Engineering topics
Baer, Donald R.
Publications and source records attributed to Baer, Donald R..
Importance of standard terminology in surface chemical analysis: ISO 18115-1:2023, general terms and terms used in spectroscopy
The International Standard ISO 18115-1 on terminology in surface chemical analysis has been revised with clarifications, modifications, and deletions to more than 70 terms and with the addition of more than 50 terms in response to trends, issues, and needs identified by the surface analysis community. This revision adds terminology and concepts associated with emerging methods such as atom probe tomography, near ambient pressure XPS, and hard X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy. It includes 25 new and revised terms to ensure that the description of resolution is consistent across all surface analysis methods. The 630 terms in the document cover words or phrases used in describing the samples, instruments, and concepts involved in surface chemical analysis. Here, the terms have been collated into subject specific sections to ensure that related terms can be found easily.
Surface analysis insight note: X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy analysis of battery electrodes—Challenges with nickel–manganese–cobalt and Li examples using an Al Kα x‐ray source
X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) has become a highly important tool for the analysis of battery materials and components. However, both anecdotal and detailed analysis of selected parts of the literature indicate that many reports of XPS on battery electrodes have significant analysis or data flaws. In this paper, we highlight several of the common challenges that analysts face when using XPS for battery materials, pointing to recent literature that addresses many of the critical issues associated with sample preparation as well as data collection and analysis. A common error for battery materials (and other materials) involves ignoring peak overlaps and interferences. Specifically, when a “minor” peak associated with a component in relatively high concentration overlaps or contributes to the primary peak (or one recommended for quantitative analysis) from a different element in the material. Overlap issues apply to many battery electrodes composed of many elements with complex photoelectron peak structures, as well as those involving peaks with seemingly simpler spectral envelopes such as Li and F. Examples of issues associated with battery systems are highlighted by a discussion of challenges associated with XPS analysis of Li and nickel–manganese–cobalt (NMC) electrodes in battery systems. Lithium analysis has challenges associated with the preparation and an often‐unrecognized peak overlap with F. In our laboratory and in the literature, NMC electrodes are often examined and new XPS users do not always recognize interference of the Auger signal from F KLL (in or on the electrode) with Ni 2p photoelectron spectrum when generated with Al Kα X‐rays. The use of simulated spectra involving both F and NiO demonstrates the extent of F Auger contributions to the Ni 2p signal strength as a function of the F/Ni atom ratio in the material and suggests spectra information that can be used to identify how significant effects will be on the resultant spectra. Our analysis demonstrates that in many cases overlap issues are significant for real electrode materials.
Insufficient reporting of x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy instrumental and peak fitting parameters (metadata) in the scientific literature
This study was motivated by earlier observations. It is a systematic examination of the adequacy of reporting of information (metadata) necessary to understand x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) data collection and data analysis in the scientific literature. The information for this study was obtained from papers published in three high-quality journals over a six-month period in 2019 and throughout 2021. Each paper was evaluated to determine whether the authors had reported (percentages of the papers properly providing the information are given in parentheses) the spectrometer (66%), fitting software (15%), x-ray source (40%), pass energy (10%), spot size (5%), synthetic peak shapes in fits (10%), backgrounds in fits (10%), whether the XPS data are shown in the main body of the paper or in the supporting information (or both), and whether fitted or unfitted spectra were shown (80% of published spectra are fit). The Shirley background is the most widely used background in XPS peak fitting. The Al Kα source is the most widely used x-ray source for XPS data collection. CASAXPS is the most widely used fitting program for XPS data analysis. Further, there is good agreement between the results gathered during the two years of our survey. There are some hints the situation may be improving. This study also provides a list of the information/parameters that should be reported when XPS is performed.
