Fast response of pulsed laser deposited Zinc ferrite thin film as a chemo-resistive gas sensor

Saptarshi De

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 18 references

Fast response of pulsed laser deposited Zinc ferrite thin film as a chemo-resistive gas sensor

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A dense PLD ZnFe2O4 thin film responds to 500 ppm ethanol in about 12 seconds at 340 °C, and its transients fit a one-site Langmuir model with adsorption and desorption barriers of 1.46 eV and 0.75 eV.

desk verdict A plausible fast-ethanol response for PLD zinc ferrite, but the extracted activation energies rest on a single-site Langmuir assumption the paper never tests. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02780 v1 pith:3QXVY5U7 submitted 2019-08-07 physics.app-ph physics.chem-ph

Saptarshi De This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.app-phphysics.chem-ph

keywords zincferriteZnFe2O4thinfilmethanolgassensorpulsedlaserdepositionchemo-resistivesensingLangmuiradsorptionkineticsactivationenergyresponsetime

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 claims that a dense zinc ferrite (ZnFe2O4) thin film grown by pulsed laser deposition can serve as a fast, repeatable chemo-resistive ethanol sensor. At an operating temperature of 340 °C, exposure to 500 ppm ethanol changes the film resistance by 84–86%, and the signal saturates in roughly 12 seconds—much faster than sensors made from nanocrystalline ferrite powders. The author also claims that the response and recovery transients are described by a one-site Langmuir adsorption model, from which the activation energy for ethanol adsorption plus surface reaction is 1.46 eV (140 kJ/mol) and the activation energy for desorption is 0.75 eV (72 kJ/mol). If these claims hold, the work provides both a practical fast sensing film and a quantitative kinetic basis for predicting how operating temperature controls sensor speed.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-site Langmuir kinetic model for conductance transients, expressed as exponential response and recovery functions: $G(t)=G_0+G_1[1-\exp(-t/\tau_{\mathrm{response}})]$ and $G(t)=G_0'+G_1'\exp(-t/\tau_{\mathrm{recovery}})$. The model is coupled to the Schottky-barrier conductance relation $G=G_0\exp(-eV_s/k_BT)$, so changes in barrier height appear directly as conductance changes, and to the temperature dependence $\tau=\tau_0\exp(E_A/2k_BT)$ (or $\tau=\tau_0\exp(E_D/2k_BT)$), whose slope on a $\ln\tau$ versus $1/T$ plot gives the activation energies. This machinery converts raw resistance traces into two numbers, $E_A=1.46$ eV and $E_D=0.75$ eV, that quantify how temperature controls adsorption/reaction and desorption speeds.

What would settle it

Fit the same conductance transients with a two-site Langmuir model and compare residuals: if the two-site fit is significantly better, or if the fitted single-site $\tau$ changes with gas flow rate, then the extracted 1.46 eV and 0.75 eV values are artifacts of the assumed model. A simpler observation: if any recovery transient at low operating temperature deviates visibly from a single exponential, the one-site assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a single-site Langmuir adsorption model is sufficient to describe the conductance transients of pulsed-laser-deposited zinc ferrite thin films during ethanol sensing, whereas nanocrystalline ferrite powder sensors have required two-site models. Fitting $G(t)=G_0+G_1[1-\exp(-t/\tau_{\mathrm{response}})]$ to the response and $G(t)=G_0'+G_1'\exp(-t/\tau_{\mathrm{recovery}})$ to the recovery yields time constants at 260–340 °C and 5–500 ppm ethanol. The resulting Arrhenius-type plot gives 1.46 eV for the adsorption/reaction step and 0.75 eV for desorption, and the low-concentration response time follows a power law with exponent $\beta'=0.74$ for ethanol (0.32 for $\mathrm{H}_2$). At 340 °C and 500 ppm ethanol the film shows 84–86% sensitivity and conductance saturation within about 12 seconds, with repeatable cycling between air and test gas.

