2016
DOI: 10.3103/s0027131416010156
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Selection of a piezoelectric sensor array for detecting volatile organic substances in water

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The relative standard deviations of sensor signals for the studied volatile compounds are presented in Table 2 . The limit of detection for the volatile compounds using the selected sensors was between 0.012 and 135 mg/m 3 , as estimated earlier [ 48 , 53 , 56 ].…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 58%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The relative standard deviations of sensor signals for the studied volatile compounds are presented in Table 2 . The limit of detection for the volatile compounds using the selected sensors was between 0.012 and 135 mg/m 3 , as estimated earlier [ 48 , 53 , 56 ].…”
Section: Methodssupporting
confidence: 58%
“…The choice of sensors for an array is influenced by their high sensitivity to various classes of volatile substances, including volatile biomarkers of diseases in the urine [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Films of 18C6, Tween were chosen for the detection of carboxylic and hydroxy acids [ 47 , 48 ], and MCNT, BCB, MR for ammonia and amines [ 49 , 50 , 51 ]. PEGSb was selected for detection of acids, alcohols, ketones [ 52 , 53 ], and TX-100 for nitrogen- and sulfur-containing compounds [ 54 , 55 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The loading plot ( Figure 8 ) shows that the initial signals made the most considerable contribution to the model of the sensors ΔF max,i , and the signals from the first set of sensors were more significant than from the second set. Therefore, taking into account the loadings for the seven principal components of the PCA–LDA model (shown in Table 6 , Figure 8 ), the most significant for classification were the signals of sensors with modifiers of carboxylated carbon nanotubes, zirconium nitrate, hydroxyapatite, methyl orange, bromocresol green, Triton X-100, and polyethylene glycol and its ethers, which are highly sensitive to vapors of nitrogen- and oxygen-containing compounds according to our previous investigation of sorption features of VOCs on these sorbents [ 37 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These sorbents were chosen among 50 phases due to them having hypersensitivity to various classes of highly volatile organic compounds (alcohols, aldehydes, acids, ketones, amines, and arenes) [ 36 , 37 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ], including volatile biomarkers of respiratory pathologies.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%