- Email: [email protected]
Response to comment on “An effect of novel Nd3+ doping on physical properties of nebulizer spray pyrolysis fabricated ZnS thin films for optoelectronic technology”
Journal Pre-proof "Response to "Comment on “An effect of novel Nd3+ doping on physical properties of nebulizer spray pyrolysis fabricated ZnS thin films for optoelectronic technology”
A. Jesu Jebathew, M. Karunakaran, K. Deva Arun Kumar, S. Valanarasu, V. Ganesh, Mohd. Shkir, S. AlFaify, A. Kathalingam, A. Jesu Jebathew, M. Karunakaran, K. Deva Arun Kumar, S. Valanarasu, V. Ganesh, Mohd. Shkir, S. AlFaify, A. Kathalingam PII:
S0921-4526(19)30752-5
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physb.2019.411867
Reference:
PHYSB 411867
To appear in:
Physica B: Physics of Condensed Matter
Received Date:
31 October 2019
Accepted Date:
05 November 2019
Please cite this article as: A. Jesu Jebathew, M. Karunakaran, K. Deva Arun Kumar, S. Valanarasu, V. Ganesh, Mohd. Shkir, S. AlFaify, A. Kathalingam, A. Jesu Jebathew, M. Karunakaran, K. Deva Arun Kumar, S. Valanarasu, V. Ganesh, Mohd. Shkir, S. AlFaify, A. Kathalingam, "Response to "Comment on “An effect of novel Nd3+ doping on physical properties of nebulizer spray pyrolysis fabricated ZnS thin films for optoelectronic technology”, Physica B: Physics of Condensed Matter (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physb.2019.411867
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.
Journal Pre-proof
"Response to "Comment on “An effect of novel Nd3+ doping on physical properties of nebulizer spray pyrolysis fabricated ZnS thin films for optoelectronic technology” A. Jesu Jebathew1, M. Karunakaran1, K. Deva Arun Kumar2, S. Valanarasu*2, V. Ganesh3, Mohd. Shkir,3 S. AlFaify3, A. Kathalingam4 1PG
and Research Department of Physics, Alagappa Govt Arts College, Karaikudi, India and Research Department of Physics, Arul Anandar College, Karumathur, Madurai, India 3Advanced Functional Materials & Optoelectronics Laboratory (AFMOL), Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 9004, Abha, Saudi Arabia 4Millimeter-Wave Innovation Technology Research Center (MINT), Dongguk University, Seoul04620, Republic of Korea 2PG
Abstract In current article the authors are presenting the response to comments to previous published article ""Response to "Comment on “Effect of novel Nd3+ doping on physical properties of nebulizer spray pyrolysis fabricated ZnS thin films for optoelectronic technology”[1] [Physica B: Condensed Matter 572 (2019) 109-116] Keywords: thin films; corrections; X-ray diffraction; Structural properties; Microstrain
In section 3.1, the authors misinterpreted the orientation as “It represented that the (102) crystal plane was preferentially oriented along c-axis”. This has now been corrected as “It represents that the crystallites are preferentially oriented along (102) plane”. In section 3.1, the statement “Where, I (hkl) and I0 (hkl) are observed and ASTM standard intensities and N is total number of reflection peaks” corrected as “Where, I (hkl) and I0 (hkl) are observed and JCPDS standard intensities and N is total number of reflection peaks” In Table1 the authors wrongly mentioned the unit for strain, dislocation density and unit cell volume. The units are corrected as mentioned in this table. Nd doping level
Crystallite size (nm)
(%)
Dislocation density (×1015 lines.m-2)
Strain (No Unit)
Texture coefficient
Lattice
constants (Å)
(TC)
Cell volume (Å)3
a =3.812
c =18.690
v=235.20
0
55
0.331
0.00252
0.85
3.805
18.725
234.83
1
53
0.356
0.00259
0.76
3.785
18.695
231.97
1
Journal Pre-proof
3
51
0.384
0.00271
0.68
3.778
18.692
231.17
5
49
0.416
0.00281
0.62
3.770
18.683
230.03
In section 3.3, the SEM results are not matched with XRD, so this line “It is also found from the SEM images that all the particles sizes are in nanometer range which is in accordance with our XRD results” is changed to “It is also found from the SEM images that all the particles are in nanometer range”. In section 3.3, the unassigned peaks obtained at ~1.8 keV and ~3.6 keV are not mentioned. Now it is mentioned as “The unassigned peaks obtained at ~1.8 keV and ~3.6 keV are typically assigned to Si and Ca respectively. In Conclusion, This sentence “Nd: ZnS films have high transmittance (86%) and band gap value changed from 3.51 eV to 3.60 eV” is corrected as “Nd: ZnS films have high transmittance (> 70%) above 550 nm wavelength and band gap changed from 3.51 eV to 3.60 eV depending on doping concentration”. The authors apologize for these errors. Conflicts of Interest There is no conflict of interest on the comment to disclose. Reference [1] Effect of novel Nd3+ doping on physical properties of nebulizer spray pyrolysis fabricated ZnS thin films for optoelectronic technology, Physica B: Condensed Matter 572 (2019) 109-116
