From dkozak at ucsc.edu  Wed Feb  4 11:23:33 2009
From: dkozak at ucsc.edu (Dmitry Alexander Kozak)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:23:33 -0800
Subject: HgCdTe or mercury cadmium telluride
Message-ID: <web-87414212@email-prod-be-1.ucsc.edu>

Hello,
my info:
Name:  Dmitry Kozak
Coral log-in:  dkozak
phone: (408)489-9394
e-mail:  dkozak at ucsc.edu
company: UC Santa Cruz

Chemical:

HgCdTe (mercury cadmium telluride)  or ZnSe/MgF2

Reason for request:
our group at UCSC is looking to use a process that uses 
either of the two chemicals listed above.  Would those be 
allowed at SNF?

This is just a preliminary request.  If approved, will 
submit the full request.

Thank you!

Dmitry Kozak


From mahnaz at stanford.edu  Wed Feb  4 13:17:07 2009
From: mahnaz at stanford.edu (Mahnaz Mansourpour)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:17:07 -0800
Subject: [POSSIBLE VIRUS:###] [Fwd: Question about new materials]
Message-ID: <20090204211704.902B7802A@smtp-roam.stanford.edu>

Hello all,
what do you think?


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Dmitry Alexander Kozak" <dkozak at ucsc.edu>
Subject: Question about new materials
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 11:45:45 -0800
Size: 2214
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20090204/8ab134ff/attachment.eml>

From shott at stanford.edu  Wed Feb  4 13:26:50 2009
From: shott at stanford.edu (John Shott)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:26:50 -0800
Subject: HgCdTe or mercury cadmium telluride
In-Reply-To: <web-87414212@email-prod-be-1.ucsc.edu>
References: <web-87414212@email-prod-be-1.ucsc.edu>
Message-ID: <498A081A.9030708@stanford.edu>

Dmitry et al:

I think that we need to know a heck of a lot more about what you propose 
to do with this stuff.  I've never worked with HgCdTe directly but had 
some professional contact in my dim, dark past with people that were 
using HgCdTe for IR detectors.  My recollection (which, admittedly, may 
be bad ....) was that a photoresist bake at 90 deg C had to be taken 
into consideration because of the potential volatility of Hg.  I seem to 
recall that they also relied on ultra low temperature .... that is, 
nearly room temperature, photo-activated deposition processes because 
300 degree PECVD was too hot.

So we need to know specifically what you think you need to do because we 
simply don't have the resources (personnel or equipment) to generate a 
subset of tools that are potentially mercury contaminated.

Jim McVittie is out this week but, as I recall, in his dim, dark past he 
used to work with a number of exotic II-VI materials and may be able to 
shed more light on this matter.  I don't expect that he will be in, 
however, until the first of next week.

Thanks,

John



From edmyers at stanford.edu  Wed Feb  4 13:47:14 2009
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:47:14 -0800
Subject: HgCdTe or mercury cadmium telluride
In-Reply-To: <498A081A.9030708@stanford.edu>
References: <web-87414212@email-prod-be-1.ucsc.edu>
 <498A081A.9030708@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090204134606.031b8178@stanford.edu>

Dimitry,

We also have had verey negative experiences with ZnSe.  On the other 
hand there was some successful work on MgF2

Ed


At 01:26 PM 2/4/2009, John Shott wrote:
>Dmitry et al:
>
>I think that we need to know a heck of a lot more about what you 
>propose to do with this stuff.  I've never worked with HgCdTe 
>directly but had some professional contact in my dim, dark past with 
>people that were using HgCdTe for IR detectors.  My recollection 
>(which, admittedly, may be bad ....) was that a photoresist bake at 
>90 deg C had to be taken into consideration because of the potential 
>volatility of Hg.  I seem to recall that they also relied on ultra 
>low temperature .... that is, nearly room temperature, 
>photo-activated deposition processes because 300 degree PECVD was too hot.
>
>So we need to know specifically what you think you need to do 
>because we simply don't have the resources (personnel or equipment) 
>to generate a subset of tools that are potentially mercury contaminated.
>
>Jim McVittie is out this week but, as I recall, in his dim, dark 
>past he used to work with a number of exotic II-VI materials and may 
>be able to shed more light on this matter.  I don't expect that he 
>will be in, however, until the first of next week.
>
>Thanks,
>
>John