Evolving efforts to maintain and improve XPS analysis quality in an era of increasingly diverse uses and users
Based on literature analysis, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) use continues to increase exponentially. This increased use is accompanied by anecdotal reports and systematic analyses indicating a growing presence of significantly flawed data analyses. Recognition of this problem within the surface analysis community has increased with an understanding that both inexperienced users and increased use of XPS outside the surface analysis community contribute to the problem. The XPS community has initiated several efforts to help address the problem, which is not unique to XPS. This paper describes some of the specific problems identified and some of the community efforts intended to address them. Here, we describe activities focused on three specific issues: (i) requests for detailed guides and protocols and bite-sized versions of information for non-experts, (ii) incomplete data and analysis reporting, and (iii) the high rate of peak fitting problems. A 2019 survey identified the need for guides, protocols, and standards to assist XPS users. One set of such guides has been published, and another is being assembled. Providing incremental bites of useful information is the goal of a series of papers on specific challenges to surface analysis with example solutions has been initiated as Notes and Insights papers in Surface and Interface Analysis. Examination of XPS-containing papers finds that information to establish the credibility and reproducibility of XPS results is often very incomplete. Unfortunately, ISO and ASTM standards require an amount of parameter reporting that seems excessive and unrealistic for many research publications. Initial approaches to develop and distribute a graded approach to parameter reporting are briefly described. Multiple efforts are underway to address the high rate of problems associated with photoelectron peak fitting. These include guides to peak fitting, guides to peak identification and fitting for specific elements, and the development of a peak fitting social network. The fitting social network is designed to facilitate interactions between new and experienced XPS users; analysts trying to fit XPS data (for publication or other reasons) can ask questions and establish dynamic conversations. Encouraging and enabling high-quality XPS analysis and reporting requires several different types of effort from all members of the surface and interface analysis community.
Four vignettes on interactions with Martin Seah: The impact of his work
Four brief vignettes briefly describe ways that Dr. Martin Seah influenced my career and those of many others. Additionally, these brief stories highlight aspects of his (i) career-long contributions to the quantification and accuracy of surface analysis, (ii) ability to identify and willingness to fill information gaps and needs, (iii) significant efforts to communicate the nature of the challenges and what was known about best practices in an engaging and often humorous manner, and (iv) many delightful professional and social interactions that also contributed to community impact.
Introduction to topical collection: Reproducibility challenges and solutions with a focus on guides to XPS analysis
Abstract not provided.
Assessment of the frequency and nature of erroneous x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analyses in the scientific literature
Here, this study was undertaken to understand the extent and nature of problems in x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) data reported in the literature. It first presents an assessment of the XPS data in three high-quality journals over a six-month period. This analysis of 409 publications showing XPS spectra provides insight into how XPS is being used, identifies the common mistakes or errors in XPS analysis, and reveals which elements are most commonly analyzed. More than 65% of the 409 papers showed fitting of XP spectra. An ad hoc group (herein identified as “the committee”) of experienced XPS analysts reviewed these spectra and found that peak fitting was a common source of significant errors. The papers were ranked based on the perceived seriousness of the errors, which ranged from minor to major. Major errors, which, in the opinion of the ad hoc committee, can render the interpretation of the data meaningless, occurred when fitting protocols ignored underlying physics and chemistry or contained major errors in the analysis. Consistent with other materials analysis data, ca. 30% of the XPS data or analysis was identified as having major errors. Out of the publications with fitted spectra, ca. 40% had major errors. The most common elements analyzed by XPS in the papers sampled and researched at an online database, include carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and titanium. A scrutiny of the papers showing carbon and oxygen XPS spectra revealed the classes of materials being studied and the extent of problems in these analyses. As might be expected, C 1s and O 1s analyses are most often performed on sp2-type materials and inorganic oxides, respectively. These findings have helped focus a series of XPS guides and tutorials that deal with common analysis issues. The extent of problematic data is larger than the authors had expected. Quantification of the problem, examination of some of the common problem areas, and the development of targeted guides and tutorials may provide both the motivation and resources that enable the community to improve the overall quality and reliability of XPS analysis reported in the literature.