2
Journal Pre-proof
Response to comments on “An effect of novel Nd3+ doping on physical properties of nebulizer spray pyrolysis fabricated ZnS thin films for optoelectronic technology” A. Jesu Jebathew1, M. Karunakaran1, K. Deva Arun Kumar2, S. Valanarasu*2, V. Ganesh3, Mohd. Shkir,3 S. AlFaify3, A. Kathalingam4 1PG
and Research Department of Physics, Alagappa Govt Arts College, Karaikudi, India and Research Department of Physics, Arul Anandar College, Karumathur, Madurai, India 3Advanced Functional Materials & Optoelectronics Laboratory (AFMOL), Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 9004, Abha, Saudi Arabia 4Millimeter-Wave Innovation Technology Research Center (MINT), Dongguk University, Seoul04620, Republic of Korea 2PG
Comment 1. In section 3.1 structural properties, the authors indexed a high intensity peak obtained at 2θ = 28.65o as (102) peak, with c-axis orientation, in accordance with JCPDS File No: 89-2739. Here, it can be found the same JCPDS file that the indexing of the X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern is itself wrong. The high intensity peak present at the above angle is (00l) or (006) [2] and not (102) peak or plane, there is no such orientation plane in the mentioned JCPDS file references. Even if it is considered as (102) peak, it does not belong to c-axis orientation. (Refer Fig.1. of [1]). Also they claim that the growth along the axis of the plane is preferential growth, which is wrong since the texture coefficient is not greater than one. Response: Thanks for your comments. But the high intensity peak obtained at 2θ = 28.65° is for (102) plane according to JCPDS File No:89-2739 (JCPDS file is attached here), not for either (001) or (006). The reference mentioned in the comment itself is for different JCPDS no-80-0020. The mention of c-axis orientation is only wrong and it is corrected in the modified manuscript. Actually, the magnitude of texture coefficient depends on periodicity and not on orientation. Moreover, as the term c-axis orientation is removed, no question of preferred axis orientation is raised.
3
Journal Pre-proof
Comment 2. Authors claimed from Table 1 [1] that the lattice constants and the volume of the unit cell of hexagonal structure are considerably decreasing with increasing Nd3+ doping content. If Nd3+ ion having higher ionic radius, replaces the Zn2+ ions having lower ionic radius, it may leads to the expansion of unit cell parameters [3]. Hence, the interpretation of lattice parameters that the lattice parameters are getting decreased with increasing the incorporation of Nd3+ on Zn2+ is a misinterpreted statement. The units of the dislocation density, strain and unit cell volume are not correct. The authors may have explained how did they give the unit for strain, since it is an dimensionless quantity (i.e. strain defined as the ratio of change in dimension to the original dimension). Response: Yes, it is a general concept, increase of lattice parameters when smaller ionic radius ions (Zn2+) substituted with larger ionic radius ions (Nd3+). But, in our case there is a decrease, it is not due to replacement of Zn2+ ion; it was mainly due to the creation of cationic vacancies by Nd3+ ions doping, which located at the same tetrahedral sites of host Zn2+, as explained below: 3Zn2+ → 2Nd3+ + VZn 2+. And this can be rewritten by using the Kröger–Wink notation 0 = 2NdZn + VZn. These induced cationic vacancies by Nd3+ doping in ZnS host matrix are responsible for the decrease of c-axis length and unit cell volume. Similar variation was already reported by Subramanian et al[1] for Nd doped ZnO and Gd:ZnS[2], Gd:ZnO[3] Ce:ZnO[4],Er:ZnO[5] by many authors. Comment 3. The table also lists the strain values calculated from equation (2), which is not correct since the formula used to calculate strain (ε) is wrong. The formula should have cot(theta) function [4], instead of cos(theta). Authors have given that the I0(hkl) is the ASTM standard intensity for the calculation of texture coefficient. We are astonished to see this that there is no ASTM standard reference database for X-ray diffraction patterns, it might be the standard intensities form either ICDD or JCPDS database references Since most of the statements, calculations and interpretations of structural properties are incorrect, it is insignificant to elucidate all other properties like morphology, optical and electrical which depend on the structure of the materials. Response: In most of the reports (our knowledge from more than 100 papers) the same formula was used for Strain calculation [5]. The ASTM standard intensity term is a typo, it 4
Journal Pre-proof
is also corrected in the modified form. The units are modified in the below mentioned table.
