XPS Surface Analysis: A Comprehensive Guide to IUPAC Protocols and Advanced Applications

Abstract

This article provides a thorough overview of X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) based on IUPAC protocols and current best practices. Tailored for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it covers the foundational principles of XPS as defined by IUPAC, methodological workflows for data acquisition and interpretation, strategies for troubleshooting common issues like charging and contamination, and guidelines for data validation and comparative analysis with other techniques. The content synthesizes information from authoritative sources, including IUPAC Technical Reports and recent scientific literature, to empower users in generating reliable, reproducible surface chemical data for advanced materials and biomedical research.

What is XPS? Understanding IUPAC Definitions and Core Principles

IUPAC Gold Book Definition of XPS and ESCA

Definition and Core Concepts

According to the IUPAC Gold Book, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) is defined as any technique in which the sample is bombarded with X-rays and photoelectrons produced by the sample are detected as a function of energy. The term Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis (ESCA) refers specifically to the use of this technique to identify elements, their concentrations, and their chemical state within the sample [1].

XPS is a surface-sensitive quantitative spectroscopic technique that measures the very topmost 50–60 atoms (5–10 nm) of any surface [2]. The technique is based on the photoelectric effect and enables the identification of elements present within a material (elemental composition) or covering its surface, as well as their chemical state, and the overall electronic structure [2].

The fundamental equation in XPS is the photoelectric effect equation:

[ E{\text{binding}} = E{\text{photon}} - (E_{\text{kinetic}} + \phi) ]

Where (E{\text{binding}}) is the binding energy of the electron measured relative to the sample Fermi level, (E{\text{photon}}) is the energy of the X-ray photons being used, (E_{\text{kinetic}}) is the kinetic energy of the electron as measured by the instrument, and (\phi) is the work function of the spectrometer [2].

Table 1: Core Terminology in XPS/ESCA

Term	Definition	Significance
XPS	Technique detecting photoelectrons as function of energy during X-ray bombardment [1]	General analytical method for surface analysis
ESCA	Application of XPS specifically for elemental identification, concentration measurement, and chemical state analysis [1]	Emphasizes chemical information capability
Surface Sensitivity	Analysis of topmost 5-10 nm (50-60 atoms) of a material [2]	Critical for interface and thin film studies
Chemical Shift	Small binding energy changes (few eV) indicating different chemical states [2]	Reveals chemical bonding information

Experimental Principles and Methodologies

Fundamental Physical Principles

XPS belongs to the family of photoemission spectroscopies in which electron population spectra are obtained by irradiating a material with a beam of X-rays [2]. When an X-ray photon of known energy strikes an atom, it can eject a core-level electron if the photon energy exceeds the electron's binding energy. The kinetic energy of this ejected photoelectron is measured by the spectrometer, allowing calculation of the original binding energy through the photoelectric equation [2].

The surface sensitivity of XPS arises from the short inelastic mean free path of electrons in solids, which limits the escape depth of photoelectrons without energy loss to typically less than 10 nm [2]. This makes XPS particularly valuable for studying surface reactions, contamination, functionalization, and thin films.

Technical Implementation

XPS requires high vacuum (residual gas pressure p ~ 10⁻⁶ Pa) or ultra-high vacuum (p < 10⁻⁷ Pa) conditions to allow the ejected photoelectrons to travel to the detector without colliding with gas molecules [2]. However, a current area of development is ambient-pressure XPS, which enables sample analysis at pressures of a few tens of millibar [2], as exemplified by the EnviroESCA system that allows analyses at pressures far above UHV [3].

The measured area in XPS depends on instrument design, with minimum analysis areas ranging from 10 to 200 micrometers for laboratory instruments, and down to 200 nm or below for imaging XPS instruments using synchrotron radiation [2].

Figure 1: XPS Experimental Workflow from Sample to Analysis

Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for XPS Analysis

Material/Reagent	Function/Purpose	Application Notes
Reference Materials (Au, Ag, Cu)	Energy scale calibration	High-purity foils for spectrometer calibration
Conductive Adhesive Tapes	Sample mounting	Provides electrical contact for charge compensation
Argon Gas Supply	Ion source for depth profiling	Sputtering for surface cleaning and depth profiling
Charge Neutralizers	Electron/flood gun source	Compensates charging on insulating samples
Cryogenic Cooling Stages	Sample temperature control	Prevents damage to sensitive materials
UHV-Compatible Materials	Sample holders and components	Minimizes outgassing in vacuum environment

Analytical Capabilities and Performance Specifications

Elemental Detection and Quantification

XPS detects all elements except hydrogen and helium when using laboratory X-ray sources [2]. The detection limit is typically in the parts per thousand range, but parts per million (ppm) are achievable with long collection times and concentration at the top surface [2].

Quantitative accuracy in XPS depends on several parameters including signal-to-noise ratio, peak intensity, accuracy of relative sensitivity factors, correction for electron transmission function, surface volume homogeneity, and correction for energy dependence of electron mean free path [2]. Under optimal conditions, the quantitative accuracy of the atomic percent (at%) values calculated from the major XPS peaks is 90-95% for each peak [2].

Table 3: XPS Analytical Performance Characteristics

Parameter	Typical Performance	Notes/Limitations
Detection Limits	0.1-1.0 atomic % (1000 ppm) [2]	Can reach ppm range with long acquisition times [2]
Depth Resolution	5-10 nm (topmost layers) [2]	Limited by electron escape depth
Lateral Resolution	10-200 μm (standard); <200 nm (imaging) [2]	Dependent on instrument design
Quantitative Accuracy	90-95% for major peaks; 60-80% for minor peaks [2]	Relative accuracy better than absolute
Analysis Time	1-20 min (survey); 1-15 min (high-res); 1-4 hr (depth profiles) [2]	Dependent on signal quality requirements

Chemical State Analysis

One of the most powerful capabilities of XPS is its ability to provide chemical state information through small shifts in electron binding energies [2] [4]. These chemical shifts occur because the binding energy of a core electron depends on the chemical environment of the atom. For example, the binding energy of carbon 1s electrons differs measurably between hydrocarbons, alcohols, carboxylic acids, and other functional groups.

This chemical state analysis capability makes XPS particularly valuable for studying glass surfaces [4], catalysts [3], polymers, and various other materials where surface composition differs from the bulk or where surface reactions are of interest.

Application Protocols

Standard Analysis Protocol for Solid Materials

• Sample Preparation: Cut sample to appropriate size (typically <1 cm × 1 cm). For non-conducting samples, use minimal amounts of conductive adhesive. Avoid surface contamination by handling with gloves and tweezers.

• Sample Loading: Transfer sample to instrument introduction chamber quickly to minimize air exposure. For air-sensitive samples, use transfer vessels that maintain inert atmosphere or controlled environment.

• Pump Down: Begin evacuation process, typically starting with roughing pump followed by high-vacuum pumps until UHV conditions (<10⁻⁷ Pa) are achieved in analysis chamber.

• Instrument Calibration: Verify energy scale calibration using reference materials (typically gold, silver, or copper foils) measuring known peaks such as Au 4f₇/₂ at 84.0 eV.

• Preliminary Survey Scan: Collect wide energy range survey spectrum (e.g., 0-1100 eV binding energy) to identify all elements present. Use pass energy of 80-100 eV for optimal sensitivity.

• High-Resolution Regional Scans: Acquire detailed spectra of each identified element using higher energy resolution (pass energy of 20-50 eV). Ensure sufficient counting statistics by appropriate dwell times and multiple scans if necessary.

• Charge Correction: For insulating samples, apply charge correction referencing to adventitious carbon (C 1s typically set to 284.8 eV) or use internal standard.

• Data Analysis: Identify elements present, determine chemical states from binding energy positions and peak shapes, and calculate atomic concentrations using appropriate sensitivity factors.

Specialized Methodologies

Angle-Resolved XPS (ARXPS): Varying the take-off angle between sample surface and analyzer to achieve different depth sensitivities. This non-destructive method provides depth distribution information within the top 5-10 nm.

Depth Profiling: Combining XPS measurement with ion beam sputtering (typically Ar⁺ ions) to remove surface layers gradually, enabling composition analysis as a function of depth.

Environmental XPS/EnviroESCA: Performing analysis under near-ambient pressure conditions (up to several tens of mbar) using specialized instruments [3]. This allows investigation of samples in their native hydrated states, catalysts under working conditions, and liquid-solid interfaces.

Cryogenic Techniques: Freezing hydrated samples in ultrapure environment and allowing multilayers of ice to sublime away prior to analysis, enabling study of hydrogels and biological samples [2].

Data Interpretation and Reporting Standards

Spectral Interpretation Guidelines

Proper interpretation of XPS data requires systematic approach:

• Elemental Identification: Identify all elements present from the survey spectrum by matching peak positions with known electron binding energies.

• Chemical State Analysis: Examine high-resolution spectra for chemical shifts that indicate different chemical environments. Compare with databases of known compounds.

• Peak Fitting: Deconvolve complex peaks into individual components representing different chemical states when necessary. Use appropriate background subtraction and physically realistic peak shapes (typically Gaussian-Lorentzian mixes).

• Quantification: Calculate atomic concentrations using peak areas corrected with relative sensitivity factors (RSFs) that account for elemental cross-sections and instrument transmission function.

Minimum Reporting Standards

For research publications, comprehensive reporting should include [5]:

• Instrument Parameters: Manufacturer, model, X-ray source (anode material, monochromatic or non-monochromatic), analyzer pass energy, step size.
• Calibration Details: Energy scale calibration method and reference values.
• Charge Correction: Method used for charge compensation and reference peak positions.
• Data Processing: Background subtraction method, peak fitting parameters (peak shape, FWHM constraints).
• Sensitivity Factors: Source of relative sensitivity factors used for quantification.
• Sample Preparation: Detailed description of sample handling, mounting, and any pre-treatment.

The widespread use of XPS has led to increased recognition of the need for standardized methodologies and reporting to ensure reproducibility and reliability of results [5]. Proper application of XPS protocols enables this powerful technique to provide invaluable insights into surface composition and chemistry across diverse fields from materials science to biotechnology.

The photoelectric effect is the fundamental physical process that enables X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), a surface-sensitive analytical technique. This quantum phenomenon, for which Albert Einstein received the Nobel Prize, describes the emission of electrons from a material when it is illuminated by light of sufficient energy [5] [6]. In modern XPS instruments, this principle is applied by directing mono-energetic X-rays onto a sample surface, causing the ejection of core-level photoelectrons [6]. The kinetic energy of these emitted electrons is measured, and since their binding energy is a unique signature of the element and its chemical environment, a detailed composition of the top 1 to 10 nanometers of the surface can be determined [7] [8]. This exceptional surface sensitivity makes XPS indispensable across numerous fields, including materials science, catalysis, electronics, and biomedical engineering, providing invaluable quantitative and chemical state information from the material surface [5] [6].

Core Physical Principles from Theory to Measurement

The operational principle of XPS rests entirely on the photoelectric effect and the conservation of energy. When an X-ray photon of energy (h\nu) is absorbed by an atom, it can eject a core electron. The relationship between the kinetic energy (KE) of the emitted photoelectron and its original binding energy (BE) within the atom is given by the core photoelectric equation:

[ KE = h\nu - BE - \phi ]

where (h\nu) is the energy of the incident X-ray photon, and (\phi) is the work function of the spectrometer [6] [9]. By using a known, mono-energetic X-ray source (such as Al Kα at 1486.6 eV), and measuring the kinetic energy of the ejected electrons with an electron energy analyzer, the binding energy can be directly calculated [6]. This binding energy is a unique identifier for each element (except hydrogen and helium) and is sensitive to the chemical bonding of the atom, experiencing small shifts (chemical shifts) that provide information about its chemical state [5] [8].

The analysis depth of XPS is typically less than 10 nm because the emitted photoelectrons have a short inelastic mean free path in solids, meaning they can only travel a short distance without losing energy [6] [8]. This makes XPS an inherently surface-sensitive technique. The following diagram illustrates the core physical process and the energy relationships involved.

Diagram 1: The photoelectric process and energy balance in XPS.

Information Content in the Photoelectron Spectrum

The fundamental physics of the photoelectric effect translates directly into the rich information content of an XPS spectrum:

• Elemental Identification: Each element produces a characteristic set of photoelectron peaks at specific binding energies (e.g., Au 4f, O 1s, C 1s), allowing for qualitative analysis [5].
• Chemical State Information: Changes in the chemical environment of an atom cause small shifts (0.1 - 4 eV) in the binding energy of its photoelectrons. For example, the carbon 1s peak has different binding energies depending on whether the carbon is in a hydrocarbon, alcohol, or carbonyl group [5] [8].
• Quantitative Analysis: The intensity of a photoelectron peak (measured by the area under the peak) is proportional to the concentration of that element within the analysis volume. With appropriate sensitivity factors, these intensities can be used for quantitative composition analysis [5].

Table 1: Key Photoelectron Lines and Their Information Content in XPS Analysis

Element	Core Level	Binding Energy Range (eV)	Chemical Shift Example	Information Obtained
Carbon	C 1s	284 - 292	C-C/C-H vs C=O	Distinguishes hydrocarbon contamination from carbonyl groups in polymers or adsorbed species [8].
Oxygen	O 1s	530 - 533	Metal-O vs O-C	Differentiates between oxide layers (e.g., SiO₂) and organic oxygen (e.g., in adhesives) [8].
Nitrogen	N 1s	398 - 402	-NH₂ vs -NO₂	Identifies different functional groups in biological films or explosives residues.
Silicon	Si 2p	99 - 104	Si⁰ vs SiO₂	Differentiates elemental silicon (wafer) from silicon dioxide (silica) [8].

Experimental Protocol: From Sample to Spectrum

Adhering to a standardized protocol is critical for obtaining reliable and reproducible XPS data, a point heavily emphasized in modern guides to combat a "significant reproducibility crisis" in science [5]. The following section outlines a detailed experimental methodology.

Sample Preparation and Handling Protocol

Objective: To introduce the sample into the XPS instrument without altering its surface chemistry or introducing contaminants.

Materials:

• XPS Sample Holder: Typically a stainless steel stub or plate.
• Conductive Adhesive Tape: Such as double-sided carbon tape, for mounting powdered or non-conducting samples to ensure electrical and thermal contact.
• Metal Foils: High-purity indium or gold foil can be used as substrates for delicate samples.
• Sample Inert Transfer Container: A vessel filled with an inert gas (e.g., Ar or N₂) for transporting air-sensitive samples to the load-lock.

Procedure:

• Initial Inspection: Visually inspect the sample for macroscopic features, blemishes, or particles of interest. If necessary, use an optical microscope or SEM integrated with the XPS system [7].
• Mounting:
  • For solid, conductive samples, secure the sample firmly to the holder using screws or clamps.
  • For powders or non-conducting samples, apply a small amount of powder to a conductive adhesive tape mounted on the holder. Gently tap off excess powder to create a thin, uniform layer.
• Contamination Mitigation: Handle samples only with clean, powder-free gloves and tweezers to prevent contamination from skin oils or particulates. The prevalence of adventitious carbon from airborne hydrocarbons is a major concern and is often used for charge referencing, though its arbitrary application has been criticized [9].
• Transfer: Place the mounted sample into the XPS introduction load-lock as quickly as possible to minimize additional air exposure. Evacuate the load-lock according to the instrument's standard operating procedure before transferring into the ultra-high vacuum (UHV) analysis chamber.

Instrument Setup and Data Acquisition Protocol

Objective: To collect XPS spectra with sufficient quality and appropriate parameters to answer the analytical question.

Materials:

• XPS Instrument: Operating under ultra-high vacuum (< 1 × 10⁻⁸ mbar).
• Reference Sample: A clean, standard material such as gold or silver foil for verifying instrument performance and energy scale calibration [5].

Procedure:

• Instrument Calibration Check:
  • Insert the reference sample and acquire a survey spectrum and a high-resolution spectrum of a known peak (e.g., Au 4f₇/₂).
  • Verify that the measured binding energy matches the known value (84.0 eV for Au 4f₇/₂) within the manufacturer's specification (typically ±0.1 eV).
• Data Collection Plan: Define the analytical objective and plan the measurements accordingly [5]:
  • Survey Spectrum: Acquire over a wide binding energy range (e.g., 0-1100 eV) to identify all elements present.
  • High-Resolution Regional Spectra: Acquire over narrow energy ranges for elements of interest to determine chemical states and for quantification.
  • Specialized Modes: Determine if angle-resolved XPS (ARXPS) for depth profiling, XPS imaging/mapping, or ion sputtering for depth profiling is required [7].
• Spectrum Acquisition:
  • For Survey Spectra: Use a pass energy of 80-160 eV for high sensitivity and short acquisition times.
  • For High-Resolution Spectra: Use a lower pass energy (20-40 eV) for higher energy resolution.
  • Charge Compensation: For electrically insulating samples, activate the low-energy electron flood gun and/or argon ion source to neutralize positive surface charge. Adjust parameters to achieve a stable and narrow peak shape [7].
  • Acquisition Parameters: Set the step size (e.g., 0.1 eV for high-resolution, 1.0 eV for survey) and dwell time per step. Collect sufficient scans to ensure good counting statistics (signal-to-noise ratio).

The logical workflow for an XPS analysis, from planning to reporting, is summarized in the following diagram.

Diagram 2: XPS analysis workflow from question to report.

Data Processing, Interpretation, and Reporting Protocol

Objective: To extract meaningful elemental and chemical state information from the raw spectral data and report it comprehensively.

Procedure:

• Charge Referencing (Critical Step):
  • For samples with an adventitious carbon layer, the most common method is to set the C 1s peak maximum to 284.8 eV [9]. However, be aware that this method can be "highly arbitrary" and lead to incorrect interpretations if applied indiscriminately [9].
  • For conductive samples, reference to a known intrinsic peak (e.g., metal peak from the substrate).
• Background Subtraction: Apply a suitable background (e.g., Shirley or Tougaard) to remove the contribution of inelastically scattered electrons.
• Peak Fitting:
  • Identify all possible chemical components for a given element based on the sample history and chemistry.
  • Use appropriate peak shapes (mixed Gaussian-Lorentzian lineshapes) and constraints during fitting.
  • Ensure the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of components from the same elemental spectrum are consistent.
• Quantification: Calculate atomic concentrations (%) using the peak areas and relative sensitivity factors (RSFs) provided by the instrument manufacturer.
• Reporting: A complete report must include information necessary for others to reproduce the results [5]:
  • Sample details: History, preparation, and any treatments.
  • Instrument details: Manufacturer, model, X-ray source, analyzer pass energy, and step size.
  • Calibration status: Reference sample and measured binding energy.
  • Data analysis details: Charge correction method, background type, and peak fitting parameters.

Advanced Applications and Complementary Techniques

The basic principles of the photoelectric effect are leveraged in several advanced XPS modes and complementary surface analysis techniques to extract deeper information.

Advanced XPS Techniques

• XPS Depth Profiling: Uses an ion beam (monatomic or gas cluster) to sputter away the surface layer by layer, with XPS analysis performed after each sputtering cycle. This reveals the composition as a function of depth from the surface, crucial for studying interfaces, thin films, and corrosion [7].
• Angle-Resolved XPS (ARXPS): By collecting photoelectrons at varying emission angles (relative to the surface normal), the effective analysis depth is changed. This non-destructive method provides information on the thickness and composition of ultra-thin films (1-5 nm) [7].
• XPS Imaging (or Mapping): Creates a spatial map of the distribution of specific elements or chemical states across the sample surface by scanning a micro-focused X-ray beam and recording spectra at each pixel [7] [6].

Complementary Surface Analysis Techniques

No single technique provides a complete picture. The following table outlines key techniques that complement the information obtained from XPS.

Table 2: Complementary Surface Analysis Techniques

Technique	Acronym	Primary Probe	Key Information	How it Complements XPS
Auger Electron Spectroscopy	AES	Focused Electron Beam	Elemental composition, some chemical state, high lateral resolution (~10 nm)	Provides superior spatial resolution for micro-analysis; Auger features can also be observed in XPS spectra [7].
Ultraviolet Photoelectron Spectroscopy	UPS	UV Photons	Valence electronic structure, work function, occupied states	Probes the lower binding energy valence levels involved in bonding, complementing core-level XPS data [7].
Ion Scattering Spectroscopy	ISS	Noble Gas Ions	Elemental composition of the outermost atomic layer	More surface-sensitive than XPS, ideal for studying surface segregation and monolayer growth [7].
Reflected Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy	REELS	Electrons	Electronic structure, band gaps, unoccupied states, can detect H	Complements UPS for electronic properties; can detect hydrogen, which is not possible with laboratory XPS [7].
Raman Spectroscopy	-	Laser (IR-UV)	Molecular bonding, vibrational modes, material structure	Provides bulkier information but is very sensitive to structural changes (e.g., in polymers, graphene) [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

The following table details key materials and reagents essential for preparing and analyzing samples via XPS.

Table 3: Essential Materials for XPS Analysis

Item Name	Function/Application	Critical Specifications
Conductive Adhesive Tapes	Mounting powdered, fragile, or non-conducting samples to the holder.	High-purity carbon or copper tape; low outgassing in UHV.
Standard Reference Foils	Verifying instrument energy scale calibration and resolution.	High-purity (99.99%+) gold, silver, or copper.
Inert Gas Sample Transfer Kit	Transporting air-sensitive samples (e.g., catalysts, batteries) without oxidation.	Sealed container with glove bag and argon gas supply.
Sputter Depth Profiling Ion Source	Cleaning surfaces and performing depth profiling to reveal in-depth composition.	Gas cluster ion source for organic materials; monatomic source for inorganics [7].
Charge Neutralization Source	Compensating for positive charge buildup on insulating samples.	Low-energy electron flood gun combined with low-energy argon ions [7].

X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), also referred to as Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis (ESCA), is a highly surface-sensitive quantitative spectroscopic technique that measures the very topmost 5–10 nm of any surface [2]. This analytical method is invaluable for determining the empirical formula of materials and is uniquely capable of providing chemical state information from the top few molecular layers of a sample, a region critical to understanding material performance in applications ranging from catalysis to medical implants [10] [8]. Operating on the principle of the photoelectric effect, XPS enables researchers to identify not only what elements are present on a surface but also what other elements they are bonded to, providing a comprehensive picture of surface chemistry that is essential for advanced materials research and development [2] [11]. The following application note details the specific measurement capabilities of XPS, supported by standardized protocols and illustrative data, framed within the context of IUPAC-referenced surface analysis methodologies.

Core Measurement Capabilities of XPS

XPS provides three fundamental types of data that collectively offer a complete characterization of a material's surface chemistry, each critical for different aspects of materials science and engineering.

Elemental Composition

XPS quantitatively measures the elemental composition of the top 1–10 nm of a material [10] [2]. With the exception of hydrogen and helium, XPS can detect all elements in the periodic table, with detection limits typically ranging from 0.1 to 1.0 atomic percent (approximately 1000 to 100 ppm) [2] [11]. The quantitative process involves irradiating a solid surface with a beam of X-rays while simultaneously measuring the kinetic energy of electrons emitted from the topmost material layers [10]. Each element produces a set of characteristic XPS peaks corresponding to the electron configuration within its atoms (e.g., 1s, 2s, 2p, 3s, etc.) [2]. The number of detected electrons in each peak is directly related to the amount of the element within the XPS sampling volume, enabling precise quantification [2]. Under optimal conditions, the quantitative accuracy for major peaks reaches 90–95% of the true atomic percent value [2].

Table 1: XPS Elemental Detection Capabilities

Aspect	Specification	Technical Notes
Analysis Depth	5–10 nm [2] [6]	Information is collected from the top few nanometers where electrons can escape without significant energy loss [10]
Detectable Elements	All elements except hydrogen and helium [2] [11]	Detection of lithium, beryllium, and boron is possible, unlike with some other techniques [12]
Detection Limits	0.1–1.0 atomic % (parts per thousand range) [2] [11]	Parts per million (ppm) achievable with long collection times and surface concentration [2]
Quantitative Accuracy	90–95% for major peaks [2]	Accuracy for weaker signals (10-20% of strongest peak) is 60-80% of true value [2]
Lateral Resolution	≥ 7.5 µm [6]	Smallest analytical area is approximately 10-30 µm [2] [11]

Chemical State Information

One of the most powerful features of XPS is its ability to determine the chemical state of elements, effectively revealing what other elements they are bonded to [2] [11]. This capability arises from the "chemical shift" phenomenon, where the binding energy of a photoelectron peak changes slightly depending on the chemical environment of the atom [11]. These energy shifts occur when strong chemical bonds are formed between atoms, providing insights into oxidation states, chemical functional groups, and compound identification [8]. For example, XPS can readily distinguish between sulfate and sulfide forms of sulfur, differentiate between elemental silicon, silicon dioxide (silica), and silicon in a polymer, and identify various oxidation states of transition metals [11] [8]. This information is vital for understanding a material's bonding capabilities, corrosion behavior, catalytic activity, and suitability for different applications [8].

Electronic State

XPS measures the electronic state of elements within a material, revealing information about the overall electronic structure and density of electronic states [2]. The binding energy measured in XPS is referenced to the Fermi level of the sample, providing direct insight into the electronic environment of the atom [2]. This electronic state information can be crucial for understanding electrical contact properties, semiconductor behavior, catalyst mechanisms, and other electronic phenomena that govern material performance [12] [6]. The technique is particularly valuable for investigating how surface treatments, contamination, or processing conditions alter the electronic structure of materials, which in turn affects their performance in practical applications.

