ArticleScientific reports2026
Effect of metasurface and process parameters on adhesion during transfer printing using a nanoscratch test.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Transfer printing of metasurface has emerged as a promising technique for realising ultra-high-resolution displays beyond the limits of conventional patterning methods. Reliable transfer requires precise control of adhesion at the interfaces between the metasurface and transfer mold/transfer substrate. Here, we quantitatively investigate adhesion variations at interfaces without or with metasurface, as well as the effects of transfer printing parameters such as applied pressure and temperature. Four paired transfer molds and transfer substrates were fabricated for simulating actual process conditions, and adhesion forces were measured independently using nanoscratch tests. We find that, compared to the specimen without metasurface, adhesion to transfer mold with metasurface is slightly reduced due to the formation of dimples, while adhesion to the transfer substrate with metasurface is significantly decreased resulting from void formation. Application of 5 bar pressure enhances adhesion at both interfaces. In contrast, increasing the temperature to 90 °C decreases adhesion at the transfer mold due to thermally induced residual stresses whereas the transfer substrate adhesion remains nearly unchanged as APS1 activation and residual stress effects counterbalance. Based on the adhesion difference between paired transfer molds and transfer substrates, the optimal conditions of transfer printing are identified as 5 bar and 90 °C. These results elucidate the mechanisms governing adhesion in transfer printing of metasurface and provide guidelines for optimising transfer printing for next-generation ultra-high-resolution displays.
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.