Nd doping level
Crystallite size (nm)
(%)
Dislocation density (×1015 lines.m-2)
Strain (No Unit)
Texture coefficient
Lattice
constants (Å)
(TC)
Cell volume (Å)3
a =3.812
c =18.690
v=235.20
0
55
0.331
0.00252
0.85
3.805
18.725
234.83
1
53
0.356
0.00259
0.76
3.785
18.695
231.97
3
51
0.384
0.00271
0.68
3.778
18.692
231.17
5
49
0.416
0.00281
0.62
3.770
18.683
230.03
Comment 4. Authors have reported in section 3.3 morphological studies that all the particles observed in SEM are in nanometer range which is in accordance with the XRD results. The sentence makes no sense since the crystallite sizes determined from XRD could not be compared with the particle sizes inferred from SEM images. Response: Yes, we agree with your comment. As the grains are collections of crystallites we made this sentence for comparison. However, it is considered and accordingly modified in the manuscript. Comment 5. From Fig. 5(b) of [1], the authors have claimed that the film is having only Zn, S, and Nd elements without any impurity. However, the authors have claimed the above without labeling the peaks present at ~1.8 keV and ~3.6 keV. Response: Generally, substrate related peaks are omitted while discussing about film impurities. The unlabeled peaks are for the substrate. Comment 6. In section 3.4, the authors have reported 86% of transmittance is achieved for undoped (0 at %) ZnS film, however the same value is stated in the conclusion that it is for Nd doped ZnS films. Response: Within the text we clearly mentioned the transmittance variation with doping concentration variation. In which highest transmittance 86% obtained for 0% Nd doping. Based on this and to note maximum transmittance we mentioned in the conclusion.
5
Journal Pre-proof
Generally, we have written pure ZnS as a 0% Nd doped ZnS in manuscript. Likewise, in conclusion just we have mentioned as Nd: ZnS. But it denotes 0% Nd for Transmittance and 0 and 5 % Nd for band gap values. Comment 7. In conclusion, a quite number of mistakes, errors and confusing statements of the recently published article were pointed out to the authors and scientific readers of the journal. Response: As a responsible scientific community, referring others’ works, we always should take care in publishing scientific findings. We will take utmost care for future publications. References [1]M. Subramanian, P. Thakur, S. Gautam, K. H. Chae, M. Tanemura, T. Hihara, S. Vijayalakshmi, T. Soga, S. S. Kim, K. Asokan, and R. Jayavel, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 42, 105410 2009. 14 [2] A. Divya, K.S. Kumar, P.S. Reddy, Investigations on structural and optical properties of Zn1-xGdxS nanoparticles, Appl. Surf. Sci. 258 (2011) 839–842 [3] M. Subramanian, P. Thakur, M. Tanemura, T. Hihara, V. Ganesan, T. Soga, K. H. Chae ,R. Jayavel, and T.Jimbo, J. Appl. Phys. 108, 053904 2010. [4]Z. Sofiani, B. Derkowska, P. Dalasiński, M. Wojdyła, S. Dabos-Seignon, M. A. Lamrani, L. Dghoughi, W. Bała, M. Addou, and B. Sahraoui, Opt. Commun. 267, 433 2006. [5] K. S. Usha, R. Sivakumar, and C. Sanjeeviraja Journal of Applied Physics 114, 123501 (2013); doi: 10.1063/1.4821966
6
Journal Pre-proof Authors declares that there is no conflict of interest in the current article
A. Jesu Jebathew, M. Karunakaran, K. Deva Arun Kumar, S. Valanarasu, V. Ganesh, Mohd. Shkir, S. AlFaify, A. Kathalingam, A. Jesu Jebathew, M. Karunakaran, K. Deva Arun Kumar, S. Valanarasu, V. Ganesh, Mohd. Shkir, S. AlFaify, A. Kathalingam PII:
S0921-4526(19)30752-5
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physb.2019.411867
Reference:
PHYSB 411867
To appear in:
Physica B: Physics of Condensed Matter
Received Date:
31 October 2019
Accepted Date:
05 November 2019
Please cite this article as: A. Jesu Jebathew, M. Karunakaran, K. Deva Arun Kumar, S. Valanarasu, V. Ganesh, Mohd. Shkir, S. AlFaify, A. Kathalingam, A. Jesu Jebathew, M. Karunakaran, K. Deva Arun Kumar, S. Valanarasu, V. Ganesh, Mohd. Shkir, S. AlFaify, A. Kathalingam, "Response to "Comment on “An effect of novel Nd3+ doping on physical properties of nebulizer spray pyrolysis fabricated ZnS thin films for optoelectronic technology”, Physica B: Physics of Condensed Matter (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physb.2019.411867
