Advertisement

Optical, magnetic characterization, and gamma-ray interactions for borate glasses using XCOM program

  • Y. S. RammahEmail author
  • A. S. Abouhaswa
  • A. H. Salama
  • R. El-Mallawany
Open Access
Research
  • 129 Downloads

Abstract

In the present study, the optical characterization of borate glasses with composition 35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3 − xMnO2: x = 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 wt% has been investigated. The absorption spectra measurements within the wavelength domain 200–1000 nm have been carried out. The optical energy gap of the investigated samples using the absorption spectrum fitting (ASF) model has been calculated. The molar refraction, molar polarizability, reflection loss, optical transmission for the samples were estimated. The metallization criterion, dielectric constant, refractive index, and energy band metallization criterion for the studied glasses were estimated. Magnetic property measurements for all glass samples were carried out at 300 K. Additionally, the prospects of gamma-ray interactions with the investigated glasses have been achieved through studying the total mass attenuation, coherent, Compton, photoelectric, and pair production interactions at photon energy in the range of 0.356–1.330 MeV. Results reveal that the optical and magnetic properties of the investigated glasses change with changing the MnO2 concentration. Studied glasses can be used as a candidate for optical fiber and optical devices application. In the other hand, at lower gamma photon energy range, the photoelectric absorption dominates with the glasses, while as the energy increases, the probability of Compton scattering and pair production become the most dominate interactions.

Keywords

Borate glasses Molar refraction Molar polarizability Attenuation Gamma interaction 

Introduction

Currently, in medical, industrial, and academic applications, glasses containing transition metal oxides have great interest and more attractive [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Most of the previous studies confirm that the optical characterization of this type of glasses may be changed with addition of different transition metal oxides with different concentrations. Oxide glasses have growing importance due to their application in low-loss optical fibers, as the dispersion properties changed with the composition. In the other hand, dispersion measurements are important in the designing of high bandwidth infrared optical fibers and optical communication devices [9]. It is known that boron (B), phosphorous (P), and silicon (Si) oxides considered as the typical glass forming oxides, and they have high potential for technological applications. Borate glasses considered as one of the most attractive, brilliant, and preferred host glass former materials. It is a prime constituent of numerous large volume industrial glasses [10, 11, 12, 13]. This is because, when alkali oxides add to the covalent boron oxide amorphous system, a significant change will be occurred, resulting in the creation of anionic sites that accommodate the modifying alkali cations [14, 15].

Previously, borate glass doped with MnO2 has been prepared [1]. FTIR, XRD, and the optical properties including the optical energy gap, Urbach’s energy, refractive index, optical conductivity for these glasses have been studied [1].

The main objective of the current work is to:
  1. 1.

    Investigate the optical characterization of borate glasses with composition 35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3 − xMnO2: x = 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 wt% and this achieved by;

    1. i.

      Measuring the absorption spectra within the wavelength domain 200–1000 nm.

       
    2. ii.

      Estimating the optical energy gap of the investigated samples using the absorption spectrum fitting (ASF) model.

       
    3. iii.

      Calculating the molar refraction, molar polarizability, reflection loss, and optical transmission for the samples.

       
    4. iv.

      Estimating the metallization criterion, dielectric constant, refractive index, and energy band metallization criterion for the studied glasses.

       
     
  2. 2.

    Study the magnetic property of the studied glasses.

     
  3. 3.

    Investigate the prospects of gamma-ray interactions with the investigated glasses and this achieved through studying the total mass attenuation, coherent, Compton, photoelectric, and pair production interactions.

     

Samples and calculations

The investigated glass samples in this study were prepared before and adapted from [1]. The density (ρ) of glasses was measured by Archimedes’ principle using a digital balance and toluene with density 0.86 gm/cm3 as an immersion liquid at room temperature. The accuracy of the measurements was approximately ± 0.01 gm/cm3. Molar volume (Vm) of each glass has been calculated by using its density and molecular weight. Densities and molar volumes for present glasses are listed in Table 1. In this study, the optical measurements which are obtained by JASCO UV–Vis–NIR double-beam spectrophotometer model V-570 in the range of 200–1000 nm wavelength are used to investigate many of important optical characterization of the glass samples. Magnetic property measurements for all glass samples were carried out at 300 K with a vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM 7400 Lakeshore, Max field = 20 kOe, USA).
Table 1

Density (ρ), molar volume (Vm), optical energy band gap (\(E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{Tauc}}\) and \(E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}}\) eV), and refractive index (n) via Tacu’s and ASF methods for glass samples in the system (35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3) + xMnO2: 0 ≤ x ≤ 2 wt%) glasses

xMnO2 (wt%) x =

Density (ρ) (± 0.01 g/cm3)

Molar volume (Vm) (cm3/mol)

\(E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{Tauc}}\) (eV) via Tauc’s method [1]

\(E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}}\) (eV) via ASF method [present work]

