Hi,
I am relatively new to XPS. I have been looking into other papers for reference.
Some data I saw struck me as rather sloppy. But I don't know much about XPS. I need some expert opinion on this.
This paper show XPS data in figure 1H and 1I. But it seems that the peak fitting does not fit well to the spectrum. Are these fitting normally the "ok" standard?
Article Layered double hydroxide composite membrane for advanced alk...
This an on going issue in the literature and there are plenty of people.working on stamping tjese issues out. A big problem is reviewers arent XPS experts at times so dont see what is a good fit or bad fit. If you are new to XPS fitting then take care and check with other, established researchers on your spectral interpretation
Hi Kavin,
I agree with David regarding the issues regarding peak fitting. You have plenty of experts in photoelectron spectroscopy at KTH, try contact the "MATERIAL- OCH NANOFYSIK" division located in Kista or Chemical physics or physics at Stockholm university Albanova.
You can also watch YouTube videos from http://www.casaxps.com/.
There are also questions around this topic at researachgate. Here are a few links: https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_does_one_go_about_analyzing_XPS_peaks and https://www.researchgate.net/post/How_to_fit_XPS_for_PVDF_what_is_the_correct_FWHM_how_to_ascertain_the_correct_value_of_FWHM.
Good luck!
/John
Interpretation and display of XPS data are rudimentary understanding and extraction of the elements present from materials to advanced peak fitting and background analysis, it reveals the chemical state and morphology of the sample. In XPS it is useful to identify her two spectral ranges: That is, the core region (electrons with binding energy, BE, 30 eV) and valence band region (BE < 30 eV). In the core region, spectral features arise from photoelectrons generated from nuclear energy levels.
The component peak is specified using a mathematical function, line shape, and fitting parameters that vary the component peak in various ways, such as position, FWHM, area, Lorentzian, asymmetry, and Gaussian. First 4 of these parameters apply to all peaks and possibly to the last two peaks. The set of component peaks is summed (the sum of all component peaks) and added to the background to approximate the original data shell.
Dear Kavin Teenakul
To answer your question:
These fits are not ok and should not be accepted by reviewers. As David J. Morgan pointed out already, unfortunately often reviewers are apparently neither experts in XPS nor spectral fitting.
Here are some articles to help you get started with XPS fitting and to avoid common mistakes:
-Singh B, Hesse R and Linford M R 2015 Good practices for XPS (and other types of) peak fitting Vac. Technol. Coat. 16 25–31
-Shard A G 2020 Practical guides for x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy: quantitative XPS J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 38 041201
-Major G H, Fairley N, Sherwood P M A, Linford M R, Terry J, Fernandez V and Artyushkova K 2020 Practical guide for curve fitting in x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 38 061203
-Tougaard S 2021 Practical guide to the use of backgrounds in quantitative XPS J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 39 011201
-Schultz T. 2022 A unified secondary electron cut-off presentation and common mistakes in photoelectron spectroscopy Electron. Struct. 4 044002
- Badges
- Science topic