Next Article in Journal
Intranasal Ion-Triggered In Situ Delivery System of Virus-like Particles: Development Using the Quality by Design Approach
Previous Article in Journal
Electrochemical Sensing of Cadmium and Lead Ions in Water by MOF-5/PANI Composites
Previous Article in Special Issue
Innovative Biobased and Sustainable Polymer Packaging Solutions for Extending Bread Shelf Life: A Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Polymers
Volume 16
Issue 5
10.3390/polym16050686
polymers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Carbon-Based Composites with Biodegradable Matrix for Flexible Paper Electronics

by
Jerzy Szałapak
1,2,*,
Bartosz Zdanikowski
2,
Aleksandra Kądziela
1,
Sandra Lepak-Kuc
1,2,
Łucja Dybowska-Sarapuk
1,2,
Daniel Janczak
1,2,
Tomasz Raczyński
1,2 and
Małgorzata Jakubowska
1,2
1
Institute of Mechanics and Printing, Faculty of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, 00-661 Warsaw, Poland
2
Central Laboratory, Centre for Advanced Materials and Technologies (CEZAMAT), 02-822 Warsaw, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Polymers 2024, 16(5), 686; https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16050686
Submission received: 31 December 2023 / Revised: 23 February 2024 / Accepted: 26 February 2024 / Published: 2 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biobased and Biodegradable Polymer Blends and Composites II)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The authors explore the development of paper-based electronics using carbon-based composites with a biodegradable matrix based on ethyl cellulose and dibasic ester solvent. The main focus is on screen-printing techniques for creating flexible, eco-friendly electronic devices. This research evaluates the printability with the rheological measurements, electrical properties, flexibility, and adhesion of these composites, considering various compositions, including graphene, graphite, and carbon black. The study finds that certain compositions offer sheet resistance below 1 kΩ/sq and good adhesion to paper substrates with just one layer of screen printing, demonstrating the potential for commercial applications, such as single-use electronics, flexible heaters, etc. The study also shows the impact of cyclic bending on the electrical parameters of the prepared layers. This research emphasizes the importance of the biodegradability of the matrix, contributing to the field of sustainable electronics. Overall, this study provides insights into developing environmentally friendly, flexible electronic components, highlighting the role of biodegradable materials in this evolving industry.