Refractive index, n

Indirect

Direct

Indirect

Direct

Tauc’s method

ASF method

0.0

2.9412

19.3725

2.91

3.25

2.85

3.23

2.4217

2.4386

0.5

2.9367

19.51861

3.13

3.31

3.1

3.34

2.3629

2.3706

1.0

2.9319

19.6984

2.93

3.28

2.97

3.28

2.4161

2.4052

1.5

2.9287

19.6984

2.90

3.26

2.95

3.24

2.4245

2.4106

2.0

2.9257

20.0372

3.07

3.29

3.04

3.31

2.3784

2.3863

Mass attenuation coefficient and probability of γ-interaction

In nuclear shielding, the fundamental physical quantity is the mass attenuation coefficient (µ/ρ) which used to produce the other photon interaction parameters such as effective atomic number, half value layer. For any material, µ/ρ can be evaluated by the mixture rule given by [16]:
$$\mu /\rho = \mathop \sum \limits_{i} w_{i} \left( {\mu /\rho } \right)_{i }$$
(1)
where wi is the weight fraction of element i and (µ/ρ)i is the mass attenuation coefficient of the ith element. In this study, the µ/ρ for the studied glasses was determined by the XCOM program [17].
According to knowledge of nuclear physics, gamma photon interacts with the medium by three main processes, namely photoelectric effect \(\left( \tau \right)\), Compton scattering \(\left( \sigma \right)\), and pair production \(\left( \kappa \right)\). The total linear attenuation coefficient \(\left( \mu \right)\) which expressed to the total probability of the interaction is equal to the sum of the partial probabilities of the different processes [18]:
$$\mu = \tau + \sigma + \kappa$$
(2)
The probability of occurrence for these interaction processes can be derived from the following g relations:
$$\left. {\begin{array}{*{20}l} {\tau ({\text{cm}}^{ - 1} ) = cN\left( {\frac{{Z^{b} }}{{E_{\gamma }^{a} }}} \right)\left[ {1 - f(Z)} \right],} \hfill \\ {\sigma ({\text{cm}}^{ - 1} ) = NZf(E_{\gamma } ),} \hfill \\ {\kappa ({\text{cm}}^{ - 1} ) = NZ^{2} f(E_{\lambda } ,Z)} \hfill \\ \end{array} } \right\}$$
(3)
where c is a constant coefficient, independent of Z and \(E_{\gamma }\). Parameters a and b are constants with values between 3 and 5 depending on gamma energy. N is atomic density, and Z is atomic number. The probabilities of γ-ray interaction with the studied glasses have been calculated theoretically using XCOM program [17].

Results and discussion

Density and molar volume

Figure 1 depicts the variation of density (ρ) and molar volume (Vm) with different MnO2 concentrations in the glasses. The decrease in the glass density is most likely due to lower atomic mass of Mn ions as compared to Zn in glass system. Therefore, decreased oxygen packing density makes the structure more compact and this result decreasing of the bridging oxygen number [19]. Also, Fig. 1 shows that molar volume of the samples has an exactly opposite behavior to that of density. The rate of change in molar volume mainly depends on the rates of change of both molecular weight and density. With increasing MnO2 concentration, the molecular weights decrease due to addition of some lighter Mn+2 ions and the density decreases and this is accompanied by increase in molar volume.
Fig. 1

Variation of density and molar volume of 35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3 − xMnO2: x = 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 wt% glass system with MnO2 concentration

Optical characterization

UV–visible spectra

Figure 2 demonstrates the measured optical absorption spectra for the investigated glasses. It is clear to notice that the broad absorption band around 475 nm, which is assigned to the transition 6A1g (S) → 4T1g (G) of Mn2+ions [20]. In addition, the absorbance of this absorption band enhanced with increasing MnO2 concentration in the glass samples which could be due to relatively large average distance between Mn2+ ions [21].
Fig. 2

UV-visible spectra of the studied glass system

The optical energy gap \(\left( {E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}} } \right)\) and refractive index (n)

