Fabricating a highly sensitive graphene

nanoplatelets resistance-based
temperature sensor
Mohammed Gamil
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering at Shoubra, Benha University Cairo, Egypt
Nagih M. Shaalan
Department of Physics, College of Science, King Faisal University, Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia and
Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt, and
Ahmed Abd El-Moneim
Graphene Center of Excellence for Energy and Electronic Applications, Egypt-Japan University of Science and Technology,
New Borg El-Arab City, Egypt

Abstract
Purpose – This study aims to present an efficient and reliable graphene nanoplatelets (GNPs)-based temperature sensor.
Design/methodology/approach – A high-quality dispersion of GNPs was dropped by casting method on platinum electrodes deposited on a
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate. The GNPs were characterized by scanning electron microscope, Raman spectroscopy and X-ray
diffraction spectra to ensure its purity and quality. The temperature sensing behavior of the fabricated sensor was examined by subjecting it to
different temperatures, range from room temperature (RT) to 150 °C.
Findings – Excellent resistance linearity with temperature change was achieved. Temperature coefficient of resistance of the fabricated sensor was
calculated as 1.4  10–3°C. The sensor also showed excellent repeatability and stability for the measured temperature range. Good response and
recovery times were evaluated at all the measured temperatures. With measuring the sensor response, the ambient temperature can be determined.
Originality/value – The present work presents a new simply and low cost fabricated temperature sensor based on GNPs working at a wide
temperature range.
Keywords Graphene nanoplatelets, Temperature sensor, Resistance-base sensor, Thin film sensors
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction that are identical to those found in the walls of carbon

nanotubes, but in a planar form. The unique size and platelet
Temperature sensing is very important for various engineering morphology of GNPs makes it effective at providing barrier
applications. Easy-fabrication, low-cost and reliable properties, while its pure graphitic composition makes it as
temperature sensors are desired for these applications. In the
excellent electrical and thermal conductors (Kuan et al., 2018;
last few years there has been a growing interest in using
Gamil et al., 2014b; Gamil et al., 2012; Gamil et al., 2013). As a
graphene as a resistance base temperature sensor due to its
result, GNPs are considered a game changer for numerous
superior physical properties (Wang et al., 2010; Bolotin et al.,
sensing application. Recently, GNPs have aroused tremendous
2008; Novoselov et al., 2007; Schedin et al., 2007; Ghosh et al.,
interest for various sensing applications (Gamil et al., 2014a;
2008). Graphene is the thinnest known material that gathers a
Gamil et al., 2014c; Sayed et al., 2016; Sayed et al., 2015).
lot of interest after its discovery by Novoselov et al. due to its
However, there are only few reports on using GNPs as a
superior mechanical and physical properties (Novoselov et al.,
temperature-based resistance sensor.
2004). Graphene is a single layer of carbon atoms placed in a
Yang et al. (2015) fabricated a wearable temperature sensor
honey comb lattice structure.
from graphene nano-walls (GNWs) over a
GNPs are stacks of multigraphene layers in a two-
polydimethylsiloxane substrate. But it only exhibited a small
dimensional nano particulate format (basal planes of carbon
atoms packed into a hexagonal array) having a platelet shape dynamic range (35 to 45°C). In addition, vast edges and defects

The authors gratefully acknowledge the generous technical and financial

support of Benha University, Assiut University and Egypt-Japan University
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald
of Science and Technology (E-JUST).
Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/0260-2288.htm
Conflict of interest. On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states
that there is no conflict of interest.
Sensor Review
41/3 (2021) 251–259 Received 19 January 2021
© Emerald Publishing Limited [ISSN 0260-2288] Revised 17 March 2021
[DOI 10.1108/SR-01-2021-0023] Accepted 9 April 2021

251
 Temperature sensor
Mohammed Gamil, Nagih M. Shaalan and Ahmed Abd El-Moneim
were existed in the prepared GNWs. Sahoo et al. (2012)
succeeded to fabricate an ultra-fast graphene based
temperature sensor. The sensor was prepared by drop casting
the graphene oxide (GO) prepared by the modified hummer
method (Hummers and Offeman, 1958) on a platinum
interdigital electrodes (Pt-IDE). The GO is reduced by hydrazine
vapor. The sensor is then characterized to ensure it sensitivity. It
was found that its sensitivity is much better than the platinum
thermo sensor. However, the quality of the reduced GO is very
low due to the high intensity of the D peak which is related to the
number of defects with respect to the G peak in the Raman
spectroscopy. Moreover, the maximum measured temperature
doesn’t exceed 127°C. In addition, the fabricated sensor can’t be
commercialized in its fabricated form.