1. Introduction

In 2023, the printed electronics industry experienced significant growth and development. This technology is no longer just a concept for the future but is already being used in many commercial applications. The development of electronics has led to the need to create new types of devices that are flexible, disposable, and conform to shape. To achieve this, a range of techniques known from the printing industry has been adapted. For example, with the decline in the market for printed newspapers and books, more and more printing companies around the world are adjusting their operations and adopting new, conductive materials. Currently, electronic printing techniques are commonly used in OLED lighting, healthcare, automobiles, and Industry 4.0, offering new possibilities in remote patient monitoring, modernization of car interiors, and intelligent packaging. According to ResearchAndMarkets.com [1], the value of the printed electronics industry in 2020 was $7.8 billion and was expected to rise to $20.7 billion in 2025. However, in their August 2022 report, they confirmed that “the global size of the printed electronics market reached $53.5 billion in 2021”. In the new report, the publisher expects the market to reach a value of $130.8 billion by 2027 [1,2]. Such a rapid increase is also confirmed by IDTechEx [3] and Transparency Market Research Inc. [4]. This growth is driven by increasing demand for wearable devices and display screens, as well as innovations in packaging and labels, flexible screens, and interactive books and posters.
Due to the growing market for printed electronics and electronics in general, the management of electronic waste is becoming increasingly important. Traditional waste processing methods, such as landfilling or incineration, are particularly non-ecological in the case of electronics, and may lead to the contamination of soil, water, or air [5]. When developing devices whose processing and recovery will have a minimal impact on the environment, every stage of their production must be considered. These factors include the materials, which should be biodegradable, compostable, or recyclable, the methods used for their processing, which should not significantly worsen these properties, and the processes, which should not produce toxic waste and leave a large environmental footprint. Moreover, devices manufactured in this way must be competitively qualitative and economically comparable to those already on the market. Therefore, the development of so-called sustainable electronics is becoming increasingly important [6]. It often takes into account biodegradability and compostability standards in accordance with commonly used standards, such as EN 13432 requiring 90% decomposition after 12 weeks or 90% biodegradation after 6 months in packaging, the more general EN 14995 concerning polymers in general, or ISO 17088 related to the compostability of polymers [7,8,9].
These standards are particularly important in the development of single-use or limited-use electronics. So far, the main focus has been on their flexibility and stretchability [10,11,12]. Currently, increasing attention is being paid to systems that can be prepared on easily disposable paper substrates [13,14], or substrates made of biodegradable or compostable polymers [15,16]. Among these polymers, materials based on bio-derived monomers are of particular interest, with a focus on polylactic acid (PLA) and polysaccharides (cellulose and its derivatives, chitosan). Many studies are being conducted to improve their parameters, especially focusing on mechanical properties and biodegradability [17,18,19,20], or their use in sustainable electronics, both as substrates and as components of conductive layers [16,21,22,23,24]. Particularly important are studies related to disposal, partly due to emerging reports on limitations associated with the disposal of PLA-based waste. For example, Royer et al. point out the limitations in the decomposition of PLA in the marine environment and emphasize the need for appropriate management of the removal of compostable plastics, highlighting the discrepancy between compostability and biodegradation in the environment, suggesting that calling compostable plastics “biodegradable” might be misleading [25]. Some of these polymers require specific conditions of industrial composting, which potentially increases the cost of their use. This gives rise to the idea of recycling biodegradable and compostable polymers for their repeated use before disposal [26].
The rapid development also pertains to the conductive composites applied to these substrates. Mainly two approaches are being considered. The first is the recycling of metals used as the functional phase after the degradation of the substrate and the composite matrix [21]. The second is the composting or biodegradation of the electronic system, after the potential removal of attached chips. It is then important to consider whether the degradation is partial or complete and whether the degradation residues are harmful to the environment. Doubts arise, for example, in studies of biodegradable composites containing a metal functional phase, such as in [27,28]. Such composites should ideally be subjected to recycling, as described in [21]. Conductive materials that will not be recycled and have a minimal negative impact on the environment are composites based on carbon particles (e.g., graphene) [29,30,31]. The main advantage of these types of electronic systems is the reduction of responsibility on the consumer’s part. Although carbon-based materials allow for much lower conductivity than metal particles, they are already used for the preparation of heaters, pressure sensors, etc.
Apart from disposal issues, for materials of this type, parameters related to printability (e.g., rheology), adhesion to printed substrates, and electrical conductivity are important. In the case of carbon-based composites with biodegradable polymers, in [30], a single screen-printed layer did not achieve electrical conductivity. It was necessary to have at least four printed layers in the case of the patterns dried at room temperature, and six layers when dried at 120 °C, to obtain a sheet resistance (Rs) of 5.1 × 103 and 1.8 × 104 Ω/sq, respectively. In [31], the use of poly(butylene adipate-co-butylene terephthalate) (PBAT) as a matrix, with 40 wt% graphene content as the functional phase, achieved a conductivity of the material at the level of 338 S/m (equivalent to a resistivity of about 0.003 Ωm). However, it should be noted that there is no mention in the publication of printing such polymers, and based on the authors’ experiences, it is difficult to talk about carbon composites allowing for printing with such a high graphene content [32]. On the other hand, in [29], the Rs of the layer was 100 Ω/sq, although there is no information about the ink or paste used, but it is known that the layer thickness was 100 µm, which means a resistivity level of 0.01 Ωm.
In the present article, prepared carbon composites with a biodegradable matrix made using ethyl cellulose (EC) polymer are presented that allow for achieving a comparable resistivity to other carbon-based biodegradable materials with just one screen-printed layer. The material may be cured in temperatures as low as 60 °C. The best compositions are characterized by good adhesion to paper substrates and resistance to cyclic bending, which provides an interesting solution for applications in flexible single- and multiple-use printed electronics.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

For the functional phase of the produced composites, three types of materials were chosen. The first is graphite purchased from Termoplastik, Bydgoszcz, Poland, in the MG 1596 variant. Graphite (Gr) has been extensively studied in terms of electrical parameters [33,34,35]. The second tested material was conductive carbon black (CB) purchased from Black Diamond Material Science Co., Ltd., Hefei, Anhui, China as BeaBlack®SCT. Carbon black, as a conductive material, has also been described in many publications, including [36,37,38,39]. The last material was type C graphene nanoplatelets (GNP), commercially purchased from CheapTubes, Grafton, MA, USA. They were selected based on previous research conducted by our research team [40,41]. Materials printed on the substrates are shown in Figure 1.
As a biodegradable matrix for the tests, ethyl cellulose 48.0–49.5% (w/w) ethoxyl basis purchased from Sigma Aldrich, Burlington, MA, USA was chosen. Ethyl cellulose (EC) is a hydrophobic derivative of cellulose with rigid main chains, in contrast to hydrophilic starch or cellulose [42]. As a solvent, dimethyl succinate was used, which is an ester of dicarboxylic acids that are easily biodegradable and non-toxic. This material is well-known in the printing industry. Ethyl cellulose is a derivative of cellulose, which is naturally biodegradable. Similarly, dimethyl glutarate is a biodegradable ester. On this basis, it can be assumed that the matrix will be a biodegradable material.
For the test substrates, two types of paper were used: 80 g/m3 elementary chlorine free (ECF) bleached wood-free pulp paper produced by POLjet, Kwidzyn, Poland, and a similar, 100 g/m3 color copy paper produced by Mondi, Świecie, Poland. For reference, test prints were also made on Polyethylenterephthalat (PET) film gloss PC-811 0.175 mm produced by Longhua, Longhua City, China.

