Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

3D printable high-performance conducting polymer hydrogel for all-hydrogel bioelectronic interfaces


Owing to the unique combination of electrical conductivity and tissue-like mechanical properties, conducting polymer hydrogels have emerged as a promising candidate for bioelectronic interfacing with biological systems. However, despite the recent advances, the development of hydrogels with both excellent electrical and mechanical properties in physiological environments is still challenging. Here we report a bi-continuous conducting polymer hydrogel that simultaneously achieves high electrical conductivity (over 11 S cm−1), stretchability (over 400%) and fracture toughness (over 3,300 J m−2) in physiological environments and is readily applicable to advanced fabrication methods including 3D printing. Enabled by these properties, we further demonstrate multi-material 3D printing of monolithic all-hydrogel bioelectronic interfaces for long-term electrophysiological recording and stimulation of various organs in rat models.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type



Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Design and implementation of the BC-CPH.
Fig. 2: Electrical properties and stability of the BC-CPH.
Fig. 3: Applicability to diverse fabrication methods.
Fig. 4: All-hydrogel bioelectronic interfaces.
Fig. 5: In vivo electrophysiological recording and stimulation.
Fig. 6: In vivo biocompatibility.

Data availability

All data supporting the findings of this study are available within the Article and its Supplementary Information. Additional raw data generated in this study are available from the corresponding authors on reasonable request.


  1. Yuk, H., Lu, B. & Zhao, X. Hydrogel bioelectronics. Chem. Soc. Rev. 48, 1642–1667 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Keplinger, C. et al. Stretchable, transparent, ionic conductors. Science 341, 984–987 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Yang, C. & Suo, Z. Hydrogel ionotronics. Nat. Rev. Mater. 3, 125–142 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Dvir, T. et al. Nanowired three-dimensional cardiac patches. Nat. Nanotechnol. 6, 720–725 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ohm, Y. et al. An electrically conductive silver–polyacrylamide–alginate hydrogel composite for soft electronics. Nat. Electron. 4, 185–192 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Tringides, C. M. et al. Viscoelastic surface electrode arrays to interface with viscoelastic tissues. Nat. Nanotechnol. 16, 1019–1029 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Rivnay, J., Owens, Ri. M. & Malliaras, G. G. The rise of organic bioelectronics. Chem. Mater. 26, 679–685 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Rivnay, J., Wang, H., Fenno, L., Deisseroth, K. & Malliaras, G. G. Next-generation probes, particles, and proteins for neural interfacing. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601649 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gong, J. P., Katsuyama, Y., Kurokawa, T. & Osada, Y. Double‐network hydrogels with extremely high mechanical strength. Adv. Mater. 15, 1155–1158 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Sun, J.-Y. et al. Highly stretchable and tough hydrogels. Nature 489, 133–136 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hua, M. et al. Strong tough hydrogels via the synergy of freeze-casting and salting out. Nature 590, 594–599 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu, C. et al. Tough hydrogels with rapid self-reinforcement. Science 372, 1078–1081 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Zhao, X. et al. Soft materials by design: unconventional polymer networks give extreme properties. Chem. Rev. 121, 4309–4372 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Dai, T. et al. Mechanically strong conducting hydrogels with special double-network structure. Synth. Met. 160, 791–796 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Naficy, S., Oveissi, F., Patrick, B., Schindeler, A. & Dehghani, F. Printed, flexible pH sensor hydrogels for wet environments. Adv. Mater. Technol. 3, 1800137 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhao, Y. et al. Hierarchically structured stretchable conductive hydrogels for high-performance wearable strain sensors and supercapacitors. Matter 3, 1196–1210 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Wei, H. et al. Orthogonal photochemistry-assisted printing of 3D tough and stretchable conductive hydrogels. Nat. Commun. 12, 2082 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Javadi, M. et al. Conductive tough hydrogel for bioapplications. Macromol. Biosci. 18, 1700270 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yao, B. et al. Ultrahigh‐conductivity polymer hydrogels with arbitrary structures. Adv. Mater. 29, 1700974 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Liu, Y. et al. Soft and elastic hydrogel-based microelectronics for localized low-voltage neuromodulation. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 3, 58–68 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Lu, B. et al. Pure PEDOT: PSS hydrogels. Nat. Commun. 10, 1043 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Liu, Y. et al. Morphing electronics enable neuromodulation in growing tissue. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 1031–1036 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhao, X. Multi-scale multi-mechanism design of tough hydrogels: building dissipation into stretchy networks. Soft Matter 10, 672–687 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Feig, V. R., Tran, H., Lee, M. & Bao, Z. Mechanically tunable conductive interpenetrating network hydrogels that mimic the elastic moduli of biological tissue. Nat. Commun. 9, 2740 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Markvicka, E. J., Bartlett, M. D., Huang, X. & Majidi, C. An autonomously electrically self-healing liquid metal–elastomer composite for robust soft-matter robotics and electronics. Nat. Mater. 17, 618–624 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Lee, Y. Y. et al. A strain-insensitive stretchable electronic conductor: PEDOT: PSS/acrylamide organogels. Adv. Mater. 28, 1636–1643 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lee, S. et al. Nanomesh pressure sensor for monitoring finger manipulation without sensory interference. Science 370, 966–970 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Qin, D., Xia, Y. & Whitesides, G. M. Soft lithography for micro- and nanoscale patterning. Nat. Protoc. 5, 491–502 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Yuk, H. et al. 3D printing of conducting polymers. Nat. Commun. 11, 1604 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Edelman, I. & Leibman, J. Anatomy of body water and electrolytes. Am. J. Med. 27, 256–277 (1959).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Guimarães, C. F., Gasperini, L., Marques, A. P. & Reis, R. L. The stiffness of living tissues and its implications for tissue engineering. Nat. Rev. Mater. 5, 351–370 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Yuk, H. et al. Dry double-sided tape for adhesion of wet tissues and devices. Nature 575, 169–174 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Deng, J. et al. Electrical bioadhesive interface for bioelectronics. Nat. Mater. 20, 229–236 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Yang, Q. et al. Photocurable bioresorbable adhesives as functional interfaces between flexible bioelectronic devices and soft biological tissues. Nat. Mater. 20, 1559–1570 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Chen, X., Yuk, H., Wu, J., Nabzdyk, C. S. & Zhao, X. Instant tough bioadhesive with triggerable benign detachment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 117, 15497–15503 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Afanasenkau, D. et al. Rapid prototyping of soft bioelectronic implants for use as neuromuscular interfaces. Nat. Biomed. Eng. 4, 1010–1022 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Park, S. et al. Adaptive and multifunctional hydrogel hybrid probes for long-term sensing and modulation of neural activity. Nat. Commun. 12, 3435 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Guo, B. & Ma, P. X. Conducting polymers for tissue engineering. Biomacromolecules 19, 1764–1782 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Nezakati, T., Seifalian, A., Tan, A. & Seifalian, A. M. Conductive polymers: opportunities and challenges in biomedical applications. Chem. Rev. 118, 6766–6843 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Seo, B. R. & Mooney, D. J. Recent and future strategies of mechanotherapy for tissue regenerative rehabilitation. ACS Biomater. Sci. Eng. 8, 4639–4642 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references


