This thicker layer decreases transparency and therefore also redu

This thicker layer decreases transparency and therefore also reduces efficiency. Weak adhesion of nanowires to the substrate is another important issue. Without

any special processing, scratches or shear stresses on the surface can easily wipe the nanowires from the surface [11]. Several papers in the literature have addressed the roughness and adhesion issues of nanowire electrodes. Solutions fall into three general categories. The first involves using a transparent conductive material to fill the spaces between the nanowires [14, 18, 20–22]. Gaynor et al. pressed silver nanowires into a layer of the transparent conductive polymer (PEDOT:PSS) to decrease the root-mean-square (RMS) surface roughness to 12 nm and maximum peak-to-valley

values to around 30 nm [21]. Choi et al. instead deposited the PEDOT:PSS layer on top of the nanowire film to achieve an RMS roughness of 52 nm find more [14]. Chung et al. alternatively GF120918 solubility dmso used ITO nanoparticles to fill the spaces between the wires and reduced the RMS roughness to 13 nm and the maximum peak-to-valley to below 30 nm. In the latter paper, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) was also added to the ITO nanoparticle solution to increase the adhesion of the nanoparticle/nanowire film to the substrate [22]. The downside of all these approaches is that to significantly reduce surface roughness, the required thickness of the conductive material needs to be at least three times the diameter of the nanowires. At these thicknesses, there is a reduction in the electrode transparency and consequently the efficiency of the devices due to the limited transparency of the conductive materials [18]. The second category to reduce roughness is to deposit a transparent but nonconductive polymer on top of the nanowire

film [12, 23–25]. This allows a material that is more transparent than PEDOT:PSS or ITO to be used. Using an optical adhesive in this manner, Miller et al. reduced Fenbendazole the RMS roughness of silver nanowire films to 8 nm and there was only a 2% change in sheet resistance after an adhesion test [25]. Zeng et al. buried silver nanowires in PVA to reduce the surface RMS to below 5 nm and increase adhesion of the nanowires to the substrate [24]. However, because the polymers used are not conductive, in all these studies the nanowire/polymer composite must be peeled off the original substrate to expose the conductive nanowire-mesh surface, which adds a complex manufacturing step. Although not reported in the literature (to our knowledge), the nanowire film could instead be pressed into a transparent nonconductive polymer, to avoid the Fludarabine supplier peeling step. This technique however would still be less than ideal as an extra polymer layer would still add manufacturing complexity and some devices may not be compatible with the polymer used.

Comments are closed.