2.2. Sample Preparation

In the present study, the impact of four factors on the properties of printed layers was examined: the weight concentration of ethyl cellulose in the solvent, the type of functional phase used, the weight concentration of this phase, and the curing temperature of the prepared composite. These samples were printed on three different substrates. The parameters are presented in Table 1. To limit the number of samples, it was decided to use an appropriate fractional factorial method, in this case, the Taguchi method [43]. It allows for reducing the number of produced samples while enabling the selection of such parameter values to obtain the best samples for each of the studied properties. It is worth emphasizing that in addition to the 18 composites selected based on the fractional factorial method, three additional composites based on the obtained results were prepared: 8% wt. CB in an 8% ethyl cellulose solution, 6 wt%. CB in an wt8% ethyl cellulose solution, and 10 wt%. GNP in a 10% ethyl cellulose solution.
The production of the samples began with the creation of carriers for the functional phase. EC was dissolved in dimethyl succinate. Measured amounts of EC were placed in a vessel and initially mixed with a spatula. Then, to ensure the homogeneity of the material, the samples were mixed on a magnetic stirrer at 150 rpm and left for 48 h. The weighed functional phase was added to the prepared polymer, and after initial mixing with a spatula, the composite was homogenized using a Kakuhunter Planetary Speedmixer by Shashin Kagaku Co., Ltd., Kyoto, Japan. Due to the high density of the pastes containing carbon black (CB), the composite was additionally rolled on a three-roller mill 80E/0413 by EXAKT, Norderstedt, Germany with a gap setting of 10 µm.
The dynamic viscosity of composites of the prepared composites was examined using a Brookfield RS CPS+ cone-plate rheometer, Middleboro MA, USA, cone spindle C50-1. The measurements were conducted at 25 °C, set using the Polyscience ultrathermostat, Niles, IL, USA. The viscosity value was measured for a shear rate ranging from10 to 500 s−1.
The next step was screen printing the pastes onto selected substrates using the C920 device from AUREL Automation Division, Modigliana, Italy and a 68T polyester mesh screen. Each of the samples was cured for 20 min in an IN110 chamber dryer by Memmert, Schwabach, Germany.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Viscosity Measurements

In printed electronics, a composite (implicitly a polymer), by definition, means a material created by the close combination of at least two chemically different materials (phases: functional and matrix) in such a way that, despite a clear separation boundary between them, there is a good and continuous connection of the components and an as even as possible distribution of the functional phase in the matrix. The heterophase materials used in this article consist of a functional phase in the form of carbon particles (CB, GNP, graphite) and a matrix in the form of an ethyl cellulose polymer. The content, type of functional phase, as well as the homogenization method significantly affect the material’s viscosity and rheological behavior.
Screen-printable materials should be characterized by shear-thinning behavior. It is necessary to obtain materials whose viscosity decreases as the shear rate increases, which makes the materials printable and enables obtaining good quality patterns. The viscosity was measured for all tested composites. The viscosity for a shear rate of 18 [1/s] and for a shear rate 100 [1/s] is shown in Table 2. The viscosity of composites containing 13% carbon black is shown in the table with the value 0. Their measurements were impossible to conduct due to exceeding the measurement range of the device. The materials were too viscous, almost powdery. The dependence of viscosity on the shear rate in the representative composite materials is shown in Figure 2. Additional figures may be found in the Supplementary Materials.
To ensure proper spreading on the screen during printing, according to the authors of [44], pastes for use in thick-film technologies should have a viscosity in the range of 10–70 Pa·s at a shear rate of about 10–20 [1/s]. In the case of the developed composites, most exceed these values, but all except those containing 13% CB were successfully applied to the substrates and further measurements were performed on them. This is due to the fact that the developed materials are characterized by shear thinning, as shown for the exemplary compositions in Figure 2. The viscosities of all pastes were reduced for a shear rate of 100 [1/s]. The highest obtained viscosity value of 40 Pa·s at a 100 [1/s] shear rate was achieved for EC10 GNP10, for which it was a decrease from the initial 166.9 Pa·s. All tested composites, after printing on the substrate, created patterns of good quality. The lack of uncontrolled material flow on the substrate after the stresses (directly related to the printing process) are released allows us to determine that the tested materials do not have thixotropic properties.
Among the prepared composites, those with the highest viscosity posed the greatest challenges in the printing process. Materials with a viscosity that was immeasurable on the available rheometer did not allow for application to substrates. As the concentration of the polymer in the solution increased, as well as with the increasing content of the functional phase, the viscosity of the pastes increased. The type of functional phase had the greatest impact on the rheological parameters—graphite, characterized by the highest density, allowed for obtaining the lowest viscosity values. On the other hand, pastes containing CB were characterized by very high viscosity, resulting from their low density and greater specific surface area.

