IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 1, NO.
3, OCTOBER 2001
A Contribution on Some Basic Definitions of Sensors
Properties
Arnaldo D’Amico, Member, IEEE, and Corrado Di Natale, Member, IEEE
Abstract—This paper describes, through simple examples, the
meaning of some key terms frequently used, sometimes incorrectly,
in the field of sensors. They are sensor response curve, sensitivity,
noise, drift, resolution, and selectivity. These words, if well-inter-
preted, represent a powerful vehicle of information and may sym-
bolize part of a common knowledge useful for a sound dissemina-
tion of results relative to the sensors research. All of this is also
aimed at stimulating any effort in order to facilitate the transition
between sensor and sensor science development.
Index Terms—Drift, noise, resolution, selectivity, sensitivity,
sensor response curve.
I. INTRODUCTION
T HE continuous progress of the microelectronic technolo-
gies together with developments in material science has
sustained the sensor area growth for many years. Contributing
to sensor progress are advances in chemistry, biology, surface
science, chaos and information theory, signal processing, nano-
technology, and simulation tools.
All of these aspects, which are strongly pluridisciplinary in
character, together with promising markets on the horizon in the
fields of medicine, industrial processes, transportation, space,
and food and beverage control, are contributing to the birth of
the sensor science discipline. Moreover, the rather recent in-
terests and efforts in many laboratories all over the world, in
the DNA chip studies and genoma projects and in transgenic
technologies, have enlarged even more the positive perspec-
tive of this rather young scientific domain. A positive conse-
quence is its relevance and importance particularly in the de-
velopment of social life in the near future. Some of the new
branches of this revolution, for instance, bioinstrumentation,
will certainly require more and more nanobiosensors which, al-
though not yet completely identified, will certainly be promoters
of new themes of advanced research and of needs of new fine
technologies and nanometrology. In order to allow a coherent
sensor development from both the scientific and technical point
of view, it is necessary to promote an accurate dissemination of
scientific information among all those interested in the sensor
area. The knowledge of standards and that set of definitions,
which have their roots into the branch of the measurement sci-
Manuscript received September 18, 2000; revised July 9, 2001. The associate
editor coordinating the review of this paper and approving it for publication was
Dr. Thaddeus A. Roppel.
The authors are with the Department of Electronic Engineering, University
of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy, and also with the Progetto Sensori e
Microsistemi, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Rome, Italy (e-mail:
damico@eln.uniroma2.it).
Publisher Item Identifier S 1530-437X(01)08363-4.
1530–437X/01$10.00 © 2001 IEEE
183
ence, is mandatory if we wish to see technology and fundamen-
tals on sensor science develop together.
This paper will give an overview of a few definitions, some-
times disregarded, when the most frequently used quantities
related to sensors are considered. These are: sensor response
curve, sensitivity, noise, drift, resolution, and selectivity [1].
These quantities and definitions represent a significant part of
a basic knowledge that should be known and utilized on behalf
of the sensor community.
It is important to point out that, in this work, the word sensor
will always be used, meaning that, for instance, we will call
sensor a piece of semiconductor in the presence of absorbed
photons where the conductivity value depends, among other
things, on the intensity of the incident light, without having
knowledge need on the real conductivity value. A system
composed by the semiconductor, a current generator, a voltage
preamplifier, an analog to digital converter whose output is
represented by a digital number related in some way to the
light intensity, can also be called sensor. Even a more com-
plex system where, in addition, we may have compensation
capability on board versus drift, temperature, pressure, relative
humidity and nonlinearity, can enter the same definition.
It is worth mentioning that another common word, which has
been successful in the literature and among sensor operators, is
“transducer.” This word is meant to represent almost all possible
energy transformations that take place in a sensor system [2].
Nevertheless, we will consider the effect of the transduction ac-
tion incorporated in the word “sensor” maintaining in this way,
on a semantic basis, a more direct link with the natural senses
of living beings. But we have to keep in mind that for a deeper
understanding of the sensing mechanisms and in view of having
the possibility for an optimized utilization of the intrinsic mech-
anisms of sensing materials and sensing properties, one should
also consider all the possible energy transformations involved.
Any kind of sensor has a transduction action, inherently
present or introduced ad hoc. It allows the useful transformation
from measurand changes to electrical/optical outputs that are
more suitable for data analysis and for the activation of high
level processes for data presentation.
Let us consider two examples, among the many possible ones,
of the cohabitation of the sensing and transduction concepts.
A p/n, or PIN, or even a Schottky diode type solar cell con-
verts electromagnetic radiation absorbed into the space charge
region, or even a diffusion length far away from it, in either a
voltage (open circuit) or a current (closed circuit). This result,
as is well known, is activated by the presence of the internal
electric field distribution or built-in potential. A thermistor (of
metallic or semiconductor type) converts heat into a voltage or
184 IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 1, NO. 3, OCTOBER 2001

