| 1 |
Present work (2026) |
Hydrothermal + electrochemical exfoliation graphene |
Conductive scaffold + defect modulation |
Simple, scalable, excellent CeO2 anchoring; strong Ce–O–C interface; moderate Csp (165–285 F g−1) |
Slight agglomeration in pure CeO2
|
Strong Ce3+/Ce4+ redox, oxygen vacancy formation; large bandgap reduction; lowest Rct among binary CeO2/G; high ED (∼5.7 Wh kg−1) |
| 2 |
Britto et al., 2020 (ref. 24) |
Hydrothermal |
Charge transport channels |
Lower Rct than CeO2; mild improvement in conductivity |
Low energy density; limited defect engineering |
Graphene improves semicircle shrinkage in EIS; CeO2 partially agglomerated |
| 3 |
Yousef et al., 2020 (ref. 25) |
Chemical reduction |
Conductive substrate (rGO flakes) |
Good stability; optimized CeO2 loading |
Moderate Csp (452 F g−1) |
rGO improves double-layer contributions; CeO2 content highly affects ionic diffusion |
| 4 |
Salarizadeh et al., 2021 (ref. 10) |
Hydrothermal |
Interfacial synergy |
Good pseudocapacitance; decent cycling |
Moderate capacitance range |
FTIR confirms Ce–O–C bonding; electrode shows mixed EDLC + pseudocapacitive behavior |
| 5 |
Wang et al., 2011 (ref. 53) |
In situ deposition |
Conductive graphene network |
Improved conductivity; ∼200 F g−1
|
Low Csp; limited vacancy engineering |
CeO2 particle size relatively large (>20 nm); weak Ce–graphene bonding reduces faradaic activity |
| 6 |
Dezfuli et al., 2015 (ref. 56) |
Sonochemical |
rGO support + electron pathway |
High stability (105% after 4000 cycles) |
Csp only ∼211 F g−1
|
Cycling activation due to increased surface wetting; slow ion diffusion at higher scan rates |
| 7 |
Sarpoushi et al., 2014 (ref. 51) |
Mechanical pressing |
Graphene carrier |
Simple method; Ce3+/Ce4+ redox identifiable |
Very low Csp (∼11 F g−1) |
Poor interfacial contact; limited electrolyte penetration; no nanoscale engineering |
| 8 |
Ji et al., 2015 (ref. 52) |
Hydrothermal |
rGO support |
Moderate Csp (∼89 F g−1); good structural quality |
Weak electrochemical activity |
SAED shows partial crystallinity; rGO prevents CeO2 aggregation but redox activity remains low |
| 9 |
Vanitha et al., 2015 (ref. 13) |
Hydrothermal + Ag decoration |
Graphene + Ag synergy |
High Csp (∼700 F g−1); improved conductivity |
Uses noble metal; more complex synthesis |
Ag nanoparticles introduce additional redox pathways; improved charge kinetics via Ag–CeO2 coupling |
| 10 |
Heydari et al., 2017 (ref. 54) |
Hydrothermal |
N-doped rGO (NRGO) |
Strong interfacial coupling; enhanced conductivity |
C
sp < 600 F g; requires doping step |
N-doping increases electron density and active sites; lower Rct than undoped rGO systems |
| 11 |
Jeyaranjan et al., 2019 (ref. 55) |
Hydrothermal + in situ polymerization (PANI/rGO/CeO2) |
Graphene scaffold + PANI pseudocapacitance |
High Csp (>600 F g−1); good ED (∼50 Wh kg−1) |
Ternary system; stability issues for PANI |
Ternary synergy: PANI adds pseudocapacitance; rGO improves conductivity; CeO2 adds redox centers |
