XPS Reference Pages

This site contains information gained from decades of X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analyses of an enormous variety of samples analyzed at Surface Science Western laboratories located at the Western University (London, Ontario). Originally this site was designed as a place for students and our clients to access valuable tips and information. It has since been opened to all those interested in the XPS technique. Summaries of literature data, relevant references and unpublished data taken of well characterized standard samples are presented. Also curve-fitting tips, instrument set-up tips (specifically for the Kratos AXIS Supra, Ultra and Nova), and CasaXPS tips pertaining to questions we normally get from our students and clients, and other odd bits of information are presented.

The fine print:
Surface Science Western and the University of Western Ontario does not warranty any of the information shown at this site. Any use of this data in scientific publications or other forms should include referencing to the originally published data referenced herein.

What is Adventitious Carbon?

A thin layer of carbonaceous material is usually found on the surface of most air exposed samples, this layer is generally known as adventitious carbon. Even small exposures to atmosphere can produce these films. Adventitious carbon is generally comprised of a variety of (relatively short chain [1]) hydrocarbons species with small amounts of both singly and doubly bound oxygen functionality. The source of this carbon has been debated over the years. It does not appear to be graphitic in nature and in most modern high vacuum systems vacuum oils are not readily present (as they have been in the past) [1,2,3,4]. There may be some evidence that CO or CO2 species may play a role in the gradual appearance of carbon on pristine surfaces within the vacuum of the XPS chamber [3].

It’s presence on insulating surfaces provides for a convenient charge reference by setting the main line of the C 1s spectrum to 284.8 eV (although values ranging from 285.0 eV to 284.5 eV have been used in some cases, remember to check for this value when looking for binding energy references in the literature). The error in this value (284.8 eV) is, for most systems, on the order of +/-0.2 eV to 0.3 eV.  An in-depth look at the effectiveness of using AdC for charge correction purposes, including standardized fitting procedures, is presented in [5].

  

Work by Grey et al. [6] has explored the nature of adventitious carbon by XPS and time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (ToF-SIMS).  XPS D-parameter and ToF-SIMS analyses confirms that AdC is not graphitic in nature. An average C 1s spectrum for AdC (Figure 1, Table 1) was derived and shows that, on average, ~ 25 % of the carbon species in AdC is directly associated with oxygen functionality.  Similarly, ToF-SIMS analyses show that AdC is comprised of mainly short chain hydrocarbons with some oxygen functionality.

An advanced method for curve-fitting of the C 1s envelope for AdC (Table 2) was developed that included the effects of beta carbons (in this context, the alpha carbon is the carbon directly attached to the oxygen, and the beta carbon is attached to the alpha carbon) and were informed by the configurations of possible volatile organic compounds (VOC) that are the source of most AdC [6]. Using this method in combination with the dataset from [5], the average C–C/C–H AdC aliphatic peak position was shown to be 284.81 eV (+/- 0.25 eV) via verification with a secondary internal reference.

Figure 1. Average of 80 adventitious carbon C 1s XPS spectra.

Table 1. Average adventitious carbon C 1s fitting parameters from an average of 80 AdC spectra.

Table 2. Curve-fitting parameters for AdC C 1s including shifted beta peaks (*) (peaks E, F and G). Areas for peaks A, B, C, and D should be left unconstrained. # If peak-shape for peak D is well-defined the FWHM constraint can be removed.

References:

[1] T.L. Barr, S. Seal, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 13(3) (1995) 1239.

[2] P. Swift, Surf. Interface Anal. 4 (1982) 47.
[3] D.J. Miller, M.C. Biesinger, N.S. McIntyre, Surf. Interface Anal. 33 (2002) 299.
[4] H. Piao, N.S. McIntyre, Surf. Interface Anal. 33 (2002) 591.

[5] M.C. Biesinger, Appl. Surf. Sci, 597 (2022) 153681.

[6] L.H. Grey, H.-Y. Nie, M.C. Biesinger, Appl. Surf. Sci. 653 (2024) 159319.

