Quantitative Analysis

Semi-quantitative analysis is possible by measuring the peak areas of specific elemental core lines (I) and by applying appropriate atomic sensitivity factors (S), also known as relative sensitivity factors (RSF), using the general equation:

Cx = (Ix/Sx) / (∑Ii/Si

where Cx is the atomic fraction of element x in a sample[1]. The sensitivity factors can be calculated from theory or derived empirically from the analysis of standard samples. The use of standard samples is the preferred method (and is the method applied in the Kratos line of spectrometers). Peak areas are defined by applying an appropriate background correction across the binding energy range of the peaks of interest. In general, three types of backgrounds are used: 1) a simple straight line or linear background, 2) the Shirley background in which the background intensity at any given binding energy is proportional to the intensity of the total peak area above the background in the lower binding energy peak range[2] (i.e. the background goes up in proportion to the total number of secondary photoelectrons below its binding energy position) and 3) the Tougaard background (or Tougaard universal cross-section approach) which offers practical background computation (based on electron energy losses) with more control over the background shape then the Shirley procedure[3]. The simple linear background suffers from large peak area changes depending on the position of the chosen end points and is the least accurate. The Tougaard background is the most accurate but suffers from complications in practical use, particularly if there are peak overlaps at binding energies above the integrated peak. The Shirley background is reasonably accurate and its ease of use has resulted in its widespread adoption.

References:
[1] J.F. Moulder, W.F. Stickle, P.E. Sobol, K.D. Bomben, Handbook of X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy, Perkin-Elmer Corp, Eden Prairie, MN, 1992.
[2] M.P. Seah, Quantification of AES and XPS, in: D. Briggs, M.P.Seah (Eds.), Practical Surface Analysis by Auger and X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester UK, 1983, p. 204.
[3] Neal Fairley, XPS lineshapes and Curve Fitting, in: D. Briggs, J.T. Grant (Eds.), Surface Analysis by Auger and X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy, IM Publications, Chichester UK, 2003, p. 398.

Depth of Analysis, Inelastic Mean Free Path

The inelastic mean free path, or IMFP (λ), is defined as the average distance that an electron with a given energy travels between successive inelastic collisions. One sigma (σ) (or 68 %) of all photoelectrons will come from within one λ of depth, while the majority (3σ or 99.7 %) of photoelectrons will come from 3λ. For most core electrons excited by Al Kα X-rays this depth is on the order of a few nm. Denser elements/compounds will have shallower IMFPs as will core electrons with greater binding energies (i.e. smaller kinetic energies). With the appropriate equations, as defined in references[1,2] the IMFP can be used to calculate the thickness of oxide films and thin overlayers. By tilting the sample with respect to the analyzer one can change the effective IMFP. This is known as angle resolved XPS and it is useful for gaining an understanding of thin surface layers. This type of analysis can also be achieved using synchrotron radiation through manipulation of the incident X-ray energy. 

References:
[1] T.A. Carlson, G.E. McGuire, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 1 (1972/73) 161.
[2] B.R. Strohmeier, Surf. Interface Anal. 15 (1990) 51.

An Overview of X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy

X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), alternatively named electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis (ESCA), is now a well-established surface analysis technique capable of providing elemental and chemical state information from the outer 5 to 10 nm of a solid surface. It is the subject of several well-known texts[1,2,3]. There is also an excellent recent review[4] of some of the latest technical advances. 

The technique is based on the photoelectric effect, discovered by Hertz in 1887, where the emission of electrons from a material occurs under photon irradiation. While early XPS experiments showed promise it was not until much later that the true power of the technique would be revealed. In the 1950s, Kai Siegbahn (Uppsala University, Sweden), using a high-resolution spectrometer and a Cu Kα X-ray source, for the first time resolved the sharp peak at the high kinetic “edge” seen by previous studies. This enabled, for the first time, accurate determination of photoelectron kinetic energies and thus core level binding energies. In 1981 Siegbahn was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics for this pioneering work[5].

When an X-ray of known energy (hν), generally, with laboratory-based equipment either Al Kα at 1486.7eV or Mg Kα at 1253.6eV, interacts with an atom, a photoelectron can be emitted via the photoelectric effect (Figure 1). The emitted electron’s kinetic energy (Ek) can be measured and the atomic core level binding energy (Eb) relative to the Fermi level (EF) of the sample can be determined using the following equation:

Eb = hν – Ek – Φsp                 

where Φsp is the work function of the spectrometer (typically 4 to 5 eV). The various core level binding energies observed in a spectrum can be used to identify all the elements of the periodic table except for hydrogen and helium. Chemical state information can also be extracted because binding energies are sensitive to the chemical environment of the atom. Chemical environments that deshield the atom of interest (i.e. are bound to strongly electron withdrawing groups) will cause the core electrons of that atom to have increased binding energies. Conversely, decreased binding energies will be measured for core electrons of atoms that withdraw electrons from their neighbouring atoms. Essentially, binding energy will generally increase as chemical state number increases. As an example, niobium metal has a 3d5/2 binding energy of 202.2 eV, while niobium 2+, 4+ and 5+ oxides have binding energies of 203.7 eV, 206.2 eV and 207.4 eV. Tabulations of binding energies can be found in a variety of databases[6,7].


Figure 1. Schematic of the photoemission of a Ni 2p3/2 electron from a nickel atom.

