4.8 Article

Enhancing Electrochemical Performance of Graphene Fiber-Based Supercapacitors by Plasma Treatment

期刊

ACS APPLIED MATERIALS & INTERFACES
卷 10, 期 16, 页码 13652-13659

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsami.8b04438

关键词

plasma; graphene fiber; supercapacitor; energy density; cycle stability

资金

  1. DHU Distinguished Young Professor Program
  2. Key Laboratory of Textile Science & Technology (Donghua University)
  3. Ministry of Education [KLTST201606]
  4. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51603036]
  5. Young Elite Scientists Sponsorship Program by CAST [2017QNRC001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Graphene fiber-based supercapacitors (GFSCs) hold high power density, fast charge discharge rate, ultralong cycling life, exceptional mechanical/electrical properties, and safe operation conditions, making them very promising to power small wearable electronics. However, the electrochemical performance is still limited by the severe stacking of graphene sheets, hydrophobicity of graphene fibers, and complex preparation process. In this work, we develop a facile but robust strategy to easily enhance electrochemical properties of all-solid-state GFSCs by simple plasma treatment. We find that 1 min plasma treatment under an ambient condition results in 33.1% enhancement of areal specific capacitance (36.25 mF/cm(2)) in comparison to the as-prepared GFSC. The energy density reaches 0.80 mu W h/cm(2) in polyvinyl alcohol/H2SO4 gel electrolyte and 18.12 mu W h/cm(2) in poly(vinylidene difluoride)/ethyl-3-methylimidazolium tetrafluoroborate electrolyte, which are 22 times of that of as-prepared ones. The plasma treated GFSCs also exhibit ultrahigh rate capability (69.13% for 40 s plasma-treated ones) and superior cycle stability (96.14% capacitance retention after 20 000 cycles for 1 min plasma-treated ones). This plasma strategy can be extended to mass manufacture high-performance carbonaceous fiber-based supercapacitors, such as graphene and carbon nanotube-based ones.

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