PIGMENT AND BINDER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY OF SBS BOARD

PIGMENT AND BINDER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ELECTRICAL
RESISTIVITY OF SBS BOARD
Chinmay Vijaykumar Peshave, M.A.
Western Michigan University, 2010
The printing of functional inks on paper offers the possibility of light weight, thin
film electronic devices that increase the value of the product and reduce the overall cost
of device implementation. One application for such technology is the printing of radio
frequency identification (RFID) tags directly to packaging materials. As the functionality
of paper increases, an understanding of the base paper and coating layer contributions to
the electrical performance of the printed device becomes increasingly important.
In this project, the influence of coating components on the electrical resistivity of
a commercially available SBS board was examined. Different coatings were applied to
understand the contribution of selected pigments and binders on the electrical resistivity
of the chosen substrate. A Keithley 6517A high resistance meter was used to measure the
electrical resistivity of the substrates.

PIGMENT AND BINDER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ELECTRICAL
RESISTIVITY OF SBS BOARD
by
Chinmay Vijaykumar Peshave
A Thesis
Submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate College
in partial fulfillment for the
Degree of Master of Science
Department of Paper Engineering, Chemical Engineering, Imaging
Advisor: Margaret Joyce, Ph.D.
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, Michigan
June 2010

Copyright by
2010

DEDICATION
This thesis is dedicated to my grandfather, the late Nanasaheb Peshave, who
achieved success in difficult circumstances and became one of the most renowned
lawyers in Pune, India. He has been a huge influence in my life. I consign all my
achievements to his soul.
I also want to dedicate this work to the three pillars of my life: lord Khandoba, my
parents and my elder sister Gauri. Without you my life would be meaningless.

ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is a pleasure to thank those who made this thesis possible. I owe my deepest
gratitude to my adviser, Dr. Margaret Joyce, whose guidance, support and encouragement
enabled me to develop an understanding of this subject. Her advice during my MS
program helped me maintain my focus and reach my potential. I am also grateful to her
for providing me the resources and facilities necessary for this research.
I would like to thank my advisory committee members Dr. Alexandra
Pekarovicova and Dr. Paul Dan Fleming for their many advices. Their kind support and
guidance have been of great value in this study.
Matt Stoops, we are very privileged at the PCI department to have someone like
you helping all the students. Thank you for your useful insights and suggestions.
Additionally, I am thankful to my friends Manasi Oak, Shounak Pandit, Priyanka
Kapre, Omkar Chandorkar and many others who made the stressful times more bearable.
I would like to express my gratitude to all those who contributed in one way or the other.
My sister Gauri has been with me through tough times, thank you for listening to
my complaints and frustrations, and for believing in me. Last but not least, I would like to
thank my parents Sima and Vijaykumar Peshave for giving me unconditional support and
love through all this long process. Mom, your faith in me and my abilities is what has
shaped me to be the person I am today. Thank you for everything.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................ ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................. iii
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ viii
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
Background of the Study ........................................................................... 1
RFID Technology ...................................................................................... 3
RFID Tags............................................................................................ 3
RFID Reader ........................................................................................ 4
RFID Transceiver................................................................................. 4
Substrates for Printed Electronics.............................................................. 5
Electrical Properties of Paper..................................................................... 6
Resistivity of the Paper .............................................................................. 7
Coatings: Pigments and Binders ................................................................ 8
Coating Pigments................................................................................. 8
Binders ................................................................................................ 10
Substrate: Solid Bleach Sulfate (SBS) Board ........................................... 12

iv
Table of Contents—Continued
CHAPTER
II. OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED SIGNIFICANCE..................................... 13
Problem Statement.................................................................................... 13
III. MATERIALS AND PROPERTIES, EXPERIMENTAL WORK.................. 14
Surface and Volume Resistivity of Substrates.......................................... 16
Measuring Resistivity of the Substrates.............................................. 17
Surface and Volume Resistivity.......................................................... 18
WYKO and Emveco Roughness......................................................... 19
Resistance of Paper to Passage of Air by Gurley Method.................. 20
Surface Energy [FTA 200].................................................................. 20
Print Analysis...................................................................................... 21
Image Analysis [ImageXpert]............................................................. 21
IV. PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 23
Phase I: Sample Preparation ..................................................................... 23
Phase II: Calendering Study...................................................................... 23
Part A: Trial and Error........................................................................ 23
Part B: Final Calendering Conditions................................................. 24
Phase III: Keithley 6517A Resistivity Measurements.............................. 24
Phase IV: Substrate Characterization Tests .............................................. 24

v
CHAPTER
Phase V: Print Analysis ............................................................................ 25
Design of Experiments.............................................................................. 26
V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION..................................................................... 27
Roughness Results .................................................................................... 27
Surface Energy Results............................................................................. 29
Flow Resistance Results ........................................................................... 30
Regression Analysis Results -Keithley 6517A Resistivity....................... 30
Volume Resistivity Results:
Samples Conditionedat TAPPI Conditions......................................... 30
Volume Resistivity Results:
Samples at 90% RH 37.8o
C Condition ............................................... 31
Surface Resistivity Results:
Samples at TAPPI Conditions ............................................................ 32
Surface Resistivity Results:
Samples at 90% RH 37.8°C Condition............................................... 34
Print Characterization ............................................................................... 35
Line Raggedness ....................................................................................... 36
VI. CONCLUSION............................................................................................... 38
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 40

vi
APPENDICES
A. Tables.............................................................................................................. 43
B. WYKO Roughness Results............................................................................. 46

vii
LIST OF TABLES
1: Classification of Binders......................................................................................... 10
2: Physical Properties of Selected Coating Pigments ................................................. 14
3: Coating Formulations ............................................................................................. 14
4: Physical Properties of Pigments ............................................................................. 15
5: Base Sheet Properties.............................................................................................. 15
6: Details of Various Tests Conducted for Substrate.................................................. 16
7: Keithley 6517A HR Settings .................................................................................. 19
8: Emveco Instrument Settings................................................................................... 20
9: Details of the Printing Process................................................................................ 21
10: Final Calendering Conditions............................................................................... 24
11: DOE for Phase III ................................................................................................. 26
12: Substrate Characterization.................................................................................... 27
13: Regression Analysis Results-1.............................................................................. 31
17: Image Analysis Results......................................................................................... 35

viii
LIST OF FIGURES
1: RFID System Components ...................................................................................... 3
2: Substrates and Level of Complexity in Printed Electronics .................................... 6
3: Water Penetration According to Pigment Structures.............................................. 10
4: Percent Change in Degree of Hydrolysis and PVOH Properties............................ 11
5: Keithley 6517A Circular Electrode Assembly and Dimensions ............................ 18
6: Keithley 6517A Instrument .................................................................................... 18
7: Line Printed with Conductive Silver Flake (Water Based) Ink.............................. 25
8: Emveco Profilometer Roughness............................................................................ 28
9: WYKO Roughness White Light Interferometry..................................................... 28
10: Surface Energy by First Ten Angstroms............................................................... 29
11: Comparison of Gurley Resistance Values ............................................................ 30
12: Main Effects Plot of Volume Resistivity Results-1.............................................. 32
13: Main Effects Plot of Volume Resistivity Results-2.............................................. 33
14: Main Effects Plot of Surface Resistivity-3 ........................................................... 34
15: Main Effects Plot of Surface Resistivity-4 ........................................................... 35
16: Line Raggedness, Line Resistance vs. Samples ................................................... 36
17: Line Raggedness on Image Analyzer ................................................................... 36
18: Gurley Resistance, Line Resistance vs. Samples.................................................. 37

