From linda.macks at unsw.edu.au Tue Sep 4 02:06:55 2012 From: linda.macks at unsw.edu.au (Linda Macks) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 06:06:55 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] TMAH controls or substitutes Message-ID: Hi all, We are currently reviewing our processes using TMAH, and I would be grateful for any feedback re. safety controls or substitute chemicals, particularly for Si etching involving 25% concentration TMAH. Many thanks, Linda Dr Linda Macks Facility Manager, ANFF-NSW Australian National Fabrication Facility School of Electrical Engineering & Telecommunications University of New South Wales UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Australia Phone: +61 (2) 9385 7845 Fax: +61(2) 9385 5114 Email: linda.macks at unsw.edu.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu Tue Sep 4 10:09:10 2012 From: hathaway at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Mac Hathaway) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 10:09:10 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] TMAH controls or substitutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50460B86.7040903@cns.fas.harvard.edu> Hi Linda, At Harvard CNS we only allow 25% TMAH usage in the dedicated "strong" acid/base benches, with full PPE at all times (extra chemical gloves, poly chemical apron with sleeves, faceshield, safety glasses). We are trying to phase it out. For Si etching, we encourage the use of KOH instead. For 2.5-3.0% (i.e. MIF developer), we are not as rigorous, but we are reviewing that PPE as well. For those who are not familiar with TMAH, it has been recently re-appraised by groups in Taiwan, IBM, and elsewhere, in light of the discovery that, in a small sample of people who had exposures to either 25% and 3% TMAH, 3 out of the 4 exposed to 25% TMAH died, one of whom reportedly got under a safety shower within 30 seconds (he still died.). The minimum exposed area in the review was, I believe, 7.5% body area exposed. Toxicity appears unrelated to, but exacerbated by the extreme caustic nature of the material. The current bottom line is 25% TMAH appears to be a potent neurotoxin, and there is no known antidote. The reason this is a problem is that TMAH is the active ingredient in most "metal-ion-free" developers, although this is only in the ~3% concentration, where neurotoxicity is much reduced, and manifests itself in lessor symptoms like tingling, blurred vision, etc. 25% TMAH is used in Si etching, and for some E-beam resist purposes, as a developer for HSQ. Mac Hathaway Safety Officer Harvard CNS On 9/4/2012 2:06 AM, Linda Macks wrote: > > Hi all, > > We are currently reviewing our processes using TMAH, and I would be > grateful for any feedback re. safety controls or substitute chemicals, > particularly for Si etching involving 25% concentration TMAH. > > Many thanks, > > Linda > > *Dr Linda Macks* > Facility Manager, ANFF-NSW > Australian National Fabrication Facility > School of Electrical Engineering & Telecommunications > University of New South Wales > UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 > Australia > Phone: +61 (2) 9385 7845 > Fax: +61(2) 9385 5114 > Email: linda.macks at unsw.edu.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rmorrison at draper.com Tue Sep 4 12:01:38 2012 From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2012 16:01:38 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] TMAH controls or substitutes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, At Draper Laboratory, whenever we are pouring any chemical with TMAH (no matter the %) we use full PPE, face mask, safety glasses, apron, arm covers, chemical gloves. This is the case for developer, as well as, Silicon etch solutions. After the chemical is in the tank/beaker in a chemical hood we relax the rules because the exposure risk is low, so it is safety glasses (with hood shield in place), chemical gloves and arm covers. We try to minimize the use of TMAH for Silicon etching, but sometimes KOH does not work for our devices. We have restarted the use of EDP, but this comes with a list of dangers that can be worse than TMAH. Hope this helps. Rick Draper Laboratory Group Leader Microfabrication Operations 555 Technology Square Cambridge Ma, 02139-3563 www.draper.com rmorrison at draper.com W 617-258-3420 C 508-930-3461 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Linda Macks Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 2:07 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] TMAH controls or substitutes Hi all, We are currently reviewing our processes using TMAH, and I would be grateful for any feedback re. safety controls or substitute chemicals, particularly for Si etching involving 25% concentration TMAH. Many thanks, Linda Dr Linda Macks Facility Manager, ANFF-NSW Australian National Fabrication Facility School of Electrical Engineering & Telecommunications University of New South Wales UNSW Sydney NSW 2052 Australia Phone: +61 (2) 9385 7845 Fax: +61(2) 9385 5114 Email: linda.macks at unsw.edu.au -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hwooden at iest.org Mon Sep 10 14:54:15 2012 From: hwooden at iest.org (Heather Wooden) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:54:15 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Deadline Monday to Submit Nano/Micro Operations Abstracts Message-ID: The Institute of Environmental Sciences and Technology (IEST) announces that a new track of sessions, Operation and Management of Micro/Nano Research and Manufacturing Facilities, has been added to ESTECH 2013, the 59th Annual Technical Meeting and Exposition of IEST. Presentation abstracts for the new track are now being accepted on the following topics: ? Nanotechnology Facility Management - Management systems - Scheduling and billing - Space utilization and prioritization - Rules and enforcement - Priorities: Research vs. Education - Staff management structures - Fostering collaboration - International partnerships and collaboration ? Dealing with Anomalies - Emergency planning and response - PM shutdown management - Recovery from events Financial Management - Charging models - Income streams - Reporting Materials Management - Chemical procurement and distribution - Decommissioning equipment and nanotechnology facilities - ITAR and Homeland Security issues - Priorities for equipment purchases - Processing equipment selection - Collaboration and cross-contamination - Sustainability opportunities in nanotechnology cleanrooms - Training and education The deadline for abstracts is September 17, 2012. For more information on submitting presentation abstracts, contact Heather Wooden at marketing at iest.org or 847-981-0100. ESTECH 2013, the 59th Annual Technical Meeting and Exposition of IEST, offers technical conference sessions, continuing education training courses, working group meetings, and exhibits in the fields of contamination control; design, test, and evaluation; product reliability; aerospace; and nanotechnology. The conference will take place April 29-May 2, 2013, in San Diego, California. Heather Wooden IEST Marketing and Meeting Coordinator Arlington Place One 2340 S. Arlington Heights Road Suite 100 Arlington Heights, IL 60005 Phone: 847-981-0100 ext. 20 E-mail: hwooden at iest.org Mark your calendars for the 2012 IEST Fall Conference - November 12-15 in northshore suburban Chicago. *IEST - Membership Is a Best Practice - www.iest.org* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kevin.walsh at louisville.edu Tue Sep 11 21:55:08 2012 From: kevin.walsh at louisville.edu (Walsh,Kevin M.) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 01:55:08 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Magne-tron M-700 Repair Message-ID: <0D1ABD6DF2541B42A05BD6E6D3695411813AACD1@EXMBX03.ad.louisville.edu> Does anyone know who reapirs a Magne-tron M-700 Resistivity unit? I have an old unit which does not work. Thanks, Kevin Walsh From rmorrison at draper.com Fri Sep 14 15:19:45 2012 From: rmorrison at draper.com (Morrison, Richard H., Jr.) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 19:19:45 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Steam Humidifier system question Message-ID: Hi All, Facilities at my labs want to run 18megohm to a boiler for humidity control in another lab. I think it should be RO water as 18Megohm water is very corrosive. Any thoughts on this? Their suggested design would draw 0.5gmp from my supply loop and return it to the DI tank? My belief is that this return water would be contaminated by the boiler system. What do you guys think? Rick Draper Laboratory Group Leader Microfabrication Operations 555 Technology Square Cambridge Ma, 02139-3563 www.draper.com rmorrison at draper.com W 617-258-3420 C 508-930-3461 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From codreanu at seas.upenn.edu Fri Sep 14 16:00:21 2012 From: codreanu at seas.upenn.edu (Iulian Codreanu) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:00:21 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Steam Humidifier system question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50538CD5.2010100@seas.upenn.edu> Hi Rick. I would not allow that water to return to the tank that services the cleanroom. At Penn I have a separate loop feeding the steam generators. Basically the water generated by the RO unit splits into two streams: 1) One feeds the UPW loop that services the cleanroom 2) One feeds the DI water loop that services to non-cleanroom labs in the building and the steam generators. Each loop has its own separate storage tank. I hope this helps. Iulian --- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab On 9/14/2012 3:19 PM, Morrison, Richard H., Jr. wrote: > Hi All, > > Facilities at my labs want to run 18megohm to a boiler for humidity > control in another lab. I think it should be RO water as 18Megohm water > is very corrosive. Any thoughts on this? > > Their suggested design would draw 0.5gmp from my supply loop and return > it to the DI tank? My belief is that this return water would be > contaminated by the boiler system. What do you guys think? > > Rick > > Draper Laboratory > > Group Leader Microfabrication Operations > > 555 Technology Square > > Cambridge Ma, 02139-3563 > > www.draper.com > > rmorrison at draper.com > > W 617-258-3420 > > C 508-930-3461 > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > From tribble at fas.harvard.edu Fri Sep 14 15:56:37 2012 From: tribble at fas.harvard.edu (Tribble, Thomas) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:56:37 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Steam Humidifier system question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3456A84829A8044899D2165963478C84D917A59DDF@FASXCH01.fasmail.priv> Harvard FAS does both. We feed our Steam-to-Steam humidification boilers with 1 to 1.5 megohm RO water. These are AHU sized devices (up to 40,000 CFM) used for general ventilation. We feed a critical lab-specific ultrasonic (piezoelectric) duct-mounted humidifier (Stultz) with 18 megohm RO/DI. The RO/DI is piped in stainless by virtue of its corrosive properties as alluded to. Tom Tribble From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Morrison, Richard H., Jr. Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:20 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Steam Humidifier system question Hi All, Facilities at my labs want to run 18megohm to a boiler for humidity control in another lab. I think it should be RO water as 18Megohm water is very corrosive. Any thoughts on this? Their suggested design would draw 0.5gmp from my supply loop and return it to the DI tank? My belief is that this return water would be contaminated by the boiler system. What do you guys think? Rick Draper Laboratory Group Leader Microfabrication Operations 555 Technology Square Cambridge Ma, 02139-3563 www.draper.com rmorrison at draper.com W 617-258-3420 C 508-930-3461 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrweaver at purdue.edu Fri Sep 14 16:36:02 2012 From: jrweaver at purdue.edu (Weaver, John R) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:36:02 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Steam Humidifier system question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDCB7ED17D62@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> I agree on both counts! Any incompatible parts will make your system look like Old Faithful (been there, done that) and the return water will be really tough on your purification system. John R. Weaver Facility Manager Birck Nanotechnology Center Purdue University (765) 494-5494 jrweaver at purdue.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Morrison, Richard H., Jr. Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:20 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Steam Humidifier system question Hi All, Facilities at my labs want to run 18megohm to a boiler for humidity control in another lab. I think it should be RO water as 18Megohm water is very corrosive. Any thoughts on this? Their suggested design would draw 0.5gmp from my supply loop and return it to the DI tank? My belief is that this return water would be contaminated by the boiler system. What do you guys think? Rick Draper Laboratory Group Leader Microfabrication Operations 555 Technology Square Cambridge Ma, 02139-3563 www.draper.com rmorrison at draper.com W 617-258-3420 C 508-930-3461 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shott at stanford.edu Fri Sep 14 19:15:56 2012 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:15:56 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Steam Humidifier system question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5053BAAC.3080901@stanford.edu> Rick and the labnetwork community: Our facility (Stanford Nanofabrication Facility) uses DI water off our main DI system for humidity injection/control in the lithography portion of our cleanroom. While I'm not an authority on that sub-system, I'll share with you what I know, what I like, and what I don't like about that system. I believe that we have a total of 3 humidifier units that are model STS Humidifier made by the Dri Steem Company. They use campus-wide steam to provide the heat source and DI from our lab to be the source of moisture. We have run two DI supply/return loops (one on each side of the cleanroom) up into the interstitial space above the clean room to provide a DI source up there. Those lines are run in welded 1/2" PVDF lines and have a small valve and 1/4" teflon line that runs from the distribution system to each humidifier. While I don't know the flow through the 1/2" distribution lines, I suspect that it falls below the generally accepted minimum velocity specs for high-quality DI distribution. While that is something of a concern, our DI system is old enough that this is not the only place where that happens so I don't lose sleep over it. What is the flow that we use for steam generation ... that is, how much is actually extracted from those loops? I don't know, but it's likely a piddly little amount. Well less than 1/2 GPM, I suspect ... As far as returning it to the main system, however, I think that DI is like chewing gum: it's OK to let someone have some, but you DON'T want it back when they are done with it. Even at 1/2 GPM, I'd likely be inclined to dispose of that water rather than try to re-use it. Certainly, 1/2 GPM can't be converted into steam to humidify a room, so I'd ask if they can use less so that you don't feel bad about dumping water down the drain. If their usage is on the order of 100 sccm per minute or less, you probably can live with that. Whether DI is sufficiently corrosive to cause them problems is likely their problem (particularly if you aren't getting the "unused" water back) ... but I'll bet that it is. However, the good thing about DI is that you won't have problems with "stinky steam" as long as you avoid bacteria growth. Our system used to use some form of "treated water" ... and we would periodically be able to smell the steam. Not a good thing in a lab where you try to train people to be on the lookout for and sensitive to funny smells. That's at least my initial reaction and relevant experience. I'll be interested to hear what some of the newer facilities have done in this area. Have a good weekend, John On 9/14/2012 12:19 PM, Morrison, Richard H., Jr. wrote: > > Hi All, > > Facilities at my labs want to run 18megohm to a boiler for humidity > control in another lab. I think it should be RO water as 18Megohm > water is very corrosive. Any thoughts on this? > > Their suggested design would draw 0.5gmp from my supply loop and > return it to the DI tank? My belief is that this return water would be > contaminated by the boiler system. What do you guys think? > > Rick > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From khbeis at uw.edu Fri Sep 14 19:17:32 2012 From: khbeis at uw.edu (Michael Khbeis) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 16:17:32 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Steam Humidifier system question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <67D61DF4-EE2F-4D41-8971-5C02C96165A2@uw.edu> Rick, There are heater kits and/or boiler units that are rated for DI water. These usually have a stainless element. Even 1 Megaohm RO can be corrosive to other metals depending on the incoming water hardness. I found that buying the stainless elements and running high quality/pure water is far less maintenance than cleaning the boiler from impure water deposits, so it is worth the added upfront cost. I hope that helps. Sincerely, Dr. Michael Khbeis Associate Director Microfabrication Facility (MFF) University of Washington Fluke Hall, Box 352143 (O) 206.543.5101 (C) 443.254.5192 khbeis at uw.edu On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Morrison, Richard H., Jr. wrote: > Hi All, > > Facilities at my labs want to run 18megohm to a boiler for humidity control in another lab. I think it should be RO water as 18Megohm water is very corrosive. Any thoughts on this? > > Their suggested design would draw 0.5gmp from my supply loop and return it to the DI tank? My belief is that this return water would be contaminated by the boiler system. What do you guys think? > > Rick > > > > Draper Laboratory > Group Leader Microfabrication Operations > 555 Technology Square > Cambridge Ma, 02139-3563 > > www.draper.com > rmorrison at draper.com > W 617-258-3420 > C 508-930-3461 > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1345 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rizik at intengr.com Fri Sep 14 21:19:41 2012 From: rizik at intengr.com (Rizik) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 18:19:41 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] Steam Humidifier system question In-Reply-To: <67D61DF4-EE2F-4D41-8971-5C02C96165A2@uw.edu> References: <67D61DF4-EE2F-4D41-8971-5C02C96165A2@uw.edu> Message-ID: <004d01cd92e0$302c1f60$90845e20$@com> If you are installing a new humidification grid in an existing air handler or installing a new air handler just make sure that the grid and nozzles are made of at least SS316. With this, rouging/rusting wouldn't occur. The least quality water you want to use is RO water especially for Cleanroom operation. Rizik Michael, PE Principal Integrated Engineering Services Office: +408 261 3500, Ext. 201 Cell: +408 718 0927 -----Original Message----- From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Michael Khbeis Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 4:18 PM To: Morrison, Richard H., Jr. Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] Steam Humidifier system question Rick, There are heater kits and/or boiler units that are rated for DI water. These usually have a stainless element. Even 1 Megaohm RO can be corrosive to other metals depending on the incoming water hardness. I found that buying the stainless elements and running high quality/pure water is far less maintenance than cleaning the boiler from impure water deposits, so it is worth the added upfront cost. I hope that helps. Sincerely, Dr. Michael Khbeis Associate Director Microfabrication Facility (MFF) University of Washington Fluke Hall, Box 352143 (O) 206.543.5101 (C) 443.254.5192 khbeis at uw.edu On Sep 14, 2012, at 12:19 PM, Morrison, Richard H., Jr. wrote: > Hi All, > > Facilities at my labs want to run 18megohm to a boiler for humidity control in another lab. I think it should be RO water as 18Megohm water is very corrosive. Any thoughts on this? > > Their suggested design would draw 0.5gmp from my supply loop and return it to the DI tank? My belief is that this return water would be contaminated by the boiler system. What do you guys think? > > Rick > > > > Draper Laboratory > Group Leader Microfabrication Operations > 555 Technology Square > Cambridge Ma, 02139-3563 > > www.draper.com > rmorrison at draper.com > W 617-258-3420 > C 508-930-3461 > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From James_Goodman at uml.edu Mon Sep 17 09:35:50 2012 From: James_Goodman at uml.edu (Goodman, James R) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2012 13:35:50 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] Steam Humidifier system question In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rick, This water will damage the boilers. RO water would be the way to go. Jay. James Goodman Equipment Manager, ETIC Nano Technology Laboratory 40 University Ave. Room 121 Lowell, MA -01854 Office (978) 934-3469 Cell (603) 235-1496 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Morrison, Richard H., Jr. Sent: Friday, September 14, 2012 3:20 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] Steam Humidifier system question Hi All, Facilities at my labs want to run 18megohm to a boiler for humidity control in another lab. I think it should be RO water as 18Megohm water is very corrosive. Any thoughts on this? Their suggested design would draw 0.5gmp from my supply loop and return it to the DI tank? My belief is that this return water would be contaminated by the boiler system. What do you guys think? Rick Draper Laboratory Group Leader Microfabrication Operations 555 Technology Square Cambridge Ma, 02139-3563 www.draper.com rmorrison at draper.com W 617-258-3420 C 508-930-3461 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hwooden at iest.org Thu Sep 20 09:30:03 2012 From: hwooden at iest.org (Heather Wooden) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 08:30:03 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Deadline Extended for Nano/Micro Operations Abstract Submissions Message-ID: Did you miss the deadline to submit an abstract for the Nano/Micro Operations Track at the IEST Annual Technical Meeting, ESTECH 2013? Well, do not worry, we have extended the deadline until September 28. Topics solicited include: - Nanotechnology Facility Management - Management Systems - Scheduling and Billing - Space utilization and prioritization - Rules and enforcement - Priorities: Research vs. Education - Staff management structures - Fostering collaboration - International partnerships and collaboration - Dealing with Anomalies - Emergency planning and response - PM shutdown management - Recovery from events - Financial Management - Charging models - Income streams - Reporting - Chemical procurement and distribution - Decommissioning equipment and nanotechnology facilities - ITAR and Homeland Security issues - Priorities for equipment purchases - Processing equipment selection - Collaboration and cross-contamination - Sustainability opportunities in nanotechnology cleanrooms - Training and education ESTECH 2013 will take place April 29-May 2 in San Diego, California. You abstract and biography can be submitted by e-mail to dgranitto at iest.org. Heather Wooden IEST Marketing and Meeting Coordinator Arlington Place One 2340 S. Arlington Heights Road Suite 100 Arlington Heights, IL 60005 Phone: 847-981-0100 ext. 20 E-mail: hwooden at iest.org Mark your calendars for the 2012 IEST Fall Conference - November 12-15 in northshore suburban Chicago. *IEST - Membership Is a Best Practice - www.iest.org* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From IRHarvey at eng.utah.edu Thu Sep 20 11:58:22 2012 From: IRHarvey at eng.utah.edu (Ian Harvey) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 09:58:22 -0600 Subject: [labnetwork] question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... Message-ID: Dear micro/nano cleanroom colleagues: Please critique the following thought process and give your insight which approach is best in planning the process gas piping for a new installation. Which do you use (VMP/distributed) in your new facility or new tool installations and are you happy? If VMP's, what is the threshold number of tools for which you consider it justifiable to use VMP's? valve manifold panels: pro's: ? clean, organized installation, flexible to any future installation, populated when needed ? system contamination attained by ability to purge regulators with venturi ? leaks or failures within isolated runs do not contaminate other processes or cause downtime on other tools ? prevent cross-talk between process MFC's, using the same gases ? does not cause system downtime when installing new processes Con's ? up front cost is greater, though not sure how much Process gases distributed through shared supply line, and laterals / drops: pro's: ? Up front cost is lower (not sure how much-- it depends...) ? cross-talk can be minimized by a regulator at each tool Con's: ? system downtime for all tools sharing the gases during ? cost may be comparable depending upon number of valved drops, and how good the planning is for predicting future installation points ? see pro's above in VMP Thank you all! --Ian ******************************************** Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D. Research Associate Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering Adjunct Associate Professor Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering 2511 SMBB (USTAR) Associate Director, Utah Nanofab & Micron Microscopy Core 801/585-6162 (voicemail) 801/581-5676 (lab main number) www.nanofab.utah.edu mail to: Utah Nanofab / University of Utah 36 South Wasatch Drive Suite 2500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-9011 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 22517 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rizik at intengr.com Thu Sep 20 14:22:24 2012 From: rizik at intengr.com (Rizik) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:22:24 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] question to Cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <045a01cd975c$e2105900$a6310b00$@com> Ian, I usually like to install VMP?s with a minimum of 4- Valve stick where I populate as many sticks as the installation calls for. However, in aisle or service chases where you could have more than four (4) tools requiring this gas, I would install 8-valve stick panels. The cost of a 4-stick manifold is negligible compared to the cost of running one new ?? EP SS316L tubing from the lateral to a new drop location. Let alone that you will have to shutdown the gas source and all tools utilizing the gas in question. Rizik Michael, PE Principal Integrated Engineering Services Office: +408 261 3500, Ext. 201 Cell: +408 718 0927 www.iesengineering.net From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Ian Harvey Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 8:58 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... Dear micro/nano cleanroom colleagues: Please critique the following thought process and give your insight which approach is best in planning the process gas piping for a new installation. Which do you use (VMP/distributed) in your new facility or new tool installations and are you happy? If VMP's, what is the threshold number of tools for which you consider it justifiable to use VMP's? valve manifold panels: pro's: ? clean, organized installation, flexible to any future installation, populated when needed ? system contamination attained by ability to purge regulators with venturi ? leaks or failures within isolated runs do not contaminate other processes or cause downtime on other tools ? prevent cross-talk between process MFC's, using the same gases ? does not cause system downtime when installing new processes Con's ? up front cost is greater, though not sure how much Process gases distributed through shared supply line, and laterals / drops: pro's: ? Up front cost is lower (not sure how much-- it depends...) ? cross-talk can be minimized by a regulator at each tool Con's: ? system downtime for all tools sharing the gases during ? cost may be comparable depending upon number of valved drops, and how good the planning is for predicting future installation points ? see pro's above in VMP Thank you all! --Ian ******************************************** Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D. Research Associate Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering Adjunct Associate Professor Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering 2511 SMBB (USTAR) Associate Director, Utah Nanofab & Micron Microscopy Core 801/585-6162 (voicemail) 801/581-5676 (lab main number) www.nanofab.utah.edu mail to: Utah Nanofab / University of Utah 36 South Wasatch Drive Suite 2500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-9011 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Ben at mtpv.com Thu Sep 20 14:28:54 2012 From: Ben at mtpv.com (Ben Zhang) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:28:54 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] is there any one has a source of CMP InP Message-ID: <4CB611B3163C434FBC128AF4E4ACAAAA1E99AEDE@CH1PRD0711MB430.namprd07.prod.outlook.com> Hi all, Is there any one have a good source of CMP InP wafers? Thanks BR Ben -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From codreanu at seas.upenn.edu Thu Sep 20 15:49:52 2012 From: codreanu at seas.upenn.edu (Iulian Codreanu) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:49:52 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <505B7360.5010403@seas.upenn.edu> Ian, I use VMBs for hazardous gases (the threshold is 2). I use the shared supply line for inerts. Iulian --- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab On 9/20/2012 11:58 AM, Ian Harvey wrote: > Dear micro/nano cleanroom colleagues: > > Please critique the following thought process and give your insight > which approach is best in planning the process gas piping for a new > installation. > > Which do you use (VMP/distributed) in your new facility or new tool > installations and are you happy? > > If VMP's, what is the threshold number of tools for which you consider > it justifiable to use VMP's? > > *valve manifold panels:* > pro's: > ? clean, organized installation, flexible to any future installation, > populated when needed > ? system contamination attained by ability to purge regulators with venturi > ? leaks or failures within isolated runs do not contaminate other > processes or cause downtime on other tools > ? prevent cross-talk between process MFC's, using the same gases > ? does not cause system downtime when installing new processes > > Con's > ? up front cost is greater, though not sure how much > > *Process gases distributed through shared supply line, and laterals / > drops:* > pro's: > ? Up front cost is lower (not sure how much-- it depends...) > ? cross-talk can be minimized by a regulator at each tool > > Con's: > ? system downtime for all tools sharing the gases during > ? cost may be comparable depending upon number of valved drops, and how > good the planning is for predicting future installation points > ? see pro's above in VMP > > Thank you all! > > --Ian > > > ******************************************** > Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D. > Research Associate Professor > Department of Mechanical Engineering > Adjunct Associate Professor > Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering > 2511 SMBB (USTAR) > > Associate Director, > Utah Nanofab & > Micron Microscopy Core > > 801/585-6162 (voicemail) > 801/581-5676 (lab main number) > www.nanofab.utah.edu > > *mail to:* > Utah Nanofab / University of Utah > 36 South Wasatch Drive > Suite 2500 > Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-9011 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > From dcchrist at wisc.edu Thu Sep 20 16:46:15 2012 From: dcchrist at wisc.edu (Daniel C. Christensen) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:46:15 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... In-Reply-To: <76b0e70775b9a.505b8072@wiscmail.wisc.edu> References: <75e0e0f870698.505b7d9c@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <7720f498756d5.505b7dd9@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <7700f7ff76e04.505b7e16@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <7750ee7f74bd2.505b7e52@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <76c0de4b7603c.505b7e8f@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <76b094e076246.505b7ecb@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <76e08e0176029.505b7f07@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <7750ce44770eb.505b7f44@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <76b0b85b72f53.505b7f80@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <7610a71373368.505b7fbd@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <77808ea573af4.505b7ff9@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <76c0b1f673204.505b8035@wiscmail.wisc.edu> <76b0e70775b9a.505b8072@wiscmail.wisc.edu> Message-ID: <7780a3bd77b15.505b3a47@wiscmail.wisc.edu> Another PRO for VMP's - when I need to replace an MFC in a tool, I am able to go to the VMP and evacuate AND PURGE the gas line for that particular tool while not disrupting the gas supply to the other tools. Replacing MFC's seems to occur more often in our case than adding and subtracting tools. At Univ of Wisconsin we have VMP's and VMB's (hazardous gases). I would set the threshold for non-haz. gases to be >2 tools then use a VMP. For haz gases, I would use the VMB even for 2 tools. Certainly buy extra sticks in the VMP/B for future use. I am happy we spent the money to have them. Dan C On 09/20/12, Ian Harvey wrote: > > > > Dear micro/nano cleanroom colleagues: > > Please critique the following thought process and give your insight which approach is best in planning the process gas piping for a new installation. > > > Which do you use (VMP/distributed) in your new facility or new tool installations and are you happy? > > > If VMP's, what is the threshold number of tools for which you consider it justifiable to use VMP's? > > > valve manifold panels: > pro's: > ? clean, organized installation, flexible to any future installation, populated when needed > ? system contamination attained by ability to purge regulators with venturi > ? leaks or failures within isolated runs do not contaminate other processes or cause downtime