[labnetwork] Oxidation of Si wafers with DRIE passivation polymer

[prabhakararao yp]

remove the polymer and do oxidation

Thanks& regards,
prabhakararao

Dr. Y.P. Prabhakara Rao .M.Tech.Ph.D
Chief  Operating Officer
National  Nanofabrication centre
Centre For Nanoscience and Engineering,
Indian Institute Of Science,Bangalore-560012
Mobile: +91 9448365748
Tel:       +91 80 23600129
Email:    prabhakararaoyp at cense.iisc.ernet.in
              prabhakararaoyp at gmail.com

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Noah Clay <nclay at seas.upenn.edu> wrote:

> Aaron,
>
> We have a rather high power density oxygen barrel asher that removes Bosch
> polymer.  If you cross-section a test device, there’s an observable
> difference in SEM sidewall charging pre- and post barrel ashing.  You may
> also note the change in polymer mushrooming at the tops of features.
> Definitely, use low keV SEM imaging.
>
> It’s been our experience that oxide will not burn off during furnace
> oxidation; rather, O2 will diffuse through the remaining carbonized layer.
>
> Wet process alternative: EKC 265 from DuPont.
> http://www.dupont.com/content/dam/dupont/products-and-services/electronic-and-electrical-materials/documents/ekc/EKC265.pdf
>
> Best of Luck,
> Noah
>
> *Noah Clay*
> *Director, Quattrone Nanofabrication Facility*
> *School of Engineering & Applied Science*
> *University of Pennsylvania*
> *Philadelphia, PA*
>
> *(215) 898-9308*
> *nclay at upenn.edu <nclay at upenn.edu>*
> LinkedIn Profile
> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/noah-clay-5073b3?trk=hp-identity-name>
>
> On Aug 3, 2016, at 2:34 PM, Aaron Hryciw <ahryciw at ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> Our facility recently installed a Tystar wet/dry oxidation tube, which has
> so far only been used to oxidise virgin Si wafers.  Recently, one of our
> users has requested to do a 400–1000 nm wet oxidation at 1100 °C on DRIE
> (Bosch) etched Si wafers which still have DRIE passivation polymer on them,
> for the dual purpose of removing the polymer and growing an oxide.
>
> Given the tool's excellent performance so far, I am concerned with the
> possibility of contaminating the (atmospheric) tube as the polymer is
> burned off, adversely affecting subsequent processes.  My priority is to
> protect the integrity of the tool, but I also do not want to be needlessly
> restrictive if the presence of the polymer does not in fact pose any
> problem.  We are a multi-user facility, with academic and industrial users
> who primarily do MEMS and microfluidics work (i.e., no CMOS processing).
>
> My initial thought would be to have this user remove the polymer first
> using a dry etch (O₂ plasma), only oxidising the wafers once it has been
> verified that the polymer is no longer present.
>
> Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated.  Many thanks.
>
> Cheers,
>
>   – Aaron Hryciw
>
>
>
> Aaron Hryciw, PhD, PEng
> Fabrication Group Manager
> University of Alberta - nanoFAB
> W1-060 ECERF Building
> 9107 - 116 Street
> Edmonton, Alberta
> Canada T6G 2V4 Ph: 780-940-7938
> www.nanofab.ualberta.ca
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mtl.mit.edu/pipermail/labnetwork/attachments/20160805/4d054275/attachment.html>