Fig. 1. Block scheme of a complete sensor with telecommunication capabilities (transmission and receiver interface) and an energy block able to activate a
transponder action for the accumulation of energy through an electromagnetic field. A microprocessor is also present for the control of all blocks and even for the
X
conditioning of the environment around the sensor. represents an internal property of the sensing block, for instance the resistance of a given thermistor. Sensor
behavior is generally and sufficiently described, as we have done in this paper, by the first four blocks on the top part of the figure.

a current; this mechanism is activated by the presence of a cur-
rent injected through it or by an applied voltage, respectively.
These two sensors have different sensing actions. In the first
case, for each absorbed photon, an electron-hole couple is even-
tually produced; in the second, for a temperature change, there
is a change in conductivity. For these two sensors, a transduction
action (presence of an internal electric field, in the first case, and
of an injected current in the second one) is necessary in order to
allow the transformation of the sensing effect into a signal suit-
able for other signal processing procedures.
All the above considerations appear logically acceptable but
sometimes the force of habit is stronger than the will to change
and in the literature sometimes the sensing and transduction ac-
tions are compressed into the word “transducer,” which may
also include preprocessing elements.
Fig. 1 shows a simple block diagram of an ideal sensor,
aiming to have the readers imagine a certain degree of com-
plexity that it could assume. However, in most cases, the
structure of a sensor is greatly simplified, especially those
utilized for studies at fundamental research levels. In it, we
recognize the generalized input measurand , which can be
a physical, chemical, or biological quantity, the transduction
part, the preamplifier, the filter, the analog to digital block,
a microprocessor for data processing and storage, a display
block, the transmission/receiver interface, and the energy
block allowing the operativity of each part of the sensor. This
last block can be incorporated close to the sensor system or
the energy could be taken from outside by batteries or by a
storing action induced by electromagnetic energy (transponder
technique). Also some feedback and/or feed-forward paths may
be present, which would be aimed at improving accuracy and
also linearization procedures, while offset and noise reduction
strategies may be also incorporated, if necessary.
However, in this paper, only the upper part blocks of Fig. 1
will be utilized as a reference for our discussion.
II. SENSOR RESPONSE CURVE
The output response, shown in Fig. 2(a), of a given sensor, is
the representation of its output as a function of the measurand
applied to its input. It is called sensor response curve, frequently
called, erroneously, sensitivity curve. A variety of quantities can
correctly represent the sensor output response. Let us give some
simple examples. In the case of a chemical sensor based on the
conductivity or resistance variation with respect to changes of
the input concentration of a given volatile compound, it is rec-
ommended to use one of the following possibilities: (conduc-
tance), (relative conductance); (relative
change of the conductance); (resistance), (relative re-
sistance), (relative change of the resistance).
and represent reference values considered for the normaliza-
tion [3].
D’AMICO AND DI NATALE: A CONTRIBUTION ON SOME BASIC DEFINITIONS OF SENSORS PROPERTIES
(a)
(b)
Fig. 2. (a) Response curve and (b) sensitivity of a generic chemical sensor
characterized by a Langmuir-like adsorption isotherm.
In the case of a quartz-based sensor, it is possible to use:
(frequency), (relative frequency) or even
where is the reference frequency [4]. In the case of a chemical
MOSFET, with its gate sensitive to a given chemical species, it
is possible to use: , , , or even
, , where and represent the polar-
ization voltage and current [5].
The sensor response curve represented in Fig. 2(a), as an ex-
ample, tells us that the sensitivity approaches zero for sufficiently
high values and values, different from zero, where its slope
is different from zero. In fact in presence of high values, the
output tends to remain constant, which means that the sensors, in
