4.0 Article

Comparative study between pure and manganese doped copper sulphide (CuS) nanoparticles

Journal

NANO EXPRESS
Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/2632-959X/abdc0d

Keywords

CuS; nanoparticles; thermal; electrical and magnetic properties

Funding

  1. University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, India [39-518/2010(SR)]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study synthesized pure CuS and Mn2+ doped CuS nanoparticles through a wet chemical route and characterized them using various experimental methods to confirm their structure and properties. The Mn2+ doped CuS nanoparticles were found to be more stable, with higher thermal activation energy and enthalpy change values in the high temperature range. Additionally, the synthesized nanoparticles were shown to be semiconducting and p-type in nature, with paramagnetic properties reported through magnetic properties study using the Gouy method.
The pure CuS and Mn2+ doped CuS nanoparticles are synthesized by wet chemical route. The CuS phase and hexagonal crystal structure is confirmed by the powder X-ray diffraction and Raman analysis. The vibrational bonds present in the respective synthesized samples are confirmed by Fourier transformed infra-red spectroscopy. The spherical shapes of the nanoparticles are validated by the electron diffraction in scanning and transmission mode. The thermal analysis showed the Mn2+ doped CuS nanoparticles to be more stable than pure CuS nanoparticles. The thermal parameters determined using Coats-Redfern relation stated thermal activation energy and enthalpy change values are highest in the higher temperature range. The Seebeck coefficient variation with temperature and ambient condition Hall effect measurements showed the synthesized nanoparticles to be semiconducting and p-type in nature. The magnetic properties study by Gouy method showed the nanoparticles to be paramagnetic.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available