4.8 Article

The insulation performance of reactive parylene films in implantable electronic devices

Journal

BIOMATERIALS
Volume 30, Issue 31, Pages 6158-6167

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.07.061

Keywords

Parylene; Electronic material; Micromachining; Electrochemistry; Adhesion; Neural prosthesis

Funding

  1. National Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Biciengineering (NIBIB) [P41 EB002030]
  2. Department of Defense Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (MURI) [W911 NF0610218]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Parylene-C (poly-chloro-p-xylylene) is an appropriate material for use in an implantable, microfabricated device. It is hydrophobic, conformally deposited, has a low dielectric constant, and superb biocompatibility. Yet for many bioelectrical applications, its poor wet adhesion may be an impassable shortcoming. This research contrasts parylene-C and poly(p-xylylene) functionalized with reactive group X (PPX-X) layers using long-term electrical soak and adhesion tests. The reactive parylene was made of complementary derivatives having aldehyde and aminomethyl side groups (PPX-CHO and PPX-CH2NH2 respectively). These functional groups have previously been shown to covalently react together after heating. Electrical testing was conducted in saline at 37 degrees C on interdigitated electrodes with either parylene-C or reactive parylene as the metal layer interface. Results showed that reactive parylene devices maintained the highest impedance. Heat-treated PPX-X device impedance was 800% greater at 10 kHz and 70% greater at 1 Hz relative to heated parylene-C controls after 60 days. Heat treatment proved to be critical for maintaining high impedance of both parylene-C and the reactive parylene. Adhesion measurements showed improved wet metal adhesion for PPX-X, which corresponds well with its excellent high frequency performance. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available