The Journal of
the Korean Journal of Metals and Materials

The Journal of
the Korean Journal of Metals and Materials

Monthly
  • pISSN : 1738-8228
  • eISSN : 2288-8241

Editorial Office





Diffusivity, Polymer, Solubility, Gas permeation, Gas sensor, Capacitive electrode

1. INTRODUCTION

Gases such as hydrogen, nitrogen, and helium are widely utilized across industrial, environmental, medical, and research sectors, where their leakage or variations in concentration can significantly impact safety and process efficiency [1-15]. Hydrogen has gained attention as a next-generation clean energy source, but its high diffusivity and explosion risk necessitate real-time detection. Nitrogen is essential for combustion processes and life support systems and requires precise concentration control in industrial applications. Helium plays a critical role in superconductivity research, semiconductor manufacturing, aerospace, and vacuum system maintenance, necessitating highly sensitive leakage detection. Given these characteristics, high-sensitivity and highly reliable gas sensor technology should be developed to ensure safety and efficiency.

Gas sensors are extensively employed across various industries, enabling real-time detection to prevent accidents and optimize processes. Hydrogen sensors are crucial technology to detect hydrogen leaks in fuel cell vehicles, hydrogen refueling stations, and industrial storage facilities. Nitrogen sensors are utilized in medical gas monitoring, semiconductor manufacturing, and food preservation for regulating nitrogen concentration. Helium sensors are indispensable in semiconductor manufacturing, superconductivity research, aerospace applications, and high-vacuum system maintenance. As outlined above, gas sensors are not only vital for industrial safety but also for process control and environmental monitoring [16-39].

With the activation of the hydrogen economy, hydrogen refueling stations and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles have proliferated, leading to an increased technical focus on containing hydrogen gas containment and preventing leakage. Hydrogen detection technologies capable of precisely analyzing the gas permeability and leakage rates of polymer O-ring materials thus have become increasingly critical. Alongside this, research on the mechanical properties, physical stability, and long-term durability of these materials is essential for ensuring reliable performance in hydrogen systems.

Gas sensors employ various detection methods tailored to the specific characteristics of each gas, including semiconductor-based [40-42], electrochemical [43-48], catalytic combustion [49-51], non-dispersive infrared (NDIR), fiber optic-based [52,53], gas chromatography [54-59] and gravimetric-based [60-67] sensors. Semiconductor-based sensors are cost-effective and highly durable but suffer from low selectivity and susceptibility to environmental factors. Electrochemical sensors offer high sensitivity and accuracy but have a limited lifespan and require frequent maintenance. Catalytic combustion sensors are advantageous for detecting flammable gases but are affected by fluctuations of oxygen concentration. NDIR sensors provide high accuracy and long-term stability but are bulky and costly. Fiber optic sensors enable ultra-low concentration gas detection with high responsiveness but require complex and expensive measurement systems. The selection of a sensor should therefore consider factors such as the target gas characteristics, industrial applicability, cost, and environmental conditions. Developing highly sensitive and reliable sensors has become a key challenge in gas safety management.

Conventional gas sensing methods have inherent limitations, highlighting the need for more effective and reliable measurement techniques. Reducing uncertainties in gas permeation parameters caused by temperature and pressure variations in laboratory environments and accurately assessing gas permeability when gases dissolve into materials are crucial challenges. To address these issues, a volumetric analysis technique with two capacitive sensors is developed in this study. The performance of the proposed approach is validated through a comparison with the results of a camera and electrode sensors. The results demonstrated a high level of consistency between these methods, confirming the reliability of capacitive measurement in gas permeability measurements.

To overcome the limitations of conventional methods and enhance the accuracy of gas permeability measurements, an integrated technique combining volumetric measurements using a graduated cylinder with automated capacitance measurements using a frequency response analyzer (FRA) interfaced with a PC [57] is proposed in this study. This approach reduces uncertainties in gas permeation parameter estimation caused by environmental fluctuations in temperature and pressure. The proposed technique is applied to polymers, specifically nitrile butadiene rubber (NBR), low density polyethylene (LDPE), and high density polyethylene (HDPE), which are commonly used as gas sealing materials under high-pressure gas environments. The solubility, diffusivity, and permeability of the three different gases in these polymers are analyzed as a function of exposure pressure and compared with results obtained using different methods with estimation of uncertainty. Additionally, the applicability of these polymer materials for gas sealing in high-pressure environments is assessed.

2. EXPRIMENTAL

2.1 Sample preparation and gas enriching method

In this study, polymer specimens commonly used as sealing materials in hydrogen refueling stations and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles were selected for to evaluate the proposed sensor. The tested polymer materials are NBR, LDPE, and HDPE, with the LDPE and HDPE specimens supplied by King Plastic Corporation. Each sample was prepared in a sheet form with a thickness of ~2.4 mm and plane dimensions of 15 mm × 15 mm. However, the HDPE specimens were provided in a spherical form with a diameter of ~12 mm. NBR specimens were manufactured by Kumho Petrochemical and prepared as flat cylindrical samples with a diameter of 14.0 mm and a thickness of ~1.2 mm. The chemical composition of NBR is displayed in Table 1. Note that the compositions of LDPE and HDPE are omitted in Table 1 because the chemical composition information of King Plastic Corporation is not open to the public . Sulfur is added as a crosslinker in NBR.

To achieve gas enrichment in the specimens, samples were placed in a stainless steel (SUS 316) high-pressure chamber with an internal diameter of 50 mm and a height of 90 mm at room temperature, as shown in Figure 1(a). Before gas exposure at the target pressure, a purging process was conducted three times at 1 MPa to eliminate any residual gases within the chamber. The specimens then were exposed to the testing gas (H2 or He or N2) in a pressure range from 1 to 10 MPa for 36 hours to ensure complete gas saturation under high pressure.

