Table 4 Merits and demerits of diverse approaches used to fabricate functional NW -based EMI shields
Approach | Merit(s) | Demerit(s) | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|
Dip-coating | Approach is cheap Several coating layers can be administered It is feasible to prepare many layers of various materials simultaneously | Film surface quality is directly influenced by the annealing temperature, precursor content, as well as any additives or solvents utilized Control of coating thickness is challenging | [9] |
Melt extrusion/compounding | Suitable for processing polymeric composite materials Solvent free Scalable No need for processing downstream High outlook Broad application in advanced materials Limited exposure to oxygen within the extrusion channel It is a continuous process | Not suitable for metal–metal composite systems Degradation of some functional reinforcing fillers may occur during processing Raw materials with high flow characteristics are needed Energy consuming | [9] |
Electroless deposition | There are no issues with the current network Insulators like glass, ceramics, and polymers could be covered with nanosheets of metals, alloys, as well as compounds It is just a basic deposition tool Compared to other vacuum deposition techniques, this method has a low temperature It is not necessary to create a vacuum environment produces homogeneous, high-quality films cheaper than the standard vacuum deposition, spray pyrolysis technique The least amount of energy is required to produce one unit area of chemically deposited materials, such as CdS film deposition | Byproducts may react as the solution ages, altering the fabrication Owing to contamination or other issues, nontargeted nucleation and failure to nucleate or develop films on specific regions solely with the catalyst surface The process is time-consuming The rate of deposition is not very high obtaining a film thickness greater than 1Â m in a single-dip deposition is difficult | [9] |
Electrospinning | Works well with polymeric composite systems Excellent approach to fabricate nanofibrous non-woven mats Scalable approach Inexpensive process Bicomponent fibers can be produced using this approach | Not very suitable for metal–metal composites It is expensive for scaled production Needle clogging is a great challenge Low feed rate and production rate Control of fiber size and morphology can be challenging Challenging to process immiscible polymer blends |  |
3D printing | Works well with polymeric composite systems Excellent approach to fabricate microfibrous non-woven mats Scalable | Not very suitable for metal–metal composites It is expensive for scaled production Not suitable for NF production |  |
Spray coating/deposition | It is simple to obtain a film that covers a sizable area It can be easily scaled Spray pyrolysis is a less costly alternative to the conventional vacuum deposition technique | Solvent recovery is a challenge Often made to include fibers and whiskers; therefore, the alternatives for matrix alloys are restricted | [9] |
Vacuum-assisted filtration-based deposition | Simple to use | Require too much time It can be only used to fabricate films of limited thickness and area Its scalability is limited The mechanical properties of the deposit and their influence by control parameters on residual stress molded thin films as well as highly porous membranes are also little understood It is unclear how the energy of the depositing species affects interfacial contact, nucleation, and deposit formation |