Engineering topics

Linford, Matthew R.

Publications and source records attributed to Linford, Matthew R..

4 records

DOE OSTI2023

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.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

DOE OSTI2021

Definition of a new (Doniach-Sunjic-Shirley) peak shape for fitting asymmetric signals applied to reduced graphene oxide/graphene oxide XPS spectra

The existence of asymmetry in X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) photoemission lines is widely accepted, but line shapes designed to accommodate asymmetry are generally lacking in theoretical justification. Here in this work, we present a new line shape for describing asymmetry in XPS signals that is based on two facts. First, the most widely known line shape for fitting asymmetric XPS signals that has a theoretical basis, referred to as the Doniach-Sunjic (DS) line shape, suffers from a mathematical inconvenience, which is that for asymmetric shapes the area beneath the curve (above the x-axis) is infinite. Second, it is common practice in XPS to remove the inelastically scattered background response of a peak in question with the Shirley algorithm. The new line shape described herein attempts to retain the theoretical virtues of the DS line shape, while allowing the use of a Shirley background, with the consequence that the resulting line shape has a finite area. To illustrate the use of this Doniach-Sunjic-Shirley (DSS) line shape, a set of spectra obtained from varying amounts of graphene oxide (GO) and reduced GO on a patterned, heterogeneous surface are fit and discussed.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗

DOE OSTI2020

Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards interlaboratory study on intensity calibration for x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy instruments using low-density polyethylene

We report the results of a Versailles Project on Advanced Materials and Standards interlaboratory study on the intensity scale calibration of x-ray photoelectron spectrometers using low-density polyethylene (LDPE) as an alternative material to gold, silver, and copper. An improved set of LDPE reference spectra, corrected for different instrument geometries using a quartz-monochromated Al Kα x-ray source, was developed using data provided by participants in this study. Using these new reference spectra, a transmission function was calculated for each dataset that participants provided. When compared to a similar calibration procedure using the NPL reference spectra for gold, the LDPE intensity calibration method achieves an absolute offset of ~3.0% and a systematic deviation of ±6.5% on average across all participants. For spectra recorded at high pass energies (≥90 eV), values of absolute offset and systematic deviation are ~5.8% and ±5.7%, respectively, whereas for spectra collected at lower pass energies (<90 eV), values of absolute offset and systematic deviation are ~4.9% and ±8.8%, respectively; low pass energy spectra perform worse than the global average, in terms of systematic deviations, due to diminished count rates and signal-to-noise ratio. Differences in absolute offset are attributed to the surface roughness of the LDPE induced by sample preparation. We further assess the usability of LDPE as a secondary reference material and comment on its performance in the presence of issues such as variable dark noise, x-ray warm up times, inaccuracy at low count rates, and underlying spectrometer problems. In response to participant feedback and the results of the study, we provide an updated LDPE intensity calibration protocol to address the issues highlighted in the interlaboratory study. Finally, we also comment on the lack of implementation of a consistent and traceable intensity calibration method across the community of x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) users and, therefore, propose a route to achieving this with the assistance of instrument manufacturers, metrology laboratories, and experts leading to an international standard for XPS intensity scale calibration.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2020

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.

Major, George H.↗