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy data from lightly Pd doped TiO 2 anatase nanoparticles
Here, two sets of XPS spectra from ≈13 nm slightly Pd-doped anatase TiO 2 particles are reported. Anatase is the most stable form of TiO 2 for small particles, and these spectra are the first spectra from nano-sized anatase to appear in Surface Science Spectra. The high resolution Ti 2p spectrum has an extended range showing important loss features not appearing in most of the earlier data records. The O 1s spectrum also has loss features often ignored, and in this case, the loss features are overlapped by some of the Ti 2s peak features that complicate quantitative analysis. The spectra reported here were used as example spectra in a guide to backgrounds in XPS, and the availability of these spectra in digital form allows LRH-analysts to compare their background selections and analysis approach to those discussed in the guide.
Introductory guide to the application of XPS to epitaxial films and heterostructures
XPS is an important characterization method for epitaxial films and heterostructures. Although standard approaches to XPS data collection and analysis provide useful information such as average composition and the presence of contaminants, more in-depth analysis provides information about film structure, surface termination, built-in electric potentials and band offsets. The high degree of structural order in these materials enables such information to be extracted from spectral data but also adds complications to the analysis. This guide highlights three topics of importance in this field: i) the impacts of crystallinity on XPS signals and quantification, ii) the unexpected spectral line shapes that can occur in unusual or novel materials, and, iii) the ability of XPS to yield information about built-in potentials and band offsets. Concepts are demonstrated using complex oxide heterostructures. Although the topics are highly relevant to epitaxial films and heterostructures, they also apply to signal crystals of complex materials
Introductory guide to backgrounds in XPS spectra and their impact on determining peak intensities
Photoelectron and Auger peaks are central to most of the important uses of x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), and thus, they receive the most attention in many types of analysis. Quantitative chemical analysis using XPS requires the assessment of the intensities of the photoemission peaks of the elements detected. Determination of peak intensities requires separation of the photoelectron peak signals from the background on which the peaks rest. For the determination of peak area intensities, the background is subtracted from overall signal intensity. The spectral background is also critical when peak fitting is used to determine intensities of overlapping peaks, and the model of background used in this process can impact the results. In addition to the impact on quantitative analysis, information about the depth distribution of elements in the near surface region can often be obtained by visual inspection of the background and quantified using appropriate modeling. Here, this introductory guide provides some basic information about backgrounds in the XPS analysis, describes the types of background models that are commonly used, suggests some of their strengths and weaknesses, and provides examples of their use and misuse. Although the fundamental nature of some components of the background signals in XPS is not understood, indicating that none of the models in use are fully correct and the area is subject to active research, appropriate good practices have been established for most routine analysis. The guide describes good practices, identifies errors that frequently appear in the literature, and uses examples to demonstrate the impacts of background selections on determinations of peak intensities.
Guide to Making XPS Measurements on Nanoparticles
This guide briefly summarizes issues and considerations important for the use of X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) for characterizing nanoparticles, which are important in many areas of science and technology. Because the surfaces play a major role in determining nanoparticle behaviors, XPS is an increasingly useful tool for understanding their properties, including addressing variations and non-reproducibility issues associated with these materials. The unusual physical and chemical behaviors of these particles must be considered in preparing and characterizing these materials. This guide is one of a series intended to highlight best practices in the use of XPS.
XPS guide: Charge neutralization and binding energy referencing for insulating samples
This guide deals with methods to control surface charging during XPS analysis of insulating samples and approaches to extracting useful binding energy information. Furthermore, the guide summarizes the causes of surface charging, how to recognize when it occurs, approaches to minimize charge buildup, and methods used to adjust or correct XPS photoelectron binding energies when charge control systems are used. Additionally, there are multiple ways to control surface charge buildup during XPS measurements and examples of systems on advanced XPS instruments are described. There is no single, simple, and foolproof way to extract binding energies on insulating material, but advantages and limitations of several approaches are described. Because of the variety of approaches and limitations of each it is critical for researchers to accurately describe the procedures that have been applied in research reports and publications.