Davaji et al. (2017) fabricated graphene based resistance
sensors on different substrates by microfabrication technology. A
single layer graphene was deposited on copper foil by chemical
vapor deposition (CVD) and then transferred to a silicon dioxide
(SiO2)/Si substrate as well as a silicon nitride (SiN) membrane
(Fu et al., 2017). The fabricated temperature sensors were
subjected to different temperatures and their responses were
measured simultaneously. It was found that the SiN membrane
shows the highest sensitivity if it is compared with the (SiO2)/Si
substrate. Sensor fabrication is hard due to the graphene
preparation by CVD and the transfer method to the substrates.
Sahatiya et al. (2016) fabricated a wearable temperature
sensor from Solare exfoliated reduced graphene oxide (SrGO)
with high sensitivity. A flexible polyimide substrate was used to
deposit the SrGO. Ultra-sensitive wearable human body
temperature sensing is achieved in the temperature range of
35°C to 45°C. The measured temperature range of this
fabricated temperature sensor is small and not suitable for
higher temperatures measurements.
In the present study, a highly sensitive graphene-based
temperature sensor is fabricated by drop casting a high-quality
suspension of GNPs over platinum electrodes deposited on a
flexible polyethylene terephthalate (PET) substrate. A simple,
easy and low-cost fabrication technique is presented for the
current temperature sensor. Furthermore, a wider range of
temperature sensing is achieved. The fabricated sensor justifies
the use of GNPs for device fabrication. The GNPs was
characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), scanning electron
microscope (SEM) and Raman spectroscopy techniques.
2. Experimental procedures
2.1 Graphene nanoplatelets characterization
Ultra-high concentration dispersion of GNPs were supplied by
Graphene Laboratories Inc. (760 Koehler Avenue - Suite 2
Ronkonkoma, NY 11779) with average thickness 7 nm and
23 Wt.% total graphene content in N-Butyl acetate solvent
(Zhao et al., 2010; Hummers and Offeman, 1958). The as-
received GNPs were characterized by SEM (JEOL JSM-
6010LV), Raman spectroscopy (Bruker Sentra) and XRD
analysis (XRD-6100; Shimadzu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan) to
ensure its quality.
2.2 Sensor fabrication
Platinum electrodes were deposited on a thin (100 m m) PET
substrate using thermal evaporation [Figure 1(a), 1(b)] to form
252
Sensor Review
Volume 41 · Number 3 · 2021 · 251–259
Figure 1 Fabrication processes of the graphene-based temperature
sensor on PET substrate
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Notes: (a) PET substrate; (b) Pt deposition; (c) Wire bonding;
(d) GNPs drop casting
1 mm gap. Wire bonding is then made to provide the necessary
connecting terminals as shown in Figure 1(c). Finally, an average
volume of 5 mm3 of the GNPs suspension is drop casted on the
gap and left for 1 h to dry as shown in Figure 1(d). A film of
GNPs with 1 m m average thickness is formed between the two
electrodes. Figure 2(a) shows the actual image for the fabricated
sensor before GNPs deposition meanwhile Figure 2(b) shows the
graphene-based resistance sensor in its final form after the
deposition of GNPs by drop casting. The fabricated sensor has a
square area of 14  15 mm2, including the PET and pads. We
fabricated the sensor on a flexible substrate to accommodate
flexible applications such as flexible electronics. Figure 2(c)
shows real image for the fabricated sensor subjected to bending
stress. It can be seen that the GNPs film provides good adhesion
with the PET substrate. Moreover, there is no cracking or pealing
up for the film after several bending cycles.
2.3 Sensor characterizations
The fabricated graphene-based temperature sensor was
characterized by the test setup shown in Figure 3. The test
setup consists mainly of a testing chamber (Quartz tube) that
can be heated by an electric furnace. The heating temperature
inside the testing chamber is controlled by a commercial
temperature control unit. The fabricated sensor is introduced
to the chamber that was previously heated to the desired
measured temperature. The sensor was carried on transverse
lab-made system. The sensor was pushed inside the furnace for
getting its steady response, and then it was rapidly pulled out to
the room temperature (RT). The output signals measured from
the fabricated sensor are transferred directly to a data
acquisition unit (Multi-channel LXI Agilent 34972 A), which is
connect directly to the PC for recording the signal. The furnace
temperature was changed from RT up to 150°C.
