Assessment of the frequency and nature of erroneous x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy analyses in the scientific literature

Abstract

This study was undertaken to understand the extent and nature of problems in x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) data reported in the literature. It first presents an assessment of the XPS data in three high-quality journals over a six-month period. This analysis of 409 publications showing XPS spectra provides insight into how XPS is being used, identifies the common mistakes or errors in XPS analysis, and reveals which elements are most commonly analyzed. More than 65% of the 409 papers showed fitting of XP spectra. An ad hoc group (herein identified as “the committee”) of experienced XPS analysts reviewed these spectra and found that peak fitting was a common source of significant errors. The papers were ranked based on the perceived seriousness of the errors, which ranged from minor to major. Major errors, which, in the opinion of the ad hoc committee, can render the interpretation of the data meaningless, occurred when fitting protocols ignored underlying physics and chemistry or contained major errors in the analysis. Consistent with other materials analysis data, ca. 30% of the XPS data or analysis was identified as having major errors. Out of the publications with fitted spectra, ca. 40% had major errors. The most common elements analyzed by XPS in the papers sampled and researched at an online database, include carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, and titanium. A scrutiny of the papers showing carbon and oxygen XPS spectra revealed the classes of materials being studied and the extent of problems in these analyses. As might be expected, C 1s and O 1s analyses are most often performed on sp2-type materials and inorganic oxides, respectively. These findings have helped focus a series of XPS guides and tutorials that deal with common analysis issues. The extent of problematic data is larger than the authors had expected. Quantification of the problem, examination of some of the common problem areas, and the development of targeted guides and tutorials may provide both the motivation and resources that enable the community to improve the overall quality and reliability of XPS analysis reported in the literature.