1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Paper is a good insulator, i.e. a material that has a very low electrical
conductivity1
. Coatings are applied to paper for many reasons, to improve the printing
properties, by increasing the smoothness and by providing a uniform porous layer to
receive ink. Coatings improve the optical properties of paper or in the case of barrier
coatings, impart a desired resistance to fluid or gas flow2
.
With the globalization of the paper industry, many paper grades are now
commodity grades (high volume, low profit). This has led paper companies, especially
within the U.S., to seek technologies of higher value4
. Two areas of recent growth have
been security papers and packaging. Much of the growth in these areas is due to the
advances in functional coatings and inks3,4,5,6
, which has expanded the field of specialty
papers and intelligent packaging. The printing of functional inks on paper offers the
possibility of light weight, thin film electronic devices that increase the value of the
product and reduce the overall cost of device implementation4,5,6
.Applications for such
technology are radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, active packaging, sensors and
paper batteries. As the functionality of paper increases, an understanding of the base
paper and coating layer contributions to the electrical performance of the printed device

2
becomes increasingly important. In this study, the influence of coating components on
the electrical properties of a commercially available SBS board was examined.
Different coatings were applied to understand the contribution of select pigments
and binders on the electrical properties of an SBS board. A Keithley 6517Ahigh
resistance meter was used to measure the electrical properties of the coated board.
For the past three years, several faculty members and students at WMU have been
involved in research to advance the printing of functional materials on various packaging
materials4,5,6
. The research projects, in partnership with several industrial firms, has
resulted in the characterization and printing of various papers and boards with multiple
functional inks. During the past two years, a concentrated effort has been undertaken to
directly print and study the performance of various functional materials used in the
assembly of an RFID tag7,8,9
. When printing functional layers, one of the key
characteristics of the substrate is smoothness5,6,8
and electrical properties. Results have
shown the roughness of coated papers and board to be an order of magnitude greater than
PET film8
, thus requiring the application of an additional low dielectric primer coating
layer8
to enable sufficient smoothness for device performance. In this work, a
commercially produced SBS board was tested. A high range resistance meter enabled the
electrical properties of the coated boards to be characterized.
The research provides an understanding of the contribution of two major coating
components (pigments and binders) on the electrical properties of SBS board. The
pigments used were a shape engineered clay and nano calcium carbonate, which are
known to provide better coverage and higher barrier properties than conventional
pigments2
. A high barrier against moisture, water vapor and oxygen is needed to prevent

3
losses in mechanical and electrical properties2
. Paper and paper boards are sensitive to
moisture and water vapors, the absorption and adsorption of moisture reduces the
mechanical and electrical properties of the paper2,10
. Other materials widely used to
achieve barrier resistance are petroleum based products. But one of the major problems
with these materials is that they are expensive as a sole binder, unsustainable and in some
cases not recyclable2
.
RFID Technology
Radio frequency identification is a rapidly emerging market in the field of printed
electronics3,4
. Due to its beneficial use in various packaging applications and supply
chain management, interest in the development and implementation of this technology is
expanding. RFID technology uses an antenna and a reader, to capture digital data stored
in the RFID tag4
.
As mentioned earlier, there are three components to an RFID system - RFID
Tags, RFID Reader, and RFID Transceiver.
Figure 1: RFID System Components11
RFID Tags
The RFID tag consists of an integrated circuit attached to an antenna; the digital
data stored in the tag are communicated to the reader via radio waves11
. There are four

4
types of tags - Active Tags, Passive Tags, Write one or read many, and Read or write
tags.
The transmitter and receiver are powered with the help of batteries in the case of
active tags. Passive tags can be operated with or without batteries. The radio frequency
signal transmitted towards them from a reader is transmitted back and information is
added by modulating the signal12
.
RFID Reader
The RFID reader is a device that has an antenna, which emits radio waves to
communicate with the tag.
“RFID readers can stimulate tags by sending signals, supplying power to passive
tags, encoding the data signals going to the tag, and finally, decoding the data received
from the tag”12
. Following are a list of frequency ranges at which RFID systems usually
work13
,
Low Frequency: 30 KHz to 500 KHz
High Frequency: 13.56 MHz
Ultra High Frequency: 850 MHz to 950 MHz
2.4 GHz to 2.5 GHz
RFID Transceiver
The identification system is connected to the RFID transceiver, which is a
computer with data processing software12
. The reader/antenna decodes the data that have
been encoded in the tag’s circuit and the data are forwarded to the transceiver for further
processing.

5
The RFID technology has many advantages over the barcode system; the tags can
store more information than barcodes, they do not require an optical scanner for operation
and the digital data that are stored can be altered.
Substrates for Printed Electronics
There are many substrates that can be used for printed electronics, such as
polyethylene, polyamide, polysulfone, Mylar polyesters, PVC, glass and cellulosic
materials such as paper and paperboard3
. Various printing processes such as flexography,
gravure, screenland digital can be used to print these materials3
. It has been observed that
substrates with very low roughness and moderate absorbency can achieve the best results
in printed electronic applications12
. Usually the substrates preferred for printed
electronics applications are the ones that have very low conductivity, hydrolytic stability,
resistance to abrasion and very low roughness. Smooth substrates provide a uniform
surface to receive the printed ink film. This in turn reduces the chances of RF signal
distortion12
. The cleanliness of the substrate and pressroom, and substrate smoothness are
two main factors to be considered for the integrity of successive printed layers. PET is
one of the most widely used substrates for printed electronic applications. 14,15
Although
paper is gaining a lot of attention for printed electronic applications, to-date only a few
papers have been published on its use in this field.12,16,17
Figure 2 explains the use of substrates and level of complexity in printed
electronic applications18
. Rigid glass has a comparatively smoother and cleaner surface,
which makes it a better fit for printed electronics applications. Paper and board substrates
are rougher than glass, thus the complexity of their use in printed electronics is higher.

6
But it is also important to note that paper and boards are flexible renewable materials and
may provide a cost effective option for printed electronics applications.
Figure 2: Substrates and Level of Complexity in Printed Electronics18
Electrical Properties of Paper
Paper has been used as an insulating material in many electronic applications such
as capacitors, transformers and circuit boards. In special applications, such as RFID, it
may serve as a required base material19
, since it has the inherent characteristic of being a
good insulator. In the case of printed electronics, the base paper should have minimal
electric conduction, so as to not interfere with the electric field of the printed functional
inks.

7
Resistivity of the Paper
Resistivity is the inverse of conductivity. All materials offer a resistance to the
flow of electric current, when they are exposed to an electric field. The components that
are used for making material can have an effect on the amount of resistance offered by
material. Also the shape, length and cross sectional area of the component will have a
significant impact on resistance20
. There is a fixed relation between the resistance,
voltage and strength of a current through a circuit. According to Ohm’s law21
, the
strength of a continuous current (I) in a circuit, varies directly with the potential
difference (E) and inversely with the resistance (R).
The equation can be given as,
I (Amperes) = E/R (Volts/Ohms)
Paper serves as a good insulator. An insulator is a substance that does not allow
the flow of current through them. Actually, there is no substance that is a perfect insulator
(i.e. non-conductor20
). The components of the material by which it is made, its physical
properties like length and thickness, control the effectiveness of the resistance offered by
that material. The interaction of an electric field with paper and moisture content, relative
humidity, temperature and time has an impact on the final conductivity of a printed
electronic device. There is an incomplete understanding about these interactions,
although some research has been carried out on this topic20,22
.
Paper has a dielectric constant, K, higher than 123
, it also contains electric dipoles
in its molecular structure. These tiny electric dipoles move in the direction aligned with
the electric field.

