Table 1 Comparison of the current ethanol-sensing performance with those of previously reported TiO₂-based sensors

Ag@TiO₂ nanoparticles

5 ppm

R_a/R_g

4.35

RT

–

0.15 ppm

[2]

Surface-coarsened Ag-TiO₂ nanobelts

500 ppm

R_a/R_g

46.153

200 °C

N/A*

5 ppm

[10]

TiO₂ thin film

100 ppm

(I_g−I_a)/I₀

~ 10

400 °C

N/A*

100 ppm

[11]

TiO₂ nanoparticle

100 ppm

I_g/I_a

~ 11.5

350 °C

N/A*

20 ppm

[12]

Nb-/Cu-doped

TiO₂ nanoparticle

100 ppm

R_a/R_g

~ 3

400 °C

N/A*

25 ppm

[13]

TiO₂

3D hierarchical nanostructure

100 ppm

R_a/R_g

6.4

350 °C

N/A*

20 ppm

[14]

TiO₂ nanotube

1000 ppm

(I_g−I_a)/I_a

13,800

250 °C

N/A*

50 ppm

[15]

Nb-doped

TiO₂ nanorods

400 ppm

R_a/R_g

~ 16

500 °C

N/A*

50 ppm

[16]

TiO₂ nanotube

400 ppm

R_g/R_a

~ 0.7

RT

–

400 ppm

[17]

TiO₂ nanotube

50 ppm

R_a/R_g

~ 10

450 °C

26 mW

50 ppm

[18]

TiO₂ nanoparticle

thin film

50 ppm

(R_a−R_g)/

R_g×100

535%

RT

–

10 ppm

[19]

TiO₂/V₂O₅ branched nanoheterostructures

100 ppm

R_a/R_g

24.6

350 °C

N/A*

20 ppm

[20]

3D hierarchical flower-like TiO₂ microstructures

100 ppm

R_a/R_g

2.25

RT

–

10 ppm

[21]

Anatase@rutile core@shell TiO₂ nanosheets

500 ppm

R_a/R_g

43.9

270 °C

N/A*

50 ppm

[22]

Carbon-doped

TiO₂ nanoparticle

1 ppm

(R_a−R_g)/

R_a*100

34%

150 °C

N/A*

1 ppm

[23]

Ag-loaded

TiO₂ nanorod

0.6 ppm

(I_g-I_a)/I_a

4.65

200 °C

N/A*

0.6 ppm

[24]

MoS₂/TiO₂

composite

500 ppm

(R_a−R_g)/

R_a×100

100%

300 °C

N/A*

1 ppm

[25]

CoPP-functionalized TiO₂ nanoparticles

10 ppm

R _a /R _g

12.68

308.6 °C

18 mW

1 ppm

This work