The authors thank the Koch Institute Swanson Biotechnology Centre, K. Cormier, and the Histology Core for the technical support and histological processing, and R. Bronson at Harvard Medical School for the histological evaluations. This work is supported by the National Institute of Health (1-R01-HL153857-01, X.Z.).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



H.Y., B.L. and X.Z. developed the concept and materials for the BC-CPH. H.Y. and T.Z. developed the materials and method for the printing-based fabrication and application of the all-hydrogel bioelectronic interfaces. B.L., H.Y., F.H., F.T. and J.X. conducted the electrical and mechanical characterizations of the BC-CPH. T.Z. and H.Y. conducted the electrical and mechanical characterizations of the all-hydrogel bioelectronic interfaces. T.Z., H.Y. and J.W. designed and conducted the in vivo animal studies. H.Y. and H.R. developed the materials and method for the printable bioadhesive. Z.S. and G.G. conducted the AFM phase imaging. H.Y. and X.Z. developed the multi-material printing platform. H.Y. prepared figures with inputs from all authors. H.Y., T.Z. and X.Z. wrote the manuscript with inputs from all authors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hyunwoo Yuk, Baoyang Lu or Xuanhe Zhao.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

H.Y. and X.Z. have a financial interest in SanaHeal, a biotechnology company focused on the development of medical devices for surgical sealing and repair. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Materials thanks Tal Dvir and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Phase-separation of electrical and mechanical phases in the BC-CPH ink.