From mtang at stanford.edu  Fri Feb 13 11:44:27 2009
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:44:27 -0800
Subject: Specmat Request
In-Reply-To: <C23328D103A1C74791925B2CF0C4FFA72BC5B9@sbs2003.SolarJunction.local>
References: <C23328D103A1C74791925B2CF0C4FFA72BC5B9@sbs2003.SolarJunction.local>
Message-ID: <4995CD9B.9080308@stanford.edu>

Hi Mikes --

Actually, we have never (as far as I know) approved liquid bromine in 
the lab.  The TWA exposure limit on this is 0.1 ppm.  Compare to 
chlorobenzene which is 10 ppm.  Or HBr, which is 3 ppm.

We've approved HBr solutions as you describe and, in fact, have some 
detailed protocols for this.  But I don't believe I've ever seen Br2 in 
our lab.  I understand it's commonly used as an etchant for certain 
semiconductor films.   But also have heard some horror stories.  I think 
just about any of the old-time GaAs researchers will have bromine 
story.  See the attached.  We did approve dilute HBr solutions for use 
at the wbgaas station with alcohols, but under very specific conditions 
(controlled pH, which I understand is key to keeping things under control.)

I am honestly not sure we could accommodate handling of liquid bromine 
-- not unless we can come up with a really safe way of doing this.  My 
feeling is that this should be done in a proper fume hood (with 
explosion sashes and indescructible/inflammable work surfaces), not the 
wet benches we have at SNF.

But I tend to be conservative on chemical handling.  Other SpecMat'ers 
-- especially those with more experience with this -- what do you think?

Mary

Mike Wiemer wrote:
>
> Hi Ed & Mary,
>
>  
>
> Here is a Specmat Request document on Bromine/Methanol etching we want 
> to do at the WBGaAs bench.
>
>  
>
> Ed and I spoke about this over the phone. It seems this is an "already 
> approved" chemical in the lab, however, we decided we needed to submit 
> a use/procedure request (see attached).
>
>  
>
> Please let me know when we have the green light, or if there are 
> additional issues we need to address.
>
>  
>
> Thanks!
>
>  
>
> -Mike
>
>  
>


-- 
Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA  94305
(650)723-9980
mtang at stanford.edu
http://snf.stanford.edu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20090213/20294006/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Br2-MeOH.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 384797 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20090213/20294006/attachment.pdf>

From mwiemer at sj-solar.com  Fri Feb 13 15:50:02 2009
From: mwiemer at sj-solar.com (Mike Wiemer)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:50:02 -0800
Subject: Specmat Request
References: <C23328D103A1C74791925B2CF0C4FFA72BC5B9@sbs2003.SolarJunction.local> <4995CD9B.9080308@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <C23328D103A1C74791925B2CF0C4FFA72BC600@sbs2003.SolarJunction.local>

Hi Mary & Specmat,

 

Wow! I never cease to be surprised by your thoroughness (interesting
find on that paper).

 

I would like to point out a couple of things:

1.)    The concentration of Br will be ~4% (1:25). 

a.       This is well below the 10% value stated in the document 

                                                               i.
above 10% "caution" must be used

                                                             ii.
Between 20%-25% "hazard increases"

b.      See the highlighted sentence in the attached document on the
last page

2.)    The vessel we are going to use is 12" in diameter, and 4" high
(with a pour mouth)

a.       This reduces the beaker-breaking explosion hazard

 

As always, I defer to your decision, but I know this can be done safely,
provided we have the proper space to do it in. 

 

Best,

 

-Mike

 

 

 

From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 11:44 AM
To: Mike Wiemer
Cc: Ed Myers; mtang at snf.stanford.edu; Michael Sheldon;
specmat at snf.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Specmat Request

 

Hi Mikes --

Actually, we have never (as far as I know) approved liquid bromine in
the lab.  The TWA exposure limit on this is 0.1 ppm.  Compare to
chlorobenzene which is 10 ppm.  Or HBr, which is 3 ppm.

