When we are doing XPS spectra fitting of Ti 2p the peak coming at higher binding energy shows different FHWM and in some research articles, they are not considering FWHM as constant during fitting so area ratio of both the peaks or FWHM what would be appropriate when we deconvolute.
An actual deconvolution of an XPS acquired in CAE (constant analyzer energy) mode is most valid if the FWHM is kept constant. The FWHM is setup-specific while the area ratio is the desired observable.
One more thing: keeping area ratios constant makes sense if you have coupling components that overlap. In the case of Ti2p you have Ti2p1/2 and Ti2p3/2 in the mix which are separated by ca. 4 eV. If these components overlap, you have to keep their aspect ratios constant in addition to the FWHM, of course. That might decrease your R value but increases the validity of your deconvolution fit.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Physics
- Condensed Matter Physics
- Solid State Physics
- PEAKS