods and TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorods, respectively, to NO2 at 150°C under 50% RH. The sensors were exposed to successive pulses of 0.5- to 10-ppm NO2 gas. The relative response of the p-type TeO2/CuO nanorod sensors is defined as R a /R g for NO2, where R a and R g are the electrical resistances in the sensors in air and target gas, respectively. In all cases, the resistance returned to its original value after the NO2 gas flow was switched off, confirming the reversibility of the gas absorption and desorption processes. The pristine TeO2 nanorods showed responses of approximately 123% to 203% to NO2 at 0.5 to 10 ppm (Table 1). In contrast, the TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorods showed 1.2- to 2.1-fold stronger responses to NO2 than pristine TeO2 nanorod sensors at the same concentrations.
Figure 3

Responses of the pristine TeO 2 nanorod and TeO 2 /CuO core-shell nanorod gas sensors. Dynamic responses of (a) the pristine TeO2 nanorod and (b) TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorod gas sensors to NO2 at 150°C. (c) Responses of the pristine TeO2 nanorod and core-shell nanorod gas sensors as a function of NO2 gas concentration.

Table 1

Responses of the TeO 2 /CuO nanorod sensor to NO 2 gas at different concentrations at 150°C

 

Response (Ra/Rg, %)

NO2concentration

Pristine TeO2nanorod

TeO2/CuO nanorod

0.5 ppm

122.60

142.17

1 ppm

140.27

178.73

2 ppm

160.08

244.24

5 ppm

175.51

287.80

10 ppm

203.12

424.91

Figure 3c compares the response to NO2 gas between pristine TeO2 nanorods and TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorods in the NO2 concentration range below 10 ppm. The response of an oxide semiconductor sensor can be expressed as R = A [C]n + B, where A and B, n, and [C] are constants, exponent, and target gas concentration, respectively [19]. Data fitting gave R = 7.52 [C] + 132.5 and R = 27.48 [C] + 153.9 for the pristine TeO2 nanorod and TeO2-core/CuO-shell nanorod sensors, respectively. The core-shell nanorod sensor showed stronger response and higher increasing rate in response to NO2 gas at lower concentrations than the pristine nanorod sensor.

Table 2 lists the responses of the multiple networked pristine TeO2 nanorod sensor to NO2 gas along with those of other reported nanomaterial sensors. Overall, the sensing properties of the TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorod sensor fabricated in this study were comparable to those of other competing nanomaterials (Table 2), but the sensing test conditions such as operating temperature, gas concentration, etc. were different [2031]. It should be noted that the NO2 concentration and the test temperature used in this study were mostly lower than those elsewhere. The responses of pristine TeO2 nanorods and TeO2-CuO nanorods to NO2 measured in this study were stronger than those of other metal oxides such as ZnO fibers, ZnO fibre mats, mesoporous WO3 thin film, and CdO nanowire measured at temperatures lower than 150°C. The response of WO3-doped SnO2 thin film was stronger to 500 ppm of NO2 than those of pristine TeO2 nanorods and TeO2-CuO nanorods to 10 ppm of NO2, but it should be noted that the former response was obtained to a far higher concentration of NO2. TiO2 nanofibers, SnO2 hollow spheres, and Ru-doped SnO2 nanowire showed stronger responses to NO2 than those of pristine TeO2 nanorods and TeO2-CuO nanorods, but their operation temperatures of the former were higher than 150°C. Pristine TeO2 nanorods and TeO2-CuO nanorods showed stronger responses than other metal oxide nanostructures except the above-mentioned nanomaterials.
Table 2

Comparison of the responses of the TeO 2 /CuO core-shell nanorod sensor with those of other oxide 1D nanostructure sensors

Nanomaterial

Temperature (°C)

NO2concentration (ppm)

Response (%)

Reference

TeO2 nanorods

150

0.5

123

Present work

TeO2 nanorods

150

10

203

Present work

TeO2-CuO nanorods

150

0.5

142

Present work

TeO2-CuO nanorods

150

10

425

Present work

ZnO nanorods

300

0.1

35

[20]

