4.6 Article

Tri-rutile layered niobium-molybdates for all solid-state symmetric supercapacitors

期刊

JOURNAL OF MATERIALS CHEMISTRY A
卷 8, 期 38, 页码 20141-20150

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d0ta03678a

关键词

-

资金

  1. NTU
  2. National Research Foundation [NRF-NRF1206-05]
  3. joint A*-BMBF exchange program [01DP15008]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pseudocapacitive materials are considered to be promising for next-generation electrochemical capacitors due to their inherent high energy density. There are however, a number of concomitant challenges, including low ionic conductivity, and poor accessibility of the intercalation sites, which limit the viability of pseudocapacitors. Pseudocapacitive materials that address the aforementioned challenges simultaneously to enable high energy density remain scarce in the literature. Here, we report the pseudocapacitive behavior of tri-rutile two-dimensional (2D) layered niobium-molybdate (HNbMoO6) nanosheets to achieve high energy density. Owing to the unique properties of HNbMoO(6)nanosheets, such as wide interlayer spacings (which offer both abundant intercalation sites and high mobility to electrolyte ions), a high level of charge-storage (670 F g(-1)) can be achieved. Moreover, the cage-protons (H+) that are available between the MoO6/NbO(6)layers serve as a vehicle to conduct ions. A solid-state symmetric device comprising HNbMoO(6)nanosheets as both the positive and negative electrode materials delivered a high energy density of about 86 W h kg(-1)(43 W h L-1) and power density of similar to 900 W kg(-1)(450 W L-1), at an applied current density of 1 A g(-1). The as-prepared device is capable of retaining about similar to 70% of its initial capacitance upon 4000 cycles of continuous charge/discharge. The wide range of possibilities of tuning the electrochemical properties of the tri-rutile layered structures will propel a plethora of layered materials with high energy density as well as high power density applications.

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