## 3 Results and Discussion
It seems that charge storage in our electrodes originates from the contribution of both processes, as the b-value of CCS-EG is 0.59 and that of for CCS-glycerol electrode is 0.56. The b-value near 0.5 in both cases reflects that the charge storage based on diffusion-controlled intercalation activity is heavier than that of the capacitive process and more prominent in the case of the CCS-glycerol electrode. The involvement of each process in the total charge storage \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Electrode** & **Morphology** & **Specific Capacity/Capacitance (Current Density)** & **Cyclic Stability (\%) (Number of Cycles)** & **Ref.** \\ \hline CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\) & Nanoneedle array & 363 C/g (1 A/g) & - & [1] \\ \hline CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\) & Nanoparticles & 1885 C/g (2 A/g) & 98\% (6000) & [2] \\ \hline CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\) & Flower-like & 908.9 F/g (5 mA/cm\({}^{2}\)) & 91.1\% (2000) & [4] \\ \hline CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\) & Sheet with nanowires & 2879 C/g (1 A/cm\({}^{2}\)) & 87.26\% (10,000) & [7] \\ \hline CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\) & Hollow spheres & 839 F/g (1 A/g) & 95.1\% (10,000) & [10] \\ \hline CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\) & Nanoparticles & 5030 F/g (20 A/g) & 80.5\% (2000) & [13] \\ \hline CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\) & Flake-like cordillera & 2558 F/g (2 A/g) & 99\% (10,000) & [16] \\ \hline CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\) & Micro-nanostructure particles & 90.6 mAh/g (2 A/g) & 99.4\% (2000) & [20] \\ \hline CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\) & Nanosheet-array & 409.2 mAh/g (3 mA/cm\({}^{2}\)) & 91.5\% (10,000) & [22] \\ \hline CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\) & Flower-like & 592 F/g (1 A/g) & 90.4\% (3000) & [24] \\ \hline CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\) & Snowflakes & 986.6 F/g (5 mA/cm\({}^{2}\)) & 87.8\% (10,000) & This work \\ \hline CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\) &
\begin{tabular}{c} Mud-like bricks \\ with rectangular cubes \\ \end{tabular} & 1459.7 F/g (5 mA/cm\({}^{2}\)) & 83.3\% (10,000) & This work \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Comparative analysis of the electrochemical performance of CuCo\({}_{2}\)S\({}_{4}\)-based electrodes with different morphologies. mechanism was evaluated as a percentage at each scan rate for both electrodes as per the following equation [26]:  
\[i(V)=k\
u+k^{\prime}v^{0.5}, \tag{7}\]  
or,  
\[i(V)/v^{\
u/\alpha}=k\
u^{1/2}+k^{\prime}. \tag{8}\]  
Figure 7: Charge-storage kinetics: (**a**) peak current vs. square root of scan rate for CCS-EG and CCS-glycerol; (**b**) b-value plot of both electrodes; (**c**) contribution of diffusion process and capacitive process for CCS-EG; (**d**) contribution of diffusion process and capacitive process for CCS-glycerol; (**e**) CV curve with contribution from diffusion process and capacitive process at 10 mVs\({}^{-1}\) for CCS-EG; (**f**) CV curve with contribution from diffusion process and capacitive process at 10 mVs\({}^{-1}\) for CCS-glycerol. Here, \(k\) and \(k^{\prime}\) give the contribution arising from surface-encouraged capacitive process and diffusion-controlled intercalation activity, respectively. Figure 7c,d shows the contribution (stacked columns) of both processes at various scan rates for CCS-EG and CCS-glycerol electrodes, respectively. As noted from the b-value, the contribution from the diffusion-controlled intercalation process is dominant in the case of both electrodes. The contribution of this process is higher at a lower scan rate and decreases with a further increase in the scan rate. This process is more dominant in the case of CCS-glycerol, which gives about 87.83% at 5 mVs\({}^{-1}\) to the total charge contribution, which is 78.48% in the case of the CCS-EG electrode at the same scan rate. Even at a higher scan rate, the contribution arising from the diffusion-controlled process is higher than that of the capacitive process, reflecting that both CCS electrodes are pseudocapacitive [29].