(Invited) Pseudocapacitive Vs Battery Type Electrodes: Two Distinctive Aspects of Fast Electrochemical Processes and Devices
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrochemical capacitors (ECs, also sometimes denoted as “supercapacitors” or “ultracapacitors”) [1,2] are energy-storage devices that bridge the performance gap between the high energy density provided by batteries and the high power density (but very limited energy density) derived from dielectric capacitors. Commercially available electrochemical capacitors exhibit gravimetric energy density up to 8.5 Wh.kg -1 and usable power density up to 9.0 kW.kg -1 . In the field of electrochemical capacitors there is often confusion between the electrical parameters of a full device and the electrochemical properties of the individual electrodes that comprise the cell [3]. The focus of this communication is to describe the distinctions between these various devices and their constituents, starting with a comparison of dielectric capacitors versus electrochemical capacitors, followed by discussion of other electrochemical energy storage devices with regard to their electrical properties. The electrochemical behavior of common electrode materials used in ECs and related devices will be discussed in terms of capacitive, pseudocapacitive [3] and Faradic charge-storage mechanisms, as well as recommended methods with which such electrodes should be characterized. The distinctions between carbon-based capacitive electrodes [4] that are commonly found in commercial ECs, and pseudocapacitive electrodes such as RuO 2 [5,6], or MnO 2 [7,8], that have the electrochemical signature of a capacitive electrode but express different charge-storage mechanisms, will be highlighted. Finally, the important distinctions between high-power battery-type electrodes and pseudocapacitive electrodes will be described. New emerging concepts such as extrinsic pseudocapacitance [9] or intercalation pseudocapacitance [10] will be discussed at the light of recent results in the field. [1] Conway BE. Electrochemical Capacitors: Scientific Fundamentals and Technology Applications . New-York:Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers;1999. [2] Béguin F, Frackowiak E. Supercapacitors: Materials, Systems, and Applications , Weinheim, Germany Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co.; 2013. [3] Brousse T, Bélanger D, Long JW. To be or not to be pseudocapacitive? J Electrochem Soc 2015; 62 (5): A5185-9. [4] Simon P, Gogotsi Y. Materials for electrochemical capacitors. Nature Materials 2008; 7 : 845-854. [5] Ardizzone S, Fregonara G, Trasatti S. “Inner” and “outer” active surface of RuO 2 electrodes. Electrochim Acta 1990; 35 (1):263-7. [6] Zheng JP, Cygan PJ, Jow TR, Hydrous ruthenium oxide as an electrode material for electrochemical capacitors. J Electrochem Soc 1995; 142 (8):2699-703. [7] Lee HY, Goodenough JB., Supercapacitor Behavior with KCl Electrolyte. J Solid State Chem 1999; 144 (1):220-3. [8] Toupin M, Brousse T, Bélanger D. Charge storage mechanism of MnO 2 electrode used in aqueous electrochemical capacitor. Chem Mater 2004; 16: 3184-90. [9] Augustyn V, Simon P, Dunn B. Pseudocapacitive oxide materials for high-rate electrochemical energy storage. Energy Environ Sci. 2014; 7 :1597-1614. [10] Simon P, Gogotsi Y, Dunn B., Where do batteries end and supercapacitors begin? Science 2014; 343 : 1210-1.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it