After the sample was fully saturated with gas, the valve was opened to release the pressurized gas from the chamber, allowing the sample to be extracted. As gas began to release from the sample immediately upon depressurization, the start time was recorded using a timer. Once the chamber pressure stabilized at atmospheric levels within a few seconds, the gas release from the sample continued. To minimize gas loss due to release, the sample was promptly transferred into the upper space of the graduated cylinder (Figure 1 (b)) (i.e. within 5 to 10 minutes). Emitted gas lost during this loading process was quantified and compensated for using a self-developed diffusion analysis program. The methodology for gas loss compensation through this program has been previously described in our earlier papers [68,69].

2.2 Volumetric measurement system employing semi-cylindrical and coaxial-cylindrical capacitor electrodes

Figure 1 is a schematic diagram showing the gas enriching chamber with the gas bombe and graduated cylinder with the changed water level by emitted gas in the polymer specimen. The gas pressure (P) inside the graduated cylinder in volumetric measurement system is expressed as [57].

(1)
P = P 0 ρ g h

where P0 is the external atmospheric pressure outside the cylinder, ρ is the density of distilled water in the water bath, and g is gravitational acceleration. h is the height of the distilled water level inside the graduated cylinder measured from the water level in the water bath. V is the volumes of gas inside the graduated cylinder filled with gas, as shown in the upper part of Figure 1(b). The gas inside the cylinder is governed by the ideal gas equation PV = nRT, where R is a gas constant of 8.2×10-5 m3·atm/(mol·K). The total number of moles (n) of gas inside the cylinder is expressed as follows [57].

(2)
n = n 0 + Δ n = ( P 0 ρ g h ) V R T

where n0 is the initial moles of air present already in the cylinder before the gas is released. After decompression, the gas released from the specimen lowers the water level of the cylinder. Thus, the increased gas moles (Δn) in the cylinder by the released gas are obtained by measuring the increase in volume (ΔV) in the graduated cylinder. The relation between the increased gas moles and the increased volume can be expressed as follows:

(3)
Δ n = ( P 0 ρ g h ) Δ V R T

The increased number of moles are converted to the corresponding mass concentration (C(t)) of the gas emitted from the polymer sample as follows:

(4)
C ( t ) [ wt ppm ] = Δ n [ mol ] × m gas [ g mol ] m sample [ g ] × 10 6

where mgas is the molar mass of the testing gas. For example, for N2 gas, mN2 gas is 28.01 g/mol. msample is the mass of the sample. The increase in water level (ΔV) by released gas corresponds to the increased gas moles. It can be converted to the mass concentration of released gas according to Eq. (4). Therefore, the mass concentration over time by released gas can be obtained by measuring the change in water level, ΔV, versus the time elapsed after decompression.

Figure 2 presents the three-channel volumetric measurement system consisting of three graduated cylinders and three electrode configurations designed for real-time monitoring of gas release. The electrode setup comprises two semi-cylindrical electrodes positioned on the left side and middle part of the cylinder and one coaxial-cylindrical electrode on the right side of the cylinder.

Following exposure to a high-pressure chamber, the specimen is decompressed and transferred into the gas space within the graduated cylinder. The three vertically aligned graduated cylinders are partially submerged in a water bath so that gas emitted from the specimen can be measured. The semi-cylindrical and coaxial-cylindrical electrodes are connected in parallel to the capacitance measurement channel of a frequency response analyzer (FRA, VSP 300). The semi-cylindrical electrodes are affixed externally to the acrylic tubes on the left and middle channels. Meanwhile, the coaxial-cylindrical electrode configuration on the right channel consists of one electrode attached to the outer surface of the acrylic tube and another positioned along the central axis as a rod electrode.

The high-precision FRA is interfaced with a general-purpose interface bus (GPIB) and a programmed PC to provide automatic control and real-time detection of temperature and pressure. The GPIB system, connected to the three measurement channels, automatically measures the capacitance through the semi-cylindrical and coaxial-cylindrical electrodes, as illustrated in Figure 2. Water level data are converted from capacitance by pre-correction data in the form of a polynomial between the capacitance and the water level position. Additionally, real-time temperature and pressure data collected near the sample are automatically incorporated into the gas absorption calculations to ensure an accurate permeability analysis.

The diffusion characteristics of the NBR, LDPE, and HDPE polymer specimens are investigated using the semi-cylindrical and coaxial-cylindrical capacitors. The results obtained from the three samples are then compared.

2.3 Structure of semi-cylindrical and coaxial-cylindrical capacitor electrodes

We used two types of capacitive sensors with semi-cylindrical and coaxial-cylindrical electrodes. The structure of the capacitive electrode sensor made from a semi-cylindrical electrode mounted on the outside of an acrylic tube is shown in Figure 3 (a). The inner volume of the acrylic tube surrounded by two semi-cylindrical electrodes is filled with water and gas. The electrodes attached to the outer wall of the acrylic tube are made from copper with a semi-cylindrical shape and thickness of 1 mm. The capacitance of the sensor depends on the dielectric constant of the medium present between the electrodes. The dielectric constant of water is 78.4 times greater than that of the gas inside the graduated cylinder. Therefore, the positional shift of the water level in the two electrodes leads to a detectable change in capacitance.

In the case of the semi-cylindrical electrodes, the actual capacitance (Ca) due to water and gas is connected in series with the capacitance (Ctw) of the acrylic dielectric tube wall. The total capacitance (Ct) between the semi-cylindrical electrodes can be expressed as follows:

(5)
C t = C a C t w C a + C t w

The actual permittivity εa by water and gas inside the cylinder is given by Eq. (6), and it depends on the volume of the two media.

(6)
ε a = V w ε w + V 0 ε 0 V t

where Vw is the volume of water in the cylinder, εw is the dielectric constant of water, V0 is the volume of gas in the cylinder, ε0 is the permittivity of the gas, and Vt is the total volume.

The actual capacitance of the semi-cylindrical electrodes is calculated as follows [9].

