2022
DOI: 10.1039/d2tc02344j
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A highly aligned microgrid structure for wearable nanofibrous sensors with an enhanced sensitivity and detection range

Abstract: Interface features are of great significance to mainstream piezoresistive sensors. Various novel hierarchical microstructures (HMs) are developed to improve the sensitivity, limit and detection range, however, the fabrication of highly...

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As shown in Figure 5h, when a finger was rapidly pressed on and off the sensor, the response and recovery times were 100 and 70 ms, respectively, which are closer to the response time of human skin (30−50 ms), indicating a low hysteresis. 56 A comparison of the sensitivity and sensing range of the sensors reported in the previous work 13,15,22,26,34,36,39,[41][42][43]54 is given in Figure 5i, where it is found that the AgNPs/TPU pressure sensor had a relatively higher sensitivity and wider detection range. For a clearer comparison, the sensitivity and detection range of various microstructured sensors are given in Table S2.…”
Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As shown in Figure 5h, when a finger was rapidly pressed on and off the sensor, the response and recovery times were 100 and 70 ms, respectively, which are closer to the response time of human skin (30−50 ms), indicating a low hysteresis. 56 A comparison of the sensitivity and sensing range of the sensors reported in the previous work 13,15,22,26,34,36,39,[41][42][43]54 is given in Figure 5i, where it is found that the AgNPs/TPU pressure sensor had a relatively higher sensitivity and wider detection range. For a clearer comparison, the sensitivity and detection range of various microstructured sensors are given in Table S2.…”
Section: ■ Results and Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…The construction of hierarchical or microstructure can effectively improve the sensitivity and detection range, as a single microstructure is often affected by the deformation of the micropatterned structure, which improves the sensitivity at the low-pressure range but limits the sensitivity at high pressures. For instance, Wang et al 36 combined the techniques of template-based electrospinning and coating to develop a simple microgrid-like Ag/MXenemodified nanofibrous membrane. Based on this, a flexible pressure sensor with hierarchical microstructures was further assembled.…”
Section: ■ Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From Figure e, we can see that the SILB pressure sensor with a steady and consistent performance after 6250 time pressure loadings of 0.25 kPa, which is a critical attribute for the pressure sensor to be applied in various circumstances. In Figure f, the pressure detection range and sensitivity of the SILB pressure sensor are compared to those of recently reported piezoresistive sensors. , By contrast, it is demonstrated that the SILB pressure sensor has a considerable advantage in both response range and sensitivity to better fulfill the application requirements.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Flexible piezoresistive micro-pressure sensors have promising applicable potential because of their simple structure, facile materials preparation, low cost, and other merits. [125][126][127] Graphene, carbon nanobers and carbon nanotubes (CNTs) are the most common conductive materials for preparing piezoresistive pressure sensors. 128 These sensors have high sensitivity, great stretchability, good exibility, and excellent stability, and are suitable for micro-pressure detection in different application scenarios.…”
Section: Triboelectric Micro-pressure Sensorsmentioning
confidence: 99%