4.5 Article

Effect of dopants on the adsorbing performance of polypyrrole/graphite electrodes for capacitive deionization process

期刊

SYNTHETIC METALS
卷 162, 期 7-8, 页码 655-661

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.synthmet.2012.01.015

关键词

Dopants; Polypyrrole; Capacitive deionization; Adsorbing performance

资金

  1. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20070056024]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [20806054]
  3. Tianjin Research Program of Application Foundation and Advanced Technology [09JCYBJC06600]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Polypyrrole/graphite electrodes (PPy/G-Cl, PPy/G-p-TS and PPy/G-DBS) were synthesized by electrochemical polymerization process. The three type of electrodes were then used as anode respectively to study the effect of dopants on the adsorbing performance of PPy/G electrodes in capacitive deionization process. The morphology, thickness, conductivity of PPy layers and the surface area of the PPy/G electrodes were characterized and tested respectively, all of which depend on the type of dopants. The electrochemical impedance spectroscopies infer that the adsorbing processes of the PPy/G electrodes are controlled by Warburg diffusion. Also, the PPy/G-Cl and PPy/G-p-TS electrodes show better conductivity than the PPy/G-DBS electrode in CDI cells. The ion exchange capability of the PPy layers was measured by an electrochemical quartz crystal microbalance (EQCM), which proves that the ion exchange capability of the PPy layers is in the order of: PPy-p-TS > PPy-Cl > PPy-DBS. The results of adsorbing experiments indicate that the specific adsorption capacities of PPy/G electrodes to Cl- vary with the type of dopants and follow the order of: PPy/G-p-TS > PPy/G-Cl > PPy/G-DBS. Further, it can be obtained that clopants dominate the electrochemically switchable ion exchange (ESIE), and the specific adsorption capacities of the PPy/G electrodes are mainly determined by the ESIE. (C) 2012 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

4.5
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