Experimental Protocols

The following section outlines standardized protocols for conducting XPS analysis, ensuring reliable and reproducible results that align with rigorous surface analysis standards.

Standardized Analytical Procedure

Diagram 1: XPS Analysis Workflow

A properly executed XPS analysis follows a systematic workflow to ensure data quality and interpretability:

• Sample Preparation: Samples should be sized appropriately for the instrument's vacuum chamber and sample holder. Surface cleaning may be required to remove adventitious carbon or other contaminants that could interfere with analysis, unless the "as-received" surface state is the subject of study [2].

• Ultra-High Vacuum Establishment: The sample must be introduced into an ultra-high vacuum (UHV) chamber with a residual gas pressure of approximately p < 10⁻⁷ Pa to minimize scattering of photoelectrons by gas molecules and prevent surface contamination [2].

• Survey Scan Acquisition: A broad energy range scan (typically 0-1400 eV binding energy) is performed to identify all elements present on the surface, except hydrogen and helium. This scan uses high sensitivity settings and typically requires 1-20 minutes [2] [11].

• High-Resolution Regional Scans: Narrow energy ranges encompassing the characteristic peaks of detected elements are scanned under high energy resolution conditions to obtain detailed chemical state information. Acquisition typically requires 1-15 minutes per region of interest [2] [11].

• Charge Compensation (if needed): For electrically insulating samples, charge compensation neutralizes surface charge accumulation by replenishing electrons from an external source, stabilizing and controlling the charging to within a few electron volts of the neutral state [10].

• Data Processing and Quantification: Elemental concentrations are calculated by correcting peak intensities with relative sensitivity factors (RSF) and normalizing over all detected elements. Chemical state identification is performed by analyzing binding energy shifts and peak shapes [2] [11].

Advanced Methodological Extensions

Beyond standard analysis, several specialized XPS techniques provide additional dimensional information:

• Depth Profiling: A destructive technique that combines alternating cycles of ion beam sputtering (to remove material) and XPS data collection to construct a composition profile as a function of depth. This is essential for analyzing thin film structures, interfacial chemistry, and corrosion layers [10] [11]. Depth resolution typically ranges from 20–200 Å [11].

• Angle-Resolved XPS (ARXPS): A non-destructive method that varies the emission angle at which electrons are collected, enabling analysis from different depths. ARXPS provides information about the thickness and composition of ultra-thin films (1-10 nm) without ion sputtering [10].

• XPS Imaging / Mapping: Creates spatial images showing the distribution of specific elements or chemical states across a sample surface. This can be achieved through serial acquisition (mapping) or parallel acquisition (parallel imaging), with modern instruments achieving spatial resolution below 10 µm [10] [6].

Research Reagent Solutions and Materials

The following table details essential components and materials utilized in XPS analysis, forming the fundamental toolkit for researchers conducting surface characterization studies.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for XPS Analysis

Item	Function/Application	Technical Specifications
Monochromatic X-ray Source	Excites photoelectrons from the sample surface; monochromatization improves energy resolution and reduces radiation damage [2]	Typically Al Kα (1486.7 eV) or Mg Kα (1253.7 eV); FWHM of 0.43 eV and 0.36 eV respectively [2]
Electron Energy Analyzer	Measures the kinetic energy of emitted photoelectrons with high precision	Hemispherical analyzer typically used for high energy resolution measurements [2]
Charge Neutralization System	Compensates for surface charging on insulating samples to enable accurate analysis [10]	Low-energy electron flood gun combined with argon ions; essential for analyzing ceramics, polymers, and glasses [10]
Dual-Mode Ion Source	Enables depth profiling by sputtering material from the surface; cluster ion sources allow analysis of organic and fragile materials [10]	Monatomic ions (e.g., Ar⁺) for inorganic materials; gas cluster ions (e.g., Arₙ⁺) for organic and polymeric materials [10]
Ultra-High Vacuum System	Maintains necessary environment for photoelectron detection without interference	Pressure < 10⁻⁷ Pa; minimizes surface contamination and scattering of photoelectrons [2]

Comparative Analytical Techniques

XPS provides distinct advantages and limitations compared to other elemental analysis techniques, making it specifically suited for surface-specific analysis rather than bulk characterization.

Table 3: Comparison of Elemental Composition Analysis Techniques

Technique	Analysis Depth	Elements Detected	Detection Limits	Chemical State Info	Key Strengths
XPS	5–10 nm [12]	All except H and He [11]	0.1–1 at% [11]	Yes [11]	Excellent surface sensitivity, quantitative, chemical state identification [11]
EDS/EDX	500–3000 nm [12]	Na and heavier [12]	~0.1–1 at% [12]	Limited	Rapid analysis, good for bulk composition of metals/alloys [12]
XRF	~1500 nm [12]	C, N, O, F, Na and heavier [12]	Low ppm range [12]	Limited	Excellent for bulk analysis of solids and liquids, minimal sample prep [12]
LIBS	5–7 µm [12]	All elements including H and He [12]	Varies by element	Limited	Can analyze all elements, portable systems available [12]

Applications in Research and Development

The unique capability of XPS to provide quantitative elemental and chemical state information from the outermost surface layers makes it invaluable across numerous research domains:

• Contamination Analysis and Failure Analysis: XPS effectively determines quantitative amounts of contamination on surfaces, identifying stains, discolorations, and residues that can cause adhesive bonding problems, thin film delamination, or initiate corrosion [11] [12] [8]. For instance, measuring the carbon-to-metal ratio on cleaned surfaces can objectively evaluate cleaning process efficacy [8].

• Polymer Surface Characterization: XPS examines polymer functionality before and after processing to identify and quantify surface changes, including oxidation, functional group introduction, or contamination [11]. This is crucial for understanding adhesion properties, biocompatibility, and surface treatment effectiveness.

• Thin Film and Interface Analysis: Through depth profiling, XPS characterizes thin film composition, layer structures, and interfacial chemistry for both conducting and non-conducting materials [11]. Applications include measuring oxide thickness on semiconductors, analyzing multilayer coatings, and understanding diffusion processes at interfaces [11] [6].

• Biomaterials and Medical Research: XPS analyzes the surface composition of medical implants, bio-materials, teeth, and bones, providing critical information about surface chemistry that directly interacts with biological systems [2]. This is essential for understanding biocompatibility, biofouling, and material-tissue interactions.

• Catalysis and Energy Materials: XPS identifies oxidation states and chemical environments in catalysts, electrodes, photovoltaic materials, and energy storage devices, enabling researchers to correlate surface chemistry with performance metrics [12] [6].

The protocols and applications detailed herein demonstrate that XPS provides unparalleled insights into surface composition and chemistry, making it an indispensable technique for advancing research in materials science, pharmaceuticals, electronics, and numerous other fields where surface properties dictate performance.

X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) is a highly surface-sensitive, quantitative spectroscopic technique that measures the very topmost 50–60 atoms, corresponding to approximately 5–10 nm of any surface [2]. This exceptional surface sensitivity arises from the fundamental physics of the photoemission process and the short distance that electrons can travel through a solid without losing energy. Only electrons generated very near the surface can escape without losing too much energy for detection, which means that XPS data is collected predominantly from the top few nanometers of the material [10]. It is this precise surface selectivity, combined with quantitative chemical state identification, that makes XPS invaluable across a vast array of application areas including materials science, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and surface engineering.

The technique is based on the photoelectric effect, where X-ray irradiation of a material causes the ejection of core electrons from atoms residing at the surface [2]. The kinetic energy of these emitted photoelectrons is measured by the spectrometer, and their binding energy is calculated using the fundamental photoelectric equation:

Ebinding = Ephoton - (E_kinetic + ϕ)

where Ebinding is the binding energy of the electron, Ephoton is the energy of the X-ray photons, E_kinetic is the kinetic energy of the electron as measured by the instrument, and ϕ is the work function of the spectrometer [2]. The resulting spectrum provides a characteristic fingerprint that reveals not only the elemental composition but also the chemical state of the elements within the sampling volume.

Fundamental Principles of Surface Sensitivity

The Electron Escape Depth

The extreme surface sensitivity of XPS stems from the inelastic mean free path (IMFP) of electrons in solids, which is the average distance an electron can travel between inelastic collisions. Photoelectrons originating from depths greater than approximately 10 nm undergo energy-loss processes through multiple scattering events, which prevents them from escaping the surface with their original characteristic energy. Consequently, the detected signal in XPS comes predominantly from the top few nanometers, with the signal intensity decreasing exponentially with increasing depth [2].

The sampling depth varies with the kinetic energy of the ejected photoelectrons, but for conventional XPS using Al Kα radiation (1486.7 eV), the information depth is typically limited to the top 1-10 nm [10] [2]. This makes XPS particularly powerful for investigating surface phenomena that differ substantially from the bulk composition, such as contamination layers, surface oxidation, functionalization, and thin film coatings.

Chemical State Information and Chemical Shifts

A key advantage of XPS beyond elemental identification is its ability to provide chemical state information through precisely measured binding energies. In 1958, Siegbahn's group demonstrated that copper (I) oxide could be distinguished from copper (II) oxide by XPS, establishing the foundation for chemical state analysis [13]. The "chemical shift" refers to the change in binding energy when an atom is in different chemical environments or oxidation states. This shift occurs due to alterations in the electrostatic screening of core electrons when valence electrons are attracted or repulsed in the emitting atom [13].

For example, XPS can differentiate between various chemical environments of silicon, such as elemental silicon (as in a wafer), silicon dioxide (silica), or silicon bonded to organic groups (as in a polymer) [8]. This chemical state information is vital for understanding material bonding capabilities and suitability for different applications, particularly in drug development where surface functionalization critically influences performance.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of XPS Surface Sensitivity

Parameter	Specification	Technical Basis
Analysis Depth	1-10 nm	Limited by electron inelastic mean free path [10] [2]
Sampled Volume	Top 50-60 atomic layers	Corresponds to escape depth of photoelectrons [2]
Detection Limits	0.1-1.0 atomic % (1000-100 ppm)	Varies with element cross-section and background; can reach ppm with long acquisitions [2]
Spatial Resolution	≥3 μm with modern imaging systems	Dependent on instrument design and X-ray source [13]
Quantitative Accuracy	90-95% for major peaks; 60-80% for minor peaks	Depends on signal-to-noise, sensitivity factors, and homogeneity [2]

Experimental Protocols for Surface Analysis

Standard Operating Procedure for Surface Composition Analysis

Objective: To determine the elemental composition and chemical states of the top 1-10 nm of a material surface.

Materials and Equipment:

• XPS instrument with Al Kα or Mg Kα X-ray source
• Ultra-high vacuum chamber (pressure < 10⁻⁷ Pa)
• Sample holder appropriate for material type
• Charge compensation system (for insulating samples)
• Standard reference materials for energy calibration (e.g., Au, Ag, Cu)

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation:
  • Cut sample to appropriate size for introduction into vacuum chamber.
  • For powders, mount on double-sided adhesive tape or press into indium foil.
  • Avoid excessive handling to prevent surface contamination.
  • If possible, use in-situ cleaning methods (Ar⁺ sputtering) for reference surfaces.

• Instrument Setup:

  • Establish ultra-high vacuum (< 10⁻⁷ Pa) before analysis.
  • Select X-ray source: Al Kα (1486.7 eV) or Mg Kα (1253.7 eV).
  • For insulating samples, activate charge compensation system with low-energy electrons.
  • Set analyzer pass energy to 20-50 eV for survey scans, 10-20 eV for high-resolution scans.

• Data Acquisition:

  • Collect survey spectrum (0-1000 eV or 0-1400 eV binding energy) to identify all detectable elements.
  • Acquire high-resolution spectra for each identified element with appropriate energy range.
  • Use step size of 0.1-0.5 eV for high-resolution scans.
  • Accumulate sufficient scans to achieve acceptable signal-to-noise ratio (typically 5-20 minutes per high-resolution region).

• Data Analysis:

  • Calibrate spectrum using adventitious carbon (C 1s at 284.8 eV) or known reference peak.
  • Identify elements present from characteristic binding energies.
  • Perform nonlinear background subtraction (Shirley or Tougaard background).
  • Fit high-resolution peaks with appropriate constraints (fixed spin-orbit splitting, area ratios).
  • Calculate atomic concentrations using peak areas and relative sensitivity factors.

• Reporting:

  • Report all instrument parameters (X-ray source, power, analyzer settings).
  • Include sample preparation methods and handling conditions.
  • Present both survey and high-resolution spectra with fitted components.
  • Tabulate atomic concentrations with estimated uncertainties.

Protocol for Angle-Resolved XPS (ARXPS) for Depth Profiling

Objective: To determine the depth distribution of chemical species in the top 1-10 nm without destructive sputtering.

Principles: ARXPS varies the emission angle at which electrons are collected, thereby changing the effective analysis depth. At grazing angles (high take-off angles), the signal becomes more surface-sensitive [10] [7].

Procedure:

• Mount sample on a stage capable of precise angular rotation.
• Acquire high-resolution spectra at multiple emission angles (typically 0° to 60° relative to surface normal).
• Ensure constant analysis area during angular rotation.
• Analyze angular dependence of elemental peaks to determine depth distribution.
• Use appropriate mathematical models (e.g., three-layer model) to calculate layer thicknesses and composition gradients [13].

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for XPS Surface Analysis

Reagent/Material	Function	Application Notes
Indium Foil	Substrate for powder mounting	Provides conductive substrate; malleable for pressing powders [2]
Double-sided Conductive Tape	Sample mounting	Provides electrical contact for charge stabilization; must be UHV-compatible
Argon Gas Cluster Ion Source	Surface cleaning & depth profiling	Enables depth profiling of organic and polymeric materials [10] [7]
Charge Neutralization Electron Flood Gun	Charge compensation	Essential for analysis of insulating samples to prevent peak shifting [10]
Certified Reference Materials	Energy scale calibration	Au, Ag, Cu foils with known binding energies for instrument calibration [14]
Adventitious Carbon Reference	Charge reference	Natural hydrocarbon contamination used for energy scale correction (C 1s = 284.8 eV) [15]

Advanced Applications in Surface Sensitivity

Surface Contamination Analysis

XPS is exceptionally valuable for detecting and quantifying surface contaminants that can significantly impact material performance, particularly in pharmaceutical and biomedical applications. The technique can identify trace contamination that could disrupt manufacturing processes, leading to product failures [8]. For example, in a case study examining metal surfaces cleaned with different detergents, XPS was used to determine surface cleanliness by measuring the carbon-to-metal (C/M) ratio, where higher ratios indicated residual hydrocarbon contamination [8]. This application is critical in drug development where surface cleanliness can affect biocompatibility, adhesion, and coating uniformity.

Thin Film and Interface Characterization

The extreme surface sensitivity of XPS makes it ideal for investigating thin films and interfaces relevant to drug delivery systems and medical devices. By employing angle-resolved XPS (ARXPS), researchers can non-destructively determine the thickness and composition of ultra-thin films in the nanometer range [10] [7]. This capability is particularly valuable for studying self-assembled monolayers, polymer coatings, and surface functionalization strategies used to modify material properties for specific biological responses.

Surface Oxidation and Passivation Studies

The formation of thin oxide layers on material surfaces significantly influences their chemical stability and biological interactions. XPS has been extensively used to study passive films on metals and alloys, such as the spontaneous formation of a 2-5 nm protective oxide layer on stainless steels [13]. Using a three-layer model (contamination layer/oxy-hydroxide layer/metallic substrate), researchers can calculate film thickness and composition from a single XPS analysis, providing crucial information about material stability in physiological environments [13].

Technical Considerations and Methodological Challenges

Charge Compensation for Insulating Samples

When analyzing electrically insulating materials, the emission of photoelectrons causes positive charge to accumulate at the surface, severely affecting the XPS spectrum through peak shifting and broadening [10]. Charge compensation neutralizes this effect by supplying low-energy electrons from an external source, stabilizing the surface potential to within a few electron volts of the neutral state [10] [7]. This is particularly important for pharmaceutical materials, polymers, and ceramics that lack electrical conductivity.

Radiation Damage and Sample Degradation

Some materials, particularly certain polymers, catalysts, and highly oxygenated compounds, can undergo degradation during XPS analysis [2]. This degradation depends on the material's sensitivity to the X-ray wavelength, total X-ray dose, surface temperature, and vacuum conditions. Monochromatic X-ray sources reduce degradation by eliminating Bremsstrahlung X-rays and reducing sample heating [2]. Researchers should optimize analysis conditions (reduced power, rapid analysis) for sensitive materials and always document potential radiation effects.

Quantification and Data Interpretation

While XPS provides excellent quantitative accuracy for homogeneous materials (90-95% for major constituents), several factors must be considered for accurate quantification [2]. These include signal-to-noise ratio, peak intensity, accuracy of relative sensitivity factors, correction for electron transmission function, surface volume homogeneity, and correction for energy dependence of electron mean free path [2]. Proper background subtraction, peak fitting procedures, and awareness of common errors in data analysis are essential for reliable results [14].

Diagram 1: XPS Surface Analysis Fundamental Process.

Diagram 2: Angle-Resolved XPS for Depth Profiling.

XPS provides unparalleled capability for probing the top 1-10 nm of materials, delivering both elemental composition and chemical state information with high quantitative accuracy. The technique's extreme surface sensitivity, rooted in the short inelastic mean free path of electrons in solids, makes it indispensable for investigating surface contamination, thin films, oxidation states, and functionalization strategies. When properly executed using standardized protocols with appropriate controls and calibration, XPS surface analysis generates reliable data critical for advancing materials research, pharmaceutical development, and surface science. The continuing development of techniques such as angle-resolved XPS, small-area analysis, and advanced charge compensation further enhances the utility of XPS for characterizing the complex surface chemistry that governs material behavior in technological and biological environments.

Core Principles of XPS

X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) is a surface-sensitive analytical technique that provides quantitative elemental and chemical state information from the top ~10 nm of a material. Its operation is based on the photoelectric effect, where a sample irradiated with X-rays emits photoelectrons. The analysis of these electrons' kinetic energy allows for the determination of their core-level binding energy, a unique identifier for elements and their chemical environment [16].

The fundamental relationship in XPS is the photoelectric equation, which connects the measured kinetic energy of the ejected electron to its original binding energy in the atom:

Eb = hν - Ek - φ

• Eb: The binding energy of the electron, measured in electronvolts (eV). This is the energy that held the electron in the atom, and it is the primary output of an XPS spectrum [17] [16].
• hν: The known energy of the incident X-ray photon, measured in eV [17] [16].
• Ek: The measured kinetic energy of the photoelectron, measured in eV, as detected by the instrument [17] [16].
• φ: The work function of the spectrometer, a correction factor specific to the instrument's material, measured in eV [17] [16].

The presence of atoms is determined by identifying characteristic peaks in a spectrum of electron counts versus binding energy. The intensity of these peaks is related to the concentration of the element, while the precise binding energy value reveals the chemical state of the atom, a phenomenon known as a chemical shift [16]. For example, the binding energy of a carbon 1s electron in a C-H bond is measurably different from that in a C=O bond, allowing XPS to distinguish between different chemical functionalities [18].

Quantitative Data Tables

Table 1: Characteristic Binding Energies of Core Electron Levels

This table provides representative binding energies for principal photoelectron peaks of common elements. Note that these values can shift due to chemical state.

Element & Transition	Approximate Binding Energy (eV)	Chemical State / Notes
Carbon C 1s	285.0	Reference for hydrocarbon (C-C, C-H) [18]
	~288 - 290	Carboxyl (O-C=O), Carbonyl (C=O) [18]
Oxygen O 1s	530 - 531	Metal oxides [16]
	532 - 533	Organic oxygen (e.g., O-C=O) [16]
Nitrogen N 1s	399.4 / 400.7	Example from N₂ on Ni(100), showing a 1.3 eV chemical shift [17]
Silicon Si 2p	~99	Elemental Silicon [18]
	103 - 104	Silicon Dioxide (SiO₂) [18]

Table 2: XPS Acquisition Method Comparison

XPS data can be acquired in two primary modes, each with distinct advantages for imaging and spectroscopy [19].

Parameter	Serial Acquisition (Mapping)	Parallel Acquisition (Imaging)
Method Principle	Collects a rectangular array of small-area XPS analyses point-by-point [19]	Simultaneously images the entire field of view using a 2D detector [19]
Spatial Resolution	Determined by smallest analysis area (e.g., 10 μm) [19]	Determined by spherical aberrations in the electron lens [19]
Data Output	Can collect a full spectrum at each pixel [19]	Collects an image at a single energy; a spectrum requires a series of images [19]
Key Advantage	Energy of X-ray beam and lens transmission are constant across the map [19]	Best possible imaging resolution and faster for single-energy images [19]

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Routine Elemental Surface Survey Analysis

Objective: To identify all elements present on the surface of a solid sample (e.g., a pharmaceutical active ingredient or a metal implant).

Materials:

• XPS instrument with a monochromatic Al K-alpha X-ray source [19]
• Sample stub and appropriate adhesive or mounting method
• Charge neutralization system (for insulating samples)

Methodology:

• Sample Preparation: Mount the sample securely on the holder to ensure good electrical and thermal contact. For powders, use a double-sided adhesive tape or press into an indium foil.
• Load and Pump: Introduce the sample into the introduction chamber and pump down to ultra-high vacuum (UHV), typically below 10⁻⁸ mbar.
• Instrument Setup:
  • Select the monochromatic Al K-alpha X-ray source (hν = 1486.6 eV).
  • Set the analyzer pass energy to a high value (e.g., 100-150 eV) to maximize sensitivity for the survey scan.
  • Engage the charge neutralizer if the sample is an electrical insulator.
• Data Acquisition:
  • Position the analysis area on a representative region of the sample.
  • Acquire a survey spectrum over a wide binding energy range (e.g., 0-1200 eV).
  • Ensure sufficient signal-to-noise ratio by adjusting the scan number or dwell time.
• Data Analysis:
  • Identify all visible peaks by comparing their binding energies to standard databases [18].
  • Note the presence of Auger lines (e.g., OKLL, C KVV) which can aid in element identification.

Protocol 2: High-Resolution Chemical State Analysis

Objective: To determine the chemical state and relative abundance of different species of a specific element.

Materials:

• As in Protocol 1.

Methodology:

• Preliminary Analysis: First, complete a survey scan as per Protocol 1 to identify elements of interest.
• Instrument Setup:
  • Set the analyzer pass energy to a low value (e.g., 20-50 eV) to achieve high energy resolution.
• Data Acquisition:
  • For each element of interest (e.g., C 1s, O 1s, N 1s), acquire a high-resolution spectrum over a narrow binding energy window (e.g., 15-30 eV range).
  • Use a sufficient number of scans to achieve excellent signal-to-noise for accurate peak fitting.
• Data Analysis (Peak Fitting):
  • Subtract a linear or Shirley background from the spectral region.
  • Use a least-squares fitting routine with appropriate Gaussian-Lorentzian line shapes.
  • Constrain the fit with knowledge of chemical shifts, spin-orbit splitting (e.g., for p, d, f orbitals), and fixed full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) where justified. Reference databases of chemical shifts are essential for this step [18].

Protocol 3: XPS Imaging for Spatial Distribution Mapping

Objective: To visualize the lateral distribution of elements or chemical states across a sample surface.

Materials:

• XPS instrument capable of serial mapping or parallel imaging [19].

Methodology:

• Define Region of Interest (ROI): Using an optical camera or secondary electron image, select the area on the sample to be mapped.
• Choose Acquisition Mode:
  • Serial Mapping: Define a 2D rectangular array of points. The instrument will acquire a spectrum (or a specific peak area) at each pixel by moving the sample stage or scanning the electron optics [19].
  • Parallel Imaging: The entire field of view is imaged simultaneously onto a 2D detector. Tune the analyzer to the kinetic energy corresponding to the photoelectron peak of interest to form a chemical image [19].
• Data Acquisition:
  • For serial mapping, select the step size and dwell time per pixel. This method is slower but can provide a full spectrum at each pixel [19].
  • For parallel imaging, the process is faster for a single energy but requires collecting a stack of images at different energies to generate spectra per pixel [19].
• Data Analysis:
  • Generate elemental or chemical state maps by integrating the peak area at each pixel.
  • Overlay images from different elements to assess co-localization.

Visualization Diagrams

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents & Materials for XPS Analysis

Item	Function & Application Notes
Monochromated Al K-alpha X-ray Source	Standard source for high-resolution XPS; provides monoenergetic X-rays (1486.6 eV) to minimize peak broadening and satellite features [19].
Charge Neutralization (Flood) Gun	Essential for analyzing insulating samples (e.g., polymers, ceramics) by providing low-energy electrons/ions to compensate for positive surface charge build-up during analysis.
Dual-Mode Sputter Ion Source	Provides ion beams (e.g., Ar⁺, C₆₀⁺) for depth profiling (cleaning surface contaminants) or for etching through layers to reveal subsurface composition [19].
Reference Material (e.g., Clean Au, Ag, Cu foil)	Used for instrument calibration and energy scale verification to ensure accuracy of reported binding energies.
Binding Energy Database / Spectral Library	A comprehensive database of known binding energies and chemical shifts is critical for accurate peak identification and chemical state determination [18].
Conductive Mounting Substrates (e.g., Indium foil, Cu tape)	Used for mounting powdered or non-conducting samples to facilitate charge drainage and minimize charging effects during analysis.

