Supercapacitors (SCs) are a novel type of energy storage device that exhibit features such as a short charging time, a long service life, excellent temperature characteristics, energy saving, and environmental protection. The capacitance of SCs depends on the electrode materials. Currently, carbon-based materials, transition metal oxides/hydroxides, and conductive polymers are widely used as electrode materials. However, the low specific capacitance of carbon-based materials, high cost of transition metal oxides/hydroxides, and poor cycling performance of conductive polymers as electrodes limit their applications. Copper–sulfur compounds used as electrode materials exhibit excellent electrical conductivity, a wide voltage range, high specific capacitance, diverse structures, and abundant copper reserves, and have been widely studied in catalysis, sensors, supercapacitors, solar cells, and other fields.
1. Introduction
To cope with the increasingly serious energy shortage, environmental pollution, and other related problems, researchers are vigorously developing green, efficient, and sustainable clean energy. With the rapid development of military equipment, aerospace, rail transit, new energy vehicles, power generation systems, and intelligent electronics, electrochemical energy storage devices have garnered considerable attention in recent years
[1][2]. The current energy storage devices mainly include lithium-ion batteries, solid oxide fuel cells, electrostatic capacitors, and supercapacitors. Lithium-ion batteries have the advantages of having a high energy density, long life, low self-discharge rate, etc., and are currently the most common commercially used secondary batteries. However, lithium-ion batteries also have some disadvantages, such as their high cost, environmental sensitivity, and unnecessary heating due to the slow redox process, which can easily lead to thermal runaway and fire
[3]. Solid oxide fuel cells offer benefits of being metal-free catalysts, having wide fuel sources, and cogeneration; however, the high reaction temperature of SOFCs leads to high maintenance costs and reduced battery durability over time. Each battery component is exposed to high temperatures, resulting in interface problems that degrade battery performance
[4]. The capacitive behavior of electrostatic capacitors refers to the existence of capacitance between electrodes, which involves charging and discharging processes under the action of an electric field. The larger the capacitance, the lesser the power loss. This capacitive effect is generated by the accumulation of charge between the electrodes and does not involve the redox process of electrons and ions. In most batteries, redox reactions often occur, which involve the redox of electrons and ions to produce an electric current. These shortcomings have led researchers to search for electrochemical energy storage systems superior to existing batteries. An SC is an energy storage device based on high-speed electrostatic or Faraday electrochemical processes.
Figure 1 presents the energy density and power density of various energy storage devices
[5]. Compared with batteries, supercapacitors (SCs) exhibit a high theoretical energy efficiency of nearly 100%, which is conducive to the application of SC electrochemical devices in power grid load balancing
[6]. In addition, SCs are new energy storage devices with a high power density, superior charging/discharging performance, low maintenance cost, safe operation, strong adaptability, good stability, and environmental friendliness, which can shorten the charging time from several hours to several minutes, improve the reliability of renewable power, and reduce waste
[7][8][9].
Figure 1. Ragone charts for various energy storage systems, including lithiumiom batteries, solid oxide fuel cells, electrostatic capacitors, and electrochemical capacitors
[5].
Electrode materials determine the efficiency of electrochemical energy storage systems, and depending on the energy storage mode, SCs can be divided into double-layer capacitors and pseudocapacitors. Electrode materials used for double-layer capacitors are mainly carbon-based materials (such as graphene) and some two-dimensional materials such as MoS
2. These materials have a high power density; however, compared with pseudocapacitors, the energy density and specific capacitance of double-layer capacitors are low, and graphene sheets are prone to agglomeration, resulting in a decrease in the specific surface area, which eventually reduces the capacity. Graphene is often used as a skeleton material to compound with other materials. MoS
2 has good specific capacitance; however, its electrochemical performance is limited by its inherent secondary agglomeration and low conductivity. In pseudocapacitors, energy is stored through the Faraday redox reaction. At the electrode and electrolyte interface, redox reactions result in higher specific capacitance, energy, and power density
[10]. The electrochemical dynamics of pseudocapacitors are capacitive; however, charge storage is achieved through the charge transfer Faraday reaction across the double electric layer. The processes that derive from the Faraday process are fast and reversible surface redox thermodynamics, but capacitance is derived from the linear relationship between the degree of adsorbed charge and the change in potential. Charge storage in pseudocapacitors is generally divided into three types: underpotential deposition occurs at the two-dimensional metal and electrolyte interface, and ions are deposited at the metal interface when the potential is more positive than the corresponding reversible redox potential; redox pseudocapacitance occurs in the Faraday redox system; and in embedded/unembedded pseudocapacitors, ions are embedded in the redox active material but do not undergo crystalline phase transitions during the reaction, that is, their crystal structure does not change.