this condition, do not react to the input variations.
One can obtain the sensitivity curve by a derivative proce-
dure from the response curve, as represented in Fig. 2(b), and
the indication along the sensitivity axes must specify the change
of the output with respect to the input, such as, for instance,
, or , or even
, and so on. Let us introduce a possible ter-
minology of the different sensitivities that characterize a given
sensor taking into consideration the first column of Table I.
All the definitions based on the output/input derivative, always
valid simply because sensors are, generally speaking, nonlinear
in character, can be simplified in those cases where the degree of
nonlinearity can be neglected. In those cases, leaving the possi-
bility of an offset, the second column of Table I applies. If, on the
185
other hand, the sensor response curve can be piecewise linearized,
then many sensitivities can be defined one for each linear piece,
but the interval to whichthe linearity applies should be speci-
fied. In absence of offset, of course, the sensitivity can be furtherly
simplified as expressed in column 3 of Table I.
III. INTERNAL SENSITIVITY
By this term, which deserves a bit of attention, we intend the
degree of reaction of a given sensitive material property ,
with respect to a measurand change that can be infinitesimal,
finite, or total. According to the input measurand change,
may be represented in three ways: , , ,
in the cases of nonlinear, linear with offset and linear without
offset behavior.
The offset, which can also be time dependent, can come by
some memory and aging effects, unbalancing of differential
stages of the preamplifier and amplifier, or even by the mea-
suring technique.
does really represent a meaningful parameter useful for
the comparison among similar kinds of sensors with respect to
the same measurand, or even with respect to different types of
measurand. In this last case, it is worth considering different
internal sensitivities, each referred to one type of measurand.
( : number of measurands)
The dependence of internal sensitivities on the possible mea-
surand may be rather complex if we take into consideration
the fact that interference among measurands is possible as
well interference on the internal sensitivity mechanisms of
the sensing material. For instance, if we consider a thermistor
,
for the measurement of temperature ( is the measurand), it
may occur that it is also sensitive to relative humidity ,
pressure , or surface contamination , as well as time .
,
So, may be contaminated by unwanted input quantities. As a
consequence, one of the internal properties, such as the resistivity
, can be expressed as a function of nonindependent quantities
through a Taylor expansion.
Fortunately, in most of the practical cases, we do not have
to deal with all these terms or it is possible to create operative
conditions for the sensor, in order to avoid them. Thus, the ex-
pression of the resistivity can be greatly simplified to include
only linear terms and, due to the intrinsic noise level, most of
the cross-term coefficients of the Taylor expansion can be con-
sidered small enough to be neglected.
IV. SENSITIVITY AND RESOLUTION IN A PRACTICAL CASE
As an example, let us consider a practical case schematically
shown in Fig. 3, where the existing link between sensitivity and
resolution appears evident. The following considerations are de-
rived under the listed assumptions.
a) The sensor is a metallic thermistor with a positive tem-
perature coefficient (PTC) of resistance, whose resistance
is employed for the measurement of the tempera-
ture ( is the measurand).
186 IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 1, NO. 3, OCTOBER 2001

TABLE I
DEFINITION OF SENSITIVITY IN THREE CASES: NONLINEAR SENSOR, LINEAR SENSOR WITH OFFSET, AND LINEAR DENSOR WITHOUT OFFSET. THE INTERNAL
SENSITIVITY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT CHARACTERIZES THE SENSING MATERIAL OF THE FRONT-END SENSOR

a) the output voltage of the amplifier is given by

b) the relative change of the output voltage which can be

expressed as

Fig. 3. Schematic of a sensor formed by a positive temperature coefficient

thermistor supplied by (I ) a constant current generator and (A) an amplifier
with amplification . All the three components are supposed to be dependent on
(T ) temperature, (p) pressure, (RH ) relative humidity, and (t) time.