We've approved HBr solutions as you describe and, in fact, have some
detailed protocols for this.  But I don't believe I've ever seen Br2 in
our lab.  I understand it's commonly used as an etchant for certain
semiconductor films.   But also have heard some horror stories.  I think
just about any of the old-time GaAs researchers will have bromine story.
See the attached.  We did approve dilute HBr solutions for use at the
wbgaas station with alcohols, but under very specific conditions
(controlled pH, which I understand is key to keeping things under
control.)

I am honestly not sure we could accommodate handling of liquid bromine
-- not unless we can come up with a really safe way of doing this.  My
feeling is that this should be done in a proper fume hood (with
explosion sashes and indescructible/inflammable work surfaces), not the
wet benches we have at SNF.

But I tend to be conservative on chemical handling.  Other SpecMat'ers
-- especially those with more experience with this -- what do you think?

Mary

Mike Wiemer wrote: 

Hi Ed & Mary, 

  

Here is a Specmat Request document on Bromine/Methanol etching we want
to do at the WBGaAs bench. 

  

Ed and I spoke about this over the phone. It seems this is an "already
approved" chemical in the lab, however, we decided we needed to submit a
use/procedure request (see attached). 

  

Please let me know when we have the green light, or if there are
additional issues we need to address. 

  

Thanks! 

  

-Mike 

  






-- 
Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA  94305
(650)723-9980
mtang at stanford.edu
http://snf.stanford.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20090213/ebb87b7a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Br2-MeOH - Mike Highlighted.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 390823 bytes
Desc: Br2-MeOH - Mike Highlighted.pdf
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20090213/ebb87b7a/attachment.obj>

From mwiemer at sj-solar.com  Fri Feb 13 15:57:02 2009
From: mwiemer at sj-solar.com (Mike Wiemer)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:57:02 -0800
Subject: Specmat Request
References: <C23328D103A1C74791925B2CF0C4FFA72BC5B9@sbs2003.SolarJunction.local> <4995CD9B.9080308@stanford.edu> 
Message-ID: <C23328D103A1C74791925B2CF0C4FFA72BC607@sbs2003.SolarJunction.local>

P.S. - One more thing.

 

If you look at Figure 1 in that paper, you will see that for 10% Br, the
solution heats up to only 28C in a controlled manner. Our suggested 4%
will heat up even less. It is Figure 2 you want to avoid which is for
25%....

 

Best,

 

-Mike

 

 

From: Mike Wiemer 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 3:50 PM
To: 'Mary Tang'
Cc: Ed Myers; mtang at snf.stanford.edu; Michael Sheldon;
specmat at snf.stanford.edu
Subject: RE: Specmat Request

 

Hi Mary & Specmat,

 

Wow! I never cease to be surprised by your thoroughness (interesting
find on that paper).

 

I would like to point out a couple of things:

1.)    The concentration of Br will be ~4% (1:25). 

a.       This is well below the 10% value stated in the document 

                                                               i.
above 10% "caution" must be used

                                                             ii.
Between 20%-25% "hazard increases"

b.      See the highlighted sentence in the attached document on the
last page

2.)    The vessel we are going to use is 12" in diameter, and 4" high
(with a pour mouth)

a.       This reduces the beaker-breaking explosion hazard

 

As always, I defer to your decision, but I know this can be done safely,
provided we have the proper space to do it in. 

 

Best,

 

-Mike

 

 

 

From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 11:44 AM
To: Mike Wiemer
Cc: Ed Myers; mtang at snf.stanford.edu; Michael Sheldon;
specmat at snf.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Specmat Request

 

Hi Mikes --

Actually, we have never (as far as I know) approved liquid bromine in
the lab.  The TWA exposure limit on this is 0.1 ppm.  Compare to
chlorobenzene which is 10 ppm.  Or HBr, which is 3 ppm.

We've approved HBr solutions as you describe and, in fact, have some
detailed protocols for this.  But I don't believe I've ever seen Br2 in
our lab.  I understand it's commonly used as an etchant for certain
semiconductor films.   But also have heard some horror stories.  I think
just about any of the old-time GaAs researchers will have bromine story.
See the attached.  We did approve dilute HBr solutions for use at the
wbgaas station with alcohols, but under very specific conditions
(controlled pH, which I understand is key to keeping things under
control.)

