312
Electrochemical Supercapacitors for Energy Storage and Delivery
7.8 Summary
In this chapter, both electrochemical and physical instrument characterizations for ES materials, components, and performance are discussed.
Conventional three-electrode and two-electrode testing cells and their associated design and fabrication techniques for electrochemical characterization of supercapacitors in terms of equivalent series resistance, capacitance,
and pseudocapacitance are presented.
Three common methods [cyclic voltammetry (CV), charging–discharging
curve (CDC), and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS)] are briefly
introduced. For fast screening of electrode materials, the conventional ex situ
three-electrode cell is the choice test method. For in situ characterization
of materials and supercapacitor performance, the two-electrode test cell can
more closely represent the real conditions encountered during operation.
For equivalent series resistance and capacitance measurements, CV and
CDC may be more simple or reliable than EIS in terms of data treatment.
Although EIS may yield more information about the processes of supercapacitor operation, data simulation can induce arbitrary conclusions due to
the equivalent circuit construction and the complexity of the simulation.
Regarding physical instrument characterization of ES materials, components, development, and structure optimization, important methods such as
SEM, TEM, XRD, EDX, XPS, RS, FTIR, and BET are briefly reviewed.
References
1. Tsay, K. C., L. Zhang, and J. Zhang. 2012. Effects of electrode layer composition
and thickness and electrolyte concentration on both specific capacitance and
energy density of supercapacitor. Electrochimica Acta, 60, 428–436.
2. Khomenko, V., E. Frackowiak, and F. Beguin. 2005. Determination of specific
capacitance of conducting polymer/nanotubes composite electrodes using different cell configurations. Electrochimica Acta, 50, 2497–2506.
3. Zhang, L. and J. Zhang. 2011. Fe–N/C catalysts for PEM fuel cell. NRC unpublished data.
4. Nicholson, R. S. and I. Shain. 1964. Stationary electrode polarography. Analytical
Chemistry, 36, 706–723.
5. Zhang, L. and J. Zhang. 2011. Mesoporous carbon as supercapacitor electrode
material. NRC unpublished data.
6. Zhang, L. et al. 2009. Fe loading of a carbon-supported Fe–N electrocatalyst and
its effect on the oxygen reduction reaction. Electrochimica Acta, 54, 6631–6636.
7. Ban, S. et al. 2012. Charging and discharging electrochemical supercapacitor in
the presence of both parallel leakage process and electrochemical decomposition of solvent. Electrochemica Acta, in press.
Electrochemical Supercapacitors for Energy Storage and Delivery
7.8 Summary
In this chapter, both electrochemical and physical instrument characterizations for ES materials, components, and performance are discussed.
Conventional three-electrode and two-electrode testing cells and their associated design and fabrication techniques for electrochemical characterization of supercapacitors in terms of equivalent series resistance, capacitance,
and pseudocapacitance are presented.
Three common methods [cyclic voltammetry (CV), charging–discharging
curve (CDC), and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS)] are briefly
introduced. For fast screening of electrode materials, the conventional ex situ
three-electrode cell is the choice test method. For in situ characterization
of materials and supercapacitor performance, the two-electrode test cell can
more closely represent the real conditions encountered during operation.
For equivalent series resistance and capacitance measurements, CV and
CDC may be more simple or reliable than EIS in terms of data treatment.
Although EIS may yield more information about the processes of supercapacitor operation, data simulation can induce arbitrary conclusions due to
the equivalent circuit construction and the complexity of the simulation.
Regarding physical instrument characterization of ES materials, components, development, and structure optimization, important methods such as
SEM, TEM, XRD, EDX, XPS, RS, FTIR, and BET are briefly reviewed.
References
1. Tsay, K. C., L. Zhang, and J. Zhang. 2012. Effects of electrode layer composition
and thickness and electrolyte concentration on both specific capacitance and
energy density of supercapacitor. Electrochimica Acta, 60, 428–436.
2. Khomenko, V., E. Frackowiak, and F. Beguin. 2005. Determination of specific
capacitance of conducting polymer/nanotubes composite electrodes using different cell configurations. Electrochimica Acta, 50, 2497–2506.
3. Zhang, L. and J. Zhang. 2011. Fe–N/C catalysts for PEM fuel cell. NRC unpublished data.
4. Nicholson, R. S. and I. Shain. 1964. Stationary electrode polarography. Analytical
Chemistry, 36, 706–723.
5. Zhang, L. and J. Zhang. 2011. Mesoporous carbon as supercapacitor electrode
material. NRC unpublished data.
6. Zhang, L. et al. 2009. Fe loading of a carbon-supported Fe–N electrocatalyst and
its effect on the oxygen reduction reaction. Electrochimica Acta, 54, 6631–6636.
7. Ban, S. et al. 2012. Charging and discharging electrochemical supercapacitor in
the presence of both parallel leakage process and electrochemical decomposition of solvent. Electrochemica Acta, in press.