4.6 Article

Natural Cellulose Materials for Supercapacitors

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 192, 期 -, 页码 251-258

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2015.12.138

关键词

Supercapacitors; Natural Cellulose; carbonisation

资金

  1. International Collaborative Energy Technology R&D program of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and Planning (KETEP)
  2. Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, Republic of Korea [NP2014-0001 20138510040050]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Supercapacitors are becoming important energy storage devices in efficient electrical systems and they are typically fabricated from high surface area carbon materials which are manufactured using complex, eco-destructive processes. An alternative approach is based on the conversion of biomass materials which we explore in this paper. Cellulose from cotton pulp is subject to a two-step carbonisation process at a range of elevated temperatures up 1900 degrees C. The resultant materials are characterized using a range of physical methods, along with cyclic voltammetry and galvanostatic discharge techniques to measure the specific capacitance of the materials formed. It is shown that the optimum processing temperature is around 1000 degrees C; at lower processing temperatures, the materials are insufficiently conductive whilst at high carbonization temperatures low capacitance is seen due to a loss of surface area. This arises from the inaccessibility of nanometre size pores which are present in abundance after the lower temperature carbonization steps. Cotton pulp carbonised at 1000 degrees C showed the highest value of capacitance of 107 F g(-1) with excellent stability for 2000 cycles. The electrochemical performance of this material is very competitive to other reported carbon materials and indicates the two-stage carbonisation method described is suitable for converting biomass into high quality carbon-based materials for supercapacitor applications. (C) 2016 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

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