Executing IUPAC-Compliant XPS Analysis: From Planning to Data Acquisition

Defining Analysis Objectives and Sample Compatibility

X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) has become the most popular and widely used method of surface analysis, essential for many types of research spanning from chemistry and materials science to environmental, atmospheric, and biological systems [5]. The reliable use of XPS, however, depends critically on properly defining analysis objectives and ensuring sample compatibility at the earliest planning stages. Erroneous uses and misapplications occur frequently among inexperienced users, leading to significant reproducibility issues in the scientific literature [5]. This application note establishes structured protocols for determining whether XPS can obtain desired information and for assessing sample compatibility within the framework of IUPAC-aligned surface analysis protocols.

Defining XPS Analysis Objectives

Core Capabilities of XPS

XPS is a powerful tool to study surface properties within the top 1 to 10 nm of a material [20] [21]. The technique can measure:

• Elemental composition of all elements except hydrogen and helium [5] [21]
• Empirical formula of the surface constituents [21]
• Chemical state and oxidation state of elements from binding energy shifts [5] [20]
• Electronic state of elements within the material [21]

Key Questions for Objective Setting

Before proceeding with XPS analysis, researchers should systematically address the following critical questions to ensure the technique aligns with their research goals:

Table 1: Analysis Objective Assessment Framework

Question Category	Specific Questions to Address	Technique Implications
Information Needs	What specific surface information is required? (elemental identity, chemical state, quantification?)	Determines required spectral resolution, peak-fitting complexity, and reference materials
	Is the needed information contained within the top 1-10 nm?	Confirms XPS sampling depth appropriateness
Sensitivity & Resolution	Does XPS have the needed detection sensitivity (typically 0.1-1 at%)?	Affects data collection strategy and counting statistics
	Are there potential peak interferences that might complicate analysis?	May require high-resolution scans or complementary techniques
	What depth resolution is needed?	Determines need for angle-resolved XPS or depth profiling
	What lateral resolution is needed?	Determines need for XPS imaging/mapping capabilities

The fundamental question every analyst must address is: "What is the purpose of this particular analysis?" [5] This requires knowing the analytical question before selecting the technique or methodology.

Sample Compatibility Assessment

Physical and Chemical Compatibility Factors

Sample compatibility with XPS instrumentation and vacuum requirements represents a critical step in analysis planning. The following factors must be considered:

Table 2: Sample Compatibility Assessment

Compatibility Factor	Requirements & Considerations	Potential Solutions
Vacuum Compatibility	Must withstand UHV conditions (typically 10⁻⁸ to 10⁻⁹ mbar)	Environmental chambers or near-ambient pressure XPS for sensitive samples
Size & Form	Typical maximum dimensions determined by instrument stage	Size reduction may be required; non-standard samples may need special holders
Volatility	Low vapor pressure at room temperature and under UHV	Cooling stages for volatile materials; quick introduction systems
Stability	Must withstand X-ray irradiation for analysis duration	Lower power X-ray sources; reduced analysis time; cryo-cooling
Electrical Properties	Conducting vs. insulating characteristics	Charge compensation system required for insulating samples [21]

Sample Handling and Preparation Considerations

The history of sample handling significantly impacts the ability to obtain meaningful surface information [5]. Key considerations include:

• Surface contamination from atmospheric exposure, packaging, or handling can obscure the true surface chemistry of interest
• Intentional surface treatments prior to analysis must be documented and considered in data interpretation
• Sample preparation methods must preserve the surface chemistry of interest while making the sample compatible with UHV requirements

Experimental Protocols for Compatibility Verification

Pre-Analysis Checklist Protocol

• Define primary analysis question: Clearly articulate the specific surface chemistry information required
• Verify surface sensitivity: Confirm the information needed resides within the top 10 nm of the material
• Assess vacuum compatibility: Evaluate sample volatility and outgassing potential
• Determine electrical properties: Identify whether sample is conducting or insulating to plan for charge compensation
• Evaluate radiation sensitivity: Test sample stability under X-ray exposure through short test analysis
• Verify dimensional compatibility: Confirm sample fits instrument stage and manipulation capabilities
• Document sample history: Record all handling, preparation, and storage conditions

Sample Preparation Workflow

The following workflow outlines the decision process for sample preparation and compatibility assessment:

Advanced Compatibility Considerations for Specialized Applications

Specialized XPS Techniques for Challenging Samples

Several advanced XPS methodologies extend compatibility to challenging sample types:

• Hard X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (HAXPES): Employing higher energy X-rays (Ag Lα) enables deeper analysis and access to core levels otherwise inaccessible [21]
• Near-ambient pressure XPS: Allows analysis of samples that would degrade under ultra-high vacuum conditions [5]
• Cryogenic stages: Enable analysis of volatile materials and radiation-sensitive samples [5]
• Gas cluster ion sources: Enable depth profiling of soft materials previously inaccessible to XPS depth profiling [22] [21]

Complementary Techniques for Comprehensive Analysis

When XPS alone cannot address all analytical questions, correlative approaches with complementary techniques provide enhanced information:

• SEM/EDX integration: Provides structural context and bulk composition information [21]
• UPS (Ultraviolet Photoelectron Spectroscopy): Delivers valence band electronic structure information [22] [21]
• REELS (Reflection Electron Energy Loss Spectroscopy): Offers band gap and electronic structure data [22] [21]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Essential Materials for XPS Analysis

Item/Reagent	Function/Purpose	Application Notes
Conductive Adhesive Tapes	Sample mounting and electrical grounding	Critical for charge stabilization; selection depends on sample compatibility
Reference Materials	Energy scale calibration and method validation	Au, Ag, Cu foils with well-characterized peak positions
Charge Neutralization Flood Gun	Electron source for insulating samples	Essential for non-conductive materials; requires optimization [21]
Gas Cluster Ion Source	Depth profiling of organic and soft materials	Prevents damage common with monatomic sources [22] [21]
Cryogenic Cooling Stage	Analysis of volatile and sensitive materials	Reduces degradation and outgassing in UHV
Focused Ion Beam Source	Sample cleaning and depth profiling	Interface analysis; surface contamination removal
Calibration Standards	Quantification verification and instrument performance	Certified reference materials with known surface composition

Documentation and Reporting Requirements

For reproducible and reliable XPS analysis, comprehensive documentation must accompany all experiments:

• Sample history: Complete record of preparation, handling, and storage conditions
• Instrument specifications: Manufacturer, model, and key specifications
• Analysis parameters: X-ray source characteristics, charge neutralization conditions, acquisition settings
• Calibration details: Energy scale calibration method and reference materials used
• Data analysis methods: Peak-fitting parameters, background subtraction methods, quantification approaches

Proper documentation ensures analytical reproducibility and enables other researchers to verify and build upon reported findings [5].

IUPAC and ASTM Standards for Instrument Calibration and Performance Verification

The pursuit of reproducible and reliable scientific data in surface analysis requires rigorous instrument calibration and performance verification. For X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), the most widely used surface-analysis technique, adherence to standards developed by international bodies such as the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and ASTM International is fundamental to ensuring data comparability across laboratories and instruments [5]. The growing recognition of a "significant reproducibility crisis" in science underscores the critical importance of standardized measurement protocols, particularly for techniques like XPS that provide essential chemical state information from the outermost layers of a sample [5].

Standardized practices for XPS are primarily developed by ASTM Committee E-42 on Surface Analysis and ISO Technical Committee 201 [5]. These standards provide comprehensive guidance on instrument calibration, data acquisition, and interpretation, enabling analysts to produce reliable XPS data that withstands scientific and regulatory scrutiny. The implementation of these standards is especially crucial in regulated industries like pharmaceutical development, where method validation is essential for regulatory approval [23] [24].

Key Standardization Organizations and Their Roles

Multiple international organizations contribute to developing and maintaining standards for analytical instrumentation, including XPS. These organizations operate through consensus-based approaches involving manufacturers, users, and regulatory stakeholders.

Table 1: Key International Standardization Organizations Relevant to XPS

Organization	Full Name	Primary Role in XPS Standardization
ISO/TC 201	International Organization for Standardization/Technical Committee 201	Develops international standards for surface chemical analysis, including XPS [5]
ASTM E-42	ASTM International Committee E-42 on Surface Analysis	Develops standard practices, guides, and test methods for surface analysis [5]
IUPAC	International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry	Establishes standardized chemical nomenclature and measurement methods [24]
BIPM	International Bureau of Weights and Measures	Coordinates international measurement traceability through national metrology institutes [24]

The collaboration between these organizations creates a framework for measurement traceability. National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) maintain primary standards and participate in key comparisons coordinated by BIPM to ensure competence in specific measurement methods, which subsequently supports the production of reference materials and development of standards [24]. For nanomaterials and advanced materials, this hierarchical approach to measurement traceability is particularly important as it provides confidence in characterization data required for regulatory approval processes [24].

Critical Considerations for XPS Measurements

Determining Analytical Suitability and Measurement Planning

Before conducting XPS analyses, analysts must systematically evaluate whether the technique can address the specific analytical question. Key considerations include:

• Information Requirements: Determine whether the needed information is elemental composition, chemical state identification, depth distribution, or surface uniformity [5] [25].
• Sample Compatibility: Assess whether the sample size, morphology, and volatility are compatible with vacuum requirements of XPS instrumentation [5].
• Sensitivity and Detection Limits: Evaluate whether XPS has sufficient sensitivity for the elements of interest, considering typical detection limits of 0.1-1 at.% [5] [26].
• Spatial Resolution Requirements: Determine whether macro-scale analysis suffices or if micro-scale mapping or small-spot analysis is necessary [26].
• Depth Resolution Needs: Decide whether angle-resolved measurements, sputter depth profiling, or higher-energy X-rays are required to obtain depth-dependent information [5].

A comprehensive data collection plan should outline specific spectrum types needed (survey scans, high-resolution regional scans), measurement parameters, and whether specialized approaches like angle-resolved XPS or imaging are required [5].

Instrument Performance Verification and Calibration

Regular verification of instrument performance is essential for generating reliable XPS data. Critical calibration procedures include:

• Energy Scale Calibration: Verify binding energy scale accuracy using well-characterized standard materials with known peak positions [5].
• Intensity Response Calibration: Confirm the relative sensitivity factors and instrument transmission function using standard reference materials [5].
• Spectral Resolution Verification: Ensure the instrument achieves specified resolution using standard samples with narrow peak widths [5].
• Spatial Resolution Assessment: For imaging XPS instruments, verify spatial resolution using appropriate resolution test patterns [26].

Instrument performance should be verified regularly using certified reference materials or secondary standards traceable to national measurement institutes. This practice detects performance degradation from component aging or instrument malfunctions [23] [5].

Experimental Protocols for XPS Calibration and Performance Verification

Comprehensive XPS Instrument Qualification Protocol

This protocol outlines a systematic approach for verifying XPS instrument performance according to standardized practices, with execution time of approximately 8-12 hours.

Materials and Equipment

• Certified reference materials for XPS (e.g., pure copper, gold, or certified oxides)
• Conductive substrates (silicon wafers, metal foils)
• Standard sample holder compatible with the XPS instrument
• Charge compensation source (for insulating samples)
• Data analysis software with peak fitting capabilities

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for XPS Performance Verification

Material/Reagent	Function	Application Example
Pure metal foils (Au, Ag, Cu)	Energy scale calibration	Verify binding energy scale accuracy using well-characterized peaks [5]
Certified reference materials	Intensity and resolution verification	Quantify instrument response function and relative sensitivity factors [5]
Insulating standard samples (SiO₂, polymers)	Charge compensation assessment	Evaluate effectiveness of charge neutralization systems [5] [25]
Resolution test patterns	Spatial resolution verification	Determine spatial resolution for imaging XPS systems [26]

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Sample Preparation

  • Clean reference samples according to established protocols (e.g., solvent cleaning, argon sputtering)
  • Mount samples on appropriate holders using conductive adhesives or clips when necessary
  • Ensure good electrical connection between sample and holder, especially for insulating materials

• Instrument Setup

  • Verify ultra-high vacuum conditions (typically ≤ 1 × 10⁻⁸ mbar)
  • Select appropriate X-ray source (monochromatic Al Kα typically recommended for high-resolution work)
  • Configure charge neutralization system if analyzing insulating samples
  • Set analyzer pass energy appropriate for the required resolution (e.g., 20-40 eV for survey scans, 10-20 eV for high-resolution regions)

• Energy Scale Calibration

  • Acquire survey spectrum (0-1100 eV binding energy) of calibration standard
  • Collect high-resolution spectra of reference peaks (e.g., Au 4f₇/₂ at 84.0 eV, Cu 2p₃/₂ at 932.7 eV, Ag 3d₅/₂ at 368.3 eV)
  • Verify peak positions are within established tolerance (typically ±0.1 eV)
  • Adjust instrument calibration if peaks deviate beyond acceptable limits

• Spectral Resolution Verification

  • Measure full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the Ag 3d₅/₂ peak or Au 4f₇/₂ peak
  • Compare measured FWHM to instrument specification values
  • Document any significant broadening that may indicate instrument issues

• Intensity Response Verification

  • Acquire spectra from standard materials with known intensity ratios
  • Compare measured peak area ratios to theoretical or certified values
  • Verify consistency with established relative sensitivity factors

• Spatial Resolution Assessment (for Imaging XPS)

  • Analyze resolution test patterns or sharp edges
  • Determine spatial resolution by measuring edge sharpness in line profiles
  • Document resolution achieved for specific analysis conditions

• Data Recording and Reporting

  • Document all instrument parameters (X-ray source, power, analyzer settings, etc.)
  • Record sample preparation methods and reference material certifications
  • Report calibration results including any deviations from expected values
  • Maintain records for quality assurance and trend analysis

Troubleshooting Guidelines

• If energy shifts are observed, verify electrical connections and charge compensation settings
• If resolution degrades, check X-ray source condition, analyzer alignment, and vacuum integrity
• If intensity ratios deviate significantly, verify detector operation and sample homogeneity
• Consult instrument manuals and standardized guides for additional troubleshooting guidance [5]

Sample Analysis Workflow Using Standardized Practices

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive workflow for standardized XPS analysis, from planning through reporting:

Applications in Regulated Industries

XPS in Pharmaceutical Development and Nanomedicine

In pharmaceutical development, particularly for nanomedicines and complex drug formulations, XPS provides critical surface characterization data required for regulatory approval. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) collaborates with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) through initiatives like the Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory to advance standardized characterization of nanoparticles [24]. XPS analysis following standardized protocols enables:

• Surface Chemistry Quantification: Determining the elemental composition and chemical states at the surface of drug formulations, which influences biocompatibility and functionality [27] [28].
• Contaminant Identification: Detecting and identifying surface contaminants that may affect product safety or performance [25].
• Batch-to-Batch Consistency: Verifying consistency between production batches through standardized surface analysis protocols [24].

For nanocomplexes used in drug delivery, XPS following standardized protocols can directly examine molecular interactions between components, providing essential quality control data [27].

Case Study: Surface Analysis of a Magnetic Nanocatalyst

A research study demonstrating rigorous XPS characterization of Fe₃O₄-PTMS-NAS@Cu magnetic nanocatalyst illustrates the application of standardized practices [28]. The analysis confirmed:

• Successful grafting of copper onto the nanostructure through detailed high-resolution regional scans
• Presence of all expected elements (C, O, Si, S, Cu, Fe) in the survey spectrum
• Chemical state information confirming the oxidation states of copper and iron species

This comprehensive characterization supported by multiple techniques (XPS, FT-IR, SEM, EDX) exemplifies the integrated approach to material validation needed in pharmaceutical development [28].

The continuing evolution of XPS standardization addresses emerging challenges in surface analysis, including:

• Improved Reference Materials: Development of certified reference materials with reduced uncertainties and expanded chemical diversity [23] [24].
• Advanced Data Interpretation Tools: Standardized approaches for spectral interpretation, including peak fitting and chemical state identification [5].
• Interlaboratory Comparisons: Expanded participation in interlaboratory comparisons to establish measurement compatibility [24].
• Regulatory Harmonization: Alignment of standardized methods across international regulatory frameworks to facilitate global product approval [24].

Adherence to IUPAC and ASTM standards for instrument calibration and performance verification provides the foundation for reliable XPS analyses in research and regulated applications. Through implementation of standardized protocols, comprehensive performance verification, and rigorous documentation practices, analysts can ensure the quality and reproducibility of surface analysis data essential for scientific advancement and product development.

Within the framework of IUPAC-aligned protocols for surface analysis, the acquisition of X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) data follows a hierarchical methodology, progressing from general elemental surveys to specific chemical-state analysis. This structured approach ensures that the data collected is both comprehensive and reliable, addressing the growing concern over reproducibility in scientific literature [5]. XPS is a surface-sensitive quantitative spectroscopic technique that measures the elemental composition, chemical state, and electronic structure of the topmost 5–10 nm of a material [2]. The core acquisition sequence—beginning with a survey scan to identify all present elements followed by high-resolution region scans to delineate their chemical states—forms the bedrock of a rigorous XPS analysis. This article details the standardized application notes and protocols for this critical process, providing researchers with a clear, actionable guide to generating high-quality, interpretable data.

Theoretical Foundations of XPS

XPS is based on the photoelectric effect, where a material irradiated with X-rays emits photoelectrons. The kinetic energy of these emitted electrons is measured by the instrument, and their binding energy is calculated using the fundamental equation:

Ebinding = Ephoton - (E_kinetic + ϕ)

Here, E_binding is the binding energy of the electron relative to the sample's Fermi level, E_photon is the energy of the incident X-ray photons, E_kinetic is the measured kinetic energy of the electron, and ϕ is the work function of the spectrometer [2]. This relationship is the cornerstone of XPS, as the binding energy provides a unique fingerprint for each element and its chemical environment.

The analysis depth of XPS is typically limited to the top 5-10 nm, making it exceptionally sensitive to surface composition and contamination [6]. This surface sensitivity, combined with the ability to detect all elements except hydrogen and helium, has established XPS as the most widely used surface analysis technique [5] [6].

Experimental Protocols for Core Spectra Acquisition

Adhering to a standardized protocol is essential for obtaining meaningful and reproducible XPS data. The following sections provide a detailed, step-by-step methodology.

Sample Preparation and Loading

• Handling: Always handle samples with clean tweezers and wear appropriate gloves (e.g., latex or nitrile) to prevent surface contamination from fingerprints and skin oils [29].
• Mounting: Securely mount the specimen onto the sample platter (e.g., a 60 mm x 60 mm block) using compatible spring clips or other non-contaminating fixtures to ensure good electrical and thermal contact [29].
• Loading: Transfer the mounted sample into the instrument's fast-entry load-lock chamber. The subsequent pump-down and transfer to the ultra-high vacuum (UHV) analysis chamber (with pressures typically below 10⁻⁷ Pa) is often an automated process initiated via the instrument's software [2] [29].

Navigating to the Analysis Point

Once the sample is in the analysis chamber, the specific feature of interest must be located.

• Use the instrument's integrated optical camera system to view the sample surface.
• Navigate the stage by selecting coordinates on the platter image or using the software controls to move the stage.
• For point analysis, select the 'Point' tool in the software. While holding the 'control' key, left-click on the live optical view at the desired center of analysis. This action inserts an analysis object and draws an ellipse representing the X-ray spot size on the sample [29].
• Adjust the X-ray spot size, which defines the analysis area, to encompass the feature of interest using the mouse wheel or a similar software control [29].

Survey Scan Acquisition

The survey scan provides a broad overview of the elemental composition of the surface.

• Purpose: To identify all elements present on the sample surface (except H and He) and perform an initial quantification [29]. It is crucial for detecting unanticipated elements or contaminants.
• Parameters: This is a wide-energy-range scan (e.g., 0–1100 eV or 0–1500 eV) acquired with lower energy resolution but high count rates to detect weak signals from minor constituents [29]. A typical acquisition time is 1–20 minutes [2].
• Protocol:
  • In the experiment tree, use the 'multispectrum' or similar tool to insert a survey scan.
  • Run the experiment to collect the spectrum.
  • After collection, process the survey spectrum using the automated 'Survey ID' tool. This software function performs elemental identification by matching the observed photoelectron peaks to known binding energies and generates an initial quantitative table based on peak intensities and relative sensitivity factors (RSFs) [29].

High-Resolution Region Scan Acquisition

Following the survey scan, high-resolution scans are acquired for specific elemental regions to extract chemical state information.

• Purpose: To resolve small shifts in binding energy (typically 0.1-1 eV) that indicate chemical state changes, and to achieve more accurate quantification for specific elements [2] [5].
• Parameters: These are narrow-energy-range scans centered on a specific core-level peak (e.g., C 1s, O 1s, or a specific metal peak). They are acquired with higher energy resolution, which requires longer dwell times and thus longer total acquisition times (typically 1–15 minutes per region) to maintain a good signal-to-noise ratio [2].
• Protocol:
  • Based on the survey scan results, select the elements for high-resolution analysis by clicking on the corresponding elements in the software's periodic table [29].
  • Use the 'Multi-spectrum insert' tool to automatically set up the appropriate region scans, including the correct energy range and step size, for the selected elements.
  • Run the experiment to collect all defined high-resolution spectra.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the core spectra acquisition workflow from start to finish.

Data Interpretation and Analysis

Processing Survey Scan Data

After acquiring the survey spectrum and using the 'Survey ID' tool, the analyst must verify the automated results. This involves confirming that all major and minor peaks are correctly assigned to elements and that the background is appropriately defined. The quantitative atomic concentrations (At. %) provided in the resulting table offer the first insight into the sample's surface composition [29].

Processing High-Resolution Region Scans

High-resolution data requires more involved processing to extract chemical state information.

• Quantification via Peak Integration: For well-separated peaks, the total peak area can be integrated by setting a range cursor on either side of the peak and selecting an appropriate background type (e.g., linear or Shirley). Clicking the 'Add peak' tool will integrate the area between the data and the selected background [29].
• Peak Fitting for Chemical State Analysis: When a single peak is composed of multiple overlapping components from different chemical states, peak fitting (deconvolution) is necessary.
  • Select the energy range of the composite peak.
  • Use the 'Peak fit' tool to add individual component peaks. The number of components and their approximate positions should be guided by prior knowledge of the sample and standard binding energy databases.
  • Perform an iterative fit, adjusting parameters like peak position, full width at half maximum (FWHM), and intensity until the model accurately replicates the experimental data [29].
  • The areas of the fitted components are used for quantitative analysis of the different chemical species present.

Table 1: Example of chemical state quantification from high-resolution scans for a tarnished aluminum sample [29].

Name	Shiny Area (At. %)	Grey Area (At. %)	Brown Area (At. %)
Al₂p Al₂O₃	20.11	21.38	8.64
C1s C-C/C-H	17.78	9.51	11.88
O1s	45.10	51.08	53.57
Fe2p Fe₂O₃	0.27	0.18	10.14
Zn2p₃/₂ ZnO	0.16	0.18	0.82

Advanced Considerations

• Peak Overlap Issues: In some materials, photoelectron peaks from one element can overlap with the Auger electron peaks of another (e.g., the N 1s and Ga LMM overlap in GaN). This complicates quantification and chemical state analysis. One effective solution is to use an X-ray source with a different photon energy (e.g., Ag Lα at 2984.2 eV instead of standard Al Kα at 1486.7 eV). Since the kinetic energy of Auger electrons is independent of the photon energy, this shifts the Auger peaks in the binding energy scale, separating them from the core-level photoelectron peaks [30].
• Charge Compensation: When analyzing electrically insulating samples, positive charge accumulates on the surface, causing shifts in the measured binding energies. Charge compensation counteracts this by supplying low-energy electrons from an external source (an electron flood gun) to neutralize the surface charge, stabilizing the spectrum [7].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key reagents, materials, and equipment for XPS analysis.

Item	Function / Purpose
X-Ray Photoelectron Spectrometer	Core instrument for surface analysis. Key components include an X-ray source, electron energy analyzer, and ultra-high vacuum chamber [2] [6].
Al Kα X-ray Source	Standard monochromatic X-ray source (photon energy = 1486.7 eV) for exciting photoelectrons [2].
Ag Lα X-ray Source	High-energy monochromatic source (photon energy = 2984.2 eV) for accessing higher core levels and resolving peak overlaps [30].
Sample Platter & Spring Clips	For secure, stable, and electrically grounded mounting of solid samples within the instrument [29].
Charge Neutralization System	Electron flood gun for supplying low-energy electrons to neutralize surface charge on insulating samples, preventing peak shifting and broadening [7].
Ion Gun (for Sputtering)	Used for depth profiling by sequentially removing surface layers with an ion beam (e.g., Ar⁺) to reveal in-depth composition [2] [7].
Relative Sensitivity Factors (RSFs)	Empirically derived factors applied to raw photoelectron peak intensities to achieve accurate quantitative atomic concentrations [2] [30].
1,4-naphthalenedicarboxylic acid (1,4-NDC)	Example of a rigid organic linker used in the synthesis of Metal-Organic Frameworks (MOFs) for catalytic applications studied by XPS [31].
Sodium Borohydride (NaBH₄)	A chemical hydrogen storage material studied in catalysis research, whose surface reactions can be probed with XPS [31].

Data Presentation Standards

For reporting XPS data in publications or reports, the following standards are recommended to ensure clarity and reproducibility [5]:

• Survey Spectrum: Always include the full survey spectrum, clearly labeled with elemental peaks and the binding energy scale.
• High-Resolution Spectra: Present key high-resolution spectra with the original data points, the fitted envelope, and individual chemical state components clearly visible. A legend must identify each component.
• Quantification Tables: Provide tables of atomic concentrations derived from both survey and high-resolution scans. For fitted high-resolution data, the table should break down the concentration by chemical species, as shown in Table 1.
• Experimental Parameters: Report critical acquisition parameters, including the X-ray source type and energy, pass energy, step size, number of scans, and the charge correction method used.

