4.6 Article

Three-dimensional printing of highly conductive polymer nanocomposites for EMI shielding applications

期刊

MATERIALS TODAY COMMUNICATIONS
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 112-118

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.mtcomm.2017.02.006

关键词

3D printing; Carbon nanotube composite; EMI shielding; Electrical conductivity; Transparent

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) [446198-2013, RGPIN/05503-2015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Here we applied three-dimensional (3D) printing of conductive microstructures for the functional optimization of lightweight and semi-transparent electromagnetic interference (EMI) shields. Highly conductive 3D printable inks with electrical conductivities up to similar to 5000S m(-1) were fabricated from carbon nanotubes/polylactic acid (CNT/PLA) nanocomposites. Solvent-cast 3D printing enabled us to fabricate conductive scaffold microstructures and investigate the influence of various important structural parameters (i.e., inter-filament spacing, number of layers and printing patterns) on their transparency and EMI shielding effectiveness. The results revealed a significant improvement of the specific EMI shielding effectiveness of CNT/PLA nanocomposites printed as 3D scaffolds compared to CNT/PLA hot-pressed in solid forms (similar to 70 vs similar to 37 dB g(-1) cm(3)). The transparency of the scaffolds could vary from similar to 0% to similar to 75% by modifying their printing patterns and inter-filament spacing. To the best of our knowledge the conductivity of the fabricated ink is the highest among the other reported 3D printable polymer composite inks and this is the first reported systematic study on EMI shielding using a 3D printing technique. These results are highly beneficial for the fabrication and structural optimization of EMI shields where light and/or transparent structures are advantageous, such as in aerospace systems, portable electronic devices or smart fabrics. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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