3. Results and discussion
3.1 Structural and morphology characterization of
graphene nanoplatelets
Figure 4 shows SEM images (JSM-6010LV; JEOL, Ltd.,
Tokyo, Japan) of the GNPs at low magnification (a) and high
magnification (b). The drop casted GNPs has an overlapped
flake structure. In addition, the flakes are superimposed
together and have irregular shapes with a maximum flake size of
5 m m lateral dimension. Moreover, the flakes are nearly equal
in size, well-dispersed and not arranged in the initial graphitic
crystalline structure due to the chemical reduction. Most of
 Temperature sensor Sensor Review
Mohammed Gamil, Nagih M. Shaalan and Ahmed Abd El-Moneim Volume 41 · Number 3 · 2021 · 251–259

Figure 2 Actual photograph for the fabricated temperature sensor before (a) and after GNPs drop casting (b) Sensor subjecting to bending stress (c)

Figure 3 Test setup for the graphene-based temperature sensor characterization

Figure 4 SEM images of GNPs at different magnifications

253
 Temperature sensor
Mohammed Gamil, Nagih M. Shaalan and Ahmed Abd El-Moneim
flakes are flat with sharp edges and smooth surface with less
pores which reflects the better oxidation and reduction process.
The appearance of wrinkled surface textures with curling edges
is nearly disappeared. Consequently, the agglomeration
process in the GNPs suspension will tend to disappear.
Figure 5 presents the GNPs characterization by Raman
spectroscopy which is the most important technique in
characterizing the structure of graphitic materials (Lab RAM
HR-800; Horiba, Ltd., Kyoto, Japan) (Li et al., 2007). The D,
G and 2D bands of GNPs were appeared at 1346 cm 1,
1577 cm 1 and 2712 cm 1 respectively.
Interestingly, the relative intensity of the D-band (carbon-
carbon sp3 structure), which is related to the GNPs crystal
defects and is known as the disorder band, is very weak. As a
result, the quality of the GNPs is very high and that is considered
as a good indicator of achieving a better GNPs based temperature
sensor. G-band (carbon-carbon sp2 structure) is the main
spectral feature of GNPs, and it is the optical oscillation of carbon
atoms. It indicates to the number of GNPs layers.
2D band is a double resonance stemming from the interaction
of two phonons and light. This resonance is associated with the
electrical structure of the GNPs. Thus, 2D band is extremely
sensitive to changes in the electronic band structure, which varies
depending on the interlayer interactions in the GNPs. The
thickness of GNPs decreases when this beak becomes sharper
and more symmetrical. Contrary, the thickness of GNPs
increases (Few layers) when this peak becomes broader (Ni et al.,
2008). From Figure 5, the archived 2D peak is sharp and
symmetric which reflects the low number of graphene layers in
the GNPs. As a result, high sensor performance is expected.
Obviously, the intensity of the G band is greater than the 2D
band which refers to multilayer GNPs. In addition, the high IG/
I2D ratio refers to the low number of deposited. Consequently,
the quality and performance of our fabricated temperature
sensor are expected to be higher than the fabricated by Sahoo
et al. (2012) which has high ID/IG ratio.
XRD analyses were carried out to estimate the effectiveness
of the oxidation, expansion and reduction of graphite. Figure 6
shows the XRD spectra of the GNPs (XRD-6100; Shimadzu
Corporation, Kyoto, Japan), the presence of a sharp higher
Figure 5 Raman spectroscopy of the GNPs
254
Sensor Review
Volume 41 · Number 3 · 2021 · 251–259
Figure 6 XRD spectra of GNPs
intensity peak at 2u  27.18° corresponds to a (002) plane with
a d-spacing of 3.28 Å refers to the presence of pure GNPs with
the same basal spacing as natural graphite. The low intensity
peak at 2u  55.24° corresponds to a (004) plane with a d-
spacing of 1.66 Å confirming that GNPs are not completely
exfoliated, which is in good agreement with the results of
previous studies (Ferrari, 2007; Li et al., 2011; García et al.,
2015; Jiang et al., 2018; Stobinski et al., 2014).
3.2 Sensing characterizations
Figure 7 shows the sensor signal (change in resistance) when
the sensor exposed to temperature higher than RT. The cycle
was repeated at various temperatures, where the sensor was
transferred from RT to the testing chamber which is heated to a
certain temperature and it is hold for 75 sec before it rapidly
pulled out for cooling to the RT again. The process is repeated
with increasing the temperature of the heating chamber and the
resistance change due to temperature change was monitoring
with time. The fabricated sensor was subjected to different
temperatures start from the RT until 150°C. It is clear that
the resistance changes (red colour) with the temperature
change (blue colour) and becomes stable once it reaches to the
measured value. Each temperature has its comparable
resistance. Consequently, the fabricated sensor provides clear
sensing behaviour to the measured temperature. The sensor is
very sensitive to the temperature environment as well as the
whole selected temperature range. The sensor response may be
improved with increasing the temperature with slightly increase
in the response and recovery time constants.
