The computed lattice parameters (a ), average lattice parameters (a¯) and d(hkl) values of Co2TiO4 and Co2–xZnxTiO4 (x=0.1–1.5) samples were compiled in Table 5. Overall, it Fingolimod can be seen that the average lattice parameters of Co2–xZnxTiO4 were decreased. For samples mica/Co2–xZnxTiO4 (x =0.1–1), the values of average lattice parameter (a¯) decreased with the increased doping content. When the doping content increased from x =1–1.3, the value of average lattice parameter (a¯) increased. When the doping content x=1.5, the value decreased again. The results are in consistent with those in Fig.7(b).
3.3. UV–vis and colorimetric analysis
Fig. 8. UV–vis absorption spectra of mica composite pigment samples (1: mica/Co2TiO4, 2: mica/Co2–xCuxTiO4(x=0.3), 3: mica/Co2–xNixTiO4 (x=0.3), 4: mica/Co2–xMnxTiO4 (x=0.3).Figure optionsDownload full-size imageDownload as PowerPoint slide