4.6 Article

Pyrolytic synthesis of boron-doped graphene and its application as electrode material for supercapacitors

期刊

ELECTROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 108, 期 -, 页码 666-673

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.electacta.2013.07.025

关键词

Graphene; Boron-doped; Pyrolytic synthesis; Energy storage; Supercapacitors

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51075384, 51205385]
  2. Top Hundred Talents Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences
  3. Funds for Distinguished Young Scientists of Gansu Province scheme

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chemical doping with foreign atoms is an effective approach to intrinsically modify the properties of the carbon materials. Herein, boron-doped graphene (BG) was prepared through pyrolysis of graphene oxide (GO) with boric acid (H3BO3) in an argon atmosphere at 900 degrees C. Both boron-doping and reduction of GO to graphene were simultaneously achieved under the thermal treatment processing. Namely, at high temperature condition, H3BO3 was converted into boron oxide (B2O3) accompanied by diffusing B2O3 vapor into the graphene nanosheets, then boron atoms can replace the carbon atoms inside the graphene layers and thereby substitutionally doped into the graphene lattice. The boron content in BG increased with prolonging the reaction time and reached the highest value of 4.7% after 3 h of pyrolysis, which in turn affected their electrochemical properties. The as-prepared electrode of BG-900-3h exhibits the highest capacitive behavior (172.5 F g(-1), 0.5 A g(-1)) and superior cycling stability (maintaining 96.5% of initial capacity after 5000 times of cycling). Remarkably, the boron-doping increased the capacitance of BG-900-3h by about 80% compared to pristine graphene. These results imply that the doping of boron into graphene lattice induces remarkable performance enhancement, and thus make the doped materials superior to those of pristine graphene as electrode materials for supercapacitors. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.6
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