Figure 8 provides the sensor resistance behaviour at
temperature range of RT to 150°C. The resistance changes
linearly with the temperature change according to the linear
equation R = 60.17 1 0.0845 t (oC), obtained from line fitting for
the measured data. The resistance changes directly proportional
with the temperature which confirms the results obtained by
Benyamin Davaji et al. (2017). An ideal temperature sensor
would have a perfectly linear response: a unit change in
temperature would result in a unit change in resistance output
across the entire temperature range of the sensor. However, no
sensor is perfectly linear. The non-linearity of our fabricated
sensor was approximately 0.36%, where the non-linearity was
 Temperature sensor
Mohammed Gamil, Nagih M. Shaalan and Ahmed Abd El-Moneim
Figure 7 Effect of temperature (60°C – 150°C) on resistance change at time intervals
Figure 8 Resistance change with temperatures change
calculated by dividing the maximum output error from the linear
fit at 130°C by the actual measured value (70.9 X) at same
temperature. Consequently, our fabricated temperature sensor is
strongly recommended to be commercialized due to its very low
non-linearity.
The sensor resistance depends on the conduction electrons. By
increasing the furnace temperature, the number of electrons will
be increased and causes scattering increase. As a result, the
mobility of the electrons will be decreased and the resistance
increases with temperature increase (Xi et al., 2014; Yin et al.,
2014; Akturk and Goldsman, 2008). The mobility depends not
only on temperature but also on various scattering mechanisms,
such as defects, phonons, surfaces and edges (Zhu et al., 2009;
Hwang et al., 2007; Sun et al., 2013). In More details, we can
divide the effect of temperature on the resistance change of GNPs
into two basic factors. Firstly, the stacked layers of graphene
within the GNPs flakes have good conductivity at RT but with
increasing the temperature the trapped air between graphene
layers or inside the pores will expanded and the wrinkled surface
will increase due to thermal disturbance. As a result, the contact
areas between the graphene sheets will be decreased and the
distance between the graphene layers will increase.
Consequently, the resistance will increase with the temperature
255
Sensor Review
Volume 41 · Number 3 · 2021 · 251–259
increase (Dewapriya et al., 2013). Secondly, The phonon and the
electron coupling rate in the GNPs film increases, which
decreases the quasiparticle weight of the electron excitation and
affects the electron movement in the GNPs (Tian et al., 2014).
The TCR which explains the rate of change of the sensor
resistance per 1°C (a) is calculated from the equation a = (1/Ro)
(dR/dT). Where, Ro is the initial resistance of the sample at RT
and dR/dT is the slope. The calculated value of the TCR for our
fabricated sensor is 1.4  10 3/°C which is in consistence with
the obtained value by Satyaprakash Sahoo et al. (1.95  10 3/°C)
for reduced graphene oxide (RGO) (Sahoo et al., 2012) and
twice the measured for carbon nanotube (CNT) film
(0.7  10 3/°C) (Di Bartolomeo et al., 2009). Interestingly, it is
also very close to the measured for single layer graphene resistor
( 1.47  10 3/°C) (Cheianov and Fal’ko, 2006) and for CNT
(1.3  10 3/°C) (Husain and Kennon, 2013). Moreover, it is
three times nearly if it is compared with graphite (0.5  10 3) (Ali
and Hafez, 2013) as tabulated in Table 1.
Figure 9(a) presents the effect of repeatable heating and
cooling on our fabricated temperature sensor (blue). To ensure
the repeatability and stability of our sensor, we have heated the
sensor to 150°C, holding for approximately 75 sec and then
cooling to the RT. The heating-cooling process was repeated
several times to ensure its repeatability and stability. It was found
that the fabricated sensor provides repeatable measurements with
stable values through the holding time (75 sec). In parallel,
Figure 9(b) provides the measured furnace temperature (red)
with time by a commercial temperature sensor. It is clear that the
furnace temperature is nearly stable with time and that
strengthen our measured values, where the very small fluctuation
in the furnace temperature is also appear in our sensor resistance.
Table 1 TCR values for deferent materials used for temperature sensing
Sensor material TCR/°C Ref.
–3
GNPs 1.4  10 This work
RGO 1.95  10–3 Sahoo et al. (2012)
CNT film 0.7  10–3 Di Bartolomeo et al.
(2009)
Single layer graphene resistor 1.47  10–3 Cheianov and Fal’ko
(2006)
CNT 1.3  10–3 Husain and Kennon
(2013)
Graphite 0.5  10–3 Ali and Hafez (2013)
 Temperature sensor
Mohammed Gamil, Nagih M. Shaalan and Ahmed Abd El-Moneim
Figure 9 Sensing repeatability at 150°C
The observation confirmed the high sensitivity of the sensor for
the change in the temperature.
