elucidated (4). For the pCMP work, the large surface area and the controlled surface
states of these particles made them ideal candidates for quantitative investigation of BTA
adsorption and removal. In this paper, different copper particles including Cu(0), Cu(I)
and Cu(II) oxide particles were chosen , and TGA and UV-Vis spectra were used as
measurement for the BTA removal efficiency.
Experimental
Copper metal particles, Cu(I) oxide and Cu(II) oxide particles were purchased from
Alfa Aesar with purity of > 99% and used without any further treatment. These particles
were characterized by XRD to verify that their purity was suitable for next step
experiments.
The BTA adsorption on copper particles was carried out by dispersing 1% copper
particles in 10 mM BTA solution. The suspension was stirred for 1 hour to allow BTA to
fully adsorb on the surface of copper particles. After centrifuging, these particles were
washed thoroughly by water and centrifuged again to obtain BTA adsorbed copper
particles. Then the particles were transferred to diluted post-CMP formulation solutions.
The suspensions were stirred for certain time and then centrifuged. The supernatant
solutions were used for UV-Vis measurements. The copper particles were washed
thoroughly by water and then dried at 75oC overnight before the TGA measurements.
Commercially available post-CMP cleaner, PlanarCleanTM from ATMI, along with
other post-CMP formulations were used for evaluation of BTA removal from copper
particles. These pCMP cleaners were freshly prepared and diluted to certain ratios before
testing. DI water with different pH adjusted by KOH was also used for evaluation of pH
effect on the BTA removal from copper particles.
Results and Discussion
Characterization of Copper Particles
The SEM images of copper particles were shown in Figure 1. Copper metal
particles had round shape while Cu(I)O and Cu(II)O particles had irregular shapes. The
BET specific surface area and particle sizes of these copper particles were shown in
Table 1. The average size of copper metal particles was 1.6 m, smaller than those of
Cu(I)O and Cu(II)O particles. The specific surface area of copper metal particles was
0.69 m2/g. Compared to the surface area of a flat copper surface, 1 g of copper metal
particles has about the same surface area of a copper wafer with the surface area of 6900
cm2. This makes it much easier to use instrumental methods such as UV-Vis and TGA to
detect BTA adsorption and desorption from these particles.
Figure 1
Table 1. BET specific surface area and particle size of copper metal and copper oxide
particles
Particles
Cu (-625 mesh)
Cu(II)O (-325 mesh)
Cu(I)O (-325 mesh)
Figure 2. TGA analysis of BTA adsorbed copper metal particles and copper oxide
particles.
These BTA adsorbed copper particles were subsequently used to evaluate the cleaning
performance of post CMP cleaners. The first step is to investigate the pH effect on BTA
removal using pH adjusted water with nitric acid or KOH. The cleaning efficiency based
on BTA weight loss was estimated from the following equation;
Cleaning Efficiency at x pH =
Table 2 showed the cleaning efficiency of BTA from copper particles. It is clear that
BTA was barely removed from copper surface at pH below 8 regardless of the copper
surface states. When pH of water increased over 10, there was an obvious increase of the
BTA removal for all copper particles. When pH of water increased to 12, BTA cleaning
efficiency further increased significantly. This pH effect can be explained by the
deprotonation of BTA molecules which have a pKa of 8.2 at pH above 10.
Among all Cu particles, BTA molecules were more easily removed from Cu metal and
Cu(II) oxide particles than from Cu(I) oxide particles. In fact, at pH 12, most BTA
molecules were removed from Cu(II) oxide particles while much less BTA molecules
were removed from Cu(I) oxide particles. This is consistent with the previous report of
formation of multi-layer cuprous BTA complex on copper(I) surface (3). The cuprous
BTA complex layers cannot be removed with water by simply adjusting to higher pH.
Table 2: BTA removal from the surface of different copper particles by water with
different pH adjusted by KOH or HNO3
BTA cleaning efficiency %
pH of water
Cu
Cu(I)O
Cu(II)O
10
18
10
43
12
58
15
89
a)
b)
Figure 3. a) UV-Vis spectra of BTA solutions at different concentrations at pH 10; b)
Calibration curve of BTA conc. at pH 10.
12.2
0.92
0.062
11.9
0.68
0.043
11.8
0.30
0.025
11.5
0.21
0.019
11.4
0.11
0.01
8
60:1
8
90:1
1
120:1
9
200:1
5
The new Cu complexes at 600nm wavelength seem to be a useful indicator of cleaning
from the surface of Cu(I) oxide particles. Figure 5 showed the absorbance comparison at
600 nm between three other post-CMP cleaners with PlanarCleanTM. The results showed
that the cleaner PC-C had the highest absorbance among all cleaners. It also had highest
absorbance at 270 nm indicating the highest BTA removal from copper surface. This is
consistent with the expected behavior of a new type of cleaning agent in PC-C
formulation. In addition, this trend is confirmed by the real tool evaluation data which
indicated that the PC-C formulation had the best cleaning performance among the
evaluated cleaners.
Conclusions
Copper particles had higher surface area than copper wafers that are normally used in
study of BTA removal during post CMP cleaning process. Using copper metal, Cu(I)
oxide and Cu(II) oxide particles, BTA removal from copper surface could be analyzed by
TGA and UV-Vis spectra. The results showed that pH played a very important role in
BTA removal from copper particles, and higher pH favors the BTA removal efficiency.
Among different Cu states, BTA on Cu(I) oxide surface is more difficult to be removed
than from Cu(0) and Cu(II) oxide surfaces. Formulated cleans, such as PlanarCleanTM is
very effective in removing BTA from Cu(I) oxide surface. Further optimization with
new cleaning agents can enhance the BTA removal, as indicated by UV-Vis studies.
Acknowledgements
This paper is made possible through funding from ATMI for the collaboration project
between ATMI and Clarkson University. The authors acknowledge Jeff Barnes from
ATMI for various discussions.
References
1. Todd Buley, Yakov Epshteyn, Mike Kulus, Cuong Tran, Kyle Bartosh, Darryl
Peters, Chris Watts, in MICRO Magazine, Wet Surface Technologies,
October/November, 2005.
2. D. Peters, E. Walker, K. Bartosh, J. Barnes, C. Tran, and C. Watts, The 2nd
PacRim International Conference on Planarization CMP and its Application
Technology, pp. 68-72 (November 2005).
3. Desmond Tromans, J. Electrochem. Soc., 145, L42 (1998).
4. Venkata R.K. Gorantla, Dan Goia, Egon Matijevi and S.V. Babu, J. Electrochem.
Soc., 152, G912 (2005).
5. V. Meled, S.V. Babu, E. Matijevi, J. Electrochem. Soc., 156, H460 (2009).
6. Zhenyu Lu, Niels P. Ryde, S. V. Babu, Egon Matijevi, Langmuir, 21, 9866
(2005).