2018 XV International Scientific Conference on Optoelectronic and Electronic Sensors (COE)
Evaluation of the Commercial Electrochemical Gas
Sensors for the Monitoring of CO in Ambient Air
Grzegorz Jasinski
Faculty of Electronics, Marta Dmitrzak
Telecommunications and Informatics PM Ecology Sp. z o.o.
Gdansk University of Technology Gdynia, Poland
Gdansk, Poland marta.dmitrzak@pmecology.com
grzegorz.jasinski@eti.pg.gda.pl
Abstract— Air pollution is a growing concern of civilized
world, which has a significant impact on human health and the
environment. Recent studies highlight that the exposure to
polluted air can increase the incidence of diseases and
deteriorate the quality of life. Hence, it is necessary to develop
tools for real-time air quality monitoring. For air pollution
monitoring a wide range of stationary gas and particulate
analysers can be used. However, such instruments are
relatively large, heavy and expensive. Only governments, local
authorities and major industries can afford to use such devices.
Instruments based on low cost gas sensors can be interesting
and promising alternative. However, real-life usage of gas
sensors in monitoring outdoor air is connected with several
challenges, such as temperature or humidity changes affecting
sensor response. In this study, a laboratory evaluation of
commercially available electrochemical gas sensors for the
monitoring of CO in ambient air is presented. Six commercial
electrochemical CO sensors were tested simultaneously under
controlled gas concentrations and various environmental
conditions.
Keywords—electrochemical gas sensor, carbon monoxide,
metrological parameters; air pollution
I. INTRODUCTION
Air pollution is a growing concern of civilized world,
which has a significant impact on human health and the
environment. Recent studies highlight that the exposure to
polluted air can increase the incidence of diseases and
deteriorate the quality of life. Air pollution was the cause of
5.5 million premature deaths globally in 2013 [1]. Air
pollution also has further consequences on human health,
leading in particular to an increasing number of respiratory
and cardiovascular diseases. Hence, it is necessary to
develop tools for real-time air quality monitoring. For air
pollution monitoring a wide range of stationary gas and
particulate analysers can be used. However, such instruments
are relatively large, heavy, high-maintenance and expensive.
Only governments, local authorities and major industries can
afford to use such devices to create very sparse network of
air monitoring. Monitoring stations usually are equipped
with specialised instruments for measuring a limited number
of pollutants, such as carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), sulphur dioxide (SO2), ozone (O3) and
particulate matter (PM). Instruments based on low cost gas
sensors can be interesting and promising alternative [2, 3].
The research work was carried out as part of the project
POIR.01.01.01-0907/16 conducted by PM Ecology Sp. z o.o. and
supported by National Centre for Research and Development, Operational
Programme Smart Growth (PO IR). This work has been partially supported
by Statutory Funds of Electronics, Telecommunications and Informatics
Faculty, Gdansk University of Technology.
XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE
978-1-5386-4107-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
Piotr Jasinski
Faculty of Electronics,
Telecommunications and Informatics
Gdansk University of Technology
Gdansk, Poland
pijas@eti.pg.gda.pl
Such approach allows reducing costs, increase the number of
measured gases and increase deployment density.
There are many gas sensors working based on different
operating principles that can be used in ambient air
monitoring. Among commercially available sensors,
amperometric and semiconducting sensors are the most
popular and the most widely available. Semiconducting gas
sensors have very low selectivity and are sensitive to
virtually almost any volatile substance. Therefore, they are
most often used in volatile organic compounds (VOC)
detection. Amperometric sensors are much more selective.
Additionally, they are characterised by small drift of the
response and fast recovery time. Therefore, they have the
best chance to be used in real measuring systems.
Among all air pollutants, carbon monoxide is one of the
most commonly measured. CO is formed from the
incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. The operation of
many common appliances, machinery, and heating
equipment, if not working or vented properly, can result in
dangerous CO concentration raise. Carbon monoxide is a
poisonous gas that has no smell or taste. After CO is
breathed in, it enters your bloodstream and mixes with
haemoglobin. When this happens, the blood is no longer able
to carry oxygen, and this lack of oxygen causes the body’s
cells and tissue to fail and die. Poisoning with carbon
monoxide is the cause of many deaths. The necessity to
measure the CO concentration also results from the
provisions of law to which public administration units are
obliged.
Despite such demand, only a few manufacturers offers
amperometric CO gas sensors on the market. Performance of
sensors can be affected by various environment parameters,
such as changes in temperature, humidity and the presence of
other gases [4, 5]. Typically, this type of information is not
well defined and is not provided by sensor manufacturers.
Additionally, information provided by manufacturers in data
sheets are declared only for selected conditions and often
differ from the real properties of sensors. That is why
laboratory evaluation of sensor properties is needed and
often performed [6, 7]. In this paper we present an evaluation
of six commercially available amperometric gas sensors for
monitoring CO in ambient air at ppb level in order to give
quantitative estimation of the effect of several parameters on
sensor measurements. Experiments were conducted in a
laboratory conditions and were designed to evaluate several
metrological parameters, such as response time, sensitivity,
repeatability.
 2018 XV International Scientific Conference on Optoelectronic and Electronic Sensors (COE)