Figure 2 [11] shows a schematic diagram of the charge storage mechanisms for double-layer capacitors and electrodes of different types of pseudocapacitors. Ther electrode materials used for pseudocapacitors are transition metal oxides, conductive polymers, and transition metal sulfides. Transition metal oxides (e.g., RuO
2 and V
2O
5) have a high theoretical capacity, but poor conductivity leads to their low practical capacity; the voltage window is narrow and can only be applied in aqueous electrolytes
[12][13]. The conductive polymer is accompanied by the doping/dedoping of ions during the energy storage process, leading to the repeated entry and exit of ions on the polymer chain, causing the fracture of the molecular chain as well as the generation of irreversible capacity, resulting in poor stability. However, transition metal sulfides have attracted the attention and interest of many researchers because of their low cost, better conductivity than oxides, high theoretical capacity, and especially, their high pseudocapacitance capacity. Currently, transition metal sulfides used in SCs mainly include Cu
xS (x = 1–2), MoS
2, Co
9S
8, NiS, Ni
3S
2, and WS
2 [14]. In 2004, Stevic et al.
[15] used copper–sulfur compounds as an electrode material for new SCs and achieved a capacitor capacity as high as 100 F cm
−2. Copper–sulfur compounds exhibited a high electronic conductivity, large theoretical specific capacity, excellent redox reversibility, flat voltage plateau, excellent low temperature performance, tunable morphology and composition, rich copper reserves, low resistivity, and a lower electronegativity of sulfur than oxygen. Cu
xS showed significant size-dependent electrochemical properties. Studies have shown that the change in morphology and the reduction in size affect the electrochemical characteristics of pseudocapacitors. Therefore, copper–sulfur compounds have great potential in SCs.
Figure 2. Schematics of charge storage mechanisms for (
a) an EDLC and (
b–
d) different types of pseudocapacitive electrodes: (
b) underpotential deposition, (
c) redox pseudocapacitor, and (
d) ion intercalation pseudocapacitor
[11].
Carbon-based materials and their composites, such as graphene, carbon nanotubes, activated carbon, and acetylene black, have attracted considerable research attention in the energy field. These materials exhibit excellent electrochemical performance through the charge storage property of the bilayer behavior and are excellent SC-active electrode materials. Pure copper–sulfur compounds are semiconductors, and their conductivity is lower than those carbon nanomaterials, and compounding copper–sulfur compounds with carbon-based materials can produce more surface active sites to enhance redox reaction efficiency and pseudocapacitance and increase the cycling stability of the capacitor to enhance battery performance
[5]. Moreover, the combination of copper–sulfur compounds with carbon-based materials including carbon coating as well as carbon nanotube encapsulation, graphene encapsulation, and core–shell structure formation reduce the agglomeration and cycle life of SCs due to the volume change of copper–sulfur compounds in the constant current charge/discharge process; however, it improves the electrochemical performance of SCs.
