ArticleScientific reports2022
Copper laser patterning on a flexible substrate using a cost-effective 3D printer.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Universal High-Resolution Copper Patterning on Diverse Substrates via Sequential Laser-Induced Transfer and Electroless Plating.Micromachines · 2026Article
- Laser Micromachining for Bioelectronics: Past, Present, and Future.Small methods · 2026Review
- Finite Element Analysis of Thermal-Mechanical Coupling and Process Parameter Optimization in Laser Etching of Al-Tedlar-Kevlar Composite Films.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We studied the cost effective direct laser patterning of copper (Cu) on thin polyimide substrates (PI thickness: 12.5-50 µm) using a 405 nm laser module attached to an inexpensive 3D printer. The focal length of the laser was intentionally controlled to reduce defects on patterned Cu and surface damage of PI under predetermined process conditions. The appropriate focal length was examined at various focal distances. Focal distances of - 2.4 mm and 3 mm were found for the shorter focal length (SFL) and longer focal length (LFL), respectively, compared to the actual focal length. This resulted in clean Cu line patterns without line defects. Interestingly, the SFL case had a different Cu growth pattern to that of LFL, indicating that the small difference in the laser incident angle could affect Cu precursor sintering. Cu square patterns had a lower resistivity of 70 μΩ·cm for an LFL after three or four laser scans, while the SFL showed a resistivity below 48 μΩ·cm for a one-time laser scan. The residues of the Cu precursor on PI were easily removed with flowing water and normal surfactants. However, the resistivity of the patterns decreased after cleaning. Among the scan gaps, the Cu square pattern formed at a 70 μm scan gap had the lowest sheet resistance and the least change in resistance from around 4 to 4.4 Ω/ϒ after cleaning. This result implies that the adhesion of the patterned Cu could be improved if the coated Cu precursor was well sintered under the proper process conditions. For the application of this method to bioelectronics, including biosensors, LEDs were connected to the Cu patterns on PI attached to the arm skin and worked well, even when the substrate PI was bent during power connecting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.