| Popis: |
In this work, we report on the synthesis of four morphologies of ZnO, namely, nanoparticles, nanorods, nanosheets, and nanoflowers, from a single precursor Zn(CH3COO)2·2H2O under different reaction conditions. The synthesised nanostructured materials were characterised using powder X-ray diffraction (XRD), Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) and Raman spectroscopy, UV–Vis, XPS analysis, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and nitrogen sorption at 77 K. The XRD, FTIR, and Raman analyses did not reveal any significant differences among the nanostructures, but differences in the electronic properties were noted among the different morphologies. The TEM and SEM analyses confirmed the four different morphologies of the ZnO nanostructures. The textural characteristics revealed that the specific surface areas were different, being 1.3, 6.7, 12.7, and 26.8 m2/g for the nanoflowers, nanoparticles, nanorods, and nanosheets, respectively. The ZnO nanostructures were then mixed with carbon nanoparticles (CNPs) and cellulose acetate (CA) to make nanocomposites that were then used as sensing materials in solid-state sensors to detect methanol, ethanol, and isopropanol vapour at room temperature. The sensors’ responses were recorded in relative resistance. When detecting methanol, 6 out of 12 sensors were responsive, and the most sensitive sensor was the composite with a mass ratio of 1:1:1 of ZnO nanorods:CNPs:CA with a sensitivity of 0.7740 Ω ppm−1. Regarding the detection of ethanol vapour, 9 of the 12 sensors were responsive, and the 3:1:1 mass ratio with ZnO nanoparticles was the most sensitive at 4.3204 Ω ppm−1. Meanwhile, with isopropanol, 5 out of the 12 sensors were active and, with a sensitivity of 3.4539 Ω ppm−1, the ZnO nanoparticles in a 3:1:1 mass ratio were the most sensitive. Overall, the response of the sensors depended on the morphology of the nanostructured ZnO materials, the mass ratio of the sensing materials in the composites, and the type of analyte. The sensing mechanism was governed by the surface reaction on the sensing materials rather than pores hindering the analyte molecules from reaching the active site, since the pore size is larger than the kinetic diameter of the analyte molecules. Generally, the sensors responded well to the ethanol analyte, rather than methanol and isopropanol. This is due to ethanol molecules displaying a more enhanced electron-donating ability. |