Load-bearing premise

The kinetic analysis assumes that each response and recovery transient is a single-exponential process governed by one Langmuir adsorption site; if multiple sites, diffusion, or surface heterogeneity control the kinetics, the fitted $\tau$ values and the activation energies derived from them are not meaningful.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A dense PLD ZnFe2O4 film can act as an ethanol sensor with signal saturation in about 12 seconds at 340 °C, faster than sensors made from nanocrystalline ferrite powders.
The extracted activation energies imply that both response and recovery speed up with operating temperature, with response speed increasing more steeply because $E_A=1.46$ eV exceeds $E_D=0.75$ eV.
Below about 50 ppm ethanol, the response time scales as $C_{\mathrm{gas}}^{-0.74}$, so lower concentrations are detectable at the cost of slower kinetics; above 50 ppm the response time saturates.
The one-site Langmuir model, fitted with $R^2\approx 0.98$, should predict the response transients across the tested 260–340 °C and 5–500 ppm range.
The film's repeatable response and simple two-electrode architecture are compatible with batch fabrication, supporting the paper's low-cost large-scale production claim.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not test whether a two-site Langmuir model fits better; a natural extension is to apply both fits to the low-concentration regime (below 50 ppm), where the power-law response time may signal a second adsorption site.
Because $E_A$ is nearly twice $E_D$, the model implies that raising operating temperature shortens response time faster than recovery time, so the temperature that maximizes sensitivity may not be the temperature that maximizes cycling rate.
The same kinetic analysis could be ported to other reducing gases or other spinel ferrite films; the different exponents ($\beta'=0.74$ for ethanol, 0.32 for $\mathrm{H}_2$) suggest the method can distinguish gas-specific adsorption processes.
A head-to-head comparison of PLD, spray-pyrolyzed, and spin-coated ZnFe2O4 films under identical flow, temperature, and electrode geometry would test whether the fast response comes from the dense columnar film or from the measurement setup.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Gautam, here's my read of arXiv:1908.02780.

What's actually new: this is the first kinetic analysis of ethanol response on a dense PLD ZnFe2O4 thin film, and the data show a genuinely fast response (~12 s saturation at 340°C, 500 ppm). The activation energies for adsorption/reaction (1.46 eV) and desorption (0.72 eV) for ethanol on this system don't appear in the cited prior work on ferrite powders. The repeatability measurement over multiple cycles is a plus. The fitting of the transients to a one-site Langmuir form gives R²≈0.98, and the Arrhenius plots look reasonably linear.

Soft spots are real. The one-site model is asserted, not tested. The paper itself notes nanocrystalline ferrite powders require two-site fits, so the reader deserves a statistical comparison (e.g., extra-sum-of-squares F-test) or at least residual plots showing the single exponential is adequate. Eq. 10, the Arrhenius form with the factor 1/2 in the exponent, is imported from Ref. [16] without derivation; if that prefactor is wrong, the activation energies shift. The experiment lacks error bars and replicate measurements—there's a single film, single set of transients, and the acknowledged ~9% baseline drift is not corrected in the analysis. The claimed superiority to nanocrystalline powders compares one film to literature values, not a side-by-side measurement. Minor issues: the text says 'figure 4.20' when it means Fig. 5, and the H2 concentration data appear in Fig. 6 without experimental detail.

None of this kills the central finding. A dense columnar PLD film can indeed respond quickly to ethanol, and the order-of-magnitude activation energies are probably in the right ballpark. But the quantitative values are not yet reliable enough to be cited as material constants. This deserves serious peer review: a good referee will ask for raw data, replicate runs, an error analysis on τ, and a two-site comparison. If those come back clean, this becomes a useful data point for the metal-oxide sensor community.