8
The polarizability of the components of the coatings may affect the electrical
properties of the paper. The polarizability and its electronic contribution depend upon the
movement of the ions in the presence of an electric field24
.
Surface moisture and a wet ink film together produce a change in resistivity of the
substrate25
. The local dielectric constant is altered by the presence of moisture, as is the
resistivity. The water holdout and water absorbency of the paper can be controlled by the
application of a coating formulation. The dielectric loss is mostly influenced by moisture
present in the coating layer and their effect on the molecular motions26
.
Coatings: Pigments and Binders
Coating Pigments
Coating pigments are basically classified as being, main, specialty or additional
pigments27
. In the main pigments category, pigments such as kaolin clay, ground calcium
carbonate, and talc are included. Gypsum is an example of a specialty pigment, while
plastic pigments, titanium dioxide and precipitated calcium carbonate come under the
additional pigments category.
Pigment shape, size and size distribution have a significant impact on coating
coverage. The pigment packing structure and particle shape are the key parameters that
control the coverage; porosity and ink absorption of the coated substrate27
.There are three
basic particle shapes, spherical/cubic, rod/needle, and platy27
.
One of the important parameters for platy structured pigments is an aspect ratio,
which is given by following formula,
Aspect Ratio = d/h

9
Where, d= diameter of the particle (µm)
h= particle thickness (µm)
Engineered clay (XP8000Imerys, Roswell, GA received at 61.3% solid content)
has a high density and specific resistivity, its platy structure provides good coverage2
,
which is needed for many packaging applications. It also provides good water resistance,
coverage and a close packing arrangement to form an even coating layer, which is
necessary attribute of substrate used for printed electronics22
. Figure 3 shows water
penetration according to pigment structures. The engineered calcium carbonate (received
at 60.7% solid content) is a shape engineered pigment with close to spherical shaped
particles2
.
The water/moisture transport through the coating layers can be substantially
reduced by using shape engineered pigments in the coating2
.
Due to the difference between particle shape, size and packing of clay and
carbonate pigments, there will be a difference between the water retention/penetration
properties of the coating layers as well27
. This difference in the water retention and
penetration may cause a change in the electrical properties of the coated substrates up to a
certain level.
Hollow sphere pigments, HSP, [Rohm and Hass ROPAQUE HP-543] are
thermoplastic polymers that contain encapsulated air voids27
. Nowadays, HSP is used to
achieve special properties such as thermal insulation. Due to the presence of air voids in
these pigments, a higher thermal insulation can be achieved-“a reflection of lower
thermal conductivity of air”31
. In many applications of HSP in coating formulations, a top
coat can be applied on a paper substrate to achieve smoothness, higher ink holdout and

10
also to achieve thermal insulation for thermal imaging applications. These pigments were
available in slurry (already dispersed) form at 29.7% solids content.
Hollow Sphere Plastic Pigments
Clay
Carbonate
Slow
Fast
Figure 3: Water Penetration According to Pigment Structures
Binders
Binders are classified according to their solubility in water27
.
Table 1: Classification of Binders
Insoluble in water
Latexes
Styrene acrylic
Styrene butadiene
Polyvinyl acetate
Soluble in Water
Natural
Polymers
Starch, Proteins, Carboxymethylated
cellulose
Synthetic Polyvinyl alcohol PVOH
The binder is an important part of the coating formulation because it not only
imparts strength to the coating layer, but it also impacts the porosity, inks absorptivity,
and optical properties of the coating27
. Polyvinyl alcohol provides the highest binding
strength to coatings in comparison to other classes mentioned in Table 127
.

11
To achieve an equal binding strength of polyvinyl alcohol with styrene butadiene
latex (SB), almost double the amount of SB latex would need to be used27
. In real
practice, the base sheet's properties must be considered before following the above 2:1
latex to PVOH replacement.
PVOH binders are classified according to their viscosities (3 to 6 mPa.
s) and
degree of hydrolysis. Figure 4 shows how the change in the degree of hydrolysis impacts
the barrier properties of substrates28
.
PVOH is a dielectric material itself29
. It is a very strong binder and as gravure
uses the highest pressure at the printing nip, it is desirable for the coated paper boards to
have a strong binder30
. Two types of PVOH binders will be used in the project, with
varying degree of hydrolysis levels.
Figure 4: Percent Change in Degree of Hydrolysis and PVOH Properties28

12
PVOH 103 is fully (98-98.8%) hydrolyzed binder, which makes the coated grades
more water resistive than that of partially hydrolyzed PVOH 203binder28
.Celvol PVOH
103 and 203 (Prepared at 29.6% and 30% solid content) binder solutions were prepared
by standard procedure. The dry powder supplied was mixed in warm water and then
heating the solution at 90o
C.
Each and every component has its own physical and chemical characteristics.
These components also interact with each other. These interactions can be three-way or
two-way. The final properties of the coated paper depend upon these interactions31
. For
this project, the optical properties of the sheet are not important, but the properties of
smoothness, ink absorbency and resistivity are of great interest. To obtain these
properties, the coating components must be carefully selected.
Substrate: Solid Bleach Sulfate (SBS) Board
SBS board is widely used in the packaging applications including food packages,
pharmaceutical and ice cream boxes due to its relatively high cost, better mechanical
strength, print quality and durability. In this project commercially available C1S (coated
one side- triple layer) SBS Board was used as a base sheet.
SBS boards are composed of cellulose & hemicellulose fibers, fillers and variety
of additives used as sizing agents and retention aids2
. Amongst the top three types of
paper boards used in the industry, I- SBS, II- CUK (coated unbleached kraft) and III-
CRB (coated recycled board); SBS is of the highest quality2
.
.

13
CHAPTER II
OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED SIGNIFICANCE
To further the understanding of the contribution of base layer and selected coating
components on the electrical properties of SBS Board.
Problem Statement
SBS board is a material very often used in packaging industry. It is not a perfect
insulator or ideal surface for printed electronics due to its high roughness and non-
uniform ink receptivity for electronics application. Not being a perfect insulator, there
will be some leakage of electric current through the sheet. The conductivity of printed
features depends upon the resistivity, smoothness, and porosity of the SBS board, as well
as the conductive ink used and thickness of the ink film applied5,6
. Thus, the requirements
of a coating for functional inks are different than for graphic inks. In the case of graphic
inks, the optical properties of paper, such as gloss, brightness, whiteness and L*a*b*
values, are important, but for functional inks, the resistivity of paper, smoothness,
porosity, and surface energy are of prime importance4
. In this research, the influence of
coating pigment and binder chemistry on the electrical properties of a coating layer
applied to SBS board was studied.