Figure 10 represents the sensor stability at two different
applied temperatures (40°C and 100°C). To study the stability
of our fabricated sensor, we subjected it to a fixed temperature
for 6 hours and we recorded the measured temperature every
30 min. It was found that our fabricated sensor provides a good
stability with a fluctuation range less than 1 X. The present
fabricated sensor provides more stability than the fabricated
one by Tian et al. (2014).
The response time of the resistance-based temperature
sensor is affected by the temperature change because the
change in temperature has a direct effect on the heat transfer
between the sensor and the surrounding environment (Air).
Moreover, it has a great effect on the sensor dimensional
change (Hashemian, 2006; Zeng et al., 2019).
The sensor dimensional change due to temperature change is
the most dominant factor on the response time. The fabricated
GNPs resistance-based temperature sensor consists of
Figure 10 GNPs temperature sensor long hour stability at
temperatures 60°C and 100°C
256
Sensor Review
Volume 41 · Number 3 · 2021 · 251–259
overlapped flake structure and each flake has a multi-layer of
the graphene sheets staked together. Ideally, these flakes are
homogeneous and in perfect contact with each other’s. In fact,
the flakes are irregular and have defects, pores and wrinkled
surface textures with curling edges as illustrated by SEM and
Raman spectroscopy shown in Figures 4 and 5. With the
temperature increase the defects, pores and wrinkled surface
textures may increase or decrees based on the temperature
coefficient of expansion. The air filled the pores has a great
effect on the heat-transfer resistance. As a result, it will cause a
significant effect on the response time. In general, Increasing
the temperature can cause an increase or a decrease in response
time depending on how temperature affects the material
properties and heat transfer inside the sensor. As such, the
effect of temperature on sensor response time can only be
identified by in-situ testing of response time at process
operating temperature (Hashemian, 2006). Thus, we tested
our fabricated sensor at different temperatures for response
time investigation.
Figure 11 represents the response time (red), recovery time
(green), polynomial fit of response time (black) and polynomial
fit of recovery time (blue) of our fabricated temperature sensor.
The response time was measured by heating the fabricated
sensor from RT up to the pre-ascribed temperature. Contrary,
the recovery time was measured by cooling the sensor from the
measured temperature to the RT. The response and recovery
times were measured for a temperature range from 60°C to
150°C with 10°C step increase. The response and recovery
times are considered as 90% from the measured steady state
temperature. The response times are much faster than the
recovery times. Moreover, the response and recovery times
increase with increasing the measured temperature. For
instance, at 60°C the response and recovery times were 3.0 and
7.0 s, respectively. Meanwhile, at 150°C the response and
recovery times were 9.5 and 15.5 s, respectively. Interestingly,
the curves of response and recovery times were found to be well
fitted with the second-degree polynomial equations tRes =
5.55682 1 0.17064 T- 4.73485  10 4 T2 and tRec =
Figure 11 Sensor time response and recovery
 Temperature sensor Sensor Review
Mohammed Gamil, Nagih M. Shaalan and Ahmed Abd El-Moneim Volume 41 · Number 3 · 2021 · 251–259

5.23409 1 0.23799 T - 6.62879  10 4 T2, respectively. Figure 13 Effect of relative humidity on the relative resistance of the
Where, tRes, tRec and T are the response, recovery times in fabricated temperature sensor
seconds and T is the measured temperature in degree Celsius,
respectively. The obtained results for recovery time are in a
consistent trend with the measured for GNWs by Yang et al.
(2015). However, the response time is decreased with
temperature increase. Table 2 provides a clear comparison
between our fabricated sensor and other GNPs and graphene
derivatives. Interestingly, our fabricated temperature sensor
provides a better response and recovery times.
One of the interesting curves is the calibration curve of the
fabricated sensor, shown in Figure 12. The sensor response
is defined here as the resistance of the sensor at the
measured temperature divided by the resistance at RT (S =
Rt/R(RT)). The sensor response shows a linear behaviour,
where a soft increase in the sensor response is observed with
increasing the temperature. The sensor responds to the low
and high temperature, which gives the present sensor an
advantage. The sensor response is well fitted with the
straight-line formula of S = 0.95231 1 0.00134 t (oC). Form
this equation we can determine the temperature of the
ambient or medium atmosphere with the measuring the
sensor response. The effect of humidity on the performance of our fabricated
temperature sensor is applied by subjecting it to different
humidity levels using a controlled humidity chamber
(Humidity Series, Sheldon Manufacturing, Inc.). Figure 13
Table 2 Response and recovery times for different temperature sensors
presents the effect of relative humidity change on the relative
Temperature Response Recovery resistance of our fabricated sensor. The sensor resistance upon
Sensor material (oC) time (S) time (S) Ref. exposure to the humidity did not change until 50% humidity,
GNPs 100 7 12 This work however, slightly increased with higher humidity. It was found
40 0.5 3.2 that the maximum relative resistance change at 80% humidity
PEDOT:PSS- 100 18 32 Soni et al. is less than 0.05 which can be neglected compared to the
Graphene Oxide (2020) change in relative resistance (sensor response) with the change
Commercial 65 120 in the temperature. The results confirm that the present sensor
thermistor (100 KX) has a capability to work at various levels of humidity conditions
GNPs 40 7 60 Tian et al. with neglected effect of humidity.
