Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 26 references

PEDOT:PSS-Coated Magnetoelastic Sensors for Highly Sensitive Wireless Humidity Sensing

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A conductive polymer coating turns magnetoelastic ribbons into highly sensitive wireless humidity sensors.

desk verdict The paper shows a plausible new PEDOT:PSS coating for magnetoelastic humidity sensors with strong structural characterization, but the missing uncoated baseline leaves the headline sensitivity unattributed. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.27399 v1 pith:LPGCN35Q submitted 2026-07-29 cond-mat.mtrl-sci cond-mat.mes-hall

Wenderson R. F. Silva , Robson C. O. Guedes , Gilberto Rodrigues-Junior , Eduarda P. M. Campos , Angelo Malachias , Joaquim B. S. Mendes This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-scicond-mat.mes-hall
keywords PEDOT:PSSmagnetoelasticresonatorhumiditysensorwirelesssensingMetglasviscoelasticdampingmassloadingresonancefrequency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports the first use of PEDOT:PSS—a common, low-cost conductive polymer—as the functional layer on magnetoelastic (ME) resonators for wireless humidity sensing. It claims that a drop-cast PEDOT:PSS film on a Metglas ribbon shifts the resonance frequency by up to 155 Hz per 1% relative humidity in the 20–70% RH range, with resolution better than 0.1% RH and fast response/recovery times. The shift is attributed to two combined effects: water absorbed by the PSS fraction adds mass, and the hydrated film softens viscoelastically, increasing damping. If correct, this provides a simple, battery-free, wirelessly readable humidity sensor for sealed or hard-to-access environments such as food packaging and silos.

What carries the argument

The sensing element is a Metglas 2826MB3 ribbon (2 mm × 10 mm × 28 µm) coated by drop-casting with a PEDOT:PSS film. The load-bearing mechanism is the water uptake of the hygroscopic PSS phase: absorbed water adds mass (Sauerbrey-type frequency downshift) and simultaneously lowers the Young's modulus, raising the loss tangent of the viscoelastic film. The complex shear modulus at the resonator–film interface couples these effects into the resonance frequency, so the sensor response is a dual mass-viscoelastic transduction rather than a pure mass response.

What would settle it

Measure an uncoated Metglas 2826MB3 ribbon (same geometry, same chamber) under the same 20–95% RH sweep and compare its resonance frequency shift to the coated sensor. If the bare ribbon's shift is comparable to the coated one, the claim that PEDOT:PSS enables the high sensitivity fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that PEDOT:PSS works as a highly effective hygroscopic coating for magnetoelastic humidity sensing, and that the sensitivity arises from the interplay of mass loading and viscoelastic damping rather than mass alone. The authors show structurally that humidity swells the PSS-rich lamellar domains (d-spacing from 23.5 Å to 24.2 Å at 95% RH) and plasticizes the film, and dynamically that resonance frequency drops with RH while damping and quality-factor broadening increase. Optimized 10-µm coatings achieve 155 Hz/%RH in 20–70% RH, outperforming previously reported ME humidity sensors, with sub-0.1% RH resolution and 22 s/11 s response/recovery times.