Using Adventitious Carbon for Charge Correcting

The C 1s spectrum for adventitious carbon can be fit as follows.  A single peak, ascribed to alkyl type carbon (C-C, C-H), is fit to the main peak of the C 1s spectrum.  A second peak is added that is constrained to be 1.5 eV above the main peak, of equal FWHM to the main peak (C-C, C-H). This higher binding energy peak is ascribed to alcohol and/or ester functionality (C-OH, C-O-C). Further high binding energy components can be added if required. For example: C=O at approximately 3 eV above the main peak and O-C=O at 3.8 to 4.3 eV above the main peak. One or both of these peaks may also have to be constrained to the FWHM of the main peak if they are poorly resolved.  Reference [1] and the table below outline standard starting fitting parameters for adventitious carbon. 

Adventitious carbon C 1s curve-fitting parameters [1].

Spectra from insulating samples can then be charge corrected by shifting all peaks to the adventitious C 1s spectral component (C-C, C-H) binding energy set to 284.8 eV. There is certainly error associated with this assignment. Swift [2] lists a number of studies showing errors ranging from ±0.1eV to ±0.4 eV.  “Newer” studies (late 1970's) range from ±0.1 to ±0.3 eV. “Older” studies (late 1960's to early 1970's) were in the ±0.4eV range - however, reproducibility and resolution of the spectrometers of the time may have played a role.  Barr's [3] work from 1995 states that error in using adventitious carbon is ±0.2 eV.  Our work [4] in 2002 also suggests error in the ±0.2eV to  ±0.3eV range.  Experience with numerous conducting samples (1995 to present) and a routinely calibrated instrument have shown that the C 1s signal generally ranges from 284.7 eV to as high as 285.2 eV [5].  Reference [1] presents a detailed assessment of the analysis of insulating samples from a multi-user facility from over a 5-year period that showed an adventitious C 1s (C-C, C-H) binding of 284.91 eV ±0.25eV.  

For organic systems, especially polymers, it is convenient to charge correct to the C-C, C-H signal set to 285.0 eV. This makes for easier comparison to the polymer handbook [6] which uses this number for charge correction.

References:
[1] M.C. Biesinger, Appl. Surf. Sci, 597 (2022) 153681.

[2] T.L. Barr, S. Seal, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 13(3) (1995) 1239.
[3] P. Swift, Surf. Interface Anal. 4 (1982) 47.
[4] D.J. Miller, M.C. Biesinger, N.S. McIntyre, Surf. Interface Anal. 33 (2002) 299.
[5] M.C. Biesinger, unpublished results
[6] G. Beamson, D. Briggs, High Resolution XPS of Organic Polymers - The Scienta ESCA300 Database Wiley Interscience, 1992.

Graphitic/Graphene/Carbon Nanotube C 1s Curve-Fitting

Materials of a graphitic nature (e.g., graphite, graphene, carbon nanotubes etc.) will have a C 1s main peak, attributed to C=C, which can be used as a charge reference set to 284.5 eV. An average of values for graphite from 21 references from the NIST database [1] is 284.46 eV with a standard deviation of 0.14 eV. Note that the well characterized value of 284.5 eV for graphitic carbon is also a strong indicator that this value is not appropriate as a value to use for AdC charge referencing. While these types of samples are generally conductive and if they can be mounted in a manor (in electrical contact with the sample stage) to take advantage of this one should do so. However, many of these types of samples come as a small volume of powders or flakes which are very difficult to mount. Usually, we mount these on a double-sided adhesive which works well but electrically isolates the sample. Oxidation of these types of samples (e.g., graphene oxide) or their functionalization (e.g., functionalized CNTs) can result in them behaving less conductively or as a mixed conductive/insulating material.  Samples where these materials are mixed with other conducting or insulating compounds can also result in a mixed conductive/insulating sample. For most of these types of samples we now electrically isolate the sample and charge reference to C 1s at 284.5 eV for the graphitic (C=C) peak.[2]