b) The thermistor is supplied by a current generator followed

by an amplifier with amplification independent of the
frequency.
c) The input impedance of the amplifier is as high as to ne-
glect any input current coming from the current generator.
d) Let , , be all dependent on
e) Let the response curve be accurately determined with neg-
ligible errors in the calibration procedure.
These constraints can be removed without invalidating or di-
lutingthegeneralityofboththeexampleandthefollowingconsid- If we consider the simplified case where the voltage is
erations, which are presented for elucidating the basic concepts. given by the following product
Concerning the output signal (voltage as an a example), we have
by inspection
D’AMICO AND DI NATALE: A CONTRIBUTION ON SOME BASIC DEFINITIONS OF SENSORS PROPERTIES 187

where the factors are only temperature dependent, we have

Fig. 4. Simplified schematic of Fig. 3. Here, only the thermistor is supposed

to be temperature dependent.

working point , then we can write

Eliminating the denominator, we have

Multiplying both members by , we get

It is worth mentioning that, in this example, the overall sensi-

tivity can be modified by changing both the value of the polar-
As the quantities and represent sensitivities, it is ization current and the amplification value . As a particular
possible to write case, when A and (The product equal to
1), the overall sensitivity coincides with the internal sensitivity.
Fig. 5 shows, as an example, the linear behavior of , the
effect of the injected current that gives rise to a voltage ,
and of the amplification that gives rise to the
product. All the changes on and should be done in order
to have a negligible self-heating of the thermistor and an am-
When coincides with the output noise level , then plifier noise as low as possible to obtain an optimal resolution
the above relationship gives the following expression for the value for the determination of small temperature changes.
resolution
V. NOISE AND DRIFT
resolution
Due to the unavoidable fluctuations of chemical, physical,
and biological quantities, any property of a given sensing mate-
In the case of a further simplification relative to Fig. 4, where rial experiences fluctuations that represent the origin of the elec-
the current and the amplification are temperature indepen- trical noise, evaluated as the root mean square value of the fluc-
dent, we have tuations. Sensors, whatever their complexity may be, manifest
noise at their output with a given signal to noise ratio. This noise
is one of the reasons that the resolution cannot approach the zero
value. Another direct reason is the sensitivity value limitation.
and
Different kinds of noise may be present, even if not simultane-
ously, in a given sensor, such as Johnson (thermal), shot, gener-
ation recombination (g–r), contact, (flicker) noise [6]–[8].
Certainly, without the knowledge of the noise level, it is not
As an example, let us consider that, as a first approximation,
possible to estimate the resolution. As we have seen, the resolu-
is the resistance of the PTC thermistor at
tion is obtained through a limit procedure and the relationship
a given temperature (where is the resistance at ), and
is here reported for a further consideration in its general form
represents a suitable DC or AC current, while is the constant
amplifier gain. Supposing also that the injected current does not
induce, through the heating process, a detectable change of the resolution
188 IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 1, NO. 3, OCTOBER 2001

[ (T )] is the
Fig. 5. This figure shows how the multiplication factors (I and A) operate on the internal sensitivity value. This figure has three vertical axes: R
resistance value at T (point A); R T( +1 ) T is the resistance value at T+1 [ ] [R I A ]
T , point B; R 1 I is the voltage across the thermistor, (point C); 1 1
is the voltage out of the amplifier (point D).

