## 3 Results and Discussions
### Characterization of Materials
For in-situ polymerization materials, when comparing the oxidizing agent employed, it can be seen that values obtained are similar, being slightly higher the values obtained using Fe(Trif)\({}_{3}\) in comparison with Fe(Tos)\({}_{3}\). Regarding materials prepared from CPs solutions, \(\sigma_{\text{s}}\) value of PPsACt is higher in comparison with materials prepared by in-situ polymerization. However, this value is similar to the value obtained for pure polymer, which suggest that PEDOT is simply deposited on the surface of the substrate without penetrating the inside of the substrate. The small pore size compared with the others two substrates (0.45 \(\upmu\)m) hinders the polymerization into the substrate, thus having both faces of the cellulosic membranes connected. Finally, though synthetized PDBProDOT demonstrated to be an easy processable polymer, using organic solvents, \(\sigma_{\text{s}}\) of pure CPs are much lower than that of PEDOT samples. Surface properties. Optical 3D profilometry in combination with SEM were performed to study the surface properties of composite materials (Figure S10). Figure 5 shows a comparison between some selected materials prepared by in-situ polymerization in order to identify the effect of the processing technique and the oxidizing agent employed during preparation. Among others roughness parameters, Sa was selected and measured to give a representative value of roughness and compare for each composite material. For instance, the oxidizing agent effect is evidenced when comparing PTsWCt and PTfWCt, materials prepared under the same processing conditions but different oxidizing agent. Values \(\sigma_{\text{s}}\) and Sa showed that the use of Fe(Trif)\({}_{3}\) allows to obtain materials with lower roughness, more homogeneous, and with a higher \(\sigma_{\text{s}}\) than using Fe(Tos)\({}_{3}\). This dependence of roughness with surface conductivity was previously reported for thin layers of pure PEDOT [39]. A considerable effect on processing conditions is seen when comparing PTfWCt and PTfWSp, where it is observed that processing by spray coating results in a more homogeneous layer around fibers, in contrast with  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Pure Polymer Samples** & \(\sigma\) **(S-cm\({}^{-1}\))** & \(\sigma_{\text{s}}\) **(S-cm\({}^{-1}\))** & **Polymer content (wt.\%)** \\ \hline _PEDOT:Tosyllate_ & \(2.5\times 10^{-3}\) & 8.4 & - \\ _PEDOT:Triflate_ & \(4.9\times 10^{-1}\) & 6.6 & - \\ _PEDOT:PSS_ & \(4.5\times 10^{-4}\) & 49 & - \\ _PDBProDOT_ & \(1.0\times 10^{-3}\) & \({}^{*}\) & - \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**In-_Situ Polymerization_**} \\ \hline _PTsWCt_ & \(4.2\times 10^{-5}\) & 0.05 & 43 \\ _PTsCCt_ & \(2.3\times 10^{-4}\) & 0.07 & 34 \\ _PTsWSp_ & \(6.3\times 10^{-6}\) & \({}^{*}\) & 29 \\ _PTsCSp_ & \(2.8\times 10^{-7}\) & 0.31 & 45 \\ _PTfWCt_ & \(3.6\times 10^{-4}\) & 0.60 & 80 \\ _PTfCCt_ & \(2.1\times 10^{-4}\) & 0.06 & 76 \\ _PTfWSp_ & \(6.7\times 10^{-5}\) & 0.46 & 24 \\ _PTfCSp_ & \(2.0\times 10^{-4}\) & 0.77 & 38 \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Soluble CPs**} \\ \hline _PPsWCt_ & \(6.0\times 10^{-7}\) & \({}^{*}\) & 80 \\ _PPsACt_ & \(3.0\times 10^{-5}\) & 43.67 & 68 \\ _PPsWSp_ & \(4.3\times 10^{-8}\) & \({}^{*}\) & 7 \\ _PPsASp_ & \(1.3\times 10^{-8}\) & \({}^{*}\) & 11 \\ _PPsCSp_ & \(2.5\times 10^{-4}\) & \({}^{*}\) & 24 \\ _PDPDWCt_ & \(5.1\times 10^{-11}\) & \({}^{*}\) & 6 \\ _PDDCt_ & \(4.2\times 10^{-10}\) & \({}^{*}\) & 6 \\ _PDDWSp_ & \(1.3\times 10^{-9}\) & \({}^{*}\) & \({}^{*}\) \\ _PDDASPp_ & \(5.6\times 10^{-13 casting, which creates a CP layer onto the substrate as it is not possible from micrographs to distinguish between the cellulose fibers and PEDOT. This observation was confirmed by SEM micrographs shown in the same figure. This effective covering has also a direct effect on the flexibility of materials prepared (Figure 1), which indicates that flexibility of composite materials depends on an effective coating of CPs onto fibers.