In the present work, the absorption spectrum fitting (ASF) model [22, 23] has been applied to calculate the optical energy band gaps \(E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}}\) for the investigated glasses using the measured UV-absorption spectra. This method is characterized by the calculation of the optical gap energy of the samples can be achieved without need to thickness measurement. The calculation mainly only depends on an absorbance data of the samples. Mott and Davis [24] have modified Tauc’s formula [25] for the optical absorption coefficient \(\alpha (\omega )\) to be written as:
$$\alpha (\omega )\hbar \omega = K\left( {\hbar \omega - E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}} } \right)^{m}$$
(4)
Beer–Lambert’s law is used to calculate \(\alpha (\omega )\). G, ħω, and \(E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}}\) are a constant, the incident photon energy, and the band gap energy. The optical transition type can be characterized by the power (m), where m = 0.5 and 2, respectively, for allowed direct and indirect transitions [26]. Alarcon et al. [22], Souri and Shomalian [23] have expressed for the optical gap energy \(\left( {E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}} } \right)\) as a function of incident photon wavelength \(\lambda_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}}\) as:
$$E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}} = \frac{hc}{{\lambda_{{{\text{Opt}} .}}^{\text{ASF}} }} = \frac{1239.83}{{\lambda_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}} }}$$
(5)
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the variation of (absorbance/wavelength)1/2 and (absorbance/wavelength)2 with (wavelength)−1 for indirect and direct transitions, respectively. The obtained values of \(E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}}\) are calculated and listed in Table 1. These values are close to which obtained by using Tauc’s model in the previous work [1]. Results reveal that the \(E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}}\) for direct and indirect transitions for the samples changed with the variation of MnO2 wt%. This variation in optical band gap after adding the Mn to the glass matrix is because of the Mn defects within the bands [27]. These Mn2+ defects will result in the absorption of incident photons. Therefore, the band gap is affected due to the strong internal forces. The electrons are liable for the transition between the valence and conduction bands but need greater energy to leap [1]. Figure 5 shows a comparison between \(E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}}\) values for direct and indirect cases, one obvious that the values for direct case are higher than that for indirect case.
Fig. 3

Variation of (A/λ)1/2 with λ−1 for all investigated glasses

Fig. 4

Variation of (A/λ)2 with λ−1 for all investigated glasses

Fig. 5

Variation of optical energy gap with MnO2 concentration in ASF and Tauc’s models

Using the obtained values of the optical energy gap \(E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}}\), refractive index (n) of the glass system was calculated by the following equation [28, 29] and collected in Table 1:
$$\left( {\frac{{n^{2} - 1}}{{n^{2} + 2}}} \right) = 1 - \sqrt {\frac{{E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{AsF}} }}{20}}$$
(6)

Results revealed that the refractive index of all glasses is high, and they become more interesting and potential candidates for optical filter materials and optoelectrical devices.

(R m), (α m), (R L), and (T)

The degree of the total polarizability per unit mole is defined as the molar refraction (Rm) of material. The (Rm) relates to molar volume (Vm) and index of refraction (n) via Lorentz-Lorenz equation [30, 31]:
$$R_{\text{m}} = \left( {\frac{{n^{2} - 1}}{{n^{2} + 2}}} \right)\frac{{M_{\text{glass}} }}{{\rho_{\text{glass}} }} = \left( {\frac{{n^{2} - 1}}{{n^{2} + 2}}} \right)V_{\text{m}}$$
(7)
where ρglass and Mglass are the density of the glass sample and the molar mass, respectively. The (Rm) for the glasses was calculated using Eq. (7) and listed in Table 2. The electronic polarizability (αm) of a molecule gives the magnitude of electrons responding to an electric field can be expressed as a function of molar refraction as in Eq. (8) [32, 33]:
$$\alpha_{\text{m}} = \frac{{R_{\text{m}} }}{2.52}$$
(8)
Table 2

Molar refraction (Rm), electronic polarizability (αm), reflection loss (RL), optical transmission (T) for glass samples in the system (35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3) + xMnO2: 0 ≤ x ≤ 2 wt%) glasses

xMnO2 (wt%) x =

Molar refraction (Rm)

Electronic polarizability (αm × 10−24 cm3)

Reflection loss (RL)

Optical transmission (T)

Metallization criterion (M)

Dielectric constant (ε)

Refractive index-based metallization criterion M (n)

Energy gap-based metallization criterion M \(\left( {E_{\text{g}}^{\text{ASF}} } \right)\)

0.0

13.7954

5.4743

0.1750

0.7020

0.2878

5.9471

0.3774

0.3774

0.5

13.6217

5.4054

0.1653

0.7162

0.3021

5.6200

0.3937

0.3937

1.0

13.8919

5.5126

0.1702

0.7089

0.2947

5.7849

0.3853

0.3853

1.5

14.0166

5.5621

0.1710

0.7078

0.2936

5.8113

0.3840

0.3840

2.0

14.0513

5.5759

0.1676

0.7129

0.2987

5.6948

0.3898

0.3898

The values of (αm) are calculated and listed Table 2. Figure 6 plots the relation between (Rm) and (αm) as a function of MnO2 concentration in the studied glass system. It is clear that (Rm) and (αm) have the same behavior for the investigated glass samples.
Fig. 6

Variation of Rm and αm for all glasses with MnO2 concentration

Reflection loss (R L), and optical transmission (T)

The reflection loss (RL) and optical transmission (T) for the studied glasses were estimated by using Eqs. (9) and (10), respectively, and tabulated in Table 2.
$$R_{\text{L}} = \left( {\frac{n - 1}{n + 1}} \right)^{2}$$
(9)
$$T = \frac{2n}{{n^{2} + 1}}$$
(10)
The variation of these parameters versus MnO2 concentration is depicted in Fig. 7. Results confirm that RL and T have an opposite behavior with MnO2 content.
Fig. 7

Variation of RL and T for all glasses with MnO2 concentration

(M), (ε), M (n), and M \(\left( {E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}} } \right)\)

In order to estimate the tendency of metallization and to investigate the insulating behavior of the studied glasses, metallization criterion (M) is calculated theoretically according to the metallization theory for condensed matter as Herzfeld [34]. In this theory, predicting of the metallic nature or otherwise of solids depends on the necessary and sufficient condition which is \(\frac{{R_{\text{m}} }}{{V_{\text{m}} }} > 1\) for metallic nature and \(\frac{{R_{\text{m}} }}{{V_{\text{m}} }} < 1\) for non-metallic nature [35, 36]. The values of (M) for the studied glasses were obtained by subtracting the ratio (Rm/Vm) by 1 [37].

The dielectric constant (ε) for the present glasses was calculated by \(\varepsilon = n^{2}\)[38]. The values of (M) and (ε) are calculated, tabulated in Table 2 and depicted versus the MnO2 concentration as shown in Fig. 8. Results reveal that the behavior of metallization criterion and dielectric constant for the present glass system is inversely with MnO2 content.
Fig. 8

Variation of M and ε for all glasses with MnO2 concentration

M (n) and M \(\left( {E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}} } \right)\) are the metallization criterions based on index refraction and optical energy band gap, respectively. These two optical properties have been calculated using [37]:
$$M(n) = 1 - \left( {\frac{{n^{2} - 1}}{{n^{2} + 2}}} \right)$$
(11)
$$M(E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}} ) = \left( {\frac{{E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}} }}{20}} \right)^{1/2}$$
(12)
The values of M (n) and M \(\left( {E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}} } \right)\) for the present system were calculated, listed in Table 2, and plotted versus MnO2 concentration in Fig. 9. Figure 9 shows that both the M (n) and the M \(\left( {E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}} } \right)\) have the same trend, enhancing with the increasing MnO2 content. This indicates a decreasing chance of metallization in the electronic structure of the studied glass system with increasing MnO2 content.
Fig. 9

Variation of M (n) and M \(\left( {E_{{{\text{Opt}}.}}^{\text{ASF}} } \right)\) in (eV) for all glasses with MnO2 concentration

Magnetic property of the studied glasses

Figure 10 displays the magnetization (M) as a function of magnetic field (H) of 35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3 + xMnO2 (where x = 0, 0.5, 1.5, 2, and 2.5 wt%) glass samples measured by a vibrating sample magnetometer (VSM) at room temperature. It was observed that undoped glass exhibited a soft ferromagnetic behavior; the hysteretic loop indicated a ferromagnetic behavior with magnetic coercivity about (180.35 Oe) and saturation magnetization Ms about (23.9 emu/gm). At the beginning of doping, the sample with x = 0.5 wt% showed the highest saturation magnetization (86.25 emu/g) and magnetic coercivity (183.32 Oe). However, the glass samples doped with MnO2 at 1-2 wt% showed a paramagnetic behavior and the magnetization decreased with increasing MnO2 content. The mechanism for the highest saturation magnetization Ms at x = 0.5 may be related with the exchange coupling between anti-ferromagnetic phase and ferromagnetic-like phase as that in BaO [39, 40]. On the other hand, decreasing of saturation magnetization Ms with increasing doping concentration might be due to the increasing anti-ferromagnetic phase with small ratio of ferromagnetic-like phase [41, 42, 43]. It is fascinating to note when the doping concentration is higher than 1 wt% a linear M–H curve is observed, and the magnetization is much smaller than undoped sample. This suggests that the sample may become anti-ferromagnetic again. This provides one of the main uses in so-called spin valves, which are the basis of magnetic sensors including modern hard drive read heads.
Fig. 10

Magnetization versus applied magnetic field of 35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3 + xMnO2 (x = 0, 0.5, 1, 1.5, and 2) glass samples at 300 K

Probabilities of γ-ray interaction

Table 3 shows the chemical composition and weight fraction of elements in the studied glass samples. The total mass attenuation coefficients (μ/ρ) and the partial interaction between gamma-ray with different energies (0.356, 0.511, 0.662, 1.173, and 1.330 MeV) and the suggested glass system were computed using Eqs. (1) and (3), respectively, via XCOM program. The μ/ρ for the studied glasses reduced with the increase in the photon energy from 0.356 to 1.330 MeV approximately by the same rate at all MnO2 concentrations as shown in Table 4 and Fig. 11. The XCOM obtained values of the μ/ρ were compared with available experimental data which measured using narrow beam transmission geometry (see Table 4 and Fig. 11). Figure 12 shows a comparison between experimental and XCOM (μm) for glass sample with MnO2 = 1 wt%. R2 values which define the degree of agreement between the theoretical and experimental data were evaluated; results are found to be 0.9977 (i.e., ~ 1) for all studied samples and therefore prove that the results are in a well agreement. This result implies that: (i) The gamma radiation attenuation rate do not change with addition of MnO2 in the studied glasses, (ii) At the lower energy, the gamma photon has higher probability of interaction with the studied glasses. Also, it is obvious that when the photon energy increases from 0.356 to 0.662 MeV (E < 0.662 MeV), the total mass attenuation coefficients (μ/ρ) reduced very quickly by high rate, while in the range of (E > 0.662 MeV), the μ/ρ reduced by low rate. For example, in the glass sample (xMnO2 = 1 wt%), the difference in the μ/ρ between 0.356 and 0.511 MeV is 1.31x10−2 (cm2/g), while the difference in the μ/ρ between 1.173 and 1.330 MeV is 0.35x10−2 (cm2/g). This behavior in the total mass attenuation coefficients (μ/ρ) can be explained as follows: at lower gamma photon energy range, the photoelectric absorption dominates, and this is confirmed by data in Table 5. While as the energy increases, the probability of the photoelectric absorption process is reduced and other two processes namely Compton scattering (Table 6) and pair production (P.P) (Table 7 and Fig. 13) become the most dominate interactions, where this occurs specifically for E > 1.022 MeV [44, 45]. These results (dependent of µ/ρ on the photon energy) are corresponding with the recently published literature on different materials like rocks [44], glasses [46, 47, 48, 49, 50], bricks [51], and amino acids [52]. Comparison with other glasses; like tellurite glasses [53, 54, 55] could be suggested.
Table 3

Chemical composition and Wt. fraction of elements in samples in the system (35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3) + xMnO2: 0 ≤ x ≤ 2 wt%) glasses

xMnO2 (wt%) x =

Sample chemical composition

Weight fraction wt%

Wt. fraction of elements in each sample

Li2O

ZnO

B2O3

MnO2

Li

B

O

Zn

Mn

0.0

35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3 + 0.0MnO2 wt%

35

10

55

0.0

0.162599

0.170814

0.586244

0.080342

0.000000

0.5

35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3 + 0.5MnO2 wt%

35

10

55

0.5

0.161791

0.169964

0.585159

0.079942

0.003144

1.0

35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3 + 1.0MnO2 wt%

35

10

55

1.0

0.160990

0.169123

0.584084

0.079547

0.006257

1.5

35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3 + 1.5MnO2 wt%

35

10

55

1.5

0.160197

0.168290

0.583020

0.079155

0.009339

2.0

35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3 + 2.0MnO2 wt%

35

10

55

2.0

0.159411

0.167465

0.581966

0.078767

0.012391

Table 4

Total mass attenuation coefficients (μm) of (35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3) + xMnO2: 0 ≤ x ≤ 2 wt%) glasses

Energy (MeV)

x = 0 μm × 10−2 (cm2/g)

x = 0.5 μm × 10−2 (cm2/g)

x = 1 μm × 10−2 (cm2/g)

x = 1.5 μm × 10−2 (cm2/g)

x = 2 μm × 10−2 (cm2/g)

XCOM

Exp.

XCOM

Exp.

XCOM

Exp.

XCOM

Exp.

XCOM

Exp.

0.356

9.60

9.62

9.60

9.64

9.60

9.63

9.60

9.64

9.61

9.65

0.511

8.28

8.31

8.29

8.33

8.29

8.33

8.29

8.33

8.29

8.34

0.662

7.40

7.42

7.40

7.44

7.74

7.45

7.40

7.45

7.40

7.44

1.173

5.63

5.66

5.64

5.69

5.64

5.67

5.64

5.68

5.64

5.68

1.330

5.28

5.32

5.29

5.34

5.29

5.34

5.29

5.34

5.29

5.34

Fig. 11

Dependence of the μ/ρ for all glasses on MnO2 concentration (experimentally and XCOM program)

Fig. 12

Comparison between experimental and XCOM (μm) for glass sample with MnO2 = 1 wt%

Table 5

Photoelectric interaction of (35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3) + xMnO2: 0 ≤ x ≤ 2 wt%) glasses

Energy (MeV)

x = 0 Photoelectric interaction (× 10−4 cm2/g)

x = 0.5 Photoelectric interaction (× 10−4 cm2/g)

x = 1 Photoelectric interaction (× 10−4 cm2/g)

x = 1.5 Photoelectric interaction (× 10−4 cm2/g)

x = 2 Photoelectric interaction (× 10−4 cm2/g)

0.356

6.22

6.31

6.40

6.48

6.57

0.511

2.34

2.37

2.41

2.44

2.47

0.662

1.22

1.24

1.26

1.28

1.30

1.173

0.36

0.36

0.36

0.37

0.38

1.330

0.28

0.29

0.29

0.30

0.30

Table 6

Compton interaction of (35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3) + xMnO2: 0 ≤ x ≤ 2 wt%) glasses

