First, you need to highlight all the elements in your samples. This can provide you several suggestions of which could be suitable or not depending on the stoichiometric calculations you used. Choose the best choice which is normally marked by * .

Hi,

See you have doped ZnS with Mn. So now you will have either shifting of ZnS peaks compared to the undoped Zns or side phases. You will have an option like search elements in ICDD data base. Click on Zn, S & Mn. If you don't get a pattern then click on Zn & S alone.. Good luck

Dear Vadiraj,

look at the answer by Moayad Flaifel (first). Second: please, formulate your questions without using a jargon. Imagine: what will be consequences for you, if you will speak with students on a your own jargon? Who will understand you?

I would like to add few more points to my answer..

You have ZnS and you doped with Mn. In generally, if it forms isomorphous compound compared to the host material , then crystal structure type will not be changed, only the dimensions(a,b,c) of the crystal .But if the size of the doping ion is different and the substituting metal forms an another type of compound, at a given level of doping the structure will be changed.Because of the difference of forces due to size/charge ratio.

Dear Satish

I compared with literature The difference between ZnS and ZnS doped with Mn gives the difference in the intensity of thew peak rather than shift in peak. I am looking for justifying my results through JCPDS.

Hi, Vadiraj!

There you are. So the metal is not entered into the lattice, it's on the surface. I doped with Mg for one compound. Even I had a change in the intensity of the peaks rather than the shiftng or side phases. (Sometimes change in intensity occurs through cooling/heating type too. But here you must have followed the same conditions for both doped and undoped I guess)

#Matteo Leoni is the best choice to answer these kind of questions. I am tagging him , see.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matteo_Leoni

Dear Vadiraj

Lost of software are available in the internet to interpret the xrd data

Kindly download it and solve the peak values

Better you go for review literature for your compound

it will give an idea to you

All the very best

Hi Everyone! I intend to ruffle some feathers shamelessly and learn.

This is the classic "grope in dark XRD" that is being practiced for the past century (since the Braggs) using the ubiquitous 0D point counter and the low resolution equatorial scan conventional linear powder diffractometery (ala Debye-Scherrer) through integrated intensity of entire 2D XRD signal. Folks spend hours collecting the data and then more futile hours pontificating about the "blind" linear conventional diffractogram. I know I just shot myself in the foot and that it is going to hurt, ouch! I can almost predict the "perfect storm" of responses from those practicing in the “voodoo art” of XRD with "eyes closed" (blind). Good news is that RG allows me to edit (eat my words, retract, delete etc.) :-) Thankfully!

Firstly, when you folks are speaking of intensity variations, it better be relative intensities that you are commenting about. Secondly, with a conventional linear diffractogram there is no way to eliminate preferred orientation, "particle" shape, sample displacement from the diffractometer axis, sample prep and loading as one of the causes without spatial reference. Certainly not without the advantage of real time 2D XRD "vision". Thirdly, post your data on RG to get the best advice from some of the world's brightest minds. Leverage to the max! I'm going to "shake the tree of knowledge" to see what fruits descend? :-)

Historical Perspective: (2D reciprocal space data versus 1D)

X-ray Diffraction In Crystals, Imperfect Crystals and Amorphous Bodies by Andre Guinier. 1962 - Great book! Worth acquiring for your XRD collection.https://www.flickr.com/photos/85210325@N04/10515372183/in/set-72157645018820696

(pp. 162-163) 6.3.5. "Comparison between the Photographic and Counter Methods

It is obvious that the Geiger Counter and the ionization chamber have the advantage of precision and sensitivity. They alone permit a quantitative study of scattering. However, point by point measurements in reciprocal space are lengthy, while the photographic method gives directly a picture of the scattering in a single experiment over a large surface of reciprocal space. The resolving power of the film is excellent. Thus, sharply defined scattering regions, for example on rows or on planes of reciprocal lattice, show up very clearly on photographic film but are difficult to detect with a counter.

Let us note also that the counter is "blind". In many cases inaccuracies in the setup produce stray scattering which is easy to detect on the photographic film but which can spoil a series of experiments made with a counter.

The two methods are therefore complimentary and it would not be advisable to neglect one in favor of the other. The photographic method is admirably suited to the qualitative exploration of an unknown pattern, since one can then find totally unexpected phenomena. The counter is necessary for quantitative measurements on a pattern which is already known qualitatively."

This was printed in 1962. This has to be considered in light of the present day 2D detectors that combine the benefits of the counter & the film in one. These writings indicate some causes for the present day inertia of moving from the 0D to the modern 2D detectors. The spatial "blindness" of the 0D scintillation counter/detector is the principal reason even experienced experts using XRD are ambivalent about the 0D XRD data/results.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/85210325@N04/11604959265/in/set-72157645018820696

That was a wonderful answer Sir@ Ravi ananth

Thank you Ravi ananth sir.

Here found a additional tool, find the attachment.