ZnO nanowire

250

20

>95

[21]

ZnO nanobelt

350

8.5

81

[22]

ZnO fibers

100

0.4

50

[23]

WO3-core/ZnO-shell nanorods

300

5

281

[24]

TiO2 nanofibers

300

0.25

7,430

[25]

In-doped SnO2 nanoparticles

250

500

100

[26]

SnO2 nanoribbon

RT

3

116

[27]

SnO2 hollow spheres

160

5

1,150

[28]

Ru-doped SnO2 nanowire

150

200

>3,000

[29]

WO3-doped SnO2 thin film

100

500

2,210

[30]

In2O3 nanowires

400

50

360

[31]

In2O3 nanowires

250

50

200

[32]

WO3 nanorods

300

1

200

[33]

Au-doped WO3 powders

150

10

350

[34]

Mesoporous WO3 thin film

100

3

>200

[35]

MoO3 lameller

180 to 300

10

118

[36]

CdO nanowire (porous)

100

150

>150

[37]

SnO2-core/ZnO-shell nanofibers

300

70 to 2,000

20 to 320

[38]

ZnGa2O4-core/ZnO-shell nanowires

250

1

260

[39]

Figure 4a shows the responses of the pristine TeO2 nanorod and TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorod sensors to NO2 gas as a function of the operating time. The optimum operation temperature of TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorod sensor was 150°C, whereas that of the pristine TeO2 nanorod sensor was 175°C. This result reveals that encapsulation of TeO2 nanorods with a CuO thin film resulted in a 25°C decrease in operation temperature. Figure 4b exhibits the selectivity of the pristine and Bi2O3 nanoparticle-decorated In2O3 nanorod sensors to NO2 gas over other gases. The sensors showed the highest response to ethanol among different gases at the same concentration of 200 ppm at 150°C.
Figure 4

Responses of the pristine TeO 2 nanorod and TeO 2 /CuO core-shell nanorod gas sensors. (a) Responses of the pristine TeO2 nanorod and TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorod gas sensors to NO2 as a function of the operation temperature. (b) Responses of the pristine TeO2 nanorod and TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorod gas sensors to different gases.

The underlying mechanism of the enhanced TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorods can be explained using a barrier-controlled carrier transport mechanism [9, 10]. Potential barriers form at three places in the multiple networked TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorod sensor: at the core-shell interface, the shell grain boundary [40], and the nanorod-nanorod contact. First, the potential barrier at core-shell interface is due to the high density of interface states in the TeO2-CuO interfacial region. The carriers near the interface are trapped by interface states, so that a depletion layer forms over the TeO2 core region near the interface to the CuO shell region near the interface. In addition to depletion layer formation, a potential barrier is created at the core-shell interface due to the carrier trapping as shown in Figure 5a [41]. The potential barrier is drawn in the negative energy direction, i.e. the downward direction in Figure 5a because the carriers trapped in the interface are mostly holes residing in p-type TeO2 core and the p-type CuO shell in the vicinity of the core-shell interface. The other two potential barriers that should be overcome by carriers on their pathways before they reach the electrode of the sensor are at the CuO-CuO homojunction, where two nanorods contact each other (Figure 5b) and at the grain boundary in the polycrystalline CuO shell layers (Figure 5a). The contributions of these two potential barriers might be smaller than that of the potential barrier at the TeO2-CuO interface because of much smaller numbers of grain boundaries and nanorod-nanorod contacts compared to that of the core-shell interfaces. Each nanorod has a core-shell interface, whereas a CuO shell contains a small number of grain boundaries because it is as thin as approximately 7 nm and the possibility of two nanorods contacting each other in a multiple networked nanorod sensor is generally quite low. Carrier transport is facilitated or restrained because of these energy barriers by adsorption and desorption of gas molecules, resulting in a larger change in resistance, i.e., an enhanced response of the core-shell nanorod sensor to NO2 gas. In other words, the heights of the potential barriers are modulated at the three places, resulting in enhanced response of the sensor to the gas.
Figure 5

Schematic energy diagram showing three different potential barriers. Schematic energy diagram showing three different potential barriers formed in the multiple networked TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorod sensor: (a) one at a TeO2/CuO core-shell interface and another at a polycrystalline CuO shell grain boundary and (b) the third at a nanorod-nanorod contact.