Energy (MeV)

x = 0 Compton interaction (× 10−2 cm2/g)

x = 0.5 Compton interaction (× 10−2 cm2/g)

x = 1 Compton interaction (× 10−2 cm2/g)

x = 1.5 Compton interaction (× 10−2 cm2/g)

x = 2 Compton interaction (× 10−2 cm2/g)

0.356

9.54

9.54

9.54

9.54

9.54

0.511

8.29

8.26

8.26

8.26

8.26

0.662

7.39

7.38

7.39

7.39

7.39

1.173

5.63

5.63

5.63

5.63

5.63

1.330

5.28

5.28

5.30

5.28

5.28

Table 7

Pair production (P.P) interaction of (35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3) + xMnO2: 0 ≤ x ≤ 2 wt%) glasses

Energy (MeV)

x = 0 P.P interaction (× 10−5 cm2/g)

x = 0.5 P.P interaction (× 10−5 cm2/g)

x = 1 P.P interaction (× 10−5 cm2/g)

x = 1.5 P.P interaction (× 10−5 cm2/g)

x = 2 P.P interaction (× 10−5 cm2/g)

1.173

0.74

0.75

0.76

0.76

0.77

1.330

4.29

4.32

4.35

4.38

4.40

Fig. 13

Dependence of the (P.P) interaction for all glasses on MnO2 concentration

Conclusion

In the present study, the optical characterization of borate glasses with composition 35Li2O − 10ZnO − 55B2O3 − xMnO2: x = 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 wt% which prepared previously [1] has been investigated. The absorption spectra measurements within the wavelength domain 200–1000 nm have been carried out. The optical energy gap of the investigated samples using the absorption spectrum fitting (ASF) model has been calculated. The probabilities of gamma-ray interactions with the investigated glasses have been achieved through studying the total mass attenuation using XCOM program. In general, the results reveal the following items:
  1. 1.

    The optical energy gap of the studied glasses varies with xMnO2 content in both of direct and of indirect transitions.

     
  2. 2.

    The molar refraction and molar polarizability for the investigated glasses have the same trend with MnO2 content.

     
  3. 3.

    The reflection loss and optical transmission for the samples have an opposite behavior with MnO2 concentration.

     
  4. 4.

    The behavior of metallization criterion and dielectric constant for the present glass system is inversely with MnO2 content.

     
  5. 5.

    Refractive index and energy band metallization criterion have the same trend, enhancing with the increasing MnO2 content for the studied glasses.

     
  6. 6.

    Magnetic property of the investigated glasses changes with changing the MnO2 concentration.

     
  7. 7.

    The μ/ρ for the studied glasses was reduced with the increase in the photon energy from 0.356 to 1.330 MeV; this confirms that at lower gamma photon energy range, the photoelectric absorption dominates, while at higher photon energy, Compton scattering and pair production become the most dominate interactions.

     

Results reveal that the investigated glasses can be used as a candidate for optical fiber and optical devices application. Moreover, it can be used for optoelectronic and nonlinear optical devices.

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Taha, T.A., Abouhaswa, A.S.: Preparation and optical properties of borate glass doped with MnO2. J. Mater. Sci. 29, 8100–8106 (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Taha, T.A., Rammah, Y.S.: Optical characterization of new borate glass doped with titanium oxide. J. Mater. Sci. 27(2), 1384–1390 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Taha, T.A., Azab, A.A.: AC conductivity and dielectric properties of borotellurite glass. J. Electron. Mater. 45(10), 5170–5177 (2016)ADSGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yadav, A., Dahiya, M.S., Narwal, P., Hooda, A., Agarwal, A., Khasa, S.: Electrical characterization of lithium bismuth borate glasses containing cobalt/vanadium ions. Solid State Ion. 312, 21–31 (2017)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colak, S.C.: Role of titanium ions on the optical and thermal properties of zinc borate glass doped with TiO2 physics and chemistry of glasses-European. J. Glass Sci. Technol. Part B 58(2), 41–48 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Asahara, Y.: Non-linear glass materials. Ceram. Int. 23(5), 375–382 (1997)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Yamada, S., Chen, W.D., Koeppen, C., Jiang, G., Shi, R.F., Garito, A.F.: Non-linear optical properties of organic materials VIII. SPIE 2527, 2 (1995)ADSGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Abdel-Baki, M., Abdel-Wahab, F.A., Radi, A., El-Diasty, F.: Factors affecting optical dispersion in borate glass systems. J. Phys. Chem. Solids 68(8), 1457–1470 (2007)ADSGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saddeek, Y.B., Shaaban, E.R., Moustafa, H.M.: Spectroscopic properties, electronic polarizability, and optical basicity of Bi 2 O 3 –Li 2 O-B 2 O 3 glasses. Phys. B 403(13–16), 2399–2407 (2008)ADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Varshneya, A.K.: Fundamentals of Inorganic Glasses. Academic Press, London (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kreidl, N.J.: Recent applications of glass science. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 123(1–3), 377–384 (1990)ADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vienna, J.: Nuclear waste glasses. In: Seward, T.P., Vascott, T. (eds.) High Temperature Glass Melt Property Database for Process Modeling, Properties of glass forming melts, pp. 391–404. Washington, DC, American Ceramic Society (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    El-Mallawany, R.: Structural interpretations on tellurite glasses. Mater. Chem. Phys. 63(2), 109–115 (2000)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chryssikos, G.D., Kamitsos, E.I., Karakassides, M.A.: Structure of borate glasses. Part 2. Alkali induced network modifications in terms of structure and properties. Phys. Chem. Glasses 31(3), 109–116 (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Saddeek, Y.B., Aly, K.A., Bashier, S.A.: Optical study of lead boro-silicate glasses. Phys. B 405(10), 2407–2412 (2010)ADSGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Yılmaz, D., Boydaş, E., Cömert, E.: Determination of mass attenuation coefficients and effective atomic numbers for compounds of the 3d transition elements. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 125, 65–68 (2016)ADSGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berger, M.J., Coursey, J.S., Zucker, M.A., Chang, J.: ESTAR, PSTAR, and ASTAR: Computer Programs for Calculating Stopping-power and Range Tables for Electrons, Protons, and Helium Ions (Version 1.2.3), National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD (2005). http://physics.nist.gov/Star. Accessed 28 Sept 2006
  18. 18.
    Jalali, M., Mohammadi, A.: Gamma ray attenuation coefficient measurement for neutron-absorbent materials. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 77, 523–527 (2008)ADSGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    El-Rabaie, S., Taha, T.A., Higazy, A.A.: Compositional dependence thermal and optical properties of a novel germanate glass. Phys. B 432, 40–44 (2014)ADSGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Raja, B.J., Yadav, M.R., Manjari, V.P., Babu, B., Krishna, C.R., Ravikumar, R.V.S.S.N.: Synthesis and characterization of undoped and Mn(II) ions doped Li2 CaAl4(PO4)4F4 nanophosphors. J. Mol. Struct. 1076, 461–467 (2014)ADSGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Samsudin, N.F., Matori, K.A., Liew, J.Y.C., Fen, Y.W., Zaid, M., Hafiz, M., Alassan, Z.N.: Investigation on structural and optical properties of Willemite doped Mn2. J. Spectrosc 2015, 7 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alarcon, L.E., Arrieta, A., Camps, E., Muhl, S., Rudil, S., Santiago, E.V.: An alternative procedure for the determination of the optical band gap and thickness of amorphous carbon nitride thin films. Appl. Surf. Sci. 254, 412–415 (2007)ADSGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Souri, D., Shomalian, K.: Band gap determination by absorption spectrum fitting method (ASF) and structural properties of different compositions of (60-x) V2O5-40TeO2-xSb2O3 glasses. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 355, 1597–1601 (2009)ADSGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mott, N.F., Davies, E.A.: Electronic Processes in Non-Crystalline Materials. Clarendon Press, Oxford (1979)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tauc, J.: Amorphous and Liquid Semiconductors. In: Tauc, J. (ed.) Plenum Press, New York (1974)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gautam, C., Yadav, A.K., Singh, A.K.: A review on infrared spectroscopy of borate glasses with effects of different additives. ISRN Ceram. 2012, 1–17 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Omri, K., El Ghoul, J., Alyamani, A., Barthou, C., El Mir, L.: Luminescence properties of green emission of SiO2/Zn2SiO4: Mn nanocomposite prepared by sol–gel method. Physica E 53, 48–54 (2013)ADSGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dimitrov, V., Sakka, S.: Electronic oxide polarizability and optical basicity of simple oxides. J. Appl. Phys. 79, 1736–1740 (1996)ADSGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    El-Mallawany, R., Abdalla, M.D., Ahmed, I.A.: New tellurite glasses, optical properties. Mater. Chem. Phys. 109, 291–296 (2008)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moelwyn-Hughes, E.A.: Physical Chemistry. Pergamon, London (1961)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    El-Mallawany, R.: Optical properties of tellurite glasses. J. App. Physics 72, 1774–1777 (1992)ADSGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rawson, H.: Properties and Applications of Glass. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1980)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Azlan, M.N., Halimah, M.K., Shafinas, S.Z., Daud, W.M.: Electronic polarizability of zinc borotellurite glass system containing erbium nanoparticles. Mater. Express 5, 211–218 (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Herzfeld, K.F.: On atomic properties which make an element a metal. Phys. Rev. 29, 701–705 (1927)ADSGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Honma, T., Sato, R., Benino, Y., Komatsu, T., Dimitrov, V.: Electronic polarizability, optical basicity and XPS spectra of Sb2O3–B2O3 glasses. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 272, 1–13 (2000)ADSGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Azlan, M.N., Halimah, M.K., Shafinas, S.Z., Daud, W.M.: Polarizability and optical basicity of Er3+ ions doped tellurite based glasses. Chalcogenide Lett. 11, 319–335 (2014)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dimitrov, V., Sakka, S.: Linear and nonlinear optical properties of simple oxides. II. J. Appl. Phys. 79, 1741–1745 (1996)ADSGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wakkad, M.M., Shokr, EKh, Mohamed, S.H.: Optical and calorimetric studies of Ge–Sb–Se glasses. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 265, 157–166 (2000)ADSGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zhang, W.S., Zheng, J.G., Brȕck, E., Si, P.Z., Geng, D.Y., Zhang, Z.D.: Structure and magnetic properties of boron-oxide and boron-nitride coated iron nanocapsules. J. Mater. Sci. Technol. 26(11), 1051–1056 (2010)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kaewkhao, J., Siriprom, W., Insiripong, S., Ratana, T., Ratana, T., Kedkaew, C., Limsuwan, P.: Structural and magnetic properties of glass doped with iron oxide. J. Phys: Conf. Ser. 266, 012012 (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cockayne, E., Li, L.: First-principles studies of the atomic, electronic, and magnetic structure of α-MnO2 (cryptomelane). Chem. Phys. Lett. 544, 53–58 (2012)ADSGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chen, W., Chen, C., Guo, L.: Magnetization reversal of two-dimensional superlattices of Mn3O4 nanocubes and their collective dipolar interaction effects. J. Appl. Phys. 108, 043912–043912-8 (2010)ADSGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Crespo, Y., Seriani, N.: Electronic and magnetic properties of α-MnO2 from abinitio calculations. Phys. Rev. B 88, 144428–1444287 (2013)ADSGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Obaid, S.S., Sayyed, M.I., Gaikwad, D.K., Pawar, P.P.: Attenuation coefficients and exposure buildup factor of some rocks for gamma ray shielding applications. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 148, 86–94 (2018)ADSGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Agar, O., Tekin, H.O., Sayyed, M.I., Korkmaz, M.E., Culfa, O.: Can Ertugay. Experimental investigation of photon attenuation behaviors for concretes including natural perlite. Results Phys. 12, 237–243 (2019)ADSGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rammah, Y.S., Sayyed, M.I., Abohaswa, A.S., Tekin, H.O.: electronic polarizability and shielding parameters of B2O3 glasses doped with SnO2. Appl. Phys. A 124, 560 (2018)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Murat, Kurudirek: Heavy metal borate glasses: potential use for radiation shielding. J. Alloy. Compd. 727, 1227–1236 (2017)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kurudirek, M., Chutithanapanon, N., Laopaiboon, R., Yenchai, C., Bootjomchai, C.: Effect of Bi2O3 on gamma ray shielding and structural properties of borosilicate glasses recycled from high pressure sodium lamp glass. J. Alloy. Compd. 745, 355–364 (2018)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Sayyed, M.I., Ersundu, Ç.A.E., Ersundu, G., Kostka, P.L.: Investigation of radiation shielding properties for MeO–PbCl2 –TeO2 (MeO = Bi2O3, MoO3, Sb2 O3, WO3, ZnO) glasses. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 144, 419–425 (2018)ADSGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    El-Mallawany, R., Sayyed, M.I., Dong, M.G., Rammah, Y.S.: Simulation of radiation shielding properties of glasses contain PbO. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 151, 239–252 (2018)ADSGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sayyed, M.I., Al Zaatreh, M.Y., Dong, M.G., Zaid, M.H.M., Matori, K.A., Tekin, H.O.: A comprehensive study of the energy absorption and exposure buildup factors of different bricks for gamma rays shielding. Res. Phys. 7, 2528–2533 (2017)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Pawar, P.P., Bichile, K.G.: Studies on mass attenuation coefficient, effective atomic number and electron density of some amino acids in the energy range 0.122–1.330 MeV. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 92, 22–27 (2013)ADSGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    El-Mallawany, R., Sayyed, M.I., Dong, M.G.: Comparative shielding properties of some tellurite glasses: Part 2. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 474, 16–23 (2017)ADSGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    El-Mallawany, R., Abd El-Moneim, A.: Comparison between the elastic moduli of tellurite and phosphate glasses. Physica Status Solidi (A) Appl. Res. 166, 829–834 (1998)ADSGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    El-Mallawany, R.: Specific heat capacity of semiconducting glasses: Binary vanadium tellurite. Physica Status Solidi (A) Appl. Res. 177, 439–444 (2000)ADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. S. Rammah
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. S. Abouhaswa
    • 1
  • A. H. Salama
    • 2
  • R. El-Mallawany
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physics, Faculty of ScienceMenoufia UniversityShebin El-KoomEgypt
  2. 2.Department of Physical Chemistry, Inorganic Chemical Industries and Mineral Resources DivisionNational Research CentreGizaEgypt

Personalised recommendations