Flexible, Thermally Stable, and Ultralightweight Polyimide-CNT Aerogel Composite Films for Energy Storage Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polyimide (PI) aerogels are promising in various fields of application, ranging from thermal insulators to aerospace. However, they are typically in the form of a bulk monolith, which suffers from a lack of conformability and drapability. Moreover, their electrical conductivity is limited, and they mainly display an insulative behavior. These shortcomings can limit the applications of PI aerogels in energy storage systems, which require ultralightweight flexible conductive films, which at the same time offer high thermal stability, ultralow density, and high surface area. To overcome these obstacles, the present study reports the fabrication of PI-carbon nanotube (PI-CNT) aerogel composite films with varying CNT content prepared through a sol–gel preparation method, followed by a supercritical drying procedure. Compared to pristine PI aerogels, which displayed a large shrinkage and density of 18.3% and 0.12 g cm –3, respectively, the incorporation of only 5 wt % CNTs resulted in a significant reduction of both shrinkage and density to only 11.5% and 0.10 g cm –3, respectively. This suggests the importance of CNTs in improving the dimensional stability of aerogels and creating a robust network. Further characterizations showed that incorporation of 5 wt % CNTs also resulted in the highest pore volume (1.25 cm 3 g –1 ), highest surface area (324 m 2 g –1 ), highest real permittivity (80), highest electrical conductivity (3 × 10 –1 S m –1 ), and ultrahigh service temperature (575 °C). It was also shown that the aerogel films can withstand a large degree of bending, can be twisted, and can be fully rolled with no obvious cracks propagated in the structure. The combined outstanding properties of the developed aerogel composite films make them promising potential candidates for supercapacitor electrodes. Therefore, the electrochemical performance of the devices based on aerogel electrodes was further studied. The device demonstrated a high energy density of 2.6 Wh kg –1 at a power density of 303.8 W kg –1 . The total capacitance after 5000 cycles was 91.8% of the initial capacitance, which indicated excellent stability and durability of the device. Overall, this work provides a facile yet effective methodology for the development of high-performance aerogel materials for energy storage applications.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".