(7)
C a = i = 0 n 2 ε 0 ε a A × [ 1 d + ( i 1 ) Δ d ] + ε 0 ε a A 2 R

where A is the area of the electrode, ε*0 is the dielectric constant in free space, d is the distance between the two electrodes, R is the radius of the graduated cylinder, and Δd is the increment in distance between the curved two electrodes. In this experiment, all of these variables are constant except for εa in Eq. (7). The capacitance value for the water content is obtained by combining Eqs. (5)-(7). We measured the actual change in capacitance (Ca) with the change in εa occurring at the changing water level position of the graduated cylinder. Thus, the water level corresponding to the changed capacitance is determined by a pre-calibration equation between the capacitance and the water level position.

Another capacitive sensor is designed with coaxialcylindrical electrodes in the center and outside of the acrylic tube, as shown in Figure 3 (b). The acrylic tube is filled with water and gas between the two coaxial electrodes. The change in capacitance ΔC with respect to the water level, h is given as follows [70].

(8)
Δ C = 2 π ε 0 ( ε w h + ε g ( L h ) ) ln ( R 2 R 1 ) = 2 π ε 0 ( ε w ε g ) h ln ( R 2 R 1 ) + 2 π ε 0 ε g L ln ( R 2 R 1 )

where h is the water level, L is the length of the cylindrical capacitor, R1 is the radius of the solid cylindrical conductor (electrode 2) made of thin copper wire, and R2 is the radius of the coaxial cylindrical shells (electrode 1) made of copper plates. ε0, εw and εg are the dielectric constants of free space, water and gas, respectively.

For a fixed configuration of coaxial cylindrical electrodes, Eq. (8) shows that the second term on the right remains constant. The equation thus shows that ΔC is linearly related to the change in water level, h. The water level of the coaxial electrode was also obtained by measuring the change in capacitance using a pre-calibration equation, similarly to the semi-cylinderical electrode.

The two types of electrodes were used to measure the change in capacitance by the water level (increased gas volume, ΔV) in the graduated cylinder. The equipment used to measure the capacitance was the VSP-300 model of Biologics Inc. The capacitance was measured with the VSP-300 and a PC based on the GPIB system at a frequency of 1MHz.

2.4 Diffusion analysis program for obtaining gas diffusion parameters

Adsorbing gas at high pressure releases the gas dissolved in rubber after it is decompressed to atmospheric pressure. Assuming that the adsorption and desorption of gas are diffusion controlled processes, the concentration of gas C E s h e   ( t ) for spherical samples released during the desorption process is expressed as follows [71,72]:

(9)
C E s h p ( t ) = C [ 1 6 π 2 n = 1 1 n 2 exp ( D n 2 π 2 t a 2 ) ]

Eq. (9) is a solution to Fick's second law of diffusion for spherical samples with initially uniform gas concentrations and constant spherical surface concentrations. C is the gas mass concentration of saturated gas at infinite time or the total gas uptake released during the adsorption process. D is the diffusion coefficient of desorption and a is the radius of the spherical rubber.

Similarly, the emitted gas content C E c y l   ( t ) for the cylindrical specimen is expressed under the boundary condition; i.e., a uniform gas concentration is initially maintained and the cylindrical surfaces are kept at a constant concentration [72,73].

(10)
C E c y l ( t ) = C [ 1 32 π 2 × [ n = 0 exp { ( 2 n + 1 ) 2 π 2 D s t l 2 } ( 2 n + 1 ) 2 ] × [ n = 1 exp { D s β n 2 t ρ 2 } β n 2 ] ]

In Eq. (10), l is the thickness of the cylindrical rubber sample, ρ is the radius, and βn is the root of the zero-order Bessel function.

The emitted gas content C E s h e   ( t ) for the sheet shaped sample is expressed as follows[71,72]:

(11)
C E s h e ( t ) = C [ 1 8 π 2 n = 0 1 ( 2 n + 1 ) 2 exp ( D ( 2 n + 1 ) 2 π 2 t T 2 ) ]

Eq. (11) represents the solution to Fick’s second law of diffusion for a plane sheet specimen, assuming an initially uniform gas concentration in the material and a constant concentration maintained at the surface. T is the thickness of the sheet shaped sample.

To analyze the mass concentration data by the complicated formulas given in Eqs. (9), (10), and (11), we developed a diffusion analysis program using Visual Studio to calculate D and C, based on least-squares regression [57,73]. Figure 4 illustrates the diffusion analysis program to determine D and C from the gas emission content. In the bottom left side, the information of the material (sample) shape and its dimension is inserted. In the top right side, the plot of emission content (wt·ppm) versus time (sec) is represented, where the black solid line is the amount of measured gas emission. At the middle right side, the list of unknown parameters 1, 2, 3 indicate the D, C and C-offset values with the fitting error, respectively. Unknown parameters of the sheet shape for LDPE are calculated from Eq. (11) in Figure 4. C-offset is a compensation value corresponding to the loss of emitted gas caused by the time lag between decompression and the start of measurement after the sample is loaded. In the plot of emission versus time at the top right side in Figure 4, the yellow solid line is the gas emission curve C E s h e   ( t ) derived via Eq. (11), where the amount of lost emitted gas has been compensated. Finally, D and C are obtained as 2.514×10-11 m2/s and 1612 wt·ppm, respectively.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Sequence to acquire diffusion parameters through pre-calibration process

The gas released from the specimen causes a reduction in the water level with the elapse of time. When the specimen has fully discharged the gas for a sufficient amount of time, the decrease in the water level is saturated. By utilizing programmed capacitor measurements with the capacitive electrodes, the diffusion parameters for the specimens can be determined from the diffusion analysis program. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the method for extracting the diffusion parameter in an LDPE sheet shape using the coaxial and semi-cylindrical electrodes, respectively, through the following steps:

1) The user records the water level versus the capacitance in the corresponding channel as the water level decreases. A quadratic regression is then applied to derive a second-degree polynomial that relates the water level position to the capacitance [as shown in Figures 5(a) and 6(a)]; this polynomial is based on Eqs. (7) and (8). The water level is measured as a pixel unit using a digital camera.

