Correction to “Electrohydrodynamic Printing of Ultrafine and Highly Conductive Ag Electrodes for Various Flexible Electronics”

Adv. Mater. Technol. 2023, 8, e2300080

DOI: 10.1002/admt.202300080

Errors have been identified in Figures 2 and 4 of the originally published article, as follows.

In Figure 2b, the right-hand axis was mistakenly labeled “Resistivity (Ω cm).” It is hereby corrected to “Line resistance (Ω cm⁻¹)”. Further, the captions to Figure 2a–c were labeled incorrectly and in the wrong order. The corrected Figure 2 and the associated figure caption are displayed below.

Figure 2

Open in figure viewerPowerPoint

a) OM images of EHD-printed droplets and lines with different solvent compositions. b) The printed line width and resistance of different solvent compositions. c) Schematic illustration of the evaporation process of Ag ink droplets with different water contents.

In Figure 4a,b of the originally published article, plots of conductivity data taken five days after printing were mistakenly used rather than the plots of the freshly printed samples from the accepted version of the article. There is a small discrepancy in the data between the two sets of plots owing to a slight decrease in conductivity over time. Further, in Figures Figure a-c, the right-hand axis was mistakenly labeled “Resistivity (µΩ cm)” and is hereby corrected to “Line resistance (Ω cm⁻¹)”. The corrected Figure 4 and the associated figure caption are displayed below.

Figure 4

Open in figure viewerPowerPoint

a) The printed line width and resistance of different printing speeds. b) The printed line width and resistance of different voltages. c) The printed line width and resistance of different working heights. d) Four printing modes of EHD printing. e) Optimal conditions under different voltages and working heights. f) OM images of the Ag grid electrode.

The text in paragraph 9 of Section 2 of the originally published article describing the data in Figure 4a-c refers to the freshly printed samples and is therefore accurate. Namely: “Figure 4a shows the effect of printing speed on line width and conductivity. As the printing speed increased from 0.1 to 1.6 mm s⁻¹, the line width gradually decreased from 37.52 ± 2.66 to 8.84 ± 0.98 µm. Printing speed plays an essential role in printing uniformity and process stability. If the printing speed is too high, it is difficult for the Taylor cone to remain stable for a long time. Figure 4b illustrates the effect of voltage on printing quality. As the voltage increased from 1.0 to 2.0 kV, the line width gradually increased (from 9.91 ± 1.29 to 31.65 ± 2.40 µm) and the conductivity increased. Furthermore, with the increase of the nozzle-substrate distance, the line width gradually increases (from 11.08 ± 0.77 to 28.28 ± 2.51 µm), but the conductivity decreases, as shown in Figure 4c.”

These corrections do not affect the overall conclusions of the study.

We apologize for this error.