4.6 Article

PPy coated nanoflower like CuCo2O4 based on in situ growth of nanoporous copper for high-performance supercapacitor electrodes

Journal

NANOTECHNOLOGY
Volume 33, Issue 15, Pages -

Publisher

IOP Publishing Ltd
DOI: 10.1088/1361-6528/ac4660

Keywords

CuCo2O4; PPy; nanoporous copper; supercapacitor

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [52001179]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province [ZR2020ME019]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A novel electrode of Cu@CuCo2O4@polypyrrole nanoflowers is fabricated to improve the performance of CuCo2O4 electrodes. The in situ grown CuCo2O4@polypyrrole shows a much higher pseudocapacitance compared to pristine CuCo2O4. Furthermore, an asymmetric supercapacitor assembled with CuCo2O4@polypyrrole as cathode and active carbon as anode exhibits excellent performance in terms of energy density and cycling stability.
General CuCo2O4 electrodes suffer a very low reversible capacity and poor cycling stability because of easily fading phenomena and volume change during cycling. To optimize the electrode, a facile method is conducted to fabricate a novel electrode of Cu@CuCo2O4@polypyrrole nanoflowers. Due to larger specific surface area and more electrochemical reactive areas of CuCo2O4@polypyrrole nanoflowers, the pseudocapacitance of the in situ grown CuCo2O4@polypyrrole (912 F g(-1) at 2 A g(-1)) is much higher than the pristine CuCo2O4 (618 F g(-1) at 2 A g(-1)). Remarkably, the CuCo2O4@polypyrrole (cathode) and active carbon (anode) are used to assemble an asymmetric supercapacitor, which exhibits a relatively high energy density of 90 Wh kg(-1) at a power density of 2519 W kg(-1) and 35 Wh kg(-1) at a high-power density of 9109 W kg(-1), and excellent cycling stability (about 90.4% capacitance retention over 10 000 cycles). The prominent performance of CuCo2O4@polypyrrole makes it as a potential electrode for supercapacitor.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available