From mtang at stanford.edu  Tue Apr 13 12:49:27 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:49:27 -0700
Subject: Handbook of Silicon Wafer Cleaning Technology
Message-ID: <4BC4CAC7.5080908@stanford.edu>

Hi all --

I was going to go to the library to get this book, but then realized I'd 
misplaced my ID so wouldn't be able to check it out.  But it turns out 
that this is available online at Stanford's ScienceDirect.  It's Kern's 
complete book, last updated in 2008.  I thought it might be useful for 
us to take a look at this, given our directive to review our 
contamination policies....

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=RefWorkIndexURL&_idxType=TC&_cdi=45075&_refWorkId=5072&_explode=220986000002&_alpha=&_acct=C000012078&_version=1&_userid=145269&md5=89750402f2ae2138e4decd94355a7c9d&refID=220986000002#220986000002

It's a long link -- but you can get to it by searching the title on 
Socrates and following the links to "Availability."

M

-- 
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  Wed Apr 14 16:52:54 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:52:54 -0700
Subject: [Fwd: [POSSIBLE VIRUS:###] [Fwd: FW: HgTe Etch in MRC Etcher]]
Message-ID: <4BC65556.3030600@stanford.edu>

Hi all --

Matthias is a post-doc from David G-G's group and attended this 
afternoon's meeting.  They would like to etch this material in the MRC.  
They have EH&S approval, if I understand correctly, for doing this 
process in an ion mill in another lab.  I'm afraid I never responded to 
this -- did any of you?  (He is not yet a labmember so he can't post to 
SpecMat at snf)

Mary



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[POSSIBLE VIRUS:###] [Fwd: FW: HgTe Etch in MRC Etcher]
Date: 	Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:09:06 -0800
From: 	Nancy Latta <nlatta at stanford.edu>
To: 	SpecMat at 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100414/e8dd057c/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Matthias Baenninger" <mbaennin at stanford.edu>
Subject: FW: HgTe Etch in MRC Etcher
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:06:26 -0800
Size: 9232
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100414/e8dd057c/attachment.eml>

From rissman at stanford.edu  Fri Apr 16 22:27:15 2010
From: rissman at stanford.edu (Paul Rissman)
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 22:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fwd: New Chemicals Request--Gary Cooper
In-Reply-To: <166486.69565.qm@web81802.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1212415350.3305581271482035774.JavaMail.root@zm04.stanford.edu>

Hi All,

Here is a request to use saltwater and surfactants by Dr. Gary Cooper, a new labmember working with Jim Kruger.  He will be using the contact angle measurement instrument.  Because he is still working on paperwork, he doesn't have a coral log in yet.

Paul

----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Gary F Cooper" <ranchcoop7891 at sbcglobal.net>
To: rissman at stanford.edu
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 8:55:42 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: Fw: New Chemicals Request--Gary Cooper



Paul, 
Here is the message I tried to send to specmat. I have since tried to forward it to specmat-owner at snf.stanford.edu, without any response so far. 
Thanks for your assistance, 
Gary 



----- Forwarded Message ---- 
From: Gary F Cooper <ranchcoop7891 at sbcglobal.net> 
To: specmat at snf.stanford.edu 
Cc: Jim Kruger <jimkruger at yahoo.com>; armand neukermans <armandn at sbcglobal.net> 
Sent: Thu, April 15, 2010 2:43:25 PM 
Subject: New Chemicals Request--Gary Cooper 