Load-bearing premise

The entire RH-induced frequency shift is assumed to come from the PEDOT:PSS coating, but the paper does not report control measurements on uncoated Metglas resonators over the same humidity sweep; a non-negligible bare-ribbon response would inflate the reported sensitivity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • ME humidity sensors can be made with a simple, low-cost drop-casting step, avoiding vacuum-based or high-temperature deposition.
  • Wireless, battery-free humidity monitoring becomes practical in sealed packages, silos, or other hermetic environments where wired sensors fail.
  • The dual mass/viscoelastic mechanism suggests the coating can be tuned (e.g., PEDOT:PSS ratio, thickness) to trade sensitivity against linear range.
  • With resolution below 0.1% RH and hysteresis around 0.5%, the sensor is suitable for precision environmental and industrial monitoring.
  • Long-term storage (two months) preserves response times, with only moderate sensitivity decrease, indicating practical shelf life.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the authors report no control measurements on uncoated bare Metglas ribbons, part of the measured frequency shift could, in principle, come from the bare resonator or chamber effects; a direct control would isolate the coating's contribution.
  • The viscoelastic softening mechanism implies the sensor response may be temperature-dependent beyond simple water uptake; temperature compensation would be needed in field use, as the authors note.
  • The reported sensitivity of 223 Hz/%RH for the thickest coating suggests the optimal thickness may depend on the RH range targeted, opening a tunable-design space.
  • The same PEDOT:PSS-coated ME platform could be extended to detect other volatile compounds if selectivity measures separate humidity interference, given PEDOT:PSS is known to respond to various analytes.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a wireless, passive humidity sensor based on PEDOT:PSS-coated Metglas 2826MB3 magnetoelastic resonators. Films are deposited by drop-casting at five surface concentrations (0.1–1.25 µL/mm², corresponding to ~2–25 µm thickness), and the sensors are characterized by SEM/EDX, Raman, AFM/KPFM, XRD, and resonance-frequency measurements under controlled relative humidity (RH) from 20% to 95%. The authors observe a systematic downward frequency shift with increasing RH, accompanied by increased damping, and attribute this to combined mass loading (Sauerbrey) and viscoelastic softening of the hydrated PSS phase. The 0.5 µL/mm² coating is selected as the optimized configuration, giving a sensitivity of 155 Hz/%RH over 20–70% RH, a resolution of ~0.1% RH, response/recovery times of 22 s/11 s, and a hysteresis of ~0.5% RH. The 1.25 µL/mm² coating shows even higher sensitivity (223 Hz/%RH over 20–60% RH). The paper claims this is the first use of PEDOT:PSS in magnetoelastic humidity sensing and that the performance surpasses previously reported ME humidity sensors. Two-month storage stability data are also reported.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a worthwhile contribution to wireless humidity sensing: it introduces a low-cost, solution-processable conducting polymer into magnetoelastic sensor technology, provides a multi-technique structural picture (XRD lamellar expansion 23.5→24.2 Å, AFM/KPFM morphology changes, Raman integrity), and demonstrates systematic thickness-dependent frequency responses. The study includes repeated cycling on three nominally identical sensors (S1–S3) and a two-month stability check, which are positive reproducibility features. The main quantitative claims, however, rest on two unaddressed pillars: the absence of a bare-uncoated-resonator control and the lack of uncertainty quantification on the reported sensitivity values. Both are fixable in revision and are essential before the headline '155 Hz/%RH surpassing prior ME sensors' can be taken at face value.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3, Figs. 6–7; Table 1] No uncoated Metglas control is reported. The RH sweep changes the gas density, flow, and coil coupling inside the acrylic chamber, and bare Metglas itself can adsorb water or exhibit a humidity-dependent ΔE effect. Without measuring an uncoated 2826MB3 ribbon under the same 20–95% RH protocol, the coating-specific contribution to the frequency shift and to the quoted sensitivity S = 155 Hz/%RH is not isolated. This is load-bearing for the central 'surpassing' claim and for the mass-loading/viscoelastic mechanism, because any bare-resonator or chamber response is embedded in every coated curve and in the noise σ = 13.8 Hz. Please provide bare-ribbon control sweeps and, if a non-negligible response exists, subtract it or report the coating-only response.
  2. [Section 3, after Fig. 7b; Table 1] The sensitivity values (155, 28, 223, 71 Hz/%RH) are presented as linear-fit slopes without standard errors, confidence intervals, or goodness-of-fit statistics. The resolution and LOD are consequently quoted without uncertainty propagation. Given that the advertised advantage over prior ME sensors (23.8–35.3 Hz/%RH) is a factor of 4–7, it is important to demonstrate that the slopes are known to better than, say, ±20%. Please report fit uncertainties (e.g., 95% CI) for S and for σ, and propagate them into the resolution/LOD values.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 3, comparison paragraph] The cross-technology comparison in Table 1 uses raw Hz/%RH for QCM, LC resonant circuits, and ME sensors without normalizing to the fundamental resonance frequency. QCM and LC devices operate at much higher frequencies (MHz–GHz), so raw Hz/%RH is not a commensurable metric; for example, the cited QCM value of 48.1 Hz/%RH at ~10 MHz corresponds to a much smaller fractional frequency shift than 155 Hz/%RH at a sub-MHz ME resonance. This undermines the statement that the proposed sensor shows 'comparable or higher sensitivity' to QCM-based devices. Either report normalized sensitivity (Δf/f0 per %RH) or restrict the 'surpassing' claim to the ME-sensor rows, where the comparison is appropriate.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The entry 'PEDOT:PSS(0.5µm)/Metglas 2826MB3*' appears to be a typo: the coating thickness for the optimized sensor is 10 µm, deposited from 0.5 µL/mm². Please correct the unit to µL/mm² or µm consistently.
  2. [Section 3, XRD paragraph] There are cross-referencing errors: the sentence 'To lamellar structure to environmental humidity...' is incomplete, and later 'Fig. 4b' is used where the XRD zoom is meant (the AFM/KPFM panels are Fig. 4). Please renumber/rewrite these references.
  3. [Abstract and Section 3, resolution statement] The abstract claims 'resolution better than 0.1% RH', while the text reports 'resolution of approximately 0.1 %RH' in the 20–70% range and 0.5% RH at 70–95%. In the lower range, σ/S = 13.8/155 ≈ 0.089 %RH, so 'better than 0.1%' is defensible but should be stated as a computed value with the underlying noise, not as a blanket statement. Please harmonize the wording.
  4. [Section 2.2, viscoelastic model] Equations (2)–(4) are used to argue that mass loading and viscoelastic damping both contribute, but the relative contribution is not quantified. Since the FWHM increase (1490→8970 Hz) is strong direct evidence of damping, a sentence acknowledging that the two contributions are not deconvolved and that the model is qualitative would be appropriate.
  5. [Section 3, long-term stability] The sensitivity after two months drops from 109 to 84–85 Hz/%RH (main text says 84, Supplementary says 85; please use one value). The claim that 'there was no significant change in the dynamic response' is contradicted by the ~22% sensitivity reduction; rephrase to note a moderate sensitivity loss while response/recovery times remain stable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the headline sensitivity is an empirical calibration slope, not a derived prediction, and self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central result—S = 155 Hz/%RH for the optimized PEDOT:PSS-coated sensor—is presented as an empirical sensitivity obtained by a linear fit to measured resonance-frequency versus RH data (Section 3, Fig. 7b: 'obtained through a linear fit of the data in the graph in Fig. 7b'). This is a characterization of measured behavior, not a prediction derived from a fitted model, so it cannot be circular by construction. Equations (1)–(4) are standard elastic/viscoelastic descriptions used to interpret the observed downshift; they are not used to predict the fitted sensitivity from independently fitted parameters. The paper's self-citations (refs. 14, 17–19) support instrumentation choices and prior biosensor demonstrations; they do not supply the PEDOT:PSS humidity-sensing claim, which rests on the present measurements and on external literature for PEDOT:PSS hygroscopic and viscoelastic properties (refs. 25, 26, 29, 33). The lack of an uncoated-Metglas control is a legitimate experimental-attribution concern, but it is a missing control rather than a definitional or self-referential reduction: the reported slope is still an empirical slope of the coated system, and no equation in the paper forces the coating attribution. The paper also explicitly acknowledges limitations (temperature compensation, VOC selectivity, long-term sensitivity decrease), further supporting that the claims are empirical rather than circular. Therefore no specific circular step can be quoted and demonstrated, and the correct circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main result is empirical; the theoretical model is qualitative and relies on literature values. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters are calibration slopes and noise estimates fitted to measured data, plus the post hoc choice of linear RH ranges.

free parameters (4)
  • Sensitivity S (20–70% RH) = 155 Hz/%RH
    Slope of linear fit to resonance frequency vs RH for the 0.5 µL/mm² (≈10 µm) coating; used to claim outperformance.
  • Sensitivity S (70–95% RH) = 28 Hz/%RH
    Second linear regime reported for the same sensor; shows nonlinearity, and the fit range is chosen post hoc.
  • Sensitivity S (20–60% RH) for 1.25 µL/mm² coating = 223 Hz/%RH
    Reported as even higher sensitivity for the thickest coating, from a linear fit in a narrower range.
  • Frequency noise σ = 13.8 Hz
    Used to compute resolution (0.1 %RH) and LOD; empirically estimated, with no independent verification shown.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Sauerbrey equation (Eq. 2) applies to the deposited PEDOT:PSS layer as a first approximation, relating added mass to frequency shift.
    Used in Section 2.2; the authors immediately note the film is viscoelastic, so the equation is only approximate and no correction is derived.
  • domain assumption Kelvin-Voigt viscoelastic model with complex shear modulus G* = G' + jωη describes the PEDOT:PSS film response; Eqs. 3 and 4 give the shear stress at the interface.
    Invoked in Section 2.2 to argue damping rises with hydration, but no quantitative prediction of Δf is made from this model.
  • domain assumption The Young's modulus of PEDOT:PSS decreases with RH, as reported by Lang 2009 [29].
    This external result is the basis for the viscoelastic damping mechanism; its validity for the specific drop-cast film is assumed.
  • domain assumption Resonance frequency shifts observed with RH are due to the PEDOT:PSS coating (mass + viscoelasticity), not to humidity effects on the uncoated Metglas resonator or the measurement chamber.
    No uncoated control experiment is reported in Section 3, Figs. 6–7.
  • standard math One-dimensional elastic wave equation for the ribbon (Eq. 1) is valid under uniform magnetic fields.
    Standard elasticity result from Landau-Lifshitz, used as the starting point for the resonance model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of PEDOT:PSS-Coated Magnetoelastic Sensors for Highly Sensitive Wireless Humidity Sensing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LPGCN35Q

@misc{pith2026260727399,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: PEDOT:PSS-Coated Magnetoelastic Sensors for Highly Sensitive Wireless Humidity Sensing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LPGCN35Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.27399}
}
read the original abstract

Magnetoelastic (ME) resonators provide an attractive platform for passive and wireless sensing, particularly for monitoring relative humidity (RH) in sealed or hard-to-access environments. In this work, we introduce ME humidity sensors functionalized with poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene) sulfonate (PEDOT), marking the first application of this conductive polymer in ME-based humidity sensing. PEDOT films were deposited onto Metglas resonators via a simple drop-casting process, producing uniform and mechanically stable coatings. Comprehensive structural and morphological characterization by SEM, EDX, Raman spectroscopy, AFM/KPFM, and XRD confirmed the structural integrity of the polymer and revealed humidity-induced swelling of the PSS-rich domains, accompanied by enhanced polymer-chain mobility and an increase in the lamellar spacing from 23.5 \r{A} to 24.2 \r{A} at 95% RH. These structural changes directly affected the dynamic response of the resonators, leading to a systematic resonance-frequency downshift driven by the combined effects of water adsorption, mass loading, and viscoelastic damping. The optimized device achieved a sensitivity of 155 Hz/% RH in the 20 - 70% RH range, outperforming previously reported ME humidity sensors, while exhibiting a resolution better than 0.1% RH together with excellent response and recovery times. These results establish PEDOT as a highly effective functional coating for magnetoelastic humidity sensors and demonstrate a simple, low-cost, wireless sensing platform with high sensitivity and strong potential for practical environmental and industrial monitoring applications.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    M. Kong, M. Garriga, J.S. Reparaz , M.I. Alonso, Advanced Optical Characterization of PEDOT:PSS by Combining Spectroscopic Ellipsometry and Raman Scattering, ACS Omega 7 (2022) 39429–39436. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.2c05945

    work page doi:10.1021/acsomega.2c05945 2022

  2. [2]

    Farah, S.A

    A.A. Farah, S.A. Rutledge, A. Schaarschmidt, R. Lai, J.P. Freedman, A.S. Helmy, Conductivity enhancement of poly(3,4 -ethylenedioxythiophene)- poly(styrenesulfonate) films post - spincasting, J. Appl. Phys. 112 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4768265

