Contents

Client Citation Analysis

Batch-to-Batch Variation in Laser-Inscribed Graphene (LIG) Electrodes for Electrochemical Sensing

This study evaluates batch-to-batch variation in laser-inscribed graphene electrodes for electrochemical sensing, using goniometry (contact angle) to track hydrophobicity across fabrication batches, test buffers, and after nanoplatinum metallization.

At-a-Glance Summary

How the paper credits the instrument

"Hydrophobicity was analyzed using a Droplet lab DROPOMETER-M (Markham, ON, Canada)." / "Contact angle calculations were based on the polynomial method (non-axisymmetric drop)." / "The instrument camera was used to capture a static picture in sessile droplet mode." — Section 2.4, Goniometry.

How the contact-angle data were used in the study

Contact-angle outputs were used to quantify batch-to-batch variation in LIG hydrophobicity immediately after graphitization, compare wettability across multiple testing solutions (including common biological buffers), and evaluate wettability changes after nanoplatinum metallization.

Replication / reliability statement

Four unique batches (nine electrodes each) were prepared on individual days, by the same operator." (Section 2.4). Figure 1 reports n = 24 for each violin-plot group and n = 6 electrodes in each batch for batch-average plots — a replicate count the paper states inconsistently (see the Method Snapshot notes).

Paper Details

Title
Batch-to-Batch Variation in Laser-Inscribed Graphene (LIG) Electrodes for Electrochemical Sensing
Authors
Yifan Tang; Geisianny A. Moreira; Diana Vanegas; Shoumen P. A. Datta; Eric S. McLamore
Journal
Micromachines
Year
2024
Volume
15
Pages / Article
874
License
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license
Funding & interests
Funded by NIH/NIAAA U01AA029328, NSF STEPS Center CBET-2019435, and USDA NIFA AFRI 2018-67016-27578. Authors are at Clemson University, MIT Auto-ID Labs, and MGH/Harvard Medical School. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Droplet Lab appears in no funding, acknowledgement or affiliation statement — the instrument was purchased and used as a lab tool.
Data availability
Raw data openly available at Zenodo.

What Was Measured

Primary surface / interfacial measurement

Hydrophobicity reported as contact angle (degrees) measured by goniometry using sessile droplets on LIG and nanoplatinum-metallized LIG (nPt-LIG) electrodes.

Supporting measurements

The study also reports LIG characterization using stereomicroscopy, open circuit potential (OCP), and cyclic voltammetry (CV) as part of the batch-variation assessment and electrochemical sensing context, including calculation of oxidation peak current and area between anodic/cathodic curves from CV traces.

Instruments Mentioned

Contact angle / hydrophobicity (goniometry)

Droplet lab DROPOMETER-M (Markham, ON, Canada)

Contact angle analysis software

Droplet lab software (version 1.4.0.10)

LIG patterning / graphitization

Universal CO2 laser system (version VLS3.60, Scottsdale, AZ, USA)

Electrodeposition (galvanostatic)

DC power supply (Tektronix, Beaverton, OR, USA)

Electrodeposition (frequency-modulated)

SDG2042X Arbitrary Waveform Function-Generators (Siglent, OH, USA)

pH measurements

Thermo Orion A211 Benchtop pH Meter and calibration standards (Waltham, MA, USA)

Electrochemical characterization (OCP, CV)

MultiPalmSens4 potentiostat (PalmSens BV, GA, Houten, The Netherlands)

Electrochemical testing cells

BASi electrochemical glass cells

Statistical analysis

Rstudio (version 1.1.463)

Electrode pattern design

CorelDraw (Corel Corporation, Ottawa, ON, Canada)

Role of the Dropometer

Hydrophobicity (contact angle) was measured using a Droplet lab DROPOMETER-M by placing a 2 µL aliquot on the working area of the LIG electrode, capturing a static image in sessile droplet mode, and calculating contact angle using a polynomial (non-axisymmetric drop) method. In the software workflow, key image features (e.g., droplet edges/profile of interest) were identified following manufacturer recommendations, and images from each test were archived.

In this study’s batch-variation workflow, the resulting contact-angle data were used to compare hydrophobicity across fabrication batches, across testing solutions (including common buffers), and before/after nanoplatinum metallization.