My name is Gary Cooper, and I am a new labmember (safety walkthrough with Paul on Tuesday, keycard issued, but no Coral logon yet). I will be working with Jim Kruger on the Silver Lining Project, creating and testing new super-hydrophobic surfaces. 
Part of my work is proposed to be testing the effects of selected surfactants on the superhydrophobicity of these surfaces with respect to seawater. Thus I would need to bring seawater samples, prepared outside the lab, containing 100 ppm each of about 16 surfactants, of sufficient size to be testable in the contact angle measuring instrument. This would be the only exposure of anything in the lab to the samples. Since I will need to use new instrument syringes for each sample to avoid cross-contamination, it would be possible to bring the samples into the lab pre-loaded in the syringes with the needles capped off, perhaps in a single plastic toolbox. 
Jim has advised me that sodium is greatly feared by CMOS production people, and so I am writing this preliminary inquiry to see if my proposed work has a chance of being allowed. I don't think that an MSDS exists for seawater, but I do have MSDSs for the surfactants. About 300 micrograms of a given surfactant (mostly non-ionic in nature) would be contained in a syringe, and the excess would be removed from the lab immediately upon completion of measurements, as would be the tested superhydrophobic surface. 
I have 36 years of experience in synthetic organic chemistry, all at Syntex/Roche in Palo Alto, and look forward to a new experience working in the SNF. 
Sincerely, 
Gary F. Cooper, Ph.D. 
650 714-5570 cell 
650 851-0841 home 


From mtang at stanford.edu  Sat Apr 17 10:47:27 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 10:47:27 -0700
Subject: Fwd: New Chemicals Request--Gary Cooper
In-Reply-To: <1212415350.3305581271482035774.JavaMail.root@zm04.stanford.edu>
References: <1212415350.3305581271482035774.JavaMail.root@zm04.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4BC9F42F.2040706@stanford.edu>

Hi all --

I spoke with Jim about this.  Quite honestly, I think the surfactants 
are more of a problem than sodium at the contact angle tool (it's used 
to qualify the HMDS prime.)  But as long as the solutions don't contact 
the syringe and needles there, it should be OK.  So....  I think this is 
fine as long as they use their own syringes and needles -- and LABEL 
them with contact info, date, and contents ("saline" should be fine) and 
the word, "non-toxic."  The syringes can be brought in and out in a 
labeled tool box, but should not be left/stored in the lab, in case 
things get lost/misplaced as they do.

Mary

Paul Rissman wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Here is a request to use saltwater and surfactants by Dr. Gary Cooper, a new labmember working with Jim Kruger.  He will be using the contact angle measurement instrument.  Because he is still working on paperwork, he doesn't have a coral log in yet.
>
> Paul
>
> ----- Forwarded Message -----
> From: "Gary F Cooper" <ranchcoop7891 at sbcglobal.net>
> To: rissman at stanford.edu
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2010 8:55:42 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
> Subject: Fw: New Chemicals Request--Gary Cooper
>
>
>
> Paul, 
> Here is the message I tried to send to specmat. I have since tried to forward it to specmat-owner at snf.stanford.edu, without any response so far. 
> Thanks for your assistance, 
> Gary 
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ---- 
> From: Gary F Cooper <ranchcoop7891 at sbcglobal.net> 
> To: specmat at snf.stanford.edu 
> Cc: Jim Kruger <jimkruger at yahoo.com>; armand neukermans <armandn at sbcglobal.net> 
> Sent: Thu, April 15, 2010 2:43:25 PM 
> Subject: New Chemicals Request--Gary Cooper 
>
>
>
> My name is Gary Cooper, and I am a new labmember (safety walkthrough with Paul on Tuesday, keycard issued, but no Coral logon yet). I will be working with Jim Kruger on the Silver Lining Project, creating and testing new super-hydrophobic surfaces. 
> Part of my work is proposed to be testing the effects of selected surfactants on the superhydrophobicity of these surfaces with respect to seawater. Thus I would need to bring seawater samples, prepared outside the lab, containing 100 ppm each of about 16 surfactants, of sufficient size to be testable in the contact angle measuring instrument. This would be the only exposure of anything in the lab to the samples. Since I will need to use new instrument syringes for each sample to avoid cross-contamination, it would be possible to bring the samples into the lab pre-loaded in the syringes with the needles capped off, perhaps in a single plastic toolbox. 
> Jim has advised me that sodium is greatly feared by CMOS production people, and so I am writing this preliminary inquiry to see if my proposed work has a chance of being allowed. I don't think that an MSDS exists for seawater, but I do have MSDSs for the surfactants. About 300 micrograms of a given surfactant (mostly non-ionic in nature) would be contained in a syringe, and the excess would be removed from the lab immediately upon completion of measurements, as would be the tested superhydrophobic surface. 
> I have 36 years of experience in synthetic organic chemistry, all at Syntex/Roche in Palo Alto, and look forward to a new experience working in the SNF. 
> Sincerely, 
> Gary F. Cooper, Ph.D. 
> 650 714-5570 cell 
> 650 851-0841 home 
>   