3.2. Electrical Measurement and Bending

After printing all the measurement paths (for each variation, the series consisted of at least n = 30 samples), electrical measurements were conducted using a GW INSTEK GDM-8341 multimeter, Montclair, CA, USA. The prepared samples were then subjected to 1000 bending cycles with a varying bending radius from ∞ to 5 mm. The bending was performed on a single-column Cometech QC 548 tensile testing machine, Taichung City, Taiwan, at a testing speed of 800 mm/min, and the resistance measurement of the paths was conducted after 100, 500, and 1000 cycles, respectively, as shown in Figure 3. Table 3 presents the selected measurement variants, indicating the type of composite, curing temperature, and type of substrate. The results of the resistance measurements and their changes after 1000 cycles of bending are also presented.
The type and then the concentration of the material have the most significant impact on the resistance parameters. Graphite, at such low concentrations, performed the worst in terms of resistance. In the case of graphene, a decrease in resistance can be observed with an increase in the concentration of the functional phase in the layer. Such a clear relationship is not present in the case of CB, but here, the rheological parameters of the composite and the difficulties in applying it to substrates using screen printing should be taken into account.
Another issue is the rather significant spread in the resistance results. For most samples, it is within 20% of the initial resistance, and in no case does it exceed 50%. This means that most composites require improvement in repeatability, but the obtained results allow for determining the expected level of the electrical conductivity of the layers prepared using them. It should also be emphasized that the EC8CB6 composite is characterized by a deviation at the level of 10% of the initial resistance.
Based on the obtained results, it can be concluded that regarding resistance before and after bending, the curing temperature does not seem to have a clear impact on the final resistance of the material, as resistance values vary for different materials cured at the same temperature. Therefore, a curing temperature of 60 °C is sufficient for the used materials in terms of achieving optimal electrical conductivity. The material of the functional phase seems to have a greater impact. Composites with GNP show a smaller change in resistance after bending than those with graphite or CB, suggesting their greater flexibility and better mechanical behavior. The resistance change for all tested composites is shown in Figure 3.

3.3. Adhesion

Adhesion tests were carried out using the cross-cut knife method according to ISO 2409 [44,45], with a circular knife produced by Testan and 3M Scotch Tape. A grid of incisions was made on the widest conductive paths, after which, in accordance with the standard’s requirements, the coating was cleaned with a soft brush, and then scotch tape was attached. The tape was removed after 5 min of application. The quality of adhesion is rated on a scale from 0 (best) to 5 (worst rating).
Among the studied layers, samples with a rating of 0 or 1 show better conductive properties and stability after bending than those with higher ratings, although there are cases where materials with a good adhesion quality show a large change in resistance after bending (e.g., EC10GR13).
Higher curing temperatures seem to be beneficial for adhesion quality. Lower curing temperatures may not be sufficient to achieve optimal adhesion—this is particularly evident with CB-containing materials printed on paper: EC8CB8 cured at 60 °C with poor adhesion, rated 4, and EC10CB10 cured at 120 °C, characterized by good adhesion, rated 1.
Composites on PET substrates generally showed poorer adhesion quality than those on paper. This may be due to the poorer compatibility of the carrier with polymeric substrates, although it is most likely a matter of the higher roughness and porosity of paper substrates. Such a sample on PET is shown in Figure 4a,b.