Method Snapshot

The paper reports the replicate count inconsistently: Methods says nine electrodes per batch, Results says six, and the Figure 1 caption implies six (n = 6 per batch, n = 24 per group). The count underlying Figure 1 cannot be resolved from the publication.

Surface / system Fabrication grouping described for goniometry Testing solutions (as listed) Droplet volume Dropometer mode + analysis Output reported Data location Instruments Conditions / notes
Non-modified LIG (single electrode) Four unique batches prepared on individual days by the same operator (nine electrodes each) DI water; MES buffer; Tris buffer; HEPES buffer; 2× isotonic bicarbonate buffer; platinum plating solution; ferri/ferrocyanide solution 2 µL Static image in sessile droplet mode; polynomial method (non-axisymmetric drop) Contact angle (°) Figure 1A–B, 1D; Supplementary Table S1 Droplet lab DROPOMETER-M; Droplet lab software (v1.4.0.10) Electrodes stabilized and beveled on the instrument platform using sample mounts; images archived
Non-modified LIG (buffer screen emphasized in Results) Batch structure reported for LIG hydrophobicity testing (see Replicates above) HEPES; MES; Tris (compounds discussed as having surfactant-like properties) 2 µL Static image in sessile droplet mode; polynomial method (non-axisymmetric drop) Contact angle (°) distributions by solution Figure 1B Droplet lab DROPOMETER-M; Droplet lab software (v1.4.0.10) Differences discussed in the context of interfacial phenomena in different buffers
nPt-LIG (after metallization) Results text describes four unique batches of nPt-LIG (six electrodes each) DI; isotonic carbonate buffer; HEPES; MES; Tris 2 µL Static image in sessile droplet mode; polynomial method (non-axisymmetric drop) Contact angle (°) Figure 1C, 1E Droplet lab DROPOMETER-M; Droplet lab software (v1.4.0.10) After nPt electrodeposition, electrodes were rinsed gently with DI water prior to testing
Fabrication throughput comparison (LIG) 36 electrodes fabricated in a single day; 36 electrodes fabricated/analyzed as four batches of nine with 30 min laser downtime between batches 2 µL Contact angle measured using the non-axisymmetric drop method described in Section 2.4 Contact angle variation used to compare fabrication approaches Results 3.1 discussion; Figure 1 provides representative goniometry images for four electrode batches Droplet lab DROPOMETER-M; Universal CO2 laser system (VLS3.60) Discussion highlights laser downtime and maintenance factors as control considerations

Key Findings

Contact angle did not vary across batches

Under the study's four-batch protocol, contact angle varied by less than 5% across batches for both bare LIG and platinum-metallized LIG. The authors conclude: "Contact angle did not vary across batches, but the type of liquid tested did have a significant effect on mean contact angle." The >30% variation reported below occurred only when 36 electrodes were laser-written in a single day without downtime; an intra-day throughput effect, not batch-to-batch variation, and one the authors could not explain: "Additional studies are required to identify the source of the variation during the LIG manufacturing process."

Baseline LIG wettability in DI

The average contact angle for LIG in DI was reported as 58.6 ± 1.4°, and the authors interpret this as indicating a hydrophilic surface under their test conditions.

Isotonic buffer vs DI comparison

The mean contact angle in 2× isotonic buffer was reported as 59.3 ± 2.6°, and described as not significantly different than DI; within fabrication batches, contact angle variation for non-modified LIG in DI and isotonic bicarbonate was reported as less than 5%.

Buffer-dependent contact-angle shifts and interfacial interpretation

Contact angles for non-modified LIG in HEPES, MES, and Tris were reported as significantly lower than DI, and the authors interpret this as each buffer behaving as a mild surfactant impacting surface tension; within-group variation for these buffer conditions was reported as 6% to 8%.

Fabrication batching and downtime effects on contact-angle variation

When 36 electrodes were fabricated in a single day, reported contact-angle variation was more than 30%. Fabricating and analyzing 36 electrodes as four batches of nine with a 30 min laser downtime between batches was associated with reduced variation (reported as a reduction from 30% to less than 5%), and the authors identify laser maintenance, operational frequency, and batch size as control factors for future protocols.

Nanoplatinum metallization increases contact angle

After metallization with nPt, the contact angle in DI and isotonic carbonate buffer was reported as 78 ± 4°, described as an increase by nearly 20% with a more hydrophobic surface. The authors report the HEPES/MES/Tris contact angles for nPt-LIG as similar (63 ± 2°) and higher than all LIG experiments, with within-batch variation described as 5%.

