4.8 Article

Enhanced Conductivity, Adhesion, and Environmental Stability of Printed Graphene Inks with Nitrocellulose

期刊

CHEMISTRY OF MATERIALS
卷 29, 期 5, 页码 2332-2340

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.chemmater.7b00029

关键词

-

资金

  1. Air Force Research Laboratory [FA8650-15-2-5518]
  2. Office of Naval Research [N00014-11-1-0690]
  3. Department of Defense (DoD) through the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship Program
  4. Ryan Fellowship
  5. NSF-MRSEC [DMR-1121262]
  6. Keck Foundation
  7. State of Illinois
  8. AFOSR

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent developments in liquid-phase processing of carbon nanomaterials have established graphene as a promising candidate for printed electronics. Of great importance in the ink formulation is the stabilizer, which has to provide excellent dispersion stability and tunability in the liquid state, and also decompose into chemical moieties that promote high electrical conductivity and robust mechanical and environmental stability. Here we demonstrate the promise of nitrocellulose as a synergistic polymer stabilizer for graphene inks. Graphene processed with nitrocellulose is formulated into inks with viscosities ranging over 4 orders of magnitude for compatibility with a wide range of deposition methods. Following thermal treatment, the graphene/nitrocellulose films offer high electrical conductivity of similar to 40000 S/m, along with mechanical flexibility. Moreover, in contrast to state-of-the-art graphene inks based on ethyl cellulose, the nitrocellulose residue offers superior mechanical and environmental stability as assessed by a suite of stress tests, including the Scotch tape test, a water sonication test, and an 85/85 damp heat test. By exploring the fundamental chemistry underlying these macroscopic benefits, we provide insight into binder selection for functional nanomaterial inks while producing a high-performance graphene ink with strong potential for printed and flexible electronics.

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

4.8
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