Table 2.

Performance of compact methanol detectors

Type	Reference	LOQa (vol%)	Analysis time (s)	Methanol selectivityb					Reusablec	Stabilityd (days)	Validated with hand sanitizers	Price (USD)
				Ethanol	1-propanol	2-propanol	Butanone	Glycerol
Chemoresistive	Guo et al., (2011)	0.02 (g)		0.5					✓
	Zhao et al., (2012)	8∙10−7 (g)		<2					✓
	This work	0.01 (L) 10−4 (g)g	≤90	∞	∞	∞	∞	∞	✓	107i	✓
ECe	Ou et al., (2019)	0.15 (L)		260					✓
	Meng et al., (2020)	2∙10−4 (g)	60	~1					✓	15
Optical	DX4015 (Gasmet Technol.)	3∙10−4 (g)	<120						✓			>10′000
	Spectrum Two FT-IR Spectrometer (PerkinElmer)	0.03 (L)	30						✓		✓
	Huang et al., (2018)	4 (L)	<2	0.7h					✓
CMf	Alert for Methanol (Neogen)	0.35 (L)	600						single use			20 (per analysis)

^alowest gas- (g) or liquid- (L) phase concentration measured.

^bhighest ratio of response methanol vs. response confounder.

^crepeated use of same detector/reagent.

^dstability during repeated measurements without significant performance loss.

^eelectrochemical.

^fcolorimetric.

^gdata from van den Broek et al. (2019).

^hauthors suggest ethanol vs. methanol discrimination through different sensor recovery times.

ⁱdata from Abegg et al. (2020).