Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Fig. 5. (a) and (b)Energy Band gap evaluation of synthesized samplesA1 and A2 using Kubelka—Munk  samples Al and A2 show type IV isotherm with H3 hysteresis at relative pressure (P/P,) ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 which indicate that the syn- thesized samples Al and A2 are mesoporous materials [30]. Surface area of the samples were evaluated using Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) method Eq. (7). Surface area of samples Al and A2 are 6.42 m?/ g and 8.32 m?/g, respectively. Pore diameter of the samples Al and A2 are 2.47 cm?/g, 2.12 cm?/g, which are calculated from BJH (Barrett-Joy- ner-Halenda) method [31]. High surface areas provide more electro- active site for catalytic activities [32].Porosity play a pivotal role in the electro-catalytic performance of the nano-material, porous surfaces reduce the diffusion resistance and large pore size easily absorb the electrolyte ions on the surface of the electrode which enhances electro-catalytic performance [33].  samples Al and A2 show strong reflectance peaks around 340 nm, and 330 nm, respectively which are shown in inset of Fig. 5(a) and (b) [35]. For exact calculation of energy band gap, reflectance was evaluated by Kubelka- Munk function Eq. (11). For calculation of band gap, the graph is plotted between the [F(Rq)hv] V/ and ho extrapolating the straight line at [F(R.)hv]/" = 0, gives the value of band gap, where ‘n’ repre- sents the nature of transition. The ‘n’ takes different value such as n = 1/2 for allowed direct band gap and n = 2 for allowed indirect band gap [36,37]. Nickel sulphide show indirect energy band gap, so n = 2 is taken [38]. The intercept of [F (Rq) hv]? and ho gives the value of en- ergy band gap, as shown in Fig. 5(a) and (b). The energy band gap of the synthesized samples Al and A2 are 2.75 nm, 3.46 nm, respectively [39].

Figure 5 (a) and (b)Energy Band gap evaluation of synthesized samplesA1 and A2 using Kubelka—Munk samples Al and A2 show type IV isotherm with H3 hysteresis at relative pressure (P/P,) ranging from 0.0 to 1.0 which indicate that the syn- thesized samples Al and A2 are mesoporous materials [30]. Surface area of the samples were evaluated using Brunauer-Emmett-Teller (BET) method Eq. (7). Surface area of samples Al and A2 are 6.42 m?/ g and 8.32 m?/g, respectively. Pore diameter of the samples Al and A2 are 2.47 cm?/g, 2.12 cm?/g, which are calculated from BJH (Barrett-Joy- ner-Halenda) method [31]. High surface areas provide more electro- active site for catalytic activities [32].Porosity play a pivotal role in the electro-catalytic performance of the nano-material, porous surfaces reduce the diffusion resistance and large pore size easily absorb the electrolyte ions on the surface of the electrode which enhances electro-catalytic performance [33]. samples Al and A2 show strong reflectance peaks around 340 nm, and 330 nm, respectively which are shown in inset of Fig. 5(a) and (b) [35]. For exact calculation of energy band gap, reflectance was evaluated by Kubelka- Munk function Eq. (11). For calculation of band gap, the graph is plotted between the [F(Rq)hv] V/ and ho extrapolating the straight line at [F(R.)hv]/" = 0, gives the value of band gap, where ‘n’ repre- sents the nature of transition. The ‘n’ takes different value such as n = 1/2 for allowed direct band gap and n = 2 for allowed indirect band gap [36,37]. Nickel sulphide show indirect energy band gap, so n = 2 is taken [38]. The intercept of [F (Rq) hv]? and ho gives the value of en- ergy band gap, as shown in Fig. 5(a) and (b). The energy band gap of the synthesized samples Al and A2 are 2.75 nm, 3.46 nm, respectively [39].