MWCNTs 17.1 60 (2014)

4. Conclusions
In summary, we present the fabrication of an efficient and
Figure 12 The calibration curve of the sensor response as a function of
reliable GNPs resistive-based temperature sensor on a PET
the temperature
substrate by simple, easy and low-cost technique which can be
readily used in practice. Based on the mentioned results we can
conclude the followings:
 The fabricated sensor showed a good response toward the
different temperatures (RT to 150 °C) and its
corresponding resistance was measured.
 A linear relationship between the temperature and
the resistance was achieved, which allow us to calculate
the temperature coefficient of resistance (TCR) of the
fabricated sensor to be found as 1.4  10 3/°C.
 The sensor also showed excellent repeatability and
stability for the measured temperature range, with
acceptable response and recovery times.
 Excellent sensor response showed a good linearity with
temperature change, thus, with known the sensor
response, the ambient temperature can be determined
based on the calibration curve.

257
 Temperature sensor
Mohammed Gamil, Nagih M. Shaalan and Ahmed Abd El-Moneim
References
Akturk, A. and Goldsman, N. (2008), “Unusually strong
temperature dependence of graphene electron mobility”,
International Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor
Processes and Devices, IEEE, pp. 173-176.
Ali, K. and Hafez, M. (2013), “Growth and structure of carbon
nanotubes based novel catalyst for ultrafast nano-
temperature sensor application”, Superlattices and
Microstructures, Vol. 54, pp. 1-6.
Bolotin, K.I., Sikes, K.J., Jiang, Z., Klima, M., Fudenberg, G.,
Hone, J., Kim, P. and Stormer, H. (2008), “Ultrahigh
electron mobility in suspended graphene”, Solid State
Communications, Vol. 146 Nos 9/10, pp. 351-355.
Cheianov, V.V. and Fal’Ko, V.I. (2006), “Friedel oscillations,
impurity scattering, and temperature dependence of
resistivity in graphene”, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 97
No. 22, p. 226801.
Davaji, B., Cho, H.D., Malakoutian, M., Lee, J.-K., Panin, G.,
Kang, T.W. and Lee, C.H. (2017), “A patterned single layer
graphene resistance temperature sensor”, Scientific Reports,
Vol. 7 No. 1, p. 8811.
Dewapriya, M., Phani, A.S. and Rajapakse, R. (2013),
“Influence of temperature and free edges on the mechanical
properties of graphene”, Modelling and Simulation in
Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 21 No. 6, p. 065017.
DI Bartolomeo, A., Sarno, M., Giubileo, F., Altavilla, C.,
Iemmo, L., Piano, S., Bobba, F., Longobardi, M., Scarfato,
A. and Sannino, D. (2009), “Multiwalled carbon nanotube
films as small-sized temperature sensors”, Journal of Applied
Physics, Vol. 105 No. 6, p. 064518.
Ferrari, A.C. (2007), “Raman spectroscopy of graphene and
graphite: disorder, electron–phonon coupling, doping and
nonadiabatic effects”, Solid State Communications, Vol. 143
Nos 1/2, pp. 47-57.
Fu, X., Ilanchezhiyan, P., Kumar, G.M., Cho, H.D., Zhang,
L., Chan, A.S., Lee, D.J., Panin, G.N. and Kang, T.W.
(2017), “Tunable UV-visible absorption of SnS 2 layered
quantum dots produced by liquid phase exfoliation”,
Nanoscale, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 1820-1826.
Gamil, M., Nakamura, K., EL-Bab, A.M.F., Tabata, O. and
Abd EL-Moneim, A. (2013), “Simulation of graphene
piezoresistivity based on density functional calculations”,
Modeling and Numerical Simulation of Material Science.
