Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Characterization and Comparison of Biodegradable Printed Capacitive Humidity Sensors
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Characterization and Comparison of Biodegradable Printed Capacitive Humidity Sensors
Do you wish to request the book?
Characterization and Comparison of Biodegradable Printed Capacitive Humidity Sensors
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Characterization and Comparison of Biodegradable Printed Capacitive Humidity Sensors
2021
Overview
Flexible and biodegradable sensors are advantageous for their versatility in a range of areas from smart packaging to agriculture. In this work, we characterize and compare the performance of interdigitated electrode (IDE) humidity sensors printed on different biodegradable substrates. In these IDE capacitive devices, the substrate acts as the sensing layer. The dielectric constant of the substrate increases as the material absorbs water from the atmosphere. Consequently, the capacitance across the electrodes is a function of environmental relative humidity. Here, the performance of polylactide (PLA), glossy paper, and potato starch as a sensing layer is compared to that of nonbiodegradable polyethylene terephthalate (PET). The capacitance across inkjet-printed silver electrodes is measured in environmental conditions ranging from 15 to 90% relative humidity. The sensitivity, response time, hysteresis, and temperature dependency are compared for the sensors. The relationship between humidity and capacitance across the sensors can be modeled by exponential growth with an R2 value of 0.99, with paper and starch sensors having the highest overall sensitivity. The PET and PLA sensors have response and recovery times under 5 min and limited hysteresis. However, the paper and starch sensors have response and recovery times closer to 20 min, with significant hysteresis around 100%. The PET and starch sensors are temperature independent, while the PLA and paper sensors display thermal drift that increases with temperature.
Publisher
MDPI AG,MDPI
