4.8 Article

Excellent Compatibility of the Gravimetric and Areal Capacitances of an Electric-Double-Layer Capacitor Configured with S-Doped Activated Carbon

期刊

CHEMSUSCHEM
卷 11, 期 21, 页码 3766-3773

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/cssc.201801767

关键词

biomass; capacitors; carbon; porosity; S doping

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21706283, 21776309]
  2. Beijing Talents Foundation [2017000020124G010]
  3. Science Foundation of China University of Petroleum, Beijing [2462017YJRC003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coffee grounds were converted into S-doped activated carbon (SAC) in the presence of an active agent and S dopant through a one-step synthesis approach. Carbonization, activation, and S doping was achieved through this one-step methodology. The SAC was used as an electrode material for the preparation of a symmetric electrical-double-layer capacitor (EDLC), and the influence of the loading mass of the active materials on the capacitive behaviors was investigated. The assembled SAC-based symmetric EDLC not only yielded a high capacitance but it also afforded a satisfactory capacitance retention. The symmetric EDLC constructed with loading mass SAC of 7.5 mg cm(-2) was capable of delivering a maximum gravimetric and areal capacitance of 200 F g(-1) and 1.5 F cm(-2), respectively. The compatibility of the gravimetric and areal capacitances of SAC was mainly attributed to the high abundance of interconnected pore channels, which were beneficial for the increased contact area between electrode and electrolyte ions, fast charge transfer, and fast diffusion of the electrolyte ions. In addition to the well-developed porous networks, the introduction of S into the carbon frameworks significantly enhanced the electrical conductivity, storage capacity, and rate capability. The developed one-step synthesis provides a facile and effective route for obtaining high-performance capacitive electrode materials and realizing high value-added utilization of biomass.

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