4. Discussion

The concentration of ethyl cellulose in dibutyl glutarate does not seem to have an impact on the mechanical and electrical parameters of the produced composites. No clear influence of the curing temperature on the resistance of the printed layers was also observed. However, temperature does have a clear impact on adhesion—significantly better results were obtained for layers cured at 90 and 120 °C.
Materials with GNP generally show low resistance, which decreases with an increasing concentration of the functional phase. The small change in resistance after bending suggests that they may be suitable for applications requiring flexibility and conductivity, such as flexible electronics. The adhesion quality ratings for GNP composites range from 0 to 1, indicating good adhesion to the substrate. The large resistance spread of some of the GNP-based composites should be reduced. Consideration should be given to making the composite more uniform and breaking up any agglomerates, such as by rolling.
Materials with added graphite require a higher functional phase content to achieve better conductive properties. In future research, a higher graphite content should improve the low conductivity of the layers without much effect on their mechanical performance.
CB-based materials exhibit low resistance, but their behavior after bending varies, which may require further research to understand and optimize their properties for practical applications. Most samples also exhibited low adhesion—for instance, the EC8CB8 sample achieved the lowest resistance of all tested materials, which was 0.80 kΩ/sq while having poor adhesion. However, it is worth noting that the additional EC8CB6 sample made on paper had good adhesion, at level 1, with an Rs below 1 kΩ/sq. Additionally, the standard deviation at the level of 10% of the average surface resistance of the layer is notable. On PET film, the same sample achieved an even lower resistance, but its adhesion received the lowest possible rating. Future research should focus on improving the adhesion and printability of CB-based composites. The results show significant potential for improving the performance of layers made with this material.
The best layer quality was obtained for an 8% ethyl cellulose solution with an 8 wt%. addition of graphene, cured on paper at 120 °C. This is consistent with previous conclusions. It is also worth noting that for this material, a low surface resistance value (Rs = 1.07 kΩ/sq) was also obtained, which was minimally affected by bending.

