ArticleMicrosystems & nanoengineering2024
Unraveling the nature of sensing in electrostatic MEMS gas sensors.
Article in Microsystems & nanoengineering, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electromechanical Impedance Response in CMUT-Based Gas Sensors Exposed to Volatile Organic Compounds.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Enhanced Sensitivity of Sub-THz Thermomechanical Bolometers Exploiting Vibrational Nonlinearity.ACS photonics · 2026Article
- Bifurcation-based wide-range vacuum pressure micro-sensor.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Resonant Drive Techniques for Electrostatic Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS): A Comparative Study.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- NEMS generated electromechanical frequency combs.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper investigates the fundamental sensing mechanism of electrostatic MEMS gas sensors. It compares among the responsivities of a set of MEMS isopropanol sensors before and after functionalization, and in the presence and absence of electrostatic fields when operated in static and dynamic detection modes. In the static mode, we found that the sensors do not exhibit a measurable change in displacement due to added mass. On the other hand, bare sensors showed a clear change in displacement in response to isopropanol vapor. In the dynamic mode, functionalized sensors showed a measurable frequency shift due to the added mass of isopropanol vapor. In the presence of strong electrostatic fields, the measured frequency shift was found to be threefold larger than that in their absence in response to the same concentration of isopropanol vapor. The enhanced responsivity of dynamic detection allows the sensors to measure the vapor mass captured by the functional material, which is not the case for static detection. The detection of isopropanol by bare sensors in static mode shows that change in the medium permittivity is the primary sensing mechanism. The enhanced responsivity of dynamic mode sensors when operated in strong electrostatic fields shows that their sensing mechanism is a combination of a weaker added mass effect and a stronger permittivity effect. These findings show that electrostatic MEMS gas sensors are independent of the direction of the gravitational field and are, thus, robust to changes in alignment. It is erroneous to refer to them as 'gravimetric' sensors.
Indexed as
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.