2. Copper–Sulfur Composite with Graphene for SC Applications
Graphene exhibits excellent electrical conductivity as well as mechanical properties because of its unique honeycomb structure and large specific surface area (~2630 m
2 g
−1) with excellent ion diffusion paths and reduced diffusion resistance. Theoretically, the specific gravity capacitance of single-layer graphene is close to 500 F g
−1, and the surface capacitance of its total surface area is 21 µF cm
−2. Graphene is oxidized to hydrophilic GO, and the graphite layer spacing is increased from 3.35 Å prior to the oxidation to 7–10 Å after oxidation. The introduction of oxygen atoms in the oxidation process resulted in the formation of a large number of oxygen functional groups, which in turn resulted in a high surface area and many pores; however, the electrical conductivity decreased
[16]. By contrast, reduced graphene (rGO) removes the oxygen functional groups and restores the honeycomb two-dimensional structure and high electrical conductivity of graphene. Graphene is typically combined with other materials by using two composite methods, namely surface growth and cladding
[17]. Direct growth of a material on the surface of graphene can maintain its high conductivity and two-dimensional properties, which are favorable for electron transport. The preparation process of cladding is simple and can help in achieving a large area coverage, which is suitable for mass production. However, this method affects the two-dimensional properties of graphene and thus deteriorates the electron transport performance.
Currently, CuS is prepared using the hydrothermal method to form copper sulfides on the graphene surface, which controls the specific surface area, copper sulfide morphology (mainly nanosheets, nanorods, quantum dots, hexagonal grains, and nanoparticles), and microstructure of the electrodes to enhance the electrochemical performance of composites. Balu et al.
[18] used a hydrothermal method to prepare CuS/GO. Woolly spherical CuS consisting of ultrathin CuS nanosheets uniformly modified on the graphene surface had a specific surface area of 40.3 m
2 g
−1, which is nearly twice compared with that of CuS nanospheres (20.8 m
2 g
−1). The average pore size of CuS/GO increased from 2.8 nm in the case of CuS nanospheres to 5.1 nm. At a sweep rate of 5 mV s
−1, CuS/GO exhibited a specific capacitance of 197.45 F g
−1 and a capacity retention of 90.35% after 1000 cycles at a current density of 5 A g
−1. The unique nanorod structure embedded in the graphene network provides CuS/GO with a mesoporous structure, high surface area, and high electrical conductivity, which enlarges the interfacial area of the nanocomposites, facilitates electron transfer and electrolyte diffusion, and promotes the generation of more active sites in redox reactions to improve the electrochemical performance of SCs. Hout et al.
[19] synthesized CuS nanoparticles anchored on rGO nanosheets by using the hydrothermal method. The specific surface area of CuS/rGO was approximately 34.4 m
2 g
−1 and the volume of the swollen pores was 0.0595 cm
3 g
−1. Its specific capacitance reached 587.5 F g
−1 at a current density of 1 A g
−1, and its retention rate was 95% after 2000 cycles at a current density of 10 A g
−1. Boopthiraja et al.
[20] prepared hexagonal CuS/rGO nanocomposites by using the hydrothermal method in which hexagonal CuS grains were uniformly distributed on the rGO surface. The composite exhibited a large specific surface area of 122 m
2 g
−1 and pores of size 8–10 nm. The specific capacitance was 1604 F g
−1 at a current density of 2 A g
−1, and the capacitance was maintained at 97% of the initial level after 5000 cycles. In addition to the hydrothermal method, the composite of graphene and copper–sulfur compounds prepared using successive ionic layer adsorption (SILAR) has been reported. Bulakhe et al.
[21] used the SILAR method to modify Cu
2S nanosheets to prepare a nanocomposite Cu
2S/rGO electrode. This nanohybrid exhibited the specific capacitance of 1293 F g
−1 at a scan rate of 5 mV s
−1, which is higher than those of Cu
2S (761 F g
−1) and rGO (205 F g
−1), with the capacity retention of 94% after 10,000 cycles. Malavekar et al.
[22] used the SILAR method to deposit rGO and CuS nanoparticles on a flexible stainless steel substrate in successive layers to obtain CuS/rGO composites with a layered porous structure. The composites have a specific surface area of 77 m
2 g
−1 and an average pore size of 22 nm. Their specific capacitance reached 1201.8 F g
−1 at a scan rate of 5 mV s
−1, and the capacity was maintained at 98% after 3000 cycles. In the group, composites of copper sulfide compounds and rGO were prepared using the continuous ionic layer adsorption method, which exhibited a specific capacitance of 355.40 F g
−1 at a current density of 0.5 A g
−1.