5. Conclusions

In this article, novel, bendable, conductive carbon-based composites were made with a biodegradable ethyl cellulose carrier in a buthyl glutarate solution. These composites are suitable for printed paper electronics and can achieve sheet resistance below 1 kΩ with just one screen-printed layer of approximately 5 µm. The electrical parameters are about two times better in comparison to other printable carbon composites based on biodegradable or compostable polymers for printed electronics applications while being cured in temperatures as low as 60 °C. In some compositions, these materials have decent adhesion to paper and are flexible—not impacted by cyclic bending. At this point of the research, the best compositions have only a 10% standard deviation, which means they may be interesting for commercial use due to decent initial repeatability. Such screen-printable pastes, due to easily scalable technology, may be an important step towards biodegradable printed electronics, hence will allow for growth in single-use electronics without a negative impact on the environment.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/polym16050686/s1.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.S. and M.J.; methodology, J.S. and D.J.; validation, J.S., B.Z., S.L.-K. and Ł.D.-S.; formal analysis, J.S. and B.Z.; investigation, J.S., B.Z., A.K., S.L.-K., Ł.D.-S. and T.R.; data curation, J.S. and B.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, J.S.; writing—review and editing, Ł.D.-S.; supervision, J.S.; project administration, J.S.; funding acquisition, J.S. and M.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was supported by EMERGE project, funded from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 101008701. The research was partially funded by Scientific Council for The Discipline of Automation, Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Space Technologies, Warsaw University of Technology under grant agreement No. AEE 1/2022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Research and Markets. Printed Electronics Market with COVID-19 Impact Analysis by Printing Technology (Screen, Inkjet, Gravure), Application (Displays, Sensors, Batteries), Material (Inks, Substrates), End-Use Industry, and Geography—Global Forecast to 2025; Research and Markets: Dublin, Ireland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. IMARC Group. Printed Electronics Market: Global Industry Trends, Share, Size, Growth, Opportunity and Forecast 2022–2027; IMARC Group: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  3. IDTechEx. Flexible, Printed and Organic Electronics 2019–2029: Forecasts, Players & Opportunities; IDTechEx: Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  4. Transparency Market Research. Printed Electronics Market (Technology: Flexography, Inkjet Printing, Screen Printing, Offset Printing, and Others; and Material: Substrates and Inks)—Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends, and Forecast, 2023–2031; Transparency Market Research: Albany, NY, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  5. Tan, M.J.; Owh, C.; Chee, P.L.; Kyaw, A.K.K.; Kai, D.; Loh, X.J. Biodegradable electronics: Cornerstone for sustainable electronics and transient applications. J. Mater. Chem. C 2016, 4, 5531–5558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Weiss Ferreira, L.; Decker, C. A survey on organic smart labels for the Internet-of-Things. In Proceedings of the 2010 Seventh International Conference on Networked Sensing Systems (INSS), Kassel, Germany, 15–18 June 2010; pp. 161–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. European Standard EN 13432; Requirements for Packaging Recoverable through Composting and Biodegradation. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2000. Available online: https://www.en-standard.eu/bs-en-13432-2000-packaging.-requirements-for-packaging-recoverable-through-composting-and-biodegradation.-test-scheme-and-evaluation-criteria-for-the-final-acceptance-of-packaging/ (accessed on 31 December 2023).
  8. European Standard EN 14995; Plastics—Evaluation of Compostability—Test Scheme and Specifications. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
  9. ISO 17088:2021; Specifications for Compostable Plastics. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
  10. Cruz, S.M.F.; Rocha, L.A.; Viana, J.C. Printing Technologies on Flexible Substrates for Printed Electronics. In Flexible Electronics; InTech: London, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Suganuma, K. Introduction to Printed Electronics; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2014; p. 87. [Google Scholar]
  12. Nag, A.; Alahi, M.E.E.; Mukhopadhyay, S.C.; Liu, Z. Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes-Based Sensors for Strain Sensing Applications. Sensors 2021, 21, 1261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tobjörk, D.; Österbacka, R. Paper Electronics. Adv. Mater. 2011, 23, 1935–1961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lin, Y.; Gritsenko, D.; Liu, Q.; Lu, X.; Xu, J. Recent Advancements in Functionalized Paper-Based Electronics. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2016, 8, 20501–20515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Samir, A.; Ashour, F.H.; Hakim, A.A.; Bassyouni, M. Recent Advances in Biodegradable Polymers for Sustainable Applications. npj Mater. Degrad. 