Table 1 Performance comparison between the existing fast humidity sensors and our sensor
From: Ultrafast humidity sensor and transient humidity detections in high dynamic environments
Materials | Thickness | Time (ms) | Sensitivity | Detection RH range | Ref. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Response | Recovery | |||||
PTS/LiCl | 10 μm | 200 | ‒ | 4 orders of magnitude | 11–98% | |
DMC | ‒ | 692 | 23 | 3.090 dB %RH−1 | 34–50% | |
MoS2 | ‒ | 90 | 130 | −1.501 dB %RH−1 | 10– 90% | |
TiO2 | 700 nm | 20 | 26 | ‒ | 3.3–97.1% | |
TiO2 | ‒ | 12 | 17 | Green-magenta | 3.3–97.1% | |
ZnWO4/In2O3 | ‒ | 260 | 620 | 27.5 | 10–90% | |
Graphene | ‒ | 58 | 661 | 153.10% | 15–85% | |
Graphene | ‒ | 500 | 7000 | 28231 | 26.1–90.2% | |
GO | 3.4 nm | 28 | 30 | 5% | 8–95% | |
GO | 54 nm | 42 | 115 | 18.5 pm %RH−1 | 30–80% | |
GO | 10 μm | 280 | 300 | 4.92 mV %RH−1 | 33–98% | |
rGO | 25 nm | 25 | ‒ | 0.33% %RH−1 | 2–90% | |
Nylon/GO | ‒/1.75 nm | 780 | 930 | 3.6–20.3 mV %RH−1 | 36.4–97% | |
GOQDs | 4.5 nm | 2.76 | 12.4 | 6.78 kΩ %RH-1 | 11–97% | This work |