Gamil, M., Nakamura, K., El-Bab, A.M.F., Tabata, O. and
Abd El-Moneim, A. (2014b), “First-principles simulation on
orientation dependence of piezoresistivity in graphene
nanoribbon”, 2014 International Conference on Engineering
and Technology (ICET), IEEE, pp. 1-6.
Gamil, M., Tabata, O., Nakamura, K., EL-Bab, A.M. and EL-
Moneim, A.A. (2014c), “Investigation of a new high
sensitive micro-electromechanical strain gauge sensor based
on graphene piezoresistivity”, Key Engineering Materials,
Trans Tech Publications, pp. 207-210.
Gamil, M., Nakamura, K., EL-Bab, A.M.F., Tabata, O., Serry,
M. and Abd EL-Moneim, A. (2012), “Evaluation of strain
gauge factors of graphene ribbon models based on first-
principles electronic-state calculations”, 2012 First International
Conference on Innovative Engineering Systems, IEEE, pp. 52-57.
258
Sensor Review
Volume 41 · Number 3 · 2021 · 251–259
Gamil, M., Nageh, H., Bkrey, I., Sayed, S., Fath EL-Bab, A.,
Nakamura, K., Tabata, O. and Abdelmoneim, A. (2014a),
“Graphene-based strain gauge on a flexible substrate”, Sens.
Mater, Vol. 26, pp. 699-709.
García, V., Gude, M.R. and Ureña, A. (2015), “Effect of
graphene nanoplatelets features on cure kinetics of
benzoxazine composites”, 20th International Conference on
Composite Materials, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ghosh, D., Calizo, I., Teweldebrhan, D., Pokatilov, E.P.,
Nika, D.L., Balandin, A.A., Bao, W., Miao, F. and Lau, C.
N. (2008), “Extremely high thermal conductivity of
graphene: prospects for thermal management applications in
nanoelectronic circuits”, Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 92
No. 15, p. 151911.
Hashemian, H. (2006), Maintenance of Process Instrumentation
in Nuclear Power Plant, Springer-Verlag. Berlin Heidelberg.
Hummers, W.S., Jr. and Offeman, R.E. (1958), “Preparation
of graphitic oxide”, Journal of the American Chemical Society,
Vol. 80 No. 6, pp. 1339-1339.
Husain, M.D. and Kennon, R. (2013), “Preliminary
investigations into the development of textile based
temperature sensor for healthcare applications”, Fibers,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 2-10.
Hwang, E., Adam, S. and Sarma, S.D. (2007), “Carrier
transport in two-dimensional graphene layers”, Physical
Review Letters, Vol. 98 No. 18, p. 186806.
Jiang, B., Peng, B., Zhu, A., Zhang, C. and Li, Y. (2018),
“Eco-friendly synthesis of graphene nanoplatelets via a
carbonation route and its reinforcement for
polytetrafluoroethylene composites”, Journal of Materials
Science, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 626-636.
Kuan, C.-F., Chiang, C.-L., Lin, S.-H., Huang, W.-G., Hsieh,
W.-Y. and Shen, M.-Y. (2018), “Characterization and
properties of graphene nanoplatelets/XNBR nanocomposites”,
Polymers and Polymer Composites, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 59-68.
Li, Z., Lu, C., Xia, Z., Zhou, Y. and Luo, Z. (2007), “X-ray
diffraction patterns of graphite and turbostratic carbon”,
Carbon, Vol. 45 No. 8, pp. 1686-1695.
Li, Y., Zhu, J., Wei, S., Ryu, J., Sun, L. and Guo, Z. (2011),
“Poly (propylene)/graphene nanoplatelet nanocomposites:
melt rheological behavior and thermal, electrical, and
electronic properties”, Macromolecular Chemistry and Physics,
Vol. 212 No. 18, pp. 1951-1959.
Ni, Z., Wang, Y., Yu, T. and Shen, Z. (2008), “Raman
spectroscopy and imaging of graphene”, Nano Research,
Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 273-291.
Novoselov, K.S., Geim, A.K., Morozov, S.V., Jiang, D.,
Zhang, Y., Dubonos, S.V., Grigorieva, I.V. and Firsov, A.A.
(2004), “Electric field effect in atomically thin carbon films”,
Science, Vol. 306 No. 5696, pp. 666-669.
Novoselov, K.S., Jiang, Z., Zhang, Y., Morozov, S., Stormer, H.
L., Zeitler, U., Maan, J., Boebinger, G., Kim, P. and Geim, A.
K. (2007), “Room-temperature quantum hall effect in
graphene”, Science, Vol. 315 No. 5817, pp. 1379-1379.
Sahatiya, P., Puttapati, S.K., Srikanth, V.V. and Badhulika,
S. (2016), “Graphene-based wearable temperature sensor
and infrared photodetector on a flexible polyimide
substrate”, Flexible and Printed Electronics, Vol. 1 No. 2,
p. 025006.