X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) is a fundamental surface analysis technique that provides quantitative information about the elemental composition, empirical formula, chemical state, and electronic state of elements within a material. While conventional XPS offers vital surface chemical information, advanced operational modes significantly extend its analytical capabilities for complex material characterization challenges. Angle-Resolved XPS (ARXPS), depth profiling, and imaging represent three sophisticated approaches that enable researchers to extract detailed spatial and depth-dependent chemical information from material surfaces.

These advanced techniques are particularly crucial for characterizing modern materials with complex nanostructured architectures, including ultra-thin films, multi-layered structures, and surface-modified interfaces. The expanding applications of these methods across semiconductors, medical implants, energy storage, and pharmaceutical development underscore their importance in both industrial quality control and fundamental research. This application note details the principles, methodologies, and practical protocols for implementing these advanced XPS modes within a rigorous analytical framework.

Angle-Resolved XPS (ARXPS): Principles and Applications

Fundamental Principles

Angle-Resolved XPS (ARXPS) is a non-destructive technique that varies the emission angle at which photoelectrons are collected to probe different depths within the top few nanometers of a material surface [32]. The technique leverages the relationship between photoelectron emission angle and effective analysis depth, governed by the inelastic mean free path (IMFP) of electrons traveling through the material [33].

When measuring electrons that leave the material perpendicular to the surface (near-normal emission), the signal contains information from the maximum information depth, providing a more bulk-containing signal. Conversely, at grazing emission angles, the detected electrons originate primarily from the uppermost surface layers, making the technique highly surface-sensitive [34]. The probability (Pobs) that a photoelectron generated at depth z below the surface escapes and is observed by the analyzer at take-off angle θ is described by:

Pobs ∝ exp(-z/(λ sinθ))

where λ represents the IMFP, which is a property of the chemical matrix through which the photoelectron travels [33].

Experimental Methodology

Table 1: Key Experimental Parameters for ARXPS Measurements

Parameter	Specification	Impact on Data Quality
Angular Range	Typically 0° (grazing) to 90° (normal) relative to surface normal	Wider angular range improves depth resolution
Angular Resolution	Dependent on analyzer acceptance angle	Higher resolution provides more detailed depth information
Step Size	5°-10° increments common	Smaller steps improve profile reconstruction
Sample Alignment	Critical for accurate angles	Misalignment introduces depth calculation errors
Data Collection Time	Sufficient for good statistics at all angles	Compromise between signal quality and analysis time

ARXPS experiments are conducted serially by limiting the angular acceptance of the analyzer and stepping through a range of emission angles, typically achieved by precisely tilting the sample with respect to the analyzer [32]. The variation in signal intensity as a function of emission angle provides the quantitative data necessary for reconstructing depth profiles of chemical species within the top 2-10 nm of the surface.

Figure 1: ARXPS Experimental Workflow. This diagram illustrates the sequential process for acquiring angle-resolved XPS data, from sample preparation through to depth profile calculation.

Applications and Advantages

ARXPS provides critical capabilities for characterizing ultra-thin films and near-surface regions, including:

• Layer ordering and thickness determination in multi-layered structures [32]
• Non-destructive depth profiling of chemical states and elemental distributions [32] [35]
• Analysis of delicate materials that would be damaged by sputtering processes, such as polymers and organic films [32]
• Characterization of ultra-thin films (<2 nm) that are challenging to analyze by conventional depth profiling techniques [32] [35]

The semiconductor industry particularly relies on ARXPS for metrology control of ultra-thin gate oxides, with applications for SiO₂ films, silicon oxynitride (SiOₓNᵧ), and advanced high-k dielectric materials like HfO₂-based films [35]. The technique's non-destructive nature enables 100% sampling of production wafers without compromising device integrity.

Depth Profiling Methodologies

Traditional Sputter Depth Profiling

Conventional XPS depth profiling combines surface analysis with ion beam sputtering to sequentially remove material layers while characterizing the newly exposed surfaces. This approach provides elemental and chemical state information as a function of depth, typically reaching several micrometers into the material. However, this method presents limitations, including:

• Preferential sputtering that alters surface composition [36]
• Chemical damage and reduction processes that modify original chemical states [36] [37]
• Mixing of atomic layers, reducing depth resolution, particularly at interface regions
• Limited applicability to soft materials like polymers and biological samples

Advanced Depth Profiling Techniques

Cluster Ion Sputtering

The development of cluster ion sources (e.g., Arₙ⁺, C₆₀⁺, or gas clusters) has significantly improved the analysis of organic materials and soft surfaces by reducing fragmentation and preserving chemical information during sputtering. Modern XPS instruments like the Thermo Scientific Nexsa G2 incorporate dual-mode ion sources for both monatomic and cluster ion depth profiling [32].

Femtosecond Laser Depth Profiling

A revolutionary advancement in XPS depth profiling emerged recently with the introduction of the Thermo Scientific Hypulse Surface Analysis System, which incorporates femtosecond laser technology for material removal [36] [37]. This novel approach offers significant advantages:

• Minimized chemical damage by changing the material-removal mechanism from ballistic to electrostatic processes [36] [37]
• Accelerated data collection with much faster depth profiling capabilities [36]
• Extended profiling depth with the ability to vary laser energy for characterizing deeper regions [37]
• Preservation of original chemical composition during the profiling process [36]

Professor Mark Baker from the University of Surrey confirms: "The femtosecond laser enables us to avoid chemical damage because it changes the material-removal mechanism from a ballistic process to an electrostatic process, allowing us to record the original, true composition in the profile" [36].

Table 2: Comparison of XPS Depth Profiling Techniques

Parameter	Sputter Profiling (Monatomic Ions)	Cluster Ion Sputtering	Femtosecond Laser Profiling
Chemical Damage	High	Moderate	Very Low
Applicable Materials	Inorganics, metals, ceramics	Polymers, organics, biologicals	All material classes
Depth Resolution	Good (degrades at interfaces)	Very good	Excellent
Profiling Speed	Moderate	Slow	Very fast
Depth Range	Micrometers	Hundreds of nanometers	Micrometers with variable energy

Imaging and Spatial Resolution

XPS imaging provides spatially resolved chemical information across a sample surface, enabling visualization of elemental or chemical state distributions. Modern XPS imaging capabilities have advanced significantly with the development of:

• Micro-focused X-ray sources that enable high spatial resolution mapping [32]
• Parallel imaging acquisition with 2D detector systems for efficient data collection
• Advanced data processing for multivariate analysis of complex chemical maps

The Nexsa G2 system, for example, incorporates micro-focus X-ray sources that enable detailed chemical imaging with high spatial resolution, providing both elemental and chemical state distribution maps across material surfaces [32].

Experimental Protocols

ARXPS Protocol for Ultra-thin Film Characterization

Objective: Determine the thickness and composition of a silicon oxynitride (SiOₓNᵧ) film on a silicon substrate.

Materials and Equipment:

• XPS instrument with angle-resolved capabilities (e.g., Thermo Scientific ESCALAB QXi) [32]
• Flat, homogeneous sample (<1 cm²)
• Charge neutralization source (for insulating samples)

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation:

  • Clean sample surface with appropriate solvent (e.g., isopropanol)
  • Mount sample on appropriate holder ensuring flat surface
  • Ensure good electrical contact to minimize charging

• Instrument Setup:

  • Select monochromatic Al Kα X-ray source
  • Set analyzer pass energy to 20-50 eV for high resolution scans
  • Configure charge neutralization if required

• Preliminary Analysis:

  • Acquire survey spectrum at normal emission (90° take-off angle)
  • Identify all elements present (Si, O, N, C)
  • Record high-resolution spectra for Si 2p, O 1s, N 1s, and C 1s regions

• ARXPS Data Acquisition:

  • Set angular range from 15° to 90° in 5° increments
  • At each angle, acquire high-resolution spectra for all relevant peaks
  • Maintain constant analysis area throughout angular series
  • Ensure sufficient acquisition time for good counting statistics (>10,000 counts)

• Data Analysis:

  • Measure peak areas for each chemical component at all angles
  • Identify chemical states through peak fitting (Si⁰, Si⁴⁺, Si-N bonds)
  • Apply appropriate model (e.g., layer model, maximum entropy method) to reconstruct depth profile
  • Calculate film thickness using known inelastic mean free paths

Table 3: ARXPS Data for SiOₓNᵧ/Si Structure

Emission Angle (°)	Si Substrate (Si⁰) Intensity	SiOₓNᵧ (Si⁴⁺) Intensity	N 1s Intensity	Surface C 1s Intensity
15 (grazing)	1250	9850	2150	3250
30	3550	12500	2850	3100
45	6250	13200	2650	2980
60	8850	11800	2350	2880
75	11200	9850	1950	2760
90 (normal)	13250	8250	1650	2650

Depth Profiling Protocol Using Femtosecond Laser

Objective: Create a depth profile through a multi-layered medical implant coating to characterize interfacial composition.

Materials and Equipment:

• Hypulse Surface Analysis System or equivalent with femtosecond laser capability [36]
• Appropriately sized sample for analysis chamber

Procedure:

• Initial Characterization:

  • Acquire survey and high-resolution spectra of the surface
  • Identify all elemental and chemical state components

• Laser Parameters Optimization:

  • Select laser energy based on material properties and desired depth
  • Set spot size and pattern for uniform material removal
  • Calibrate removal rate using reference materials if available

• Depth Profiling Sequence:

  • Program alternating analysis and laser ablation cycles
  • Set XPS analysis parameters for each profiling step
  • Establish sufficient signal acquisition time for good statistics

• Data Processing:

  • Quantify elemental concentrations at each depth
  • Correlate sputter time with depth using known crater measurements
  • Generate composition vs. depth profiles for all detected elements

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 4: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Advanced XPS Analysis

Item	Function	Application Notes
Monochromatic Al Kα X-ray Source	Excitation of photoelectrons	Provides high energy resolution; reduces background radiation
Hemispherical Analyzer	Energy dispersion of photoelectrons	Enables high sensitivity and energy resolution measurements
Dual-Beium Ion Source	Sputtering for depth profiling	Combines monatomic ions (inorganics) and cluster ions (organics)
Femtosecond Laser Ablation System	Non-destructive material removal	Preserves chemical state information; enables deep profiling [36]
Charge Neutralization System	Compensation of surface charging	Essential for analysis of insulating samples
Automated Sample Stage	Precise positioning and tilting	Enables ARXPS measurements and multi-point analysis
Reference Materials	Energy scale calibration and quantification	Au, Ag, Cu standards for instrument validation

Advanced XPS operational modes including Angle-Resolved XPS, depth profiling, and imaging provide powerful capabilities for characterizing the chemical composition and structure of material surfaces with nanoscale resolution. ARXPS offers a non-destructive approach for determining layer thickness and composition in ultra-thin films, while recent innovations in femtosecond laser depth profiling have revolutionized our ability to characterize complex multi-layered structures without compromising chemical state information.

These techniques are increasingly critical across diverse fields including semiconductor technology, medical device development, energy storage systems, and pharmaceutical research. The continuous advancement of XPS instrumentation and methodology ensures these surface analysis techniques will remain indispensable for materials research and development, enabling scientists to address increasingly complex characterization challenges in emerging technologies.

Application Note 1: Probing Non-Covalent Interactions in Molecular Clusters

Non-covalent interactions, such as hydrogen bonding and π-stacking, are fundamental in determining the structure, stability, and function of biomolecules and soft materials. X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) provides a powerful tool for investigating these weak interactions by detecting subtle shifts in the binding energy (BE) of core-level electrons, known as chemical shifts [38]. When atoms engage in non-covalent bonding, the redistribution of electron density in their local environment causes measurable changes in BE, allowing researchers to identify and quantify the nature of the interactions. This application note details how XPS is used to unravel complex molecular interactions in bio-mimetic systems.

Key Findings from Uracil Cluster Studies

Studies on uracil clusters demonstrate XPS's sensitivity to different non-covalent interaction types. The table below summarizes the core-level chemical shifts observed for different molecular interactions.

Table 1: XPS Chemical Shifts in Uracil Clusters Due to Non-Covalent Interactions

Interaction Type	Cluster Model	Average BE Shift (eV)	Key Atomic Observations	Interpretation
Hydrogen Bonding (H-bond)	Symmetric H-bond Dimer	Up to ~1.1 eV lowering	Largest shift for N3 atom	Efficient core-hole screening by neighboring carbonyl group [38]
π-Stacking	Stacked Dimer	≤ 0.05 eV lowering	Small shifts for all atoms	Limited perturbation from dispersion forces alone [38]
Combined H-bond & Stacking	Stacked Hexamer	~0.24 eV additional lowering vs. dimer	Collective shift for all atoms	Neighboring molecules cooperatively screen the core hole [38]
Mixed Hydration	Water-Uracil Clusters	---	Altered C, N, O 1s spectra	Supramolecular core-shell organization (water core, uracil shell) [39]

Experimental Protocol

Objective: To identify and characterize non-covalent interactions in molecular clusters (e.g., uracil) using XPS.

Materials and Equipment:

• Gas Aggregation Cluster Source: For producing neutral molecular clusters in the gas phase [38] [39].
• Synchrotron Radiation Source: Provides high-flux, tunable X-rays (e.g., PLEIADES beamline at SOLEIL) [38] [39].
• High-Resolution Electron Energy Analyzer: Such as a Scienta R4000, operated at high energy resolution (e.g., 200 meV) [39].
• Uracil Powder: High purity (e.g., 99%) [39].
• Buffer Gas: Helium [39].
• Computational Resources: Software for atomistic simulations (e.g., DFT, tight-binding molecular dynamics) [38] [39].

Procedure:

• Cluster Generation: Vaporize the uracil powder in a resistively heated oven (e.g., at 183 °C) within the gas aggregation source. The vapor is cooled by a helium buffer gas, leading to cluster formation via three-body collisions [38] [39].
• Photoemission Measurement: Irradiate the beam of neutral clusters with monochromatized X-rays. For uracil, measure C 1s, N 1s, and O 1s spectra at photon energies about 60 eV above their respective ionization thresholds [39].
• Data Collection: Collect the kinetic energy of the ejected photoelectrons using the electron energy analyzer. Convert kinetic energies to binding energies using the known energy of the X-rays [40] [41].
• Computational Validation (Bottom-Up Approach):
  • Model Building: Construct cluster models of increasing size (from dimer to dodecamer) based on the crystallographic structure of the molecule [38].
  • Geometry Optimization: Perform ab initio or DFT calculations to fully optimize the cluster structures in the gas phase [38].
  • BE Calculation: Calculate the core-level binding energy for every atom in the various cluster configurations [38].
  • Spectral Assignment: Compare the calculated BEs with the experimental spectrum to assign spectral features to specific molecular environments and interaction patterns [38].

Data Interpretation:

• A lowering of BE in the cluster compared to the isolated molecule indicates more efficient screening of the core hole, often due to polarization from neighboring molecules in non-covalent interactions [38].
• Different bonding patterns (e.g., symmetric H-bond vs. asymmetric H-bond) produce distinct BE shifts for atoms involved directly in the interaction [38].
• The bottom-up computational approach helps interpret the congested XPS spectra of large clusters by identifying the dominant local connectivities [38].

Application Note 2: Detecting and Analyzing Surface Contamination

Surface contamination, often invisible to the naked eye, can severely compromise material performance, affecting processes like adhesion, corrosion resistance, and the functionality of semiconductors and biomedical devices [42]. XPS is an indispensable technique for detecting and characterizing these surface contaminants due to its high surface sensitivity (analysis depth of 1–10 nm) and ability to provide both quantitative elemental composition and chemical state identification [40] [42]. This application note covers the identification of common contaminants and protocols for surface cleanliness verification.

Common Surface Contaminants and XPS Signatures

Surface contaminants originate from manufacturing processes, handling, and the environment. XPS can identify and quantify these impurities with high sensitivity.

Table 2: Common Surface Contaminants Detectable by XPS

Contaminant Type	Common Sources	XPS Signature / Key Indicators	Typical Thickness / Coverage	Impact on Material Properties
Adventitious Carbon	Ambient air, hydrocarbons	C 1s peak (C-C/C-H, C-O, C=O)	3–8 nm thick layer	Present on all air-exposed materials; affects wettability and adhesion [42]
Silicones	Lubricants, seals, gloves	Si 2p and Si 2s peaks; O 1s peak	Monolayer to several nm	Weakens adhesive bonding, causes sealant failure [42]
Soluble Salts	Acid rain, marine environments, fingerprints	Cl 2p, S 2p peaks (e.g., chlorides, sulfates)	Particulate or thin layer	Initiates corrosion, causes coating delamination via osmotic blistering [42]
Metallic Soaps	Polishing agents, cleaning sprays	Ca 2p, Zn 2p, P 2p, O 1s peaks	Varies	Can interfere with coatings and surface treatments [42]

Experimental Protocol for Contamination Analysis

Objective: To identify, quantify, and determine the chemical state of contaminants on a solid surface.

Materials and Equipment:

• XPS Spectrometer: Equipped with a standard Al Kα or Mg Kα X-ray source [40].
• Charge Compensation System: Essential for analyzing insulating samples [40].
• Ion Sputtering Gun: For depth profiling to determine contamination layer thickness [42].
• Sample Stubs and handling tools (e.g., tweezers, vacuum-compatible tapes).

Procedure:

• Sample Handling and Transfer:
  • Use clean, powder-free gloves (e.g., nitrile) and clean tweezers to minimize introduction of new contaminants [42].
  • Mount the sample on an appropriate stub and introduce it into the XPS instrument's vacuum introduction chamber as quickly as possible to minimize air exposure.
• Data Acquisition:
  • Survey Scan: Acquire a wide energy range survey spectrum (e.g., 0-1200 eV binding energy) to identify all elements present on the surface (except H and He) [42].
  • High-Resolution Regional Scans: For each element identified in the survey scan, collect high-resolution spectra over the relevant energy regions (e.g., C 1s, O 1s, Si 2p). Use a lower pass energy for better energy resolution.
• Data Analysis:
  • Quantification: Calculate the atomic concentration of each element using the peak areas and appropriate sensitivity factors [43].
  • Chemical State Identification: Analyze the high-resolution spectra. Deconvolve complex peaks (e.g., the C 1s peak) into components representing different chemical environments (e.g., C-C, C-O, C=O, O-C=O) [42].
  • Depth Profiling (Optional): Use a low-energy ion beam to sputter the surface away incrementally, collecting XPS data after each sputtering cycle. This builds a depth profile showing how the concentration of contaminants changes with depth from the surface [40] [42].

Data Interpretation:

• A high atomic concentration of carbon, especially in the form of C-C/C-H, is typical for adventitious carbon contamination [42].
• The presence of silicon, indicated by Si 2p and Si 2s peaks, signifies silicone contamination [42].
• The chemical state of elements like chlorine (in chlorides) can help identify corrosive salts [42].

Application Note 3: Determining Oxidation States and Chemical Bonding

The oxidation state of an element, particularly in transition metals, directly influences material properties such as catalytic activity, corrosion resistance, and electronic behavior. XPS is an ideal technique for determining oxidation states because it probes chemical shifts—changes in core-electron binding energy that occur with changes in an atom's chemical environment [43] [44]. This application note describes the methodology for iron oxidation state analysis and its extension to other systems like molybdenum sulfide.

Quantitative Analysis of Oxidation States

Chemical shifts arise from changes in the valence electron density. Oxidation (loss of electrons) increases binding energy, while reduction (gain of electrons) decreases it. The table below illustrates this for iron and molybdenum.

Table 3: XPS Analysis of Oxidation States in Reference Materials

Material	Element & Oxidation State	Spectral Features & BE Shifts	Quantification Method
Iron Foil	Fe(0)	Characteristic peak position and shape	Linear combination fitting using reference spectra [43]
Iron Oxide (Fe₂O₃)	Fe(III)	Distinct peak position & structure; ~2-4 eV higher BE than Fe(0)	Linear combination fitting using reference spectra [43]
Vacuum-heated Iron Oxide	Fe(II)	Distinct peak position & structure; ~1-3 eV higher BE than Fe(0)	Linear combination fitting using reference spectra [43]
MoS₂ Powder	Mo(IV) in MoS₂	Characteristic Mo 3d doublet position	Peak fitting of high-resolution Mo 3d spectrum [44]
MoS₂ Powder	Mo(VI) in MoO₃	Mo 3d doublet at ~3.2 eV higher BE than MoS₂	Quantified as 7.9% of total Mo [44]

Experimental Protocol for Oxidation State Analysis

Objective: To determine the oxidation state of elements in a surface using high-resolution XPS.

Materials and Equipment:

• XPS Spectrometer: With high spectral resolution capabilities [40].
• Reference Materials: Well-characterized standards of the pure elements and their common compounds (e.g., pure metal foil, pure oxides) [43].
• Ion Sputter Gun (Optional): For in-situ surface cleaning to remove adventitious oxides or carbon [43].

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation:
  • If analyzing a powder, mount it by pressing it into a indium foil or as a thin film on a conductive tape.
  • For bulk materials, in-situ cleaning by argon ion sputtering can be used to remove native surface oxides, but this can alter the surface chemistry and should be used judiciously [43].
• Data Acquisition:
  • Acquire a survey spectrum to determine elemental composition.
  • Collect high-resolution regional spectra over the core-level peaks of interest (e.g., Fe 2p, Mo 3d) with a sufficient number of scans and low pass energy to achieve good signal-to-noise ratio and energy resolution.
• Data Analysis via Peak Fitting:
  • Background Subtraction: Remove the inelastic background from the spectrum using a standard method (e.g., Shirley, Tougaard) [43].
  • For Complex Transition Metal Spectra (Recommended Approach): Use a linear combination of reference spectra from standard compounds for fitting. This avoids the complexity of analytically describing multiple peak shapes, asymmetries, and satellite features [43].
  • For Simpler Systems: Fit the spectrum with synthetic peaks (e.g., Gaussian-Lorentzian functions). Constrain parameters based on chemical knowledge (e.g., fixed spin-orbit splitting, fixed area ratios for doublets) [44].

Data Interpretation:

• A higher oxidation state results in a higher binding energy for the photoelectron peak [43] [44].
• The relative areas under the peaks for different oxidation states provide a quantitative measure of their concentration in the analysis volume [43] [44].
• For transition metals, satellite features (shake-up satellites) can also be characteristic of specific oxidation states (e.g., in Fe(II) compounds) [43].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 4: Key Reagents and Materials for XPS Surface Analysis

Item Name	Function / Application	Critical Specifications / Notes
Gas Aggregation Cluster Source	Generates beams of neutral molecular clusters for gas-phase XPS studies of non-covalent interactions [38] [39].	Liquid nitrogen-cooled; uses inert buffer gas (He); allows controlled mixing of vapors (e.g., uracil and water) [39].
Synchrotron Radiation	High-brilliance, tunable X-ray source for high-resolution and high-sensitivity XPS measurements [38] [39].	Provides higher photon flux and energy selectivity than lab-based sources; essential for some gas-phase studies [39].
Monatomic & Gas Cluster Ion Source	Provides ions for sample cleaning and depth profiling (MAGCIS type) [40].	Gas cluster ion beams are essential for depth profiling soft organic materials without causing excessive damage [40].
Charge Neutralizer (Flood Gun)	Compensates for positive charge buildup on electrically insulating samples [40].	Uses low-energy electrons; critical for obtaining non-shifted spectra from insulators like polymers or oxides [40].
Certified Reference Materials	Used as standards for quantifying oxidation states and calibrating instrument response [43].	Includes pure metal foils (e.g., Au, Ag, Cu), pure oxides (e.g., Fe₂O₃, SiO₂), and other well-characterized compounds [43].
Uracil Powder (High Purity)	Model biomolecule for studying nucleobase interactions and cluster formation [38] [39].	≥99% purity; vaporized in an oven for cluster source experiments [39].
Conductive Mounting Substrates	Provides a conductive path to ground for analysis of powder or insulating samples.	Includes indium foil, carbon tapes, and specially designed sample stubs.

Solving Common XPS Challenges: Reproducibility, Charging, and Contamination

Addressing the Reproducibility Crisis in XPS Data

The widespread utility of X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) has made it the most popular method of surface analysis, but this increased use has been accompanied by growing concerns about data reproducibility and reliability [5]. A 2016 survey revealed that more than half of scientists believed there was a "significant reproducibility crisis" in science [5]. In XPS, this crisis manifests through inappropriate or incorrect use of the technique, leading to publications with erroneous data that subsequently become replicated in the literature [45]. The root causes include an increasing number of inexperienced users, the perception of XPS as a simple "black box" technique, historic differences in instrument capabilities and calibration, and the spread of binding-energy information in databases [5]. This application note outlines standardized protocols and workflows to address these challenges and enhance the reliability of XPS data.

Reproducibility in science refers to "using the same analysis on the same data to see if the original finding recurs," while replicability involves "testing the same question with new data" [46]. In XPS, challenges to reproducibility can occur at multiple stages of an experiment, from planning and sample preparation to data acquisition, interpretation, and reporting [5].

Table 1: Common Sources of Irreproducibility in XPS Data

Stage	Source of Irreproducibility	Impact on Data Quality
Sample Preparation	Improper handling, contamination, inadequate charge control for insulators	Incorrect elemental identification, peak broadening, shifted binding energies [47]
Data Acquisition	Incorrect instrument calibration, poor statistics, inappropriate measurement parameters	Faulty energy referencing, poor signal-to-noise, inaccurate quantification [5]
Data Interpretation	Incorrect peak fitting, improper background subtraction, misassignment of chemical states	Invalid chemical state identification, erroneous quantitative results [48]
Reporting	Insufficient methodological details, lack of raw data accessibility	Prevents validation and replication of results by other researchers [5]

Transparency forms the foundation for addressing these issues, transforming science from a "trust-me" to a "show-me" enterprise [46]. The following sections provide detailed protocols to ensure reproducibility at each experimental stage.

Pre-Analysis Planning and Sample Preparation

Determining Analytical Objectives

Before analysis, clearly define the analytical question. Determine if XPS is the appropriate technique and whether it can provide the required information regarding elemental composition, chemical state, depth distribution, or lateral distribution [5]. Consider the sample's nature, size, and whether it requires special handling or environmental conditions.

Sample Handling Protocols

• Contamination Control: Handle samples with clean tweezers or gloves to prevent adventitious carbon and other contaminants from compromising surface-sensitive measurements.
• Charge Compensation: For electrically insulating samples, use charge compensation systems that supply electrons from an external source to neutralize positive surface charge. This stabilizes the surface to a nearly neutral state, preventing peak shifting and broadening [47].
• Reference Materials: Use well-characterized nanoscale reference or test materials to validate instrument performance and measurement protocols. These materials provide benchmark values, allowing users to test and validate their methods and ensuring comparable and reliable measurements [24].

Instrumentation & Data Acquisition Workflow

A standardized workflow for data acquisition and analysis is crucial for obtaining reliable and reproducible results. The following diagram outlines the key stages from initial setup to final reporting.

Instrument Setup and Calibration

• Performance Verification: Before analysis, verify instrument performance using standard samples with known spectral features and intensities. Check the energy scale, intensity/transmission function, and energy resolution [5] [48].
• Relative Sensitivity Factors (RSFs): Use the correct RSFs and appropriate intensity calibration for your specific XPS instrument and X-ray source energy. Do not rely on default software values without verification, as this leads to incorrect quantification [48].

Data Acquisition Strategy

• Survey Spectra: Begin with a survey spectrum to identify all elements present, including unexpected peaks or contaminants. This helps identify potential peak overlaps that must be considered during high-resolution analysis [48].
• High-Resolution Spectra: Acquire high-energy-resolution spectra from core regions of interest to extract chemical state information and enable accurate quantification.
• Charge Control: Optimize the charge neutralizer to give the narrowest full width at half maximum (FWHM). Significant sample charging can cause peak broadening of 3-4 eV or higher, complicating data interpretation [48].

Data Analysis and Interpretation Protocol

Energy Scale Referencing

Reference your data to a peak with a known binding energy. While referencing to the adventitious hydrocarbon C 1s peak at 284.8 eV is common, it is not always the best choice. Alternative references include an intense narrow O²⁻ peak of an oxide or a highly electronegative peak like F 1s in a fluoride [48].

Spectral Interpretation and Peak Fitting

Peak fitting requires understanding both the physical principles of XPS and the chemistry of the material under study. Adhere to the following physical facts to avoid common errors:

• Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM): Peaks cannot be narrower than the X-ray line width (~0.25 eV for monochromatic Al X-rays). The smallest measured linewidth is approximately 0.32 eV. Most peaks fall between 0.5–2.0 eV, with pure metals being narrowest (0.5–1.0 eV), followed by inorganic compounds (0.5–1.5 eV), and organic compounds having the largest FWHMs (1.0–2.0 eV or larger) [48].
• Peak Shape: Use a mixed Gaussian-Lorentzian peak shape (e.g., GL(30) in CASA XPS). For conductive samples like metals or graphite, account for inherent asymmetry to the higher binding energy side using appropriate line shapes rather than incorrectly fitting this tail with multiple symmetrical peaks [48].
• Spin-Orbit Splitting: Constrain spin-orbit split components to have equal FWHMs (with known exceptions like Ti 2p) and adhere to theoretical area ratios (p peaks 2:1, d peaks 3:2, f peaks 4:3) unless chemical differences justify deviation [48].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Reference Materials for Reproducible XPS

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Critical Usage Notes
Certified Reference Materials (CRMs) [24]	Validation of instrument performance and measurement protocols	Use for establishing traceability; ensures accuracy and comparability of measurements
Charge Compensation Standard	Optimization of electron flood gun for insulating samples	Enables analysis of insulators without peak shifting or broadening [47]
Sputtered Clean Foils (Au, Ag, Cu)	Energy scale calibration, resolution verification	Provides known spectral features for regular instrument performance checks
Adventitious Carbon Reference	Secondary binding energy reference (C 1s at 284.8 eV)	Use with caution; not always the most reliable reference [48]
Ion Sputter Sources (Monatomic/Cluster)	Depth profiling and surface cleaning	Gas cluster ion sources enable analysis of organic and soft materials [47]

Quantification Procedures

For accurate quantification, ensure you are using the correct relative sensitivity factors and appropriate intensity calibration for your specific instrument. Use consistent background subtraction methods (e.g., Shirley background) for all regions in a dataset, ensuring the background extends at least 5-10 data points before and after the peak [48].

Reporting Standards for Transparent Research

Comprehensive reporting is essential for others to reproduce and validate XPS results. The following information should be included in any publication or report:

• Sample Information: Complete description of the sample, including preparation history, handling procedures, and any pre-treatment.
• Instrument Information: Manufacturer and model of spectrometer, X-ray source characteristics (anode material, monochromatic or non-monochromatic), analyzer pass energy, and step size.
• Acquisition Parameters: Number of scans, dwell times, and total acquisition time for each spectral region.
• Calibration Details: Method of energy scale calibration, including the reference peak and its measured position.
• Data Analysis Methods: Software used, background subtraction method, peak fitting constraints (FWHM, spin-orbit ratios, peak shapes), and quantification parameters.
• Raw Data Accessibility: Deposit raw data in discipline-specific, community-recognized repositories that issue persistent identifiers (e.g., DOI) to facilitate discoverability and citation [49].

Addressing the reproducibility crisis in XPS requires a systematic approach encompassing proper training, standardized protocols, rigorous validation, and comprehensive reporting. By implementing the workflows and guidelines outlined in this application note, researchers can significantly enhance the reliability and credibility of their XPS data. Ultimately, fostering a culture of transparency and reproducibility strengthens the scientific enterprise, enabling more rapid advancement in surface science and related disciplines.

Charge Compensation and Analysis of Insulating Materials

X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) is a highly surface-sensitive technique used for quantitative chemical analysis of the top 1–10 nm of a material [40]. The analysis of electrically insulating samples presents a unique challenge, as the emission of photoelectrons during X-ray irradiation causes a positive charge to accumulate on the sample surface [50] [51]. This charging effect shifts the kinetic energy of emitted photoelectrons to lower values, resulting in observed peaks in the XPS spectrum shifting to higher binding energies, which can severely affect data quality and interpretation [52] [51].

Charge compensation is therefore a critical prerequisite for obtaining meaningful XPS data from insulating materials. This application note details the underlying mechanisms of charging, presents standardized protocols for charge compensation aligned with IUPAC protocol research initiatives, and provides guidance for accurate data analysis, forming an essential component of a broader thesis on standardized XPS surface analysis methodologies.

Fundamental Mechanisms of Sample Charging

In XPS, the photoemission process causes electron ejection from the sample surface. For conductors, these electrons are replenished from the ground. However, for insulators, the electrical continuity is broken, leading to a positive charge buildup in the irradiated area [52] [50]. At steady state, this charging is characterized by a surface potential, VS, which results from an equilibrium between the electron emission flux into the vacuum, I(out), and the compensation flux, I(in), from various sources [52].

The charge density, Q, responsible for significant spectral shifts is remarkably small—on the order of 10-11 C/cm² or a fraction of an electron per square micron for a 1 mm thick sample with a dielectric constant of 3.4 [52]. This minute quantity makes the system highly sensitive to weak compensation sources, including the surrounding environment and residual gases in the vacuum chamber.

A particularly challenging phenomenon is differential charging, which occurs when a sample contains both insulating and conductive domains, or when the insulating layer has varying thicknesses [52] [50]. This heterogeneity causes different surface areas to stabilize at distinct local potentials, resulting in peak broadening or even distortion, complicating chemical state identification [50].

Table 1: Primary Electron Fluxes Governing Surface Charging at Steady State

Flux Type	Symbol	Description	Governing Factors
Outgoing Electron Flux	I(out)	Flux of photoelectrons emitted into vacuum	X-ray flux, photoemission yield, surface potential VS
Incoming Electron Flux	I(in)	Total flux of electrons neutralizing the surface	Flood gun electrons, secondary electrons from the X-ray source, surrounding conduction

Charge Compensation Methodologies

Active Compensation: Low-Energy Electron Flood Guns

The most common and effective compensation method uses a low-energy electron flood gun to direct a flux of low-energy (typically 0–5 eV) electrons onto the sample surface [50] [51]. These electrons replace those lost due to photoemission, thus neutralizing the positive charge buildup. Modern systems often employ a slight overcompensation strategy, establishing a stable, slightly negative surface potential. Peaks in the spectrum are then shifted a few eV lower in binding energy, which can be corrected during data processing by referencing to a known internal standard [50].

Advanced spectrometer designs, such as those from Kratos, integrate the flood gun with magnetic fields that guide over- and under-focused photoelectrons back to the sample surface, enhancing compensation efficiency [50]. Combined ion/electron guns are also available, featuring LaB6 emitters that produce a bright, focused source of low-energy electrons with a narrow energy spread (~0.3 eV) for precise alignment with the X-ray beam [51].

Passive Compensation: Specimen Isolation and Mounting

For samples with mixed conductive and insulating regions, a highly effective strategy is specimen isolation. This involves electrically "floating" the entire sample from the metallic specimen holder, making all areas behave non-conductively. This can be achieved by mounting samples on non-conductive double-sided tape or glass slides [50]. This technique minimizes differential charging by ensuring a uniform potential across the entire sample surface, as all areas charge to a similar potential under irradiation, rather than having grounded conductive domains and charged insulating ones.

Sample Environment and Biasing

The sample's environment, including the geometry of the specimen holder and the pressure in the analysis chamber, can influence compensation by affecting the pathways for electron conduction and the availability of secondary electrons from the gas phase [52]. In some experimental configurations, applying a controlled bias to the specimen holder (VH) can be used to manipulate the electrostatic conditions and actively control the surface potential, providing another parameter for managing charge stabilization [52].

Experimental Protocols for Charge Compensation

Standard Operating Procedure for Insulating Samples

The following protocol provides a detailed methodology for XPS analysis of insulating samples, ensuring reliable and reproducible data collection.

Protocol 1: Charge-Compensated XPS Analysis of Bulk Insulators

• Objective: To acquire XPS spectra from an electrically insulating sample with minimal charging artifacts for accurate elemental and chemical state analysis.

• Materials & Equipment:

  • XPS spectrometer equipped with a low-energy electron flood gun.
  • Non-conductive sample mounting supplies (e.g., double-sided adhesive tape, glass slide).
  • Conductive adhesive tape (for comparison or conductor mounting).
  • Standard reference material (e.g., Adventitious Carbon, Au foil).

• Procedure:

  • Sample Preparation:

    • Clean the sample surface using a dry, inert gas (e.g., N2) to remove loose particulates.
    • Mount the sample using a non-conductive double-sided tape on a glass slide or a dedicated insulating holder. Avoid any electrical contact with the metallic stub to implement the "specimen isolation" technique [50].
    • If specimen isolation is not feasible, mount the sample on conductive tape, acknowledging the potential for increased differential charging.

  • Instrument Setup:

    • Insert the sample into the introduction chamber and pump down according to the manufacturer's standard procedure.
    • Transfer the sample to the analysis chamber.
    • Align the flood gun: Precisely align the electron beam from the flood gun to the X-ray irradiation spot on the sample. Modern systems often have automated or software-assisted alignment procedures [51].
    • Initialize the flood gun: Set the flood gun to a low electron energy (typically < 5 eV) and a low emission current (e.g., 0.1 mA). The optimal settings are sample-dependent and must be determined empirically [53].

  • Optimization of Compensation Parameters:

    • With the X-rays on, acquire a wide-scan spectrum.
    • Observe the position of the adventitious carbon C 1s peak (if present) or a known elemental peak from the sample.
    • Adjust the flood gun parameters: Systematically vary the electron energy and current until the spectral peaks are sharp and stable. The goal is often slight overcompensation, indicated by a known peak being shifted 2-4 eV lower than its standard binding energy [50].
    • If differential charging is observed (peak broadening or shoulders), fine-tune the flood gun alignment and parameters. If it persists, consider re-mounting the sample with full electrical isolation [50].

  • Data Acquisition:

    • Once stable and sharp peaks are obtained, acquire all necessary spectra (wide scan, high-resolution regions).
    • Include a reference peak: Ensure the C 1s peak from adventitious carbon (or another internal standard like the O 1s from the sample's lattice oxygen) is acquired for subsequent energy scale calibration [50] [53].

  • Post-Processing and Referencing:

    • In the data analysis software, apply a linear shift to the entire spectrum so that the reference peak matches its standard binding energy (e.g., C 1s at 284.8 eV, or lattice O 1s at ~529.0-530.0 eV) [53].
    • Report the value of the charge shift applied in the final data.

The following workflow diagram summarizes the key steps in this protocol.

Protocol for Complex and Operando Systems

Analysis under Near-Ambient Pressure (NAP) or operando conditions introduces additional complexity. These systems often function at higher pressures (up to 20 mbar) and may involve controlled gas environments or electrochemical bias [54] [55]. The presence of gases can provide a source of electrons or ions for self-compensation, but can also complicate flood gun operation. The key is to ensure a stable and reproducible environment, and to use internal referencing specific to the operando setup, such as the Fermi edge of a grounded current collector or a known component of the solid electrolyte [54].

Data Analysis and Validation

Energy Scale Calibration

After data acquisition, energy scale calibration is a critical step. The most reliable method is internal referencing. A common practice is to use the C 1s peak of adventitious carbon (hydrocarbon contamination present on most air-exposed samples), typically set to a binding energy of 284.8 eV [50]. Alternatively, a known component of the sample itself can be used, such as the lattice oxygen (O 1s) peak in metal oxides, or a deliberately added internal standard [53].

Identification and Mitigation of Differential Charging

Differential charging manifests as peak broadening, asymmetrical line shapes, or the appearance of multiple peaks for a single chemical state [50]. If observed after initial data collection, mitigation strategies include:

• Re-mounting the sample with full electrical isolation to homogenize the surface potential [50].
• Re-optimizing the flood gun parameters, particularly its alignment and focus, to ensure uniform electron flux across the analysis area [51].
• For thin films on conductive substrates, reducing the X-ray spot size or using a defocused beam can sometimes reduce local charging heterogeneities.

Table 2: Troubleshooting Common Charging Artifacts in XPS Spectra

Observed Artifact	Probable Cause	Corrective Action
Constant High BE Shift	Insufficient charge compensation.	Increase flood gun current/energy. Ensure flood gun is correctly aligned.
Peak Broadening/Asymmetry	Differential charging.	Electrically isolate the sample from the holder. Fine-tune flood gun parameters.
Peak Instability (Drift)	Unstable equilibrium between I(in) and I(out).	Allow more time for stabilization. Check for sample degradation under X-rays. Ensure stable flood gun emission.
No Shift but Poor Signal	Potential overcompensation with very low-energy electrons.	Verify flood gun settings. Check for sample contamination.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Materials and Reagents for Charge-Compensated XPS

Item	Function/Application	Example/Notes
Low-Energy Electron Flood Gun	Active charge compensation.	Integrated component of modern XPS systems (e.g., Thermo Scientific Nexsa G2, Kratos AXIS Ultra) [50] [51].
Non-Conductive Adhesive Tapes	Sample mounting for electrical isolation.	Double-sided carbon tape (for conductors), double-sided non-conductive polymer tape (for insulators) [50].
Insulating Sample Holders	Mounting and electrical isolation.	Glass slides, custom-designed ceramic or polymer pucks.
Adventitious Carbon	Internal standard for binding energy calibration.	Ubiquitous hydrocarbon contamination on air-exposed surfaces; C 1s peak referenced to 284.8 eV [50].
Monatomic/Gas Cluster Ion Source	Sample cleaning and depth profiling.	Thermo Scientific MAGCIS source; gas clusters are essential for profiling soft/organic materials without damage [40].
Standard Reference Materials	Instrument calibration and method validation.	Sputter-cleaned Au foil (for Fermi edge), Cu foil (for Cu 2p₃/₂ and Auger parameters).

Robust charge compensation is fundamental to the accurate application of XPS for analyzing insulating materials, which are ubiquitous in advanced materials research, pharmaceuticals, and device technology. A comprehensive strategy combining appropriate sample mounting, optimized use of low-energy electron flood guns, and rigorous post-acquisition data referencing is essential. The protocols and guidelines outlined herein, developed within the context of establishing IUPAC-style standardized methods, provide a framework for obtaining reliable, high-quality XPS data from insulating samples, thereby ensuring correct chemical state identification and quantification. As XPS technology advances towards more complex operando and liquid-phase studies, the principles of charge control and management remain a critical foundation for valid surface analysis.

Identifying and Mitigating X-Ray Radiation Damage

X-ray radiation damage is an escalating challenge in analytical science, particularly with the advent of ever more intense and focused X-ray sources in laboratories and at large-scale facilities [56] [57]. For X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) and other surface analysis techniques, radiation-induced sample alteration compromises data integrity, leading to misinterpretation of chemical states and surface composition [7] [58]. This application note, framed within the broader context of developing IUPAC protocols for XPS surface analysis, provides researchers with validated methodologies for identifying and mitigating X-ray damage, with particular emphasis on the complex phenomenon of "dark progression" – the continuation of radiation damage during X-ray-free periods [57] [58]. The strategies outlined herein are essential for ensuring the collection of robust, reproducible data in material characterization and drug development research.

Fundamentals of X-Ray Radiation Damage in Surface Science

Radiation damage in XPS experiments initiates through primary X-ray photon-electron interactions occurring on femtosecond timescales, resulting in photoelectron emission and Auger-Meitner decay [58]. These processes trigger cascades of secondary electrons and generate reactive species that propagate damage through the sample. In metal-organic complexes and biological-relevant materials, this manifests as bond cleavage, chemical state modification, and eventual sample decomposition [56] [58].

The dark progression phenomenon presents a particular challenge for mitigation strategy design. Contrary to intuitive expectation, damage progression does not necessarily cease when the X-ray beam is interrupted [57] [58]. Studies on protein crystals have documented ongoing degradation after beam removal, with complex temperature dependencies [58]. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing effective mitigation protocols for XPS analysis of radiation-sensitive materials, including pharmaceutical compounds and catalysts.

Experimental Protocols for Damage Assessment and Mitigation

Protocol: Evaluating Discontinuous Irradiation for Damage Mitigation

This protocol investigates the efficacy of introducing X-ray-free "dark" periods as a damage mitigation strategy, adapted from Fernando et al. [56] [58].

Research Objectives and Applications

• Primary Objective: Determine whether introducing dark periods mitigates or promotes radiation damage through dark progression in XPS analysis.
• Secondary Objective: Establish optimal dark period durations for specific material classes.
• Application Context: Essential for analyzing radiation-sensitive materials including organometallic catalysts, pharmaceutical compounds, and organic semiconductors.

Materials and Equipment

• XPS Instrumentation: Laboratory-based XPS system with monochromatic Al Kα X-ray source (1486.6 eV)
• Sample Materials: [M(COD)Cl]2 catalysts (M = Ir, Rh) or similar radiation-sensitive compounds
• Ancillary Equipment: Charge compensation system for insulating samples, precision sample staging, ultra-high vacuum system (<1×10⁻⁸ mbar)

Experimental Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the core experimental workflow for evaluating discontinuous irradiation:

Detailed Procedural Steps

• Sample Preparation:

  • Prepare thin, homogeneous films of [M(COD)Cl]2 catalysts or similar compounds on conducting substrates.
  • Ensure consistent sample geometry and thickness across experiments.

• Baseline Characterization:

  • Acquire survey spectra (0-1100 eV binding energy) to confirm initial composition.
  • Collect high-resolution spectra of core levels of interest (e.g., Ir 4f, Rh 3d, C 1s, Cl 2p) using optimal experimental parameters (pass energy: 20 eV, step size: 0.1 eV, dwell time: 50 ms).

• Discontinuous Irradiation Sequence:

  • Program alternating X-ray exposure and dark periods using instrument automation.
  • Implement sequences with varying dark period durations (e.g., 30 s, 60 s, 120 s, 300 s) while maintaining constant total photon flux.
  • Include continuous irradiation control experiments for direct comparison.

• Damage Monitoring:

  • After each irradiation segment, acquire high-resolution spectra of the same sample region.
  • Monitor specific damage indicators: chemical shift evolution, peak broadening (FWHM changes), relative intensity modifications, and appearance of new chemical species.

• Data Analysis:

  • Quantify damage progression rates for different irradiation regimes.
  • Calculate normalized damage metrics relative to initial state and control experiments.
  • Perform statistical analysis to determine significance of observed differences.

Critical Control Parameters

• Temperature: Maintain constant analysis temperature (typically room temperature, 295±2 K) as damage progression shows strong temperature dependence [58].
• Photon Flux: Precisely characterize and document incident photon flux using photocurrent measurements.
• Sample Positioning: Ensure identical analysis position between measurements using optical microscopy or sample referencing.
• Charge Compensation: Implement consistent charge neutralization protocols throughout experiments.

Protocol: Systematic Radiation Damage Quantification in XPS

This protocol provides a standardized approach for quantifying radiation damage extent and progression in XPS experiments.

Damage Metrics and Quantification Methods

Table 1: Quantitative Metrics for XPS Radiation Damage Assessment

Damage Metric	Measurement Method	Interpretation	Typical Precision
Chemical State Evolution	Binding energy shift of characteristic peaks	Indicates oxidation state changes or chemical modification	±0.05 eV
Peak Broadening	Increase in Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM)	Suggests heterogeneous damage or multiple chemical environments	±0.02 eV
Relative Intensity Ratio	Change in peak area ratios between elements/moieties	Reveals preferential damage or loss of specific functional groups	±2%
Damage Cross-Section	Exponential decay constant of characteristic peak intensity	Quantifies radiation sensitivity; material-specific parameter	±10%
Appearance of New Species	Spectral deconvolution identifying new components	Indicates specific degradation pathways or reaction products	Qualitative

Data Acquisition Parameters

• Spectral Acquisition: Minimum 3 scans per high-resolution spectrum to ensure statistical significance
• Energy Referencing: Use adventitious carbon (C 1s at 284.8 eV) or internal standard for consistent energy calibration
• Dose Calculation: Record total photon dose for each measurement using flux and exposure time
• Spatial Correlation: When possible, correlate XPS damage assessment with complementary techniques (e.g., Raman spectroscopy) from the same sample region [7]

Research Reagent Solutions and Materials

The following table details essential materials and their functions in radiation damage mitigation studies.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for X-Ray Radiation Damage Studies

Material/Reagent	Function/Application	Specific Examples	Technical Notes
Model Catalyst Compounds	Radiation-sensitive reference materials	[Ir(COD)Cl]₂, [Rh(COD)Cl]₂ [56] [58]	Sensitive to both primary and secondary damage mechanisms
Charge Compensation Sources	Neutralize surface charge on insulating samples	Low-energy electron flood guns, argon ion guns with electron emission [7]	Critical for maintaining energy resolution during prolonged experiments
Cryogenic Cooling Systems	Reduce damage progression rates	Liquid nitrogen-cooled stages (100-150 K) [58]	Significantly slows diffusion-mediated damage processes
High Transmission Electron Analyzers	Enable rapid data collection	Hemispherical analyzers with wide acceptance angles	Reduce required dose for adequate signal-to-noise
Cluster Ion Sources	Surface cleaning and depth profiling	Gas cluster ion beams (Arₙ⁺, n=1000-5000) [7]	Minimal chemical damage during depth profiling of organic materials
Radiation Mitigator Compounds	Chemical protection against damage	4-Nitrophenylsulfonamide derivatives, quinoline-based compounds [59]	Primarily studied for biological protection; limited application in XPS

Data Interpretation and Optimization Guidelines

Quantitative Analysis of Discontinuous Irradiation Efficacy

Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Irradiation Strategies for [M(COD)Cl]₂ Catalysts

Irradiation Strategy	Total Dose Until 10% Damage	Dark Progression Observed	Optimal Application Context	Key Limitations
Continuous Irradiation	Baseline reference	Not applicable	Radiation-resistant materials	Rapid damage accumulation in sensitive samples
Short Dark Periods (30-60 s)	1.5-2.0× continuous	Minimal to moderate	Moderate sensitivity materials	Potential incomplete radical recombination
Extended Dark Periods (120-300 s)	2.5-3.5× continuous	Significant in some systems	Highly radiation-sensitive compounds	Throughput reduction; potential dark progression dominance
Cryogenic Conditions (100 K)	3.0-5.0× room temperature	Suppressed	Extreme sensitivity requirements	Specialized equipment; potential condensation issues
Dose Distribution	2.0-2.5× single point	Sample-dependent	Spatially heterogeneous samples	Requires precise sample positioning

Decision Framework for Mitigation Strategy Selection

The following diagram outlines a systematic approach for selecting appropriate damage mitigation strategies based on sample characteristics and research objectives:

Interpretation of Dark Progression Phenomena

Dark progression manifestations in XPS data include:

• Progressive Chemical Shifts: Continued binding energy changes during dark periods indicate ongoing chemical reactions or structural relaxation.
• Delayed Peak Broadening: Increased FWHM after dark periods suggests heterogeneous damage propagation through the sample.
• Dose-Rate Dependencies: Inverse relationships between dose rate and damage extent indicate significant dark progression components [58].