References:
[1] S. Hufner, Photoelectron Spectroscopy, Solid State Science Series, vol. 82 Springer, Berlin, 1995.
[2] D. Briggs, M.P. Seah (Eds.), Practical Surface Analysis by Auger and X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1983.
[3] D. Briggs, J.T. Grant (Eds.),Surface Analysis by Auger and X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy, IM Publications, Chichester, 2003.
[4] C.S. Fadley, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 178/179 (2010) 2.
[5] D. Briggs, J.T. Grant, Perspectives on XPS and AES, in: D. Briggs, J.T. Grant (Eds.), Surface Analysis by Auger and X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy, IM Publications, Chichester, 2003, pp. 1-12.
[6] J.F. Moulder, W.F. Stickle, P.E. Sobol, K.D. Bomben, Handbook of X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy, Perkin-Elmer Corp, Eden Prairie, MN, 1992.
[7] 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.

Shake Up Structure

There is a finite probability that an ion (after photoionization) will be left in a specific excited energy state a few eV above the ground state through excitation of the ion by the outgoing photoelectron. When this happens, the kinetic energy of the emitted photoelectron is reduced and this will be seen as a “shake-up” peak at a higher binding energy than the main line. Shake up lines are common with paramagnetic states. The classic example of shake-up structure is seen in the 2p3/2 spectrum for Cu(II) species such as that for Cu(OH)2 and CuO seen in Figure 1. The shake-up seen for transition metals can also be described as a strong configuration interaction in the final state involving significant ligand-metal charge transfer that results in an extra 3d or 4f electron compared to the initial state. In this case of CuO there is a shake-up of a 3d electron leading to a 2p53d9 configuration[1]. The strength and shape of the shake-up features can aid in the assignment of chemical states. This can be seen in Figure 1 where the two Cu(II) species show different shake-up structures[2].  Changes in the shake-up structure are also seen for a wide range of Cu(II) species (Figure 2) [3].

Figure 1. Shake-up structure in Cu 2p spectra of copper (II) hydroxide (Cu(OH)2, top) and copper (II) oxide (CuO, bottom)[2]. 


Figure 2. Cu 2p spectra of various Cu(II) species[3].

References:
[1] F. de Groot, A. Kotani “Core Level Spectroscopy of Solids” CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2008, p 147.
[2] M.C. Biesinger, L.W.M. Lau, A.R. Gerson, R.St.C. Smart, Appl. Surf. Sci. 257 (2010) 887.
[3] M.C. Biesinger, Surf. Interface Anal. 49 (2017) 1325.


XPS Instrument Manufacturers

The Kratos AXIS Supra (front, installed 2018) and Kratos AXIS Nova (back - installed 2007) located at Surface Science Western at the University of Western Ontario. These instruments are equipped with a variety of X-ray sources and sample preparation options.

The Kratos AXIS Ultra (front, installed 2000, decomissioned 2018) and Kratos AXIS Nova (back) located at Surface Science Western at the University of Western Ontario.

Some of the main XPS manufacturers include:
Kratos Analytical
Thermo Scientific
Physical Electronics (PHI)
VG Scienta

Chlorine

Cl 2p3/2 binding energies[1].  a) From standards run at Surface Science Western.

Note: Cl 2p3/2 - 2p1/2 separation is 1.60 eV

Cl 2s: 271 eV
Cl 3s: 17 eV
Cl 3p: 6 eV

On a Cl+ ion bombarded silicon wafer surface, Cl 2p3/2 for Cl-Si is 199.4 eV and for Cl-O-Si is 200.8 eV [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] I. Bello, W.H. Chang, W.M. Lau, J. Appl. Phys. 75 (1994) 3092. 

Cu LMM Peak Shapes

The Cu LMM peak shape (in addition to the Auger parameter and Cu 2p3/2 peak position and shape) can also be useful in determining Cu chemical states. It is particularly useful when determining Cu metal versus Cu (I) in the absence of Cu (II) species. Comparison of unknown spectra to the standard Cu LMM spectra can be used to estimate the relative amounts of each.


Figure 1. Cu LMM Auger spectra for Cu metal (top, left), Cu2O (top, right), CuO (bottom, left) and Cu(OH)2 (bottom, right) [1].

[1] M.C. Biesinger, unpublished data (2013).

UPDATE:
New work published using Cu LMM spectra - see:
M.C. Biesinger, Advanced Analysis of Copper X-ray Photoelectron (XPS) Spectra, Surface and Interface Analysis, 49 (2017) 1325-1334.

Asymmetry Parameters

The Asymmetry Parameter is needed in the calculation of Effective Attenuation Lengths (EAL). Follow this link to a very handy site that gives photoionization cross-sections and asymmetry parameters for all the elements.  This data comes from references 1 and 2.

Reference:
[1] J.J. Yeh, Atomic Calculation of Photoionization Cross-Sections and Asymmetry Parameters, Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Langhorne, PE (USA), 1993.
[2] J.J. Yeh and I. Lindau, Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables 32 (1985) 1-155.

Ruthenium

Ru3d5/2 binding energy values[1].

Notes [2]:
The Ru 3d3/2 peak will overlap with C 1s.
Ru 3d5/2-3d3/2 splitting: 4.17 eV
Ru 3p3/2: 462 eVRu 3p1/2: 484 eV
Ru 3s: 586 eV
Ru 4p: 43 eV
Ru 4s: 75 eV

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] J.F. Moulder, W.F. Stickle, P.E. Sobol, K.D. Bomben, Handbook of X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy, Perkin-Elmer Corp, Eden Prairie, MN, 1992.

Yttrium

Y 3d5/2 binding energy values.

Y 3d/52-3/2 splitting is 2.05 eV.
Y 3p3/2: 299 eV
Y 3p1/2: 311 eV
Y 3s: 394 eV
Y 4p: 24 eV
Y 4s: 45 eV

Y 3d5/2 and 3d3/2 metal lineshape: LA(1.4,6,3), FWHM ~ 0.5 to 0.6 eV.
Y 3d spectrum of sputter cleaned yttrium metal.  Note that the metal surface quickly reacts with even low levels of oxygen within the vacuum system.

 Y 3d spectrum of YPO4.