This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. © 2019 Published by Elsevier.
Journal Pre-proof
"Response to "Comment on “An effect of novel Nd3+ doping on physical properties of nebulizer spray pyrolysis fabricated ZnS thin films for optoelectronic technology” A. Jesu Jebathew1, M. Karunakaran1, K. Deva Arun Kumar2, S. Valanarasu*2, V. Ganesh3, Mohd. Shkir,3 S. AlFaify3, A. Kathalingam4 1PG
and Research Department of Physics, Alagappa Govt Arts College, Karaikudi, India and Research Department of Physics, Arul Anandar College, Karumathur, Madurai, India 3Advanced Functional Materials & Optoelectronics Laboratory (AFMOL), Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 9004, Abha, Saudi Arabia 4Millimeter-Wave Innovation Technology Research Center (MINT), Dongguk University, Seoul04620, Republic of Korea 2PG
Abstract In current article the authors are presenting the response to comments to previous published article ""Response to "Comment on “Effect of novel Nd3+ doping on physical properties of nebulizer spray pyrolysis fabricated ZnS thin films for optoelectronic technology”[1] [Physica B: Condensed Matter 572 (2019) 109-116] Keywords: thin films; corrections; X-ray diffraction; Structural properties; Microstrain
In section 3.1, the authors misinterpreted the orientation as “It represented that the (102) crystal plane was preferentially oriented along c-axis”. This has now been corrected as “It represents that the crystallites are preferentially oriented along (102) plane”. In section 3.1, the statement “Where, I (hkl) and I0 (hkl) are observed and ASTM standard intensities and N is total number of reflection peaks” corrected as “Where, I (hkl) and I0 (hkl) are observed and JCPDS standard intensities and N is total number of reflection peaks” In Table1 the authors wrongly mentioned the unit for strain, dislocation density and unit cell volume. The units are corrected as mentioned in this table. Nd doping level
Crystallite size (nm)
(%)
Dislocation density (×1015 lines.m-2)
Strain (No Unit)
Texture coefficient
Lattice
constants (Å)
(TC)
Cell volume (Å)3
a =3.812
c =18.690
v=235.20
0
55
0.331
0.00252
0.85
3.805
18.725
234.83
1
53
0.356
0.00259
0.76
3.785
18.695
231.97
1
Journal Pre-proof
3
51
0.384
0.00271
0.68
3.778
18.692
231.17
5
49
0.416
0.00281
0.62
3.770
18.683
230.03
In section 3.3, the SEM results are not matched with XRD, so this line “It is also found from the SEM images that all the particles sizes are in nanometer range which is in accordance with our XRD results” is changed to “It is also found from the SEM images that all the particles are in nanometer range”. In section 3.3, the unassigned peaks obtained at ~1.8 keV and ~3.6 keV are not mentioned. Now it is mentioned as “The unassigned peaks obtained at ~1.8 keV and ~3.6 keV are typically assigned to Si and Ca respectively. In Conclusion, This sentence “Nd: ZnS films have high transmittance (86%) and band gap value changed from 3.51 eV to 3.60 eV” is corrected as “Nd: ZnS films have high transmittance (> 70%) above 550 nm wavelength and band gap changed from 3.51 eV to 3.60 eV depending on doping concentration”. The authors apologize for these errors. Conflicts of Interest There is no conflict of interest on the comment to disclose. Reference [1] Effect of novel Nd3+ doping on physical properties of nebulizer spray pyrolysis fabricated ZnS thin films for optoelectronic technology, Physica B: Condensed Matter 572 (2019) 109-116
2
Journal Pre-proof
Response to comments on “An effect of novel Nd3+ doping on physical properties of nebulizer spray pyrolysis fabricated ZnS thin films for optoelectronic technology” A. Jesu Jebathew1, M. Karunakaran1, K. Deva Arun Kumar2, S. Valanarasu*2, V. Ganesh3, Mohd. Shkir,3 S. AlFaify3, A. Kathalingam4 1PG
and Research Department of Physics, Alagappa Govt Arts College, Karaikudi, India and Research Department of Physics, Arul Anandar College, Karumathur, Madurai, India 3Advanced Functional Materials & Optoelectronics Laboratory (AFMOL), Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 9004, Abha, Saudi Arabia 4Millimeter-Wave Innovation Technology Research Center (MINT), Dongguk University, Seoul04620, Republic of Korea 2PG
