Skip to main content
. 2022 Jun 21;7(26):22861–22871. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.2c02613

Table 2. Comparison of HCHO Sensing Performance in This Work and Those in Other Literature Studiesa.

mater. temp. (°C) L. S. (nm) conc. (ppm) res. τres.recov. (s) Y. ref.
WO3/ZnWO4 220   5 44.5b 12/14 2019 (13)
Cu–Sn3O4 160   100 53b 5/120 2020 (80)
Y–SnO2 180   25 9b 8/10 2019 (81)
CuO 30   80 32c 301/705 2020 (39)
g-C3N4/ZnO RT   50 24.4b 30/70 2020 (82)
Pt/MoO3 RT   200 39.3%d 21.4/16.6 2019 (83)
PEDOT/PSS/MWCNTs-N2 RT   10 30.5%d 45/7 2019 (84)
TiO2/SnO2 RT UV (365) 10 20b 20/56 2020 (22)
ZnOx/ANS/rGO RT vis. (405) 1 38%d 47/39 2021 (70)
HoFeO3 RT red (660) 100 75%e 719/248 2020 (85)
MoS2/rGO RT vis. (>420) 10 64%e 17/98 2020 (86)
VO-rich ZnO RT vis. (>420) 1 63%f 32/20   this work
      10 208%f 10/5    
a

Mater.: materials; temp.: operating temperature; L. S.: light source; conc.: gas concentration; res.: response; D. L.: detection limit; τres.recov.: response/recovery time; Y.: publication year; ref.: references; and vis.: visible light.

b

Ra/Rg.

c

Rg/Ra.

d

(RaRg)/Ra*100%.

e

(RgRa)/Ra*100%.

f

(IgIa)/Ia*100%.