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].