LEAK DETECTION
Semiconductor vs Infrared
In refrigerant gas detection for fl uorinated gases, including HFCs, HFOs, and A2L refrigerants, two primary sensor technologies—semiconductor sensors and infrared sensors—vie for prominence. This report from Samon sheds light on them both.
Semiconductor sensor-based refrigerant gas detectors off er a cost- eff ective solution for a wide range of refrigerant gas detection applications and meet the needs of the majority of users.
U
nderstanding the strengths and limitations of both semiconductor sensors and infrared sensors is crucial for making informed decisions in both commercial and industrial settings. This is achieved by delving into a comparative analysis of semiconductor sensors and infrared sensors.
Semiconductor sensors Semiconductor sensors, also known as metal oxide sensors,
are celebrated for their versatility and cost-eff ectiveness in detecting a wide range of gases, including refrigerants. These sensors operate by heating the surface of a silicon wafer coated with metallic oxides to temperatures ranging from 300 to 800ºF (149 to 426ºC). During normal operation, oxygen molecules adhere to the sensor’s surface, creating a resistance barrier. However, upon exposure to reducing gases like refrigerants, a redox reaction occurs, altering the resistance and increasing electrical conductivity. Despite their versatility, semiconductor sensors lack selectivity and may produce false alarms in response to various gases – they will react to any reducing gas, not only refrigerants. Factors such as water vapor, high humidity, temperature fl uctuations, and low oxygen levels can further impact their accuracy.
Infrared sensors Infrared sensors, on the other hand, have an operating principle based on the absorption of infrared radiation by target gases, including refrigerants like HFCs and HFOs. These sensors excel in precision and accuracy, operating by directing infrared light through a gas sample onto a detector element. The reduction in intensity of the infrared light source, attributed to the presence of the target gas, correlates directly with gas concentration. Infrared sensors have immunity to cross-gas eff ects and environmental interferences, making them highly reliable in refrigerant applications. They off er excellent stability, resistance to poisoning, and minimal drift over time, ensuring long sensor lifetimes of typically around 10 years.
Comparative analysis Semiconductor sensor-based refrigerant gas detectors off er
a cost-eff ective solution for a wide range of refrigerant gas detection applications and meet the needs of the majority of users. However, while semiconductor sensors off er cost-eff ectiveness and versatility, their lack of selectivity and susceptibility to false alarms can pose challenges in demanding commercial refrigeration and industrial refrigeration environments. In contrast, infrared sensors provide superior precision,
accuracy, and immunity to environmental factors, making them ideal for critical applications where precise measurement is paramount and false alarms cannot be tolerated. Although infrared sensors may come with a higher price point, their performance in achieving lower minimum detectable levels compared to semiconductor sensors makes them an attractive choice for gas detection scenarios that require heightened sensitivity and immunity to cross-sensitivity. In HFC, HFO, and A2L refrigerant gas detection, the choice between semiconductor sensors and infrared sensors ultimately hinges on the specifi c requirements and challenges of the application. While semiconductor sensors off er aff ordability and versatility, infrared sensors provide unmatched precision, reliability, and immunity to environmental factors. Understanding the distinct advantages and limitations of each technology is essential for ensuring accurate and reliable gas detection in commercial and industrial settings.
28 September 2024 •
www.acr-news.com Download the ACR News app today
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45