Comment 1. In section 3.1 structural properties, the authors indexed a high intensity peak obtained at 2θ = 28.65o as (102) peak, with c-axis orientation, in accordance with JCPDS File No: 89-2739. Here, it can be found the same JCPDS file that the indexing of the X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern is itself wrong. The high intensity peak present at the above angle is (00l) or (006) [2] and not (102) peak or plane, there is no such orientation plane in the mentioned JCPDS file references. Even if it is considered as (102) peak, it does not belong to c-axis orientation. (Refer Fig.1. of [1]). Also they claim that the growth along the axis of the plane is preferential growth, which is wrong since the texture coefficient is not greater than one. Response: Thanks for your comments. But the high intensity peak obtained at 2θ = 28.65° is for (102) plane according to JCPDS File No:89-2739 (JCPDS file is attached here), not for either (001) or (006). The reference mentioned in the comment itself is for different JCPDS no-80-0020. The mention of c-axis orientation is only wrong and it is corrected in the modified manuscript. Actually, the magnitude of texture coefficient depends on periodicity and not on orientation. Moreover, as the term c-axis orientation is removed, no question of preferred axis orientation is raised.
3
Journal Pre-proof
Comment 2. Authors claimed from Table 1 [1] that the lattice constants and the volume of the unit cell of hexagonal structure are considerably decreasing with increasing Nd3+ doping content. If Nd3+ ion having higher ionic radius, replaces the Zn2+ ions having lower ionic radius, it may leads to the expansion of unit cell parameters [3]. Hence, the interpretation of lattice parameters that the lattice parameters are getting decreased with increasing the incorporation of Nd3+ on Zn2+ is a misinterpreted statement. The units of the dislocation density, strain and unit cell volume are not correct. The authors may have explained how did they give the unit for strain, since it is an dimensionless quantity (i.e. strain defined as the ratio of change in dimension to the original dimension). Response: Yes, it is a general concept, increase of lattice parameters when smaller ionic radius ions (Zn2+) substituted with larger ionic radius ions (Nd3+). But, in our case there is a decrease, it is not due to replacement of Zn2+ ion; it was mainly due to the creation of cationic vacancies by Nd3+ ions doping, which located at the same tetrahedral sites of host Zn2+, as explained below: 3Zn2+ → 2Nd3+ + VZn 2+. And this can be rewritten by using the Kröger–Wink notation 0 = 2NdZn + VZn. These induced cationic vacancies by Nd3+ doping in ZnS host matrix are responsible for the decrease of c-axis length and unit cell volume. Similar variation was already reported by Subramanian et al[1] for Nd doped ZnO and Gd:ZnS[2], Gd:ZnO[3] Ce:ZnO[4],Er:ZnO[5] by many authors. Comment 3. The table also lists the strain values calculated from equation (2), which is not correct since the formula used to calculate strain (ε) is wrong. The formula should have cot(theta) function [4], instead of cos(theta). Authors have given that the I0(hkl) is the ASTM standard intensity for the calculation of texture coefficient. We are astonished to see this that there is no ASTM standard reference database for X-ray diffraction patterns, it might be the standard intensities form either ICDD or JCPDS database references Since most of the statements, calculations and interpretations of structural properties are incorrect, it is insignificant to elucidate all other properties like morphology, optical and electrical which depend on the structure of the materials. Response: In most of the reports (our knowledge from more than 100 papers) the same formula was used for Strain calculation [5]. The ASTM standard intensity term is a typo, it 4
Journal Pre-proof
is also corrected in the modified form. The units are modified in the below mentioned table.