It is worth pointing out that, in a nonlinear transfer function, The values of the three resolutions may result differently from
the sensitivity and the noise level are functions of the oper- eachother, and, certainly, there exists an o.p. around which the
ating point (o.p.) and so is the resolution. As a consequence, it resolution has the optimum value . This would corre-
appears that is not correct to specify the resolution of a given spond to the contemporaneous presence of both the minimum
sensor, as it frequently appears in literature, without the accu- noise and the maximum sensitivity levels. In this case we could
rate specification of its o.p. talk of the minimum detectable measurand. Of course, these are
Let us consider Fig. 6, where a response curve of a given theoretic considerations but, in practice, it is generally accepted
sensor is represented versus the measurand level. Let , , to consider a signal level equal, for instance, to 3 times (or even
and be the sensitivities related to , , and ( 9 times) the noise level. This choice should be mentioned and
means any value inside the input dynamic range) and specified when the resolution value is reported.
. is the measurand value to which the sensor The noise problem deserves other general thoughts. For in-
responds with its total output noise level . Concerning the stance, in the case of a thermistor followed by a transducer (cur-
theoretic resolution, we have three different possibilities: one rent generator) and a voltage amplifier, it is well known that the
related to any point between and and the others amplifier output noise level mainly depends on the frequency
related to and . range through which the measurement is performed and on the
For these three conditions we can write impedance value of the thermistor.
A simple theoretic consideration tells us that there exists only
one value for which the coupling condition between the ther-
resolution mistor and the amplifier is well matched. In this peculiar state,
the noise contribution of the amplifier is minimum. In prac-
resolution at the left extreme tical operative conditions, in addition, the thermistor impedance
changes due to a temperature variation and the matching con-
resolution dition is always violated. If the measurand does not perturb too
much the resistance value, then the sensitivity value may be con-
resolution around any point sidered unchanged, as well as the overall noise. In presence of
higher measurand level variations, both the sensitivity and
inside the input dynamic range may change and, as a consequence, so may the resolution.
resolution Sometimes, the measurand may be characterized by a con-
stant bias value and a changeable one; and the DC value may
bring the o.p. in an unacceptable noise level condition where the
resolution at the right extreme.
S/N ratio at the amplifier output can be degraded, reducing the
D’AMICO AND DI NATALE: A CONTRIBUTION ON SOME BASIC DEFINITIONS OF SENSORS PROPERTIES
overall sensor performance. This suggests that the choice of a
sensor should be done together with the selection of the pream-
plifier trying to reproduce the matching conditions nearby the
designed o.p. as much as possible.
Concerning the drift, we can define it as a slow unpredictable
change of the sensor output, undefined from the statistical point
of view, which is superimposed to both the signal and noise
levels. Its origin may be correlated to the aging of the sensing
material (release of internal stresses, slow residual diffusion
processes) and of the electronic components that interact with
chemical, physical and biological quantities present in the en-
vironment. Its presence can be detected usually through a long
time observation and can be considered another reason of the
loss of accuracy of the sensor.
A rather satisfactory shrewdness consists in using sensors
having response time as low as possible and in controlling both
the zero level stability at the output and the calibration state.
Finally, it is worth mentioning that, in frequent cases, due to
the insufficient knowledge of the shielding rules, interference
noises may become much more important than the fundamental
noise source levels with an unacceptable impact on the precision
and accuracy of the measurement done by the sensor. In these
cases, if allowed on behalf of the particular kind of sensor ap-
plication, a strategy based on phase-sensitive detection (lock-in,
box car, averages) may be advantageously utilized for the de-
tection of periodic or pulsed signals embedded into the envi-
ronmental noise even when the S/N ratio is less than 1 and, in
. ..
particular cases, down to about
VI. SELECTIVITY
Almost always, sensors designed to be sensitive to a given
measurand show undesired internal sensitivities to other mea-
surands whose nature can be physical, chemical, or even bio-
logical in character.
There is one case (the use of sensor arrays for the so-called
