4.8 Article

Rational design of hierarchically porous birnessite-type manganese dioxides nanosheets on different one-dimensional titania-based nanowires for high performance supercapacitors

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 270, 期 -, 页码 675-683

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2014.07.114

关键词

Manganese oxides; Titania; Supercapacitors; Nanocomposites

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51104194, 21103127]
  2. Ministry of Education of China [20110191120014]
  3. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars [43]
  4. National Key laboratory of Fundamental Science of Micro/Nano-device and System Technology (Chongqing University) [2013MS06]
  5. State Education Ministry and Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (Chongqing University, PR China) [106112013CDJZR120017, CDJZR13130035]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A facile and large-scale strategy of mesoporous birnessite-type manganese dioxide (MnO2) nanosheets on one-dimension (1D) H2Ti3O7 and anatase/TiO2 (B) nanowires (NWs) is developed for high performance supercapacitors. The morphological characteristics of MnO2 nanoflakes on H2Ti3O7 and anatase/TiO2 (B) NWs could be rationally designed with various characteristics (e.g., the sheet thickness, surface area). Interestingly, the MnO2/TiO2 NWs exhibit a more optimized electrochemical performance with specific capacitance of 120 F g(-1) at current density of 0.1 A g(-1) (based on MnO2 + TiO2) than MnO2/H2Ti3O7 NWs. An asymmetric supercapacitor of MnO2/TiO2//activated graphene (AG) yields a better energy density of 29.8 Wh kg(-1) than MnO2/H2Ti3O7//AG asymmetric supercapacitor, while maintaining desirable cycling stability. Indeed, the pseudocapacitive difference is related to the substrates, unique structure and surface area. Especially, the anatase/TiO2 (B) mixed-phase system can provide good electronic conductivity and high utilization of MnO2 nanosheets. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.8
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