My verdict: worth sending to a knowledgeable referee, but I would not cite the activation energies in my own work until the model choice is justified. Bring it to the reading group if you want a case study in how a simple model can be oversold.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports pulsed-laser-deposited ZnFe2O4 thin films as chemoresistive ethanol sensors. The film annealed at 350 °C shows a fast resistance decrease on exposure to 500 ppm ethanol at 340 °C, with sensitivity of 84–86% and saturation within about 12 s. The response and recovery conductance transients are fitted to a one-site Langmuir model (Eqs. 8–9), and the temperature dependence of the fitted time constants is used to extract activation energies of 1.46 eV (140 kJ/mol) for adsorption/reaction and 0.75 eV (72 kJ/mol) for desorption (Fig. 5). A power-law dependence of response time on gas concentration is also reported for ethanol and H2, with exponents 0.74 and 0.32, respectively. The paper argues that the PLD film is superior to powder-based ferrite sensors and that a single-site model suffices for thin films whereas two-site models are needed for nanocrystalline powders.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are correct, the work would demonstrate that dense PLD ferrite films can serve as fast ethanol sensors and would provide activation-energy estimates for ethanol adsorption/desorption on a zinc ferrite surface, a quantity not previously reported for this system. The use of kinetic analysis of conductance transients to extract activation energies is a standard and potentially valuable methodology, and the fast response of a dense thin film compared with porous powder sensors is an interesting result. However, the central quantitative contribution—the activation energies—rests on an untested single-exponential, one-site Langmuir model and on an imported Arrhenius relation, with no error analysis, residual diagnostics, or model comparison. As presented, the evidence does not yet support the specific numerical values as physically meaningful.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eqs. (8)–(9) and Fig. 5] The activation energies of 1.46 eV and 0.75 eV are the paper's main quantitative novelty, but they are derived from time constants obtained by fitting each transient to a single-site Langmuir model without testing that model. The authors themselves note in the final paragraph of Section III that nanocrystalline ferrite powders require a two-site model; no justification or statistical comparison (e.g., residuals, F-test, AIC) is given for why a dense columnar film should be single-site. With only R²≈0.98 reported, no error bars on τ, and an acknowledged ~9% baseline drift, the fitted τ values may be effective averages that depend on fitting window and drift treatment. I request residual plots, replicate measurements, confidence intervals on τ, and a formal one-site versus two-site comparison before the activation energies can be considered reliable.
[Eq. (10)] The Arrhenius relation τ = τ0 exp(E/2kT) is taken from Ref. [16] without derivation, and the factor 1/2 in the exponent is a modeling assumption whose validity for this system is not established. Since the entire activation-energy analysis depends on this equation, the paper should either derive it from the Langmuir kinetics used in Eqs. (8)–(9) or explicitly justify its applicability to ethanol sensing on ZnFe2O4 thin films. Without this, the slopes in Fig. 5 cannot be unambiguously interpreted as E_A and E_D.
[Section III, Fig. 3] The paper acknowledges a baseline drift of ~9% over three hours and during switching between air and test gas. No detrending or baseline-correction procedure is described, and the fitting of Eqs. (8)–(9) is performed without quantifying how drift affects G0, G1, G0′, G1′, and the extracted τ values. This is not a minor issue because the activation energies are computed from τ; drift-induced systematic errors in τ directly propagate to the Arrhenius slopes. The authors should describe the drift-correction method and provide uncertainty estimates that include drift effects.
[Section III, Fig. 6] The power-law exponents β′ = 0.74 (ethanol) and β′ = 0.32 (H2) are reported, but the fitted power law is explicitly "not shown in the figure," no error bars are given, and the claim that τ is nearly concentration-independent above 50 ppm is not quantified. Given that the number of points below 50 ppm is small and the physical explanation invokes saturation of reactive sites, a proper fit with confidence intervals and a comparison with alternative models is needed before these exponents can be used to support the single-site versus two-site discussion.

minor comments (6)

[Throughout] The manuscript contains many typographical and formatting issues, including "radio freequency" in Section II, "Fig. 4.20" in Section III, inconsistent spelling of "physiadsorption" and "chemiadsorption," and repeated headers indicating submission status. These should be corrected for a journal submission.
[Section III, Eqs. (8)–(9)] The definitions of G0 and G0′ are unclear: the text says G0 is the "base conductance (saturated conductance with test gas)" for the response, but for a response transient the initial conductance should be the air baseline and the final value should be the test-gas value. The notation should be clarified and made consistent with the plotted transients.
[Fig. 5] The activation energy labels on the figure use inconsistent units: "A.E=140 KJ/mol K" should be "140 kJ/mol," and the same for 72 kJ/mol. Also, the figure legend appears to include fragments such as "experimental data fitted curve" that should be presented clearly.
[Section III, Fig. 4] The inset caption says "fast response time 10 sec" while the text and abstract state saturation within ~12 s; these numbers should be reconciled, ideally with statistical uncertainty from repeated measurements.
[Section III, Table I] Crystallite sizes are reported without uncertainty estimates; since the choice of the 350 °C-annealed film is justified by crystallite size, error bars from Scherrer analysis should be provided.
[References] Reference [16] is cited for Eq. (10), but the same reference is inconsistently cited as [16] and [15] in the text (e.g., "[16 15]"), and several references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted; these should be unified.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the activation energies are fitted outputs from measured response/recovery time constants, not inputs reused as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's quantitative claims are the response/recovery time constants extracted by fitting conductance transients to the single-exponential forms of Eqs. (8) and (9), and the activation energies obtained from the slopes of ln(tau) versus 1/T using Eq. (10). This is ordinary kinetic inference: tau is determined from the measured transients at each temperature, and E_A and E_D are then read off the Arrhenius plot in Fig. 5. Neither Eqs. (8)-(9) nor Eq. (10) contain E_A or E_D as an input; the energies are outputs of the temperature-series fit. Eq. (10) is imported from Ref. [16] (Mukherjee and Majumder), not from the present author, so no self-citation chain carries the argument. The one-site Langmuir model and the tau = tau0 exp(E/2kT) form are substantive modeling assumptions that could affect the physical interpretation of the extracted values, and the paper does not compare one-site vs two-site fits; however, an unverified or simplistic model is a correctness/robustness limitation, not circularity. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no claimed result is equivalent by construction to its own input. The paper itself labels the procedure an indirect estimation, consistent with a non-circular fitting analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or entities. Its quantitative output rests on fitted time constants, Arrhenius and power-law parameters, and standard sensing-mechanism assumptions borrowed from prior ferrite sensor literature.

