journal article·2022-01Open access

The influence of carbon morphologies and concentrations on the rheology and electrical performance of screen-printed carbon pastes

Sarah-Jane Potts, Tatyana Korochkina, Alex Holder, Eifion Jewell, Chris Phillips, Tim Claypole

Journal of Materials Science· Volume 57· Issue 4

Abstract

Abstract Screen-printing inks containing various morphologies of carbon are used in the production of a variety of printed electronics applications. Particle morphology influences the rheology of the ink which will affect the deposition and therefore the electrical performance of a printed component. To assess the effect of both carbon morphology and concentration on print topography and conductivity, screen printable carbon inks with differing loading concentrations of graphite, carbon black and graphite nanoplatelets (GNPs) were formulated, printed and characterised, with rheological and novel print visualisation techniques used to elucidate the mechanisms responsible. Carbon morphology had significant effects on the packing of particles. The smaller carbon black particles had more interparticle interactions leading to better conductivities, but also higher ink viscosities and elasticities than the other morphologies. Increases in carbon concentration led to increases in film thickness and roughness for all morphologies. However, beyond a critical point further increases in carbon concentration led to agglomerations of particles, mesh marking and increases in surface roughness, preventing further improvements in the print conductivity. The optimal loading concentrations were identifiable using a custom-made screen-printing apparatus used with high speed imaging for all morphologies. Notable increases in filamentation during ink separation were found to occur with further increases in carbon concentration beyond the optimum. As this point could not be identified using shear rheology alone, this method combined with shear rheology could be used to optimise the carbon concentration of screen-printing inks, preventing the use of excess material which has no benefit on print quality and conductivity.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Advanced Sensor and Energy Harvesting Materials · Additive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies · Recycling and Waste Management Techniques

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (33)

