Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,075

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Empirical atomic sensitivity factors for quantitative analysis by electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis

Wagner, C. D., Davis, L. E., Zeller, M. V., Taylor, J. A., Raymond, R. H., Gale, L. H.·1981·Surface and Interface Analysis

Abstract

Quantitative information from electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis requires the use of suitable atomic sensitivity factors. An empirical set has been developed, based upon data from 135 compounds of 62 elements. Data upon which the factors are based are intensity ratios of spectral lines with F1s as a primary standard, value unity, and K2p 3/2 as a secondary standard. The data were obtained on two instruments, the Physical Electronics 550 and the Varian IEE‐15, two instruments that use electron retardation for scanning, with constant pass energy. The agreement in data from the two instruments on the same compounds is good. How closely the data can apply to instruments with input lens systems is not known. Calculated cross‐section data plotted against binding energy on a log‐log plot provide curves composed of simple linear segments for the strong lines: 1s, 2p 3/2 , 3d 5/2 and 4f 7/2 . Similarly, the plots for the secondary lines, 2s, 3p 3/2 , 4d 5/2 and 5d 5/2 , are shown to be composed of linear segments. Theoretical sensitivity factors relative to F1s should fall on similar curves, with minor correction for the combined energy dependence of instrumental transmission and mean free path. Experimental intensity ratios relative to F1s were plotted similarly, and best fit curves were calculated using the shapes of the theoretical curves as a guide. The intercepts of these best fit curves with appropriate binding energies provide sensitivity factors for the strong lines and the secondary lines for all of the elements except the rare earths and the first series of transition metals. For these elements the sensitivity factors are lower than expected, and variable, because of multi‐electron processes that vary with chemical state. From the data it can be shown that many of the commonly‐accepted calculated cross‐section data must be significantly in error—as much as 40% in some cases for the strong lines, and far more than that for some of the secondary lines.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/sia.740030506

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 2,075

Metadata

Authors
Wagner, C. D., Davis, L. E., Zeller, M. V., Taylor, J. A., Raymond, R. H., & Gale, L. H.
Venue
Surface and Interface Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1981-10
Volume
3
Issue
5
Pages
211-225
ISSN
  • 0142-2421 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-9918
OpenAlex
W2004239068
Cited by
2,075
References
0
FWCI
11.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Empirical atomic sensitivity factors for quantitative analysis by electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sia.740030506
The paper
Wagner, C. D., Davis, L. E., Zeller, M. V., Taylor, J. A., Raymond, R. H., & Gale, L. H. (1981). Empirical atomic sensitivity factors for quantitative analysis by electron spectroscopy for chemical analysis. Surface and Interface Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1002/sia.740030506

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.