on other tools > ? prevent cross-talk between process MFC's, using the same gases > ? does not cause system downtime when installing new processes > > > Con's > ? up front cost is greater, though not sure how much > > > Process gases distributed through shared supply line, and laterals / drops: > pro's: > ? Up front cost is lower (not sure how much-- it depends...) > ? cross-talk can be minimized by a regulator at each tool > > > Con's: > ? system downtime for all tools sharing the gases during > ? cost may be comparable depending upon number of valved drops, and how good the planning is for predicting future installation points > ? see pro's above in VMP > > > Thank you all! > > > --Ian > > > ******************************************** > Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D. > Research Associate Professor > Department of Mechanical Engineering > Adjunct Associate Professor > Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering > 2511 SMBB (USTAR) > > Associate Director, > Utah Nanofab & > Micron Microscopy Core > > > 801/585-6162 (voicemail) > 801/581-5676 (lab main number) > www.nanofab.utah.edu(http://www.nanofab.utah.edu) > > mail to: > Utah Nanofab / University of Utah > 36 South Wasatch Drive > Suite 2500 > Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-9011 -- Daniel C Christensen Wisconsin Center for Applied Microelectronics University of Wisconsin-Madison dan at engr.wisc.edu 608-262-6877 From dgrimard at umich.edu Thu Sep 20 18:16:36 2012 From: dgrimard at umich.edu (Dennis Grimard) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2012 18:16:36 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters Message-ID: All: Do any of you have to pay for the replacement of your HEPA filters in your cleanrooms? Thanks ... -- Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility University of Michigan 1246D EECS Building 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 (Cell) (734) 647-1781 (Fax) http://www.lnf.umich.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tribble at fas.harvard.edu Fri Sep 21 07:01:08 2012 From: tribble at fas.harvard.edu (Tribble, Thomas) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:01:08 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3456A84829A8044899D2165963478C84D916BFD42E@FASXCH01.fasmail.priv> Harvard: Facilities pays Tom Tribble 52 Oxford St. 02138 617 495 0990 C 617 780 5685 ________________________________ From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Dennis Grimard [dgrimard at umich.edu] Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:16 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters All: Do any of you have to pay for the replacement of your HEPA filters in your cleanrooms? Thanks ... -- Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility University of Michigan 1246D EECS Building 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 (Cell) (734) 647-1781 (Fax) http://www.lnf.umich.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrweaver at purdue.edu Fri Sep 21 08:27:52 2012 From: jrweaver at purdue.edu (Weaver, John R) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:27:52 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDCB7ED17D87@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> Dennis - We pay, but not out of recharge. The university gives us a "maintenance budget," and we pay for the HEPAs/ULPAs out of that budget. John John R. Weaver Facility Manager Birck Nanotechnology Center Purdue University (765) 494-5494 jrweaver at purdue.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Dennis Grimard Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 6:17 PM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters All: Do any of you have to pay for the replacement of your HEPA filters in your cleanrooms? Thanks ... -- Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility University of Michigan 1246D EECS Building 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 (Cell) (734) 647-1781 (Fax) http://www.lnf.umich.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shott at stanford.edu Fri Sep 21 10:00:54 2012 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:00:54 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <505C7316.805@stanford.edu> Ian: Like some of the others, we tend to have tapped lines for inerts/freons and VMBs for some (but not all) of our hazardous/corrosive/toxic lines. In addition to the comments of others, let me add a couple of additional thoughts relative to use of VMPs/VMBs for hazardous/corrosive gases. There seems to be a broader range of configuration options in VMBs than there are in cabinets themselves. There are the "Cadillac" fully automated systems ... nice, but pricey. We have fully manual VMBs. Even there, however, there are options. We have nitrogen purge capability for each line in our 4- or 8-stick boxes, but no venturi. Our assumption is that all tools connect downstream of a VMB will be able to pump out the line, but it's nice to be able to backfill with N2/He for a manual cycle-purge. My guess is that others will have different configurations and reasons for using them. In addition to the cost of the VMB/VMP .... particularly for hazardous gases ... you should think about whether this will require additional gas detectors, whether you'll also need to be adding extra panels/cylinders for purge of your VMBs etc. While I like VMBs for things like BCl3 and chlorine, these additional items increase the cost. Of course, an all welded BCl3 or Cl2 system is problematic if you ever want/need to make changes. I've yet to find a welder willing to certify a weld on a system that has been used for these gases. Most jurisdictions will require all non-welded connections to most toxic/corrosive gases be in an exhausted (and in some cases monitored) enclosure. The incremental cost of VMPs/VMBs also depends one the distance between the gas cabinet, a potential VMB, and the tools. In our case where the distance between the gas bunker is large (we typically have 400-500 feet of line between gas cabinet and tool/VMB) and the distance between VMB and tool is more like 30-50 feet, the VMB isn't such a large incremental expense. Good luck, John From IRHarvey at eng.utah.edu Fri Sep 21 10:34:38 2012 From: IRHarvey at eng.utah.edu (Ian Harvey) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:34:38 -0600 Subject: [labnetwork] Thank you / Re: question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... Message-ID: <9C2357E5-A33C-44C6-9A25-9ACCA46DCDCF@eng.utah.edu> Dear Colleagues, Thank you for taking time to discuss this. It is very helpful to us. best to you all! --Ian Begin forwarded message: From: John Shott Subject: Re: [labnetwork] question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... Date: September 21, 2012 8:00:54 AM MDT To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu, Ian Harvey Ian: Like some of the others, we tend to have tapped lines for inerts/freons and VMBs for some (but not all) of our hazardous/corrosive/toxic lines. In addition to the comments of others, let me add a couple of additional thoughts relative to use of VMPs/VMBs for hazardous/corrosive gases. There seems to be a broader range of configuration options in VMBs than there are in cabinets themselves. There are the "Cadillac" fully automated systems ... nice, but pricey. We have fully manual VMBs. Even there, however, there are options. We have nitrogen purge capability for each line in our 4- or 8-stick boxes, but no venturi. Our assumption is that all tools connect downstream of a VMB will be able to pump out the line, but it's nice to be able to backfill with N2/He for a manual cycle-purge. My guess is that others will have different configurations and reasons for using them. In addition to the cost of the VMB/VMP .... particularly for hazardous gases ... you should think about whether this will require additional gas detectors, whether you'll also need to be adding extra panels/cylinders for purge of your VMBs etc. While I like VMBs for things like BCl3 and chlorine, these additional items increase the cost. Of course, an all welded BCl3 or Cl2 system is problematic if you ever want/need to make changes. I've yet to find a welder willing to certify a weld on a system that has been used for these gases. Most jurisdictions will require all non-welded connections to most toxic/corrosive gases be in an exhausted (and in some cases monitored) enclosure. The incremental cost of VMPs/VMBs also depends one the distance between the gas cabinet, a potential VMB, and the tools. In our case where the distance between the gas bunker is large (we typically have 400-500 feet of line between gas cabinet and tool/VMB) and the distance between VMB and tool is more like 30-50 feet, the VMB isn't such a large incremental expense. Good luck, John Begin forwarded message: From: "Daniel C. Christensen" Subject: Re: [labnetwork] question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... Date: September 20, 2012 2:46:15 PM MDT To: Ian Harvey , labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Reply-To: dan at engr.wisc.edu Another PRO for VMP's - when I need to replace an MFC in a tool, I am able to go to the VMP and evacuate AND PURGE the gas line for that particular tool while not disrupting the gas supply to the other tools. Replacing MFC's seems to occur more often in our case than adding and subtracting tools. At Univ of Wisconsin we have VMP's and VMB's (hazardous gases). I would set the threshold for non-haz. gases to be >2 tools then use a VMP. For haz gases, I would use the VMB even for 2 tools. Certainly buy extra sticks in the VMP/B for future use. I am happy we spent the money to have them. Dan C -- Daniel C Christensen Wisconsin Center for Applied Microelectronics University of Wisconsin-Madison dan at engr.wisc.edu 608-262-6877 Begin forwarded message: From: Iulian Codreanu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... Date: September 20, 2012 1:49:52 PM MDT To: Ian Harvey Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Ian, I use VMBs for hazardous gases (the threshold is 2). I use the shared supply line for inerts. Iulian --- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab > Begin forwarded message: From: "Morrison, Richard H., Jr." Subject: RE: [labnetwork] question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... Date: September 20, 2012 12:42:25 PM MDT To: Ian Harvey HI, I like to use manifolds at all gas bottles so that we can setup a nice purge system for bottle changes. Equipment such as plasma tools come with distribution panels, so we use those. Otherwise we have a great company that does all of our piping and we go direct to the tool from gas mains running overhead. We have all of our gases in one central gas room and run all the gases around and tee off where needed. We set the gas mains at the highest pressure needed and then regulate down at the tool. Most tools use specialty gases at 30psig or lower so the regulators are not that big or expensive. This way we stay flexible and can change gases without needing to make new gas panels Rick Draper Laboratory Group Leader Microfabrication Operations 555 Technology Square Cambridge Ma, 02139-3563 www.draper.com rmorrison at draper.com W 617-258-3420 C 508-930-3461 Begin forwarded message: From: "King, Dave" Subject: RE: [labnetwork] question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... Date: September 20, 2012 12:30:00 PM MDT To: Ian Harvey At Rensselaer, we use VMP?s for every non-hazardous gas which we consider to be a ?house gas? (in other words, for every gas which is distributed from our central gas rack). When we add a new gas, if we think that