Conclusions

TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorods were synthesized using a two-step process: the synthesis of TeO2 nanorods by thermal evaporation of Te powder and sputter deposition of CuO. The cores and shells of the nanorods were single crystal TeO2 and polycrystalline CuO, respectively. The responses of the TeO2 nanorods to NO2 were improved approximately 2.1- to 2.1-fold at NO2 concentrations of 0.5 to 10 by coating them with CuO. The responses of the core-shell nanorods to NO2 gas were also comparable or superior to those of the other metal oxide semiconductor nanostructured sensors reported previously. The enhanced response of the TeO2/CuO core-shell nanorods to NO2 gas may be due to modulation of the heights of the potential barriers formed at three different places in the multiple networked 1D nanostructure sensor: the TeO2 core-CuO shell interface, the CuO-CuO homojunction at the contact of two core-shell nanorods, and the grain boundaries in the polycrystalline CuO shell layers.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the 2010 Core Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Inha University
(2)
Department of Chemistry, Inha University
(3)
Department of Nanooptical Engineering, Korea Polytechnic University

References

  1. Tippins HH: Optical absorption and photoconductivity in the band edge of β-Ga2O3. Phys Rev A 1965, 140: 316–319. 10.1103/PhysRev.140.A316View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Yamazoe N: New approaches for improving semiconductor gas sensors. Sens Actuators B 1991, 5: 7–19. 10.1016/0925-4005(91)80213-4View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Gundiah G, Govindaraj A, Rao CNR: Nanowires, nanobelts and related nanostructures of Ga2O3. Chem Phys Lett 2002, 351: 189–194. 10.1016/S0009-2614(01)01372-0View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Zhang HZ, Kong YC, Wang YZ, Du X, Bai ZG, Wang JJ, Yu DP, Ding Y, Hang QL, Feng SQ: Ga2O3 nanowires prepared by physical evaporation. Sol State Comm 1999, 9: 677–682.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Kim BC, Sun KT, Park KS, Im KJ, Noh T, Sung MY, Kim S, Nahm S, Choi YN, Park SS: β-Ga2O3 nanowires synthesized from milled GaN powders. Appl Phys Lett 2002, 80: 479–481. 10.1063/1.1435073View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Yan C, Le BH, Kang DJ: Ultrasensitive single crystalline TeO2 nanowire based hydrogen gas sensors. J Mater Chem A 2014, 2: 5394–5398. 10.1039/c4ta00135dView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Sanchez-Castillo MA, Couto C, Kim WB, Dumesic JA: Gold-nanotube membranes for the oxidation of CO at gas-water interfaces. Angew Chem Int Ed 2004, 43: 1140–1142. 10.1002/anie.200353238View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Jagerszki G, Giurskisanyi RE, Hoefler L, Pretsch E: Hybridization-modulated ion fluxes through peptide-nucleic-acid-functionalized Gold nanotubes. A new approach to quantitative label-free DNA analysis. Nano Lett 2007, 7(6):1609–1612. 10.1021/nl0705438View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Wang W, Li Z, Zheng W, Huang H, Wang C, Sun J: Cr2O3-sensitized ZnO electrospun nanofibers based ethanol detectors. Sens Actuators B 2010, 143: 754–758. 10.1016/j.snb.2009.10.016View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Sun P, Sun Y, Ma J, You L, Lu G, Fu W, Li M, Yang H: Synthesis of novel SnO2/ZnSnO3 core-shell microspheres and their gas sensing properties. Sens Actuators B 2011, 155: 606–611. 10.1016/j.snb.2011.01.017View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Wang L, Kang Y, Wang Y, Zhu B, Zhang S, Huang W: CuO nanoparticle decorated ZnO nanorod sensor for low-temperature H2S detection. Mater Sci Eng C 2012, 32: 2079–2085. 