4.6 Article

Cu-Ag and Ni-Ag meshes based on cracked template as efficient transparent electromagnetic shielding coating with excellent mechanical performance

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE
卷 56, 期 26, 页码 14741-14762

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10853-021-06206-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. Russian Foundation for Basic Research project [18-38-00852]
  2. Russian Federation [SP-2235.2019.1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transparent EMI shielding coatings using Cu-Ag and Ni-Ag meshes have been developed with high efficiency in X-band and K-band. Copper deposition on Cu-Ag mesh significantly enhances shielding performance, with high transparency and low sheet resistance. The long-term stability and high bending properties of Cu-Ag and Ni-Ag meshes make them suitable for various forms of transparent shielding objects.
Nowadays, the technical advances call for efficient electromagnetic interference (EMI) shielding of transparent devices which may be subject to data theft. We developed Cu-Ag and Ni-Ag meshes on flexible PET substrate for highly efficiency transparent EMI shielding coating. Cu-Ag and Ni-Ag meshes obtained with galvanic deposition of copper and nickel on thin Ag seed mesh which was made by cracked template method. Coefficients S-11, S-21 and shielding efficiency (SE) were measured for Cu-Ag and Ni-Ag meshes in X-band (8-12 GHz) and K-band (18-26.5 GHz). 90 s copper deposition increase SE from 23.2 to 43.7 dB at 8 GHz with a transparency of 82.2% and a sheet resistance of 0.25 Omega/sq. The achieved maximum SE was 47.6 dB for Cu-Ag mesh with 67.8% transparency and 41.1 dB for Ni-Ag mesh with 77.8% transparency. Cu-Ag and Ni-Ag meshes have high bending and long-term stability. Minimum bend radius is lower than 100 mu m. This effect allows to produce different forms of transparent shielding objects, for example, origami method. Our coatings are the leading among all literary solutions in three-dimensional coordinates: of sheet resistance-optical transmittance-cost of produced. [GRAPHICS] .

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

4.6
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