14
CHAPTER III
MATERIALS AND PROPERTIES, EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Table 2 shows some of the physical properties of pigments used27
.
Table 2: Physical Properties of Selected Coating Pigments
Pigment Chemical Composition Particle Shape
Density
(kg/dm3
)
Kaolin Clay Al2O3. 2SiO2. 2H2O Platy: Hexagonal 2.58
GCC CaCO3
Cubic, Prismatic,
Platy
2.7
Plastic Pigment
Hollow
Styrene Acrylic Spherical 0.6-0.9
Table 3 shows the eight coating formulations used. The pigment to binder ratio in
each formulation was held constant except in the last two formulations where no pigment
was added.
Table 3: Coating Formulations
Coating
Components
Form
1
Form
2
Form
3
Form
4
Form
5
Form
6
Form
7
Form
8
HSP 543 100 100 0 0 0 0 0 0
Engineered
Carbonate
0 0 100 100 0 0 0 0
Engineered Clay 0 0 0 0 100 100 0 0
Celvol PVOH
103
10 0 10 0 10 0 100 0
Celvol PVOH
203
0 10 0 10 0 10 0 100
The analysis of the eight different formulations enabled an understanding of the
influence of coating pigment and binder on the electrical properties of SBS board to be

15
gained. In this project, a fully hydrolyzed (Celvol 103, Celanese Corp., Dallas Tx) and
Partially Hydrolyzed (Celvol 203, Celanese Corp Dallas Tx) were used.
The particle sizes of the pigments used are provided in Table 4. The data was
obtained from earlier research work carried out at Western Michigan University2
.
Table 4: Physical Properties of Pigments
Pigments Trade Name D50 (nm) Aspect Ratio
Plate
Thickness
Clay XP8000 450-550 50-60 40
Carbonate XP8100 200-240
Plastic
Pigment
ROPAQUE
HP543
500
Note: Data Collected from Earlier Work Carried out at Western Michigan University2
Table 5: Base Sheet Properties
Physical Properties Optical Properties
Emveco
Roughness
[microns]
Caliper
[mils]
Brightness
[%GE]
Opacity
[%]
Gloss
[%]
Average 1.03 15.82 84.86 94.78 36.14
S.D. 0.01 0.05 0.17 0.22 0.83
Table 6 shows the details of various tests conducted on the samples. For
properties such as surface energy and roughness (WYKO, Emveco) five replicates were
considered for an average and standard deviation.
Surface and volume resistivity was measured using a Keithley 6517A instrument
with three replicates per variation. A total of eight resistivity values were obtained for
each individual sample, thus 24 readings per variation were obtained. The 24 raw
readings were used to perform a Regression Analysis and Two Way ANOVA for
Keithley measurements.

16
Three replicates of each variation were considered in the analysis of line
raggedness and line resistance.
Table 6: Details of Various Tests Conducted for Substrate
Properties Tests Instruments
Electrical
Surface & Volume
Resistivity
Keithley 6517A
Surface Roughness
WYKO
(White Light
Interferometry)
Emveco
Barrier Air Resistance Gurley
Surface Energy
FTA
(First Ten
Angstroms)
Print Analysis
Printing
Process
Gravure Printing K-Proofer
Image
Analysis
Line Raggedness ImageXpert
Electrical Line Resistivity Multimeter
Surface and Volume Resistivity of Substrates
The Keithley 6517A instrument allowed the surface, as well as the volume
resistivity of substrates to be measured in the following ranges32
:
Surface: 103
to 1017
Ohm/sq
Volume: 103
to 1018
Ohm-cm
A Model 8009 Resistivity Test Fixture enabled samples of size 32 to 51mm in
radius and up to 3.175 mm caliper to be measured32
. The instrument can be operated
within a voltage range of 1µV to 210 V.

17
Measuring Resistivity of the Substrates
The Keithley 6517A uses circular electrodes to measure the resistivity of samples.
During its use, the sample to be measured was kept in good contact with the surfaces of
the electrodes,
Surface Resistivity: The resultant current is obtained by applying a voltage
potential on the surface of the sample expressed as,
ρs = Ks .R
ρs= Surface (or sheet) Resistivity Ohm/Square
R = Resistance in Ohms (V/I)
Ks = P/g
P = Perimeter of electrode (mm)
g = Distance between guarded electrode and ring electrode (mm)
Volume Resistivity: Volume resistivity is the electrical resistance through a 1 cm
cube of material and is expressed as,
R
ρV= Volume Resistivity
Kv = Effective Area of Guarded Electrode
τ= Average Thickness of the Sample (mm)
R = Measured Resistance in Ohms (V/I)

18
Figure 5: Keithley 6517A Circular Electrode Assembly and Dimensions
d1 = Outside Diameter of Guarded Electrode
g = Distance between Guarded Electrode and Ring Electrode
B = Effective Area Coefficient
The exact dimensions are available in the Keithley 6517A user's manual.
Surface and Volume Resistivity
Surface and volume resistivities of the samples were measured using an8009 test
fixture at 100 volts AC. A total of 24 measurements per variation were obtained. Figure 6
shows pictures of Keithley 6517A HR followed by details of software settings used in
Table 7.
Figure 6: Keithley 6517A Instrument

19
Table 7: Keithley 6517A HR Settings
Software Settings
DC Voltage 100 V
Auto Range On
Show Graphs on Run Off
Geometries 8009 Test Fixture On
Total Number of Readings 11
Number of Readings
Discarded
3
Number of Readings
Recorded
8
Measurement Types
Surface Resistivity
[Ohm/sq]
No need to enter caliper of
the specimen
Volume Resistivity
[Ohm cm]
Caliper of the sample
specimen is entered
WYKO and Emveco Roughness
WYKO: The WYKO RST-plus microscope has the ability to perform three-
dimensional measurements of a surface profile with a non-contact technique. With the
help of light reflected from the surface, the roughness Ra (arithmetical mean), Rq (root
mean square) is calculated. This instrument also provides roughness Rt, which is the sum
of height of highest peak and the highest valley depth within the area. It uses white light
interferometry for 3D surface measurements of roughness within the nanometer to mm
range.
EmvecoProfilometer: The Emveco 210 Electronic Micro Gauge Stylus
Profilometer instrument measures variations in the surface roughness. Three areas were
chosen to measure the roughness. The stylus used for roughness measurements was a fine
conical shaped metallic rod of 0.001 inch radius. The test conditions used are provided in
Table 8.

20
Table 8: Emveco Instrument Settings
No. of Readings per
Sample
Sample Spacing Speed
500 0.003 0.5 mm/sec
Average roughness R is obtained using following equation,
h = vertical stylus position
n = number of readings
Resistance of Paper to Passage of Air by Gurley Method
A Gurley Porosimeter was used to measure the time taken by a sample to allow a
given volume of air to pass through it under a defined pressure at TAPPI standard
temperature and humidity conditions. This test is very important in terms of obtaining
information on the Z-directional fluid permeance, gas or liquid filtering ability and
degree of moisture absorbency as well33
. In this apparatus, a volume of air is forced to
travel with moderate pressure towards the test specimen, which is clamped to the gasket
ring with the help of cylinder containing mercury (2 pounds). Air filtered through the
specimen is escaped to the atmosphere. The results are reported in Gurley seconds
(100cc/in2
).
Surface Energy [FTA 200]
The FTA200 is a flexible video system for measuring contact angle, surface and
interfacial tensions, wettability, and absorption. Surface energy was approximated by
applying the Owens-Wendt Method34
. Two standard liquids, water and methylene iodide,