Graphene-based copper–sulfur compound composites show excellent electrochemical behavior in SC applications; however, they have some drawbacks such as low electrochemical stability. Moreover, the oxidation state of copper is prone to disproportionation under normal experimental conditions, causing complexity of the material composition. Additionally, the surface agglomeration of nanomaterials and the resistance at the electrode–electrolyte interface are high, and a weak bonding force between graphene and metal sulfide nanomaterials leads to electrode shedding and rapid degradation. Sc-related data of copper-sulfur composites and graphene composites are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. SC-related data for copper–sulfur composites with graphene composites.
NO. |
Electrode Material |
Measurement Type |
Operating Window (V) |
Electrolyte |
Energy Storage Performance |
Retention Rate |
Refs |
1 |
CuS/rGO |
Three-electrode |
−0.90~0.10 |
2 M KOH |
368.3 F g−1 (1 A g−1) |
88.4% after 1000 cycles |
[17] |
2 |
CuS/GO |
Two-electrode |
0.00~1.00 |
3 M KOH |
197.45 F g−1 (5 mV s−1) |
90.35% after 1000 cycles |
[18] |
3 |
CuS/rGO |
Three-electrode |
0.00~0.40 |
6 M KOH |
587.5 F g−1 (1 A g−1) |
95% after 2000 cycles |
[19] |
4 |
CuS/rGO |
Three-electrode |
0.00~0.50 |
3 M KOH |
1604 F g−1 (2 A g−1) |
97% after 5000 cycles |
[20] |
5 |
Cu2S/rGO |
Three-electrode |
−1.00~0.00 |
1 M KOH |
1293 F g−1 (1 A g−1) |
94% after 10,000 cycles |
[21] |
6 |
CuS/rGO |
Three-electrode |
−1.10~−0.20 |
1 M LiClO4 |
1201.8 F g−1 (5 mV s−1) |
98% after 3000 cycles |
[22] |
7 |
CuS/rGO |
Three-electrode |
−0.20~0.40 |
6 M KOH |
2317.8 F g−1 (1 A g−1) |
96.2% after 1200 cycles |
[23] |
8 |
CuS@CQDs-GOH |
Three-electrode |
−0.10~0.50 |
6 M KOH |
920 F g−1 (1 A g−1) |
90% after 5000 cycles |
[24] |
9 |
CuS/GO |
Three-electrode |
0.00~0.58 |
3 M KOH |
249 F g−1 (4 A g−1) |
95% after 5000 cycles |
[25] |
10 |
CuS/rGO |
Three-electrode |
0.00~0.55 |
3 M KOH |
203 F g−1 (0.5 A g−1) |
90.8% after 10,000 cycles |
[26] |
11 |
CuS/CN |
Three-electrode |
−0.80~1.00 |
0.1 M Li2SO4 |
379 F g−1 (1 A g−1) |
72.46% after 500 cycles |
[27] |
12 |
CuS/GO |
Three-electrode |
−0.80~−0.15 |
6 M KOH |
497.8 F g−1 (0.2 A g−1) |
91.2% after 2000 cycles |
[28] |
13 |
CuS/rGO |
Two-electrode |
0.00~1.00 |
6 M KOH |
906 F g−1 (1 A g−1) |
89% after 5000 cycles |
[29] |
14 |
CuS/rGO |
Three-electrode |
−0.20~0.60 |
2 M KOH |
1222.5 F g−1 (1 A g−1) |
91.2% after 2000 cycles |
[30] |
15 |
CuS/GO |
Three-electrode |
0.00~0.60 |
3 M KOH |
250 F g−1 (0.5 A g−1) |
70% after 5000 cycles |
[31] |
16 |
CuS/rGO |
Three-electrode |
−1.00~0.00 |
2 M KOH |
3058 F g−1 (1 A g−1) |
60.3% after 1000 cycles |
[32] |
17 |
Cu2S/rGO |
Three-electrode |
−0.20~−0.45 |
3 M KOH |
1918.6 F g−1 (1 A g−1) |
95.4% after 5000 cycles |
[33] |
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/molecules29050977