Conductive Polymer-Based Electrodes and Supercapacitors: Materials, Electrolytes, and Characterizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New materials and the interactions between them are the basis of novel energy storage devices such as supercapacitors and batteries. In recent years, because of the increasing demand for electricity as an energy source, the development of new energy storage materials is among the most actively studied topics. Conductive polymers (CPs), because of their intrinsic electrochemical activity and electrical conductivity, have also been intensively explored. While most of the high capacitance reported in the literature comes from hybrid materials, for example, conductive polymers composed of metal oxides and carbon materials, such as graphene and carbon nanotubes, new chemistry and the 3D structure of conductive polymers remain critical. This comprehensive review focuses on the basic properties of three popular conductive polymers and their composites with carbon materials and metal oxides that have been actively explored as energy storage materials, i.e., polypyrrole (PPy), polyaniline (PANi), and polythiophene (PTh), and various types of electrolytes, including aqueous, organic, quasi-solid, and self-healing electrolytes. Important experimental parameters affecting material property and morphology are also discussed. Electrochemical and analytical techniques frequently employed in material and supercapacitor research are presented. In particular, cyclic voltammetry (CV) and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) are discussed in detail, including how to extract data from spectra to calculate key parameters. Pros and cons of CP-based supercapacitors are discussed together with their potential 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".