21
were used to estimate the contact angles. Five drops with three replications were
measured on each coated board. For the surface energy calculation, the contact angle of
the first stable drop was used.
Polar and dispersive components were determined along with surface energy by
FTA 200 software. Surface energy was obtained through the addition of polar and
dispersive components of a surface energy of material.
Print Analysis
Table 9 shows the ink properties and press run used.
Table 9: Details of the Printing Process
Printing
Process
Gravure
K-Proofer
Blade Angle 45o
Impression
Pressure
Kept Constant for all
variations
Plate 200 lpi [Lines per Inch]
Speed 5 Arbitrary Units
Ink
Water Based Conductive
Silver Flake Ink
Make Acheson Colloids Inc.
Brookfield
Viscosity
Spindle 4
100 RPM 20 RPM
350 cp 1050 cp
Solid Content35
82.5-84%
Particle Size35
<3 [µm]
Image Analysis [ImageXpert]
Line raggedness was measured using an ImageXpert instrument. A high
resolution camera was used for determining image quality.
Line Raggedness: Line raggedness is the deviation of an image’s boundary line
from a well-defined ideal print edge. The line, which is connected through well-defined
boundary points, determines the line raggedness (mm).

22
Electrical Characterization of Printed Features: The electrical resistance was
measured using an Agilent 4338B Multiohmmeter. Three replications of each variation
were considered for these measurements. In this project, the line resistance (Ω) of the
printed features was calculated.

23
CHAPTER IV
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Phase I: Sample Preparation
As mentioned in Table 3, eight different coatings were formulated and blade
coated on to an SBS board [MeadWestvaco SBS Board: 294.6gsm] with a cylindrical
laboratory coater, CLC. A coat weight of approximately 10gsm was applied.
Phase II: Calendering Study
Part A: Trial and Error
As roughness is one of the main properties influencing surface as well as volume
resistivity of the substrate, efforts were made to minimize the differences in the
roughness values between the eight applied coatings. All samples were calendered using
a supercalender at room temperature (23o
C). By trial and error, samples of the eight
coated boards were calendered at different calendering pressure conditions. The
roughness values of the calendered samples were measured using an Emveco instrument
to determine one calendering condition at which a roughness between 0.5 to 0.7 microns
could be achieved. Hollow sphere plastic pigments and structured pigments like clay
&carbonate impart different roughness to the coated substrates due to differences
between their inherent physical properties, especially shape and size, hence the need to
use different calendering conditions to meet a similar target roughness value.

24
It was determined that a roughness range (0.5-0.7 microns) could be obtained for
all substrates.
Part B: Final Calendering Conditions
The samples were calendered using a sheetfed supercalender and Emveco
roughnesses within the range of 0.50 to 0.70 microns were obtained. The calendering
conditions applied are listed in Table 10.
Table 10: Final Calendering Conditions
Variations Calendering
Pressure [PLI]
Number of Passes
HSP 103 625 2
HSP 203 625 2
Carbonate 103 1000 2
Carbonate 203 1000 2
Clay 103 1500 3
Clay 203 1000 2
103 1000 2
203 1000 2
Phase III: Keithley 6517A Resistivity Measurements
The calendered samples were then tested with a Keithley 6517A instrument for
surface and volume resistivity after being conditioned for 24 hours at TAPPI standard
condition (50% RH and 23°C),as well as, at 90% relative humidity (RH), 37.8°C. This
enabled the influence of moisture on coating and base sheet surface and volume
resistivity to be determined.
Phase IV: Substrate Characterization Tests
The calendered samples were tested in the same manner as the uncalendered
samples after being conditioned according to TAPPI standards.

25
Phase V: Print Analysis
Printing was performed using a K-printing proofer [R.K. Print-Coat Instruments
Ltd.] with gravure print head. A water based conductive silver flake ink [HenkelPM 500,
Billerica, MA] was used to print a 1 x 50 mm line, as shown in Figure 7, for resistivity
measurements.
Figure 7: Line Printed with Conductive Silver Flake (Water Based) Ink
The printed samples were cured in an oven at 120o
F for 10 minutes. Curing
temperature and time are significant parameters that influence the conductivity of printed
features36
. So, the time and temperature selected were based on these findings, which
showed these conditions being needed for best ink performance4
.

26
Design of Experiments
The design of experiment used for this study is given in Table 11.
Table 11: DOE for Phase III
Basic Runs Pigments Binders
Keithley 6517A Resistivity
TAPPI Conditions 90% RH 37.8 deg. C
Surface Volume Surface Volume
1 HSP 103
2 HSP 203
3 Carbonate 103
4 Carbonate 203
5 Clay 103
6 Clay 203
7 No Pigment 103
8 No Pigment 203
Note: 24 Readings per variation were used for regression analysis.
In total, twenty-four readings per variation were recorded. Four responses at each
respective condition were obtained. The data collected from these measurements were
studied through Multiple Linear Regression analysis of Minitab 15 software.
The regression analysis generates an equation, which is based on the statistical
relationship between two factors (pigments and binders content in the coating). The
regression analysis also gives us information about statistically significant factors.

27
CHAPTER V
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The physical and optical properties of the uncoated SBS board are given in Table
12. The uncoated roughness varied from 1.03 to 2.41 microns depending on the test
method used.
Table 12: Substrate Characterization
Tests Values Units
Physical Properties
Emveco Roughness Avg. 1.03 microns
Std Dev 0.01
Caliper Avg. 15.81 mils
Std Dev 0.05
Optical Properties
Opacity Avg. 98.78 %
Std Dev 0.22
Brightness Avg. 84.86 %GE
Std Dev 0.17
Gloss Avg. 36.14 %
Std Dev 0.83
Roughness Results
Figures 8 and 9 show the roughness of the coated boards measured with the
Emvecoprofilometer and WYKO instrument, respectively. As mentioned earlier, the
roughness of the coatings was kept within the range of 0.50 to 0.70 microns because
earlier studies carried out at Western Michigan University, showed the conductivity of
printed features to decrease with a decrease in surface roughness22
.Although it has been
observed that surface roughness plays a significant role in controlling the thickness and

28
uniformity of the ink film, there is no relevant relation between changes in the
conductivity with respect to change in the ink film layer thickness22
.
Figure 8: Emveco Profilometer Roughness
Figure 9: WYKO Roughness White Light Interferometry

29
Surface Energy Results
All coatings except the ones containing HSP pigment showed an estimated
surface energy above 70 dynes/cm (Figure 10).The relation between surface tension and
surface energy is explained by contact angle measurement37
.
Liquid molecules are held together inter and intramolecular forces37
. These forces
enable a substrate to capture liquid molecules due to the free bonds present at the surface.
The samples containing HSP pigments have very low resistance (see Figure 11)
compared to the other coated boards, which results in less ink penetration. The synthetic
chemistry of the HSP 103 and HSP 203 make them both significantly more hydrophobic
than the natural mineral pigments.
Substrate, ink characteristics and their interactions can have a significant impact
on print quality. From the line raggedness results of Figure 16 and Table 18 it is seen
that the line raggedness was higher for the lower surface energy coatings.
Figure 10: Surface Energy by First Ten Angstroms

