Skip to main content
. 2019 Jun 18;24(12):2263. doi: 10.3390/molecules24122263

Table 2.

Capacitance comparison of PANI/graphene composites obtained from different experimental methods.

Material Specific Capacitance Cycle Number Capacity Retention Ref.
Hollow graphene/PANI spheres 546 F g−1 at 1 A g−1 / / [46]
Self-healing PANI/GO 757 F g−1 at 1 A g−1 9000 93% [47]
PANI nanofibers/rGO 692 F g−1 at 1 A g−1 1000 83.3% [48]
Graphene/PANI layers/PANI nanorods 578 F g−1 at 1 A g−1 10,000 93% [49]
Flower-like PANI/graphene hybrid 1510 F g−1 at 1 A g−1 1500 89% [50]
Phytic acid assisted graphene/PANI 865.6 F g−1 at 1 A g−1 1000 82% [51]
Sulfonated PANI/GO 1107 F g−1 at 1 A g−1 5000 94% [52]
3D bacterial cellulose/graphene/PANI 645 F g−1 at 1 A g−1 1000 82.2% [53]
PANI/rGO 423 F g−1 at 0.8 A g−1 1000 75% [54]
PANI/rGO/functionalized carbon cloth 0.47 F cm−2 at 0.5 mA cm−2 10,000 75.5% [55]
PANI nanorod arrays/graphene 0.23 F cm−2 at 0.1 mA cm−2 8000 86.9% [56]
N-doped graphene/PANI hydrogels 514.3 F g−1 at 1 A g−1 1000 87.1% [57]
Holey N-doped rGO/PANI 746 F g−1 at 1 A g−1 2000 97% [58]
3D rGO/self-suspended PANI 480 F g−1 at 1 A g−1 10,000 94.16% [59]
Graphene carbon sphere/PANI/rGO 446 F g−1 at 5 mV s−1 5000 88.7% [60]