Deciphering atomistic mechanisms of the gas-solid interfacial reaction during alloy oxidation
Gas-solid interfacial reaction is critical to many technological applications from heterogeneous catalysis to stress corrosion cracking. A prominent question that remains unclear is how gas and solid interact beyond chemisorption to form a stable interphase for bridging subsequent gas-solid reactions. Here, we report real-time atomic-scale observations of Ni-Al alloy oxidation reaction from initial surface adsorption to interfacial reaction into the bulk. We found distinct atomistic mechanisms for oxide growth in O 2 and H 2 O vapor, featuring a “step-edge” mechanism with severe interfacial strain in O 2 , and a “subsurface” one in H 2 O. Ab initio density functional theory simulations rationalize the H 2 O dissociation to favor the formation of a disordered oxide, which promotes ion diffusion to the oxide-metal interface and leads to an eased interfacial strain, therefore enhancing inward oxidation. Our findings depict a complete pathway for the Ni-Al surface oxidation reaction and delineate the delicate coupling of chemomechanical effect on gas-solid interactions.
Role of consistent terminology in XPS reproducibility
The use of inconsistent and incorrect terminology in scientific publications contributes to misunderstanding, confusion, and erroneous results in the scientific literature. This issue is of particular importance in x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) that is in widespread use for many different purposes by scientists with diverse backgrounds. A set of surface analysis terminology, approved through consensus by international experts, has been developed by International Organization for Standardization Technical Committee TC201 on Surface Chemical Analysis. To encourage wide use, the terminology is accessible at several web sites free of charge. This short overview provides examples to highlight the importance of agreed terminology in eliminating confusion between similar terms. Examples are provided of terms that are commonly misused or confused in the literature. Other examples highlight terminology that provides a common basis for comparing instrument parameters and performance. As science advances, it is important to clarify terminology for describing evolving concepts and developments important to XPS.
Real-time mass spectrometric characterization of the solid–electrolyte interphase of a lithium-ion battery
Solid-electrolyte interphase (SEI) is a key component that dictates the performance of most electrochemical devices, but the understanding of its chemistry and structure has been limited by the lack of in-situ tools. In this work, we report SEI live-formation in Li-ion battery under operando condition with liquid secondary ion mass spectrometry (SIMS), which, in combination with molecular dynamics (MD) simulation, presents the first dynamic picture with molecular-accuracy about this key component. Before any interphasial chemistry occurs during the initial charging, an electric double layer forms at the electrode-electrolyte interface via the self-assembly of solvent molecules directed by both Li+ and potential of the electrified surface. Such double layer structure predicts the eventual interphasial chemistries formed from the electrolytes, where the negatively-charged electrode surface repels salt anions from the inner-Helmholtz layer and results in an inner SEI that is thin, dense and inorganic in nature but LiF-depleted. It was this dense layer that exercises the major functions of an interphase, i.e., conducting Li+ but insulating electrons. An outer layer that is electrolyte-permeable and organic-rich appears after formation of the inner SEI. In highly-concentrated electrolyte, the presence of LiF in the inner-SEI is raised due to the high population of salt anions in the double layer. These real-time observations at nano-scale reveal in general sense how an interphase inherits chemistry from inner-Helmholtz layer structure, and establish guidelines in engineering desirable interphases for the future battery chemistries.
Proliferation of Faulty Materials Data Analysis in the Literature
As a group of subject matter experts in X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), we write this letter to raise awareness of the epidemic of poor and incorrect materials data analysis in the Literature. This is a chronic and growing problem with very undesirable consequences. This issue may contribute to what has been identified as a “reproducibility crisis”1,2 that was the subject of a recent U.S. National Academies study. We are using XPS as one example of what we observe to be a systemic issue.