2) Using the pre-calibration data, the measured capacitance values are converted into the corresponding water level, as depicted in Figures 5(b) and 6(b). In these graphs, the black and blue squares represent the capacitance and water level positions, respectively, plotted over time. The decrement in water level indicates the increased gas volume (by emitted gas.

3) The increased gas volume is converted to increased gas moles by Eq. (3). According to Eq. (4), the increased gas moles are converted to the corresponding mass concentrations (C(t)) of the gas emitted from the polymer sample. Finally, by applying Eq. (11) through the diffusion analysis program that employs least-squares regression, the diffusion parameters D and C are determined, as shown in Figures 5(c) and 6(c).

3.2 Measured diffusion properties of H2, He, and N2 gas for NBR, LDPE, and HDPE

We have investigated pressure dependent diffusion properties of H2, He, and N2 gas for NBR, LDPE, and HDPE. Figure 7 presents representative results of measured volume and gas emission content versus time after decompression for HDPE, NBR, and LDPE with these three gases. Figure 7(a) presents the H2 results with the coaxial-cylindrical capacitor. Figures 7(b) and (c) give the He and N2 results, respectively, with the semi-cylindrical capacitor. The measured volume (blue filled circles) on the left side axis of Figure 7 was obtained from the measured capacitance using pre-calibration data. According to Eqs. (3) and (4), the measured volume is converted into the amount of gas emission (black open squares) on the right side axis of Figure 7. The blue solid curve represents the fitted line obtained using Eqs. (10)-(11) through the diffusion analysis program. In Figure 7 (a), the determined H2 diffusivity (D) of HDPE is 28.75×10-11 m2/s at 6 MPa H2 gas pressure and the gas uptake (C) is 53.13 wt·ppm. In Figure 7 (b), the He diffusivity and uptake of NBR at 7.6 MPa He gas pressure were determined as D=2.14×10-10 m2/s and C=197 wt·ppm, respectively. In Figure 7(c), the N2 diffusivity and uptake of LDPE at 6.4 MPa N2 gas pressure are D=2.50×10-11 m2/s and C=1589 wt·ppm, respectively. The results indicate that gas diffusion and desorption follow a single-mode diffusion process.

Figure 8 shows the gas uptake (C) and diffusivity (D) as a function of pressure in the LDPE, HDPE, and NBR polymer specimens with three gases (H2, He, N2). The results are obtained via two capacitive electrodes. The NBR results with He and N2 were obtained in our previous investigation [69]. The data acquisition for NBR with H2 gas pressure was carried out using the coaxial-cylindrical electrode. The solid lines in Figure 8(a) represent the linear fit of the gas uptakes for the exposed pressure with the slope value. The linear trend shows that the gas uptake (C) for all tested polymers increases linearly with pressure, which is consistent with Henry's Law [74]. This indicates that the amount of gas absorbed by each polymer is directly proportional to the applied pressure. NBR exhibits the highest gas uptake among the three polymers across all tested gases, suggesting it has higher solubility compared to HDPE and LDPE.

Unlike the gas uptake trend, the diffusivity (D) in Figure 8(b) does not exhibit a strong dependence on pressure. Each polymer demonstrates a relatively constant diffusivity across the tested pressure range. The horizontal solid lines represent the average diffusivity (Davr) with the values for three samples. The stability of diffusivity across different pressures suggests that the diffusion mechanism is predominantly controlled by the intrinsic properties of each polymer rather than external pressure conditions.

Meanwhile, solubility can be determined from the linear slopes in Figure 8(a) as follows [69].

(12)
S [ mol m 3 MPa ] = C slope [ wt ppm MPa ] 10 6 × d [ g m 3 ] m g [ g mol ]

mg is the molar mass of the gas used and d is the density of the specimen. Permeability (P) is determined by the product of diffusivity (D) and solubility (S); i.e., P=DavrS. Davr, S, and P obtained for the NBR, HDPE, and LDPE specimens are represented in Table 2. The investigation results provide a comprehensive comparison of how each polymer interacts with different gases, which is essential for selecting materials suitable for specific applications such as gas barriers or gas transmission devices.

3.3 Expanded uncertainty analysis in volumetric measurement system

In our previous analysis of the volumetric measurement system, the main uncertainties in diffusivity measurements were due to variability in repeated measurements [17,75], changes in sample volume after decompression, and the standard deviation between experimental data and Eqs. (9)-(11). These uncertainty analysis methods are found in previous research results[76-78]. These uncertainties can be distinguished as type A or type B uncertainty. Type A is statistical uncertainty such as standard deviation among repeated measurement data. In this paper, the type A uncertainty from repeated diffusivity measurements was determined using three separate measurements. Type B estimates uncertainty from all information excluding type A. Type B uncertainty applies a factor according to the shape of a probability density function. Type B uncertainty excluding the graduated cylinder resolution uncertainty was calculated by dividing the respective uncertainty by 3 of a rectangular distribution.

Assuming a rectangular distribution, the uncertainty in the mass measurement of sample was derived from the accuracy of the electronic balance. After the sample was exposed to high pressure, its dimensions varied by up to 2.5 %. This was used to calculate the type B uncertainty stemming from inconsistencies in the sample volume. Thus, type B uncertainty is obtained as 1.4 % by dividing 3 of a rectangular distribution. The standard deviation for gas enrichment data ranged from 0.5 % to 1.7 %. Therefore, a maximum of 1.7 % corresponds to type B uncertainty of 1.0 % by applying a rectangular distribution. The graduated cylinder has an accuracy of 0.5 %, which results in a type B uncertainty of 0.3 %. Furthermore, when using a graduated cylinder with a 10 mL scale, the smallest readable increment was 0.1 mL (A 1% relative uncertainty). Given that the resolution was effectively half of this minimum increment, the type B uncertainty due to resolution was calculated as 0.2 % by dividing 6 corresponding to a triangular distribution.