I am honestly not sure we could accommodate handling of liquid bromine
-- not unless we can come up with a really safe way of doing this.  My
feeling is that this should be done in a proper fume hood (with
explosion sashes and indescructible/inflammable work surfaces), not the
wet benches we have at SNF.

But I tend to be conservative on chemical handling.  Other SpecMat'ers
-- especially those with more experience with this -- what do you think?

Mary

Mike Wiemer wrote: 

Hi Ed & Mary, 

  

Here is a Specmat Request document on Bromine/Methanol etching we want
to do at the WBGaAs bench. 

  

Ed and I spoke about this over the phone. It seems this is an "already
approved" chemical in the lab, however, we decided we needed to submit a
use/procedure request (see attached). 

  

Please let me know when we have the green light, or if there are
additional issues we need to address. 

  

Thanks! 

  

-Mike 

  





-- 
Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA  94305
(650)723-9980
mtang at stanford.edu
http://snf.stanford.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20090213/b1612dd1/attachment.html>

From mtang at stanford.edu  Fri Feb 13 16:38:11 2009
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:38:11 -0800
Subject: Specmat Request
In-Reply-To: <C23328D103A1C74791925B2CF0C4FFA72BC600@sbs2003.SolarJunction.local>
References: <C23328D103A1C74791925B2CF0C4FFA72BC5B9@sbs2003.SolarJunction.local> <4995CD9B.9080308@stanford.edu> <C23328D103A1C74791925B2CF0C4FFA72BC600@sbs2003.SolarJunction.local>
Message-ID: <49961273.7060306@stanford.edu>

Hi Mike --

Good point... (sorry, I had thought 25%, not 1:25)... but I'm actually 
more concerned about the bromine. We generally do not approve chemicals 
with TWA less than 10 ppm. HBr is at 3 ppm, but we've allowed diluted 
solutions and restrictions on how it's used. With bromine at 0.1 ppm 
TWA, I'm honestly concerned about using this in a shared facility -- and 
in a bench that does not qualify as a fume hood. And there's the storage...

You know, a labmember vomited on the lab floor yesterday -- despite 
quick response on cleanup (hooray for Jeannie and George), it was 
remarkable how persistent the smell was for some time afterwards 
throughout the lab. And how it traveled out into the adjacent hall. It 
gave me good appreciation for how well the air gets recycled -- and how 
we have to be careful about chemical handling (although if the labmember 
had the courtesy to vomit behind the red line on a wet bench...)

Any chance of a proper fume hood elsewhere on campus or in a real 
chemistry lab?

Mary

Mike Wiemer wrote:
>
> Hi Mary & Specmat,
>
> Wow! I never cease to be surprised by your thoroughness (interesting 
> find on that paper).
>
> I would like to point out a couple of things:
>
> 1.) The concentration of Br will be *~4%* (1:25).
>
> a. This is well below the 10% value stated in the document
>
> i. above 10% ?caution? must be used
>
> ii. Between 20%-25% ?hazard increases?
>
> b. See the highlighted sentence in the attached document on the last page
>
> 2.) The vessel we are going to use is 12? in diameter, and 4? high 
> (with a pour mouth)
>
> a. This reduces the beaker-breaking explosion hazard
>
> As always, I defer to your decision, but I know this can be done 
> safely, provided we have the proper space to do it in.
>
> Best,
>
> -Mike
>
> *From:* Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 13, 2009 11:44 AM
> *To:* Mike Wiemer
> *Cc:* Ed Myers; mtang at snf.stanford.edu; Michael Sheldon; 
> specmat at snf.stanford.edu
> *Subject:* Re: Specmat Request
>
> Hi Mikes --
>
> Actually, we have never (as far as I know) approved liquid bromine in 
> the lab. The TWA exposure limit on this is 0.1 ppm. Compare to 
> chlorobenzene which is 10 ppm. Or HBr, which is 3 ppm.
>
> We've approved HBr solutions as you describe and, in fact, have some 
> detailed protocols for this. But I don't believe I've ever seen Br2 in 
> our lab. I understand it's commonly used as an etchant for certain 
> semiconductor films. But also have heard some horror stories. I think 
> just about any of the old-time GaAs researchers will have bromine 
> story. See the attached. We did approve dilute HBr solutions for use 
> at the wbgaas station with alcohols, but under very specific 
> conditions (controlled pH, which I understand is key to keeping things 
> under control.)
>
> I am honestly not sure we could accommodate handling of liquid bromine 
> -- not unless we can come up with a really safe way of doing this. My 
> feeling is that this should be done in a proper fume hood (with 
> explosion sashes and indescructible/inflammable work surfaces), not 
> the wet benches we have at SNF.
>
> But I tend to be conservative on chemical handling. Other SpecMat'ers 
> -- especially those with more experience with this -- what do you think?
>
> Mary
>
> Mike Wiemer wrote:
>
> Hi Ed & Mary,
>
> Here is a Specmat Request document on Bromine/Methanol etching we want 
> to do at the WBGaAs bench.
>
> Ed and I spoke about this over the phone. It seems this is an ?already 
> approved? chemical in the lab, however, we decided we needed to submit 
> a use/procedure request (see attached).
>
> Please let me know when we have the green light, or if there are 
> additional issues we need to address.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
> Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
> CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
> Stanford, CA  94305
> (650)723-9980
> mtang at stanford.edu <mailto:mtang at stanford.edu>
> http://snf.stanford.edu


