Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T09:32:16.858Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of In-Situ Vapor/Gas Phase Cleaning with Conventional RCA based Wet Cleaning

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2011

John M. Grant
John M. Grant*
Affiliation:
Sharp Microelectronics Technology, Inc., 5700 NW Pacific Rim Boulevard, Camas, WA 98607
Get access

Abstract

A comparison study of the effectiveness of in-situ vapor/gas phase cleaning versus conventional wet RCA based cleaning has been performed. The effectiveness of the cleans were compared using Surface Photo-Voltage (SPV) measurements of the quality of a 70Å gate dielectric. Dielectrics grown in oxygen by Rapid Thermal Oxidation (RTO) were measured using SPV. The vapor/gas phase cleaning processes studied have three steps corresponding to the baths in a conventional RCA-based clean. A clean using O2 was used to clean the organic contaminants normally cleaned in the SC-1 bath, a C12 based step corresponded to the SC-2 solution, and an HF/alcohol etch was used to remove the oxide normally etched using buffered HF. It was seen that temperature control of the cleaning chamber walls is necessary to insure reproducible processes and reasonable pump down times. Measurements by SPV indicate that dielectrics grown after vapor-gas phase cleaning have lower interface trap densities than oxides grown after an RCA-based clean.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 342: Symposium G – Rapid Thermal and Integrated Processing III , 1994 , 313
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1994

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

1. Kern, W. and Puotinen, D.A., RCA Review 30, 187 (1970).Google Scholar
2. Kern, W., J. Electrochem. Soc. 137, 1887 (1990).Google Scholar
3. Wong, M., Moslehi, M.M., and Reed, D.W., J. Electrochem. Soc. 138, 1799 (1991).Google Scholar
4. Wong, M., Moslehi, M.M., and Bowling, R.A., J. Electrochem. Soc. 140, 205 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Prom, J.L., Castagne, J., Sarrabayrouse, G., and Munoz-Yague, A., IEEE Proc. 1135, 20 (1988).Google Scholar
6. Prom, J.L., Morfuli, P., Kassmi, K., Pananakakis, G., and Sarrabayrouse, G., IEEE Proc. G 138, 321 (1991).Google Scholar
7. Izumi, A., Matsuka, T., Takeuchi, T., and Yamano, A., in Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Cleaning Technology in Semiconductor Device Manufacturing, edited by Ruzyllo, J. and Novak, R. (ECS Proceedings 92–12, 1992) p. 260.Google Scholar
8. Ruzyllo, J., Torek, K., Daffron, C., Grant, R., and Novak, R., J. Electrochem. Soc. 140, L64 (1993).Google Scholar
9. Butterbaugh, J.W. (private communication).Google Scholar
10. Fitch, J.T., in Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings 259, 427 (1992).Google Scholar
11. Murali, V.. Wu, A.T., Chatterjee, A.K., and Fraser, D.B., IEEE Trans. on Semicond. Manufacturing 5, 214 (1992).Google Scholar
12. Resnick, A., Kamieniecki, E., Philipossian, A., and Jackson, D., in Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Cleaning Technology in Semiconductor Device Manufacturing, edited by Ruzyllo, J. and Novak, R.E. (ECS Proceedings 90–9, 1990) p. 335.Google Scholar
13. Resnick, A., Kamieniecki, E., Phelps, H., and Jackson, D., in Proceedings of the 1990 IEEE/SEMI Advanced Semiconductor Manufacturing Conference, (IEEE, 1990) p. 117.Google Scholar
14. Grant, J.M. and Stecker, G., to be presented at the Spring 1994 Electrochemical Society Meeting, San Francisco, CA, May 1994.Google Scholar
15. Gompf, D. (private communication).Google Scholar