4.8 Article

Role of Ions in Hydrogels with an Ionic Seebeck Coefficient of 52.9 mV K-1

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY LETTERS
卷 13, 期 20, 页码 4621-4627

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jpclett.2c00845

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [62074022, 12004057, 52173235]
  2. Chongqing Funds for Distinguished Young Scientists [cstc2021jcyj-jqX0015]
  3. Chongqing Talent Plan [CQYC2021059206, cstc2021ycjh-bgzxm0334]
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing [cstc2020jcyj-msxmX0851]
  5. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [2020CDJQY-A055, 2020CDJ-LHZZ-044]
  6. Key Laboratory of Low-Grade Energy Utilization Technologies and Systems [LLEUTS2019001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focuses on the use of mobile ions as charge carriers in i-TE hydrogels and reveals that the influence of ions on hydrogen bonding is a crucial factor in determining thermoelectric performance. Among various i-TE hydrogels, the PVA/CsI hydrogel demonstrates the highest ionic Seebeck coefficient of 52.9 mV K-1, which is the largest among all reported i-TE materials to date.
Ionic thermoelectric (i-TE) material with mobile ions as charge carriers has the potential to generate large thermal voltages at low operating temperatures. This study highlights the role of ions in i-TE hydrogels employing a poly(vinyl alcohol) (PVA) polymer matrix and a number of ion providers, e.g., KOH, KNO3, KCl, KBr, NaI, KI, and CsI. The relationship between the intrinsic physical parameters of the ion and the thermoelectric performance is established, indicating the ability to influence the hydrogen bond by the ion is a crucial factor. Among these i-TE hydrogels, the PVA/CsI hydrogel exhibits the largest ionic Seebeck coefficient, reaching 52.9 mV K-1, which is the largest of all i-TE materials reported to date. In addition, our work demonstrates the influence of ions on polymer configuration and provides an avenue for ion selection in the Soret effect in ionic thermoelectrics.

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