“…To 1000 ppm ethanol, ethyl-acetate, acetone, xylene, and toluene at 260 • C, the CuO flower sensor has responses of 4.0, 4.6, 3.8, 3.6, and 2.8, respectively, while the CuO nanosheet sensor possesses relatively low responses of 3.0, 2.3, 2.7, 2.2, and 1.6. Furthermore, the response of the CuO flower sensor is slightly higher or comparable to that of other CuO-based sensors such as CuO nanowires [38], belt-like CuO nanoparticles [39], porous CuO superstructures [40], nanoparticle-aggregated CuO hollow spheres [41], and nanorod-assembled CuO flowers [42]. For example, our CuO flower-based sensor (4.0) exhibits a slightly higher response to 1000 ppm ethanol at the optimum temperature compared to the CuO nanowires (1.27) [38], belt-like CuO nanoparticles (2.39) [39], and nanoparticle-aggregated CuO hollow spheres (3.0) [41], respectively.…”