4.7 Article

Physical and electrochemical characterization of hydrous ruthenium oxide/ordered mesoporous carbon composites as supercapacitor

Journal

MICROPOROUS AND MESOPOROUS MATERIALS
Volume 111, Issue 1-3, Pages 32-38

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.micromeso.2007.07.002

Keywords

supercapacitor; ordered mesoporous carbons; pseudo-capacitance; hydrous ruthenium oxide; annealing temperature; content

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ruthenium oxide/ordered mesoporous carbon composites materials were prepared by impregnating an ordered mesoporous carbon CMK-3 with RuCl3 center dot xH(2)O solution followed by annealing in nitrogen atmosphere from 80 to 400 degrees C. The content of ruthenium oxide in the composites ranged from 10.0 to 30.7 wt.%. X-ray diffraction (XRD), thermogravimetric analysis (TGA), nitrogen adsorption measurement and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) were used to characterize the composites. The results showed that the ruthenium oxide deposited on CMK-3 mesoporous carbon was hydrous and amorphous when annealed up to 400 degrees C. The specific capacitance of the composites was determined by cyclic voltammetry. Such composites had high specific capacitance, which was derived from the high specific surface area of CMK-3 mesoporous carbon and the pseudo-capacitance of amorphous RuO2. In addition, the specific capacitance depended on the annealing temperature and the RuO2 content. As the temperature increased, the specific capacitance decreased. In contrast, the specific capacitance increased with higher RuO2 content and reached 633 F/g with a heavy content. However, as the RuO2 content increased, its contribution to the pseudo-capacitance became poorer. The rate capability of the composite electrodes also decreased as a function of RuO2 content, due to an increase in the equivalent series resistance (ESR) and the overall capacitance. (C) 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available