Share Email Print

Proceedings Paper

Approaches to airborne molecular contamination assessment
Author(s): Sarah Riddle Vogt; Cristian Landoni
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00
cover GOOD NEWS! Your organization subscribes to the SPIE Digital Library. You may be able to download this paper for free. Check Access

Paper Abstract

Airborne molecular contamination (AMC) assessment approaches can vary greatly between different fabs and even between different divisions within a given company. Some companies have very rigorous testing schedules (such as those needed to maintain tool warranties) while others feel AMC testing is only necessary when they are having a problem. While choosing to only test for AMC when a trouble arises may be cost effective in the short term it can have significant impacts on tools, in particular tool optics, and product losses due to defects which can cost significantly more in the long term than the AMC testing would have. Another critical issue in assessing AMC is what species you should be testing for. Some volatile species may not cause an issue in your process while part-per-trillion volume (pptv) amounts of others can do serious damage to your tools and/or products. Knowledge of which volatile compounds can cause problems in your applications and at what levels is crucial in deciding what type of AMC assessment to perform and at what frequency. Typically four classes of AMC are routinely monitored in clean rooms and tool environments: acids, bases, hydrocarbons, and refractory compounds. Real world examples will be presented using the solely solid-state trap collection methods utilized by SAES Pure Gas.

Paper Details

Date Published: 20 April 2011
PDF: 7 pages
Proc. SPIE 7971, Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control for Microlithography XXV, 79712I (20 April 2011); doi: 10.1117/12.881654
Show Author Affiliations
Sarah Riddle Vogt, SAES Pure Gas, Inc. (United States)
Cristian Landoni, SAES Getters S.p.A. (Italy)

Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 7971:
Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control for Microlithography XXV
Christopher J. Raymond, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top