Nd doping level
Crystallite size (nm)
(%)
Dislocation density (×1015 lines.m-2)
Strain (No Unit)
Texture coefficient
Lattice
constants (Å)
(TC)
Cell volume (Å)3
a =3.812
c =18.690
v=235.20
0
55
0.331
0.00252
0.85
3.805
18.725
234.83
1
53
0.356
0.00259
0.76
3.785
18.695
231.97
3
51
0.384
0.00271
0.68
3.778
18.692
231.17
5
49
0.416
0.00281
0.62
3.770
18.683
230.03
Comment 4. Authors have reported in section 3.3 morphological studies that all the particles observed in SEM are in nanometer range which is in accordance with the XRD results. The sentence makes no sense since the crystallite sizes determined from XRD could not be compared with the particle sizes inferred from SEM images. Response: Yes, we agree with your comment. As the grains are collections of crystallites we made this sentence for comparison. However, it is considered and accordingly modified in the manuscript. Comment 5. From Fig. 5(b) of [1], the authors have claimed that the film is having only Zn, S, and Nd elements without any impurity. However, the authors have claimed the above without labeling the peaks present at ~1.8 keV and ~3.6 keV. Response: Generally, substrate related peaks are omitted while discussing about film impurities. The unlabeled peaks are for the substrate. Comment 6. In section 3.4, the authors have reported 86% of transmittance is achieved for undoped (0 at %) ZnS film, however the same value is stated in the conclusion that it is for Nd doped ZnS films. Response: Within the text we clearly mentioned the transmittance variation with doping concentration variation. In which highest transmittance 86% obtained for 0% Nd doping. Based on this and to note maximum transmittance we mentioned in the conclusion.
5
Journal Pre-proof
Generally, we have written pure ZnS as a 0% Nd doped ZnS in manuscript. Likewise, in conclusion just we have mentioned as Nd: ZnS. But it denotes 0% Nd for Transmittance and 0 and 5 % Nd for band gap values. Comment 7. In conclusion, a quite number of mistakes, errors and confusing statements of the recently published article were pointed out to the authors and scientific readers of the journal. Response: As a responsible scientific community, referring others’ works, we always should take care in publishing scientific findings. We will take utmost care for future publications. References [1]M. Subramanian, P. Thakur, S. Gautam, K. H. Chae, M. Tanemura, T. Hihara, S. Vijayalakshmi, T. Soga, S. S. Kim, K. Asokan, and R. Jayavel, J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 42, 105410 2009. 14 [2] A. Divya, K.S. Kumar, P.S. Reddy, Investigations on structural and optical properties of Zn1-xGdxS nanoparticles, Appl. Surf. Sci. 258 (2011) 839–842 [3] M. Subramanian, P. Thakur, M. Tanemura, T. Hihara, V. Ganesan, T. Soga, K. H. Chae ,R. Jayavel, and T.Jimbo, J. Appl. Phys. 108, 053904 2010. [4]Z. Sofiani, B. Derkowska, P. Dalasiński, M. Wojdyła, S. Dabos-Seignon, M. A. Lamrani, L. Dghoughi, W. Bała, M. Addou, and B. Sahraoui, Opt. Commun. 267, 433 2006. [5] K. S. Usha, R. Sivakumar, and C. Sanjeeviraja Journal of Applied Physics 114, 123501 (2013); doi: 10.1063/1.4821966
6
Journal Pre-proof Authors declares that there is no conflict of interest in the current article