Within the framework of developing comprehensive IUPAC protocols for XPS surface analysis, this application note establishes that discontinuous irradiation represents a viable strategy for mitigating X-ray radiation damage in specific material systems. However, the efficacy is strongly dependent on understanding and controlling the dark progression phenomenon [56] [58].

Key recommendations for XPS practitioners include:

• Systematic Sensitivity Assessment: Characterize radiation sensitivity for new material systems using the quantification metrics in Table 1 before selecting mitigation strategies.

• Optimized Dark Period Duration: Implement preliminary experiments to identify optimal dark periods that balance damage mitigation with practical measurement times, typically in the 60-180 second range for organometallic compounds.

• Combinatorial Approaches: Combine discontinuous irradiation with complementary strategies including cryogenic cooling, spatial dose distribution, and whenever possible, the use of lower photon flux commensurate with analytical requirements.

• Standardized Reporting: Document irradiation parameters including total dose, dose rate, dark period duration, and temperature to enable cross-laboratory reproducibility and data comparison.

These protocols provide a foundation for robust, reproducible XPS analysis of radiation-sensitive materials essential for pharmaceutical development and advanced materials research. Continued refinement of these methodologies will contribute to the development of standardized IUPAC protocols for surface analysis techniques.

Handling the Inelastic Electron Scattering Background

In X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS), the accurate quantification of elemental composition and chemical state is fundamentally constrained by the presence of an inelastic electron scattering background. This background arises because photoelectrons, generated from the initial photoemission process, can undergo inelastic collisions as they travel through the solid to escape the surface. These collisions result in a loss of kinetic energy, causing the electrons to appear in the spectrum at a lower kinetic energy (higher binding energy) than their original "no-loss" peak, thereby creating a stepped background underlying the photoelectron peaks [60]. The proper handling of this background is not merely a data processing step; it is a critical prerequisite for achieving reliable quantitative analysis. The intrinsic photoelectron signal—defined as the part of the spectrum resulting from electrons that escape without energy loss—is the component used for quantification. Consequently, the accuracy of converting relative XPS peak intensities into atomic concentrations is fundamentally limited by the ability to correctly subtract the extrinsic background of inelastically scattered electrons [60]. This protocol outlines the methodologies for addressing this challenge within the framework of developing robust IUPAC-style protocols for XPS surface analysis.

Fundamental Concepts and Impact on Quantification

The inelastic background complicates quantification in two primary ways. First, it introduces intensity that does not originate from the primary photoemission process of the element and core level being measured. Second, the magnitude of the background is not uniform; it depends on the specific material and the kinetic energy of the photoelectrons. In a homogeneous material, the background behind a photoelectron peak increases with decreasing kinetic energy because lower-energy electrons have a shorter inelastic mean free path and a higher probability of being scattered before escaping the surface [60] [61].

The challenges are more pronounced in certain classes of materials. For instance, compounds containing elements with open valence shell electrons (e.g., 3d, 4d, and 5d transition metals, lanthanides, and actinides) often exhibit broader, asymmetric peaks followed by higher backgrounds with strong satellite structure. Quantifying these spectra accurately is more difficult than for materials like organic polymers containing only first-row elements (Li to F), where better than ±4% accuracy can be routinely demonstrated [60].

Table 1: Key Characteristics of the Inelastic Scattering Background

Characteristic	Description	Impact on Quantification
Origin	Inelastic scattering of photoelectrons during transport to the surface [60].	Adds non-intrinsic intensity to the spectrum, which must be subtracted to isolate the true photoelectron signal.
Spectral Shape	Typically appears as a stepped, increasing background on the higher-binding-energy side of a peak [60].	If not properly modeled, peak areas (intensities) can be significantly overestimated or underestimated.
Dependence on Matrix	Governed by the inelastic mean free path (IMFP), which is material-dependent [61].	Requires a universal or material-specific approach to background subtraction for accurate results across different samples.
Dependence on Kinetic Energy	The background intensity increases as photoelectron kinetic energy decreases [60].	Peaks at lower kinetic energies will have a proportionally larger background contribution, affecting the accuracy of relative sensitivity factors.

Quantitative Data and Background Subtraction Methodologies

The choice of background subtraction method directly influences the calculated peak areas and, consequently, the atomic concentrations. The most common methods are summarized in the table below. It is critical to consistently report which method was used when documenting XPS results to ensure reproducibility [60].

Table 2: Common Background Subtraction Methods in XPS Quantification

Method	Principle	Best Use Cases	Limitations
Linear Background	Draws a straight line from the start to the end of the spectral region.	Simple, rapid assessment; spectra with minimal background structure.	Highly inaccurate for most real spectra, as it fails to account for the true, non-linear shape of the inelastic background.
Shirley Background	Iteratively calculates a background proportional to the total peak area in the region [60].	General-purpose quantification for a wide range of materials; good compromise between simplicity and accuracy.	Can over-subtract background in regions with multiple overlapping peaks or strong satellite features.
Tougaard Background	Uses a universal or material-specific formula to model the inelastic scattering cross-section [60] [61].	Highest potential accuracy; complex spectra with strong satellite structures (e.g., transition metals).	Computationally more complex; requires more user input and understanding.

Experimental Protocol for Background Handling in Quantitative XPS Analysis

Pre-Analysis Planning and Instrument Setup

• Define the Analytical Question: Clearly state whether the goal is bulk composition analysis of a homogeneous material, surface composition, or chemical state identification. This guides the choice of quantification and background subtraction strategy [5].
• Instrument Calibration and Performance Verification: Verify the energy scale and intensity response of the XPS instrument using standard samples. Ensure the spectrometer is properly calibrated to produce reliable and reproducible intensity measurements [5].
• Develop a Data Collection Plan:
  • Acquide survey spectra to identify all elements present.
  • Collect high-energy-resolution core-level spectra for elements of interest, ensuring sufficient signal-to-noise ratio for the intended data analysis.
  • Plan for adequate statistics and replication of measurements to ensure data reproducibility [5].

Data Acquisition and Integrity Checks

• Acquire Spectra: Follow the data collection plan. Ensure the total counts are sufficient for the planned background subtraction and peak-fitting procedures.
• Check for Specimen Damage: Inspect the spectra for signs of X-ray or charge neutralization-induced damage, which can manifest as changes in peak shape or the appearance of new chemical states during acquisition [5].
• Assess Charging Effects: Determine if sample charging is occurring. If necessary, employ a charge neutralization system and apply a consistent charge correction method based on a known reference peak (e.g., adventitious carbon C 1s at 284.8 eV) [5].

Data Processing and Quantification Workflow

The following workflow outlines the key steps for processing XPS data, with a central focus on handling the inelastic scattering background.

Background Subtraction Decision Logic

The flowchart below provides a practical decision tree for selecting the most appropriate background subtraction method based on the sample's spectral characteristics.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Materials and Reagents

The following table lists key reagents and materials referenced in XPS studies, particularly those involving layered materials like the Layered Double Hydroxides (LDHs) mentioned in the search results, which are pertinent for preparing well-defined standard samples [62].

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for XPS Sample Preparation

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Example in Context
Magnesium Nitrate & Aluminum Nitrate	Source of divalent (Mg²⁺) and trivalent (Al³⁺) cations for synthesizing standard LDH samples [62].	Used in the synthesis of Mg₆Al₂(OH)₁₆CO₃·nH₂O hydrotalcite as a model compound for method validation [62].
Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH)	Precipitation agent to form the hydroxide layers during LDH synthesis [62].	Used in combination with sodium salts to maintain a pH of ~10 during LDH synthesis [62].
Sodium Salts (e.g., Na₂CO₃, Na₂SO₄)	Source of exchangeable anions (CO₃²⁻, SO₄²⁻) for the LDH interlayer [62].	Allows creation of standards with different anionic compositions to test the robustness of quantification protocols [62].
Cluster Ion Beams (e.g., Argon, Xenon)	Sputter depth profiling for non-destructive bulk analysis or surface cleaning [60].	Used to explore information beyond the natural probing depth of XPS, though may introduce artifacts [60].

Current Challenges and Research Perspectives

Despite established methods, significant challenges remain in the accurate handling of the inelastic background. A key perspective is that long-claimed serious discrepancies between empirically derived Relative Sensitivity Factors (e-RSF) and those based on theoretical cross-sections (t-RSF) are largely untrue when background subtraction is performed correctly [60]. The primary challenges include:

• Material Dependency: The accuracy of quantification is strongly material-dependent. Achieving better than ±20% accuracy for oxides of transition metals, lanthanides, and actinides with complex spectra remains problematic [60].
• Satellite Structure: The presence of strong intrinsic satellite structure in certain materials affects both the background subtraction and the accuracy of Relative Sensitivity Factors [60].
• Reproducibility: The broader scientific community faces a reproducibility crisis, and misuse of XPS, including improper background handling, contributes to this issue. Inexperienced users may be misled by automated software features without understanding the underlying principles [5].

Future efforts in developing IUPAC protocols must focus on providing clear, actionable guidance on background subtraction method selection based on material class, thereby improving the reliability and reproducibility of XPS quantification across the scientific community.

Best Practices for Peak Fitting and Avoiding Misinterpretation

X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) has become the most popular and widely used method of surface analysis, with its utility expanding from chemistry and materials science into environmental, atmospheric, and biological systems [5]. However, this widespread adoption has been accompanied by a proliferation of analytical errors, with studies revealing that poorly fitted spectra and incorrectly interpreted XPS data appear in a significant percentage of scientific publications [63]. In a survey of high-profile journals, approximately 60% of papers using XPS employed curve fitting, with serious problems identified in more than 40% of these publications [63]. This application note establishes rigorous protocols for XPS peak fitting within the context of IUPAC-inspired methodologies, providing researchers and drug development professionals with frameworks to enhance analytical reproducibility and reliability.

The fundamental challenge in XPS curve fitting stems from the mathematical reality that any spectrum can be fitted with infinite combinations of peaks of different widths and shapes while maintaining the same goodness of fit [63]. This ambiguity necessitates a physically and chemically meaningful approach that integrates spectroscopic expertise with computational methods. Without proper constraints and validation, analysts risk generating results that appear mathematically sound but lack scientific validity, potentially compromising research conclusions and drug development outcomes that depend on accurate surface characterization.

Fundamental Concepts and Common Pitfalls

The Reproducibility Crisis in XPS Analysis

The broader scientific community has recognized a "significant reproducibility crisis" across multiple disciplines, and XPS analysis is not immune to these challenges [5]. The availability of automated or semi-automated computational tools has paradoxically contributed to these issues, as inexperienced users may generate results without understanding the underlying physical principles [5]. As XPS instruments have become easier to operate, the reliable use of the technique has become constrained by the availability of expertise rather than technological limitations [5].

Prevalent Errors in XPS Data Interpretation

Common errors in XPS peak fitting can be categorized into several domains:

• Incorrect background subtraction that distorts peak intensities and shapes [64]
• Overlapping peak misassignments where analysts incorrectly attribute spectral features to chemical species [64]
• Ignoring chemical shift references and established binding energy databases [64]
• Over-simplified deconvolution without physical justification that produces chemically meaningless results [64]
• Violation of physical constraints regarding peak widths, shapes, and area ratios [65] [48]

These errors are particularly problematic in specialized applications such as lead-halide perovskite analysis, where misinterpretations frequently arise from disturbed chemical environments and lack of awareness of passivator properties [66].

Essential Peak Fitting Parameters and Constraints

Physical Limits and Practical Guidelines

Proper peak fitting requires adherence to physically meaningful constraints derived from both theoretical principles and empirical observations. The following parameters must be carefully considered to generate chemically valid results.

Table 1: Key Peak Fitting Parameters and Their Physical Constraints

Parameter	Physical Constraints	Practical Guidelines	Common Pitfalls
FWHM (Full Width at Half Maximum)	• Minimum: 0.32 eV (Re 4f7/2) [48]• Pure metals: 0.3-1.0 eV [65]• Compounds: 0.9-1.9 eV [65]	• Metals: 0.5-1.0 eV [48]• Inorganics: 0.5-1.5 eV [48]• Organics: 1.0-2.0+ eV [48]	• Fitting peaks narrower than physically possible• Ignoring charging effects that cause broadening
Peak Shape	• Gaussian-Lorentzian mix [48]• Conductive samples often asymmetric [48]	• GL(30) product function works well for monochromatic Al X-rays [48]• 80:20 G:L common for lower BEs [65]	• Using symmetric peaks for metals that require asymmetry• Applying inappropriate peak shapes
Spin-Orbit Area Ratios	• p orbitals: 2:1 [48]• d orbitals: 3:2 [48]• f orbitals: 4:3 [48]	• Constrain ratios based on quantum mechanics [48]• Use Scofield cross-sections for precision [65]	• Using arbitrary ratios not based on physics• Ignoring Coster-Kronig broadening exceptions

Advanced Fitting Considerations

For complex spectra, additional constraints improve the physical validity of fitting results:

• Binding Energy Differences: Known energy separations between peaks should be constrained, such as the 0.602 eV difference for the Si 2p doublet [65].
• Chemical Shifts: These typically range from 1.0-1.2 eV for adjacent oxidation states, though they can be as large as 4.0 eV (e.g., S vs. SO₄) or as small as 0.05 eV for metal alloys [65].
• Background Selection: The choice of background (Iterated Shirley, Tougaard, Linear) significantly affects peak areas, with Iterated Shirley being the most commonly used approach [65].

Experimental Protocol: A Systematic Workflow for XPS Peak Fitting

Comprehensive Peak Fitting Procedure

The following workflow provides a step-by-step protocol for rigorous XPS data analysis:

XPS Peak Fitting Workflow: This systematic approach ensures physically meaningful results.

Detailed Protocol Steps

• Instrument Calibration and Setup

  • Before analysis, verify instrument performance and calibration status using standard samples [5].
  • Load the correct relative sensitivity factors (RSFs) and intensity calibration specific to your instrument and X-ray source [48]. Using default values can lead to incorrect quantification.

• Preliminary Spectral Analysis

  • Identify and label all expected and unexpected peaks in the survey spectrum before analyzing high-resolution regions [48]. This critical step reveals potential peak overlaps that must be considered during fitting.
  • Create regions for high-resolution spectra using consistent background subtraction (e.g., Shirley background) applied uniformly across all datasets [48].

• Energy Scale Calibration

  • Reference your data to a peak with known binding energy [48]. While adventitious carbon at 284.8 eV is commonly used, alternatives such as an intense narrow O²⁻ peak in oxides or F 1s in fluorides may provide more reliable referencing.
  • Perform charge correction at the beginning of analysis, before adding background shapes [65].

• Differential Charging Assessment

  • Determine if differential sample charging is present before peak fitting [48]. If detected, do not proceed with fitting, as this will lead to incorrect conclusions. Instead, rerun samples with improved charge neutralization.

• Constrained Peak Fitting

  • Apply FWHM constraints based on sample chemistry: pure metals (0.5-1.0 eV), inorganic compounds (0.5-1.5 eV), and organic compounds (1.0-2.0+ eV) [48].
  • Use appropriate peak shapes: Gaussian-Lorentzian mixtures for most samples, with asymmetric line shapes for conductive materials like metals and graphite [48].
  • Constrain spin-orbit doublets to their theoretical area ratios (2:1 for p orbitals, 3:2 for d orbitals, 4:3 for f orbitals) unless Coster-Kronig broadening exceptions apply [48].

• Validation and Reporting

  • Validate fitting results against chemical knowledge and physical constraints [48]. A fit that makes chemical sense is superior to one that perfectly fits the data envelope but violates physical principles.
  • Report all instrument parameters, fitting constraints, background methods, and validation metrics to enable reproducibility [5].

Table 2: Essential Resources for Valid XPS Peak Fitting

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Application and Utility
Reference Databases	Crist FWHM and BE Tables [65], Scienta ESCA300 Database [67]	Provide validated binding energies and FWHM values for pure elements and compounds
Analysis Software	CASA XPS, UNIFIT [67] [48]	Enable constrained fitting with physical parameters and statistical validation
Standard Samples	Pure metals (Ag, Au), SiO₂/Si, Cu₂O [65] [48]	Instrument calibration and performance verification
Educational Resources	JVSTA Practical Guides [63] [5], XPS Library tutorials [68] [65]	Training for proper fitting techniques and interpretation
Reference Materials	ISO Standards 15472, 19318, 20903 [67]	Standardized methodologies for data collection and reporting

Validation and Quality Control Metrics

Statistical Measures of Fit Quality

• Chi-Squared Values: A reduced chi-squared value between 1-2 indicates a very good fit, while values between 2-4 are acceptable but not fully optimized. Values exceeding 5 suggest missing spectral components [65].
• Residual Analysis: The residual plot should display a relatively flat, uniform line with only statistical noise. Systematic deviations indicate poor fit quality and potential missing components [65].
• Goodness of Fit: While mathematical measures are important, the ultimate validation is whether the fit makes chemical and physical sense [48].

Reproducibility and Reporting Standards

Comprehensive reporting must include all parameters necessary to reproduce the analysis:

• Instrument manufacturer, model, and analysis software version [5]
• X-ray source characteristics (monochromatic or non-monochromatic, spot size) [5]
• Pass energy, step size, and number of scans [65]
• Charge correction method and reference peak [48]
• Background subtraction method and range [65] [48]
• All fitting constraints applied (FWHM, peak shapes, area ratios, binding energy differences) [65] [48]
• Validation statistics and residual plots [65]

Adherence to physically constrained peak fitting protocols is essential for generating reliable, reproducible XPS data. The methodologies outlined in this application note provide a framework for avoiding common errors and misinterpretations that pervade the scientific literature. By integrating these practices into routine analytical workflows, researchers and drug development professionals can enhance the validity of their surface analysis conclusions and contribute to improving scientific reproducibility across the field.

Ensuring Data Integrity: Validation, Reporting, and Technique Comparison

IUPAC Recommendations for Data Reporting and Metadata

The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) establishes standardized practices in chemistry through two primary types of documents: Recommendations and Technical Reports. IUPAC Recommendations provide unambiguous, uniform, and consistent nomenclature, symbols, and terminology for specific scientific fields, developed through a process that ensures the widest possible consensus among international bodies [69]. These recommendations are critical for data reproducibility and effective scientific communication, particularly in specialized techniques like X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) where inconsistent terminology and reporting can lead to a "significant reproducibility crisis" in published literature [5]. The development of these standards is coordinated by the IUPAC Inter-divisional Committee on Terminology, Nomenclature and Symbols (ICTNS), with outputs released as Provisional Recommendations for public review before being published as Final Recommendations in IUPAC's journal Pure and Applied Chemistry (PAC) [69].

For XPS surface analysis, IUPAC's work provides the fundamental vocabulary and reporting standards necessary to interpret surface chemical analysis results accurately. This standardization is particularly crucial for inexperienced users who may misinterpret data due to the perceived simplicity of modern XPS instruments [5]. The guidelines ensure that researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals can reliably compare and reproduce surface analysis data across different laboratories and instrumentation platforms, addressing known issues with interlaboratory comparability that have been documented since the late 1970s [5].

Key IUPAC Technical Reports and Recommendations

Core Documents for Surface Chemical Analysis

IUPAC has developed specific documentation to address the standardization needs in surface analysis, with recent publications providing essential guidance for practitioners:

Table 1: Key IUPAC Documents for Surface Analysis and Data Reporting

Document Title	Type	Key Focus Areas	Publication Status
Glossary of Methods and Terms used in Surface Chemical Analysis [70]	Recommendation	Formal vocabulary for surface analysis concepts; definitions for electron, ion, and photon spectroscopy of surfaces	Published in PAC, AOP 2 Nov 2020
FAIRSpec-Ready Spectroscopic Data Collections [71]	Technical Report	Application of FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) data management to spectroscopic data	Version 3 posted 01 September 2025 (preprint)
Chemical data evaluation: general considerations and approaches [72]	Technical Report	Principles for critical evaluation of chemical data; measurement uncertainty; metrology	Published 2023
Definition of Materials Chemistry [73]	Recommendation	Defining the scope and terminology of materials chemistry	Published 2024

The Glossary of Methods and Terms used in Surface Chemical Analysis provides formal definitions critical for XPS practitioners, including the distinction between "surface," "physical surface," and "experimental surface" [70]. According to IUPAC, the "physical surface" refers specifically to "that atomic layer of a sample which, if the sample were placed in a vacuum, is the layer 'in contact with' the vacuum; the outermost atomic layer of a sample" [74]. This precision in terminology is essential for accurate reporting and interpretation of XPS data where the analysis depth (typically the top 1-10 nm) significantly influences results.

The FAIRSpec Technical Report addresses the growing need for standardized data management in spectroscopy, recommending practices for maintaining data in forms that allow critical metadata extraction in discipline-specific ways [71]. This approach ensures instrument datasets are unambiguously associated with chemical structure information, facilitating both research processes and post-publication data reuse. The guidelines emphasize systematic data organization throughout the entire research workflow rather than just at publication.

International Collaboration in Standardization

IUPAC collaborates extensively with other international standards organizations to ensure consistency across the scientific community. The union maintains formal Category A liaisons with ISO/TC 201 on Surface Chemical Analysis, ensuring alignment between IUPAC recommendations and ISO standards for techniques including XPS, Auger-electron spectroscopy (AES), and secondary-ion mass spectrometry (SIMS) [75]. This coordination is essential for developing globally accepted protocols that transcend individual laboratories or instrument manufacturers.

Experimental Protocols for XPS Analysis

Standardized XPS Workflow According to International Guidelines

The following workflow diagram outlines the critical stages in XPS analysis based on IUPAC and international standards:

Sample Preparation and Data Acquisition Protocol

Based on IUPAC guidance and established XPS methodologies [5], the following protocol ensures reliable surface analysis:

• Sample Compatibility Assessment

  • Verify sample stability under ultra-high vacuum (UHV) conditions
  • Check for volatility or decomposition potential
  • Ensure sample size compatibility with instrument introduction systems
  • Conduct preliminary assessment of electrical conductivity to anticipate charging issues

• Sample Preparation for Nanocomplex Analysis (adapted from Korin et al. [27])

  • Deposit nanocomplex suspension (e.g., Ca²⁺-siRNA or hyaluronan-sulfate-Ca²⁺-siRNA complexes) on clean wafer substrate
  • Dry samples overnight under UHV conditions to remove hygroscopic components
  • Use minimal sample amount required for adequate signal-to-noise ratio
  • Document all preparation steps for metadata reporting

• Instrument Calibration and Performance Verification

  • Verify energy scale calibration using standard reference materials (e.g., Au, Ag, Cu)
  • Confirm analyzer performance and resolution specifications
  • Document instrument model, X-ray source characteristics, and analyzer settings
  • Record all instrumental parameters for inclusion in supplementary materials

• Data Collection Strategy

  • Acquire survey spectra (0-1100 eV binding energy) for elemental identification
  • Collect high-resolution regional spectra for elements of interest with sufficient counting statistics
  • Utilize charge neutralization for insulating samples when necessary
  • Replicate measurements to ensure reproducibility where feasible

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Essential Materials for XPS Surface Analysis of Nanocomplexes

Material/Reagent	Function/Application	Specific Example
Silicon Wafer Substrate	Provides atomically flat, clean surface for sample deposition	Standard semiconductor-grade silicon wafers [27]
Natural Asphalt Sulfonate	Carbon-based support material for nanocomplex formation	Sodium natural asphalt sulfonate (Na-NAS) for catalyst support [28]
Magnetic Nanoparticles	Enable separation and recovery of nanocomplexes	Fe₃O₄ nanoparticles for magnetic nanocatalyst synthesis [28]
Charge Neutralization Source	Compensates for surface charging on insulating samples	Low-energy electron flood gun for non-conductive specimens [5]
Standard Reference Materials	Instrument calibration and energy scale verification	Au, Ag, Cu foils for binding energy calibration [5]
Functionalization Reagents	Surface modification for specific analyte binding	3-chloropropyltrimethoxysilane (CPTMS) for nanoparticle functionalization [28]

Data Interpretation and Reporting Standards

XPS Data Interpretation Framework

Proper interpretation of XPS data requires systematic approaches aligned with IUPAC recommendations:

• Peak Identification and Charge Referencing

  • Identify all detectable elements from survey spectra
  • Apply appropriate charge correction referencing to adventitious carbon (C 1s at 284.8 eV) or known substrate signals
  • Document charge referencing method explicitly in reports

• Chemical State Analysis

  • Analyze chemical shift information in high-resolution spectra
  • Consult standard databases of binding energies for chemical state assignment
  • Report uncertainty in chemical state identification

• Quantification Procedures

  • Calculate elemental concentrations using appropriate sensitivity factors
  • Document the source of sensitivity factors (theoretical or empirical)
  • Report relative atomic percentages with estimated uncertainties

• Spectral Fitting Protocols

  • Use appropriate background subtraction methods (e.g., Shirley, Tougaard, or linear)
  • Apply physically meaningful constraints during peak fitting
  • Document all fitting parameters including peak shapes, FWHM values, and constraints

FAIR Data Principles and Metadata Reporting

The IUPAC FAIRSpec guidelines emphasize applying FAIR data principles to spectroscopic data collections [71]. For XPS data, this includes:

• Findable Metadata Requirements

  • Associate instrument datasets unambiguously with chemical structure representations
  • Include persistent identifiers where available
  • Create standardized metadata records extractable by automated systems

• Accessible Data Storage

  • Deposit data in recognized repositories with appropriate access controls
  • Ensure metadata remains accessible even if data requires restricted access
  • Plan for long-term data preservation beyond publication lifecycle

• Interoperable Formatting

  • Use standardized data formats compatible with multiple analysis platforms
  • Include comprehensive experimental metadata using controlled vocabularies
  • Enable data exchange between laboratory information systems

• Reusable Documentation

  • Provide sufficient experimental detail to enable replication
  • Document data processing steps and parameters
  • Include measurement uncertainty estimates where feasible

Implementation in Research and Publication

Minimum Reporting Requirements for Publications

Based on IUPAC guidance and established best practices [5], the following elements represent the minimum requirements for publishing XPS data:

Table 3: Essential XPS Metadata Reporting Requirements

Category	Specific Data Elements	Criticality
Instrument Information	Manufacturer, model, serial number	Mandatory
Excitation Source	X-ray source type, anode material, operating power	Mandatory
Analyzer Settings	Pass energy, step size, resolution specification	Mandatory
Charge Referencing	Method used, reference peak, measured position	Mandatory
Sample Preparation	Substrate, cleaning procedures, deposition method	Essential
Data Processing	Background subtraction, fitting algorithms, constraints	Essential
Quantification	Sensitivity factor source, calculated concentrations	Essential

Quality Assurance Protocols

Implementation of IUPAC recommendations requires robust quality assurance measures:

• Instrument Performance Verification

  • Regular calibration checks using standard reference materials
  • Participation in interlaboratory comparison studies where available
  • Documentation of instrument performance history

• Method Validation

  • Establishment of method detection limits for elements of interest
  • Determination of measurement precision through replicate analysis
  • Validation of unusual sample preparation procedures

• Data Review Procedures

  • Independent verification of data interpretation
  • Peer review of unusual spectral assignments
  • Critical evaluation of quantification results for internal consistency

The implementation of these IUPAC recommendations for XPS surface analysis ensures that researchers generate reliable, reproducible data that can be meaningfully compared across laboratories and over time. This standardization is particularly crucial in pharmaceutical development and nanomaterials research, where surface characterization directly impacts understanding of material performance and biological interactions [27] [28]. By adhering to these internationally recognized protocols, researchers contribute to addressing the broader reproducibility challenges in scientific literature while advancing their specific research objectives.