A manometer is used to measure the exposure pressure with accuracy of 1 % classified as grade A, and type B uncertainty is determined as 0.6 % by applying a rectangular distribution. In the laboratory, temperature and pressure fluctuated by ±0.5 °C and ±5 hPa, respectively; however, programmable compensation reduced the resulting type B uncertainty to less than 0.2 %. Using type A and type B uncertainties, the combined standard uncertainty is obtained with the root sum square method. Finally, the product of the coverage factor (k=2.1, confidence level of about 95 %) and combined standard uncertainty (uc) is obtained (U=k×uc) to yield the expanded uncertainty (U). Table 3 summarizes the sources of uncertainty along with the expanded uncertainty for the volumetric measurement system.

3.4 Performance test for two types of capacitive sensors

Table 4 presents the performance test results for the two types of capacitive electrode sensors. Sensitivity, resolution, stability, detection range, and response time were evaluated in the performance test. The sensitivity is defined as the slope of the change of capacitance according to the water level, which corresponds to 4.4 pF/mL for the coaxial-cylindrical sensor and 1.3 pF/mL for the semi-cylindrical sensor. The resolution corresponding to the minimum reading value is determined as 0.5 wt·ppm for the coaxial-cylindrical sensor and 2 wt·ppm for the semi-cylindrical sensor. Stability is defined as the standard deviation obtained 24 hours after the gas release measurement is completed, and it was found to be 10 wt·ppm for the coaxial-cylindrical sensor and 15 wt·ppm for the semi-cylindrical sensor. The maximum length of the electrode determines the maximum volume of gas that can be measured. Therefore, since the two electrodes have the same length, both have a detection range of up to 1000 wt·ppm for hydrogen uptake. Response time was measured as less than 1 second by a GIPB interfaced real-time measurement system with a frequency response analyzer with a repetition rate of 1 MHz. The above performance test was already carried out in our previous study [69].

The coaxial-cylindrical sensor outperforms the semi-cylindrical sensor in terms of sensitivity, resolution, and stability, and thus is a more accurate and reliable choice for detecting changes in capacitance due to gas diffusion. Its higher sensitivity and better resolution are particularly advantageous when precise measurement is critical. However, both sensors offer a similar detection range and quick response time, indicating that both are suitable for real-time monitoring applications.

3.5 Comparison of measured results determined by different methods

Figures 9 (a) and (b) shows the representative N2 gas uptake (C) and diffusivity (D), respectively, for LDPE at 6.4 MPa. These values were compared with the results obtained by the semi-cylindrical and coaxial-cylindrical electrode with the VSP-300 and a manual digital camera. The error bar indicates the extended uncertainty for each method. The average value of the gas uptake of LDPE calculated by four measurements is 1616 wt·ppm and the relative standard deviation is 1.1 %. The average value of the diffusion coefficient is 2.59×10-11 m2/s and the standard deviation is 3 %. The results obtained from the semi-cylindrical and coaxial electrodes and the manual camera in each experiment agree well.

4. CONCLUSION

A volumetric measurement system incorporating two types of capacitive sensors (coaxial-cylindrical and semi-cylindrical electrodes) to analyze gas transport properties in polymers was successfully developed and its performance was evaluated in this study. The diffusion, solubility, and permeability of hydrogen, helium, and nitrogen gases were measured in three polymer materials—NBR, LDPE, and HDPE. Diffusion parameters were determined using a self-developed analysis program based on Fick’s Law, enabling precise calculations of diffusion coefficients (D) and gas uptake (C). The results confirmed that the gas transport properties adhered to a single-mode diffusion process, with data consistency verified across both sensor types and conventional camera-based measurement techniques.

In performance tests the coaxial-cylindrical sensor outperformed the semi-cylindrical sensor in terms of sensitivity (4.4 pF/mL), resolution (0.5 wt·ppm), and stability (<10 wt·ppm). Both sensor types exhibited rapid response times of under one second and were capable of detecting gas concentrations up to approximately 1000 wt·ppm for H₂. Additionally, the expanded uncertainty analysis demonstrated that the coaxial-cylindrical sensor provided superior accuracy in measuring changes of capacitance, and is therefore more suitable for precise detection of gas diffusion properties. This performance advantage is attributed to the coaxial sensor's enhanced sensitivity to changes in the water level due to gas emissions.

Overall, the capacitive sensor-based measurement technique proved to be robust and reliable for evaluating gas transport properties, even under varying experimental conditions. The findings suggest that the coaxial-cylindrical sensor is the preferable option for applications requiring high sensitivity and precision in gas permeation measurements. In conclusion, the proposed measurement system, utilizing both coaxial-cylindrical and semi-cylindrical capacitive sensors, provides a viable, accurate, and rapid approach for analyzing gas transport properties in polymeric materials, offering significant potential for future applications in materials science and industrial research.

Notes

[1] ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This work was supported by Korea Evaluation Institute of Industrial Technology (KEIT) granted financial resource from the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy, Republic of Korea (No. RS-2024-00432628) and by the New & Renewable Energy Core Technology Program of Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) granted financial resource from the Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy, Republic of Korea. (No. RS-2024-00449107).