30
Flow Resistance Results
Figure 11 shows that coatings containing HSP and clay are more resistive to flow
(less permeable) than the carbonate coating. The structured clay provided a uniform,
smooth and low porosity coating after calendering due to its platy structure2
.
The HSP pigment being spherical, with an average particle size of 500 nm
provided a closely packed coating structure which resulted in low Gurley resistance
values similar to that of the platy clay (Figure 11).
The more open carbonate coating structure resulted in greater ink penetration.
This resulted in less line raggedness for printed line and better overall print quality.
Figure 11: Comparison of Gurley Resistance Values
Regression Analysis Results -Keithley 6517A Resistivity
Volume Resistivity Results: Samples Conditioned at TAPPI Conditions
The regression equation is
ρs = 6.28x1011
- 2.23x1011
Pigment ID + 4.73x1011
Binder

31
Table 13: Regression Analysis Results-1
Predictor Coe SE Coe T P
Constant 6.28x1011
3.28 x1011
1.92 0.057
Pigment -2.23 x1011
0.84 x1011
-2.65 0.009
Binder 4.73 x1009
1.88 x1009
2.52 0.013
From Table 13, it can be observed that both factors pigment &binder are
statistically significant. For every change in the pigment type in a sequence of 0- No
Pigment 1- HSP2-Carbonate3- Clay the volume resistivity decreased by
2.23x1011
Ohmcm. And with every change in the binder type from 103 to 203 the volume
resistivity results increase by 4.73x1009
Ohmcm. A comparison of Table 13 and 21 shows
the pigment to be statistically significant factor. However, it is important to note that
most of the contribution to this effect is due to HSP coated boards (see Figure 12).
The two way ANOVA (Table 21) results show the interaction between the
pigment and binder to be statistically significant with a P-value of 0.
Volume Resistivity Results: Samples at 90% RH 37.8o
C Condition
The regression equation is,
Volume R = 2.20x1007
+ 1.31x1006
Pigment ID –1.06x1004
Binder
From the regression analysis results shown in the Table 14, it can be observed that
the type of pigment used is statistically significant. Though binders are not statistically
significant at a 95% confidence interval, the P-value 0.073 indicates, that it should not be
completely neglected. For every change in the pigment type in a sequence of 0- No
Pigment 1- HSP 2- Carbonate 3- Clay the volume resistivity is increased by
1.31x1006
Ohmcm. And with every change in the binder type from 103 to 203 the volume
resistivity results are decreased by 1.06x1004
Ohmcm. Two way ANOVA (Table 21)

32
results show that the factors pigment, binder and interaction of two factors are also
statistically significant.
No Pigment
HSP
Clay
Carbonate
3.0000E+12
2.5000E+12
2.0000E+12
1.5000E+12
1.0000E+12
5.0000E+11
0
203
103
Pigment
Mean
Volume
Resistivity
[Ohms
cm]
Binder
Keithley Volume Resistivity [TAPPI Condition]
Figure 12: Main Effects Plot of Volume Resistivity Results-1
Constant 22032681 1023423 21.53 0
Pigment 1309161 262464 4.99 0
Binder -10586 5869 -1.8 0.073
Surface Resistivity Results: Samples at TAPPI Conditions
The regression equation is,
Surface R = 2.53x1013
- 8.20x1012
Pigment + 8.19x1010
Binder

33
No Pigment
HSP
Clay
Carbonate
25000000
24000000
23000000
22000000
21000000
20000000
19000000
203
103
Pigment
Mean
Volume
Resistivity
[Ohms
cm]
Binder
Keithley Volume Resistivity [90% RH 37.8 deg. C Condition]
Figure 13: Main Effects Plot of Volume Resistivity Results-2
Constant 2.53 x1013
9.27 x1012
2.72 0.007
Pigment -8.20 x1012
2.38 x1012
-3.45 0.001
Binder 8.19 x1010
5.31 x1010
1.54 0.125
Surface R = 2.53x1013
- 8.20x1012
Pigment + 8.19x1010
Binder
From Table 15, it can be observed that pigment type is statistically significant, but
binder is not. For every change in pigment type in a sequence of 0- No Pigment 1- HSP
2- Carbonate 3- Clay the surface resistivity decreased by 8.20x1012
Ohm/sq. And with
every change in the binder type from 103 to 203 the surface resistivity decreased by
8.19x1010
Ohm/sq. Although by looking at Table 15 and 21 we can see that pigment type
is statistically significant, it is important to note that most of the contribution to this effect
is due to the HSP coated board (see Figure 14). Two way ANOVA (Table 21) results

34
show that the factors pigment, binder and interaction of the two factors is also statistically
significant with P value < 1x10-3
.
No Pigment
HSP
Clay
Carbonate
9.0000E+13
8.0000E+13
7.0000E+13
6.0000E+13
5.0000E+13
4.0000E+13
3.0000E+13
2.0000E+13
1.0000E+13
0
203
103
Pigment
Mean
Surface
Resistivity
[Ohms/sq]
Binder
Keithley Surface Resistivity [TAPPI Condition]
Figure 14: Main Effects Plot of Surface Resistivity-3
Surface Resistivity Results: Samples at 90% RH 37.8°C Condition
The regression equation is
ρs = 2.38x1008
+ 5.16x1006
Pigment ID – 6.12x1004
Binder
Constant 2.38x1008
2.19x1008
10.84 0
Pigment 5.1x1006
5.6x1006
0.92 0.361
Binder -6.1x1004
1.2x1004
-0.49 0.628
From Table 16, it can be observed that at 90% RH and 37.8o
C both pigment and
binder are not statistically significant. For every change in pigment type in a sequence of

35
0- No Pigment 1- HSP 2- Carbonate 3- Clay the surface resistivity is increased by
5.16x1006
Ohm/sq. and with every change in the binder type from 103 to 203 the volume
resistivity results are decreased by 6.12x1004
Ohm/sq. The two way ANOVA (Table 21)
results show the pigment, binder and interaction of two factors are statistically
significant.
No Pigment
HSP
Clay
Carbonate
350000000
300000000
250000000
200000000
150000000
203
103
Pigment
Mean
Surface
Resistivity
[Ohm/sq]
Binder
Keithley Surface Resistivity [ 90% RH 37.8 deg C Condition]
Figure 15: Main Effects Plot of Surface Resistivity-4
Print Characterization
Table 17: Image Analysis Results
Substrates Printed with Conductive Water Based Silver
Flake Ink
HSP 103 Carbonate 103
Line Raggedness (mm) 0.0089 0.0048
Line Resistance (Ω) 9.59 4.69

36
Line Raggedness
Figure 16: Line Raggedness, Line Resistance vs. Samples
Figure 16 clearly shows the relation between line raggedness and its effect on line
resistance. Higher line raggedness was seen for samples with HSP 103 than the ones
coated with carbonate and 103binder. Figure 17 are the pictures taken from ImageXpert
instrument.
Figure 17: Line Raggedness on Image Analyzer
One of the main properties influencing line raggedness is the permeability of the
substrate. The printed ink layer was more ragged for the less permeable substrate HSP
103 most likely due to more spreading of the ink than absorption.