free parameters (7)

Response time constant tau_response per transient = not reported per transient
Fitted to conductance transients using Eq. 8; temperature and concentration dependent.
Recovery time constant tau_recovery per transient = not reported per transient
Fitted to recovery transients using Eq. 9.
Activation energy E_A (adsorption and reaction) = 140 kJ/mol (1.46 eV)
Obtained from the slope of ln tau_response versus 1000/T in Fig. 5 via Eq. 10.
Activation energy E_D (desorption) = 72 kJ/mol (0.75 eV)
Obtained from the slope of ln tau_recovery versus 1000/T in Fig. 5 via Eq. 10.
Power-law exponent beta' for ethanol = 0.74
Fitted to tau_response versus gas concentration below 50 ppm; the fit is not shown in the paper.
Power-law exponent beta' for H2 = 0.32
Fitted to tau_response versus H2 concentration; the fit is not shown in the paper.
Baseline and saturation conductances G0, G1, G0', G1' = not reported
Amplitude parameters in Eqs. 8 and 9, fitted per transient.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Single-site Langmuir adsorption kinetics describes the response and recovery transients (Eqs. 8-9).
The paper states 'assuming Langmuir isotherm adsorption kinetics for a single adsorption site' in Section III; if false, extracted response times are not well-defined.
domain assumption Conductance follows the Schottky barrier relation G = G0 exp(-eV_s/kBT) (Eq. 7).
Taken from refs [15,16] to relate resistance to barrier height; standard for semiconducting oxide sensors.
domain assumption Response time follows tau = tau0 exp(E/(2kT)) (Eq. 10).
Taken from ref [16]; the factor 1/2 in the exponent is asserted without derivation and directly sets the activation energy scale.
domain assumption The sensing mechanism is oxygen chemiadsorption followed by reaction with the reducing gas (Eqs. 2-6).
Standard mechanism for n-type oxide sensors, cited to refs [1-14]; assumed without new validation on this film.
domain assumption Zinc ferrite behaves as an n-type semiconductor in this temperature range.
The resistance decrease on ethanol exposure depends on n-type behavior; no Hall or Seebeck measurement is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Fast response of pulsed laser deposited Zinc ferrite thin film as a chemo-resistive gas sensor." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3QXVY5U7

@misc{pith2026190802780,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Fast response of pulsed laser deposited Zinc ferrite thin film as a chemo-resistive gas sensor},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3QXVY5U7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02780}
}

read the original abstract

Thin films of ZnFe2O4 deposited by pulsed laser technique are here demonstrated as one of the interesting materials for sensing of ethanol. The response transients were fitted well to one-site Langmuir adsorption model. Activation energies for (I) adsorption and reaction of ethanol and (II) desorption (i.e. recovery process) of ethanol from zinc ferrite thin film surface were obtained on the basis of this model. In this paper, we showed the effect of operating temperature and gas-concentration on the response time of thin film sensor materials. At the operating temperature 340oC, the ZnFe2O4 thin film showed high (84%) as well as immediate response to 500 ppm of ethanol, with its resistance being saturated within ~12 seconds, which stands far superior to the response time of nano crystalline powders. Those films were also observed to have a good repeatability of their sensor response, thus representing a major step towards low-cost large-scale production of this class of devices.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[16]

Analyses of response and recovery kinetics of zinc ferrite as hydrogen gas sensor

K. Mukherjee, S. B. Majumder, “Analyses of response and recovery kinetics of zinc ferrite as hydrogen gas sensor”, Journal of Applied Physics, 2009, 106 , 064912

work page 2009
[1]