Bare LIG is highly reproducible

Using oxidative peak current, single LIG electrodes varied by less than 2% across batches; the LIG sensor chip by 8%. Peak separation was 205 ± 50 mV for single electrodes and 519 ± 20 mV for the chip.

Platinum metallization trades performance for consistency

Nanoplatinum deposition raised peak current by 150–250 µA, increased capacitance sevenfold, and cut peak separation to 143 ± 3 mV. But batch variation rose to 15–20% within batches and 30–40% across batches. The paper's headline conclusion: "metallization of LIG with nPt improves performance but comes at the expense of increased batch variability."

Figures & Visuals

What it shows

What it shows

Shows representative goniometry images for four electrode batches (LIG sample with a 2 µL DI droplet) with calculated contact angles overlaid.

What it shows

What it shows

Violin plots compare contact-angle distributions across testing liquids for non-modified LIG (n = 24 per group), with group subsetting indicated by LSD lettering.

What it shows

What it shows

Violin plots show how contact-angle distributions shift after nanoplatinum metallization across the same set of testing liquids (n = 24 per group).

What it shows

What it shows

Batch-average contact angles (with standard deviation error bars) are shown for non-modified LIG (D) and nPt-LIG (E), with n = 6 electrodes per batch.

Why It Matters

The paper frames laser-inscribed graphene as an emerging platform for electrochemical sensing and positions batch-to-batch variability as a practical challenge for scalable device manufacturing. The DROPOMETER-M measured how LIG wettability responds to the liquid in contact with it, and served as a screening check on fabrication consistency. Its result was a negative one, and a useful one: the authors conclude that "contact angle did not vary across batches, but the type of liquid tested did have a significant effect on mean contact angle." Wettability stayed flat while the electrochemical response varied by 30–40% across batches after platinum metallization — so contact angle is not the parameter that explains batch-to-batch variation in these electrodes. Knowing which measurement does not track a failure mode saves the next lab from chasing it.

The authors also use contact-angle comparisons across testing buffers (including zwitterionic buffer components) and after nanoplatinum metallization to discuss interfacial behavior in different solutions. Wettability stayed flat across batches while the electrochemical response varied by 30–40% across batches after platinum metallization — so contact angle is not the parameter that explains batch-to-batch variation in these electrodes, and the paper computes no correlation between wettability and any electrochemical parameter. Knowing which measurement does not track a failure mode saves the next lab from chasing it.

Practical Takeaways

Use the analysis model that performed reliably on LIG in this workflow

The authors report that preliminary Young–Laplace (axisymmetric) fitting showed significant errors (up to 60% for the same sample tested multiple times sequentially), and therefore used the polynomial (non-axisymmetric drop) approach throughout for contact-angle calculations.

Why axisymmetric fitting failed on this surface

LIG is a rough, porous carbon film whose "surface chemistry and feature size are highly variable," and polyimide "undergoes deformation during the graphitization process." Axisymmetric fitting assumes a symmetric drop; on this surface the drop pins asymmetrically, which is why the polynomial (non-axisymmetric) method was used for every reported value. The angles reported are apparent contact angles on a rough heterogeneous surface, not intrinsic Young angles. No roughness correction, hysteresis, or advancing/receding measurement was performed.

Fabrication batch structure influenced hydrophobicity consistency

The study reports markedly different contact-angle variation for 36 electrodes fabricated in a single day versus splitting fabrication into multiple batches with laser downtime, and highlights maintenance and operational factors (e.g., lens cleaning, operational frequency, batch size) as protocol controls.

Buffer chemistry changed measured wettability

HEPES, MES, and Tris produced significantly lower contact angles on non-modified LIG than DI, and the authors interpret these shifts in the context of surfactant-like behavior and interfacial effects.

Metallization altered surface wettability

Nanoplatinum metallization increased reported contact angles (78 ± 4° in DI and isotonic carbonate buffer) and shifted contact angles in HEPES/MES/Tris relative to non-modified LIG.

Contact angle was used alongside electrochemical screening for batch-variation assessment

The authors characterize LIG using goniometry together with electrochemical tests (OCP and CV) as part of the overall analysis of batch-to-batch variation for electrochemical sensing applications.