Comparative Study of Gravimetric Humidity Sensor Platforms Based on CMUT and QCM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humidity sensors with comprehensive performance are of great interest for industrial and environmental applications. Most sensors, however, have to compromise on at least one characteristic such as sensitivity, response speed, and linearity. This paper reports a gravimetric humidity sensor based on a capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducer (CMUT) with exceptional all-around performance, and presents a side-by-side comparative investigation of two types of gravimetric humidity sensors for a better understanding of their characteristics and sensing mechanisms. For these purposes, a circular CMUT and a quartz crystal microbalance (QCM) with a resonance frequency of 10 MHz were designed and fabricated. Poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) was employed as the humidity sensing layer for its hydrophilicity and ease of film formation. The electrical properties of the sensors, including the electrical input impedances and quality factors, were characterized by a vector network analyzer. The relative humidity (RH) sensing performance of the sensors was evaluated and compared from RH levels of 11% to 97%. Both sensors exhibited good repeatability and low hysteresis. The unique microscale resonant structure of the CMUT humidity sensor contributed to a high sensitivity of 2.01 kHz/%RH, short response and recovery times of 8 s and 3 s, respectively, and excellent linearity (R2 = 0.973), which were far superior to their QCM counterparts. The underlying mechanism was revealed and discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".