ArticleHeliyon2024
Experimental analysis of free-standing and substrate-constrained Ga-doped ZnO nanostructured thermoelectric films.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developing thermoelectric films without substrates-free-standing films-eliminates substrate-induced effects on performance and meets the flexibility requirements of emerging wearable thermoelectric applications. This study investigates Gallium-doped Zinc Oxide (GZO), composed of abundant and non-toxic elements, to fabricate a substrate-free GZO film via 3D printing and compares its structural, chemical, and thermoelectric properties with those of a substrate-constrained GZO film produced through chemical deposition. Both films exhibited uniform crystal structures and phase purity; however, the substrate-constrained film displayed additional diffraction peaks, suggesting potential substrate interactions. The 3D-printed free-standing film effectively eliminated the tensile stresses observed in the substrate-constrained film. FE-STEM analysis revealed nanostructures with homogeneous elemental distribution in both films, though the substrate-constrained film showed discontinuities, such as pores, likely caused by post-deposition annealing treatment. XPS analysis highlighted differences in chemical states and elemental compositions between the films, influenced by fabrication methods, substrate-induced stresses, and surface energy mismatches. The free-standing GZO film developed through 3D printing exhibited a more balanced incorporation of Zn and O, as it was not subject to substrate or post-deposition annealing constraints. Consequently, it demonstrated a 14 % increase in electrical conductivity and a 91 % improvement in the Seebeck coefficient compared to the substrate-constrained film, resulting in a higher room-temperature power factor of 261 nW/m·K
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.