Hydrothermal Synthesis of SnO 2 Nanoparticles and Their Gas - Sensing of Alcohol

H. C. Chiu, C. S. Yeh, “Hydrothermal Synthesis of SnO 2 Nanoparticles and Their Gas - Sensing of Alcohol”, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 2007 111(20), pp. 7256 -

work page 2007
[2]

Fabrication and ethanol sensing characteristics of ZnO nanowire gas sensors

Q. Wan, Q.H. Li, Y.J. Chen, T.H. Wang, X.L. He, J.P. Li, C.L. Lin, “Fabrication and ethanol sensing characteristics of ZnO nanowire gas sensors”, Applied Physics Lett ers, 2004, 84(18), pp. 3654 - 3656

work page 2004
[3]

High - Temperature Ceramic Gas Sensors: A Review

S. Akbar, P. Dutta, C. Lee, “High - Temperature Ceramic Gas Sensors: A Review”, Internation al Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology, 2006, 3(4), pp. 302 -

work page 2006
[4]

Distinguishing feature of metal oxide films’ structural engineering for gas sensor applications

G. Korotcenkov, V. Golovanov, V. Brinzari, A. Cornet, J. Morante, M. Ivanov, “Distinguishing feature of metal oxide films’ structural engineering for gas sensor applications”, Journal of P hysics: Conference Series, 2005, 15, pp. 256 –

work page 2005
[5]

A model of humidity sensor with a Mg - based ferrite

N. Rezlescu, E. Rezlescu, P.D. Popa, F. Tudorache, “A model of humidity sensor with a Mg - based ferrite ”, Journal of Optoelectronics and Advanced Materials , 2005, 7(2), pp. 907 -

work page 2005
[6]

Ammonia gas sensor based on a spinel semiconductor, Co 0.8 Ni 0.2 Fe 2 O 4 nanomaterial

N.N. Gedam , P.R. Padole, S.K. Rithe , G.N. Chaudhari, “Ammonia gas sensor based on a spinel semiconductor, Co 0.8 Ni 0.2 Fe 2 O 4 nanomaterial”, Journal of Sol - Gel Science and Technology, 2009, 50(3), pp. 296 –

work page 2009
[7]

Bismuth ferrites: New materials for semiconductor gas sensors

A.S. Poghossian, H.V. Abovian, P.B. Avakian, S.H. Mkrtchian, V.M. Haroutu nian, “Bismuth ferrites: New materials for semiconductor gas sensors”, Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 1991, 4 (3 - 4), pp. 545 -

work page 1991

Show all 18 references

[8]

Ethanol - sensing characteristics of cadmium ferrite prepared by chemical co precipitation

Z. Tianshu, P. Hing, Z.Jiancheng, K. Lingbing , “Ethanol - sensing characteristics of cadmium ferrite prepared by chemical co precipitation”, Materials Chemistry and Physics , 1999, 61 (3), pp. 192 -

1999
[9]

Gas sensing properties of magnesium ferrite prepared by co - precipitation Method

P.P. Hankare, S.D. Jadhav, U.B. Sankpal, R.P. Patil, R. Sasikala, I.S. Mulla , “Gas sensing properties of magnesium ferrite prepared by co - precipitation Method”, Journal of Alloys and Compounds , 2009, 488 (1), pp. 270 -

2009
[10]

Nanocrystalline nickel ferrite thick film as an efficient gas sensor at room temperature

R.B. Kamble, V.L. Mathe, “Nanocrystalline nickel ferrite thick film as an efficient gas sensor at room temperature”, Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 2008, 131 (1), pp. 205 –

2008
[11]

CO2 sensing properties of semiconducting copper oxide and spinel ferrite nanocomposite thin film

A. Chapelle, F. Oudrhiri - Hassani, L . Presmanes, A. Barnabé, Ph. Tailhades, “CO2 sensing properties of semiconducting copper oxide and spinel ferrite nanocomposite thin film”, Applied Surface Science , 2010, 256 (14), pp. 4715 -

2010
[12]

Jiao, Z., Wu, M., Gu, J., & Qin, Z. (2003). Preparation and g as - sensing characteristics of nanocrystalline spinel zinc ferrite thin films. IEEE Sensors Journal , 3 (4), 435 – 438

2003
[13]

