Mobility of black pigments for electrophoretic display depending on the characteristics of carbon sphere

Coupling‐Grafting‐Ultrasonication Modification of Electrophoretic Particles for Fast Response and High Contrast Ratio Electrophoretic Display

“…A comprehensive analysis (Figure 4e) designates TiO 2 -PLMA 10 as the optimal electrophoretic white ink with a remarkable response time of 170 ms (Figure 4f), surpassing most EPDs with white particles prepared using other methods. [19,[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] In addition, we tested the precipitation stability of TiO 2 -PLMA 10 particles by mixing black and white electrophoretic ink, leaving them for a period of time, and then performing performance tests, the results of which are shown in Figure S11 (Supporting Information). It can be seen that the contrast and response time of the electrophoretic ink after being placed for 7 days were slightly reduced, which may be due to the presence of partial agglomeration of the electrophoretic particles.…”

Adjusting the charging behavior of TiO2 with basic surfactants in an apolar medium for electrophoretic displays

“…To address this issue, amphiphilic surfactants are often used as charge control agents to afford the nanoparticle with enhanced particle charge in apolar solvent 20,21 .…”

“…To address this issue, amphiphilic surfactants are oen used as charge control agents to afford nanoparticles with an enhanced particle charge in apolar solvent. 20,21 Such surfactants contain anchoring groups and solvation chains. Anchoring groups can rmly adsorb themselves to particles and increase the local 3 r of solvents.…”

“…27 Several researchers have focused on this area. Ponto et al 28 used Span 80 and OLOA 11000 to control the charge of TiO 2 , and the electrophoretic mobility could be tuned in the range of −2 × 10 −10 to 0.5 × 10 −10 m 2 V −1 s −1 in Isopar L. Yin et al 29 treated TiO 2 with Span 85, and the electrophoretic mobility was −4.00 × 10 −10 m 2 V −1 s −1 in C 2 HCl 3 , and the response time of the EPD device was 3000 ms. Noël et al 30 modified TiO 2 with Span 80, the electrophoretic mobility of which could reach +3.5 × 10 −10 m 2 V −1 s −1 in Isopar G, and the response time of resultant EPD device was 500 ms. Lee et al 21 treated TiO 2 with OLOA 1200, and the electrophoretic mobility could reach −5.24 × 10 −10 m 2 V −1 s −1 in C 2 Cl 4 , and the response time of the EPD device could reach 240 ms. Although previous research has been able to reduce the response time to some extent by improving the particle charge, there is still room to further advance the response speed for EPD applications.…”