II. EXPERIMENTAL Amperometric sensors, in order to work properly at a

fixed potential, require to be controlled by a potentiostatic
A. Sensors circuit. Measuring system consisting of ten our own design
Amperometric gas sensors develop a current response electronic modules have been used for sensor response
signal by reaction of a measured gas at an electrode. This acquisition. More detailed description of the developed
response can be measured at a fixed or variable electrode measuring systems is presented elsewhere [8, 9].
potential, although a fixed potential is usually used. The
reaction rate, reflected by the current at the sensing electrode, PC software was used to measure sensors response once
occurs at a thermodynamically determined potential for any per minute and to save it to a text file.
given reaction and, when operated under appropriate C. Evaluation Procedures
diffusion-limited conditions, is simply proportional to the
Four different tests were implemented to investigate the:
concentration of the measured gas concentration. The
relationship between current and concentration is linear, • repeatability;
typically over 3 orders of magnitude.
• flow rate effects;
This study covers 6 commercially available
amperometric sensors produced by 5 manufacturers. The list • humidity effects;
of used sensors is presented in Table I. • sensitivity;
TABLE I. TESTED AMPEROMETRIC GAS SENSORS Study of repeatability (short-term stability) of sensors
Nom.
was measured under the conditions of alternating changes in
Sensivity the concentration of CO gas. The measurements were carried
Sensor Manufacturer Range
[nA/ppm] out at 50% relative humidity, constant gas flow rate (most
[ppm]
CO-A4 Alphasense 220 ÷ 375 500 often 50 mL/min and 100 mL/min) and by alternately
CO-B4 Alphasense 420 ÷ 650 1000
flushing the sensors with synthetic air and the determined
toxic gas concentration (usually 1 ppm) for a predetermined
CO-CF-200 Membrapor 580 ÷ 820 200 time (usually 2 hours). Examples of changes in measurement
SPEC-3SP-CO-1000-P SPEC sensors 2 ÷ 7.5 1000
conditions are shown in Fig. 2.

CO 3E 300 Sensoric 50 ÷ 90 500

CO concentration (ppm)

1.0
4CO-100 SemeaTech 400 ÷ 600 100

0.5

0.0
16:00 20:00 00:00 04:00 08:00 12:00 16:00
Time

Fig. 2. The course of measurement of the repeatability

1.0
CO concentration
(ppm)

0.5

0.0
00:00 08:00 16:00 00:00 08:00 16:00
160
Fig. 1. Measuring chamber with amperometric gas sensors
rate (mL/min)
Gas flow

B. Measurement Stand 80
The measurements were conducted in the prepared 40
measurement stand. Investigated gas sensors were placed in 20
inside measuring chamber of our own design having volume 00:00 08:00 16:00 00:00 08:00 16:00
of 240 cm3 (Fig. 1). Time
The gas-delivery system consists of three Brooks GF Fig. 3. The course of measurement of the flow rate effects
Series mass flow controllers connected to the PC by RS 485
interface. The gas flow ratio or flow profiles are programmed Study of the gas flow rate influence on the response of
with the MEDSON software. The response of sensors is sensors was measured at different gas flow rates over the
measured in mixture of high purity gases, namely dry sensors. The sensors were flushed alternately with synthetic
synthetic air, synthetic air saturated with water and air and a fixed value of toxic gas concentration (usually 1
50 ppm CO in synthetic air .
 2018 XV International Scientific Conference on Optoelectronic and Electronic Sensors (COE)

ppm) for a set time (2h or 3h). Examples of changes in CO-3E-300 4CO-100 CO-B4
CO/CF-200 CO-A4 3SP-CO-1000-P
measurement conditions are presented in Fig. 3. 0.7 0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm

Research on the influence of relative humidity on the 0.6

response of sensors was measured at three gas relative
humidity (20%, 50%, 80%). The experiment was made with 0.5

Sensor response (μA)

synthetic air and at a fixed value of toxic gas concentration
0.4
(usually 1 ppm). Examples of changes in measurement
conditions are illustrated in Fig. 4. 0.3

0.2
1.0
CO concentration

0.1
(ppm)

0.5 0.0

-0.1
16:00 20:00 00:00 04:00 08:00 12:00
0.0
Time
00:00 08:00 16:00
80
Fig. 6. Sensors response in 0 and 1 ppm CO at 50% RH
humidity (%)
Relative

50 CO-3E-300 4CO-100 CO-B4

CO/CF-200 CO-A4 3SP-CO-1000-P

0.10
20
0.08
00:00 08:00 16:00
0.06
Time
0.04
Fig. 4. The course of measurement of the humidity effects
0.02
I (μA)

The calibration curve of the sensor was measured under 0.00

conditions of constant gas relative humidity (50%) and a -0.02

constant gas flow rate (50 or 100 mL/min) for different -0.04
concentrations of toxic gas. Examples of changes in -0.06
measurement conditions are illustrated in Fig. 5. -0.08

-0.10
1
CO concentration (ppm)

17:00 21:00 01:00 05:00 09:00 13:00

Time

Fig. 7. Stability of the sensor response in synth. air with error bars
0.5
CO-3E-300 4CO-100 CO-B4
0.25 CO/CF-200 CO-A4 3SP-CO-1000-P

0.1
0.6
0
16:00 20:00 00:00 04:00 08:00 12:00 16:00 0.5

Time
0.4

Fig. 5. The course of measurement of the sensitivity

I (μA)

0.3

III. RESULTS 0.2

Limitation on the number of pages does not allow to 0.1

present a full summary of the obtained results. Only selected
results are presented below, limiting presentation to more 0.0
detailed numerical values only in the case of repeatability
tests. -0.1
19:00 23:00 03:00 07:00 11:00

A. Repeatability Time

Fig. 6 shows sensors response to the alternating presence

of synthetic air and 1 ppm CO. Such measurements allow,
among others, determining the value of the time constant.
The 20 minute averages of the curve parts just before the gas
concentration change were used to calculate the sensor
stability in the presence of synthetic air and 1 ppm CO, what
is graphically presented with error bars in Fig. 7 and Fig. 8
respectively.
Fig. 8. Stability of the sensor response in 1 ppm CO with error bars
It can be observed that the response of some sensors even
after relatively long time is still changing (eg. CO-CF-200).
Other sensors react very quickly and reproducibly to the
presence of a given gas mixture is stable. The obtained
results allowed calculating the sensors sensitivity. Results are
collected in the Table II. The tests were performed in the gas
flowing, while the manufacturer in data sheet declares
 2018 XV International Scientific Conference on Optoelectronic and Electronic Sensors (COE)

parameter values under static conditions. However, for some

sensors, lower sensitivity values based on measurement can CO-3E-300 4CO-100 CO-B4

be noted in comparison with the manufacturer's declarations CO/CF-200 CO-A4 3SP-CO-1000-P

0.6
(eg. for CO-3E-300). 0 ppb 1000 ppb 500 ppb 250 ppb 100 ppb 0 ppb 100 ppb 250 ppb 500 ppb 1000 ppb 0 ppb

0.5
TABLE II. A SUMMARY OF THE REPEATABILITY TEST
Avg. response in Avg. response in Sensivity 0.4
Sensor
synth. air [μA] 1 pppm [μA] [nA/ppm]
CO-3E-300 -0.017 ± 0.000 0.021 ± 0.001 38.0 0.3

