## 3 Results and Discussion  
Considering that there may be some differences between the specified composition in the solution and the nominal composition in the film, EDX analysis was performed for all prepared films. Table 2 summarizes both the values of \(x\) in the precursor solution and the corresponding data from the EDX measurements. The analysis of data in the table demonstrates a good correspondence of the composition set in the precursor solutions with the composition in the films assessed from EDX measurements. However, there are few deviations. For instance, a value of \(x\) equal to 0.125 is deduced from the EDX data instead of the value of 0.1 set in the precursor solution for the respective (In\({}_{1-x}\)Ga\({}_{x}\))\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) film. Insignificant deviations were also found for the ITO\({}_{0.9}\)Ga\({}_{0.1}\), ITO\({}_{0.85}\)Ga\({}_{0.15}\), (In\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\))\({}_{0.85}\)(MgO)\({}_{0.15}\), and (Ga\({}_{0.88}\)Al\({}_{0.12}\))\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) oxide films. It should be noted that the errors in assessing the content of elements with low atomic numbers, such as oxygen, are quite large in EDX measurements, they can reach 5-10%. The analysis performed was practically based on metal ratios for which the errors are smaller, and the EDX data were corroborated by XRD analysis of the crystalline phases contained in the films. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline
**Oxide Films** & \(x\) **Value in the Precursor Solution** & **Element** & **Atomic \% (EDX)** & **Composition Formula Based on EDX Data** \\ \hline  & & O & 64.09 & \\ ITO & 0 & In & 23.97 & In\({}_{0.24}\)Sn\({}_{0.12}\)O\({}_{0.64}\) \\  & & Sn & 11.94 & \\ \hline  & & O & 66.29 & \\ ITO\({}_{0.9}\)Ga\({}_{0.1}\) & 0.1 & In & 16.9 & \\  & & Sn & 6.19 & In\({}_{0.17}\)Sn\({}_{0.06}\)Ga\({}_{0.11}\)O\({}_{0.66}\) \\  & & Ga & 10.62 & \\ \hline  & & O & 61.96 & \\ ITO\({}_{0.85}\)Ga\({}_{0.15}\) & 0.15 & In & 18.33 & In\({}_{0.18}\)Sn\({}_{0.04}\)Ga\({}_{0.16}\)O\({}_{0.62}\) \\  & & Sn & 4.26 & \\  & & Ga & 15.45 & \\ \hline  & & O & 50.11 & \\ Zn\({}_{1-x}\)Mg\({}_{x}\)O & 0.2 & Zn & 39.24 & Zn\({}_{0.8}\)Mg\({}_{0.2}\)O \\  & & Mg & 10.65 & \\ \hline  & & O & 50.70 & \\ Zn\({}_{1-x}\)Mg\({}_{x}\)O & 0.4 & Zn & 29.19 & Zn\({}_{0.6}\)Mg\({}_{0.04}\)O \\  & & Mg & 20.11 & \\ \hline  & & O & 49.78 & \\ Zn\({}_{1-x}\)Mg\({}_{x}\)O & 0.6 & Zn & 19.29 & Zn\({}_{0.4}\)Mg\({}_{0.6}\)O \\  & & Mg & 30.93 & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The values of \(x\) in the precursor solution and the data based on EDX measurements for all the oxide films. According to the main goal of the paper, the 3D topography was investigated by AFM image processing of all prepared films, and selected AFM images at a 5 \(\times\) 5 \(\upmu\)m\({}^{2}\) scale are presented in Figure 2 for each group of films described in Table 2. The observed topography can be explained in terms of formation of nanocomposite films, composed of nanocrystals with different crystal structure, described as follows. Ga\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) nanocrystals are incorporated into the ITO films in the case of the first group of films. It is known that the monoclinic C2/m space group \(\beta\)-Ga\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) crystal structure is the most thermodynamically stable phase at standard temperature and pressure among the possible Ga\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) polymorphs. By increasing the \(x\)-value in the ITO\({}_{1-x}\)Ga\({}_{x}\) films, the size of the Ga\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) nanocrystallites increases, therefore leading to the increase in the surface film roughness, as observed from a comparison of Figure 2a,b. The same is true for the (In\({}_{1-x}\)Ga\({}_{x}\))\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) system, as one can observe from a comparison of Figure 2c,d, because the most thermodynamically stable phase of In\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) is the _bixbyite_ body-centered cubic phase, which predominates in the films and is different from the \(\beta\)-Ga\({}_{2}\)O\({}_{3}\) structure.