37
Figure 18: Gurley Resistance, Line Resistance vs. Samples

38
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
The project enables us to understand this emerging field and potential growth in
printed electronics applications and also the influence of pigment and binder on electrical
properties of SBS boards. The information obtained about the interaction of coating
pigments and binders with coated SBS boards used for packaging application can be
utilized to achieve desired goals in the printed electronics application.
In this study, commercially available coated SBS board was used as a base sheet
and was coated with eight different coatings. Each coating contained only one pigment
and one binder type. Three pigments (HSP, Engineered Clay & Carbonate) and two
binders PVOH 103, 203 were studied in this project. These coatings were made with only
three ingredients, pigment, binder and water.
The coat weight of all the variations was kept constant at approximately 10gsm.
Coated samples were calendered at different conditions to minimize the difference
between surface roughness to enable constant print conditions to be maintained.
Gurley resistance of the HSP 103 and 203 samples was found to be the lowest
compared to other coatings. One of the main reasons might be the thickness of HSP
coating layer deposited on the SBS boards to maintain 10 gsm of coat weight. The
density of HSP slurry is significantly less than clay and carbonate. Thus, a thicker coating

39
layer is deposited to achieve desired coat weight in case of samples coated with HSP
pigments.
Surface and volume resistivities of samples conditioned for 24 hours at two
separate levels were measured on a Keithley 6517A HR instrument. Two temperature and
relative humidity conditions were used to condition the samples, TAPPI standard
(50%RH, 23°C and 90%RH, 37.8°C). The effects of these humidity and temperature
conditioning on surface and volume resistivities of the coated SBS boards were studied.
The pigment and binder type have significant effect on the resistivity of the
coated SBS boards, the only exception was in case of samples conditioned at 90%RH and
37.8o
C where surface resistivity was not significantly affected due to the binder type. The
effect of change in the samples conditioning (50%RH 23°C to 90% RH, 37.8°C) on
Keithley 6517A HR surface and volume resistivities was also studied by using regression
analysis as well as Two Way ANOVA. Comparing all the samples, it was found that
regardless of what conditions the samples were exposed to, the surface and volume
resistivity values for HSP 103 and HSP 203 coated substrates were substantially higher
than other samples. It was also observed that when the samples were conditioned at
90%RH, 37.8°C the surface and volume resistivities of all the samples decreased to great
extent. One of the reasons for this behavior can be the presence of moisture on the
surface of the samples. The dielectric constant of water is close to 80 (at room
temperature) where air has a dielectric constant of close to 1. Thus, when the rough,
permeable surface of the boards is filled with moisture the resistivity drops significantly.

40
REFERENCES
1
A. Hippel, “Dielectric Materials and Applications”, J. Electrochem. Soc., Volume 102,
Issue 3, Pg 68C, March 1955.
2
L. Pal, “Sustainable Barrier SBS Paperboard Coatings Using Co-polymerized Shape
Engineered Pigments”, Ph.D Dissertation, Western Michigan University
December 2006.
3
P. D. Fleming III, B. J. Bazuin, M. Rebros, E. Hrehorova, M. Joyce, A. Pekarovicova,
and V. Bliznyuk, “Printed Electronics at Western Michigan University”, invited
paper in Proceedings of the AIChE’s 2007 Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, 4-9,
November 2007.
4
E. Hrehorova, A. Pekarovicova, P. D. Fleming, “Evaluation of Gravure Printing for
Printed Electronics,” TAGA 60th Annual Technical Conference, San Francisco,
CA, 16-19 March, 2008.
5
M. Rebros, E. Hrehorova, B. J. Bazuin, M. Joyce, P. D. Fleming, A. Pekarovicova,
“Rotogravure Printed UHF RFID Antennae Directly on Packaging Materials,”
TAGA 60th Annual Technical Conference, San Francisco, CA, 16-19 March,
2008.
6
R. Kattumenu, M. Rebros, E. Hrehorova, P. D. Fleming, M. Joyce, B. J. Bazuin, A.
Pekarovicova and G. Neelgund, "Evaluation of Flexographically Printed
Conductive Traces on Paper Substrates", TAGA Proceedings, San Francisco, 16-
19 March, 2008.
7
A. Pekarovicova, E. Hrehorova, P. D. Fleming, M. Rebros, M. Joyce, “Rotogravure for
Printed Electronics”, Proceedings of the 35th International research conference
of Iarigai, Valencia Spain, 7 to 10, September 2008.
8
M. Rebros, E. Hrehorova, M. Joyce, P. D. Fleming, “The Challenges of Printing
Functional Materials on Cellulose Based Substrates”, Proceedings of DF08,
Pittsburgh, September 7-12, 2008.
9
E. Hrehorova, M. Rebros, A. Pekarovicova and P. D. Fleming, “Suitability of Gravure
Printing for High Volume Fabrication of Electronics”, Proceedings of DF08,
Pittsburgh, September 7-12, 2008.
10
J. Kline, Paper and Paperboard, 2nd
Ed., Miller Freeman Publishing, San Francisco,
1991.

41
11
E. Hrehorova, “Materials and Processes for Printed Electronics: Evaluation Of Gravure
Printing in Electronics Manufacture”, Ph.D Dissertation, Western Michigan
University June 2007.
12
M. Cruz, “Surface Topography Contribution To RFID’S Tags Efficiency Related To
Resistivity”, M.S. Thesis, Western Michigan University, pp. 4-6, December 2006.
13
“RFID: Tomorrow’s Active Packaging Technology”, Paper, Film & Foil Converter 77
no 8 AP3-AP4 Aug 2003.
14
W. Fix, A. Ullman, J. Ficker, W. Clemens, “Fast polymer integrated circuits,” Applied
Physics Letters, 81, 9, 2002.
15
M. Bartzsch, U. Fuegmann, T. Fischer, U. Hahn, H. Kempa, K. Preissler, G. Schmidt,
A. Huebler, “Allprinted electronics and its applications: a status report,“ Proc. on
IS&T’s DF2006: International Conference on Digital Fabrication 2006, Denver,
CO, September 18 – 22, 2006.
16
L. Wood, E. Hrehorova, T. Joyce, P. D. Fleming, M. Joyce, A. Pekarovicova and V.
Biznyuk, “Paper Substrates for Printed Electronics”, Pira Ink on Paper
Symposium, Atlanta, September 28, 2005.
17
P. Andersson, “Active matrix displays based on all-organic electrochemical smart
pixels printed on paper,” Advanced Materials, 2002.
18
R. Das, “Printed Electronics White Papers-Technology Overview and Applications”,
IDTechEx
19
A. Hodgson, “The Role of Paper In the Future of Printed Electronics”, A. Hodgson
Consulting, Macclesfield, United Kingdom
20
J. J. Clark M. E. and T. L. Crossley, F.C.I.C., “The Manufacture of Pulp and Paper”
Volume II, First Edition, 1923.pp
21
W. Henderson, “Problems in Physics”, Ph. D., Associate Professor of Physics,
University of Michigan, pp. 115, 1916.
22
L. Wood, E. Hrehorova, T. Joyce, P. D. Fleming, M. Joyce, A. Pekarovicova and V.
Bliznyuk, “Paper Substrates and Inks for Printed Electronics”, Pira Ink on Paper
Symposium, Atlanta, GA, September 2005.
23
A. Vidal, A. Rida, S. Basat, L. Yang, M. Tentzeris, “Integration of Sensors and RFID’s
on Ultra Low Cost Paper based Substrates for Wireless Sensor Networks
Applications”, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