Ethanol monitoring by ZnFe2O4 thin film obtained by spray pyrolysis

A. Sutka, J. Zavickis, G. Mezinskis, D. Jakovlevs, J. Barloti, “Ethanol monitoring by ZnFe2O4 thin film obtained by spray pyrolysis”, Sensor. Actuat. B , 176 (2013)330 –

2013
[14]

Synthesis, characterization and performance of zinc ferrite nanorods for room temperature sensing applications

A. Singh, A. Singh, S. Singh, P. Tandon, B. C. Yadav, R. R. Yadav, “Synthesis, characterization and performance of zinc ferrite nanorods for room temperature sensing applications”, J.Alloy. Compd ., 618 (2015) 475 –

2015
[15]

Wang, X.Q

C. Wang, X.Q. Fu, X.Y. Xue, Y.G. Wang, and T.H. Wang; Surface accumulation conduction controlled sensing characteristic of p - type CuOnano rods induced by oxygen adsorption; Nanotechnology; 2007; 18, pp 145506 – 145511

2007
[17]

Reducing gas sensing behavior of nano - crystalline magnesium – zinc ferrite Powders

K. Mukherjee, S.B. Majumder, “Reducing gas sensing behavior of nano - crystalline magnesium – zinc ferrite Powders”, Talanta , 2010, 81 (4 - 5), pp. 1826 -

2010
[18]

C., & Majumder, S

Mukherjee, K., Bharti, D. C., & Majumder, S. B. (2010). Sensors and Actuators B : Chemical Solution synthesis and kinetic analyses of the gas sensing characteristics of magnesium ferrite particles. Sensors & Actuators: B. Chemical , 146 (1), 91 –

2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [16]

Analyses of response and recovery kinetics of zinc ferrite as hydrogen gas sensor

K. Mukherjee, S. B. Majumder, “Analyses of response and recovery kinetics of zinc ferrite as hydrogen gas sensor”, Journal of Applied Physics, 2009, 106 , 064912

work page 2009

[2] [1]

Hydrothermal Synthesis of SnO 2 Nanoparticles and Their Gas - Sensing of Alcohol

H. C. Chiu, C. S. Yeh, “Hydrothermal Synthesis of SnO 2 Nanoparticles and Their Gas - Sensing of Alcohol”, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C, 2007 111(20), pp. 7256 -

work page 2007

[3] [2]

Fabrication and ethanol sensing characteristics of ZnO nanowire gas sensors

Q. Wan, Q.H. Li, Y.J. Chen, T.H. Wang, X.L. He, J.P. Li, C.L. Lin, “Fabrication and ethanol sensing characteristics of ZnO nanowire gas sensors”, Applied Physics Lett ers, 2004, 84(18), pp. 3654 - 3656

work page 2004

[4] [3]

High - Temperature Ceramic Gas Sensors: A Review

S. Akbar, P. Dutta, C. Lee, “High - Temperature Ceramic Gas Sensors: A Review”, Internation al Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology, 2006, 3(4), pp. 302 -

work page 2006

[5] [4]

Distinguishing feature of metal oxide films’ structural engineering for gas sensor applications

G. Korotcenkov, V. Golovanov, V. Brinzari, A. Cornet, J. Morante, M. Ivanov, “Distinguishing feature of metal oxide films’ structural engineering for gas sensor applications”, Journal of P hysics: Conference Series, 2005, 15, pp. 256 –

work page 2005

[6] [5]

A model of humidity sensor with a Mg - based ferrite

N. Rezlescu, E. Rezlescu, P.D. Popa, F. Tudorache, “A model of humidity sensor with a Mg - based ferrite ”, Journal of Optoelectronics and Advanced Materials , 2005, 7(2), pp. 907 -

work page 2005

[7] [6]

Ammonia gas sensor based on a spinel semiconductor, Co 0.8 Ni 0.2 Fe 2 O 4 nanomaterial

N.N. Gedam , P.R. Padole, S.K. Rithe , G.N. Chaudhari, “Ammonia gas sensor based on a spinel semiconductor, Co 0.8 Ni 0.2 Fe 2 O 4 nanomaterial”, Journal of Sol - Gel Science and Technology, 2009, 50(3), pp. 296 –

work page 2009

[8] [7]

Bismuth ferrites: New materials for semiconductor gas sensors

A.S. Poghossian, H.V. Abovian, P.B. Avakian, S.H. Mkrtchian, V.M. Haroutu nian, “Bismuth ferrites: New materials for semiconductor gas sensors”, Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 1991, 4 (3 - 4), pp. 545 -

work page 1991