Validation of Chemical State Assignments Using Reference Databases

The widespread utility of X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) has made it the most popular method of surface analysis [5]. However, its increased use has been accompanied by a rise in erroneous applications and misinterpretations among inexperienced users [5]. Reproducibility crises in scientific literature further highlight the critical need for standardized validation protocols [5]. For researchers in drug development and materials science, validating chemical state assignments through authoritative reference databases is not merely best practice—it is fundamental to generating reliable, publishable data. This document establishes IUPAC-style protocols for this validation process, ensuring chemical state assignments are accurate, reproducible, and traceable to standardized databases.

The Critical Need for Validation in XPS Analysis

Chemical state assignment through XPS relies on detecting small binding energy shifts (typically a few eV) that provide information about the chemical environments of elements [5]. Several factors complicate this seemingly straightforward process:

• Instrumental Variations: Historical differences in instrument capabilities, calibration, and the spread of binding-energy information across databases can lead to inconsistent assignments [5].
• Data Interpretation Challenges: The ease of operating modern XPS instruments and using automated software often belies the complexity of data interpretation, leading to incomplete or misinterpreted data in publications [5].
• Reproducibility Concerns: Interlaboratory studies have demonstrated that XPS measurements were not consistently reproducible across different laboratories, though standardization efforts have improved this situation [5].

The Chemical Validation and Standardization Platform (CVSP) exemplifies the broader community effort to address data quality issues. While developed for chemical compound datasets, its philosophy of detecting issues via systematic rules and assigning severity levels (Information, Warning, Error) is highly relevant to analytical spectroscopy [76]. Similarly, the U.S. EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard provides a widely used resource for chemistry data for over a million chemicals, emphasizing the importance of curated, quality-controlled data [77].

Essential Reference Databases for XPS Analysis

A robust validation strategy requires leveraging multiple, cross-referenced databases. The table below summarizes key databases and their primary applications in the validation workflow.

Table 1: Essential Reference Databases for XPS Validation

Database Name	Primary Content & Specialty	Key Application in Validation	Source & Accessibility
The XPS Library of BEs [78]	Binding energies (BEs), full width at half maxima (FWHMs), and chemical shifts for principal signals.	Core reference for peak identification and fitting of common elements.	Publicly available online resource.
NIST XPS Database	Comprehensive binding energy data from standard reference materials.	Authoritative source for instrument calibration and initial chemical state assignment.	National Standards Institute.
Thermo Fisher Avantage Knowledge Base [79]	Element-specific information for XPS analysis, organized via the periodic table.	Practical guide for element-specific analysis protocols and troubleshooting.	Integrated into Thermo Fisher Scientific XPS systems.
CompTox Chemicals Dashboard [77]	Chemical properties, identity, and structure for over a million substances.	Cross-referencing chemical identity and structure to confirm plausible chemical states.	U.S. EPA public resource.

Detailed Protocol for Validating Chemical State Assignments

This section provides a step-by-step experimental methodology for validating chemical state assignments, from sample preparation to final reporting.

Sample Preparation and Handling

• Objective: To prepare a sample whose surface is representative of the material under investigation and free from significant adventitious contamination that could skew results.
• Materials: Appropriate solvents (e.g., high-purity isopropanol, ethanol), inert gas spray (e.g., Argon or Nitrogen), conductive tape or clips for mounting, and clean, non-powdered gloves.
• Procedure:
  • Cleaning: For solid samples, use a series of solvent rinses (e.g., acetone followed by isopropanol) to remove organic contaminants, followed by drying with a stream of inert gas.
  • Mounting: Mount the sample to ensure electrical and mechanical stability. Use double-sided conductive carbon tape or metal clips. For powders, a uniform sprinkle onto a conductive substrate is preferred.
  • Transfer: Minimize exposure to the ambient atmosphere between preparation and introduction into the XPS vacuum chamber. If available, use a glove box or inert transfer vessel.

Instrument Calibration and Performance Verification

• Objective: To ensure the XPS instrument is generating accurate and reproducible binding energy values.
• Materials: Standard reference materials, typically pure metals whose binding energies are well-known (e.g., sputter-cleaned Au, Ag, Cu).
• Procedure:
  • Energy Scale Calibration: Acquire spectra from the reference material (e.g., Au 4f_7/2 at 84.0 eV, Ag 3d_5/2 at 368.3 eV, Cu 2p_3/2 at 932.7 eV).
  • Peak Shape and Resolution Check: Verify that the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the reference peak meets the instrument manufacturer's specifications.
  • Documentation: Record all calibration parameters, including the date, reference material used, and the measured FWHM values.

Data Acquisition Strategy

• Objective: To collect spectra with sufficient quality and information content for reliable validation.
• Procedure:
  • Survey Spectrum: Collect a wide scan (e.g., 0-1200 eV) to identify all elements present.
  • High-Resolution Regional Scans: Acquire high-resolution spectra for each element identified. Use a pass energy that provides a good compromise between signal intensity and energy resolution (e.g., 20-50 eV).
  • Signal-to-Noise Ratio: Ensure sufficient scan counts for accurate peak fitting; a minimum of 10,000 counts in the strongest peak of a high-resolution spectrum is a good target.
  • Charge Referencing: For non-conductive samples, apply a charge correction by referencing to a known peak, such as the C 1s peak for adventitious carbon at 284.8 eV.

Validation Workflow: From Raw Data to Confirmed Assignment

The following diagram outlines the logical workflow for validating a chemical state assignment, integrating cross-referencing and quality control checks.

Diagram 1: Chemical State Assignment Validation Workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for XPS Validation

Item / Reagent	Function / Application
Standard Reference Materials (Au, Ag, Cu Foils)	Critical for periodic calibration of the XPS instrument's binding energy scale to ensure measurement accuracy [5].
Inert Gas Sputtering Source (Ar⁺)	Used for in-situ cleaning of standard reference materials and for depth profiling of samples to remove surface contaminants.
Charge Neutralization Source (Low-energy e⁻ flood gun)	Essential for analyzing insulating samples to counteract surface charging, which shifts peak positions and invalidates assignments.
High-Purity Solvents (e.g., HPLC-grade IPA)	Used for sample cleaning and preparation to remove adventitious carbon and other surface contaminants prior to analysis.
Conductive Mounting Substrates (e.g., Si wafer, Indium foil)	Provides a stable, conductive base for mounting powder samples or non-conductive specimens to minimize charging effects.

Advanced Topics and Future Outlook

The field of XPS validation is continuously evolving. The CompTox Chemicals Dashboard exemplifies the trend towards integrating diverse data types, with future plans including public APIs for programmatic access [77]. Furthermore, the development of open validation platforms like the Chemical Validation and Standardization Platform (CVSP), which allows for user-defined, rule-based validation, points toward a future of more community-driven and transparent data quality control [76].

Adherence to the protocols outlined in this document, leveraging established databases, and employing a rigorous, multi-step validation workflow will significantly enhance the reliability and scientific impact of XPS data in research and drug development.

Surface analysis is a critical component of materials science, chemistry, and drug development, providing essential information about the outermost atomic layers of materials where key chemical interactions occur. Among the various techniques available, X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) has emerged as a premier method for quantitative surface chemical analysis. This application note provides a detailed comparison between XPS and three other prominent surface analysis techniques: Auger Electron Spectroscopy (AES), Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS), and Glow Discharge Optical Emission Spectroscopy (GDOES). The content is framed within the context of developing standardized IUPAC protocols for surface analysis, aiming to guide researchers and drug development professionals in technique selection and experimental design. We present structured comparative data, detailed experimental methodologies, and visual workflows to support rigorous surface characterization in both academic and industrial settings.

Technical Comparison of Surface Analysis Techniques

The following table summarizes the fundamental characteristics and capabilities of XPS, AES, SIMS, and GDOES, highlighting their respective strengths and limitations for surface and depth profile analysis [80] [6].

Table 1: Comparison of Key Surface Analysis Techniques

Parameter	XPS (ESCA)	AES	SIMS	GDOES
Primary Probe Beam	X-rays	Electrons	Ions	Argon Plasma
Detected Species	Photoelectrons	Auger Electrons	Sputtered Ions	Emitted Photons
Information Depth	5-10 nm (~50-60 atoms) [2]	< 3 monolayers (~10 Å) [80]	10 monolayers [80]	~100 monolayers [80]
Detection Limits	0.1-1.0 at% (1000-100 ppm); can reach ppm [2]	Parts per thousand range	ppb-ppm range [80]	ppm range [80]
Lateral Resolution	7.5 µm - 200 µm [2] [6]	~5 nm [80]	Sub-µm	None (lateral average over mm) [80]
Chemical State Info	Yes, excellent	Limited	Limited (with difficulty)	No
Quantitative Accuracy	Excellent (90-95% for major elements) [2]	Good	Poor to fair (requires standards)	Good with calibration
Vacuum Requirement	Ultra-High Vacuum (UHV)	Ultra-High Vacuum (UHV)	Ultra-High Vacuum (UHV)	Moderate Vacuum (a few Torr) [80]
Conducting Samples	Not required (charge compensation)	Required	Required	Not required [80]
Typical Sputter Source	Monatomic/Gas Cluster Ions [7]	Monatomic Ions (e.g., Ar+)	Sputtering inherent to technique	Plasma sputtering inherent to technique
Max. Practical Profiling Depth	~500 nm [80]	Several µm	Several µm	Tens of µm

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: XPS Depth Profiling of a Ni/Cr Multilayer Structure

1. Objective: To determine the in-depth elemental and chemical state composition of a Ni/Cr multilayer structure with high depth resolution using sample rotation [81].

2. Materials and Reagents:

• Sample: Ni/Cr multilayer structure deposited on a silicon substrate.
• Sputter Gas: High-purity (99.999%) Argon gas.

3. Equipment:

• XPS instrument equipped with a monochromatic Al Kα X-ray source (1486.7 eV).
• Ion gun with sample rotation capability.
• Ultra-high vacuum (UHV) system with a base pressure ≤ 8×10^-10 mbar.

4. Procedure: 1. Sample Mounting: Secure the sample on a specialized holder that enables precise rotation around the surface normal. 2. UHV Introduction: Transfer the sample into the UHV analysis chamber and allow to outgas until a stable pressure is achieved. 3. Critical Alignment: Precisely align the intersection of the X-ray probe beam, the ion beam, and the center of the analyzed area with the axis of sample rotation. This is critical for minimizing crater-edge effects [81]. 4. Data Acquisition Cycle: a. Sputtering: Etch the sample surface using a 0.5-2 keV Ar⁺ ion beam at a 45° angle of incidence. The ion current and sputter time are calibrated to achieve a desired etch rate per cycle. b. XPS Analysis: After each sputtering step, acquire high-resolution XPS spectra from the Ni and Cr core levels (e.g., Ni 2p, Cr 2p) at normal emission angle. Use a pass energy of 20-50 eV for optimal energy resolution. 5. Repetition: Repeat the sputtering and analysis cycle until the substrate signal is dominant. 6. Data Processing: Quantify the atomic concentrations of Ni and Cr at each depth using the peak areas and relative sensitivity factors (RSFs). Account for the Tougaard background and analyzer transmission effects [82].

5. Key Considerations:

• Sample rotation is essential to reduce ion-beam-induced topography, maintaining high depth resolution independent of the sputtered depth [81].
• The analyzed area in XPS is typically larger than in AES, making precise alignment crucial to avoid distortional crater-edge effects [81].

Protocol 2: Quantification of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (APIs) by XPS

1. Objective: To quantify the surface concentration and homogeneity of an API (Indomethacin) in a polymer-based pharmaceutical powder formulation [83].

2. Materials and Reagents:

• Sample: Spray-dried powder containing Indomethacin (C₁₉H₁₆ClNO₄), Poloxamer 407, and Sodium Carboxymethyl Cellulose (CMC).
• Substrate: Double-sided conductive carbon tape.

3. Equipment:

• XPS instrument with a focused X-ray beam (≤ 5 µm capability).
• Charge neutralization system (flood gun).
• UHV system.

4. Procedure: 1. Sample Preparation: Lightly dust the powder onto the conductive carbon tape mounted on a standard XPS stub. Use gentle gas flow to remove loose particles. 2. UHV Introduction: Transfer the sample into the UHV analysis chamber. 3. Large-Area Analysis: Acquire a survey spectrum (0-1100 eV) and high-resolution spectra of C 1s, O 1s, N 1s, Cl 2p, and Na 1s from a 500 µm area to determine the average surface composition. 4. Quantification: a. The API (Indomethacin) concentration is determined directly from the atomic percentage of nitrogen (N) or chlorine (Cl), as these elements are unique to the API [83]. b. Sodium (Na) is used to quantify the CMC excipient. c. The Poloxamer 407 concentration is calculated by difference from the remaining carbon and oxygen signal. 5. Homogeneity Assessment (XPS Imaging): a. Acquire a secondary electron image using the focused X-ray beam to identify individual particles. b. Perform small-area XPS analysis on at least five individual particles. c. Alternatively, acquire element-specific maps for N or Cl to visualize the spatial distribution of the API across multiple particles.

5. Key Considerations:

• This technique quantifies the surface concentration of components, which can be significantly different from the bulk formulation [83]. In the cited example, the target bulk loading was 25%, while the surface concentration was 45%.
• XPS provides a direct, standards-free quantification method for APIs and excipients on particle surfaces, which influences solubility, dissolution rates, and stability [83].

Visualization of Technique Selection and Workflow

The following diagrams illustrate the logical process for selecting a surface analysis technique and the standard workflow for XPS depth profiling.

Diagram 1: A logic-based workflow for selecting the most appropriate surface analysis technique based on experimental requirements, highlighting the primary strength of XPS in providing chemical state information.

Diagram 2: Standard experimental workflow for XPS depth profiling, illustrating the iterative cycle of ion sputtering and XPS analysis used to reveal in-depth composition.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Materials for XPS and Correlative Analysis

Item Name	Function/Application	Technical Notes
Monatomic Argon Ion Source	Standard sputtering for depth profiling of inorganic and hard materials (metals, alloys, ceramics) [7].	Typical energy 0.5 - 4 keV. Can cause chemical damage and ion mixing in sensitive materials [82].
Gas Cluster Ion Beam (GCIB) Source	Sputtering source for depth profiling soft materials (polymers, organics) [7] [22].	Argon clusters (e.g., Ar1000+~) minimize damage to chemical bonds, enabling accurate interfacial analysis of organic layers [22].
Conductive Adhesive Tapes	Mounting of powder samples and non-conductive materials.	Carbon tape is preferred for minimal spectral interference. Copper tape can be used but will show Cu signals in the spectrum.
Charge Neutralization (Flood Gun)	Compensates for positive surface charge buildup on insulating samples [7].	Uses low-energy electrons to maintain a stable surface potential, enabling analysis of polymers, glasses, and ceramics.
Certified Reference Materials	Quantification calibration and instrument performance verification.	Used for establishing relative sensitivity factors (RSFs) and validating depth profile resolution.
Correlative SEM/XPS Holder	Enables sample transfer between SEM and XPS instruments without exposure to air [7].	Facilitates the Correlative Imaging and Surface Analysis (CISA) workflow, combining high-resolution morphology with surface chemistry.

Complementary Use of XPS with SEM, Raman, and Ellipsometry

X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) serves as a powerful primary technique for surface chemical analysis, but its combination with complementary methods provides a more comprehensive understanding of material properties. This application note details the integrated use of XPS with Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), Raman Spectroscopy, and Spectroscopic Ellipsometry (SE) within a structured IUPAC protocols framework. By leveraging the specific strengths of each technique, researchers can achieve correlated data on surface chemistry, morphology, molecular structure, and optical properties of materials, which is particularly valuable in advanced drug development and material science research.

Quantitative Technique Comparison

The following tables summarize the key characteristics and complementary roles of each analytical technique.

Table 1: Core Characteristics and Complementary Roles of Surface Analysis Techniques

Technique	Primary Information	Information Depth	Spatial Resolution	Key Complementary Role to XPS
XPS	Elemental composition, chemical state, empirical formula [84]	~2-10 nm (ultra-surface-sensitive) [85] [84]	≥ 10 μm (with micro-focus source) [19]	Primary technique for surface chemistry.
SEM	Surface morphology, topography, location of small features [7]	nm to μm (varies with mode)	< 1 nm (high-resolution systems)	Provides high-resolution imagery and context for XPS analysis points [7].
Raman Spectroscopy	Molecular bonding, crystal structure, phase, stress [7]	μm (larger than XPS) [7]	~ μm	Probes bulk molecular structure complementary to surface-sensitive XPS [7].
Spectroscopic Ellipsometry (SE)	Film thickness, optical constants (n, k) [85]	Varies with model; can probe bulk	Tens of μm	Provides thickness and optical property mapping; can be parameterized using XPS data [85].

Table 2: Summary of Data Correlation and Synergy Between Techniques

Technique Pair	Synergistic Data Output	Key Combined Application
XPS + SEM	Correlated chemical state and high-resolution morphology [7].	CISA Workflow: Locating specific surface features (e.g., contaminants) with SEM for targeted XPS analysis [7].
XPS + Raman	Surface chemistry (XPS) and bulk molecular structure (Raman) [7].	Differentiating surface oxidation (XPS) from bulk crystallinity changes (Raman) in pharmaceuticals.
XPS + SE	Chemical state identification (XPS) with thickness/optical property mapping (SE) [85].	Parameterizing SE optical models for sp2/sp3 carbon using XPS chemical maps for unified compositional analysis [85].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Correlative XPS and SEM Analysis for Surface Feature Investigation

This protocol leverages the Thermo Scientific Correlative Imaging and Surface Analysis (CISA) Workflow to combine high-resolution imaging with surface chemistry.

• Sample Preparation: Mount the sample (e.g., a drug-coated implant or particulate contaminant) on a suitable stub. Ensure the sample is electrically grounded or compatible with charge compensation techniques for both techniques.
• SEM Analysis:
  • Acquire low-magnification overview images of the sample area.
  • Use secondary and backscattered electron detectors to identify features of interest based on morphology and atomic number contrast.
  • Acquire high-resolution images of the target features and note their precise locations using the instrument's coordinate system.
• Sample Transfer: Under high-vacuum or inert atmosphere if required, transfer the sample to the XPS instrument without exposing it to ambient atmosphere to prevent surface contamination.
• XPS Analysis:
  • Relocate the features of interest using the recorded coordinates.
  • Perform large-area survey scans to determine the overall elemental composition.
  • Conduct high-resolution scans over the specific photoelectron peaks (e.g., C 1s, O 1s, N 1s) of interest on both the feature and a nearby "clean" area for comparison.
  • Use a small-area or selected area XPS (SAXPS) aperture, if available, to isolate the signal from features as small as 10 μm [19].
• Data Integration: Overlay XPS chemical state information onto the SEM micrographs to create a correlative map showing the relationship between morphology and chemistry [7].

Protocol 2: Combined XPS and Raman Spectroscopy for Molecular Structure Assessment

This protocol is ideal for analyzing the surface versus bulk properties of materials, such as active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) on a carrier.

• Sample Preparation: Prepare a representative, flat sample to minimize scattering and charging effects.
• Raman Spectroscopy:
  • Start with Raman analysis to avoid potential beam-induced damage from other techniques.
  • Focus the laser beam on the area of interest.
  • Collect spectra with sufficient signal-to-noise, identifying key molecular fingerprints (e.g., specific bond vibrations, crystal polymorph signatures).
• XPS Analysis:
  • Relocate the same analysis area. Use optical microscopy or fiduciary marks on the sample for coarse relocation.
  • For insulating samples, activate the low-energy electron flood gun for charge compensation to obtain accurate binding energies [7] [84].
  • Acquire a survey spectrum followed by high-resolution spectra of relevant core levels (e.g., C 1s, O 1s).
  • Analyze the peak positions and shapes to determine chemical states and oxidation states at the surface.
• Data Correlation: Compare the molecular structure information from Raman with the surface elemental composition and chemical state from XPS. For instance, a carbonaceous surface might show a graphitic C 1s peak in XPS and a corresponding G-band in Raman.

Protocol 3: Integrated XPS and Spectroscopic Ellipsometry for Thin Film Characterization

This protocol is designed for ultra-thin films (<10 nm), such as polymer coatings or carbonaceous layers, common in medical devices.

• Sample Preparation: Deposit the film on a flat, reflective substrate (e.g., silicon wafer). Ensure the sample is clean and representative.
• SE Data Acquisition:
  • Mount the sample on the ellipsometer stage.
  • Measure the ellipsometric parameters (Ψ, Δ) across a broad wavelength range (e.g., UV to near-infrared).
  • Use an initial optical model to estimate the film thickness and rough optical constants.
• XPS Analysis:
  • Transfer the sample to the XPS instrument.
  • Perform XPS analysis on the film to obtain its chemical composition. For carbon films, differentiate between sp2 and sp3 carbon phases based on the C 1s peak profile [85].
  • Use the XPS-determined film thickness or composition to refine the SE optical model. XPS and SE film thicknesses have been shown to be well correlated [85].
• Data Integration and Mapping:
  • Parameterize the SE optical model using the chemical state information from XPS. For example, create effective medium approximation (EMA) layers for sp2 and sp3 carbon phases [85].
  • Apply this refined model to SE mapping data to generate spatial maps of chemical composition (sp2/sp3 fraction) and thickness across the sample, complementing the point-specific chemical maps from XPS.

Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Materials

Table 3: Essential Materials and Reagents for Surface Analysis

Item Name	Function / Application
Monochromated Al K-alpha X-ray Source	Standard high-energy photon source for exciting photoelectrons in XPS; provides high spectral resolution [84].
Dual-Beam Ion Source (e.g., MAGCIS)	Enables depth profiling for hard and soft materials; gas cluster ions are essential for analyzing organic layers without damage [7].
Low-Energy Electron Flood Gun	Critical charge compensator for neutralizing positive surface charge on insulating samples (e.g., polymers, ceramics) during XPS analysis [7] [84].
Hemispherical Analyzer	The core component of an XPS spectrometer that measures the kinetic energy of ejected photoelectrons with high precision [84].
Reference Materials	Pure elements (e.g., Au, Ag, Cu) and their well-characterized oxides (e.g., SiO2, Ta2O5) for energy scale calibration and quantitative analysis reference [86].

Visual Workflows

The following diagrams, generated with Graphviz DOT language, illustrate the logical workflows for the complementary use of XPS with other techniques.

Diagram 1: XPS-SEM Correlative Analysis Workflow

Diagram 2: XPS-Raman Combined Analysis Workflow

Diagram 3: XPS-SE Integrated Analysis Workflow

Within the broader context of thesis research on XPS surface analysis method IUPAC protocols, this application note provides a detailed framework for correlating X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) data with X-ray Diffraction (XRD) findings. XPS is a surface-sensitive quantitative spectroscopic technique that measures the very topmost 50–60 atoms (5–10 nm) of any surface, providing information about elemental composition, chemical state, and overall electronic structure [2]. This technique is particularly valuable for understanding surface chemistry influences on factors such as corrosion rates, catalytic activity, and adhesive properties [87]. When combined with XRD, which reveals bulk crystallographic structure, researchers can achieve a comprehensive understanding of both surface and bulk material properties, enabling more accurate interpretations in materials science, nanotechnology, and pharmaceutical development.

The synergy between these techniques addresses a critical need in advanced materials characterization where surface properties often differ significantly from bulk composition. This protocol establishes standardized methodologies for cross-correlation of data, emphasizing the importance of IUPAC-recommended referencing procedures and quantitative accuracy controls to ensure research reproducibility. By implementing the detailed workflows, data presentation standards, and experimental validation methods outlined in this document, researchers can significantly enhance the reliability of their material characterization studies, particularly in fields requiring precise surface-to-bulk property relationships such as drug development, catalyst design, and advanced material synthesis.

Theoretical Background

X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) Fundamentals

XPS operates on the principle of the photoelectric effect, where a material irradiated with X-rays emits electrons with characteristic kinetic energies. The fundamental equation governing XPS is:

[ E{\text{binding}} = E{\text{photon}} - (E_{\text{kinetic}} + \phi) ]

where (E{\text{binding}}) represents the electron binding energy measured relative to the sample Fermi level, (E{\text{photon}}) is the energy of the incident X-ray photons, (E_{\text{kinetic}}) is the measured kinetic energy of the ejected electron, and (\phi) is the work function of the spectrometer [2]. This relationship enables XPS to identify not only what elements are present but also their chemical states and bonding environments, as these factors cause measurable shifts in binding energy.

The surface sensitivity of XPS stems from the short inelastic mean free path of electrons in solids, typically limiting analysis to the top 5-10 nm of material [2]. This makes it exceptionally valuable for investigating surface contamination, functionalization, oxidation, and other interfacial phenomena that critically influence material performance. Modern XPS instrumentation can achieve spatial resolution down to 200 nm in imaging mode, particularly when using synchrotron radiation sources that offer high intensity and tunable energy [2] [87]. The technique detects all elements except hydrogen and helium, with detection limits ranging from parts per thousand to parts per million under optimal conditions [2].

X-ray Diffraction (XRD) Fundamentals

While XPS characterizes surface composition and chemistry, XRD provides complementary information about the crystallographic structure of materials. XRD operates on the principle of Bragg's Law:

[ n\lambda = 2d\sin\theta ]

where (\lambda) is the X-ray wavelength, (d) is the spacing between crystal planes, (\theta) is the angle of incidence, and (n) is an integer representing the order of diffraction. This relationship enables the identification of crystal phases, measurement of lattice parameters, determination of crystal orientation, and calculation of crystallite size through Scherrer analysis.

Unlike the surface-specific nature of XPS, XRD typically probes bulk material properties, with penetration depths ranging from micrometers to millimeters depending on the material and X-ray energy. This fundamental difference in sampling depth makes the correlation between these techniques particularly valuable for understanding how surface composition may differ from bulk structure—a critical consideration in many scientific and industrial applications.

Experimental Protocols

Sample Preparation Standards

Proper sample preparation is crucial for obtaining reliable and reproducible data from both XPS and XRD analyses. The following protocols establish minimum standards for sample handling:

• XPS-Specific Preparation: All samples must be cleaned to remove surface contamination using appropriate solvents (e.g., high-purity acetone, ethanol, or isopropanol) followed by drying under inert gas (N₂ or Ar) stream. Samples susceptible to oxidation should be transferred in anoxic conditions using glove boxes attached to the XPS introduction chamber. For powdered materials, prepare as thin, uniform layers on appropriate substrates (typically indium foil or silicon wafers) to minimize charging effects [2] [20].

• XRD-Specific Preparation: For bulk solids, ensure flat analysis surfaces with minimal preferred orientation. For powdered samples, use standard back-loading techniques to minimize preferred orientation effects. For thin films, maintain intact native structure without alteration. All samples must be properly secured in holders to prevent displacement during analysis.

• Cross-Technique Consistency: When preparing sample sets for correlated XPS/XRD analysis, ensure that identical material batches are used for both measurements, with samples prepared simultaneously using identical protocols to enable valid comparisons. Document all preparation parameters including solvent history, environmental conditions, and time between preparation and analysis.

XPS Data Acquisition Parameters

Standardized acquisition parameters are essential for generating comparable, high-quality XPS data. The following protocol establishes minimum requirements:

Table 1: Standard XPS Data Acquisition Parameters

Parameter	Standard Value	Special Cases	IUPAC Compliance
X-ray Source	Monochromatic Al Kα (1486.7 eV)	Mg Kα (1253.7 eV) for reduced damage	Recommended [2]
Vacuum Level	Ultra-high vacuum (<10⁻⁷ Pa)	Ambient-pressure for specialized studies	Required [2]
Pass Energy	20-40 eV (high resolution)	100-160 eV (survey scans)	Instrument-dependent
Step Size	0.05-0.1 eV (high resolution)	0.5-1.0 eV (survey scans)	Signal-to-noise optimized
Charge Neutralization	Low-energy electron flood gun	Required for insulating samples	Essential for accuracy
Analysis Area	10-200 μm spot size	1-5 mm for bulk homogeneity	Sample-dependent

For quantitative analysis, acquire both survey scans (0-1100 or 0-1400 eV binding energy range) to identify all present elements and high-resolution regional scans for elements of interest. Use minimum irradiation times to reduce beam damage, particularly for polymers, catalysts, and sensitive organic compounds [2]. For materials prone to degradation, verify stability by acquiring successive scans and monitoring for spectral changes.

XRD Data Acquisition Parameters

For correlated studies, XRD parameters should be optimized to complement XPS data:

• Angular Range: Typically 5-80° 2θ for most materials, extended to 5-120° for complex phase analysis
• Step Size: 0.01-0.02° 2θ for high-resolution scans, 0.05° for rapid identification
• Counting Time: 1-5 seconds per step depending on material crystallinity and required data quality
• Incident Beam Optics: Automated divergence slits or fixed slits with appropriate anti-scatter measures
• Detector Selection: One-dimensional or two-dimensional detectors based on required speed and resolution

For thin film analysis, employ grazing incidence geometries (0.5-2° incidence) to enhance surface signal while minimizing substrate contribution. This approach provides better correlation with surface-sensitive XPS data.

Data Processing and Referencing Standards

Consistent data processing is essential for valid cross-technique correlations:

• XPS Data Processing: Apply charge referencing by setting the adventitious C 1s peak to 284.8 eV for hydrocarbons [2]. Use linear or Shirley background subtraction appropriate to the spectral shape. For quantitative analysis, apply relative sensitivity factors (RSF) provided by the instrument manufacturer or established literature values. Peak fitting should use appropriate mixed Gaussian-Lorentzian line shapes with physically meaningful full-width-at-half-maximum (FWHM) constraints based on pure standard measurements [88].

• XRD Data Processing: Apply Kα₂ stripping and background subtraction. For phase identification, use International Centre for Diffraction Data (ICDD) database references. For crystallite size calculation, apply Scherrer equation with appropriate shape factor correction after instrumental broadening determination using standard reference materials.

• Cross-Technique Normalization: Develop sample-specific normalization protocols when comparing relative concentrations between XPS and XRD data, particularly for heterogeneous materials where surface and bulk compositions may differ systematically.

Data Correlation Methodology

Integrated Analytical Workflow

The correlation of XPS and XRD data follows a systematic workflow that ensures data compatibility and enables comprehensive material characterization. The diagram below illustrates this integrated approach:

Quantitative Data Correlation Framework

The correlation between XPS and XRD data enables researchers to establish relationships between surface chemistry and bulk structure. The following table provides a standardized framework for documenting and comparing quantitative results from both techniques:

Table 2: XPS and XRD Data Correlation Framework

Material Property	XPS Data Output	XRD Data Output	Correlation Metric	Interpretation Guidelines
Phase Composition	Chemical state identification via binding energy shifts [20]	Crystallographic phase identification	Consistency verification	Surface phases may differ from bulk; document discrepancies
Elemental Concentration	Atomic % from peak areas with RSF correction	Not directly quantitative	Semi-quantitative comparison	XPS surface-enriched elements vs. XRD bulk representation
Oxidation States	Binding energy and peak shape analysis	Limited identification capability	Complementary assignment	Use XRD structure to validate XPS oxidation state assignment
Depth Distribution	Depth profiling via sputtering or angle-resolved	Limited to bulk averaging	Surface-to-bulk gradient mapping	Combine techniques for non-destructive depth information
Crystallite Size	Not directly measurable	Scherrer equation calculation	N/A	Relate surface chemistry to nanocrystalline effects

This framework enables systematic comparison of data from both techniques, highlighting areas of consistency and identifying discrepancies that may reveal important surface-bulk property relationships. For example, surface oxidation detected by XPS may not be evident in XRD patterns if the oxide layer is amorphous or too thin to contribute significantly to diffraction signals.

Advanced Correlation Approaches

For complex materials, several advanced approaches enhance the correlation between XPS and XRD data:

• Valence Band Analysis: Using XPS valence band spectra to complement XRD phase identification, particularly for distinguishing between polymorphs with similar crystal structures but different electronic environments [20]. This approach is especially valuable for nanomaterials where traditional XRD may struggle with broadened peaks.

• Thin Film Thickness Measurements: Combining XPS depth profiling with XRD grazing incidence measurements to determine layer thickness, interface quality, and interdiffusion in multilayer systems.

• In Situ/Operando Correlation: Employing specialized equipment for simultaneous or sequential XPS and XRD measurements under controlled environments (temperature, pressure, gas atmosphere) to study dynamic processes such as catalysis, corrosion, or phase transformations [87].

Case Study: Pharmaceutical Compound Analysis

Experimental Setup and Materials

To illustrate the practical application of XPS-XRD correlation, we present a case study analyzing a pharmaceutical active ingredient with polymorphic tendencies. The material was studied both as-received and after processing (grinding and solvent treatment) to induce potential surface and structural changes.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions and Materials

Material/Reagent	Function in Analysis	Specifications	Handling Considerations
Silicon Wafer Substrate	XPS sample mounting	<100> orientation, p-type	Solvent cleaning before use
Indium Foil	Powder mounting for XPS	99.99% purity	Press gently to avoid damage
Zero-Diffraction Silicon	XRD background reduction	(510) orientation	Handle with powder-free gloves
Gold Sputtering Source	Conductivity reference	99.99% purity	Apply thin layer (~2-5 nm)
Charge Neutralizer	Low-energy electron source	Flood gun setup	Optimize for each material
Adventitious Carbon Reference	Energy scale calibration	Hydrocarbon contamination	Standardize aging conditions

Results and Correlation Analysis

The analysis revealed significant differences between surface and bulk properties after processing. XPS data showed surface amorphization evidenced by changes in carbon chemical states and the appearance of new oxygen functional groups, while XRD maintained sharp diffraction patterns consistent with the original crystalline structure but with slight peak broadening indicative of reduced crystallite size.

The correlation workflow for this case study is illustrated below, highlighting the specific analytical pathway for resolving surface-bulk discrepancies:

This case study demonstrates the critical importance of multi-technique correlation in pharmaceutical development, where surface properties often dictate dissolution behavior, bioavailability, and stability—factors that may not be evident from bulk structure analysis alone.

Data Interpretation and Validation

Statistical Validation Methods

Robust statistical approaches are essential for validating correlations between XPS and XRD data:

• Multivariate Analysis: Apply principal component analysis (PCA) to combined XPS binding energy and XRD d-spacing datasets to identify latent variables connecting surface chemistry with crystallographic structure.

• Error Propagation Analysis: Calculate cumulative uncertainty budgets for both techniques, incorporating instrumental errors, counting statistics, background subtraction variability, and fitting uncertainties to establish confidence intervals for correlated parameters.

• Cross-Validation: Implement leave-one-out or k-fold cross-validation when developing quantitative models based on correlated XPS-XRD data to prevent overfitting and ensure predictive reliability.

Common Correlation Artifacts and Resolution

Several potential artifacts can complicate the correlation between XPS and XRD data:

• Surface Contamination Effects: Adventitious carbon or processing residues can mask true surface composition in XPS while not affecting XRD bulk analysis. Resolution: Implement controlled surface cleaning protocols and document carbon reference procedures.

• Preferred Orientation Effects: XRD intensity variations due to crystal orientation can misinterpreted as composition changes. Resolution: Compare multiple sample preparations or use rotation during data acquisition.

• Differential Damage Effects: X-ray induced damage may differently affect surface (XPS) versus bulk (XRD) properties. Resolution: Conduct radiation damage tests with varied exposure times.

• Depth Resolution Mismatch: Inherent differences in sampling depth between techniques (nanometers for XPS vs. micrometers for XRD). Resolution: Employ XPS angle-resolved measurements or depth profiling to better match information depth.

This application note has established comprehensive protocols for correlating XPS data with crystallographic findings from XRD, framed within the context of IUPAC-aligned methodology for surface analysis. The integrated approach enables researchers to develop holistic material characterization understanding that connects surface chemical properties with bulk crystallographic structure. The standardized workflows, data presentation formats, and correlation methodologies provide a foundation for reproducible research across diverse material systems, from pharmaceutical compounds to advanced functional materials.

Implementation of these protocols requires careful attention to sample preparation consistency, analytical parameter optimization, and systematic data interpretation that acknowledges both the complementary nature and inherent limitations of each technique. The case study demonstrates the practical value of this correlated approach in identifying surface-bulk discrepancies that have direct implications for material performance and stability. As both XPS and XRD technologies continue to advance, with improvements in spatial resolution, data acquisition speed, and environment control capabilities [20] [87], the correlation framework established here will enable researchers to leverage these developments for increasingly sophisticated material characterization strategies aligned with international standards for analytical science.

Conclusion

XPS remains a cornerstone technique for surface chemical analysis when applied with rigorous adherence to IUPAC protocols and established best practices. Mastering its foundational principles, methodological workflows, and troubleshooting strategies is paramount for generating reliable and reproducible data. The future of XPS in biomedical and clinical research is particularly promising, with emerging applications in characterizing drug delivery systems, biomaterial interfaces, and the detection of non-covalent interactions critical to molecular recognition. As the technique evolves, a commitment to standardized procedures and interdisciplinary validation will be key to unlocking new discoveries in material science and pharmaceutical development.

References

• 1. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (X06716) [https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/X06716]
• 2. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray_photoelectron_spectroscopy]
• 3. EnviroESCA | ENVIRO [https://www.specs-group.com/enviro/products/detail/enviroesca/]
• 4. XPS/ESCA on glass surfaces: A useful tool for ancient and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590147821000371]
• 5. Practical Guides for X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6774202/]
• 6. X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) Surface Analysis ... [https://www.phi.com/surface-analysis-techniques/xps-esca.html]
• 7. Surface Analysis | Techniques | Thermo Fisher Scientific - US [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/materials-science/surface-analysis/techniques.html]
• 8. Comprehensive Guide to Understanding X-ray ... [https://www.brighton-science.com/blog/using-an-xps-to-understand-surfaces-critical-to-adhesion]
• 9. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy: Towards reliable ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079642519300738]
• 10. X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy | Learning Center [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/materials-science/learning-center/surface-analysis.html.html]
• 11. X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy | XPS-ESCA [https://www.eag.com/techniques/spectroscopy/x-ray-photoelectron-spectroscopy-xps-esca/]
• 12. Elemental Composition Analysis [https://xpsanalysis.com/elemental-composition-analysis/]
• 13. XPS surface analysis: imaging and spectroscopy of metal ... [https://www.spectroscopyeurope.com/article/xps-surface-analysis-imaging-and-spectroscopy-metal-and-polymer-surfaces]
• 14. Avoiding common errors in X-ray photoelectron ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266652392300168X]
• 15. Quantification of Spectra [http://www.casaxps.com/casaxps-training/quantification/quant.htm]
• 16. X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) [https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Franklin_and_Marshall_College/Introduction_to_Materials_Characterization__CHM_412_Collaborative_Text/Spectroscopy/X-ray_Photoelectron_Spectroscopy_(XPS)]
• 17. X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) [https://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/nilssongroup/pages/xps_description.html]
• 18. Periodic Table of BEs - The XPS Library [https://xpslibrary.com/periodic-tables/?srsltid=AfmBOooETOFFzdf697lv-sl9z4NLVhPFwWlSaChP8QWhYGiG9jhUCW9U]
• 19. X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy Imaging [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/materials-science/learning-center/surface-analysis/xps-imaging.html]
• 20. Review on surface-characterization applications of X-ray ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666523922001222]
• 21. XPS Technique | XPS Analysis | Materials Science [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/electron-microscopy/products/xps-instruments/techniques.html]
• 22. X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy Applications | XPS ... [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/electron-microscopy/products/xps-instruments/applications.html]
• 23. Extending certified spectral fluorescence standards for the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12003472/]
• 24. Nanoscale reference and test materials for the validation of ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00216-024-05719-6]
• 25. Find the Contaminant by Perturbing the Surface: XPS and ... [https://www.rdworldonline.com/find-the-contaminant-by-perturbing-the-surface-xps-and-auger-part-1/]
• 26. X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) [https://www.surfacesciencewestern.com/analytical-services/x-ray-photoelectron-spectroscopy-xps/]
• 27. Surface Analysis of Nanocomplexes by X-ray ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33429560/]
• 28. XPS and structural studies of Fe 3 O 4 -PTMS-NAS@Cu as ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-04111-z]
• 29. Analysis of Metal Components Using XPS [https://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=19271]
• 30. Eliminate Core Line/Auger Peak Overlap [https://www.azonano.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=5445]
• 31. Synthesis and characterization of Co, Ni, Zr and Cu MOFs ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-27518-4]
• 32. X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy | Angle Resolved XPS [https://www.thermofisher.com/ru/ru/home/materials-science/learning-center/surface-analysis/angle-resolved-xps.html]
• 33. Part 1: How Does Angle-Resolved X-Ray Photoelectron ... [https://www.phi.com/news-and-articles/angle-resolve-part-1-spotlight.html]
• 34. Angle Resolved XPS (ARXPS) & Depth Profiling [https://www.specs-group.com/specsgroup/knowledge/methods/detail/arxps-depth-profiling-xpd/]
• 35. (PDF) XPS and angle , in the semiconductor industry... resolved XPS [https://www.academia.edu/10166206/XPS_and_angle_resolved_XPS_in_the_semiconductor_industry_Characterization_and_metrology_control_of_ultra_thin_films]
• 36. Thermo Fisher Scientific Launches the ... [https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250922202909/en/Thermo-Fisher-Scientific-Launches-the-Thermo-Scientific-Hypulse-Surface-Analysis-System-to-Accelerate-the-Understanding-of-Material-Surfaces]
• 37. Thermo Fisher Scientific launches ... [https://pharmaceuticalmanufacturer.media/pharma-manufacturing-news/latest-pharmaceutical-manufacturing-news/thermo-fisher-scientific-launches-thermo-scientific-hypulse-/]
• 38. Unravelling molecular interactions in uracil clusters by XPS ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-69947-3]
• 39. Water–biomolecule clusters studied by photoemission ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2021/cp/d1cp02031e]
• 40. X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy | Learning Center [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/materials-science/learning-center/surface-analysis.html]
• 41. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) [https://old.goldbook.iupac.org/html/X/X06716.html]
• 42. Surface Contamination [https://xpsanalysis.com/surface-contamination-2/]
• 43. Application Note: Analysis of Iron Oxidation States by XPS [https://www.mccrone.com/mm/application-note-analysis-of-iron-oxidation-states-by-xps/]
• 44. Analysis of the oxidation state [https://www.tasconusa.com/Analysis-of-the-oxidation-states.html]
• 45. Positive and Negative Contributions of XPS to Reproducibility Issues [https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jsa/26/2/26_94/_article]
• 46. and transparency... | Nature Communications Reproducibility [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-54614-2?error=cookies_not_supported&code=6044ba00-2ab2-4f4b-a0a2-a06a7248e8c1]
• 47. Surface Analysis | Techniques | Thermo Fisher Scientific - ID [https://www.thermofisher.com/id/en/home/materials-science/xps-technology/multi-technique-workflow.html]
• 48. Guidelines and suggested workflow for analyzing your XPS ... [https://sac.umd.edu/workflow-for-xps-analysis/]
• 49. ACS Research Data Guidelines [https://researcher-resources.acs.org/publish/data_guidelines]
• 50. Charge Compensation – BiesingerPeak-fits, Overlays, BEs ... [https://xpslibrary.com/charge-compensation-2/?srsltid=AfmBOopCTkhEBVwCHe9bSTsrxa0kUvWD3FUi1NLpLD86aHz9_-7bmL_v]
• 51. X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy | Charging Effects in XPS [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/materials-science/learning-center/surface-analysis/charge-compensation.html]
• 52. About the charge compensation of insulating samples in XPS [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0368204800001900]
• 53. XPS study and electronic structure of non-doped and Cr+ ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-08421-4]
• 54. Challenges and strategies for probing the composite interface ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/ta/d4ta07085b]
• 55. Surface Analysis Laboratory - XPS and AFM [https://chemistry.osu.edu/research-support-services-core-facilities/surface-analysis-laboratory-xps-and-afm]
• 56. Investigating discontinuous X-ray irradiation as a damage ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/cp/d5cp00089k]
• 57. How to mitigate radiation damage? Exploring the dark side [https://regoutzgroup.org/2025/05/08/how-to-mitigate-radiation-damage-exploring-the-dark-side/]
• 58. Investigating discontinuous X-ray irradiation as a damage ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/cp/d5cp00089k]
• 59. Classes of Drugs that Mitigate Radiation Syndromes - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8167044/]
• 60. Quantification by XPS – A Perspective [https://xpslibrary.com/quantification-atoms-2/?srsltid=AfmBOoqCWDiPMH_YWrdQEKrtC6f8qXAYPEkExnWpxo7vTs3B2PsgwM0b]
• 61. Effects of Elastic and Inelastic Electron-scattering on ... [https://www.nist.gov/publications/effects-elastic-and-inelastic-electron-scattering-quantitative-surface-analysis-aes-and]
• 62. X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (XPS) Study of Layered ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/15/3/1318]
• 63. Surface Analysis Spotlight: Curve Fitting in XPS [https://www.phi.com/news-and-articles/spotlight_curvefitting.html]
• 64. Common mistakes in XPS data analysis and how to avoid ... [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/analyzetest_xps-spectroscopy-surfaceanalysis-activity-7372622232071639040-OVC8]
• 65. **PEAK-FITTING – FACTS, RULES & GUIDELINESPeak-fits ... [https://xpslibrary.com/peak-fitting-facts-rules-guides/?srsltid=AfmBOoqzCBgpaw-PmIn-iK33D5yIhLz-SznKLUWyXsorUTwqWLgYRVBx]
• 66. how to report XPS data incorrectly about lead-halide ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2023/qm/d3qm00574g]
• 67. Avoiding common errors in X-ray photoelectron ... [https://www.osti.gov/pages/biblio/2279097]
• 68. .Peak-fitting = Curve-fittingPeak-fits, Overlays, BEs, Tables ... [https://xpslibrary.com/peak-fitting/?srsltid=AfmBOopyHfvutC8sWXoMJtmj45IKy_eID0Y-scVLvQh4e-kBvP9WfHvy]
• 69. Recommendations and Technical Reports [https://iupac.org/what-we-do/recommendations/]
• 70. Glossary of Methods and Terms used in Surface Chemical ... [https://iupac.org/recommendation/glossary-of-methods-and-terms-used-in-surface-chemical-analysis/]
• 71. FAIRSpec-Ready Spectroscopic Data Collections – Advice ... [https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/68a5603b23be8e43d6fe6e1e]
• 72. Chemical data evaluation: general considerations and ... [https://www.nist.gov/publications/chemical-data-evaluation-general-considerations-and-approaches-iupac-projects-and]
• 73. Tag: IUPAC Recommendations [https://iupac.org/tag/iupac-recommendations/]
• 74. surface (S06154) [https://goldbook.iupac.org/terms/view/S06154]
• 75. ISO/TC 201 - Surface chemical analysis [https://www.iso.org/committee/54618.html]
• 76. The Chemical Validation and Standardization Platform ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4494041/]
• 77. CompTox Chemicals Dashboard: About [https://www.epa.gov/comptox-tools/comptox-chemicals-dashboard-about]
• 78. Periodic Table of BEs - The XPS Library [https://xpslibrary.com/periodic-tables/?srsltid=AfmBOoo9JKE43ZuLqcNC1DCD2wNn0e5PA--t8zEYq4INC7qqmO4pIaTr]
• 79. Table of Elements | Thermo Fisher Scientific - US [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/materials-science/learning-center/periodic-table.html]
• 80. Comparison with Other Techniques: Surface Analysis [https://www.horiba.com/usa/scientific/technologies/glow-discharge-optical-emission-spectroscopy/comparison-with-other-techniques-surface-analysis/]
• 81. Comparison of rotational depth profiling with AES and XPS [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/016943329390258D]
• 82. XPS depth profiling of nano-layers by a novel trial-and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11316073/]
• 83. Quantification of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients by XPS [https://www.eag.com/app-note/quantification-of-active-pharmaceutical-ingredients-by-xps/]
• 84. Understanding Surface Properties Using XPS [https://www.mccrone.com/mm/surface-properties-using-xps/]
• 85. Use of X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169433219304647]
• 86. XPS Data Tables [https://www.xpsdata.com/xpsdata.htm]
• 87. XPS: X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy [https://www.diamond.ac.uk/Instruments/Techniques/Spectroscopy/XPS.html]
• 88. Periodic Table of BEs - The XPS Library [https://xpslibrary.com/periodic-tables/?srsltid=AfmBOorMw32MT_T1urz4nBCtzIPweHeTv15gCAqY-ze_o-ELE_6zfbGJ]