In the literature, the majority of the XPS data for Ge surfaces is interpreted using the Ge 3d peak. Why is this the case when the Ge 2p peak is more surface sensitive?
Even if you are right about the Ge 2p (it is also the main photoemission peak), more researchers prefer to acquire Ge 3d spectrum, because it is posible to do it by using Mg source or even lower energy photons from synchrotron. Moreover, it is overlapping with C KLL in the spectra excited by Al source. The best approach is to acquire both Ge peaks, then you have some information about the distribution in-depth.
Even if you are right about the Ge 2p (it is also the main photoemission peak), more researchers prefer to acquire Ge 3d spectrum, because it is posible to do it by using Mg source or even lower energy photons from synchrotron. Moreover, it is overlapping with C KLL in the spectra excited by Al source. The best approach is to acquire both Ge peaks, then you have some information about the distribution in-depth.
Dear Shane , Yes I agree with the previous answer.
The Best is acquire both transitions.
The 3d transition come from electrons with higher kinetc energy and therefore from a greater sampling depth. By other side the Ge2p is more "sensitive" to the Surface, because the photoelectrons are ejected from lower sampling depth.
If the sample presents low Germanium concentration, probably the Ge3d is more usefull. If the sample presents as good germanium concentration the Ge2p will help to understand better the chemical changes in the outermost surface.
I hope it helps
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Esthetics
- Interpretation