 Temperature sensor
Mohammed Gamil, Nagih M. Shaalan and Ahmed Abd El-Moneim
Sahoo, S., Barik, S.K. Sharma, G., Khurana, G., Scott, J. and
Katiyar, R.S. (2012), “Reduced graphene oxide as ultra-fast
temperature sensor”, arXiv preprint arXiv:1204.1928.
Sayed, S., Gamil, M., Fath EL-Bab, A.M. and Abd Elmoneim,
A.A.E.M. (2015), “LASER reduced graphene on flexible
substrate for strain sensing applications: temperature effect
on gauge factor”, Key Engineering Materials, Trans Tech
Publications, 115-119.
Sayed, S., Gamil, M., EL-Bab, A.F., Nakamura, K., Tsuchiya, T.,
Tabata, O. and Abd EL-Moneim, A. (2016), “Graphene film
development on flexible substrate using a new technique:
temperature dependency of gauge factor for graphene-based
strain sensors”, Sensor Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 140-147.
Schedin, F., Geim, A., Morozov, S., Hill, E., Blake, P.,
Katsnelson, M. and Novoselov, K. (2007), “Detection of
individual gas molecules adsorbed on graphene”, Nature
Materials, Vol. 6 No. 9, p. 652.
Soni, M., Bhattacharjee, M., Ntagios, M. and Dahiya, R.
(2020), “Printed temperature sensor based on PEDOT:
PSS-Graphene oxide composite”, IEEE Sensors Journal,
Vol. 20 No. 14, pp. 7525-7531.
Stobinski, L., Lesiak, B., Malolepszy, A., Mazurkiewicz, M.,
Mierzwa, B., Zemek, J., Jiricek, P. and Bieloshapka, I.
(2014), “Graphene oxide and reduced graphene oxide
studied by the XRD, TEM and electron spectroscopy
methods”, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related
Phenomena, Vol. 195, pp. 145-154.
Sun, P., Zhu, M., Wang, K., Zhong, M., Wei, J., Wu, D. and
Zhu, H. (2013), “Small temperature coefficient of resistivity
of graphene/graphene oxide hybrid membranes”, ACS
Applied Materials & Interfaces, Vol. 5 No. 19, pp. 9563-9571.
Tian, M., Huang, Y., Wang, W., Li, R., Liu, P., Liu, C. and
Zhang, Y. (2014), “Temperature-dependent electrical
properties of graphene nanoplatelets film dropped on flexible
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
259
Sensor Review
Volume 41 · Number 3 · 2021 · 251–259
substrates”, Journal of Materials Research, Vol. 29 No. 11,
pp. 1288-1294.
Wang, Z., Xie, R., Bui, C.T., Liu, D., Ni, X., Li, B. and
Thong, J.T. (2010), “Thermal transport in suspended and
supported few-layer graphene”, Nano Letters, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 113-118.
Xi, J., Wang, D., Yi, Y. and Shuai, Z. (2014), “Electron-
phonon couplings and carrier mobility in graphynes sheet
calculated using the Wannier-interpolation approach”, The
Journal of Chemical Physics, Vol. 141 No. 3, p. 034704.
Yang, J., Wei, D., Tang, L., Song, X., Luo, W., Chu, J., Gao,
T., Shi, H. and Du, C. (2015), “Wearable temperature
sensor based on graphene nanowalls”, Rsc Advances, Vol. 5
No. 32, pp. 25609-25615.
Yin, Y., Cheng, Z., Wang, L., Jin, K. and Wang, W. (2014),
“Graphene, a material for high temperature devices–intrinsic
carrier density, carrier drift velocity, and lattice energy”,
Scientific Reports, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 5758.
Zeng, Y., Li, T., Yao, Y., Li, T., Hu, L. and Marconnet, A.
(2019), “Thermally conductive reduced graphene oxide thin
films for extreme temperature sensors”, Advanced Functional
Materials, Vol. 29, p. 1901388.
Zhao, J., Pei, S., Ren, W., Gao, L. and Cheng, H.-M. (2010),
“Efficient preparation of large-area graphene oxide sheets for
transparent conductive films”, ACS Nano, Vol. 4 No. 9,
pp. 5245-5252.
Zhu, W., Perebeinos, V., Freitag, M. and Avouris, P. (2009),
“Carrier scattering, mobilities, and electrostatic potential in
monolayer, bilayer, and trilayer graphene”, Physical Review
B, Vol. 80 No. 23, p. 235402.
Corresponding author
Mohammed Gamil can be contacted at: mohammed.
gamil@feng.bu.edu.eg