4.6 Article

Preparing electrodes with highly reduced graphene oxide load for supercapacitors by dropping-electrochemical reduction

期刊

DIAMOND AND RELATED MATERIALS
卷 105, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.diamond.2020.107766

关键词

Electrochemical reduction; Reduced graphene oxide; Carbon fiber felt; Supercapacitor

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21574076, 61804091, U1510121, 21602127]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of Shanxi province [2015021129]
  3. Fund for Shanxi 1331 Project Key Innovation Team [TD201704]
  4. Engineering Research Center [PT201807]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, electrodes based on reduced graphene oxide for supercapacitors are prepared via a simple and environmental friendly electrochemical reduction method. The carbon fiber felts (CFFs) with a bunch of carbon fibers (CFs) sewn in them are used as substrates to load the graphene oxide (GO) suspension, and the GO sheets loaded on the CFFs are then reduced by constant voltage method to obtain the electrode (ErGO/CFF-CFs). By studying the effect of different ErGO loadings on the electrode's performance, we can find that when the mass loading is 2.5 mg cm(-2), the assembled capacitor has the best overall performance in KOH/polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) gel electrolyte. According to the two-electrode system, the capacitance of the optimized electrode can reach 334.7 mF cm(-2) (133.9 F g(-1) ) at 2 mV s(-1). The specific capacitance of the device can get 167.4 mF cm(-2) (33.5 F g(-1)) at 2 mV s(-1) and the energy density of the cell can reach 20.5 mu Wh cm(-2) (4.1 Wh kg(-1)) at 0.2 W cm(-2) (49.3 W kg(-1)). Additionally, after 10,000 cycles, the device's capacitance can still maintain 96.1% of the initial capacitance. Furthermore, the testing results show that the devices also exhibit excellent electrochemical performances when H2SO4/PVA is used as electrolyte. This method can be used as a convenient route to produce electrode with large amount of rGO load.

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

4.6
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