Engineering topics
Easton, Christopher D.
Publications and source records attributed to Easton, Christopher D..
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.
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.
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.
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.