Parameters a b and c of

Table 4b.
Computed Q-VD(OMe)-OPh coefficients for the four micellar suspensions.Volume fractionAbsorption coefficient (α/f2) Npm− 1 s2GN1GN2GN3GN40.136.19486.1475.9595.6780.266.13476.13895.8615.9250.46.23956.1796.4906.1450.536.3926.3396.6606.2590.666.5176.4446.7246.1260.806.5586.5116.8246.0231.006.6596.6106.9175.974Full-size tableTable optionsView in workspaceDownload as CSV
Fig. 8. Plot of adiabatic compressibility vs volume fraction.Figure optionsDownload full-size imageDownload as PowerPoint slide
Fig. 9. Plot of acoustic impedance vs volume fraction.Figure optionsDownload full-size imageDownload as PowerPoint slide
5. Conclusions
AcknowledgementOne of the authors (GC) is compression grateful to the University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi, for the award of a Teacher Fellowship to complete the research project. The authors thank Nano Facilities Centre, IIT Madras (A unit of DST) for recording UV–Visible spectra and TEM micrographs. They also wish to thank Dr. S. Dinakaran, Department of Physics, Prathyusha Institute of Technology and Management, Aranvoilkuppam for his fruitful discussion. It is a great pleasure to thank V. Thomas Paul of Physical Metallurgy Group and D. Sornadurai of Material Science Group, Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research, Kalpakkam for their help in XRD study and TEM analysis.