| Title |
Toward continuous amperometric gas sensing in ionic liquids: rationalization of signal drift nature and calibration methods
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00216-018-1090-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lu Lin, Xiangqun Zeng |
| Abstract |
Sensor signal drift is the key issue for the reliability of continuous gas sensors. In this paper, we characterized the sensing signal drift of an amperometric ionic liquid (IL)-based oxygen sensor to identify the key chemical parameters that contribute to the signal drift. The signal drifts due to the sensing reactions of the analyte oxygen at the electrode/electrolyte interface at a fixed potential and the mass transport of the reactant and product at the electrode/electrolyte interface were systematically studied. Results show that the analyte concentration variation and the platinum electrode surface activity are major factors contributing to sensing signal drift. An amperometric method with a double potential step incorporating a conditioning step was tested and demonstrated to be useful in reducing the sensing signal drift and extending the sensor operation lifetime. Also, a mathematic method was tested to calibrate the baseline drift and sensing signal sensitivity change for continuous sensing. This study provides the understanding of the chemical processes that contribute to the IL electrochemical gas (IL-EG) sensor signal stability and demonstrates some effective strategies for signal drift calibration that can increase the reliability of the continuous amperometric sensing. Graphical Abstract ᅟ. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 13% |
| Professor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 21% |
| Unknown | 3 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Chemistry | 7 | 29% |
| Engineering | 3 | 13% |
| Materials Science | 3 | 13% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 2 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2018.
All research outputs
#22,767,715
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#7,543
of 9,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#299,634
of 341,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Analytical & Bioanalytical Chemistry
#125
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,619 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 341,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.