4.4 Article

Development of a stimuli-responsive polymer nanocomposite toward biologically optimized, MEMS-based neural probes

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0960-1317/21/5/054009

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSF [ECS-0621984, CBET-0828155]
  2. NIH [R21-NS053798]
  3. Advanced Platform Technology Center of Excellence of The Department of Veteran's Affairs
  4. SNF [406240_126046/1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reports the development of micromachining processes and mechanical evaluation of a stimuli-responsive, mechanically dynamic polymer nanocomposite for biomedical microsystems. This nanocomposite consists of a cellulose nanofiber network encased in a polyvinyl acetate matrix. Micromachined tensile testing structures fabricated from the nanocomposite displayed a reversible and switchable stiffness comparable to bulk samples, with a Young's modulus of 3420 MPa when dry, reducing to similar to 20 MPa when wet, and a stiff-to-flexible transition time of similar to 300 s. This mechanically dynamic behavior is particularly attractive for the development of adaptive intracortical probes that are sufficiently stiff to insert into the brain without buckling, but become highly compliant upon insertion. Along these lines, a micromachined neural probe incorporating parylene insulating/moisture barrier layers and Ti/Au electrodes was fabricated from the nanocomposite using a fabrication process designed specifically for this chemical- and temperature-sensitive material. It was found that the parylene layers only slightly increased the stiffness of the probe in the wet state in spite of its much higher Young's modulus. Furthermore, the Ti/Au electrodes exhibited impedance comparable to Au electrodes on conventional substrates. Swelling of the nanocomposite was highly anisotropic favoring the thickness dimension by a factor of 8 to 12, leading to excellent adhesion between the nanocomposite and parylene layers and no discernable deformation of the probes when deployed in deionized water.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据