ArticleRSC advances2023
Comparative investigation of gas sensing performance of liquefied petroleum gas using green reduced graphene oxide-based sensors.
Article in RSC advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Herein, we report the comparative gas sensing performance (at room temperature) of reduced graphene oxide sensors obtained by reducing graphene oxide using extracts of pumpkin leaf, neem leaf and methionine. An interdigitated pattern was designed on soda-lime glass using a stamp method and the dispersed solution of rGO was spin coated on the pattern. The electrical response of the sensors was investigated (using a simple in-house measurement set up) by measuring change in resistance of graphene with varying gas concentration on exposure to liquefied petroleum gas (LPG). From the characterization results using FTIR, SEM, EDX and UV-Visible, methionine reduced graphene oxide (MRGO 12H) indicated a greater degree of reduction compared to pumpkin reduced graphene oxide (PRGO 12H) and neem reduced graphene oxide (NRGO 12H). The LPG sensing results showed an increase in the resistance of the sensor materials upon the introduction of the gas and, an increased sensitivity as the concentration of the test gas increased from 100 ppm to 200 ppm while the MRGO 12H sensor was more selective towards LPG sensing. Furthermore, it was observed that the sensor response for the fabricated sensors is strongly dependent on the concentration of gas exposed to the sensors and the degree of removal of oxygen functional groups in the graphene-based materials. Hence, the MRGO 12H sensor had a sensor response of 23.58% at 200 ppm. PRGO 12H at 100 ppm illustrates the least sensor response while NRGO 12H showed very poor sensor response that ranged between 5.10% and 7.56%. The sensor response of the materials demonstrates an improvement in results obtained for pure rGO based sensors. We obtained a response time as low as 5.3 seconds for MRGO 12H while the recovery time of the sensors ranged between 6.46 seconds and 41.50 seconds. The MRGO 12H sensor typified the best recovery time and thus outperformed results from most of the reported literature. Considering different performance metrics such as sensor response, response time, recovery time and sensing period, MRGO 12H is more selective towards detecting LPG. Our results showed that a greater restoration of the sp
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.