Review of Zinc Oxide Piezoelectric Nanogenerators: Piezoelectric Properties, Composite Structures and Power Output
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lead-containing piezoelectric materials typically show the highest energy conversion efficiencies, but due to their toxicity they will be limited in future applications. In their bulk form, the piezoelectric properties of lead-free piezoelectric materials are significantly lower than lead-containing materials. However, the piezoelectric properties of lead-free piezoelectric materials at the nano scale can be significantly larger than the bulk scale. This review looks at the suitability of ZnO nanostructures as candidate lead-free piezoelectric materials for use in piezoelectric nanogenerators (PENGs) based on their piezoelectric properties. Of the papers reviewed, Neodymium-doped ZnO nanorods (NRs) have a comparable piezoelectric strain constant to bulk lead-based piezoelectric materials and hence are good candidates for PENGs. Piezoelectric energy harvesters typically have low power outputs and an improvement in their power density is needed. This review systematically reviews the different composite structures of ZnO PENGs to determine the effect of composite structure on power output. State-of-the-art techniques to increase the power output of PENGs are presented. Of the PENGs reviewed, the highest power output belonged to a vertically aligned ZnO nanowire (NWs) PENG (1-3 nanowire composite) with a power output of 45.87 μW/cm2 under finger tapping. Future directions of research and challenges are 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".