This evaluation demonstrates a transparent heater's thermal stability and uniformity in skin-integrated applications, suggesting its potential for wearable devices.
Transparent heaters intended for skin-contacting applications must simultaneously satisfy optical transparency, mechanical compliance, thermal uniformity, and operational safety under biologically relevant temperature ranges. Here, we evaluate the applicability of a TiO2/Ag/SiO2 (TAS) dielectric–metal–dielectric transparent heater as a functional biomaterial platform for wearable and skin-integrated thermal systems. By systematically optimizing each layer thickness of the TAS structure, the heater achieves high visible-light transmittance (average of 86.6%) together with low sheet resistance on the order of 7.7 Ω/sq for low-voltage operation. The TAS heater demonstrates rapid and reproducible Joule-heating behavior, showing fast thermal response with short thermal time constants and spatially homogeneous temperature distributions without localized hot spots. Stable electrothermal performance is maintained under repeated on/off cycling and during cyclic mechanical bending down to small radii, confirming excellent mechanical stability under repeated bending relevant to wearable applications. Importantly, direct on-skin evaluations conducted by attaching the device to a human elbow reveal conformal contact, uniform heating at therapeutically relevant temperatures (50–70 °C), and stable operation under dynamic bending and extension. The absence of thermal inhomogeneity during motion highlights the intrinsic stability of the TAS architecture for skin-interfaced use. Given the high optical visibility, mechanical compliance, thermal uniformity, and electrothermal stability, the proposed TAS architecture represents a promising functional biomaterial platform for wearable thermotherapy, skin-mounted healthcare devices, and human-interactive thermal systems operating under continuous mechanical deformation and direct skin contact.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: