Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

One-pot hydrothermal synthesis, characterization, and electrochemical properties of

rGO/MnFe2O4 nanocomposites

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2015 Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54 06FH10

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1347-4065/54/6S1/06FH10)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 130.133.8.114
This content was downloaded on 05/07/2015 at 17:14

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 54, 06FH10 (2015) REGULAR PAPER
http://dx.doi.org/10.7567/JJAP.54.06FH10

One-pot hydrothermal synthesis, characterization, and electrochemical properties

of rGO/MnFe2O4 nanocomposites
Isara Kotutha1, Ekaphan Swatsitang2, Worawat Meewassana1,3, and Santi Maensiri1,3
1
School of Physics, Institute of Science Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
2
Physics Department, Faculty of Science, Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen 40002, Thailand
3
NANOTEC-SUT Center of Excellence on Advanced Functional Nanomaterials,
Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, Thailand
E-mail: santimaensiri@g.sut.ac.th
Received December 1, 2014; revised February 6, 2015; accepted March 24, 2015; published online June 1, 2015

In this work, a simple facile route for preparing an rGO/MnFe2O4 nanocomposite through a one-pot hydrothermal approach was demonstrated.
Graphite oxide (GO) was prepared from graphite powder by a modified Hummers method. Fe(NO3)2 "9H2O and Mn(NO3)2 " H2O were used as the
precursors for the preparation of the rGO/MnFe2O4 nanocomposite. The formation of the rGO/MnFe2O4 nanocomposite was confirmed by X-ray
diffraction (XRD), transmission electron microscopy (TEM), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and Rama spectroscopy (Raman). The
specific surface area of the prepared composite obtained by Brunauer–Emmett–Teller (BET) analysis was lower than that of pure rGO but higher
than that of pure MnFe2O4. Consequently, the electrochemical performance was investigated by using a three-electrode cell system in 6.0 M KOH.
The results show that the specific capacitance was determined to be 190.3, 276.9, and 144.5 F/g at a scan rate of 10 mV/s, and 194.9, 274.6,
and 134.4 F/g at a current density of 5.0 A/g for rGO, rGO/(5 mmol) MnFe2O4, and rGO/(10 mmol) MnFe2O4, respectively. These results suggest
that the composite of MnFe2O4 nanoparticles on an rGO nanosheet can improve the capacitive behavior of the fabricated electrode, but the
electrochemical properties are reduced when the MnFe2O4 concentration ratio is high. © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics

electrode due to a large volume change between charge–

1. Introduction
Graphene was first discovered in 2004.1) It is a single layer
of carbon atoms in a two-dimensional (2D) honeycomb
structure with extreme properties2) such as electronic,
mechanical, optical, and thermal properties. Graphene has
the highest surface area of 300–900 m2=g and a broad pore
size distribution of about 2–200 nm.3) Graphene and graph-
ene-based nanocomposites play an important role in the
development of electrochemical capacitors or supercapaci-
tors. Reduced graphene oxide (rGO) is a graphene nanosheet
that can be functionalized by the remaining epoxy and
hydroxyl groups.4) rGO can be prepared by the reduction of
graphite oxide (GO) and has been achieved via the modified
Hummers method.5) There are many types of reducing agents
used for the preparation of rGO such as hydrazine,6,7)
hydroquinone,8) sodium borohydride (NaBH4),9) and ascorbic
acid.10)
Nowadays, energy requirement increases markedly. One of
the demanded devices with ultrahigh power density (103–
104 W=kg), fast charging, and exceptionally long cycling
life (>1000,000 cycles)11) is a supercapacitor.12) Recently,
various porous carbon materials with high specific surface
area, such as activated carbons and carbon nanotubes, have
been widely used as supercapacitor electrodes because of
their stable physicochemical properties, good conductivity,
low cost, and long cycle life.13,14) rGO is one of the carbon
materials with high surface area, high electrical conductivity,
and good electrochemical stability.15,16) However, the
restacking of an rGO layer during the fabrication of the
electrode reduces its electrochemical properties owing to
the decrease in its specific surface area. In overcoming this
problem, the introduction of graphene-based nanocompo-
sites17–19) by decoration metal,20) or metal oxide21) onto an
rGO nanasheet has received much attention. Metal ferrite
material is another material that can be used to prevent an
rGO nanosheet from restacking. This is because it has high
theoretical capacity but poor electrical conductivity as an
06FH10-1
discharge processes.22) Thus, metal ferrite material is alone
not suitable for use as electrochemical electrodes.
To improve the high cycling stability and high rate
capability of metal ferrite for novel electrodes with high
performance, the decoration of metal ferrite onto rGO sheets
has been investigated. Recently, Tang et al.23) have reported
the preparation of rGO=MnFe2O4 nanocomposites by a
one-pot low-temperature process by the coprecipitation of
Mn ions produced in a modified Hummers method and the
in situ reduction of GO at 90 °C. In this work, FeCl3 and
MnCl2 1 4H2O4 were used as starting materials for the
preparation of the MnFe2O4 and the rGO=MnFe2O4 nano-
composite. The coprecipitation route was separately carried
out for the preparation of MnFe2O4 nanoparticles. The
rGO=MnFe2O4 nanocomposite exhibited excellent electro-
chemical performance, retaining a reversible capacity of
581.2 mA h g−1, about 70% of the theoretical capacity, at a
specific current of 1 A g−1 after 200 cycles.
In the present study, a simple facile route for preparing
an rGO=MnFe2O4 nanocomposite was carried out through a
one-pot hydrothermal approach using GO, Mn(NO3)2 1 H2O,
and Fe(NO3)2 1 9H2O as starting materials. rGO=MnFe2O4
nanocomposites were synthesized with difference ratios
under similar quantity of rGO precursor, and the resulting
products were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD),
transmission electron microscopy (TEM), Fourier transform
infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and Rama spectroscopy
(Raman). The effects of MnFe2O4 nanoparticle concentration
on the electrochemical properties of rGO=MnFe2O4 nano-
composites were investigated by a long charge–discharge
process upto 1000 cycles.
2. Experimental procedure
2.1 Synthesis of samples
All chemicals were used as received without further
purification of analytical-grade materials. Graphite oxide
(GO) was prepared from graphite powder by a modified
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 06FH10 (2015)
Hummers method.5) In a typical procedure, 5.0 g of graphite
powder and 2.5 g of NaNO3 were first added into 115.0 ml of
98% H2SO4. The mixture was then cooled down in an ice
bath under continuous stirring for 0.5 h. After that, 15.0 g of
KMnO4 was slowly added at a temperature lower than 10 °C.
The mixture was removed from the ice bath and was then
continuously stirred at 35 °C for 24 h. Next, 230 ml of
deionized water was slowly added to dilute the reaction
mixture obtained at a temperature lower than 60 °C. The
mixture was continuously stirred for 0.5 h and the reaction
was maintained at 98 °C for 15 min. After that, it was diluted
with 400 ml of deionized water and stirred until the tem-
perature was about 60 °C. The reaction was terminated by
adding 20 ml of 30% H2O2, filtered, and washed with 10%
HCl. The as-prepared GO was washed and dried for further
application.
rGO, MnFe2O4, and an rGO=MnFe2O4 nanocomposite
were prepared by a one-pot hydrothermal approach. Typi-
cally, Fe(NO3)2 1 9H2O and Mn(NO3)2 1 H2O with a ratio 1 : 1
by mole were dissolved in 20 ml of ethylene glycol (EG)
under stirring, followed by adding 3.0 ml of 25% ammonia
solution. The mixture was added into 150 ml of 0.5 mg=ml
exfoliated GO prepared by dispersion of GO powder in
deionized water (DI). Then, 1.0 M NaOH solution was
added to the mixture to control pH to a value of 12, followed
by adding 6.0 ml of hydrazine monohydrate solution. The
obtained mixture was transferred to a Teflon line and the
reaction was maintained at 200 °C for 24 h. Finally, the
as-prepared rGO=MnFe2O4 nanocomposite was washed and
dried for further characterization. rGO-based nanocomposites
were also prepared with different concentrations of MnFe2O4
nanoparticles decorated on an rGO nanosheet. rGo and
MnFe2O4 were also prepared using the same process except
no MnFe2O4 solution was added for the preparation of bare
rGO, whereas no exfoliated was added for the preparation
of bare MnFe2O4 nanoparticles. The abbreviations rGO,
rGO=MFO05 and rGO=MFO10 are used for the prepared
samples composed of 0.0, 0.5, and 1.0 mmol of MnFe2O4,
respectively.
2.2 Characterization
Crystallographic structures of as-prepared rGO and rGO=
MnFe2O4 were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD;
Bruker D2 phaser) with Cu Kα radiations (λ = 0.154060 nm)
performed from 5 to 80°. The functional groups of as-
prepared rGO and rGO-based nanocomposites were inves-
tigated by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR;
Bruker Bruker Tensor 27 FT-IR). A Raman spectrometer
(Jobin Yvon Horiba T64000) with laser excitation at 532 nm
was used to investigate the Raman vibration of the as-
prepared product, whereas the surface morphology was
studied by transmission electron microscopy (TEM; Zeiss
CEM 902), and the specimens were prepared by dispersing
the as-synthesized samples in ethanol and ultrasonication,
followed by drop-casting onto a copper grid. The specific
surface area and pore size distribution of the as-prepared
material were investigated from the N2 adsorption–desorption
isotherm (Bell Japan BELSORP-mini II) using the Brunauer–
Emmett–Teller (BET) and Barrett–Joyner–Halenda (BJH)
techniques.
06FH10-2
I. Kotutha et al.
2.3 Electrochemical testing
Active materials, rGO, and rGO-based nanocomposites were
mixed with acetylene black and poly(vinylidene fluoride)
(PVDF) at a ratio of 80 : 10 : 10 wt %. Then, the mixture
was made more homogeneous by adding a small amount
of N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP). The working electrodes
were fabricated by pressing the mixture onto a nickel foam
sheet of 1.0 × 1.0 cm2 and dried at 120 °C for 5 h, and soaked
into 6.0 M KOH for 6 h before performing an electrochemical
measurement. The electrochemical properties of the prepared
electrodes were carried out using a three-electrode cell
system in which a Ag=AgCl in 3.0 M HCl and a platinum
wire (0.5 mm of diameter) were used as the reference and
counter electrodes, respectively. Cyclic voltammetry (CV),
a galvanostatic charge–discharge (GCD) process, and elec-
trochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) were carried out
in a three-electrode cell system on Metrohm Autolab
PGSTAT 302N in 6.0 M KOH aqueous electrolyte.
From the cyclic voltammograms, the specific capacitance
(Cs) of the electrodes was determined using
Z
1
Cs ¼ I dt; ð1Þ
mV
where I is the discharge current, m is the weight of the
electrode, and ΔV is the potential window. From discharge
curves of the GCD at different current densities, the Cs of the
working electrode was calculated according to24)
it
Cs ¼ ; ð2Þ
V
where i is the current density, ΔV is the potential window,
and Δt is the discharge time. The specific energy density (E)
and specific power density (P) are calculated as24)
1
E¼ Cs ðVÞ2 ; ð3Þ
2
E
P¼ ; ð4Þ
t
where E is the specific energy density, P is the power density,
and Cs is the specific capacitance.
3. Results and discussion
3.1 Physical properties
Figure 1 shows the XRD patterns of the as-prepared rGO,
MnFe2O4, rGO=MFO05, and rGO=MFO10. It can be seen
that the XRD pattern of rGO exhibits two weak and broad
diffraction peaks at 2θ values of about 25.02 and 43.00°,
which are related to a poorly crystallized compound
originating from the small particle size and approximately
amorphous nature of the sample. The peak at a 2θ value of
about 25.02° with a d-spacing of 0.356 nm corresponded to
the (002) plane of rGO. This peak shifted from a 2θ value
of 10.27° (d-spacing 0.824 nm) after reduction of GO. This
phenomenon occurred because of the removal of some
oxygen-containing functional groups, indicating the reduc-
tion of GO and the exfoliation of the layered rGO nanosheet.
Broad peaks are related to a poorly crystallized compound
originating from the small particle size and approximately
amorphous nature of the sample. The peak at a 2θ value of
about 43.00° with a d-spacing of 0.210 nm) corresponded
to the (100) crystal plane of graphene.25) In the cases of
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 06FH10 (2015) I. Kotutha et al.

Fig. 1. (Color online) XRD patterns of rGO (a), MnFe2O4 (b), and rGO=
MnFe2O4 (c).

MnFe2O4, rGO=MFO05, and rGO=MFO10, the diffraction

peaks corresponded to (111), (220), (311), (400), (422),
(511), (440), and (533) planes, which can be indexed to the
FCC structure of MnFe2O4 (JCPDS-10-0319).26) Addition-
ally, for rGO=MFO05 and rGO=MFO10 nanocomposites, the
rGO characteristic diffraction peak at a 2θ value of about
25.02° with low intensity was also observed. It is seen from
the XRD results that the FWHM of the MnFe2O4 peak in
rGOMFO05 is broader than that in rGO=MFO10. This is due
to the MnFe2O4 size effect. To confirm this we calculated the
crystallite size of MnFe2O4 in the samples using Scherrer’s
equation,27) [D ¼ 0:89= cos , where λ is the wavelength
of X-ray radiation, θ is the diffraction angle, and β is the
line broadening at half the maximum intensity (FWHM),
after subtracting the instrumental line broadening, of the most
intense peak that corresponds to the (311) plane measured in Fig. 2. (Color online) TEM images of rGO (a), MnFe2O4 (b), and rGO=
MnFe2O4 (c).
radians], and the crystallite sizes of the as-prepared samples
were determined to be 27.37, 12.15, and 21.15 nm for
MnFe2O4, rGO=MFO05, and rGO=MFO10, respectively.
Figure 2 shows TEM images of rGO, MnFe2O4, and
the rGO=MFO05 nanocomposite prepared by hydrothermal
approach. The bare MnFe2O4 nanoparticles were spherical
and formed aggregates, with an average particle size of about
25.2 nm [Fig. 2(b)], whereas the rGO=MFO05 nanocompo-
site showed a thin rGO sheet decorated with well-dispersed
MnFe2O4 nanoparticles with a smaller average particle size
of about 15.3 nm [Fig. 2(c)]. This is possibly ascribed to the
intimate interaction between bare MnFe2O4 nanoparticles and
graphene sheets, which limits the agglomeration of MnFe2O4
nanoparticles to some extent. The results of electron
diffraction patterns of MnFe2O4 and rGO=MnFe2O4 are in
good agreement with the XRD results.
Figure 3 shows the FT-IR spectra of GO, rGO, and the
rGO=MFO05 nanocomposite. The typical peak of GO at
3385 cm−1 can be attributed to the O–H stretching vibration Fig. 3. (Color online) FT-IR spectra of GO, rGO, and rGO=MnFe2O4.
of absorbed water molecules and structural OH groups; the
presence of the carboxylic (C=O) functional groups can also
be observed at 1725 cm−1. The peak at 1622 cm−1 is ascribed nanocomposite, the peak at 1725 cm−1 disappears and the
to the O–H bending vibration and the peaks at 1226 and peaks at 1622, 1226, and 1057 cm−1 gradually decrease,
1057 cm−1 indicate the presence of epoxide groups (C–O–C). while a new peak appears at 1558 cm−1 reflecting the skeletal
After the reduction to form rGO and the rGO=MnFe2O4 vibration of graphene sheets.28) These lines of evidence
06FH10-3 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 06FH10 (2015)
Fig. 4. (Color online) Nitrogen adsorption–desorption isotherms of rGO,
MnFe2O4, and rGO=MnFe2O4.
confirm that rGO and rGO-based nanocomposites can be
prepared by the reduction of graphite oxide and manganese
iron oxide precursors.
The specific surface area and pore structure of the prepared
samples were investigated from N2 adsorption–desorption
isotherms and the results are shown in Fig. 4. The specific
surface areas of the as-prepared rGO and MnFe2O4 measured
by the BET technique are 414.38 and 68.31 m2=g, respec-
tively. After decoration by MnFe2O4, the specific surface
area of the rGO=MnFe2O4 nanocomposite decreases to
302.17 m2=g with a mean mesopore size of 5.04 nm using
the BJH equation. The large specific surface area and mean
pore size of the material are very important for allowing the
electrolyte ions to penetrate the pore surface of the electrode
to provide a high specific capacitance.
Figure 5 shows Raman spectra of samples at 100 to
4000 cm−1. The Raman spectrum of rGO shows the two
provident peaks at 1337 and 1580 cm−1 of the D and G peaks,
respectively. The D peak is associated with the defects and
disorder in the lattice structure of the graphitic material,
whereas the G peak corresponds to the vibration of sp2-
bonded C.29,30) To obtain information on defects and the
degree of graphitization, the ID=IG ratio was evaluated using
the D and G peak intensities. In the case of rGO, the ID=IG
ratio was 1.50, which is higher than the value of 0.91 for GO.
It can be suggested that the defect density of rGO is higher
than that of GO. After adding MnFe2O4 nanoparticles onto
the rGO nanosheets, the sp2 domain of the graphitic structure
decreased. Therefore, it can be found that the ID=IG ratio of
MnFe2O4 was lower than that of rGO and that of the D and
G peaks blue-shifted to 1338 and 1381 cm−1 compared with
those of rGO, respectively. Moreover, the vibrational modes
of MnFe2O4 can be observed at wavenumbers lower than
700 cm−1.
3.2 Electrochemical performance
The CV measurements (CV) were performed within the
potential range of −1.0 to 0.0 V at room temperature at scan
rates of 10, 20, 50, 100, and 200 mV=s, and the GCD process
was used to study a capacitive behavior of the working
electrode at current densities of 2.0, 5.0, 10.0, 15.0, and
20.0 A=g. Figures 6(a)–6(f) show the CV and GCD curves
06FH10-4
I. Kotutha et al.
Fig. 5. (Color online) Raman spectra of rGO, MnFe2O4, and rGO=
MnFe2O4.
of rGO, rGO=MFO05, and rGO=MFO10 in the 6.0 M KOH
aqueous electrolyte. These results indicate that the specific
capacitance (Cs) of electrodes increased when the scan rate
and current density, which were applied to the electrode,
increased.
Figure 7(a) shows a comparison of the Cs obtained from
cyclic voltammograms at a scan rate of 10 mV=s. The
measured Cs values of rGO, rGO=MFO05, and rGO=MFO10
were obtained to be 190.3, 276.9, and 144.5 F=g, respec-
tively. These values respectively correspond to the values of
194.9, 274.6, and 134.4 F=g obtained from GCD measure-
ments at a current density of 5.0 A=g, as shown in Fig. 7(b).
Figure 8 shows the specific capacitance plots of rGO, rGO=
MFO05, and rGO=MFO10 at different applied current
densities. It can be found that rGO=MFO05 has the highest
capacitance at all applied current densities. This indicates
that the decoration of MnFe2O4 nanoparticles on an rGO
nanosheet can improve the capacitive behavior of rGO, but
for rGO=MFO10, the decreases of specific surface area, mean
pore size, and large number of oxygen-containing groups
on the working electrode are possibly due to the poor rate
capability. Consequently, these results are evidence of the
increasing diffusion resistance towards the transfer of ions
into the electrode pores, and thus causing a decrease in
specific capacitance.
Figure 9 shows the energy density versus power density
curve in Ragone plots. It can be seen that, as the power
density of rGO=MFO05 increases from 2.28 to 9.15 kW=kg,
the energy density decreases from 37.7 to 31.64 Wh=kg.
Although, the power density of rGO=MFO10 increases from
2.23 to 8.40 kW=kg, the energy density decreases from 20.7
to 13.3 Wh=kg. These results indicate that the energy loss of
the rGO=MFO10 is less than that of the rGO=MFO05.
The EIS analysis was also used to investigate the
electrochemical behavior of the working electrode within
the frequency range of 100 kHz–0.1 Hz at an amplitude of
0.01 V. The Nyquist plots of the electrodes and electrochem-
ical equivalent circuit are shown in Fig. 10. The solution
resistance (Es) is referred to the as resistance of the
electrolyte, which is obtained from the intersection of the
high frequency region at the x-axis, and is known as the
equivalent series resistance (ESR).31) The total resistance at
the interface between the electrode and the electrolyte with
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 06FH10 (2015) I. Kotutha et al.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Fig. 6. (Color online) CVs at various scan rates (a) and GCD curves at different current densities (b) of rGO; CVs at different scan rates (c) and GCD curves
at different current densities (d) of rGO=MFO05; CVs at different scan rates (e) and GCD curves at different current densities (f) of rGO=MFO10.

the charge-transfer resistance (Rct) corresponds to the total
resistance at the interface between the electrode and the
electrolyte. rGO has an ESR of 0.375 Ω and an Rct of
0.047 Ω, which are lower than those of rGO=MFO10 (ESR =
0.457 Ω and Rct = 0.069 Ω). Therefore, rGO=MFO05 has a
higher specific capacitance than rGO=MFO10. The Warburg
resistance, considered at the portion of the width slope of 45°,
is caused by the diffusion or transport of ions in the
electrolyte on the surface of the electrode and depends on
the frequency.32) In the low frequency region, the oblique
vertical line shows the ideal capacitor. The knee frequencies
06FH10-5
of the rGO=MFO05 and rGO=MFO10 which are the lowest
values with a slope of 45° before behaving as an ideal
capacitor are 3.29 and 2.31 Hz, respectively. This suggests
that rGO=MFO05 has a higher knee frequency and is more
vertical than rGO=MFO10. This indicates that rGO=MFO05
behaves more closely to an ideal capacitor than rGO=
MFO10. Q1 or CPE indicates a phase constant device. The n
value of CPE depends on the behavior of the electrode. rGO=
MFO05 and rGO=MFO10 have n values of 0.995 and 0.992,
respectively. This indicates that both electrodes imply an
ideal capacitor.33)
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 06FH10 (2015) I. Kotutha et al.

(a)

Fig. 9. (Color online) Ragone plot of the specific energies and power
(b) densities of rGO, rGO=MFO05, and rGO=MFO10.

Fig. 7. (Color online) CVs at scan rate of 10 mV=s (a) and GCD curves at
current density of 5.0 A=g (b) of rGO, rGO=MFO05, and rGO=MFO10 in
6.0 M KOH aqueous electrolyte. Fig. 10. (Color online) Niquist impedance plots of rGO, rGO=MFO05,
and rGO=MFO10 electrodes.

Fig. 11. (Color online) Cycling stabilities of rGO, rGO=MFO05, and

Fig. 8. (Color online) Specific capacitance plots of rGO, rGO=MFO05, rGO=MFO10 using GCD process at current density of 10 A=g.
and rGO=MFO10 at different current densities.

Moreover, to study the long-term cycle stability of the excellent cycling stability. The rGO working showed
fabricated electrodes, the specific capacitance retention was electrode was the highest retention. Before 500 cycles of
evaluated by a GCD process at 10.0 A=g for 1000 cycles. the charge–discharge process, the capacitance of rGO=
Figure 11 shows the relationship between the specific MnFO10 decreased more quickly than that of rGO=
capacitance retention and the cycle number of the charge– MFO05, but after 500 cycles, it became more stable than
discharge process. It can be found that all electrodes provided that of rGO=MFO05.
06FH10-6 © 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics
Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 54, 06FH10 (2015)
4. Conclusions
We have demonstrated the synthesis of an rGO=MnFe2O4
nanocomposite by a simple facile hydrothermal method. The
formation of the nanocomposite can be confirmed by the
results of XRD and TEM. For the rGO=MnFe2O4 nano-
composite, its surface area is significantly higher than the
surface area of MnFe2O4 nanoparticles but lower than that
of pure rGO. Interestingly, the specific capacitances of 190.3,
276.9, and 144.5 F=g at a scan rate of 10 mV=sand and 194.9,
274.6, and 134.4 F=g at current density of 5 A=g were
obtained for the rGO, rGO=MFO05, and rGO=MFO10,
respectively. The addition of MnFe2O4 nanoparticles onto
an rGO nanosheet can improve the electrochemical properties
of the rGO electrode; however, such properties will be
decreased if the concentration ratio is very high.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Department of Physics, Faculty
of Science, Khon Kaen University for providing TEM
facilities, the Science and Technology Service Center Chiang
Mai University for providing Raman spectroscopy facilities,
and Kasetsart University (KU), Thailand for electrochemical
measurements and analysis. I. Kotutha is supported by the
Thailand Research Fund through the Royal Golden Jubilee
Ph.D. Program (Grant No. PHD=0281=2552). This work
has partially been supported by the Nanotechnology Center
(NANOTEC), NSTDA, Ministry of Science and Technology,
Thailand, through its program of Center of Excellence
Network.
1) K. S. Novoselov, A. K. Geim, S. Morozov, D. Jiang, Y. Zhang, S. Dubonos,
I. Grigorieva, and A. Firsov, Science 306, 666 (2004).
2) S. J. An, Y. Zhu, S. H. Lee, M. D. Stoller, T. Emilsson, S. Park, A.
Velamakanni, J. An, and R. S. Ruoff, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 1, 1259 (2010).
3) L. Li, X. Zheng, J. Wang, Q. Sun, and Q. Xu, ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng.
1, 144 (2013).
4) G. Shao, Y. Lu, F. Wu, C. Yang, F. Zeng, and Q. Wu, J. Mater. Sci. 47,
4400 (2012).
5) W. S. Hummers, Jr. and R. E. Offeman, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 80, 1339 (1958).
06FH10-7
I. Kotutha et al.
6) D. Li, M. B. Müller, S. Gilje, R. B. Kaner, and G. G. Wallace, Nat.
Nanotechnol. 3, 101 (2008).
7) W. Gao, L. B. Alemany, L. Ci, and P. M. Ajayan, Nat. Chem. 1, 403
(2009).
8) W. Chen and L. Yan, Nanoscale 2, 559 (2010).
9) H.-J. Shin, K. K. Kim, A. Benayad, S.-M. Yoon, H. K. Park, I.-S. Jung,
M. H. Jin, H.-K. Jeong, J. M. Kim, J.-Y. Choi, and Y. H. Lee, Adv. Funct.
Mater. 19, 1987 (2009).
10) X. Zhu, Q. Liu, X. Zhu, C. Li, M. Xu, and Y. Liang, Int. J. Electrochem.
Sci. 7, 5172 (2012).
11) B. Dai, L. Fu, L. Liao, N. Liu, K. Yan, Y. Chen, and Z. Liu, Nano Res. 4,
434 (2011).
12) G. Wang, L. Zhang, and J. Zhang, Chem. Soc. Rev. 41, 797 (2012).
13) P. Simon and Y. Gogotsi, Nat. Mater. 7, 845 (2008).
14) F. Béguin, V. Presser, A. Balducci, and E. Frackowiak, Adv. Mater. 26,
2219 (2014).
15) C. Liu, F. Li, L. P. Ma, and H. M. Cheng, Adv. Mater. 22, E28 (2010).
16) X. Huang, Z. Zeng, Z. Fan, J. Liu, and H. Zhang, Adv. Mater. 24, 5979
(2012).
17) M. H. Chakrabarti, C. T. J. Low, N. P. Brandon, V. Yufit, M. A. Hashim,
M. F. Irfan, J. Akhtar, E. Ruiz-Trejo, and M. A. Hussain, Electrochim. Acta
107, 425 (2013).
18) X.-M. Chen, G.-H. Wu, Y.-Q. Jiang, Y.-R. Wang, and X. Chen, Analyst
136, 4631 (2011).
19) S. Stankovich, D. A. Dikin, G. H. Dommett, K. M. Kohlhaas, E. J. Zimney,
E. A. Stach, R. D. Piner, S. T. Nguyen, and R. S. Ruoff, Nature 442, 282
(2006).
20) K. Jagannadham, Metall. Mater. Trans. B 43, 316 (2012).
21) J. Jiang, Y. Li, J. Liu, X. Huang, C. Yuan, and X. W. D. Lou, Adv. Mater.
24, 5166 (2012).
22) M. Zhang, M. Jia, Y. Jin, Q. Wen, and C. Chen, J. Alloys Compd. 566, 131
(2013).
23) H. Tang, P. Gao, A. Xing, S. Tian, and Z. Bao, RSC Adv. 4, 28421 (2014).
24) J. Yan, J. Liu, Z. Fan, T. Wei, and L. Zhang, Carbon 50, 2179 (2012).
25) J. Yan, Z. Fan, T. Wei, W. Qian, M. Zhang, and F. Wei, Carbon 48, 3825
(2010).
26) X.-J. Zhang, G.-S. Wang, W.-Q. Cao, Y.-Z. Wei, J. Liang, L. Guo, and
M.-S. Cao, ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 6, 7471 (2014).
27) C. Suryanarayana and M. G. Norton, X-ray Diffraction: A Practical
Approach (Plenum, New York, 1998).
28) Y. Zhu, D. K. James, and J. M. Tour, Adv. Mater. 24, 4924 (2012).
29) C. Casiraghi, S. Pisana, K. Novoselov, A. Geim, and A. Ferrari, Appl. Phys.
Lett. 91, 233108 (2007).
30) G. Eda and M. Chhowalla, Adv. Mater. 22, 2392 (2010).
31) T. Lu, Y. Zhang, H. Li, L. Pan, Y. Li, and Z. Sun, Electrochim. Acta 55,
4170 (2010).
32) M. D. Stoller, S. Park, Y. Zhu, J. An, and R. S. Ruoff, Nano Lett. 8, 3498
(2008).
33) L. Chen, N. Gu, R. Ding, L. Qi, and H. Wang, J. Solid State Electrochem.
17, 2579 (2013).
© 2015 The Japan Society of Applied Physics