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4768265 2012

  3. [3]

    Garreau, G

    S. Garreau, G. Louarn, J.P. Buisson, G. Froyer, S. Lefrant, In Situ Spectroelectrochemical Raman Studies of Poly(3,4 -ethylenedioxythiophene) (PEDT), Macromolecules 32 (1999) 6807–6812. https://doi.org/10.1021/MA9905674

    work page doi:10.1021/ma9905674 1999

  4. [4]

    Garreau, J.L

    S. Garreau, J.L. Duvail, G. Louarn, Spectroelectrochemical studies of poly(3,4 - ethylenedioxythiophene) in aqueous medium, Synth. Met. 125 (2001) 325 –329. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0379-6779(01)00397-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s0379-6779(01)00397-6 2001

  5. [5]

    W.W. Chiu, J. Travaš -Sejdić, R.P. Cooney, G.A. Bowmaker, Spectroscopic and conductivity studies of doping in chemically synthesized poly(3,4-ethylenedioxythiophene), Synth. Met. 155 (2005) 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SYNTHMET.2005.06.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.synthmet.2005.06.012 2005

  6. [6]

    P. V. Almeida, C.M.S. Izumi, H.F. Dos Santos, A.C. Sant’Ana, Spectroscopic Characterization of PEDOT:PSS Conducting Polymer by Resonance Raman and Serrs Spectroscopies, Quim. Nova 42 (2019) 1073–1080. https://doi.org/10.21577/0100-4042.20170417

    arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Han, M.-Y

    Y.-K. Han, M.-Y. Chang, W.-Y. Huang, H.-Y. Pan, K.-S. Ho, T.-H. Hsieh, S.-Y. Pan, Improved Performance of Polymer Solar Cells Featuring One -Dimensional PEDOT Nanorods in a Modified Buffer Layer, J. Electrochem. Soc. 158 (2011) K88. https://doi.org/10.1149/1.3534201

    work page doi:10.1149/1.3534201 2011

  8. [8]

    Adilbekova, A.D

    B. Adilbekova, A.D. Scaccabarozzi, H. Faber, M.I. Nugraha, V. Bruevich, D. Kaltsas, D.R. Naphade, N. Wehbe, A.H. Emwas, H.N. Alshareef, V. Podzorov, J. Martín, L. Tsetseris, T.D. 23 Anthopoulos, Enhancing the Electrical Conductivity and Long -Term Stability of PEDOT:PSS Electrodes through Sequential Treatment with Nitric Acid and Cesium Chloride, Advanced...

    doi:10.1002/adma.202405094 2024

Show all 26 references
  1. [9]

    Arman Kuzubasoglu, Recent Studies on the Humidity Sensor: A Mini Review, ACS Appl

    B. Arman Kuzubasoglu, Recent Studies on the Humidity Sensor: A Mini Review, ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. 4 (2022) 4797–4807. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACSAELM.2C00721

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    H. Ma, J. Ding, Z. Zhang, Q. Gao, Q. Liu, G. Wang, W. Zhang, X. Fan, Recent Advances in Graphene-Based Humidity Sensors with the Focus on Structural Design: A Review, IEEE Sens. J. 24 (2024) 20289–20311. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2024.3398003

    2024

  3. [11]

    Sikarwar, B.C

    S. Sikarwar, B.C. Yadav, Opto-electronic humidity sensor: A review, Sens. Actuators A Phys. 233 (2015) 54–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SNA.2015.05.007

    2015 doi

  4. [12]

    M. Kuş, S. Okur, Electrical characterization of PEDOT:PSS beyond humidity saturation, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 143 (2009) 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SNB.2009.08.055

    2009 doi

  5. [13]

    Assunção da Silva, C

    E. Assunção da Silva, C. Duc, N. Redon, J.L. Wojkiewicz, Humidity Sensor Based on PEO/PEDOT:PSS Blends for Breath Monitoring, Macromol. Mater. Eng. 306 (2021) 2100489. https://doi.org/10.1002/MAME.202100489