electronic noses and tongue applications) where the presence of
different sensitivities plays the key role for the working prin-
ciple of the overall sensor system. Whatever the case may be,
it is possible to define, for a given sensor or sensor system, the
term cross sensitivity. Given a sensor sensitive to a manifold of
measurands called here and, confining our attention
to only the internal sensitivities in a first approximation, the fol-
lowing relationship can be written as
where are the sensitivities toward each measurand, con-
tributing to the sensor signal.
If is the measurand then the selectivity toward can be
defined as [9]
for
Sensitivities may be independent of each other, but there are
cases where they depend one each other. In these circumstances
the sensor output expression should also include the cross and
189
second order terms. However, in the case of independent sen-
sitivities, selectivity can be estimated, at calibration level, by
a one-by-one technique, determining the response to one mea-
surand per time in a given domain of values.
In the case of specificity (namely when among the quanti-
ties occurring in an environment the sensitivity toward one is
dominant), a sensor may be fruitfully utilized to get informa-
tion about one of them. In other cases, being the response of the
sensor, due to more than one quantity, the information provided
by the sensor is ambiguous, and no straightforward information
about the environment can be achieved.
The way to overcome this situation is the use of arrays of
sensors.
Let us consider a set of sensors, each sensitive to the same
quantities. These quantities can be measured using sensors
with .
In the general case of nonlinear sensors, the response of the
sensors can be represented as
It is possible to define a local sensitivity through the Jacobian
matrix of the previous system of equations. It defines the sensi-
tivities of the sensors toward all the involved quantities [10].
..
. .
Extending the concept of selectivity previously given, the se-
lectivity of the array may be defined as the capability of the array
to retrieve the values of the quantities at which the sensors
are sensitive to. It is clear that, around the o.p. where the matrix
is defined, the measure of is obtained inverting the
linearized system. This is possible if the condition
is met.
In particular, the greater the is, the safer is the numer-
ical inversion of the array equation.
The maximum selectivity is achieved when the Jacobian ma-
trix is diagonal; this corresponds to the case of an array com-
posed of specific sensors.
VII. CONCLUSION
This paper has reviewed the meaning of some of the key words
which are relevant to the sensor field: sensor response curve, sen-
sitivity, noise, drift, resolution, and selectivity. The correct under-
standing of these words and their implications is of fundamental
importance for the scientific and industrial community interested
in sensor science development since it allows the correct dissem-
ination of both experimental and theoretic results. All of this will
turn out to be essential for the promotion and propagation of a
correct scientific dialogue among people belonging to academic
institutions, industries, and national research centers, and for the
final common benefit deriving from the accurate description of
the most important sensor parameters.
In view of the future development of sensors driven by the in-
creasing demand of accuracy and precision, and by the opening
190
Fig. 6. Response curve representing the way of defining the three of
resolutions. Resolution (M , also “minimum detectable measurand” or
=
“limit of detection” in literature), when M M , Resolution (1 )
M ,
( )
when M approaches M , and Resolution M , when M approaches M .
of new fields close to the biological area, which is capturing
a new attention toward nano-biosensors fabrication, it appears
even more important to properly use the sensor terminology of
which, in this case, only a few key-words have been examined.
One of the most important aspects in the sensor field is the pre-
sentation of data characterizing the sensor behavior. If the in-
trinsic (front-end sensor) is followed by a linear system, then the
determination of the sensitivity can be done on the overall sensor
response curve, considering point by point the derivative of the
response curve with respect to the measurand. Also, the sen-
sitivity curve represents an adequate tank of information. An-
other piece of information concerns the resolution that is linked
to the noise evaluation. Noise measurement should enter the
sensor community with more emphasis and acceptance, keeping
in mind that only noise measurements can allow, together with
the sensitivity, the estimation of the resolution, which aids in the
selection of the sensor with best performance.
Due to the nonlinearity of most sensors, their sensitivity turns
out to be dependent on the o.p. and also the output noise; these
