Method · XPS
X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy in the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany
Elemental composition and chemical states in the outer few nanometres of a surface. What it answers, what it cannot establish on its own, what a laboratory will ask, and which Dutch, Belgian and German facilities publish it — named, with their sources.
What it answers
- Which elements are on the surface, and in which chemical state — for example metal or oxide?
- Is a thin residue or contamination layer present, and what is it made of?
- Did cleaning, plasma treatment or a coating step change the outer few nanometres?
What it cannot establish alone
- The composition of the whole sample from a surface measurement; buried layers may require material removal or a specialised measurement.
- Hydrogen or helium by conventional XPS.
- A unique molecular identity or the cause of failure from a spectrum alone; references and complementary measurements may be needed.
- An unchanged depth profile after sputtering: ion bombardment can alter chemistry, mix interfaces and remove components at different rates.
Before you contact a laboratory
What a laboratory will ask.
A laboratory can say whether it can help only when these are known. Unknowns are fine; say so.
- Material, coating and substrate, and which elements or chemical changes you want to investigate.
- Sample dimensions, the size and location of the area of interest, and a clean reference if available.
- Whether the sample tolerates vacuum and X-ray exposure, and whether it is air-sensitive or prone to charging.
- Surface-only analysis or a depth profile; whether cutting, cleaning or sputtering is permitted.
A question a laboratory can answer
Our anodised aluminium parts show dark stains after a new cleaning step. We can send one stained and one clean part, both 10 × 10 mm. Is the stain organic residue or a change in the oxide? Sputter depth profiling is allowed.
Each laboratory below can turn these into an editable enquiry draft. Go to the laboratories
Laboratory evidence · XPS
Laboratories that publish XPS
Named facilities whose official pages describe XPS, each with its source, the dates behind it and what is still unconfirmed. Up to 12 per search, ordered by review level and then alphabetically — not ranked by suitability.
Start typing to see the cities the catalogue holds for this method. The city must match exactly: “Ede” does not find Enschede, and there is no distance search. Changing the method keeps your country and city.
An independent directory, not a booking service. Laboratories are listed from their own public pages. None has endorsed Argentum Field, paid for its position or seen this search.
For every laboratory below, whether it can accept your sample, external work or a booking — and its current configuration, availability, price and turnaround — needs the laboratory’s own confirmation. Cards show only what differs from this.
How to read a result
- Access route
- How the laboratory’s own page says outside users can work with it, read from that page by an AI assessment. It does not mean your request will be accepted.
- Not yet assessed
- Nobody has read the practical details from the source yet. Open the source; the access route and sample limits are unknown, not absent.
- Public source
- Extracted from an official page. A research lead; nobody has checked it.
- AI-normalised
- Structured by a pipeline from an official page, with its source and retrieval date. Still a lead.
- Human reviewed
- A named reviewer confirmed the cited source supports this method. The laboratory has not agreed to anything.
- Dates
- Under “Evidence and dates” on each card. Retrieved: when the catalogue recorded the source. Assessed: when practical text was read. Source updated: the date the page itself shows. None is a check that the instrument runs today.
- Attribution
- A card says so when a source ties the capability to a wider institution rather than this laboratory. That does not establish who owns the instrument.
More on the levels: what each evidence level means and never means.
Select two or three laboratories to compare their evidence and what remains unknown.
SUCH - Surface Characterisation
Louvain-la-Neuve · Belgium · XPS
- Access
- Not yet assessed — open the source for access and sample limits
- Institution/shared attribution; instrument ownership unconfirmed
Evidence and dates
- Catalogue evidence
- AI-normalised public source
- Dates
- Catalogue retrieved 2026-09-23
- Attribution
- Institution/shared attribution; instrument ownership unconfirmed
Practical details have not yet received a claim-specific source assessment.
Catalogue record
As recorded. A recorded title is catalogue metadata, not a statement that the page supports XPS. Practical details are AI source assessments of indexed official text; an assessment date is not a fresh fetch or a check that the instrument operates.
- Recorded title
- Public evidence (Benelux facility review)
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-23
- Reviewed
- Not recorded
Not sure XPS answers your question? Describe your sample and question and the first answer suggests a method and leads, without an account.
Often combined with
- Time-of-flight secondary-ion mass spectrometryHigh-sensitivity surface and depth-profile mass spectrometry with time-of-flight analysis.
Problems where it helps
- Coating delamination: finding the causeHow to investigate a coating that lifts, blisters or peels: which measurements show where the failure runs and why, and what to prepare.
- Surface contamination: identifying what is thereWhich surface-sensitive measurements identify a residue, oxide or trace contaminant, what each cannot see, and what to prepare.
- Coating failure analysis: from symptom to causeHow to analyse a coating that cracks, discolours, corrodes or wears: compare failed and intact parts and test the likely explanations.