Translator Disclaimer
Paper
21 May 1996 Comparison of particle measurement tools for use with photoresist: film surface versus liquid techniques
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
Currently, the state-of-the-art for particle detection in photoresist is liquid laser scattering technology, which has a particle size capability of approximately 0.25 micrometer for photoresist. Surface tool particle size capabilities are similar, at 0.2 micrometer in a typical application. In our search for techniques which would allow detection of sub-quarter micron particles in photoresists, we sought to explore whether surface particle detection techniques could be of use in determining resist cleanliness. If so, could any correlation be made between counts at various particle sizes measured using liquid laser techniques and those measured with a surface detection tool? To begin to answer these questions, a screening study was undertaken. Two resist chemistries were selected for comparison: diazonaphthoquinone/novolak-based Shipley MegapositR SPRR 510A i-line photoresist and chemically-amplified Shipley APEX-E DUV photoresist. Each resist was prepared at three different cleanliness levels, as determined by liquid laser particle counting. These samples were evaluated on six different surface detection tools, including both laser scattering and digital image processing technologies. For the particle sizes examined, none of the surface detection tools evaluated were consistently able to distinguish between cleanliness levels.
© (1996) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Michael Anderson, Susan Bablouzian, Michael Gaudet, Linda L. Kenyon, and Pamela Turci "Comparison of particle measurement tools for use with photoresist: film surface versus liquid techniques", Proc. SPIE 2725, Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control for Microlithography X, (21 May 1996); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.240083
PROCEEDINGS
12 PAGES


SHARE
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back to Top