-- 
Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA  94305
(650)723-9980
mtang at stanford.edu
http://snf.stanford.edu



From mwiemer at sj-solar.com  Tue Feb 17 17:30:17 2009
From: mwiemer at sj-solar.com (Mike Wiemer)
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:30:17 -0800
Subject: Specmat Request
References: <C23328D103A1C74791925B2CF0C4FFA72BC5B9@sbs2003.SolarJunction.local> <4995CD9B.9080308@stanford.edu> <C23328D103A1C74791925B2CF0C4FFA72BC600@sbs2003.SolarJunction.local> <49961273.7060306@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <C23328D103A1C74791925B2CF0C4FFA72BC6F9@sbs2003.SolarJunction.local>

Hi Mary,

I don't have another fume hood I can easily use. 
I think I need to press for a ruling here. 

What do you say?

Thanks!

-Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] 
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 4:38 PM
To: Mike Wiemer
Cc: Ed Myers; mtang at snf.stanford.edu; Michael Sheldon;
specmat at snf.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: Specmat Request

Hi Mike --

Good point... (sorry, I had thought 25%, not 1:25)... but I'm actually 
more concerned about the bromine. We generally do not approve chemicals 
with TWA less than 10 ppm. HBr is at 3 ppm, but we've allowed diluted 
solutions and restrictions on how it's used. With bromine at 0.1 ppm 
TWA, I'm honestly concerned about using this in a shared facility -- and

in a bench that does not qualify as a fume hood. And there's the
storage...

You know, a labmember vomited on the lab floor yesterday -- despite 
quick response on cleanup (hooray for Jeannie and George), it was 
remarkable how persistent the smell was for some time afterwards 
throughout the lab. And how it traveled out into the adjacent hall. It 
gave me good appreciation for how well the air gets recycled -- and how 
we have to be careful about chemical handling (although if the labmember

had the courtesy to vomit behind the red line on a wet bench...)

Any chance of a proper fume hood elsewhere on campus or in a real 
chemistry lab?

Mary

Mike Wiemer wrote:
>
> Hi Mary & Specmat,
>
> Wow! I never cease to be surprised by your thoroughness (interesting 
> find on that paper).
>
> I would like to point out a couple of things:
>
> 1.) The concentration of Br will be *~4%* (1:25).
>
> a. This is well below the 10% value stated in the document
>
> i. above 10% "caution" must be used
>
> ii. Between 20%-25% "hazard increases"
>
> b. See the highlighted sentence in the attached document on the last
page
>
> 2.) The vessel we are going to use is 12" in diameter, and 4" high 
> (with a pour mouth)
>
> a. This reduces the beaker-breaking explosion hazard
>
> As always, I defer to your decision, but I know this can be done 
> safely, provided we have the proper space to do it in.
>
> Best,
>
> -Mike
>
> *From:* Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu]
> *Sent:* Friday, February 13, 2009 11:44 AM
> *To:* Mike Wiemer
> *Cc:* Ed Myers; mtang at snf.stanford.edu; Michael Sheldon; 
> specmat at snf.stanford.edu
> *Subject:* Re: Specmat Request
>
> Hi Mikes --
>
> Actually, we have never (as far as I know) approved liquid bromine in 
> the lab. The TWA exposure limit on this is 0.1 ppm. Compare to 
> chlorobenzene which is 10 ppm. Or HBr, which is 3 ppm.
>
> We've approved HBr solutions as you describe and, in fact, have some 
> detailed protocols for this. But I don't believe I've ever seen Br2 in