    2021 doi

  6. [14]

    Pingel, D

    P. Pingel, D. Neher, Comprehensive picture of 𝑝-type doping of P3HT with the molecular acceptor F4TCNQ, Phys. Rev. B 87 (2013) 115209. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.87.115209

    2013 doi

  7. [15]

    Sarabia -Riquelme, W.C

    R. Sarabia -Riquelme, W.C. Schimpf, D.L. Kuhn, M.C. Weisenberger, Influence of relative humidity on the structure, swelling and electrical conductivity of PEDOT:PSS fibers, Synth. Met. 297 (2023) 117399. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SYNTHMET.2023.117399

    2023

  8. [16]

    D. Yoo, J. Kim, J.H. Kim, Direct synthesis of highly conductive poly(3,4 - ethylenedioxythiophene):poly(4-styrenesulfonate) (PEDOT:PSS)/graphene composites and their applications in energy harvesting systems, Nano Research 2014 7:5 7 (2014) 717 –730. https://doi.org/10.1007/S1...

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    Wang, A.K.K

    X. Wang, A.K.K. Kyaw, C. Yin, F. Wang, Q. Zhu, T. Tang, P.I. Yee, J. Xu, Enhancement of thermoelectric performance of PEDOT:PSS films by post-treatment with a superacid, RSC Adv. 8 (2018) 18334–18340. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RA02058B

    2018 doi

  10. [18]

    B. E. Warren, X-Ray Diffraction, 1990

    1990

  11. [19]

    Cullity, Elements of X-ray Diffraction, 2rd ed., 1978

    B.D. Cullity, Elements of X-ray Diffraction, 2rd ed., 1978

    1978

  12. [20]

    Lei, J.-H

    T. Lei, J.-H. Dou, Z.-J. Ma, C.-H. Yao, C.-J. Liu, J.-Y. Wang, J. Pei, Ambipolar Polymer Field- Effect Transistors Based on Fluorinated Isoindigo: High Performance and Improved Ambient Stability, J. Am. Chem. Soc 134 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1021/ja310283f

    2012 doi

  13. [21]

    Sánchez, R.P

    J.A.L. Sánchez, R.P. Capilla, A.M. Díez -Pascual, High -Performance PEDOT:PSS/Hexamethylene Diisocyanate-Functionalized Graphene Oxide Nanocomposites: Preparation and Properties, Polymers 2018, Vol. 10, Page 1169 10 (2018) 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/POLYM10101169. 24

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    N. Kim, S. Kee, S.H. Lee, B.H. Lee, Y.H. Kahng, Y.R. Jo, B.J. Kim, K. Lee, Highly conductive PEDOT:PSS nanofibrils induced by solution -processed crystallization, Adv. Mater. 26 (2014) 2268–2272. https://doi.org/10.1002/ADMA.201304611

    2014 doi

  15. [23]

    J. Liu, J. Zhang, J. Li, K. Zhang, Y. Tong, A novel methodology to fabricate freestanding (CNFs-PVA)-MSP sensors in wireless humidity sensing applications, Sens. Actuators B Chem. 418 (2024) 136257. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SNB.2024.136257

    2024

  16. [24]

    Sisniega, R

    B. Sisniega, R. Fernandez de Luis, J. Gutierrez, A. García -Arribas, Magnetoelastic resonators functionalized with metal -organic framework water harvesters as wireless humidity sensors, APL Mater. 12 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0206165

    2024 doi

  17. [25]

    Grimes, D

    C.A. Grimes, D. Kouzoudis, Remote query measurement of pressure, fluid -flow velocity, and humidity using magnetoelastic thick-film sensors, Sens. Actuators A Phys. 84 (2000) 205–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-4247(00)00306-X

    2000 doi

  18. [26]

    Atalay, T

    S. Atalay, T. Izgi, V.S. Kolat, S. Erdemoglu, O.O. Inan, Magnetoelastic Humidity Sensors with TiO2 Nanotube Sensing Layers, Sensors 2020, Vol. 20, Page 425 20 (2020) 425. https://doi.org/10.3390/S20020425

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.