REFERENCES

1 
Jung J. K., Kim I. G., Chung K. S., Baek U. B., Mater. Chem. Phys,267, 124653 (2021)Google Search
2 
Jung J.-K., Kim K.-T., Chung N.-K., Baek U.-B., Nahm S.-H., Polymers,14, 1468 (2022)Google Search
3 
Kang H. M., Choi M. C., Lee J. H., Yun Y. M., Jang J. S., Chung N. K., Jeon S. K., Jung J. K., Lee J. H., Lee J. H., Polymers,14, 1151 (2022)Google Search
4 
Jung J. K., Kim I. G., Kim K., Curr. Appl. Phys,21, 43 (2021)Google Search
5 
Dell R. M., Electrochemistry in Research and Development,73-93, Springer (1985)Google Search
6 
Khorsandi A., Ghavami Sabouri S., J. Theor. Appl. Phys,14, 399 (2020)Google Search
7 
Jung J. K., Kim I. G., Kim K.-T., Baek U. B., Nahm S. H., Curr. Appl. Phys,26, 9 (2021)Google Search
8 
Ma C., Wang A., Opt. Lett,35, 2043 (2010)Google Search
9 
Wang L., Song J., Yu C., Measurement,249, 117039 (2025)Google Search
10 
Li Z., Yao Z., Haidry A. A., Plecenik T., Xie L., Sun L., Fatima Q., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,43, 21114 (2018)Google Search
11 
Haija M. A., Ayesh A. I., Ahmed S., Katsiotis M. S., Appl. Surf. Sci,369, 443 (2016)Google Search
12 
Kang H., Bae J., Lee J., Yun Y., Jeon S., Chung N., Jung J., Baek U., Lee J., Kim Y., Polymers,16, 1065 (2024)Google Search
13 
Xie H., Yu Q., Lu H., Zhang Y., Zhang J., Qin Q., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,42, 28718 (2017)Google Search
14 
Wang Z., Li Z., Jiang T., Xu X., Wang C., ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces,5, 2013 (2013)Google Search
15 
Jung J. K., Lee J. H., Sci. Rep,14, 1967 (2024)Google Search
16 
Zhanguo S., Zhang W., Abdulwahab A., Saleem S., Yao Y., Deifalla A., Taghavi M., Process Safety and Environmental Protection,173, 317 (2023)Google Search
17 
Lee J. H., Kim Y. W., Kim D. J., Chung N. K., Jung J. K., Polymers,16, 280 (2024)Google Search
18 
Profatilova I., Fouda-Onana F., Heitzmann M., Bacquart T., Morris A., Warren J., Haloua F., Jacques P.-A., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,65, 837 (2024)Google Search
19 
Jung J. K., Moon Y. I., Chung K. S., Kim K.-T., Macromol. Res,28, 596 (2020)Google Search
20 
Moon Y., Lee H., Jung J., Han H., Sci. Rep,13, 7846 (2023)Google Search
21 
Choi B.-L., Jung J. K., Baek U. B., Choi B.-H., Polymers,14, 861 (2022)Google Search
22 
Jung J. K., Lee C. H., Baek U. B., Choi M. C., Bae J. W., Polymers,14, 592 (2022)Google Search
23 
Nishimura S., Nippon Gomu Kyokaishi,86, 360 (2013)Google Search
24 
Gangloff R. P., Somerday B. P., Somerday, Gaseous hydrogen embrittlement of materials in energy technologies: the problem, its characterisation and effects on particular alloy classes,1-864, Elsevier (2012)Google Search
25 
Jung J. K., Lee J. H., Jeon S. K., Baek U. B., Lee S. H., Lee C. H., Moon W. J., Polymers,15, 162 (2022)Google Search
26 
Lee C. H., Jung J. K., Kim K. S., Kim C. J., Sci. Rep,14, 5319 (2024)Google Search
27 
Fujiwara H., Ono H., Onoue K., Nishimura S., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,45, 29082 (2020)Google Search
28 
Jung J. K., Baek U. B., Lee S. H., Choi M. C., Bae J. W., J. Polym Sci,61, 460 (2023)Google Search
29 
Honselaar M., Pasaoglu G., Martens A., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,43, 12278 (2018)Google Search
30 
Kim G.-H., Moon Y.-I., Jung J.-K., Choi M.-C., Bae J.-W., Polymers,14, 155 (2021)Google Search
31 
Lee J.-H., Kim Y.-W., Jung J.-K., Polymers,15, 4019 (2023)Google Search
32 
Lee J. H., Kim Y. W., Chung N. K., Kang H. M., Moon W. J., Choi M. C., Jung J. K., Polymer,311, 127552 (2024)Google Search
33 
Lee C. H., Jung J.-K., Jeon S. K., Ryu K. S., Baek U. B., J. Magn,22, 478 (2017)Google Search
34 
Moon Y. I., Jung J. K., Kim G. H., Chung K. S., Physica B,608, 412870 (2021)Google Search
35 
Wang Y., Pang Y., Xu H., Martinez A., Chen K. S., Energy Environ. Sci,15, 2288 (2022)Google Search
36 
Menon N. C., Kruizenga A. M., San Marchi C. W., Campbell J., Nissen A., Mills B. E., Polymer Behaviour in High Pressure Hydrogen Helium and Argon Environments as Applicable to the Hydrogen Infrastructure, Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM),Albuquerque (2017)Google Search
37 
Barth R. R., Simmons K. L., San Marchi C. W., Polymers for hydrogen infrastructure and vehicle fuel systems, Sandia National Lab. (SNL-CA),Livermore (2013)Google Search