> our lab. I understand it's commonly used as an etchant for certain 
> semiconductor films. But also have heard some horror stories. I think 
> just about any of the old-time GaAs researchers will have bromine 
> story. See the attached. We did approve dilute HBr solutions for use 
> at the wbgaas station with alcohols, but under very specific 
> conditions (controlled pH, which I understand is key to keeping things

> under control.)
>
> I am honestly not sure we could accommodate handling of liquid bromine

> -- not unless we can come up with a really safe way of doing this. My 
> feeling is that this should be done in a proper fume hood (with 
> explosion sashes and indescructible/inflammable work surfaces), not 
> the wet benches we have at SNF.
>
> But I tend to be conservative on chemical handling. Other SpecMat'ers 
> -- especially those with more experience with this -- what do you
think?
>
> Mary
>
> Mike Wiemer wrote:
>
> Hi Ed & Mary,
>
> Here is a Specmat Request document on Bromine/Methanol etching we want

> to do at the WBGaAs bench.
>
> Ed and I spoke about this over the phone. It seems this is an "already

> approved" chemical in the lab, however, we decided we needed to submit

> a use/procedure request (see attached).
>
> Please let me know when we have the green light, or if there are 
> additional issues we need to address.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Mike
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
> Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
> CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
> Stanford, CA  94305
> (650)723-9980
> mtang at stanford.edu <mailto:mtang at stanford.edu>
> http://snf.stanford.edu


-- 
Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA  94305
(650)723-9980
mtang at stanford.edu
http://snf.stanford.edu



From mtang at stanford.edu  Fri Feb 20 16:12:46 2009
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 16:12:46 -0800
Subject: Bromine request from mwiemer
Message-ID: <499F46FE.3020401@stanford.edu>

Hi all --

I've spoken with Mike about his bromine request.  The OSHA PEL (TWA) is 
0.1 ppm - compare to that of Cl2, which is 0.5 ppm.  However, like most 
things, it can be managed safely (gee, I remember using it as an 
undergrad in organic synthesis lab.)  It's heavy, red gas, so you can 
see it coming. 

But I really don't want to see this in our cleanroom. 

However, Mike has worked with it and is familiar with safety 
precautions.  This is expected to be done only a few times at most as 
his company is building their lab now.

I would like to suggest that we allow Mike (and only Mike) to do this 
etch in one of the exhausted benches in the wafersaw room.  His solution 
is pretty dilute, so he can collect the waste as solvent waste.  He just 
needs to make sure that the bromine kept in the proper storage area, not 
at the bench.  I would also suggest that this be done only during 
working hours (so people will be nearby and he can access the storage 
area -- I don't think we should store this in the personal chemicals in 
the passthrough.)  And that he reserve the wafersaw (and maybe the cmp?) 
to make sure the area is clear.

Does anyone have objections to this?  If not, the first thing I think 
I'll do before informing Mike is to check on the air flows on those 
benches....

Mary

-- 
Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA  94305
(650)723-9980
mtang at stanford.edu
http://snf.stanford.edu



From edmyers at stanford.edu  Wed Feb 25 09:27:46 2009
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:27:46 -0800
Subject: Fwd: RE: lab use enquiry
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090225092555.031ed190@stanford.edu>

All,

Here is a request for use of the solvent bench.  It seems pretty 
innocuous, so I'm wondering why they feel there is a need for a wet 
bench.  My concern is in the solvents they plan on testing and if 
there is temperature involved.  I will follow up with these questions.

Regards,
Ed


>Delivered-To: edmyers at stanford.edu
>Subject: RE: lab use enquiry
>Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 14:29:56 -0800
>X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
>X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
>Thread-Topic: lab use enquiry
>Thread-Index: AcmV6qkpz1XTLowfRIiAoZjQwk73aAAG0cfg
>From: "Yonghao Xiu" <yxiu at sp-incorp.com>
>To: "Ed Myers" <edmyers at stanford.edu>
>
>Dear Mr. Ed Myers,
>Please take a look at the MSDS attached for the epoxy we are going to
>test. Please let me know how I can proceed if it is ok to do it in SNF.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Yonghao
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ed Myers [mailto:edmyers at stanford.edu]
>Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 11:12 AM
>To: Yonghao Xiu
>Subject: Re: lab use enquiry
>
>Yonghao Xiu,
>
>This request is a little generic to fully understand what experiments
>you are planning and especially what materials you will be bring in
>to the facility.  We have both a general purpose solvent and acid
>benches for experiments your requesting.  We are familiar with many
>solvents, but we do look at the health hazards for every material
>which comes in to the facility.  If you chose to work at SNF, then we
>will need to know much more about your materials and experiments to
>make sure they can be done safely.
>
>SNF charges by the hours of equipment usage.  You can find the rates
>at http://snf.stanford.edu/Access/Fees.html.  If you do not have
>papers to prove you are under an SBIR, then your charge rate will be
>as an industrial lab member.  The cap charge for an industrial lab
>member is $7,128 for equipment usage times between 25 and 160
>hours.  If you use less than 25 hours in a month (the first day of
>the month to the last day of the month), your charges will be ~$285 per
>hour.
>
>Regards,
>Ed Myers
>
>At 11:43 AM 2/20/2009, you wrote:
> >Dear Sir,
> >This is Yonghao from Spatial Photonics, Inc. I am currently looking
> >for a lab to test the solubility of epoxy in different solvents
> >(i.e., toluene, ethanol, methanol etc). Do you have spaces for such
> >experiments? If yes, what is the cost? If not, do you know any
> >place/person I can turn to for help?
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Yonghao Xiu
> >
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >Spatial Photonics, Inc.
> >618 West California Ave.
> >Sunnyvale, CA 94086
> >Tel:  1-408-331-4364
> >Fax: 1-408-331-2199
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 8723K8L(E)__081104.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 36399 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20090225/b0fab877/attachment.pdf>

From jtsai at kumetrix.com  Wed Feb 25 10:39:19 2009
From: jtsai at kumetrix.com (Jrhung Tsai)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 10:39:19 -0800
Subject: Qualifying a process plan
Message-ID: <49A59057.5090407@kumetrix.com>

Dear SpecMat officer:
     How are you? This is Jrhung Tsai from Kumetrix Inc. I am planning 
to do silicon fusion bonding at the lab. My process plan is as following:
    1. lithography on the silicon wafer at SNF
    2. DRIE with Alcatel 601 etcher at Kumetrix.
    3. silicon fusion bonding with annealing at thermoco furnace at SNF.
I was advised to talk with SpecMat officers about how to qualify the 
wafers I etch at our company etcher going back to SNF lab. Please advise 
me what I need to prepare for the qualification of doing my process plan 
with SNF lab. Thank you.

Best Regards,
JrHung
Kumetrix Inc.
Tel: 510-476-0950 x 750


From mtang at stanford.edu  Wed Feb 25 12:56:53 2009
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:56:53 -0800
Subject: Qualifying a process plan
In-Reply-To: <49A59057.5090407@kumetrix.com>
References: <49A59057.5090407@kumetrix.com>
Message-ID: <49A5B095.6080902@stanford.edu>

Hi Jr-Hung --

Good to hear from you! 

A few questions...  Are there any other materials on your wafer when 
silicon bonding is done?  Will any oxidation furnace be OK for fusion 
bonding or does it have to be a Thermco? What are the process conditions 
for your fusion bonding?   Is there additional processing at SNF 
following the fusion bonding?  Do you need to align your wafers for 
bonding at SNF?