considerations indicate that also the resolution is o.p. dependent,
so the resolution should be declared together with the o.p.
In practice, the indication of the best operative condition of
the sensor concerning the minimum detectable signal can also
represent a piece of useful information. It is also worth men-
tioning that, in the list of the features characterizing a given
sensor, the best shielding technique against electromagnetic in-
terference should also be described.
As far as the sensitivity is concerned the intrinsic one, which
is, in our view, the most important, it is always represented by
the ratio of two nonhomogeneous quantities, while in the case of
current and voltage amplification or even transamplification, it
is preferable to talk of amplification instead of sensitivity, speci-
fiying the operative conditions.
Other terms are important in the sensor field such as speed
of response, reversibility, repeatability, reproducibility, and sta-
bility. This paper has not discussed them because the literature
seems to show a more general agreement.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The skillful assistance of Dr. C. Falconi in preparing the man-
uscript is gratefully acknowledged.
IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL, VOL. 1, NO. 3, OCTOBER 2001
REFERENCES
[1] International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology,
second ed., Int. Org. Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, 1993.
[2] S. Middelhoek and A. Audet, Silicon Sensors. New York: Academic,
1994.
[3] W. Göpel and K. D. Schierbaum, “SnO sensors: Current status and
future prospects,” Sens. Actuators B, vol. 26, p. 1, 1995.
[4] A. D’Amico, E. Verona, and C. Di Natale, “Acoustic devices,” in Hand-
book of Biosensors and Electronic Noses, E. Kress-Rogers, Ed. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC, 1997.
[5] I. Lundström, M. S. Shivaram, C. M. Svensson, and L. Lundkvist, “Hy-
drogen sensitive MOS field effect transistor,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 26,
p. 55, 1975.
[6] 1
F. N. Hooge, “ =f noise sources,” IEEE Trans. Electron Devices, vol.
41, p. 1926, Nov. 1994.
[7] C. Van Vliet, “Responsivity and noise in illustrative solid-state chemical
sensors,” Sens. Actuators B, vol. 24, p. 6, 1995.
[8] J. R. Vig and Y. Kim, “Noise in microelectromechanical system res-
onators,” IEEE Trans. Ultrason., Ferroelect., Freq. Contr., vol. 46, p.
1558, Nov. 1999.
[9] K. D. Schierbaum, U. Weimar, and W. Göpel, “Multicompoennt gas
analysis: An analytical chemistry approach applied to modified SnO
sensors,” Sens. Actuators B, vol. 2, p. 71, 1990.
[10] F. Davide, C. Di Natale, and A. D’Amico, “Sensor arrays figure of
merits: Definitions and properties,” Sens. Actuators B, vol. 13, p. 327,
1993.
Arnaldo D’Amico (M’00) received the Laurea de-
gree in physics and electronic engineering from the
University La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
For several years, he has been with the National
Research Council (CNR) leading the Semiconduc-
tors Laboratory at the Solid State Electronic Institute,
Rome. In 1988, he was appointed Full Professor of
electronics at the University of L’Aquila, and, since
1990, he has been with the University of Rome Tor
Vergata where he leads the Sensors and Microsys-
tems Group and is Full Professor of electronics, Fac-
ulty of Engineering. He teaches courses on electronic devices, low-voltage elec-
tronics, microsystems, and sensors. Currently, his main research activities are
concerned with the research and development of physical and chemical sensors,
low voltage electronics, noise, and advanced electronic devices. He is author of
more than 350 papers in international journals and conference proceedings.
He has been Chairman of several conferences on sensors, electronics, and
noise and a member of the editorial board of the journals Sensors and Actuators
A (physical) and Sensors and Actuators B (chemical). Currently, he is serving
as Chairman of the Steering Committee of the Eurosensors conference series
and Associate Editor of the IEEE SENSORS JOURNAL. At the national level, he is
Chairman of the National Society of Sensors and Microsystems (AISEM) and
Director of the subproject Sensors of the Finalised Project MADESS II of the
National Research Council (CNR).
Corrado Di Natale (M’01) received the Laurea
degree in physics from the University La Sapienza,
Rome, Italy, in 1987.
Since 1999, he has been with the Department of
Electronic Engineering at the University of Rome
Tor Vergata, Rome, where he is Associate Professor
of electronics, Faculty of Engineering. He teaches
courses on sensors and detectors. Currently, his main
research activities are concerned with the research
and development of physical and chemical sensors,
artificial senses (olfaction and taste), molecular
electronics, and the analysis of multivariate data. He is author of more than 200
papers in international journals and conference proceedings