a-e, Macroscopic (left) and microscopic (right) images of hydrophilic polyurethane (PU) dissolved in ethanol-water mixed solvent with 90 v/v% (a), 70 v/v% (b), 50 v/v% (c), 30 v/v% (d), and 10 v/v% (e) ethanol concentrations. Green fluorescence corresponds to PU. f–j, Macroscopic (left) and microscopic (right) images of PEDOT:PSS dissolved in ethanol-water mixed solvent with 90 v/v% (f), 70 v/v% (g), 50 v/v% (h), 30 v/v% (i), and 10 v/v% (j) ethanol concentration. k, Macroscopic (left), confocal (middle), and bright-field (right) microscopic images of the BC-CPH ink in ethanol-water mixed solvent with 70 v/v% ethanol concentration. Green fluorescence corresponds to PU. FITC, fluorescein isothiocyanate. Each experiment was repeated independently 3 times.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Long-term stability of the BC-CPH in physiological environment.

a,b, Images (a) and weight (b) of the BC-CPH stored in PBS at 37 °C for 1, 7, 14, 28, 56, 84, and 180 days. c-e, Electrical conductivity (c), ultimate strain (d), and fracture toughness (e) of the BC-CPH stored in PBS at 37 °C. Values in b-e represent the mean and the standard deviation (n = 4; independent samples).

Extended Data Fig. 3 Wet adhesion chemistry of the bioadhesive and rapid sutureless integration to wet tissues.

a, Schematic illustrations for physical crosslinking between the bioadhesive and the target tissue surface by hydrogen bonds. b, Schematic illustrations for covalent crosslinking between the bioadhesive and the target tissue surface by amide bonds. c, Snapshots of sutureless bioadhesive integration of the all-hydrogel bioelectronic interface to a rat sciatic nerve. d, Interfacial toughness of the bioadhesive hydrogel adhered to various rat tissues. Note that tissues underwent cohesive failure for sciatic nerve and spinal cord. Values in d represent the mean and the standard deviation (n = 3; independent experiments).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Electrochemical stability of the all-hydrogel bioelectronic interface.

a–c, Impedance (blue symbols, left axis) and phase angle (red symbols, right axis) vs. frequency plots for one electrode channel in the all-hydrogel bioelectronic interface under varying tensile strain (a), tensile cycle (b), and storage time in PBS at 37 °C (c).

Extended Data Fig. 5 Rat spinal cord stimulation by the all-hydrogel bioelectronic interface.

a, Schematic illustration for rat spinal cord electrophysiological stimulation by the all-hydrogel bioelectronic interface. b, Images of the printed all-hydrogel bioelectronic interface for spinal cord in the overall view (left) and the magnified view of electrodes (right). Different materials are marked with colour overlays in the magnified view. c, Images of the implanted all-hydrogel bioelectronic interface on rat spinal cord. d, e, Images of rat forelimb before (left) and after (middle) electrophysiological stimulation of the spinal cord by the all-hydrogel bioelectronic interface with corresponding EMG recordings (right) on day 0 (d) and day 28 (e) post-implantation. The red-shaded regions in the EMG recordings indicate the stimulation pulses. f, g, Rat forelimb movement distance upon spinal cord stimulations by the all-hydrogel bioelectronic interface at varying stimulation currents on day 0 (f) and day 28 (g) post-implantation. h, Comparison of the rat forelimb movement distance on day 0, day 7, and day 28 post-implantation with stimulation current of 1.5 mA. In box plots (f-h), centre lines represent mean, box limits delineate standard error (SE), and whiskers reflect 5th and 95th percentile (n = 8; independent biological replicates). Statistical significance and p values are determined by two-sided unpaired t-test; *** p ≤ 0.001.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Discussions 1 and 2, Supplementary Table 1, Supplementary References and Supplementary Figures 1–33.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Video 1

Multi-material 3D printing process of an all-hydrogel bioelectronic interface with the BC-CPH electrodes.

Supplementary Video 2

Sutureless bioadhesive integration of an all-hydrogel bioelectronic interface to a rat sciatic nerve in vivo.

Supplementary Video 3

On-demand detachment of an adhered all-hydrogel bioelectronic interface from a rat sciatic nerve in vivo.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhou, T., Yuk, H., Hu, F. et al. 3D printable high-performance conducting polymer hydrogel for all-hydrogel bioelectronic interfaces. Nat. Mater. 22, 895–902 (2023).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing