Myths, Misconceptions and Mistakes in the Electrostatic Protection of Field-Sensitive Items â€“ Why Itâ€™s Time to Re-Visit Device Protection

Gavin Rider

Myths, Misconceptions and Mistakes in the Electrostatic Protection of Field-Sensitive Items – Why It’s Time to Re-Visit Device Protection

Gavin Rider *

Contact

Myths, Misconceptions and Mistakes in the Electrostatic Protection of Field-Sensitive Items – Why It’s Time to Re-Visit Device Protection

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

REDUZK0

Myths, Misconceptions and Mistakes in the Electrostatic Protection of Field-Sensitive Items – Why It’s Time to Re-Visit Device Protection Banner

Key Research Insights

Synthesized scholarly intelligence & interactive research assistant

This converted HTML version may contain rendering inconsistencies. Please refer to the PDF for the authoritative version, or click here to provide feedback.

Abstract

The measures currently being taken to prevent electrostatic damage in semiconductor manufacturing environments are not sufficient to guarantee the complete protection of items that are highly sensitive to electric field. Mistakes that have been made in the interpretation of electrostatic damage phenomena in manufacturing and errors that have been made in attempting to provide protection against them are described. It is shown that some of the ESD countermeasures in widespread use today can actually increase the electrostatic risk for fieldsensitive items. The static dissipative materials that are commonly used to make pods and transport boxes are shown to expose field-sensitive items to a significant risk that can result in cumulative and permanent damage. It is concluded that more research into semiconductor device electrostatic damage mechanisms other than ESD is urgently needed, as has previously been called for by researchers studying the problem. It is also recommended that the electrostatic countermeasures being used in device manufacturing and handling should be reviewed and revised where necessary, to improve the protection of all extremely-electrostaticsensitive (EES) items.

References

36 Cites in Article

Reference Format

(null). IEEE Guide on Electrostatic Discharge (ESD): ESD Withstand Capability Evaluation Methods (for Electronic Equipment Subassemblies).
Mutaz Haddadin,Stefan Radloff (2015). 450mm SEMI physical interface standards: Architecture and efficiency.
F Bahrenburg (2010). Challenges in achieving an ESD compliant supply chain.
Guide for the handling of reticles and other extremely electrostatic sensitive (EES) items within specially designated areas.
Thomas Sebald,Gavin Rider (2009). High sensitivity electric field monitoring system for control of field-induced CD degradation in reticles (EFM).
(null). Protein Adhesion on Semi-Fluorinated Polystyrene Surfaces in Static and Dynamic Measurements.
Target Levels White Paper 2: A case for lowering component level CDM ESD specifications and requirements.
Gavin Rider (2003). How to Protect Reticles From Electrostatic Damage.
Gavin Rider,Thottam Kalkur (2003). Experimental quantification of reticle electrostatic damage below the threshold for ESD.
J Bruner (2002). Design of semiconductor manufacturing equipment for electrostatic compatibility.
Andrew Rudack,Michael Pendley,Patrick Gagnon,Lawrence Levit (2003). Induced ESD damage on photomasks: a reticle evaluation.
Dirk Helmholz,Michael Lering (2006). Reticle carrier material as ESD protection.
C Turley,L Kindt,J Kinnear (2013). Evaluating electrostatic damage prevention methods for fullscale reticle manufacturing.
Gavin Rider (2016). Electrostatic risk to reticles in the nanolithography era.
Gavin Rider (2018). How to Protect Reticles From Electrostatic Damage.
Lawrence Levit,Geoffrey Weil (2001). A novel new concept in hybrid alpha ionization systems.
M Smith,V Wartenbergh,R Pennybacker,W (2003). SMIF container including an electrostatic dissipative reticle support structure.
M Li (2001). Electrostatic discharge-free container for insulating articles.
D Cheng,Y Liaw,D Juang (2001). Electrostatic discharge-free container equipped with metal shield.
G Rider (2003). EFM: A pernicious new electric fieldinduced damage mechanism in reticles.
Gavin Rider (2003). How to Protect Reticles From Electrostatic Damage.
Gavin Rider,Thottam Kalkur (2008). Experimental quantification of reticle electrostatic damage below the threshold for ESD.
Gavin Rider (2008). Electric field-induced progressive CD degradation in reticles.
Al Wallash,Lydia Baril,Vladimir Kraz,Toni Gurga (2009). Electromagnetic field induced degradation of magnetic recording heads in a GTEM cell.
Greg Sonnenfeld,Kai Goebel,Jose Celaya (2008). An agile accelerated aging, characterization and scenario simulation system for gate controlled power transistors.
C Hou Flat panel display manufacturing ESD control technical fundamentals.
M Radhakrishnan ESD Experts discussion forum "Tribocharging and grounding -what really happens?.
C Tung,C Cheng,M Radhakrishnan,M Natarajan (2002). Physical failure analysis to distinguish EOS and ESD failures.
J Wiley,A Steinman (1999). Investigating a new generation of ESD-induced reticle defects.
D Sengupta,D Pavlidis (2003). USAF, Report, Consultative Letter AFRL-SA-WP-CL-2013-0004, Weapons Storage Are of 400 Series Buildings at Me.
Ankit Kumar,Dinesh Pandya,Sujeet Chaudhary (2018). Electric field assisted sputtering of Fe3O4 thin films and reduction in anti-phase boundaries.
K Pey,C Tung,M Radhakrishnan,L Tang,W Lin (2002). Dielectric breakdown induced epitaxy in ultrathin gate oxide - a reliability concern.
Jeremy Smallwood (2019). Can Electrostatic Discharge Sensitive electronic devices be damaged by electrostatic fields?.
Shu Lai,Kerri Cahoy,Whitney Lohmeyer,Ashley Carlton,Raichelle Aniceto,Joseph Minow (2018). Deep Dielectric Charging and Spacecraft Anomalies.
Mark Van De Kerkhof,Andrei Yakunin,Vladimir Kvon,Selwyn Cats,Luuk Heijmans,Manis Chaudhuri,Dmitry Asthakov (2021). Plasma-assisted discharges and charging in EUV-induced plasma.
J Kay,M King (2020). Radical uncertainty: decisionmaking for an unknowable future.

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Gavin Rider. 2021. "Myths, Misconceptions and Mistakes in the Electrostatic Protection of Field-Sensitive Items – Why It’s Time to Re-Visit Device Protection". Global Journal of Research in Engineering - J: General Engineering GJRE-J Volume 21 (GJRE Volume 21 Issue J3).

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

GJRE Volume 21 Issue J3

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/gjre

Print ISSN 0975-5861

e-ISSN 2249-4596

Keywords

Not Found

Classification

GJRE-J Classification FOR Code: 091599

Submission ReceivedDecember 6, 2020
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted January 2, 2021
Published January 15, 2021

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

April 12, 2021

Language

English

Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Views: 983

Total Downloads: 46

All Trends