4.3 Article

A Study of Carbon Nanofibers and Active Carbon as Symmetric Supercapacitor in Aqueous Electrolyte: A Comparative Study

期刊

NANOSCALE RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 12, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1186/s11671-017-2415-z

关键词

Carbon nanofibers; Activated carbon; SEM; TEM; BET; Aqueous electrolyte; Supercapacitor

资金

  1. MINECO [MAT2015-66443-C2-2-R]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Symmetric supercapacitors are fabricated by carbon nanofibers (CNF) and activated carbon (AC) using similar proportions of 7 wt% polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) polymer binder in an aqueous electrolyte. In this study, a comparison of porous texture and electrochemical performances between CNFs and AC based supercapacitors was carried out. Electrodes were assembled in the cell without a current collector. The prepared electrodes of CNFs and AC present Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) surface area of 83 and 1042 m(2)/g, respectively. The dominant pore structure for CNFs is mesoporous while for AC is micropore. The results showed that AC provided higher specific capacitance retention up to very fast scan rate of 500 mV/s. AC carbon had a specific capacitance of 334 F/g, and CNFs had 52 F/g at scan rate 5 mV/s in aqueous solution. Also, the results indicate the superior conductivity of CNFs in contrast to AC counterparts. The measured equivalent series resistance (ESR) showed a very small value for CNFs (0.28 Omega) in comparison to AC that has an ESR resistance of (3.72 Omega). Moreover, CNF delivered higher specific power (1860 W/kg) than that for AC (450 W/kg). On the other hand, AC gave higher specific energy (18.1 Wh/kg) than that for CNFs (2 Wh/kg). This indicates that the AC is good for energy applications. Whereas, CNF is good for power application. Indeed, the higher surface area will lead to higher specific capacitance and hence higher energy density for AC. For CNF, lower ESR is responsible for having higher power density. Both CNF and AC supercapacitor exhibit an excellent charge-discharge stability up to 2500 cycles.

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

4.3
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