4.6 Article

Scavenging Biomechanical Energy Using High-Performance, Flexible BaTiO3 Nanocube/PDMS Composite Films

期刊

ACS SUSTAINABLE CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
卷 5, 期 6, 页码 4730-4738

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acssuschemeng.7b00117

关键词

BaTiO3 nanocubes; Biomechanical energy; Composite film; Nanogenerator; Piezoelectricity

资金

  1. National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) - Korean government [2016R1A2B2013831]
  2. National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1A2B2013831] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Highly flexible, biocompatible, large-scale production of BaTiO3 nanocube (BTO NC)/poly(dimethylsiloxane) (PDMS) composite films (CFs) prepared via a simple, cost-effective solution casting technique are reported for the first time for high-performance piezoelectric nanogenerators (PNGs). The crystalline BTO NCs were synthesized via a simple low-temperature molten salt method. The piezoelectric output performance of the CF was investigated as a function of the weight ratio of the BTO NCs in the polymer matrix, electrical poling, constant mechanical loading, and low-frequency biomechanical energy harvesting. The composite PNG (CPNG) with 15 wt % of BTO NCs displayed an excellent peak-to-peak voltage (V-pp) of 126.3 V and current density (J) of 77.6 mu A/cm(2) and generated a maximum instantaneous areal power density of 7 mW/cm(2) at 100 M Omega at the low input mechanical pressure of 988.2 Pa. The generated output was sufficient to drive commercial light-emitting diodes and low-powered consumer electronic devices. Next, the CPNG was tested to harness waste biomechanical energy in our daily life; it generated a Vpp of 29 V (human hand palm force) and 55.9 V (human foot stress). The proposed device was lightweight, flexible, eco-friendly, cost-effective, and a potential candidate to generate high electrical output at low mechanical pressure.

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