Comparison of cleaning processes with respect to cleaning efficiency

Nesládek, Pavel; Osborne, Steve; Rode, Thomas

doi:10.1117/12.895198

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The FDL is identified by the biggest feature that is damaged after extensive cleaning on a test mask containing many different feature sizes using our previously described test recipe [3]. The FDL is expected to rise with absorber thickness.…”

Section: Feature Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

Cleaning aspects of material choice for high end mask manufacturing

Nesládek

Osborne²,

Rümmelin

2012

SPIE Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Feature Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

Cleaning aspects of material choice for high end mask manufacturing

Nesládek

Osborne²,

Rümmelin

2012

SPIE Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The semiconductor industry, which requires a very high level of cleaning to realise yet smaller features, has their own definition for numbers that assessing cleaning performance, such as Particle Removal Efficiency (PRE), Feature Damage Limit (FDL), and Feature Damage Probability (FPD); [74] which are relevant for megasonic frequencies.…”

Section: Semiconductor Cleaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring cavitation and its cleaning effect

Verhaagen¹,

Rivas

2016

Ultrasonics Sonochemistry

153

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The advantages and limitations of techniques for measuring the presence and amount of cavitation, and for quantifying the removal of contaminants, are provided. After reviewing chemical, physical, and biological studies, a universal cause for the cleaning effects of bubbles cannot yet be concluded. An "ideal sensor" with high spatial and temporal resolution is proposed. Such sensor could be used to investigate bubble jetting, shockwaves, streaming, and even chemical effects, by correlating cleaning processes with cavitation effects, generated by hydrodynamics, lasers or ultrasound.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, almost all physical cleaning techniques show that smaller particles are more difficult to remove in comparison to larger ones. 15 The reason for this discrepancy is that for most physical Comparison between the drag and collapse force of structures with an AR of 2 and 3.4 as function of the particle diameter. The drag forces are calculated for the minimum liquid velocity necessary for particle removal.…”

Section: Process Windowmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanoparticle Removal with Megasonics: A Review

Brems

Hauptmann

Camerotto

et al. 2013

ECS J. Solid State Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanoparticle removal obtained without inflicting damage to fragile device elements remains a big challenge. The feasibility of physical cleans is assessed and boundary conditions are outlined. An overview of megasonic cleaning process improvements is given. In order to reduce damage without reducing particle removal frequencies during high frequency ultrasound cleaning processes, cavitation needs to be better controlled. This is partly achieved by (1) using pulsed acoustic fields which makes it possible to control the average bubble size and, at the same time, maximize the number of resonant bubbles, by (2) increasing the dissolved gas concentration and lowering the surface tension which facilitates bubble formation and, finally, by (3) introducing traveling waves to transport bubbles to the surface which needs to be cleaned.

show abstract

Comparison of cleaning processes with respect to cleaning efficiency

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Cleaning aspects of material choice for high end mask manufacturing

Cleaning aspects of material choice for high end mask manufacturing

Measuring cavitation and its cleaning effect

Nanoparticle Removal with Megasonics: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About