4.8 Article

Superior supercapacitive performance of hollow activated carbon nanomesh with hierarchical structure derived from poplar catkins

期刊

JOURNAL OF POWER SOURCES
卷 362, 期 -, 页码 27-38

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpowsour.2017.07.021

关键词

Poplar catkins; Activated carbon nanomesh; Hierarchical porous structure; Electrochemical behaviors; Supercapacitors

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1304203, U1404503, 21403053]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Henan Province [162300410258]
  3. Foundation of Henan Educational Committee [16A150046]
  4. Innovation Foundation of Zhengzhou University [201610459062, 2016xjxm251]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hollow activated carbon nanomesh (PCACM) with a hierarchical porous structure is derived from biowaste-poplar catkins by in-situ calcination etching with Ni(NO3)(2).6H(2)O and KOH in N-2 flow combined with an acid dissolution technique. This procedure not only inherits the natural tube morphology of poplar catkins, but also generates a fascinating nanomesh structure on the walls. PCACM possesses a large specific surface area (S-BET = 1893.0 m(2) g(-1)) and high total pore volume (V-P = 1.495 cm(3) g(-1)), and displays an exciting meso-macoporous structure with a concentrated pore size distribution of 4.53 nm. The specific capacitance of PCACM is as high as 314.6 F g(-1) at 1.0 A g(-1) when used as the electrode materials for supercapacitor. Furthermore, the symmetric supercapacitor of PCACM with 1.0 M Na2SO4 solution as the electrolyte displays a high energy density of 20.86 Wh kg(-1) at a power density of 180.13 W kg(-1) within a wide voltage rage of 0-1.8 V, which is comparable or even obviously higher than those of other biomass derived carbon reported. It is noteworthy that PCACM also exhibits superior cycling stability and coulombic efficiency. The excellent electrochemical behaviors enable PCACM to be a promising electrode material for supercapacitors. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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