38 
Aibada N., Manickam R., Gupta K. K., Raichurkar P., Int. J. Text. Eng. Process,3, 12 (2017)Google Search
39 
Jung J. K., Lee J. H., Jang J. S., Chung N. K., Park C. Y., Baek U. B., Nahm S. H., Sci. Rep,12, 3328 (2022)Google Search
40 
Alaghmandfard A., Fardindoost S., Frencken A. L., Hoorfar M., Ceram. Int,50, 29026 (2024)Google Search
41 
Kwon S.-K., Kim J.-N., Byun H.-G., Kim H.-J., Electrochem. Commun,169, 107834 (2024)Google Search
42 
Li Y., Yuan Z., Ji H., Meng F., Wang H., IEEE Trans. Ind. Electron,71, 11661 (2023)Google Search
43 
Huang Z., Yang W., Zhang Y., Yin J., Sun X., Sun J., Ren G., Tian S., Xu P., Yan M., J. Alloy. Compd,969, 171808 (2023)Google Search
44 
Chen Z., Chen X., Zhu Q., Zhao L., Zhao M., Xu W., Xu Q., Guo S., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,47, 19791 (2022)Google Search
45 
Shao S. M., Liu H., Shen L. Y., Zhang Y. P., He Y. B., J. Mater. Sci. Technol,80, 199 (2021)Google Search
46 
Li M., Zhang Z., Yan Z., Zhang H., Yang L., Mater. Chem. Phys,284, 126017 (2023)Google Search
47 
Lu X. H., Wang X. D., Yang Z. L., Ma S. B., Sun W. J., J. Alloy. Compd,934, 167740 (2023)Google Search
48 
Zhang S., Chen Y., Fu Y., Zhang Z., Guo H., Mater. Res. Bull,166, 112954 (2023)Google Search
49 
Jin Y., Yu L., Zhao M., Liu J., Yang G., Shi Z., J. Mater. Sci. Technol,74, 213 (2021)Google Search
50 
Islam M. S., Nasir N., Azad A. R., J. Mater. Res. Technol,20, 101 (2023)Google Search
51 
Zhang H., Cheng Q., Wu Y., Li H., Wang X., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,48, 11229 (2023)Google Search
52 
Kim J., Lee J, Kim H., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,43, 15469 (2018)Google Search
53 
Basso M., Paolucci V., Ricci V., Colusso E., Cattelan M., Napolitani E., Cantalini C., Gasparotto A., Appl. Surf. Sci,626, 157300 (2023)Google Search
54 
Karimi S., Yousefi M., Vaezi M. R., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,46, 18234 (2021)Google Search
55 
Cui L., Zhang W., Lin Y., Sun Y., Guo X., Polymers,16, 1432 (2024)Google Search
56 
Zargar A. A., Mirhosseini M. H., Sadighian S., Amini R., Mater. Today Energy,30, 101136 (2023)Google Search
57 
Forster T. D., Somerday B. P., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,38, 7539 (2013)Google Search
58 
Gupta K. K., Manickam R., Singh A. V., Raichurkar P., J. Ind. Text,52, 1236 (2023)Google Search
59 
Shaikh A. A., Javed M. S., Karimov K. S., J. Electron. Mater,52, 12345 (2023)Google Search
60 
Ahmed M. S., Ahmed S. R., Hossain A. A., Rahman A., Mater. Lett,323, 132611 (2024)Google Search
61 
Wang H., Huang L., Zhu Y., Zhang W., Ma S., Fang Y., Wang Y., Liang J., Yang J., Carbon,196, 171 (2022)Google Search
62 
Kang Y. J., Kang S. H., Jeong S. Y., Macromol. Res,28, 1145 (2020)Google Search
63 
Li J., Hou M., Qin Q., Cui J., Yu Q., Ceram. Int,50, 16259 (2024)Google Search
64 
Yin Z., He D., Ma H., Fu M., Mater. Today Energy,44, 102279 (2023)Google Search
65 
Zhang S., Chen Y., Fu Y., Zhang Z., Guo H., Mater. Res. Bull,166, 112954 (2023)Google Search
66 
Song Y., Lu Y., Deng S., Shen Y., Zhang Y., Wang T., Zhang J., Polymers,15, 2151 (2023)Google Search
67 
Wang Y., Wang X., Cheng S., Kong L., Shi G., Lin S., Yan Y., J. Mater. Sci. Technol,156, 113234 (2023)Google Search
68 
Wang K., Tang B., Xu H., Yang Y., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,48, 19068 (2023)Google Search
69 
Chen Z., Chen X., Zhu Q., Zhao L., Zhao M., Xu W., Xu Q., Guo S., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,47, 19791 (2022)Google Search
70 
Li K., Li W., Lin F., Zhao C., Yang H., Zhang X., J. Mater. Sci. Technol,81, 54 (2022)Google Search
71 
Liu S., Zhu Y., Wang X., Wu H., Polymers,15, 4321 (2023)Google Search
72 
Chen J., Xu Z., Yang L., Wu Y., Li Q., Ceram. Int,49, 12345 (2023)Google Search
73 
Zhang F., Tang H., Lin X., Yu Q., J. Mater. Res. Technol,14, 123 (2024)Google Search
74 
Kumar S., Gupta V., Singh M., Mater. Today Energy,32, 101255 (2024)Google Search
75 
Zhao Y., Chen L., Li J., Zhao M., Wang X., Polymers,15, 2023 (2023)Google Search
76 
Kim T., Lee J. H., Jung S. H., Int. J. Hydrogen Energy,46, 18255 (2021)Google Search
77 
Park S., Lee J., Kim M., Jang H., J. Polym. Sci,58, 1025 (2023)Google Search
78 
Lee H., Kim Y., Jung J., Jeon S., Polymers,16, 1400 (2024)Google Search