I (μA)
4CO-100 -0.062 ± 0.003 0.322 ± 0.010 384.5
0.2
CO-B4 -0.072 ± 0.008 0.369 ± 0.007 441.3
0.1
CO/CF-200 0.053 ± 0.030 0.613 ± 0.018 560.6

CO-A4 -0.041 ± 0.004 0.245 ± 0.004 285.4 0.0

3SP-CO-1000-P 0.103 ± 0.001 0.107 ± 0.000 4.7

-0.1
16:00 20:00 00:00 04:00 08:00 12:00
Time
B. Other results
Sensor response to changes of gas flow rate, relative Fig. 11. The response of sensors to changes in CO concentration
humidity and CO concentration is presented in Fig. 9, Fig. 10
and Fig. 11 respectively. In general, the change of each of IV. CONCLUSIONS
these parameters affects the response of the sensors.
In this article, methodology of evaluation of sensor
CO-3E-300
CO/CF-200
4CO-100
CO-A4
CO-B4
3SP-CO-1000-P parameters used in the Department of Biomedical
160 ml/min 80 ml/min 40 ml/min 20 ml/min 40 ml/min 80 ml/min 160 ml/min 80 ml/min
Engineering is presented. As a general conclusion, it can be
0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm stated that measured parameters of individual sensors are
0.8
very diverse and often deviate from the values declared by
the manufacturer.
0.6
REFERENCES
[1] OECD, Consequences of Outdoor Air Pollution, Paris, OECD
I (μA)

0.4 Publishing, 2016.

[2] P. Kumar, L. Morawska, C. Martani, G. Biskos, M. Neophytou, S. Di
Sabatino, M. Bell, L. Norford and R. Britter, “The rise of low-cost
0.2
sensing for managing air pollution in cities”, Environ. Int., vol. 75,
pp. 199-205, 2015.
[3] N. Castell, F. R. Dauge, P. Schneider, M. Vogt, U. Lerner, B.
0.0
Fishbain, D. Broday and A. Bartonova, “Can commercial low-cost
sensor platforms contribute to air quality monitoring and exposure
00:00 12:00 00:00 12:00 00:00 estimates?”, Environ. Int., vol. 99, pp. 293-302, 2017.
Time [4] G. Jasinski, "Influence of operation temperature instability on gas
sensor performance," 2017 21st European Microelectronics and
Fig. 9. The response of the sensors to the change of flow rate Packaging Conference (EMPC) & Exhibition, Warsaw, Poland, 2017,
pp. 1-4.
CO-3E-300 4CO-100 CO-B4
CO/CF-200 CO-A4 3SP-CO-1000-P [5] L. Wozniak, P. Kalinowski, G. Jasinski and P. Jasinski, “FFT analysis
0 ppm 1 ppm 0 ppm of temperature modulated semiconductor gas sensor response for the
50% 80% 20% 50% 80% 50%
prediction of ammonia concentration under humidity interference”,
0.8 20% 50% 50%
Microelectron. Reliab., vol. 84, pp 163-169, 2018.
[6] LC Hsu, T. Ativanichayaphong, H. Cao, J. Sin, M. Graff, H. E.
Stephanou, and J.C. Chiao, "Evaluation of commercial metaloxide
0.6
based NO2 sensors", Sensor Rev., vol. 27, pp.121-131, 2007
[7] V. Palmisano, L. Boon-Brett, C. Bonato, F. Harskamp, W.J. Buttner,
I (μA)

M.B. Post, R. Burgess, and C. Rivkin,, “Evaluation of selectivity of

0.4
commercial hydrogen sensors”, Int. J. Hydrogen Energ., vol. 39, pp.
20491-20496, 2014.
[8] G. Jasinski, A. Strzelczyk, and P. Koscinski, “Low cost
0.2
electrochemical sensor module for measurement of gas
concentration”, IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng., vol. 104, 012034,
2015.
0.0
[9] G. Jasinski, P. Kalinowski, L. Wozniak, P. Koscinski, and P. Jasinski,
“An electronic nose based on the semiconducting and electrochemical
20:00 00:00 04:00 08:00 12:00 gas sensors,”, 2017 21st European Microelectronics and Packaging
Time Conference (EMPC) & Exhibition, Warsaw, Poland, 2017, pp. 1-4

Fig. 10. The response of the sensors to the change of RH