Table 2.
Advantages and disadvantages of the incorporation of common conductive biomaterials to form ECHs and the conductivity of these systems.
| Conductive materials | Advantages | Disadvantages | Conductivity (S/cm) | Refs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AuNPs/polymer | • Tunable conductivity • Generally biocompatible |
• AuNP cytotoxicity is not fully understood • Synthesis of AuNPs may be difficult depending on target particle size • Possible generation of ROS |
8.0 × 10−4 – 1.0 × 10−2 | [34–37, 60, 61] |
| AgNPs/polymer | • High conductivity • Highly antibacterial |
• AgNPs increase brittleness of ECH • Possible generation of ROS |
1.0 × 10−4 – 5.8 × 10−1 | [51, 62–67] |
| Graphene/polymer | • High conductivity • Robust mechanical strength • Generally biocompatible |
• Complicated fabrication method for GO • rGO frequently aggregates during ECH synthesis • Cytotoxicity of GO, rGO is not fully understood |
4.0 × 10−5 – 5.8 × 10−1 | [58, 68–71] |
| CNTs/polymer | • High conductivity • Robust mechanical strength |
• CNTs frequently show aggregation during ECH synthesis • CNTs increase brittleness of ECHs • Cytotoxicity not fully understood |
5.0 × 10−5 – 9.0 | [59, 70, 72, 73] |
| PANi/polymer | • Facile synthesis • Antimicrobial • Highly conductive • Facilitates cell proliferation |
• Fabrication requires harsh chemical environment | 5.0 × 10−4 – 1.2 × 10−2 | [13, 74, 75] |
| PPy/polymer | • Facile synthesis • Biocompatible • Environmentally Stable |
• Poor solubility in polar solvents • Poor mechanical strength, brittle |
1.2 × 10−3 – 1.2 × 102 | [76–79] |
| PEDOT/polymer | • High conductivity • Facilitates cell proliferation • Biocompatible • High stability |
• Poor mechanical strength, brittle • Cytotoxicity not fully understood |
6.7 × 10−4 – 1.0 × 10−1 | [80–84] |
| Bio-IL/polymer | • High conductivity • Biocompatible |
• Variable cytotoxicity | 1.4 × 10−4 – 1.0 × 10−2 | [20, 85–88] |