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1.

Schematic diagram of (a) gas enriching chamber with gas bombe and (b) graduated cylinder in water bath with the changed water level by gas emitted from the polymer specimens. The blue area in (b) indicates distilled water.

../../Resources/kim/KJMM.2025.63/kjmm-2025-63-7-515f1.jpg
Fig. 2.

Overall diagram of the three-channel volumetric measurement system. Measurement of the capacitance through the VSP-300 with three cylinders and three electrodes. The blue area represents distilled water and the brown vertical thick line is the capacitive electrode. The gas-enriched sample is placed in the empty top space of the cylinder and then the measurement commences. Temperature and pressure are monitored in real time and experiments are controlled through the GPIB interface.

../../Resources/kim/KJMM.2025.63/kjmm-2025-63-7-515f2.jpg
Fig. 3.

Structures of (a) semi-cylindrical capacitor and (b) coaxial-cylindrical capacitor. The brown color indicates the electrodes.

../../Resources/kim/KJMM.2025.63/kjmm-2025-63-7-515f3.jpg
Fig. 4.

A diffusion analysis program for analyzing diffusion parameters is made using Visual Studio. The shape and dimensions of the material are inserted into the analysis program. In the unknown parameter list tab, 1, 2, and 3 indicate D, C, and Coff-set, respectively. These parameters are calculated using Eq. (11) in the case of the sheet sample shapes.

../../Resources/kim/KJMM.2025.63/kjmm-2025-63-7-515f4.jpg
Fig. 5.

Sequence of acquiring diffusion parameters measured for a LDPE sheet by employing coaxial-cylindrical electrodes with a frequency response analyzer. (a) Pre-calibration data expressed as a 2nd polynomial equation between the water level and capacitance by quadratic regression; (b) water level transferred from the pre-calibration with black and blue squares corresponding to the capacitance and transformed water level versus time, respectively. (c) diffusion parameters D and C determined using a diffusion analysis program by application of Eq. (11). The blue line is the total compensated emission curve C E s h e   ( t ) restoring the missing content due to the lag time.

../../Resources/kim/KJMM.2025.63/kjmm-2025-63-7-515f5.jpg
Fig. 6.

Sequence of acquiring diffusion parameters measured for a LDPE sheet by employing semi-cylindrical electrodes with a frequency response analyzer. (a) Pre-calibration data expressed as a 2nd polynomial equation between the water level and capacitance by quadratic regression; (b) water level transferred from the pre-calibration with black and blue squares corresponding to the capacitance and transformed water level versus time, respectively. (c) Diffusion parameters D and C determined using a diffusion analysis program by application of Eq. (11). The blue line is the total compensated emission curve C E s h e   ( t ) restoring the missing content due to the lag time.

../../Resources/kim/KJMM.2025.63/kjmm-2025-63-7-515f6.jpg
Fig. 7.

The measured volume and gas emission versus time after decompression. (a) Cylindrical shaped HDPE with coaxial-cylindrical electrode at 6 MPa H2 gas pressure. (b) Cylindrical shaped NBR with semi-cylindrical electrode at 7.6 MPa He gas pressure. (c) Sheet shaped LDPE with semi-cylindrical electrode at 6.4 MPa N2 gas pressure. r and t in (a) and (b) denote radius and thickness, respectively, in the cylindrical specimen. t in (c) is the thickness of the sheet shape LDPE.

../../Resources/kim/KJMM.2025.63/kjmm-2025-63-7-515f7.jpg
Fig. 8.

(a) The gas uptake (C) and (b) diffusion coefficient (D) of H2, He, and N2 as a function of pressure for the LDPE, HDPE, and NBR specimens. In (a), the solid lines represent the linear fit of gas uptake (C) with regard to pressure in the three samples with the slope value. In (b), the solid lines represent the average diffusivity (Davr) of the three sample with the averaged value. All data in H2 are obtained using the coaxial electrode for HDPE, LDPE, and NBR. The LDPE are NBR data are obtained with the semi-cylindrical electrode under He gas pressure. On the other hand, the HDPE data are obtained with the coaxial electrode. The NBR data are obtained with the coaxial electrode under N2 gas pressure.

../../Resources/kim/KJMM.2025.63/kjmm-2025-63-7-515f8.jpg
Fig. 9.

Comparison of the results of semi-cylindrical electrode, coaxial-cylindrical electrode, and manual camera measurements for N2 gas in LDPE at 6.4 MPa. (a) Gas uptake and (b) the diffusivity versus measuring method for the N2 gas in the samples.

../../Resources/kim/KJMM.2025.63/kjmm-2025-63-7-515f9.jpg
Table 1.

Chemical composition of NBR rubber.

NBR
Filler-reinforcing Carbon black (50)*
Processing aid 1, 2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid (6)
Antioxidant 2-Benzimidazolethiol (2)
Crosslinker Sulfur (2)
Crystallinity+ (%) 0.24
Density (g/cm3) 1.30

* The value in ( ) are weight ratios in %.

Table 2.

A summary of the Dave, S, and P values for H2, He, and N2 gases for NBR, HDPE, and LDPE polymers

Gas
Davr (×10-11m2/s)
S (mol/m3·MPa)
P (×10-10mol/m·s·MPa)
Specimen
Specimen
Specimen
NBR HDPE LDPE NBR HDPE LDPE NBR HDPE LDPE
H2 7.5 22.7 4.2[39] 9.8 7.3 5.4[39] 7.4 16.6 2.3[39]
He 19.5[69] 16.1 78.6 9.0[69] 1.0 1.7 17.6[69] 1.7 13.5
N2 1.2[69] 2.34 2.53 11.0[69] 3.5 6.0 1.3[69] 0.8 1.5
Table 3.

Factors of uncertainty and expanded uncertainty in volumetric measurement system.

Uncertainty source Relative value
Repeated measurement 3.5
Accuracy of electronic balance 0.1
Change in the sample volume 1.4
Standard deviation between the data and Eq. (9) 1.0
Accuracy of the graduated cylinder 0.3
Resolution of the graduated cylinder 0.2
Accuracy of the manometer 0.6
Variation in the temperature and pressure 0.2
Combined standard uncertainty 4.0
Coverage factor 2.1
Expanded uncertainty 8.4
Table 4.

Performance test results for coaxial and semi-cylindrical capacitor sensors.

Performance item Coaxial-cylindrical Semi-cylindrical
Sensitivity 4.4 pF/mL 1.3 pF/mL
Resolution 0.5 wt·ppm 2 wt·ppm
Stability <10 wt·ppm <15 wt·ppm
Detection range ~max 1000 wt·ppm for H2 ~max 1000 wt·ppm for H2
Response time <1s <1s