2022, 6, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chiong, J.A.; Tran, H.; Lin, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Bao, Z. Integrating Emerging Polymer Chemistries for the Advancement of Recyclable, Biodegradable, and Biocompatible Electronics. Adv. Sci. 2021, 8, e2101233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Olaiya, N.G.; Surya, I.; Oke, P.K.; Rizal, S.; Sadiku, E.R.; Ray, S.S.; Farayibi, P.K.; Hossain, M.S.; Abdul Khalil, H.P.S. Properties and Characterization of a PLA–Chitin–Starch Biodegradable Polymer Composite. Polymers 2019, 11, 1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zaaba, N.F.; Jaafar, M. A Review on Degradation Mechanisms of Polylactic Acid: Hydrolytic, Photodegradative, Microbial, and Enzymatic Degradation. Polym. Eng. Sci. 2020, 60, 2061–2075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhao, D.; Zhu, Y.; Cheng, W.; Chen, W.; Wu, Y.; Yu, H. Cellulose-Based Flexible Functional Materials for Emerging Intelligent Electronics. Adv. Mater. 2021, 33, 200061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, K.; Tran, H.; Feig, V.R.; Bao, Z. Biodegradable and Stretchable Polymeric Materials for Transient Electronic Devices. MRS Bull. 2020, 45, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jaiswal, A.K.; Kumar, V.; Jansson, E.; Huttunen, O.-H.; Yamamoto, A.; Vikman, M.; Khakalo, A.; Hiltunen, J.; Behfar, M.H. Biodegradable Cellulose Nanocomposite Substrate for Recyclable Flexible Printed Electronics. Adv. Electron. Mater. 2023, 9, 2201094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hosseini, E.S.; Dervin, S.; Ganguly, P.; Dahiya, R. Biodegradable Materials for Sustainable Health Monitoring Devices. ACS Appl. Bio Mater. 2021, 4, 163–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jung, Y.H.; Chang, T.H.; Zhang, H.; Yao, C.; Zheng, Q.; Yang, V.W.; Mi, H.; Kim, M.; Cho, S.J.; Park, D.W.; et al. High-Performance Green Flexible Electronics Based on Biodegradable Cellulose Nanofibril Paper. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 7170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ahmad, A.F.; Aziz, S.A.; Obaiys, S.J.; Zaid, M.H.M.; Matori, K.A.; Samikannu, K.; Aliyu, U.S. Biodegradable Poly (lactic acid)/Poly (ethylene glycol) Reinforced Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotube Nanocomposite Fabrication, Characterization, Properties, and Applications. Polymers 2020, 12, 427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Royer, S.-J.; Greco, F.; Kogler, M.; Deheyn, D.D. Not so Biodegradable: Polylactic Acid and Cellulose/Plastic Blend Textiles Lack Fast Biodegradation in Marine Waters. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0284681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Coltelli, M.-B.; Aliotta, L.; Fasano, G.; Miketa, F.; Brkić, F.; Alonso, R.; Romei, M.; Cinelli, P.; Canesi, I.; Gigante, V.; et al. Recyclability Studies on Poly(lactic acid)/Poly(butylene succinate-co-adipate) (PLA/PBSA) Biobased and Biodegradable Films. Macromol. Mater. Eng. 2023, 308, 100515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim, K.-S.; Yoo, J.; Shim, J.-S.; Ryu, Y.-I.; Choi, S.; Lee, J.-Y.; Lee, H.M.; Koo, J.; Kang, S.-K. Biodegradable Molybdenum/Polybutylene Adipate Terephthalate Conductive Paste for Flexible and Stretchable Transient Electronics. Adv. Mater. Technol. 2022, 7, 2001297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Atreya, M.; Dikshit, K.; Marinick, G.; Nielson, J.; Bruns, C.; Whiting, G.L. Poly(lactic acid)-Based Ink for Biodegradable Printed Electronics With Conductivity Enhanced through Solvent Aging. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2020, 12, 23494–23501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Meng, Q.; Manas-Zloczower, I. Carbon Nanotubes Enhanced Cellulose Nanocrystals Films with Tailorable Electrical Conductivity. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2015, 120, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Barras, R.; Cunha, I.; Gaspar, D.; Fortunato, E.; Martins, R.; Pereira, L. Printable Cellulose-Based Electroconductive Composites for Sensing Elements in Paper Electronics. Flex. Print. Electron. 2017, 2, 014006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Guo, Y.; Zuo, X.; Xue, Y.; Tang, J.; Gouzman, M.; Fang, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, L.; Yu, Y.; Rafailovich, M.H. Engineering Thermally and Electrically Conductive Biodegradable Polymer Nanocomposites. Compos. Part B Eng. 2020, 189, 107905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Raczyński, T.; Janczak, D.; Szałapak, J.; Walter, P.; Jakubowska, M. Investigation of Carbon-Based Composites for Elastic Heaters and Effects of Hot Pressing in Thermal Transfer Process on Thermal and Electrical Properties. Materials 2021, 14, 7606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zheng, W.; Wong, S.C. Electrical Conductivity and Dielectric Properties of PMMA/Expanded Graphite Composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2003, 63, 225–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sengupta, R.; Bhattacharya, M.; Bandyopadhyay, S.; Bhowmick, A.K. A Review on the Mechanical and Electrical Properties of Graphite and Modified Graphite Reinforced Polymer Composites. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2011, 36, 638–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kalaitzidou, K.; Fukushima, H.; Drzal, L.T. Multifunctional Polypropylene Composites Produced by Incorporation of Exfoliated Graphite Nanoplatelets. Carbon 2007, 45, 1446–1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Duan, L.; Spoerk, M.; Wieme, T.; Cornillie, P.; Xia, H.; Zhang, J.; Cardon, L.; D’hooge, D.R. Designing Formulation Variables of Extrusion-Based Manufacturing of Carbon Black Conductive Polymer Composites for Piezoresistive Sensing. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2019, 171, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bourrat, X. Electrically Conductive Grades of Carbon Black: Structure and Properties. Carbon 1993, 31, 287–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Phillips, C.; Al-Ahmadi, A.; Potts, S.J.; Claypole, T.; Deganello, D. The Effect of Graphite and Carbon Black Ratios on Conductive Ink Performance. J. Mater. Sci. 2017, 52, 9520–9530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gubbels, F.; Jerome, R.; Teyssie, P.; Vanlathem, E.; Deltour, R.; Calderone, A.; Parents, V.; Bredas, J.L. Selective Localization of Carbon Black in Immiscible Polymer Blends: A Useful Tool to Design Electrical Conductive Composites. Macromolecules 1994, 27, 1972–1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dybowska-Sarapuk, L.; Janczak, D.; Podsiadly, B.; Jakubowska, M.; Sloma, M. Electrical and Rheological Percolation Threshold of Graphene Pastes for Screen-Printing. Circuit World 2019, 45, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Pepłowski, A.; Rathi, S.; Piotrkowski, B.; Ziółkowski, R.; Janczak, D.; Krzemiński, J.; Brosch, M.; Jakubowska, M. Electrochemistry of Graphene Nanoplatelets Printed Electrodes for Cortical Direct Current Stimulation. Front. Neurosci. 2020, 14, 594235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Prasertmanakit, S.; Praphairaksit, N.; Chiangthong, W.; Muangsin, N. Ethyl Cellulose Microcapsules for Protecting and Controlled Release of Folic Acid. AAPS PharmSciTech 2009, 10, 1104–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Roy, R.K. A Primer on the Taguchi Method; Society of Manufacturing Engineers: Southfield, MI, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  44. Lin, J.C.; Wang, C.Y. Effects of Surfactant Treatment of Silver Powder on the Rheology of Its Thick-Film Paste. Mater. Chem. Phys. 1996, 45, 136–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. ISO 2409; Paints and Varnishes—Cross-Cut Test. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020.
Polymers 16 00686 g001
Figure 1. SEM pictures of composites with (a) carbon black, (b) graphene nanoplatelets, and (c) graphite.
Figure 1. SEM pictures of composites with (a) carbon black, (b) graphene nanoplatelets, and (c) graphite.
Polymers 16 00686 g001
Polymers 16 00686 g002
Figure 2. Dependence of viscosity on the shear rate in the representative composite materials.
Figure 2. Dependence of viscosity on the shear rate in the representative composite materials.
Polymers 16 00686 g002
Polymers 16 00686 g003
Figure 3. Impact of bending on sheet resistance.
Figure 3. Impact of bending on sheet resistance.
Polymers 16 00686 g003
Polymers 16 00686 g004
Figure 4. EC8CB6 on PET sample (a) before and (b) after adhesion test.
Figure 4. EC8CB6 on PET sample (a) before and (b) after adhesion test.
Polymers 16 00686 g004
Table 1. Selected levels of parameters for the tested samples.
Table 1. Selected levels of parameters for the tested samples.
Level 1Level 2Level 3
EC Weight Concentration [%]81012
Conductive Phase materialCarbon Black (CB)Graphite (Gr)Graphene (GNP)
Weight Concentration of Conductive Phase [%]81013
SubstratePaper 80 g/m3Papier 100 g/m3PET
Curing temperature [°C]6090120
Table 2. Viscosity of the prepared pastes.
Table 2. Viscosity of the prepared pastes.
MaterialViscosity (in Pa·s) for Shear Speed of 18 1/sViscosity (in Pa·s) for Shear Speed of 100 1/s
EC8CB857.110.9
EC10CB8208.528.9
EC12CB8218.335.0
EC10CB10417.121.7
EC8CB10177.219.6
EC12CB13xx
EC10CB13xx
EC8Gr104.43.6
EC8Gr136.24.4
EC10Gr812.77.4
Ec10Gr1365.18.6
EC12Gr826.912.8
EC12Gr1029.112.8
EC8GNP8130.431.9
EC8GNP13192.84.2
EC10GNP896.527.7
EC12GNP10120.514.0
EC12GNP13316.139.4
EC10GNP10166.940.0
EC8CB686.113.8
EC8_CB13xx
Table 3. Compilation of prepared sample measurement results.
Table 3. Compilation of prepared sample measurement results.
NamePolymer (Wt%)Conductive MaterialWt%SubstrateCuring Temperature [°C]Resistance [KΩ/sq]Resistance Drop after BendingStd. Dev.Layer Quality
EC8CB8EC8CB8Paper 80600.800%0.164
EC8GR10EC8Grafit10Paper 1009092.0016%6.220
EC8GNP13EC8GNP13PET1201.256%0.611
EC10GR8EC10Grafit8Paper 10060999.00 x1
EC10GNP10EC10GNP10PET905.639%0.391
EC10CB13EC10CB13Paper 80120x xx
EC12CB8EC12CB8PET901.110%0.105
EC12GR10EC12Grafit10Paper 80120999.00 x1
EC12GNP13EC12GNP13Paper 100602.4510%0.231
EC8GNP8EC8GNP8Paper 1001201.071%0.220
EC8CB10EC8CB10PET601.15−11%0.205
EC8GR13EC8Grafit13Paper 809010.9915%0.741
EC10GNP8EC10GNP8Paper 80904.113%2.031
EC10CB10EC10CB10Paper 1001200.94−2%0.441
EC10GR13EC10Grafit13PET6010.1826%2.125
EC12GR8EC12Grafit8PET120999.00 x5
EC12GNP10EC12GNP10Paper 80602.889%0.601
EC12CB13EC12CB13Paper 10090x xx
EC8CB13EC8CB13PET90x xx
EC8CB6EC8CB6PET900.901%0.165
EC8CB6EC8CB6Paper 100900.990%0.101
EC10GNP10EC10GNP10Paper 100906.587%0.630
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Szałapak, J.; Zdanikowski, B.; Kądziela, A.; Lepak-Kuc, S.; Dybowska-Sarapuk, Ł.; Janczak, D.; Raczyński, T.; Jakubowska, M. Carbon-Based Composites with Biodegradable Matrix for Flexible Paper Electronics. Polymers 2024, 16, 686. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16050686

AMA Style

Szałapak J, Zdanikowski B, Kądziela A, Lepak-Kuc S, Dybowska-Sarapuk Ł, Janczak D, Raczyński T, Jakubowska M. Carbon-Based Composites with Biodegradable Matrix for Flexible Paper Electronics. Polymers. 2024; 16(5):686. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16050686

Chicago/Turabian Style

Szałapak, Jerzy, Bartosz Zdanikowski, Aleksandra Kądziela, Sandra Lepak-Kuc, Łucja Dybowska-Sarapuk, Daniel Janczak, Tomasz Raczyński, and Małgorzata Jakubowska. 2024. "Carbon-Based Composites with Biodegradable Matrix for Flexible Paper Electronics" Polymers 16, no. 5: 686. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym16050686

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop