Search

This study considers how poor x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) peak fitting in the scientific literature is both affected by previous precedent and affects future published work. It focuses on a highly cited paper (the "Subject" paper) from a respected journal that contains incorrect S 2p peak fits. This paper was studied in a genealogical fashion vis-à-vis the XPS peak fitting in its "child," "parent," "grandparent," and "great-grandparent" papers. Interestingly, precedents were not followed to a high degree between parent and child papers. However, in many cases, even when the authors of a study did not follow the incorrect precedent that they cited, they still incorrectly fit their data. Thus, not necessarily for good reasons, the effects of poor XPS peak fits on future generations of papers may be less than some experts had expected or feared. In many cases, older papers appear to contain better XPS peak fitting than newer ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In contrast to traditional X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), hard X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (HAXPES) can provide information from deeper within a sample while maintaining chemical resolution. However, working with higher energy X‐rays introduces a series of new or different issues ranging from energy calibration to factors associated with quantitative analysis. As part of the efforts to identify and increase community awareness about these issues, a workshop was held to review HAXPES metrology challenges with the perspective of converting it into a quantitative technique. A summary is hereby given of this workshop, which was entitled "What New Challenges Come with the Capabilities of HAXPES?" It was held in Portland, OR, USA, on November 7, 2023, and was primarily sponsored by the ASTM E42 Committee and the Applied Surface Science Division of the American Vacuum Society. This report contains summaries of the presentations and discussions at this workshop regarding the current open problems in HAXPES metrology. There were 20 participants at the workshop. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) has become a highly important tool for the analysis of battery materials and components. However, both anecdotal and detailed analysis of selected parts of the literature indicate that many reports of XPS on battery electrodes have significant analysis or data flaws. In this paper, we highlight several of the common challenges that analysts face when using XPS for battery materials, pointing to recent literature that addresses many of the critical issues associated with sample preparation as well as data collection and analysis. A common error for battery materials (and other materials) involves ignoring peak overlaps and interferences. Specifically, when a "minor" peak associated with a component in relatively high concentration overlaps or contributes to the primary peak (or one recommended for quantitative analysis) from a different element in the material. Overlap issues apply to many battery electrodes composed of many elements with complex photoelectron peak structures, as well as those involving peaks with seemingly simpler spectral envelopes such as Li and F. Examples of issues associated with battery systems are highlighted by a discussion of challenges associated with XPS analysis of Li and nickel–manganese–cobalt (NMC) electrodes in battery systems. Lithium analysis has challenges associated with the preparation and an often‐unrecognized peak overlap with F. In our laboratory and in the literature, NMC electrodes are often examined and new XPS users do not always recognize interference of the Auger signal from FKLL (in or on the electrode) with Ni 2p photoelectron spectrum when generated with Al Kα X‐rays. The use of simulated spectra involving both F and NiO demonstrates the extent of F Auger contributions to the Ni 2p signal strength as a function of the F/Ni atom ratio in the material and suggests spectra information that can be used to identify how significant effects will be on the resultant spectra. Our analysis demonstrates that in many cases overlap issues are significant for real electrode materials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]