Mary

Jrhung Tsai wrote:
> Dear SpecMat officer:
>     How are you? This is Jrhung Tsai from Kumetrix Inc. I am planning 
> to do silicon fusion bonding at the lab. My process plan is as following:
>    1. lithography on the silicon wafer at SNF
>    2. DRIE with Alcatel 601 etcher at Kumetrix.
>    3. silicon fusion bonding with annealing at thermoco furnace at SNF.
> I was advised to talk with SpecMat officers about how to qualify the 
> wafers I etch at our company etcher going back to SNF lab. Please 
> advise me what I need to prepare for the qualification of doing my 
> process plan with SNF lab. Thank you.
>
> Best Regards,
> JrHung
> Kumetrix Inc.
> Tel: 510-476-0950 x 750


-- 
Mary X. Tang, Ph.D.
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility
CIS Room 136, Mail Code 4070
Stanford, CA  94305
(650)723-9980
mtang at stanford.edu
http://snf.stanford.edu



From zguo at stanford.edu  Fri Feb 27 06:11:43 2009
From: zguo at stanford.edu (Zhiqiang Guo)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 06:11:43 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Request for bringing new material (Pyralin Polyimide Coating and
 Pyralin Thinner)
In-Reply-To: <1308750736.303511235743768918.JavaMail.root@zm01.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <521001648.303561235743903907.JavaMail.root@zm01.stanford.edu>

Hi, SpecMat Committee members:

I apply for bring two materials into SNF, the two materials are all on MSDS Index at SNF. Because I need your decision then I can place an order, so could you please tell me your decision today, I will really appreciate your early decision?

Please review the detailed information below:

1. Contact information:
    Name: Zhiqiang Guo
    Coral login: zguo
    Phone(email): 650-723-3524 (zguo at stanford.edu)
    PI: Prof. Fu-Kuo Chang (Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University)

2. Material:
   1) Common name: PI-2545
      Trade name: Pyralin(R) Polyimide Coating
      Components CAS numbers: 25038-81-7, 872-50-4, 64742-95-6, 95-63-6, 
      usage: Coating polyimide film

   2) Common name: T-9039
      Trade name: Pyralin Thinner
      Components CAS numbers: 872-50-4, 107-98-2 
      usage: To thin the PI-2545 before coating

3. Vendor/manufacturer info(the same vendor): 
   HD MicroSystems(TM)
   Cheesequake Road
   Parlin
   New Jersey
   USA 08859
   phone: (800)346-5656
   url: http://hdmicrosystems.com/HDMicroSystems/en_US/index.html

4. Reason for request
   In our process, we need to coat an thin polyimide film onto the surface of our device, seems there is no such material for common use in SNF, so I need to bring by myself.

5. Process Flow:
   Start at 5 parts thinner T-9039 to 1 part PI-2545 (Lithosolv). After thinning run a spin coating(Headway2). The soft bake is done on a hot plate by 10' x 130C or convection oven by 30' x 135C (Blue M white). Coat with photoresist(svgcoat 1&2), expose the resist(EV or Karlsuss) and develop(svgdev 1&2). Remove the photoresist by using acetone(lithosolv or wbsolvent).

6. Amont and form:
   1) PI-2545 for 250g, liquid in a bottle.
   2) T-9039 for 1 liter, liquid in bottle.

7. Storage
   1) PI-2545: group B (in refrige 0~4F)
   2) T-9039: group B (Room temperature, below 90F )

8. Disposal
   The liquid waste of those products are to be disposed into the solvent waster container in lito solvent benth. The baked polyimide film can be placed in a ziplock bag disposed in a hazardous waste container in the photolithography area.


If you agree me to bring those two materials, could you please tell me where I can get the label and barcode?

Thanks very much!

Zhiqiang
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PI-2545MSDS.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 53075 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20090227/9027bfee/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: T-9039_MSDS.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 49139 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20090227/9027bfee/attachment-0001.pdf>

From mahnaz at stanford.edu  Fri Feb 27 08:58:50 2009
From: mahnaz at stanford.edu (Mahnaz Mansourpour)
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:58:50 -0800
Subject: [POSSIBLE VIRUS:###] [Fwd: Re: EVG bonder for GaAs?]
Message-ID: <14302_1235753930_49A81BCA_14302_82919_1_49A81BCA.5030004@stanford.edu>


-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Lan Zhang <lanzhangus at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: EVG bonder for GaAs?
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 08:56:47 -0800 (PST)
Size: 4830
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20090227/cbb67f69/attachment.eml>