Show source-provided references
1. Philip B, Jewell E, Greenwood P, Weirman C (2016) Material and process optimization screen printing carbon graphite pastes for mass production of heating elements. J Manuf Process [Internet]. 22(1):185–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmapro.2016.03.00110.1016/j.jmapro.2016.03.001 ↗
2. Park HK, Kim SM, Lee JS, Park JH, Hong YK, Hong CH et al (2015) Flexible plane heater: Graphite and carbon nanotube hybrid nanocomposite. Synth Met 203(1):127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.synthmet.2015.02.01510.1016/j.synthmet.2015.02.015 ↗
3. Tehrani Z, Burwell G, Azmi MAM, Castaing A, Rickman R, Almarashi J et al (2014) Generic epitaxial graphene biosensors for ultrasensitive detection of cancer risk biomarker. 2D Mater. 1(2):02500410.1088/2053-1583/1/2/025004 ↗
4. Tehrani Z, Korochkina T, Govindarajan S, Thomas DJ, Mahony JO, Kettle J et al (2015) Ultra-thin flexible screen printed rechargeable polymer battery for wearable electronic applications. Org Electron 26(1):386–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgel.2015.08.00710.1016/j.orgel.2015.08.007 ↗
5. Baker J, Hooper K, Meroni S, Pockett A, McGettrick J, Wei Z et al (2017) High throughput fabrication of mesoporous carbon perovskite solar cells. J Mater Chem A 5(35):18643–1865010.1039/C7TA05674E ↗
6. Zhang L, Liu T, Liu L, Hu M, Yang Y, Mei A et al (2015) The effect of carbon counter electrodes on fully printable mesoscopic perovskite solar cells. J Mater Chem A 3(17):9165–917010.1039/C4TA04647A ↗
7. Zabek D, Seunarine K, Spacie C, Bowen C (2017) graphene ink laminate structures on Poly(vinylidene difluoride) (PVDF) for pyroelectric thermal energy harvesting and waste heat recovery. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces 9(10):9161–916710.1021/acsami.6b16477 ↗
8. Cao Z, Koukharenko E, Tudor MJ, Torah RN, Beeby SP (2016) Flexible screen printed thermoelectric generator with enhanced processes and materials. Sensors Actuators A Phys 238:196–20610.1016/j.sna.2015.12.016 ↗
9. Sengupta R, Bhattacharya M, Bandyopadhyay S, Bhowmick AK (2011) A review on the mechanical and electrical properties of graphite and modified graphite reinforced polymer composites. Prog Polym Sci 36(5):638–670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.11.00310.1016/j.progpolymsci.2010.11.003 ↗
10. Phillips C, Al-Ahmadi A, Potts S-J, Claypole T, Deganello D (2017) The effect of graphite and carbon black ratios on conductive ink performance. J Mater Sci. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-1114-610.1007/s10853-017-1114-6 ↗
11. He L, Tjong SC (2013) Low percolation threshold of graphene/polymer composites prepared by solvothermal reduction of graphene oxide in the polymer solution. Nanoscale Res Lett 8(1):2–810.1186/1556-276X-8-2 ↗
12. Wang C, Yi Y, Sastry AM, Shim J, Striebel KA (2004) Particle compression and conductivity in Li-Ion anodes with graphite additives. J Electrochem Soc 151(9):A1489–A149810.1149/1.1783909 ↗
13. Pantea D, Darmstadt H, Kaliaguine S, Roy C (2003) Electrical conductivity of conductive carbon blacks: influence of surface chemistry and topology. Appl Surf Sci 217(1):181–19310.1016/S0169-4332(03)00550-6 ↗
14. Oxfall H, Ariu G, Gkourmpis T, Rychwalski RW, Rigdahl M (2015) Effect of carbon black on electrical and rheological properties of graphite nanoplatelets/poly(ethylene-butyl acrylate) composites. Express Polym Lett 9(1):66–7610.3144/expresspolymlett.2015.7 ↗
15. Erol M, Çelik E (2013) Graphite-Flake Carbon-Black-Reinforced Polystyrene-Matrix Composite Films Deposited on Glass-Fiber Woven Fabrics As Plane Heaters Kompozit Polistirena, Oja^an Z Grafitnimi Luskami in Sajami, Nanesen Na Tkanino Iz Steklenih Vlaken Za Plo[^Ate Grelnike. Mater Technol 47(1):25–28
16. Azim SS, Satheesh A, Ramu KK, Ramu S, Venkatachari G (2006) Studies on graphite based conductive paint coatings. Prog Org Coatings 55(1):1–410.1016/j.porgcoat.2005.09.001 ↗
17. Hatala M, Gemeiner P, Hvojnik M, Mikula M (2019) The effect of the ink composition on the performance of carbon-based conductive screen printing inks. J Mater Sci Mater Electron 30(2):1034–1044. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10854-018-0372-710.1007/s10854-018-0372-7 ↗
18. Phillips C, Al-Ahmadi A, Potts S-J, Claypole T, Deganello D (2017) The effect of graphite and carbon black ratios on conductive ink performance. J Mater Sci 52(16):9520–9530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-017-1114-610.1007/s10853-017-1114-6 ↗
19. Lei H, Pitt WG, McGrath LK, Ho CK (2004) Resistivity measurements of carbon-polymer composites in chemical sensors: Impact of carbon concentration and geometry. Sensors Actuators B Chem 101(1–2):122–13210.1016/j.snb.2004.02.042 ↗
20. Lux F (1993) Models proposed to explain the electrical conductivity of mixtures made of conductive and insulating materials. J Mater Sci 28(2):285–30110.1007/BF00357799 ↗
21. Zallen R (2005) Chapter 4. The percolation model. In: The physics of amorphous solids, pp 135–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/3527602798.ch410.1002/3527602798.ch4 ↗
22. Jewell EH, Hamblyn SM, Claypole TC, Gethin DT (2013) The impact of carbon content and mesh on the characteristics of screen printed conductive structures. Circuit World 39(1):13–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/0305612131129891810.1108/03056121311298918 ↗
23. Holder AJ, Claypole J, Claypole T, Cooper PG, Williams PR, Curtis DJ (2018) Fourier transform controlled stress parallel superposition (FT-CSPS): Validation and application in processing printable functional materials. Phys Fluids 30(7):077105. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.502981910.1063/1.5029819 ↗
24. Claypole A, Claypole J, Holder A, Claypole TC, Kilduff L (2020) Rheology of high-aspect-ratio nanocarbons dispersed in a low-viscosity fluid. J Coatings Technol Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11998-020-00319-210.1007/s11998-020-00319-2 ↗
25. Xu C, Willenbacher N (2018) How rheological properties affect fine-line screen printing of pastes: a combined rheological and high-speed video imaging study. J Coatings Technol Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11998-018-0091-210.1007/s11998-018-0091-2 ↗
26. Potts S-J, Phillips C, Claypole T, Jewell E (2020) The effect of carbon ink rheology on ink separation mechanisms in screen-printing. Coatings 10(10):100810.3390/coatings10101008 ↗
27. Potts S-J, Phillips C, Jewell E, Clifford B, Lau YC, Claypole T (2020) High-speed imaging the effect of snap-off distance and squeegee speed on the ink transfer mechanism of screen-printed carbon pastes. J Coat Technol Res 17(2):447–459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11998-019-00291-610.1007/s11998-019-00291-6 ↗
28. Matweb.com: TIMCAL TIMREX® SFG15 Primary Synthetic Graphite [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Nov 15]. Available from: http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=529537df1d0d429a9310acb1a070d96b
29. Burton B (1971) A “creep yield stress” for superplastic deformation. Scr Metall 5(8):669–67210.1016/0036-9748(71)90248-1 ↗
30. Smits FM (1958) Measurement of sheet resistivities with the four-point probe. Bell Syst Tech J 37(3):711–71810.1002/j.1538-7305.1958.tb03883.x ↗
31. Barnes HA (2000) A handbook of elementary rheology. Vol. 6, Polymer Composites. The University of Wales Institute of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, Department of Mathematics, University of Wales Aberystwyth. pp 1–210
32. Kasgoz A, Akin D, Ayten AI, Durmus A (2014) Effect of different types of carbon fillers on mechanical and rheological properties of cyclic olefin copolymer (COC) composites. Compos Part B Eng 66:126–13510.1016/j.compositesb.2014.05.010 ↗
33. Amari T, Uesugi K, Suzuki H (1997) Viscoelastic properties of carbon black suspension as a flocculated percolation system. Prog Org Coatings 31(1–2):171–17810.1016/S0300-9440(97)00033-7 ↗