Table 1 from [2] presents general fitting parameters for graphitic, graphene and carbon nanotube type materials. These starting fitting parameters include the main peak asymmetry (defined using an asymmetric Lorentzian (LA) line shape) and π to π* shake-up satellite from a pure graphite standard sample. These fitting parameters are similar to the approach taken by Morgan (Fig. 5, Table 2) [3],  Moeini et al. (Table 1) [4],  and Gengenbach et al.[5]  It is always best to run your own standard (pure graphite, graphene, CNT etc.) to get fitting parameters appropriate for your sample type, instrument and conditions used. Slight differences in the main peak asymmetry and differing shake-up satellite position, shape and intensities are possible for differing classes of graphitic materials. See for example from Morgan[3] where HOPG and nano-onion C 1s spectra show peak-shape differences, likely due to hydrogenation of the sample. However, with this caveat stated, the parameters used based on a graphite standard have worked very well for variety of samples (134) analyzed in the five-year data survey from [2]. Figure 1(A) presents the standard graphite spectrum used to obtain the parameters presented in Table 1. The spectra from Figure 1(B, C and D) show the use of these fitting parameters from Table 1 to effectively model a variety of graphitic component containing materials. 

Table 1. General fitting parameters for graphitic/graphene/carbon nanotube type materials. #Line-shape details for CasaXPS. Define asymmetric peak-shape in other software using pure graphite/graphene or CNT sample related your specimens. ##Gaussian/Lorentzian product formula, GL(30) is 30% Lorentzian 70% Gaussian.[2]

Figure 1.  Examples of curve-fitting of graphitic type systems using the parameters from Table 1.  A) pure graphite, B) carbon nanotube-based material modified in caustic solution, C) oxidized graphene and D) acid modified graphene and organic compound mixture.[2]

References:
[1] C.D. Wagner, A.V. Naumkin, A. Kraut-Vass, J.W. Allison, C.J. Powell, J.R.Jr. Rumble, NIST Standard Reference Database 20, Version 3.4 (web version) (http:/srdata.nist.gov/xps/) 2003.
[2] M.C. Biesinger, Appl. Surf. Sci. 597 (2022) 153681.
[3] D.J. Morgan, J. Carbon. Res. 7 (2021) 51.
[4] B. Moeini, M.R. Linford, N. Fairley, A. Barlow, P. Cumpson, D. Morgan, V. Fernandez, J. Baltrusaitis. Surf. Interface Anal. 54 (2022) 67.
[5] T.R. Gengenbach, G.H. Major, M.R. Linford, C.D. Easton, J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A, 39 (2021) 013204.

Systematic and Collaborative Approach to Problem Solving using X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy

Our recent article [1] in Applied Surface Science Advances highlights methodology developed as a result of years of interactions between many junior and senior X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) users operating within the CasaXPS spectral processing and interpretation program framework. In particular, discussions arising from a series of workshops have been a significant source for developing the overall XPS data processing concept and are the motivation for creating this work. These workshops organized by the Institut des Matériaux Jean Rouxel (IMN), Nantes gather both experienced and novice users of XPS for a week of discourse in conceptual experiment design and the resulting data processing. However, the framework constructed and utilized within these workshops encouraged the dissemination of knowledge beyond XPS data analysis and emphasized the importance of a multi-disciplinary collaborative approach to surface analysis problem-solving. The material presented here embodies data treatment originating from data made available to the first CNRS Thematic Workshop presented at Roscoff 2013. The methodology described here has evolved over the subsequent workshops in 2016 and 2019 and currently represents the philosophy used in CasaXPS spectral data processing paradigm.

This article also serves as a useful reference descriptor of the CasaXPS software program. 

Reference:

[1] N. Fairley, V. Fernandez, M. Richard‐Plouet, C. Guillot-Deudon, J.Walton, E. Smith, D. Flahaut, M. Greiner, M. Biesinger, S. Tougaard, D. Morgan, J. Baltrusaitis, Systematic and collaborative approach to problem solving using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, Applied Surface Science Advances, 5 (2021) 100112.