10.1016/j.msec.2012.05.042View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Liu Y, Zhu G, Chen J, Xu H, Shen X, Yuan A: Co3O4/ZnO nanocomposites for gas-sensing applications. Appl Surf Sci 2013, 265: 379–384.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Kusior A, Radecka M, Rekas M, Lubecka M, Zakrzewska K, Reszka A: Sensitization of gas sensing properties in TiO2/SnO2 nanocomposites. Procedia Eng 2012, 47: 1073–1076.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. De Lacy Costello BPJ, Ewen RJ, Ratcliffe NM, Sivanand PS: Thick film organic vapour sensors based on binary mixtures of metal oxides. Sens Actuators B 2003, 92: 59–166.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Kim ID, Rothschild A, Lee BH, Kim DY, Jo SM, Tuller HL: Ultrasensitive chemiresistors based on electrospun TiO2 nanofibers. Nano Lett 2006, 6: 2009–2013. 10.1021/nl061197hView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Jin C, Park S, Kim H, Lee C: Enhanced gas sensing properties of Pt-loaded TeO2 nanorods. Bull Kor Chem Soc 2012, 33: 1851–1855. 10.5012/bkcs.2012.33.6.1851View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Li YJ, Li KM, Wang CY, Kuo CI, Chen LJ: Low-temperature electrodeposited Co-doped ZnO nanorods with enhanced ethanol and CO sensing properties. Sens Actuators B 2012, 161: 734–739. 10.1016/j.snb.2011.11.024View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Jin C, Park S, Kim H, Lee C: Ultrasensitive multiple networked Ga2O3-core/ZnO-shell nanorods gas sensors. Sens Actuators B 2012, 161: 223–228. 10.1016/j.snb.2011.10.023View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Williams DE: Solid State Gas Sensors. Bristol: Hilger; 1987.Google Scholar
  20. Oh E, Choi HY, Jung SH, Cho S, Kim JC, Lee KH, Kang SW, Kim J, Yun JY, Jeong SH: High-performance NO2 gas sensor based on ZnO nanorod grown by ultrasonic irradiation. Sens Actuators B 2009, 141: 239–243. 10.1016/j.snb.2009.06.031View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Ahn MW, Park KS, Hoe JH, Park JG, Kim DW, Choi KJ, Lee JH, Hong SH: Gas sensing properties of defect-controlled ZnO-nanowire gas sensor. Appl Phys Lett 2008, 93: 263103. 10.1063/1.3046726View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Sadek AZ, Choopun S, Wlodarski W, Ippolito SJ, Kalantar-zadeh K: Characterization of ZnO nanobelt-based gas sensor for H2, NO2, and hydrocarbon sensing. IEEE Sens J 2007, 7: 919–924.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Baratto C, Sberveglieri G, Onischuk A, Caruso B, Stasio SD: Low temperature selective NO2 sensors by nanostructured fibres of ZnO. Sens Actuators B 2004, 100: 261–265. 10.1016/j.snb.2003.12.045View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Ahn S, Park S, Ko H, Lee C: Enhanced NO2 gas sensing properties of WO3 nanorods encapsulated with ZnO. Appl Phys A 2012, 108: 53–58. 10.1007/s00339-012-7000-9View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Landau O, Rothschild A, Zussman E: Processing-microstructure-properties correlation of ultrasensitive gas sensors produced by electrospinning. Chem Mater 2009, 21: 9–11. 10.1021/cm802498cView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaur J, Kumar R, Bhatnagar MC: Effect of indium-doped SnO2 nanoparticles on NO2 gas sensing properties. Sens Actuators B 2007, 126: 478–484. 10.1016/j.snb.2007.03.033View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Law M, Kind H, Messer B, Kim F, Yang P: Photochemical sensing of NO2 with SnO2 nanoribbon nanosensors at room temperature. Angew Chem Int Ed 2002, 41: 2405–2408. 