4.6 Article

The Effect of Carbon Ink Rheology on Ink Separation Mechanisms in Screen-Printing

Journal

COATINGS
Volume 10, Issue 10, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/coatings10101008

Keywords

carbon inks and pastes; screen printing; ink separation

Funding

  1. European Social Fund via the Welsh Government
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/L015099/1]
  3. icmPrint through the Materials and Manufacturing Academy (M2A) Doctoral Training Scheme
  4. EPSRC [EP/N020863/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Screen-printable carbon-based inks are available in a range of carbon morphologies and concentrations, resulting in various rheological profiles. There are challenges in obtaining a good print when high loading and elasticity functional inks are used, with a trade-off often required between functionality and printability. There is a limited understanding of how ink rheology influences the ink deposition mechanism during screen-printing, which then affects the print topography and therefore electrical performance. High speed imaging was used with a screen-printing simulation apparatus to investigate the effect of viscosity of a graphite and carbon-black ink at various levels of solvent dilution on the deposition mechanisms occurring during screen-printing. With little dilution, the greater relative volume of carbon in the ink resulted in a greater tendency towards elastic behavior than at higher dilutions. During the screen-printing process this led to the ink splitting into filaments while remaining in contact with both the mesh and substrate simultaneously over a greater horizonal length. The location of separating filaments corresponded with localized film thickness increases in the print, which led to a higher surface roughness (Sz). This method could be used to make appropriate adjustments to ink rheology to overcome print defects related to poor ink separation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available