Table 3.
Comparison of fluorescence quenching dissolved oxygen sensors.
| Oxygen Indicator | Matrix | Emission Wavelength | Optical Fiber (yes/no, Y/N) | Sensitivity | Response Time | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PtOEP 1 | PEMA 2 | 645 nm | Y | 15 (IN2/IO2 -1) | 41 ms | [110] |
| Chlorophyll–zinc complex | Silica gel | 640/680 nm | N | - | - | [111] |
| [Ru(dpp)3][(4-Clph)4B]2 3 | Silica gel | 604 nm | N | 3.6 ppm (I0/I -1) | <1 s | [113] |
| PtOEP | PMMA | - | Y | T0/T -1 = 1.75 | <0.8 s | [115] |
| PtOEP | PMMA | 647 nm | Y | KSV = 0.022 | - | [116] |
| PEMA | KSV = 0.118 | - | ||||
| PPMA 4 | KSV = 0.195 | <100 ms | ||||
| [Ru(dpp)3]Cl2 | Sol–gel | 603 nm | Y | I0/I = 3.6 | 200 ms | [117] |
| Ru(bpy)3Cl2 | Silica–Ni–P composite | 603 nm | N | I0/I100 = 2.49 | 300 s | [118] |
| PtTFPP 5 and dye-entrapped core–shell silica nanoparticles | TEOS 6/C8 TEOS | 650 nm | Y | I0/I = 117 (0–40 mg/L) | 694 s | [119] |
| Ru(dpp)32+ | TMOS 7/DiMe-DMOS 8 | 592 nm | N | I0/I = 16 (0–100%) | 100 s | [120] |
| PdTFPP | Octyl-triEOS/TEOS sol-gel | 643 nm | Y | 0.0554 (40 °C) | 11 s | [127] |
| PtOEP | 676 nm | 0.12 (40 °C) | 10 s | |||
| Ru(dpp)32+ | 590 nm | 0.0015 (40 °C) | 10 s |
1 Luminophore-platinum-octaethyl-porphyrin (PtOEP). 2 Poly(ethyl methacrylate) (PEMA). 3 Tris(4,7-diphenyl-1, 10- phenanthroline)ruthenium(II) ditetrakis(4-chlorophenyl)borate ([Ru(dpp)3][(4-Clph)4B]2). 4 Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA); poly(ethyl methacrylate) (PEMA); poly(propyl methacrylate) (PPMA). 5 5,10,15,20-tetrakis (pentafluorophenyl) 21H, 23H-porphine palladium(II) (PdTFPP). 6 Tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS). 7 Tetramethoxysilane (TMOS). 8 Dimethyldimethoxysilane (DiMe-DMOS).