Shakeel N., Khan J., Al-Kahtani A.A. · RSC Advances · 2024 · 33941-33951
Open a family to keep every result attached to its sample, method and conditions.
Paraphrased for this database from the authors’ stated interpretations — never quoted verbatim — and kept separate from reported measurements.
The Q2 Cu-MOF//activated carbon hybrid device combines high specific energy, high specific power, and stable cycling.
Caveat: Device assembly details and mass balancing are incomplete in the main text; the supplied SI includes GCD cycle figures but no assembly recipe.
p009-p010 / journal pages 33949-33950 · 5 Battery-supercapacitor hybrid configuration; 6 Conclusion · Fig. 8 · Linked to 7 structured results
Sonochemical Q2 forms thinner flake morphology that reduces ion diffusion path length, improves electrolyte infiltration, lowers impedance, and enhances electrochemical performance relative to hydrothermal Q1.
Caveat: Transport is inferred from electrochemical signatures and morphology; no direct electronic conductivity value is reported.
p004 and p008 / journal pages 33944 and 33948 · 3 Structural and surface morphology; 4 Three-electrode configurations · Fig. 2; Fig. 6 · Linked to 5 structured results
Both Q1 and Q2 show battery-grade/faradaic charge storage behaviour, with b-values near 0.5 and diffusion-dominated contributions.
Caveat: The phrase 'battery-grade' follows the authors' interpretation of CV peak behaviour and b-value analysis.
p006 / journal page 33946 · 4 Three-electrode configurations · Fig. 4(e,f) · Linked to 4 structured results
The authors claim Q2 has better electrical conductivity than Q1 based on its lower EIS ESR.
Caveat: ESR is a device/electrode impedance metric and includes current collector, electrode, electrolyte-electrode interface, and electrolyte contributions; no standalone electronic conductivity measurement is reported.
p008 / journal page 33948 · 4 Three-electrode configurations · Fig. 6 · Linked to 2 structured results
EDX and Cu mapping indicate higher surface copper concentration in Q2, which the authors link to stronger redox behaviour and improved electrochemical attributes.
Caveat: Surface concentration statement is based on EDX mapping and wt% comparison, not depth-resolved quantitative surface analysis.
p005 / journal page 33945 · 3 Structural and surface morphology · Fig. 3; Table 1 · Linked to 3 structured results
Names and aliases are kept exactly within the paper’s own identity model.
| Material | Composition | Structure context | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cu-MOF from copper chloride and pyridine-4-carboxylic acid | not explicitly reported; copper metal-organic framework based on pyridine-4-carboxylic acidCu from copper chloride (CuCl2) · pyridine-4-carboxylic acid | unknown · PristinePXRD compared with simulated XRD pattern, CCDC no. 226294; reported peaks assigned to (110), (200), (311), (400), (511), (420), and (600). | p002-p003 / journal pages 33942-33943 · Materials and methods; Structural and surface morphology · Fig. 1; Fig. 2 |
| Cu-MOF working electrode composite on nickel foam | 80 wt% Cu-MOF + 10 wt% acetylene black + 10 wt% PVDF on Ni foamCu-MOF active material · pyridine-4-carboxylic acid in Cu-MOF | unknown · CompositeElectrode composite used for three-electrode electrochemical testing; not a new MOF phase. | p003 / journal page 33943 · 2.1 Electrode characterization/fabrication |
| bare nickel foam control | Ni foamnot a MOF; nickel metal current collector | unknown · UnknownBare current-collector control used in SI CV comparison. | p003 · Supplementary Information · Figure S2 |
| Q2 Cu-MOF/activated-carbon asymmetric battery-supercapacitor hybrid | Q2 Cu-MOF battery electrode + activated carbon capacitive electrode with polymeric separatorCu-MOF positive/battery-type electrode · pyridine-4-carboxylic acid in Q2 Cu-MOF | unknown · CompositeDevice-level composite assembly, not a new framework. | p008 / journal page 33948 · 5 Battery-supercapacitor hybrid configuration · Fig. 7 |
Sample form, processing state and composition status define the context for measurements.
| Sample | Form and role | Processing and geometry | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| bare nickel foam current collectorresearch_0622__mat__mat_ni_foam_control | Electrode · Pristine Control · Unknown | Bare Ni-foam tested as a control against Q2 electrode in SI Fig. S2.nickel foam | p003 · Supplementary Information · Figure S2 |
| Q1 Cu-MOF composite working electroderesearch_0622__mat__mat_cu_mof_working_electrode | Electrode · Composite Sample · Composite | 80% Q1 Cu-MOF, 10% acetylene black, 10% PVDF in NMP, stirred 6 h, coated on Ni foam, dried 60 C for 6 h.nickel foam current collector, 1 cm2 coated area | p003 / journal page 33943 · 2.1 Electrode characterization/fabrication |
| Q1 hydrothermal Cu-MOF powderresearch_0622__mat__mat_cu_mof | Powder · Pristine Control · Pristine Framework | Hydrothermal synthesis at 180 C for 12 h; purified and dried by vacuum drying or low heating. | p002-p004 / journal pages 33942-33944 · Materials and methods; Structural and surface morphology · Fig. 2(b,c) |
| Q2 Cu-MOF//activated carbon hybrid deviceresearch_0622__mat__mat_q2_ac_hybrid_device | Electrode · Composite Sample · Composite | Asymmetric device combining Q2 battery-type electrode and activated carbon capacitive electrode separated by a thin porous polymeric separator. | p008 / journal page 33948 · 5 Battery-supercapacitor hybrid configuration · Fig. 7(a) |
| Q2 Cu-MOF composite working electroderesearch_0622__mat__mat_cu_mof_working_electrode | Electrode · Composite Sample · Composite | 80% Q2 Cu-MOF, 10% acetylene black, 10% PVDF in NMP, stirred 6 h, coated on Ni foam, dried 60 C for 6 h.nickel foam current collector, 1 cm2 coated area | p003 / journal page 33943 · 2.1 Electrode characterization/fabrication |
| Q2 sonochemical Cu-MOF powderresearch_0622__mat__mat_cu_mof | Powder · Target Sample · Pristine Framework | Sonochemical synthesis at 30 C, 600 W, 40% amplitude, 45 min, 2 s on/1 s off; centrifuged, washed, and dried overnight at 80 C. | p003-p004 / journal pages 33943-33944 · Materials and methods; Structural and surface morphology · Fig. 2(d,e) |