4.7 Article

A copper based metal-organic framework as single source for the synthesis of electrode materials for high-performance supercapacitors and glucose sensing applications

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HYDROGEN ENERGY
卷 39, 期 34, 页码 19609-19620

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.09.106

关键词

Pyrolysis; X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy; Supercapacitance; Glucose sensing

资金

  1. Higher Education Commission (HEC) of Pakistan [20-1638/RD/09/2900, 20-2704/NRPU/RD/HEC/12]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article describes the conversion of MOF-199 to Cu-Cu2O-CuO/C 700 (1) and Cu-Cu2O-CuO/C 800 (2) nanostructures by simple pyrolysis at 700 and 800 degrees C under inert atmosphere. The X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analysis reveals that the nanostructures Cu-Cu2O-CuO/C consist of graphitic carbon functionalized with carboxylic, carbonyl and hydroxyl functional groups with copper/copper oxide particles on surfaces. The electro-chemical properties of 1 and 2 are evaluated as electrode material for supercapacitors using cyclic voltammetry, galvanostatic charge/discharge and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy. The results for the capacitive performance from cyclic voltammetry and galvanostatic charge/discharge reveal that both the samples have gravimetric capacitance greater than 750 F g(-1) at a scan rate of 2 mV s(-1) and current density of 2 mA cm(-2). The samples retain about 43% of their initial capacitance even at high scan rate of 75 mV The cycling performance of the nanostructures illustrate that there is 5.5% capacitance loss after 3000 cycles. The sample 1 and 2 are washed with 1 mol L-1 HCl solution to obtain copper oxide free materials Cu/C 700 (3) and Cu/C 800 (4). Samples 3 and 4 are tested as electrocatalysts for glucose sensing and the cyclic voltammetry measurement shows enhanced current densities compared to the literature values. Copyright (C) 2014, Hydrogen Energy Publications, LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据