there is any possibility that we will want that gas on another tool later, we put it in the central place and install a VMP. Therefore, we have some VMP?s which only have one active stick. For us, the ability to isolate and possibly regulate each line individually is well worth the cost of the VMP. If we don?t believe that a new gas will ever be used in multiple places, then we just put a bottle by the tool. (We also do this for some short-term experiments.) In no case do we daisy-chain multiple tools off the same gas line; our old gas set-up was like this and it turned out to be a terrible design. Our hazardous gases all go to exhausted VMB?s, and are distributed to tools from there. Dave King Begin forwarded message: From: "Rizik" Subject: RE: [labnetwork] question to Cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... Date: September 20, 2012 12:22:24 PM MDT To: "'Ian Harvey'" , Ian, I usually like to install VMP?s with a minimum of 4- Valve stick where I populate as many sticks as the installation calls for. However, in aisle or service chases where you could have more than four (4) tools requiring this gas, I would install 8-valve stick panels. The cost of a 4-stick manifold is negligible compared to the cost of running one new ?? EP SS316L tubing from the lateral to a new drop location. Let alone that you will have to shutdown the gas source and all tools utilizing the gas in question. Rizik Michael, PE Principal Integrated Engineering Services Office: +408 261 3500, Ext. 201 Cell: +408 718 0927 www.iesengineering.net From: "Goodman, James R" Subject: RE: [labnetwork] question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... Date: September 20, 2012 12:10:59 PM MDT To: Ian Harvey Ian, For our new facility we chose a hybrid approach for the toxic gas distribution. Since our gas room was adjacent to the service chase we incorporated distribution manifolds into the gas cabinets with home runs to each process tool. The downside is to take any system off line for service all tools that use that gas supply are affected. The upside is lower cost of installation since we did not have the capitol cost associated with the VMP?s and the extra monitoring points for the toxic gas monitoring system. For non-toxic gas we used a common distribution system throughout the clean room. Jay. James Goodman Equipment Manager, ETIC Nano Fabrication Laboratory 40 University Ave. Room 121 Lowell, MA -01854 Office (978) 934-3469 Cell (603) 235-1496 Begin forwarded message: From: Ian Harvey Subject: [labnetwork] question to cleanroom colleagues: distributed vs. manifolded gases... Date: September 20, 2012 9:58:22 AM MDT To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Dear micro/nano cleanroom colleagues: Please critique the following thought process and give your insight which approach is best in planning the process gas piping for a new installation. Which do you use (VMP/distributed) in your new facility or new tool installations and are you happy? If VMP's, what is the threshold number of tools for which you consider it justifiable to use VMP's? valve manifold panels: pro's: ? clean, organized installation, flexible to any future installation, populated when needed ? system contamination attained by ability to purge regulators with venturi ? leaks or failures within isolated runs do not contaminate other processes or cause downtime on other tools ? prevent cross-talk between process MFC's, using the same gases ? does not cause system downtime when installing new processes Con's ? up front cost is greater, though not sure how much Process gases distributed through shared supply line, and laterals / drops: pro's: ? Up front cost is lower (not sure how much-- it depends...) ? cross-talk can be minimized by a regulator at each tool Con's: ? system downtime for all tools sharing the gases during ? cost may be comparable depending upon number of valved drops, and how good the planning is for predicting future installation points ? see pro's above in VMP Thank you all! --Ian ******************************************** Ian R. Harvey, Ph.D. Research Associate Professor Department of Mechanical Engineering Adjunct Associate Professor Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering 2511 SMBB (USTAR) Associate Director, Utah Nanofab & Micron Microscopy Core 801/585-6162 (voicemail) 801/581-5676 (lab main number) www.nanofab.utah.edu mail to: Utah Nanofab / University of Utah 36 South Wasatch Drive Suite 2500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-9011 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-2.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 22517 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From dwayne.kirk at monash.edu Sat Sep 22 22:37:14 2012 From: dwayne.kirk at monash.edu (Dwayne Kirk) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 12:37:14 +1000 Subject: [labnetwork] Device design and simulation tools Message-ID: <3204147324479803735@unknownmsgid> Dear Labnetwork, Our federal government has allocated funds to us for purposes of establishing a design/simulation platform (software licensing, IT networking, docking to high performance computing, design expertise, etc) to underpin micro/nano R&D in Australia. In theory, we will be looking to support a number of fields such as microfluidics, nanoelectronics, bio/nano, materials and so forth. Looking for models, can anyone provide information for where a suite of design capabilities may have been implemented in the US or Europe for broad access by their micro/nano community? I will be happy to supply more details offline if this project is of interest to you. Kind regards, Dwayne. Dwayne Kirk BAppSci, ADMgmt, PhD, MAICD Managing Director Melbourne Centre for Nanofabrication 151Wellington Road, Clayton 3168 Australia W: http://nanomelbourne.com Node Director - Victoria Australian National Fabrication Facility W: http://ANFF.org.au Ph: +61 (3) 9902 4049 M: +61 (4) 2570 3950 E: dwayne.kirk at monash.edu Executive Assistant: Maree Richardson Ph: +61 (3) 9902 4073 From dgrimard at umich.edu Sun Sep 23 11:37:46 2012 From: dgrimard at umich.edu (Dennis Grimard) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 11:37:46 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Device design and simulation tools In-Reply-To: <3204147324479803735@unknownmsgid> References: <3204147324479803735@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: Dwayne: I would suggest that you look at the NNIN website for the University of Michigan. That would be: http://lnf.umich.edu/nnin-at-michigan/. Look at our computation tab near the top. This might be a good place to start. Good luck ... On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Dwayne Kirk wrote: > Dear Labnetwork, > > Our federal government has allocated funds to us for purposes of > establishing a design/simulation platform (software licensing, IT > networking, docking to high performance computing, design expertise, > etc) to underpin micro/nano R&D in Australia. In theory, we will be > looking to support a number of fields such as microfluidics, > nanoelectronics, bio/nano, materials and so forth. > > Looking for models, can anyone provide information for where a suite > of design capabilities may have been implemented in the US or Europe > for broad access by their micro/nano community? > > I will be happy to supply more details offline if this project is of > interest to you. > > Kind regards, > > Dwayne. > > > Dwayne Kirk BAppSci, ADMgmt, PhD, MAICD > > Managing Director > Melbourne Centre for Nanofabrication > 151Wellington Road, Clayton 3168 > Australia > W: http://nanomelbourne.com > > Node Director - Victoria > Australian National Fabrication Facility > W: http://ANFF.org.au > > Ph: +61 (3) 9902 4049 > M: +61 (4) 2570 3950 > E: dwayne.kirk at monash.edu > > Executive Assistant: Maree Richardson > Ph: +61 (3) 9902 4073 > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > -- Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility University of Michigan 1246D EECS Building 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 (Cell) (734) 647-1781 (Fax) http://www.lnf.umich.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From knobel at physics.queensu.ca Sun Sep 23 18:16:59 2012 From: knobel at physics.queensu.ca (Rob Knobel) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2012 18:16:59 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] Device design and simulation tools In-Reply-To: <3204147324479803735@unknownmsgid> References: <3204147324479803735@unknownmsgid> Message-ID: That sounds a lot like what CMC Microsystems does in Canada. They take federal government money and supply design and simulation tools to the micro/nano community at universities in Canada. They also broker fabrication runs at industrial foundries. Check them out at www.cmc.ca, and you should be able to see what they offer. Hope that helps, Rob Robert Knobel Ph.D. P.Eng. Associate Professor, Department of Physics, Engineering Physics and Astronomy Queen's University, 64 Bader Lane Kingston Ontario Canada (P) 613-533-2672 (F) 613-533-6463 On Sat, Sep 22, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Dwayne Kirk wrote: > Dear Labnetwork, > > Our federal government has allocated funds to us for purposes of > establishing a design/simulation platform (software licensing, IT > networking, docking to high performance computing, design expertise, > etc) to underpin micro/nano R&D in Australia. In theory, we will be > looking to support a number of fields such as microfluidics, > nanoelectronics, bio/nano, materials and so forth. > > Looking for models, can anyone provide information for where a suite > of design capabilities may have been implemented in the US or Europe > for broad access by their micro/nano community? > > I will be happy to supply more details offline if this project is of > interest to you. > > Kind regards, > > Dwayne. > > > Dwayne Kirk BAppSci, ADMgmt, PhD, MAICD > > Managing Director > Melbourne Centre for Nanofabrication > 151Wellington Road, Clayton 3168 > Australia > W: http://nanomelbourne.com > > Node Director - Victoria > Australian National Fabrication Facility > W: http://ANFF.org.au > > Ph: +61 (3) 9902 4049 > M: +61 (4) 2570 3950 > E: dwayne.kirk at monash.edu > > Executive Assistant: Maree Richardson > Ph: +61 (3) 9902 4073 > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, and is > believed to be clean. > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hughes at illinois.edu Mon Sep 24 08:48:47 2012 From: hughes at illinois.edu (Hughes, John S) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:48:47 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Dennis, When we replaced all our HEPA filters (three years ago), our lab split costs 50/50 with the College of Engineering. -- John ------------------------------------------------------------- John S. Hughes Office: (217) 333-4674 Associate Director FAX: (217) 244-6375 Laboratory Operations hughes at illinois.edu Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 3114 Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory 208 North Wright Street Urbana, Illinois 61801 http://mntl.illinois.edu ------------------------------------------------------------- On Sep 20, 2012, at 5:16 PM, Dennis Grimard > wrote: All: Do any of you have to pay for the replacement of your HEPA filters in your cleanrooms? Thanks ... -- Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility University of Michigan 1246D EECS Building 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 (Cell) (734) 647-1781 (Fax) http://www.lnf.umich.edu _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From philippe.fluckiger at epfl.ch Tue Sep 25 04:22:23 2012 From: philippe.fluckiger at epfl.ch (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Fl=FCckiger_Philippe?=) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 08:22:23 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> Dear Denis, Let me mention that EPFL is running with the original HEPA filters since 14 years (1998) and still reach the class 100 specifications. EPFL has no plan to change the HEPA filters. Only some pre-filters might be occasionally changed for example after construction work in the area. Anyway, back to your question facilities would pay for this. With my very best regards, Philippe Dr Philippe Fl?ckiger Director of Operations http://cmi.epfl.ch/ Phone +41 21 693 6695 De : labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] De la part de Dennis Grimard Envoy? : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 00:17 ? : labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Objet : [labnetwork] HEPA Filters All: Do any of you have to pay for the replacement of your HEPA filters in your cleanrooms? Thanks ... -- Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility University of Michigan 1246D EECS Building 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 (Cell) (734) 647-1781 (Fax) http://www.lnf.umich.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hughes at illinois.edu Tue Sep 25 10:34:31 2012 From: hughes at illinois.edu (Hughes, John S) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:34:31 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> References: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> Message-ID: Hello Philippe, We too had our HEPA filters well beyond their expected life with no discernible loss in air quality. However, we saw that it became harder and harder for the air handlers to push the air through the filters, and the positive pressure differential in the cleanrooms relative to the surrounding corridor became less and less. I.e., the filters were still working but they were definitely getting more and more clogged up. Eventually (after 18 years) we had no choice but to replace them. It was obviously very disruptive to ongoing operations, but it couldn't be put off any longer. Since we had to shut down for a period anyway, we took the opportunity to add VFDs to the fan motors in the air handlers, which resulted in very significant energy cost reductions. -- John ------------------------------------------------------------- John S. Hughes Office: (217) 333-4674 Associate Director FAX: (217) 244-6375 Laboratory Operations hughes at illinois.edu Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 3114 Micro and Nanotechnology Laboratory 208 North Wright Street Urbana, Illinois 61801 http://mntl.illinois.edu ------------------------------------------------------------- On Sep 25, 2012, at 3:22 AM, Fl?ckiger Philippe > wrote: Dear Denis, Let me mention that EPFL is running with the original HEPA filters since 14 years (1998) and still reach the class 100 specifications. EPFL has no plan to change the HEPA filters. Only some pre-filters might be occasionally changed for example after construction work in the area. Anyway, back to your question facilities would pay for this. With my very best regards, Philippe Dr Philippe Fl?ckiger Director of Operations http://cmi.epfl.ch/ Phone +41 21 693 6695 De : labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] De la part de Dennis Grimard Envoy? : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 00:17 ? : labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Objet : [labnetwork] HEPA Filters All: Do any of you have to pay for the replacement of your HEPA filters in your cleanrooms? Thanks ... -- Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility University of Michigan 1246D EECS Building 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 (Cell) (734) 647-1781 (Fax) http://www.lnf.umich.edu _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bill at eecs.berkeley.edu Tue Sep 25 13:33:11 2012 From: bill at eecs.berkeley.edu (Bill Flounders) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:33:11 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> References: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> Message-ID: <5061EAD7.4050006@eecs.berkeley.edu> Colleagues, UC Berkeley can substantiate Phillippe Fl?ckiger observations about HEPA longevity. The Microlab began operations in 1984 and during its 26 year life-cycle we never had to replace a HEPA filter because of particle loading. However, the pre-filters were replaced ~ every 2 years. I should qualify this by pointing out the HEPA's in use were the common type, made of spun-borosilicate and were thus "tortuous path filters" and not "absolute", i.e they operated by electrostatic force rather than by absolute pore size. When and if the NanoLab, whose facilities supersede the Microlab requires HEPA replacement it is likely we will have to pay for them. The pre-filter replacements are covered by the Campus. Bob Hamilton Bob Hamilton Marvel NanoLab University of CA at Berkeley Rm 520 Sutardja Dai Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1754 bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (e-mail preferred) 510-809-8600 510-325-7557 (mobile - emergencies) Fl?ckiger Philippe wrote: > > Dear Denis, > > Let me mention that EPFL is running with the original HEPA filters > since 14 years (1998) and still reach the class 100 specifications. > > EPFL has no plan to change the HEPA filters. Only some pre-filters > might be occasionally changed for example after construction work in > the area. > > Anyway, back to your question facilities would pay for this. > > With my very best regards, > > Philippe > > /Dr Philippe Fl?ckiger/ > > /Director of Operations/ > > /http://cmi.epfl.ch// > > /Phone +41 21 693 6695/ > > *De :*labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu > [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] *De la part de* Dennis Grimard > *Envoy? :* vendredi 21 septembre 2012 00:17 > *? :* labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > *Objet :* [labnetwork] HEPA Filters > > All: > > Do any of you have to pay for the replacement of your HEPA filters in > your cleanrooms? > > Thanks ... > > -- > Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D > > Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility > > University of Michigan > > 1246D EECS Building > > 1301 Beal Avenue > > Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 > > (734) 368-7172 (Cell) > > (734) 647-1781 (Fax) > > http://www.lnf.umich.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ccgrot01 at louisville.edu Tue Sep 25 13:50:10 2012 From: ccgrot01 at louisville.edu (Caitlin Grothaus) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 13:50:10 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] How do you dispense photoresist? Message-ID: Hello Everyone, We're currently re-examining our current method of dispensing photoresist onto wafers for spinning. Currently we are decanting larger bottles into small amber dropper bottles but have had some issues (mainly with resist drying around the seal of the bottle and causing contamination). What do you use at your lab? If you do use amber dropper bottles, are there any steps you take to try to prevent this contamination from happening? Thanks! Caitlin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jrweaver at purdue.edu Tue Sep 25 14:42:00 2012 From: jrweaver at purdue.edu (Weaver, John R) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 14:42:00 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> References: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> Message-ID: <18AD986E445FE847B2A80B53E65704EDCB7ED17DA7@VPEXCH02.purdue.lcl> In my experience, the major reason for changing HEPA or ULPA filters - unless there is an "incident" - is the failure of the seal between the T-bar ceiling grid and the filter housing. If you are using a gel-track system, this is generally a non-issue. The only warning is that if you are using a closed cell (or worse, open cell) gasket material and it fails, you may not catch the failure with a particle counter. The particles given off and allowed through are often far bigger than a particle counter can detect. A bright-light inspection is the primary method for finding these large particles. You need to get on a ladder and inspect the top of the T-bar downstream of the seal. The other approach is to pull a filter module and inspect the gasket directly. Unless there is chemical usage in the area, the gaskets should "dry out" at about the same rate. Most neoprene seals (closed cell) should last more than 15 years; I've had some last more than 20. John John R. Weaver Facility Manager Birck Nanotechnology Center Purdue University (765) 494-5494 jrweaver at purdue.edu From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Fl?ckiger Philippe Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2012 4:22 AM To: Dennis Grimard; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters Dear Denis, Let me mention that EPFL is running with the original HEPA filters since 14 years (1998) and still reach the class 100 specifications. EPFL has no plan to change the HEPA filters. Only some pre-filters might be occasionally changed for example after construction work in the area. Anyway, back to your question facilities would pay for this. With my very best regards, Philippe Dr Philippe Fl?ckiger Director of Operations http://cmi.epfl.ch/ Phone +41 21 693 6695 De : labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] De la part de Dennis Grimard Envoy? : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 00:17 ? : labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Objet : [labnetwork] HEPA Filters All: Do any of you have to pay for the replacement of your HEPA filters in your cleanrooms? Thanks ... -- Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility University of Michigan 1246D EECS Building 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 (Cell) (734) 647-1781 (Fax) http://www.lnf.umich.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au Tue Sep 25 19:18:01 2012 From: fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au (Fouad Karouta) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:18:01 +1000 Subject: [labnetwork] How do you dispense photoresist? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007e01cd9b74$01fef490$05fcddb0$@anu.edu.au> Hi Caitlin, As well in my previous work at Technical University Eindhoven as well here at the Australian National University we decant the photoresist in smaller and simple amber bottles without the drop dispenser. To dispense the resist our users do use a disposable glass pipette that we only use one time. Prior to usage I advise to N2-blow the pipette from outside and inside. Hope this would help. Fouad Karouta ********************************* Facility Manager ANFF ACT Node Research School of Physics and Engineering Australian National University ACT 0200, Canberra, Australia Tel: + 61 2 6125 7174 Mob: + 61 451 046 412 Email: fouad.karouta at anu.edu.au From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Caitlin Grothaus Sent: Wednesday, 26 September 2012 3:50 AM To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] How do you dispense photoresist? Hello Everyone, We're currently re-examining our current method of dispensing photoresist onto wafers for spinning. Currently we are decanting larger bottles into small amber dropper bottles but have had some issues (mainly with resist drying around the seal of the bottle and causing contamination). What do you use at your lab? If you do use amber dropper bottles, are there any steps you take to try to prevent this contamination from happening? Thanks! Caitlin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From diadiuk at MIT.EDU Wed Sep 26 07:51:27 2012 From: diadiuk at MIT.EDU (Vicky Diadiuk) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 07:51:27 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> References: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> Message-ID: <5052E7D0-F45C-4C24-B43D-0485DC53AC12@mit.edu> HI, The answer for MTL is the same as EPFL's, except that our HEPAs have been unchanged since 1985 :) Vicky On Sep 25, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Fl?ckiger Philippe wrote: > Dear Denis, > > Let me mention that EPFL is running with the original HEPA filters > since 14 years (1998) and still reach the class 100 specifications. > EPFL has no plan to change the HEPA filters. Only some pre-filters > might be occasionally changed for example after construction work in > the area. > > Anyway, back to your question facilities would pay for this. > > With my very best regards, > Philippe > > Dr Philippe Fl?ckiger > Director of Operations > http://cmi.epfl.ch/ > Phone +41 21 693 6695 > > De : labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu > ] De la part de Dennis Grimard > Envoy? : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 00:17 > ? : labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > Objet : [labnetwork] HEPA Filters > > All: > > Do any of you have to pay for the replacement of your HEPA filters > in your cleanrooms? > > Thanks ... > > -- > Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D > Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility > > University of Michigan > 1246D EECS Building > 1301 Beal Avenue > Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 > (734) 368-7172 (Cell) > (734) 647-1781 (Fax) > http://www.lnf.umich.edu > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alingley at uw.edu Wed Sep 26 12:17:56 2012 From: alingley at uw.edu (Andrew R. Lingley) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 09:17:56 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] How do you dispense photoresist? In-Reply-To: <1BD3537D-6368-4F56-8815-192B10772CFA@uw.edu> References: <1BD3537D-6368-4F56-8815-192B10772CFA@uw.edu> Message-ID: Hello all, We had the same problem with resist drying on bottle cap threads. Recently, we have switched to 50 mL non-lubricated polypropylene syringes and have had good results with a variety of resists. They are a little expensive (~$3/syringe), but we have found that they can be cleaned and reused. Also, although we haven't needed to yet, it seems that the plunger seal is tight enough that we could probably filter the resist if we chose. We decant directly into the syringes, but as they do not block UV we store a dozen or so in the fridge in aluminum foil that can be taken out as needed. Users have found this method to be very easy and reliable, and it seems that particulate contamination is less of an issue. Please email me if you would like specifics about the syringes we use or our dispensing procedures. Thanks. Andy On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Michael Khbeis wrote: > Andy, > > You should respond with what you've been doing. > > Dr. Michael Khbeis > Associate Director > Microfabrication Facility (MFF) > University of Washington > Fluke Hall, Box 352143 > (O) 206.543.5101 > (C) 443.254.5192 > khbeis at uw.edu > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Caitlin Grothaus > *Date:* September 25, 2012, 10:50:10 AM PDT > *To:* labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > *Subject:* *[labnetwork] How do you dispense photoresist?* > > Hello Everyone, > We're currently re-examining our current method of dispensing photoresist > onto wafers for spinning. Currently we are decanting larger bottles into > small amber dropper bottles but have had some issues (mainly with resist > drying around the seal of the bottle and causing contamination). > > What do you use at your lab? If you do use amber dropper bottles, are > there any steps you take to try to prevent this contamination from > happening? > > Thanks! > Caitlin > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > > -- Dr. Andrew Lingley Sr. Microfabrication Engineer Microfabrication Facility (MFF) Cell - (360)-870-8263 alingley at uw.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu Wed Sep 26 17:26:50 2012 From: spaolini at cns.fas.harvard.edu (Paolini, Steven) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:26:50 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: <5052E7D0-F45C-4C24-B43D-0485DC53AC12@mit.edu> References: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> <5052E7D0-F45C-4C24-B43D-0485DC53AC12@mit.edu> Message-ID: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD9C20EC55F5@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv> The general rule of thumb with HEPA's is at least a 20 year lifespan, the pre-filters take most of the contaminants out. As far as an indicator for when they need replacement, amperage draw on the fans should be baselined and checked at least annually for increased draw to maintain pressurization or if your setup uses variable frequency drives in a closed loop, look for an increase in speed over time. Steve From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Vicky Diadiuk Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 7:51 AM To: Dennis Grimard Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters HI, The answer for MTL is the same as EPFL's, except that our HEPAs have been unchanged since 1985 :) Vicky On Sep 25, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Fl?ckiger Philippe wrote: Dear Denis, Let me mention that EPFL is running with the original HEPA filters since 14 years (1998) and still reach the class 100 specifications. EPFL has no plan to change the HEPA filters. Only some pre-filters might be occasionally changed for example after construction work in the area. Anyway, back to your question facilities would pay for this. With my very best regards, Philippe Dr Philippe Fl?ckiger Director of Operations http://cmi.epfl.ch/ Phone +41 21 693 6695 De : labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] De la part de Dennis Grimard Envoy? : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 00:17 ? : labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Objet : [labnetwork] HEPA Filters All: Do any of you have to pay for the replacement of your HEPA filters in your cleanrooms? Thanks ... -- Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility University of Michigan 1246D EECS Building 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 (Cell) (734) 647-1781 (Fax) http://www.lnf.umich.edu _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bordonaro at envelope.cnf.cornell.edu Wed Sep 26 17:37:19 2012 From: bordonaro at envelope.cnf.cornell.edu (Garry J. Bordonaro) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 17:37:19 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] How do you dispense photoresist? In-Reply-To: References: <1BD3537D-6368-4F56-8815-192B10772CFA@uw.edu> Message-ID: <006e01cd9c2f$1b4d7730$51e86590$@envelope.cnf.cornell.edu> We have something like 700-800 of those little bottles as each research group keeps their own supply bottle. The bottles are filled/refilled from 1 ltr. source bottles. We teach them to wipe clean the top of the bottle with acetone each time they pour from it. How they deal with their own bottles is up to them, but most of them get the idea. We provide clean disposable plastic pipettes for dispensing. If they are careful they can avoid particulate issues, but keeping the bottle at least half filled and staying away from the bottom with the pipette helps too. Garry J. Bordonaro Microlithographic Engineer Cornell NanoScale Facility Cornell University 250 Duffield Hall Ithaca, NY 14853-2700 (607) 254-4936 From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Andrew R. Lingley Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 12:18 PM To: Michael Khbeis; labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu; ccgrot01 at louisville.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] How do you dispense photoresist? Hello all, We had the same problem with resist drying on bottle cap threads. Recently, we have switched to 50 mL non-lubricated polypropylene syringes and have had good results with a variety of resists. They are a little expensive (~$3/syringe), but we have found that they can be cleaned and reused. Also, although we haven't needed to yet, it seems that the plunger seal is tight enough that we could probably filter the resist if we chose. We decant directly into the syringes, but as they do not block UV we store a dozen or so in the fridge in aluminum foil that can be taken out as needed. Users have found this method to be very easy and reliable, and it seems that particulate contamination is less of an issue. Please email me if you would like specifics about the syringes we use or our dispensing procedures. Thanks. Andy On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Michael Khbeis wrote: Andy, You should respond with what you've been doing. Dr. Michael Khbeis Associate Director Microfabrication Facility (MFF) University of Washington Fluke Hall, Box 352143 (O) 206.543.5101 (C) 443.254.5192 khbeis at uw.edu Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Caitlin Grothaus Date: September 25, 2012, 10:50:10 AM PDT To: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: [labnetwork] How do you dispense photoresist? Hello Everyone, We're currently re-examining our current method of dispensing photoresist onto wafers for spinning. Currently we are decanting larger bottles into small amber dropper bottles but have had some issues (mainly with resist drying around the seal of the bottle and causing contamination). What do you use at your lab? If you do use amber dropper bottles, are there any steps you take to try to prevent this contamination from happening? Thanks! Caitlin _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -- Dr. Andrew Lingley Sr. Microfabrication Engineer Microfabrication Facility (MFF) Cell - (360)-870-8263 alingley at uw.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jhub at danchip.dtu.dk Thu Sep 27 02:39:52 2012 From: jhub at danchip.dtu.dk (=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=F6rg_H=FCbner?=) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 08:39:52 +0200 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: <5052E7D0-F45C-4C24-B43D-0485DC53AC12@mit.edu> References: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> <5052E7D0-F45C-4C24-B43D-0485DC53AC12@mit.edu> Message-ID: <39838FA4BF2F9A43AE3918CAD0F6AF171867837B90@WINEXCHANGE3.win.dtu.dk> Hi, we had a change of HEPA filters after around 7 years in the older part of our cleanroom. It was necessary as it was increasingly difficult to keep the overpressure in the cleanroom at the desired level. The reason for the "only" 7 years lifetime was most certainly a defect pre-filter (completely blown through) at the air intake. In general there might also be an aspect of energy conservation as it takes more pressure to press air through old, used filters (we had our fan motors running at or close to 100% for quite a while before we exchanged filters) . Central University (Campus Services) paid for the exchange. The " lesson learned" for us is to check the pre-filters once in a while. Regards Jorg J?rg H?bner Director DTU Danchip National Center for Micro- and Nanofabrication Technical University of Denmark [cid:image001.gif at 01CD9C8B.A9E00330] Danchip ?rstedsPlads Building 347 2800 Kgs Lyngby Direct +45 4525 5762 jhub at danchip.dtu.dk www.danchip.dtu.dk From: labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] On Behalf Of Vicky Diadiuk Sent: 26. september 2012 13:51 To: Dennis Grimard Cc: labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Subject: Re: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters HI, The answer for MTL is the same as EPFL's, except that our HEPAs have been unchanged since 1985 :) Vicky On Sep 25, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Fl?ckiger Philippe wrote: Dear Denis, Let me mention that EPFL is running with the original HEPA filters since 14 years (1998) and still reach the class 100 specifications. EPFL has no plan to change the HEPA filters. Only some pre-filters might be occasionally changed for example after construction work in the area. Anyway, back to your question facilities would pay for this. With my very best regards, Philippe Dr Philippe Fl?ckiger Director of Operations http://cmi.epfl.ch/ Phone +41 21 693 6695 De : labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] De la part de Dennis Grimard Envoy? : vendredi 21 septembre 2012 00:17 ? : labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu Objet : [labnetwork] HEPA Filters All: Do any of you have to pay for the replacement of your HEPA filters in your cleanrooms? Thanks ... -- Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility University of Michigan 1246D EECS Building 1301 Beal Avenue Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 (734) 368-7172 (Cell) (734) 647-1781 (Fax) http://www.lnf.umich.edu _______________________________________________ labnetwork mailing list labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 1055 bytes Desc: image001.gif URL: From codreanu at seas.upenn.edu Thu Sep 27 10:03:38 2012 From: codreanu at seas.upenn.edu (Iulian Codreanu) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2012 10:03:38 -0400 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD9C20EC55F5@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv> References: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> <5052E7D0-F45C-4C24-B43D-0485DC53AC12@mit.edu> <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD9C20EC55F5@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv> Message-ID: <50645CBA.5010804@seas.upenn.edu> Good Morning. Where are the prefilters some of you mentioned located? At the discharge of the makeup air units and recirc units, right? Thanks for the feedback. Iulian --- iulian Codreanu, Ph.D. Director, Penn NanoFab 200 South 33rd Street Room 376 GRW Bldg Philadelphia, PA 19104-6314 P: 215-898-9308 F: 215-573-2068 www.seas.upenn.edu/~nanofab On 9/26/2012 5:26 PM, Paolini, Steven wrote: > The general rule of thumb with HEPA?s is at least a 20 year lifespan, > the pre-filters take most of the contaminants out. As far as an > indicator for when they need replacement, amperage draw on the fans > should be baselined and checked at least annually for increased draw to > maintain pressurization or if your setup uses variable frequency drives > in a closed loop, look for an increase in speed over time. > > Steve > > *From:*labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu > [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu] *On Behalf Of *Vicky Diadiuk > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 26, 2012 7:51 AM > *To:* Dennis Grimard > *Cc:* labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > *Subject:* Re: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters > > HI, > > The answer for MTL is the same as EPFL's, except that our HEPAs have > been unchanged since 1985 :) > > Vicky > > On Sep 25, 2012, at 4:22 AM, Fl?ckiger Philippe wrote: > > > > Dear Denis, > > Let me mention that EPFL is running with the original HEPA filters since > 14 years (1998) and still reach the class 100 specifications. > > EPFL has no plan to change the HEPA filters. Only some pre-filters might > be occasionally changed for example after construction work in the area. > > Anyway, back to your question facilities would pay for this. > > With my very best regards, > > Philippe > > /Dr Philippe Fl?ckiger/ > > /Director of Operations/ > > /http://cmi.epfl.ch// > > /Phone +41 21 693 6695/ > > *De :*labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu > > [mailto:labnetwork-bounces at mtl.mit.edu]*De la part de*Dennis Grimard > *Envoy? :*vendredi 21 septembre 2012 00:17 > *? :*labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > *Objet :*[labnetwork] HEPA Filters > > All: > > Do any of you have to pay for the replacement of your HEPA filters in > your cleanrooms? > > Thanks ... > > -- > Dennis S Grimard, Ph.D > > Managing Director, Lurie Nanofabrication Facility > > University of Michigan > > 1246D EECS Building > > 1301 Beal Avenue > > Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2122 > > (734) 368-7172 (Cell) > > (734) 647-1781 (Fax) > > http://www.lnf.umich.edu > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > > > > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork > From sburkett at eng.ua.edu Fri Sep 28 12:38:18 2012 From: sburkett at eng.ua.edu (Burkett, Susan) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 11:38:18 -0500 Subject: [labnetwork] Porous Silicon In-Reply-To: <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD9C20EC55F5@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv> Message-ID: Good morning, Is there someone out there with a porous silicon set-up that would be willing to discuss this with one of my colleagues at UNC, Tina Stacy? She is copied on this note. Thank you, Susan Burkett Alabama Power Foundation Endowed Professor University of Alabama 101 Houser Hall Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0286 205 348 4378 Sburkett at eng.ua.edu From shott at stanford.edu Fri Sep 28 12:46:42 2012 From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 09:46:42 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] HEPA Filters In-Reply-To: <50645CBA.5010804@seas.upenn.edu> References: <4AA894F792D3D64085E82E89F360413120D8B7FA@REXMD.intranet.epfl.ch> <5052E7D0-F45C-4C24-B43D-0485DC53AC12@mit.edu> <8F95EA77ACBF904A861E580B44288EFD9C20EC55F5@FASXCH02.fasmail.priv> <50645CBA.5010804@seas.upenn.edu> Message-ID: <5065D472.6050305@stanford.edu> Labnetwork: We (Stanford Nanofabrication Facility) recently changed our 1985 HEPA filters for the first time since they were installed. As a part of a facility upgrade that included some improved humidity control in the lithography area, we had to also add fire sprinklers above the HEPA filters. Interestingly, as a part of the bid process, one of the general contractors commissioned a clean room survey of the existing condition ... expecting to find that our clean room would be terribly dirty due to our "antique" HEPA filters. They were disappointed to learn that our 27-year-old HEPA filters were still sufficiently robust to pass Class 100 clean room certification standards. As other have commented, however, we were likely paying higher energy costs to push air through these filters. In terms of our pre-filtration ... which is am important part of this system .... we have the following three stages of pre-filtration. 1. All air coming into the building passed through banks of 2" deep Flanders MERV8 pleated filters. Those are, effectively, high-end furnace filters and are rated, I believe, at an overall efficiency of 35% (about 85% for particles in the 3-10 micron range). 2. Each of our AC units, which pre-treats all of the incoming make up air, has two sets of filters: a. A 95% efficiency bag filter that is about 15" deep. We used to change these on a timed basis, but now change them when they have a differential pressure of 0.75" WC. b. A 99.97% HEPA filter! These are changed every 2-5 years depending on pressure differential across them. That insures that the "real" clean room ceiling HEPA filters don't see too many "big chunks" hitting them on a regular basis. Finally, our campus facilities group monitors, pays for, and changes these three sets of pre-filters. Let me know if you have any questions, John On 9/27/2012 7:03 AM, Iulian Codreanu wrote: > Good Morning. > > Where are the prefilters some of you mentioned located? At the > discharge of the makeup air units and recirc units, right? > > Thanks for the feedback. > > Iulian From matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca Fri Sep 28 13:46:10 2012 From: matthieu.nannini at mcgill.ca (Matthieu Nannini, Dr.) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2012 17:46:10 +0000 Subject: [labnetwork] DIW maintenance Message-ID: Dear colleagues, Reviewing my annual costs and trying to find places where I could save money I realized that one of my main maintenance expense was on DIW. I pay about 10,000$/y to a contractor that is doing monthly and annually maintenance on the mixed bed and anionic cylinders. I have full confidence in this contractor and I don't have to worry about the DIW plant. However, everytime I issue a PO I can't help but thinking it's quite expensive. I'd like to know if I'm in the normal range or not. Thanks Matthieu From bob at eecs.berkeley.edu Sat Sep 29 11:45:36 2012 From: bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (Robert M. Hamilton) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2012 08:45:36 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] DI costs - DIW maintenance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <506717A0.9020303@eecs.berkeley.edu> Matthieu Nannini, To open the dialogue parameters for your system are needed: 1) What' the analysis of the water you are starting with? 2) How much RO makeup are you using and what is the makeup's final resistivity (conductivity)? 3) What is your DI spec? The desired total-silica value partly determines the polishing bed performance. It is the first breakthrough product. 4) What's the DI loops recirc. gpm? 5) How many polish beds are in use and are they in a lead/lag configuration? 6) Do you blanket your DI reservoir with N2? 7) How much DI is being removed from the loop? Berkeley can share our numbers but we need to compare the systems specs. Regrettably, the costs don't scale with system size. Bob Hamilton Bob Hamilton Marvel NanoLab University of CA at Berkeley Rm 520 Sutardja Dai Hall Berkeley, CA 94720-1754 bob at eecs.berkeley.edu (e-mail preferred) 510-809-8600 510-325-7557 (mobile - emergencies) On 9/28/2012 10:46 AM, Matthieu Nannini, Dr. wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Reviewing my annual costs and trying to find places where I could save money I realized that one of my main maintenance expense was on DIW. I pay about 10,000$/y to a contractor that is doing monthly and annually maintenance on the mixed bed and anionic cylinders. I have full confidence in this contractor and I don't have to worry about the DIW plant. However, everytime I issue a PO I can't help but thinking it's quite expensive. > > I'd like to know if I'm in the normal range or not. > > Thanks > > Matthieu > _______________________________________________ > labnetwork mailing list > labnetwork at mtl.mit.edu > https://www-mtl.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo.cgi/labnetwork From pkarulkar9 at gmail.com Sun Sep 30 09:15:47 2012 From: pkarulkar9 at gmail.com (Pramod C Karulkar) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2012 06:15:47 -0700 Subject: [labnetwork] silane safety seminar presentation - Dow Corning Message-ID: <50684603.9000201@gmail.com> PDF downloads from a one day event on silane safety. http://www.dowcorning.com/content/solar/solarproducts/silane_safety_seminar_presentation.aspx -- Pramod C Karulkar Ph. D. 6024 33rd Street Ct NW Gig Harbor WA 98335