10.1002/1521-3773(20020703)41:13<2405::AID-ANIE2405>3.0.CO;2-3View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhang J, Wang S, Wang Y, Wang Y, Zhu B, Xia H, Guo X, Zhang S, Huang W, Wu S: NO2 sensing performance of SnO2 hollow-sphere sensor. Sens Actuators B 2009, 135: 610–617. 10.1016/j.snb.2008.09.026View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Ramgir NS, Mulla IS, Vijayamohanan KP: A room temperature nitric oxide sensor actualized from Ru-doped SnO2 nanowires. Sens Actuators B 2005, 107: 708–715. 10.1016/j.snb.2004.12.073View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaur J, Roy SC, Bhatnagar MC: Highly sensitive SnO2 thin film NO2 gas sensor operating at low temperature. Sens Actuators B 2007, 123: 1090–1095. 10.1016/j.snb.2006.11.031View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Vomiero A, Bianchi S, Comini E, Faglia G, Ferroni M, Sberveglieri G: Controlled growth and sensing properties of In2O3 nanowires. Cryst Growth Des 2007, 7: 2500–2504. 10.1021/cg070209pView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu P, Cheng Z, Pan Q, Xu J, Xiang Q, Yu W, Chu Y: High aspect ratio In2O3 nanowires: synthesis, mechanism and NO2 gas-sensing properties. Sens Actuators B 2008, 130: 802–808. 10.1016/j.snb.2007.10.044View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu Z, Miyauchi M, Yamazaki T, Shen Y: Facile synthesis and NO2 gas sensing of tungsten oxdie nanorods assembled microspheres. Sens Actuators B 2009, 140: 514–519. 10.1016/j.snb.2009.04.059View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Xia H, Wang Y, Kong F, Wang S, Zhu B, Guo X, Zhang J, Wu S: Au-doped WO3-based sensor for NO2 detection at low operating temperature. Sens Actuators B 2008, 134: 133–139. 10.1016/j.snb.2008.04.018View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Teoh LG, Hon YM, Shieh J, Lai WH, Hon MH: Sensitivity properties of a novel NO2 gas sensor based on mesoporous WO3 thin film. Sens Actuators B 2003, 96: 219–225. 10.1016/S0925-4005(03)00528-8View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Rahmani MB, Keshmiri S, Yu J, Sadek A, Al-Moafi A, Latham K, Li Y, Wlodarsk W, Kalantar-Zadeh K: Gas sensing properties of thermally evaporated lamellar MoO3. Sens Actuators B 2010, 145: 13–19. 10.1016/j.snb.2009.11.007View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Guo Z, Li M, Liu J: Highly porous CdO nanowires: preparation based on hydroxy-and carbonate-containing cadmium compound precursor nanowires, gas sensing and optical properties. Nanotechnology 2008, 19: 245611. 10.1088/0957-4484/19/24/245611View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Choi SW, Park JY, Kim SS: Synthesis of SnO2-ZnO core-shell nanofibers via a novel two-step process and their gas sensing properties. Nanotechnology 2009, 20: 465603–465608. 10.1088/0957-4484/20/46/465603View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Chen IC, Lin SS, Lin TJ, Hsu CL, Hsueh TJ, Shieh TY: The assessment for sensitivity of a NO2 gas sensor with ZnGa2O4/ZnO core-shell nanowires-a novel approach. Sensors 2010, 10: 3057–3072. 10.3390/s100403057View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Xu C, Tamaki J, Miura N, Yamazoe N: Grain size effect on gas sensitivity of porous SnO2-based elements. Sens Actuators B 1991, 3: 147–155. 10.1016/0925-4005(91)80207-ZView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Park S, Ko H, Kim S, Lee C: Role of the interfaces in multiple networked one-dimensional core–shell nanostructured gas sensors. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 2014, 6: 9595–9600. 10.1021/am501975vView ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Park et al.; licensee Springer. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.

Advertisement