Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T23:07:05.051Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of SC-1 Process Parameters on Particle Removal and Surface Metallic Contamination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

R. Mark Hall,
John J. Rosato,
Taura Jarvis,
Thad Parry and
Paul G. Lindquist
R. Mark Hall
Affiliation:
Santa Clara Plastics, 400 Benjamin lane, Boise, ID 83704
John J. Rosato
Affiliation:
Santa Clara Plastics, 400 Benjamin lane, Boise, ID 83704
Taura Jarvis
Affiliation:
Santa Clara Plastics, 400 Benjamin lane, Boise, ID 83704
Thad Parry
Affiliation:
Santa Clara Plastics, 400 Benjamin lane, Boise, ID 83704
Paul G. Lindquist
Affiliation:
Santa Clara Plastics, 400 Benjamin lane, Boise, ID 83704
Get access

Abstract

The effect of bath temperature, megasonic power, and NH4-OH:H2O ratio are studied for particle removal efficiency, surface roughness, and surface Fe concentration in SC-1 cleaning solutions. Experimental results are presented which show removal efficiencies better than 97% on bare silicon wafers for optimized process conditions. These results are related to the etch rate of thermal oxides and a model is developed for reducing surface roughness and minimizing Fe contamination levels while maximizing particle removal efficiency.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Resnick, P.J. et. al., in A Design of Experiments Approach to an Optimized SC-1/Megasonic Clean for Sub-0.15 Micron Particle removal, edited by Ruzyllo, J. and Novack, R., (ECS, PV94–7, Pennington, NJ, 1994) pp. 450–457.Google Scholar
2. Hall, R.M. et. al., in Optimization of SC 1-Megasonic Cleaning Efficiency for 200 mm Wafer Processing, (Proceedings: Microcontamination-94, Santa Monica, CA, 1994) pp. 529–537.Google Scholar
3. Heynes, M.M. et. al., in New Wet Cleaning Strategies for Obtaining Highly Reliable Thin Oxides, edited by Higashi, G.S., Irene, E.A., and Ohmi, T., (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 315, Pittsburgh, PA,1993) pp. 35–45.Google Scholar
4. Berry, M., Depinto, G., and Steinberg, J., in A Methodology For Continuous Defect Reduction In A High Volume Sub-Micron CMOS Factory, edited by Schmidt, D.N., (ECS, PV92–21, Pennington, NJ, 1992) pp. 208–222.Google Scholar
5. Jastrzebski, L., in Surface Photovoltage Monitoring of Heavy metal Contamination in IC Manufacturing, Solid State Technology, (Dec. 1992), pp. 27–31.Google Scholar
6. Kern, W., Handbook of Semiconductor Wafer Cleaning Technology, 1st ed. (Noyes Publications, New Jersey, 1993) pp. 48–50.Google Scholar
7. Ohmi, T., in Future Process Innovation Based on Ultra-Clean Technology, (Proceedings: Santa Clara Plastics 2nd International Symposium, Boise, ID, 1994), pp. 7–20.Google Scholar
8. Helms, C.R., and Park, H., Electrochemical Equilibrium of Fe in Acid/Base/Peroxide Solutions Related to Si Wafer Cleaning, edited by Ruzyllo, J., and Novack, R., (ECS, PV94–7, Pennington, NJ, 1994) pp. 27–33.Google Scholar
9. Schmidt, H.F. et. al., in Evaluating The Effects of Chemical Purity Within The RCA Wafer-Cleaning Process, Microcontamination, (Sept. 1993), pp. 27–32.Google Scholar
10. Zhang, D., Kittelson, D.B., and Liu, B.Y.H., in An Investigation of Large Scale Acoustic Streaming in Megasonic Cleaning,(Proceedings: Microcontamination-94, Santa Monica, CA, 1994) pp. 215–224.Google Scholar