42
24
W. Reddish, “Chemical Structure and Dielectric Properties of High Polymers”, I.C.I.
Ltd., Plastics Division, Herts., UK.pp
25
Electrical Phenomenon in The Printing Nip, GRI Report, pg 165
26
A. Bledzki, M. Lucka, A. Al Mamun, J. Michalski, “Biological and Electrical
Resistance of Acetylated Flax Fiber Reinforced Polypropylene Composites”,
BioRes. 4(1), 111-125.
27
E. Lehtinen, Finnish Paper Engineer’s Association, Technical Association of Pulp and
Paper Industry, “Pigments coating and surface sizing of paper”, Paper making
Science and Technology, Volume 11, TAPPI Press, 2000.
28
Celanese Chemicals, “CelvolTM
Polyvinyl Alcohol: A Versatile Polymer for Adhesive
Applications”.
29
S. Wen, “Pyroelectric behavior of cement-based materials”, composite materials
research laboratory, University at Buffalo, The State University of New York,
Buffalo, USA, April 2003
30
E. Vincent, “Binders overview” Mead Central Research, Coating Binders short course
TS 1118 F5 C6115 TAPPI 1996.
31
R. W. Wygant, coating materials: pigments, binders and additives short course, TAPPI.
Analysis of coating structure, 1998.
32
Keithley Instruments, Inc., “Keithley Model 6517A Electrometer User’s Manual”,
Document Number 6517A-900-01 Rev. D, December 1996.
33
TAPPI Standard Method “Resistance of paper to passage of air”, T536 om-02.
34
D. K. Owens, R. C. Wendt, “Estimation of the Surface Free Energy of Polymers”, J.
Appl. Polym. Sci.: 13, 1969.
35
M. Joyce, Printed RFID tags on Packaging Materials, 21st
Century Grant, 1st
Internal
Report, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, May 2008
36
S. Merilampi, L. Ukkonen, L Sydanheimo, P. Ruuskanen and M. Kivikoski, Research
Article, “Analysis of Silver Ink Bow-Tie RFID Tag Antennas Printed on Paper
Substrates”, International Journal of Antennas and Propagation, 30th October
2007.
37
http://www.rycobel.be/pdf/catalogue/hfdst5.pdf, accessed on 4/27/2010

44
Table A: Keithley 6517A Resistivity Measurements
Keithley 6517A Volume Resistivity Measurements [Ohmcm]
Samples Conditioned at 90% RH and
37.80
C
Samples Conditioned at TAPPI
Standards
AVG SD AVG SD
HSP 103 2.84x1007
8.06x1006
2.79x1012
2.59x1009
HSP 203 2.12x1007
2.22x1006
3.79x1012
2.59x1009
CaCO3 103 2.27x1007
9.99x1006
2.27x1012
5.78x1010
CaCO3203 1.96x1007
1.10x1006
3.20x1011
9.35x1010
CLAY 103 2.47x1007
2.05x1006
3.99x1011
1.13x1011
CLAY 203 2.41x1007
4.08x1006
5.96x1011
1.20x1011
103 1.65x1007
5.93x1005
1.65x1011
1.03x1011
203 2.16x1007
1.48x1006
5.08x1011
3.48x1011
Keithley 6517A Surface Resistivity Measurements [Ohm/sq]
Samples Conditioned at 90% RH
and 37.80
C
Samples Conditioned at TAPPI
Standards
AVG SD AVG SD
HSP 103 3.9 x1008
7.7 x1007
7.68 x1013
1.80 x1013
HSP 203 3.4 x1008
5 x1007
1.02 x1014
2.64 x1012
CaCO3103 2.3 x1008
2.9 x1007
3.49 x1012
7.83 x1011
CaCO3203 2.1 x1008
1.5 x1007
6.97 x1012
1.56 x1012
CLAY 103 2.2 x1008
1.7 x1007
2.77 x1012
7.04 x1011
CLAY 203 2.1 x1008
2.4 x1007
5.11 x1012
6.23 x1011
103 1.2 x1008
2.5 x1007
1.38 x1012
9.00 x1011
203 1.7 x1008
2.2 x1007
4.92 x1012
2.13 x1012
Average and Standard Deviation Values for each variation are taken from 24 readings.
Table B: Emveco Roughness Readings
Emveco Roughness
AVG [Microns] SD
HSP 103 0.50 0.05
HSP 203 0.56 0.02
CaCO3103 0.60 0.02
CaCO3203 0.67 0.05
CLAY 103 0.56 0.02
CLAY 203 0.53 0.03
103 0.57 0.04
203 0.60 0.02

45
Table C: Surface Energy Measurements
Surface Energy by FTA
AVG [mN/m] SD
HSP 103 59.8 1.2
HSP 203 64.3 2.0
CaCO3103 75.2 0.9
CaCO3203 72.5 0.7
CLAY 103 75.8 0.5
CLAY 203 74.2 0.7
103 74.0 1.7
203 69.9 1.1
Table D: Two Way ANOVA Results for Keithley Resistivity Measurements
Volume Resistivity of Samples Conditioned at TAPPI Standards [Ohmcm]
Source DF SS MS F P
Pigment 3 2.40 x1026
7.99 x1025
178.92 0.000
Binder 1 1.08 x1025
1.08 x1025
24.1 0.000
Interaction 3 1.02 x1025
3.40 x1024
7.62 0.000
Error 184 8.22 x1025
4.46 x1023
Total 191 3.43 x1026
S = 6.68 x1011
R-Sq = 76.03% R-Sq(adj) = 75.12%
Volume Resistivity of Samples Conditioned at 90% RH 37.8 deg. C [Ohmcm]
Source DF SS MS F P
3.01 x1014
29.94 0.000
Binder 1 5.38 x1013
5.38 x1013
5.35 0.022
2.61 x1014
25.99 0.000
Error 184 1.85 x1015
1.01 x1013
Total 191 3.59 x1015
S = 3.17 x1006
R-Sq = 48.48% R-Sq(adj) = 46.52%
Surface Resistivity of Samples Conditioned at TAPPI Standards [Ohm/sq]
Source DF SS MS F P
8.77 x1028
2857.12 0.000
Binder 1 3.22 x1027
3.22 x1027
104.88 0.000
1.20 x1027
39.17 0.000
Error 184 5.65 x1027
3.07 x1025
Total 191 2.76 x1029
S = 5.54 x1012
R-Sq = 97.95% R-Sq(adj) = 97.87%
Surface Resistivity of Samples Conditioned at 90% RH 37.8 deg. C [Ohm/sq]
Source DF SS MS F P
3.78 x1017
315.16 0.000
Binder 1 1.80 x1015
1.80 x1015
1.5 0.223
3.06 x1016
25.51 0.000
Error 184 2.21 x1017
1.20 x1015
Total 191 1.45 x1018
S = 3.46 x1007
R Sq = 84.76% R-Sq(adj) = 84.18%

46
APPENDIX B
WYKO Roughness Results

47
Figure A: HSP 103 3D Surface Topography
Figure B: HSP 203 3D Surface Topography

48
Figure C: Carbonate 103 3D Surface Topography
Figure D: Carbonate 203 3D Surface Topography

49
Figure E: Clay 103 3D Surface Topography
Figure F: Clay 203 3D Surface Topography

50
Figure G: No Pigment 103 3D Surface Topography
Figure H: No Pigment 203 3D Surface Topography

PIGMENT AND BINDER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY OF SBS BOARD

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to PIGMENT AND BINDER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY OF SBS BOARD

Similar to PIGMENT AND BINDER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY OF SBS BOARD (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

PIGMENT AND BINDER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ELECTRICAL RESISTIVITY OF SBS BOARD