The pass energy predominantly affects the resolution of the spectra, i.e. you can compare binding energies and chemical shifts, but if there is a deconvolution, the component widths will have to be different.

It is normal that the intensities in a synchrotron experiment are much higher since there is a lot more excitation. If you talk about relative intensities: these depend on three factors: the excitation-dependent cross section, the penetration depth and the angular distribution factor (see e.g. http://uhv.cheme.cmu.edu/manuals/M470101.pdf for references). If you have corrected the spectra with respect to these, you should end up with at least somewhat comparable relative results.

Depending on the excitation energy of your synchrotron radiation and the used pass energies the FWHM of your peaks will probably be different for both sets of spectra. And since you most probably used different excitation energies in both setups, the cross-sections for the different elements will be different as well, leading to different intensities for different elements. A direct comparison will therefore not be meaningsfull...Why exactly do you want to compare them directly in one plot?

Edit: too late...Jürgen already summarized it nicely.

Dear Deepra,

the pass energy is a technical parameter of your spectrometer. Principially, you can compare spectra with different pass energy, if the physical parameter of the excitation are equal. In your case, polarization, angle of incidence and exciting energy are different. Therefore, it is a high effort to compare the spectra due to the different information you get.

With Regard

R. Mitdank

Dear Jürgen Weippert , Thorsten Schultz , Rüdiger Mitdank ,

Thank you for your answers. I would like to clarify the following:

1) Can you compare spectra of the same sample and excitation energy but different pass energy? I want to compare at% quantification measurements of survey spectra.

2) When carrying out a quantification from survey spectra, the 'Regions' in the 'Quantification Paramaters' window, each element should have the same background or not? And the residual should be on or off?

Thank you for your time.

Dear Maria,

1) It is in principle possible, but requires knowledge of the pass energy dependent analyzer transmission function. A derivation of so called "pass energy sensitivity factors" is described by Hemminger et al. : Article Empirical electron spectrometer transmission function for ap...

2) I don't really get the question. Are you talking about a specific software? Sounds like CasaXPS to me... Using the same background is recommended IMO. And the residual has nothing to do with any quantification, it's just a measure of how good a fit is.

Dear Thorsten Schultz

1) Thank you I will check the document.

2) Yes, I forgot to mention that I am working with CasaXPS, and trying to carry out quantifications from survey spectra. My problem was whether I should use the same background type for different peaks such as: C1s, O1s, K2s of a sample of mine.

Yes, I know that the residual is used in peak fittings of high resolution spectra, such as a C 1s spectrum.

Thank you so much for your feedback, greatly appreciated!

Dear all,

I would like to add a related question: how about the "corrected" area? In casaXPS, for example, we can automatically calculate the corrected area by dividing RSF and other factors from the raw area. Can I compare them directly? I am worried that the samples were prepared in different conditions and dates (e.g., during magnetron sputtering its sputter rate might attenuate).

Please guide us, Thorsten Schultz and Rüdiger Mitdank !