Cited by 115Advanced Chemical Sensor TechnologiesGas Sensing Nanomaterials and SensorsElectrochemical sensors and biosensors

Machine Learning-Based Rapid Detection of Volatile Organic Compounds in a Graphene Electronic Nose

Capman, Nyssa S. S., Zhen, Xue V., Nelson, Justin T., Chaganti, V. R. Saran Kumar, Finc, Raia C., Lyden, Michael J., Williams, Thomas L., Freking, Mike +4 more·2022·ACS Nano

Abstract

Rapid detection of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) is growing in importance in many sectors. Noninvasive medical diagnoses may be based upon particular combinations of VOCs in human breath; detecting VOCs emitted from environmental hazards such as fungal growth could prevent illness; and waste could be reduced through monitoring of gases produced during food storage. Electronic noses have been applied to such problems, however, a common limitation is in improving selectivity. Graphene is an adaptable material that can be functionalized with many chemical receptors. Here, we use this versatility to demonstrate selective and rapid detection of multiple VOCs at varying concentrations with graphene-based variable capacitor (varactor) arrays. Each array contains 108 sensors functionalized with 36 chemical receptors for cross-selectivity. Multiplexer data acquisition from 108 sensors is accomplished in tens of seconds. While this rapid measurement reduces the signal magnitude, classification using supervised machine learning (Bootstrap Aggregated Random Forest) shows excellent results of 98% accuracy between 5 analytes (ethanol, hexanal, methyl ethyl ketone, toluene, and octane) at 4 concentrations each. With the addition of 1-octene, an analyte highly similar in structure to octane, an accuracy of 89% is achieved. These results demonstrate the important role of the choice of analysis method, particularly in the presence of noisy data. This is an important step toward fully utilizing graphene-based sensor arrays for rapid gas sensing applications from environmental monitoring to disease detection in human breath.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acsnano.2c10240

Cites

58 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Capman, N. S. S., Zhen, X. V., Nelson, J. T., Chaganti, V. R. S. K., Finc, R. C., Lyden, M. J., Williams, T. L., Freking, M., Sherwood, G. J., Bühlmann, P., Hogan, C. J., & Koester, S. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Boston Scientific (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Koester, Steven J.
Venue
ACS Nano
Published
2022-11-11
Volume
16
Issue
11
Pages
19567-19583
ISSN
  • 1936-0851 (ISSN-L)
  • 1936-086X
OpenAlex
W4308770207
Cited by
115
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 2
FWCI
6.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • ACS Nano (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Boston Scientific Corporation
  • Division of Materials Research (DMR-2011401)
  • Minnesota Lions Diabetes Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Advanced Chemical Sensor Technologies
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Gas Sensing Nanomaterials and Sensors
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Electrical and Electronic Engineering › Electrochemical sensors and biosensors
Keywords
volatile organic compounds, breath analysis, machine learning classification, sensor selectivity, environmental monitoring
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Gases, Graphite, Humans, Octanes, Volatile Organic Compounds, Electronic Nose

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review