4.6 Article

Development of a polyaniline/CMK-3/hydroquinone composite supercapacitor system

期刊

MATERIALS CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 297, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.matchemphys.2023.127369

关键词

Polyaniline; CMK-3; Hydroquinone; Supercapacitor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed a hybrid electrode using ordered mesoporous carbon (CMK-3) as the electrical double-layer capacitor material and conductive polymer polyaniline (PANI) as the faradaic capacitance material. The PANi/CMK-3/HQ composite system exhibited high specific capacitance and excellent cyclic stability. This novel electrode provides a new route for the design and development of future supercapacitors.
Hybrid supercapacitors are important in energy storage modules owing to their high power density. High-power electrical double-layer capacitor (EDLC) materials are frequently used to host faradaic capacitance materials to maintain a high power density with improved energy density. Herein, a hybrid electrode was developed using ordered mesoporous carbon (CMK-3) as EDLC material and conductive polymer polyaniline (PANi) as faradaic capacitance material. The processing parameters and the synergistic effect of CMK-3 and PANi were determined. Hydroquinone (HQ) was added through charge-discharge in the electrolyte, and its concentration was opti-mized. The specific capacitance of the PANi/CMK-3/HQ composite system was 684 F/g, whereas those of the PANi/CMK-3 composite, pristine PANi, and CMK3 were 480, 135, and 101 F/g, respectively. The PANi/CMK-3/ HQ composite system exhibited excellent cyclic stability, maintaining capacitance retention of 95.45% after 1000 charge-discharge cycles. Finally, the practical applicability of our proposed PANi/CMK-3/HQ composite system was proved with series connected symmetric supercapacitor by powering up the light emitting diodes (LEDs) bulbs for 10 min. The proposed PANi/CMK-3/HQ electrode provides a new route for future super-capacitor design and development.

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