Comments on the XPS Analysis of Carbon Materials

David J Morgan

doi:10.3390/c7030051

Abstract

The surface chemistry of carbon materials is predominantly explored using x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS). However, many published papers have critical failures in the published analysis, stemming from an ill-informed approach to analyzing the spectroscopic data. Herein, a discussion on lineshapes and changes in the spectral envelope of predominantly graphitic materials are explored, together with the use of the D-parameter, to ascertain graphitic content, using this information to highlight a simple and logical approach to strengthen confidence in the functionalization derived from the carbon core-level spectra.

Highlights

The chemistry of carbon materials is extremely important in fields such as catalysis, energy storage, composite materials, and sensor technology to name but a few examples [1]
In the analysis of such materials, to obtain an understanding of the surface properties the use of x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) has been ubiquitous due to its inherent surface sensitivity
Cthe spectrum of the carbon material forfor functionalized carbon such spectrum of the carbon material functionalized carbon suchasasgraphitic graphiticand and fullerene fullerenematerials materials[34,35]. [34,35]

Summary

Introduction

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. The chemistry of carbon materials is extremely important in fields such as catalysis, energy storage, composite materials, and sensor technology to name but a few examples [1]. In the analysis of such materials, to obtain an understanding of the surface properties the use of x-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) has been ubiquitous due to its inherent surface sensitivity. Given the truly heterogenous nature of most carbons, with their bonds to hetero atoms, different chemical species, and varying amounts of sp and sp carbon, the carbon spectral envelope can become quite convoluted

Methods

Results

Conclusion