Common XPS Questions - Insights from Workshop Participants

From a recent online workshop I had received 92 submitted questions from the participants prior to the date of the workshop. Using ChatGPT to summarize the top 10 themes related to the question reveals an interesting take on common XPS user struggles. In the main portion of the workshop I cover themes 1, 3 and 10 fairly completely, while touching on themes 2, 4 and 6 as well. I further expand on theme 6 (backgrounds) at 1:03:09 in the video, and cover theme 8 (O 1s) at 1:41:49.  Of particular interest is my take on themes 5 and 7 - charge correction, charging effects, insulating samples and, in particular, defending  the usage of adventitious carbon (AdC) in our charge correction methodologies. See 1:11:35 in the video.  

  
1️⃣ Reliable Peak Fitting & Deconvolution
How to perform defensible, physically meaningful peak fitting — avoiding overfitting while properly handling multiplets, satellites, asymmetry, and constraints.
2️⃣ Overlapping Peaks in Complex Systems
Strategies for separating overlapping core levels (e.g., Fe/Co, Ba–Co, Cr/Te, C 1s overlaps) and mixed-phase materials.
3️⃣ Oxidation State Identification
How to confidently distinguish oxidation states (e.g., Fe²⁺/Fe³⁺, Mn multivalency, Ag⁰ vs Ag⁺) and interpret satellite structures.
4️⃣ Quantitative Accuracy
How to correctly calculate atomic percentages, apply RSFs, account for transmission functions, and interpret stoichiometry mismatches.
5️⃣ Energy Referencing & Carbon Correction
Reliability of C 1s calibration, handling adventitious carbon, alternatives to carbon referencing, and the impact of improper calibration.
6️⃣ Background Selection & Fitting Parameters
Correct choice of inelastic background (Shirley vs Tougaard), FWHM constraints, peak shapes, spin–orbit rules, and acceptable χ² values.
7️⃣ Charging Effects (Especially Insulators & Operando Work)
How to detect, correct, and minimize charging in powders, polymers, biological materials, and electrochemical systems.
8️⃣ Oxygen Peak Interpretation
Deconvoluting O 1s spectra in mixed oxides, identifying oxygen vacancies, and resolving oxygen contributions in multi-metal systems.
9️⃣ Publication Standards & Reviewer Expectations
How many components are acceptable? Is peak fitting mandatory? What are common reviewer criticisms? How should survey and HR spectra be presented?
🔟 Surface Sensitivity & Depth Information
Understanding probing depth, interaction volume, oxide thickness estimation, surface vs subsurface contributions, and when XPS truly represents “surface-only” chemistry.

Calculating Oxygen Content from Adventitious Carbon 1s Spectra

Adventitious carbon (AdC) is commonly detected in X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) analyses of most samples. While AdC can be beneficial in some cases, such as for charge correction purposes during the analysis of insulators, its associated C–O functionalities can complicate the interpretation of O 1s spectra. Accurately accounting for AdC’s contribution within the O 1s spectrum is essential but challenging due to significant spectral overlap and poorly resolved components in the high-resolution O 1s spectrum.

Rather than assigning multiple components without clear physical meaning—potentially leading to misinterpretations—incorporating stoichiometry offers a more reliable approach to improving data accuracy. However, applying stoichiometry can be tedious and challenging, particularly for novice users.

A recently published article [1] describes an approximation to enhance oxygen spectra interpretation by estimating oxygen linked to AdC. This publication provides background information, key assumptions, and an easy-to-use Excel calculator to assist XPS researchers in analyzing their own O 1s spectra.

This approach is particularly useful for accurately quantifying survey spectra when AdC influence must be minimized and for modelling high-binding-energy components in the oxygen 1s spectrum. The latter example is important to many transition metal oxides which have overlapping hydroxide and/or defect oxide components in the same binding energy window. Detailed examples of these applications are presented and discussed in reference [1]. These types of calculations were originally introduced in [2].

This Excel based calculator (also available at supplementary material in [1]) takes information from the survey and high resolution carbon 1s spectra and determines the amount of oxygen that is present from adventitious carbon species. This amount can then be deducted from the overall oxygen concentration.
(Note: you must download the file to Excel to use it - it is locked in Google Docs).

References:

[1] J.D. Henderson, B.P. Payne, N.S. McIntyre, M.C. Biesinger, Surf. Interface Anal. 57 (2025) 214-220.
[2] B.P. Payne, M.C. Biesinger, N.S. McIntyre, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 184 (2011) 29-37.

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.  A similar study confirming the utility of the adventitious carbon technique with a similar multi-user facility analysis has been published by Morgan [6].

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 [7] 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] D.J. Morgan, Surf. Interface Anal. 57 (2025) 28.
[7] G. Beamson, D. Briggs, High Resolution XPS of Organic Polymers - The Scienta ESCA300 Database Wiley Interscience, 1992.