Table 1.

Comparison of room‐temperature self‐powered gas sensing performance of our gas sensor with the reported self‐powered gas sensors

Materials	Mechanism	Target gas	Conc. a) [ppm]	Response b) [%]	Light wavelength	Ref.
ZnO	Piezoelectric	H2S	100	13.1A	No	[ 40 ]
NiO/ZnO	Piezoelectric	H2S	100	31.5A	No	[ 41 ]
Pd/ZnO	Piezoelectric	Ethanol	200	15.6A	No	[ 42 ]
SnO2/ZnO	Piezoelectric	H2	200	22.8A	No	[ 43 ]
NiO/ZnO (polyimide)	Triboelectric	Ethanol	103	≈37.5A	No	[ 6 ]
PANI/PTFE/PANI	Triboelectric	Ethanol	210	66.8B	No	[ 44 ]
Pd‐ITO (PET)	Triboelectric	H2	104	75A	No	[ 45 ]
ZnO‐RGO	Triboelectric	NO2	100	≈1680A	365 nm (40 mW cm−2)	[ 46 ]
p‐SWNT/n‐Si	Photovoltatic	H2S	0.4	2.23A	600 nm (1.8 mW cm−2)	[ 7 ]
CdS@n‐ZnO/p‐Si	Photovoltatic	Ethanol	200	≈6.5A	Solar (100 mW cm−2)	[ 8 ]
p‐Si/n‐ZnO	Photovoltaic	NO2	0.75	23.5 (Amine)A 12.8 (Thiol)A	Solar (30 mW cm−2)	[ 9 ]
p‐SiNWs/ITO	Photovoltatic	NO2	0.5	≈87.5B	576 nm (20 mW cm−2)	[ 14 ]
WSe2/WS2	Photovoltatic	NO2/NH3	500	322/23B (Self‐powered mode)	Solar (10 W/m2)	[ 13 ]
MoS2/WSe2				36/165B (Self‐powered mode)
MoS2/GaSe	Photovoltatic	NO2	0.02	6.3B (Self‐powered mode)	405 nm (12 mW cm−2)	This work
				32.2B (1 V bias voltage)

^a) Conc. represents concentration

^b) For convenience of comparison, the evaluation of the response is converted as A: $\mathrm{Response}(\%)=|\frac{V_{\mathrm{g}}-V_{\mathrm{a}}}{V_{\mathrm{a}}}|\times 100\%$ and B: $\mathrm{Repsonse}(\%)=|\frac{I_{\mathrm{g}}-I_{\mathrm{a}}}{I_{\mathrm{a}}}|\times 100\%$