2017
DOI: 10.1039/c7ta01308f
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Liquid electrolyte mediated flexible pouch-type hybrid supercapacitor based on binderless core–shell nanostructures assembled with honeycomb-like porous carbon

Abstract: The current challenges in the usage of liquid electrolyte in energy storage devices are closely correlated with the flexibility and portability of the devices.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

5
28
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 99 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 67 publications
5
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, the device even maintained good areal energy density of 0.26 mWh cm −2 at high power density 27.22 mW cm −2 . Impressively, the obtained energy and power density values of this HSC are comparable or even higher than the previously reported asymmetric SCs/HSCs, such as hierarchical Ni‐Co‐S NSs//graphene (0.118 mWh cm −2 at 10.4 mW cm −2 ), Ag@Ce 6 Mo 10 O 39 //AC (0.0183 mWh cm −2 at 0.739 mW cm −2 ), core–shell‐like NiCo 2 S 4 hierarchical structures//activated carbon (0.121 mWh cm −2 at 0.941 mW cm −2 ), Ni‐Co‐S nanoflakes//polypyrrole (0.112 mWh cm −2 at 1.5 mW cm −2 ), Ni 0.8 Cu 0.2 ‐S nanostructures//N‐doped graphene (0.138 mWh cm −2 at 6.4 mW cm −2 ), Ni‐Mo‐S//Ni‐Fe‐S (0.228 mWh cm −2 at 1.58 mW cm −2 ), Ni 3 S 2 @CdS//porous carbon (0.259 mWh cm −2 at 1.482 mW cm −2 ), Zn‐Ni‐P//Fe 2 O 3 @NG (0.346 mWh cm −2 at 2.37 mW cm −2 ), core–shell CoMoO 4 @Co(OH) 2 //porous carbon (0.167 mWh cm −2 at 1.5 mW cm −2 ), CoNi 2 S 4 /Ni 3 S 2 @Ni(OH) 2 //active carbon (0.432 mWh cm −2 at 1.646 mW cm −2 ), and MnCo 2 S 4 //rGO (0.25 mWh cm −2 at 6.4 mW cm −2 ), respectively. Moreover, the comparative results of our HSC with many other reports are also summarized in Table S2 (Supporting Information).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 67%
“…Moreover, the device even maintained good areal energy density of 0.26 mWh cm −2 at high power density 27.22 mW cm −2 . Impressively, the obtained energy and power density values of this HSC are comparable or even higher than the previously reported asymmetric SCs/HSCs, such as hierarchical Ni‐Co‐S NSs//graphene (0.118 mWh cm −2 at 10.4 mW cm −2 ), Ag@Ce 6 Mo 10 O 39 //AC (0.0183 mWh cm −2 at 0.739 mW cm −2 ), core–shell‐like NiCo 2 S 4 hierarchical structures//activated carbon (0.121 mWh cm −2 at 0.941 mW cm −2 ), Ni‐Co‐S nanoflakes//polypyrrole (0.112 mWh cm −2 at 1.5 mW cm −2 ), Ni 0.8 Cu 0.2 ‐S nanostructures//N‐doped graphene (0.138 mWh cm −2 at 6.4 mW cm −2 ), Ni‐Mo‐S//Ni‐Fe‐S (0.228 mWh cm −2 at 1.58 mW cm −2 ), Ni 3 S 2 @CdS//porous carbon (0.259 mWh cm −2 at 1.482 mW cm −2 ), Zn‐Ni‐P//Fe 2 O 3 @NG (0.346 mWh cm −2 at 2.37 mW cm −2 ), core–shell CoMoO 4 @Co(OH) 2 //porous carbon (0.167 mWh cm −2 at 1.5 mW cm −2 ), CoNi 2 S 4 /Ni 3 S 2 @Ni(OH) 2 //active carbon (0.432 mWh cm −2 at 1.646 mW cm −2 ), and MnCo 2 S 4 //rGO (0.25 mWh cm −2 at 6.4 mW cm −2 ), respectively. Moreover, the comparative results of our HSC with many other reports are also summarized in Table S2 (Supporting Information).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 67%
“…The maximum capacities of Electrodes I and III are much lower and can only reach 309 mA h/g (371 µA h/cm 2 ) and 324 mA h/g (453 µA h/cm 2 ), respectively, over 25% and 21% lower than that of Electrode II. Notably, the specific capacity of our homogeneous architecture here is favorably comparable with those of previously reported nanostructures, including CoMoO 4 @Co(OH) 2 core-shell structures (265 mA h/cm 2 at 2 mA/cm 2 ) [46], as well as CoMoO 4 nanoflakes (32.40 mA h/g; 492.48 µAh/cm 2 ) [47], Ni–Mo–S nanosheets (312 mA h/g at 1 mA/cm 2 ) [48], and flower-like Mn–Co oxysulfide (136 mA h/g at 2 A/g) [49]. Detailed comparisons in electrochemical performances among these devices and our structure can be found in Table S1.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Since the NCM-based MOFs showed different mass loadings under various growth timings, we calculated the areal capacity instead of gravimetric capacity. The areal capacity of the prepared materials was calculated using the following formulae [49]:…”
Section: Electrochemical Measurementsmentioning
confidence: 99%