From roberth at quswami.com  Mon Apr 19 14:51:37 2010
From: roberth at quswami.com (Robert Huang)
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:51:37 -0700
Subject: additional material...RE: Addition to request to use aluminum
 tri-sec butoxide in SNF...
In-Reply-To: <4B9940E6.5090201@stanford.edu>
References: <3F24868DDBDC7B46B2289E33B58C4CB11F8ACFCDAF@QUSWAMI-DSRV1.quswami.local>
 <4B9940E6.5090201@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <3F24868DDBDC7B46B2289E33B58C4CB11F92B73774@QUSWAMI-DSRV1.quswami.local>

Hi Mary,

I have obtained access to an anaerobic glovebox on-campus at Stanford (also in CIS).  After preparing the solutions in the glovebox, I will transport the chemicals using the transport containers in the stockroom, and the solutions will remain in sealed containers during transport.  Once I'm in SNF, I will then be working at wbsolvent to immerse my wafers in solution heating the solution to 60-70C.  Do you see any other issues or concerns?  If not, I plan to go ahead and order the chemicals.

One final question, if I want to then anneal the wafers up to say 450C, would the specmat committee allow me to put the wafers in the FGA tube?  If not the FGA tube, any other appropriate equipment to do the anneal?

Regards,

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:14 AM
To: Robert Huang
Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: additional material...RE: Addition to request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...

Hi Robert --

Thanks!  The protocol describes preparation of the solutions in dry-IPA 
under anaerobic glovebox conditions.  I'm afraid we do not have a 
glovebox here at SNF -- were you planning to make up your solutions 
here?   I'm also not sure how water/air reactive these chemicals are -- 
the MSDS say that they can form possibly explosive mixtures with water 
-- but then, the MSDS for octadecyl trichlorosilane (OTS) says the same 
and this is used a lot in the lab.  I suspect the chemicals you have are 
similar, but you should check on this with the supplier.  (OTS is 
moisture and air sensitive, but basically means that when you let it sit 
around for a few hours, it turns into useless sand, but if you work 
quickly, you can get a good surface coating down.)

So again, please check with your supplier on recommendations for 
handling and using these chemicals.  We can't provide a glovebox here, 
but you may not need one.  Our primary concern is safety (if these are, 
indeed, explosive, then these are a definite no).  The secondary concern 
is whether air/moisture exposure will adversely affect your experiment.  
Please let us know what your supplier or other knowledgeable source 
recommends. 


Mary

Robert Huang wrote:
> Dear SNF Spec Mat committee:
>  
> Attached is a paper which provides more details on how I plan to use 
> these chemicals.  Look at the 1st paragraph in "Experimental Section" 
> on p. 476 as well as the paragraph on p. 477 that starts "After 
> sintering...".
>  
> Regards,
>  
> Robert
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Robert Huang
> *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 12:46 PM
> *To:* specmat at snf.stanford.edu
> *Subject:* Addition to request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...
>
> Dear SNF Spec Mat committee:
>
>  
>
> In addition to using aluminum tri-sec butoxide from Sigma-Aldrich, I'd 
> like to use the following chemicals from Strem (links to Strem website 
> are given and MSDS sheets attached):
>
>  
>
> 1)      Aluminum s-butoxide - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/93-1308/ 
> (composition is actually the same as aluminum tri-sec butoxide from 
> Sigma Aldrich, my original request)
>
> 2)      Hafnium t-butoxide - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/72-5800/
>
> 3)      Tetramethoxysilane - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/93-1459/
>
> 4)      Zirconium n-butoxide - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/93-4003/
>
>  
>
> As with the aluminum tri-sec butoxide, I would be diluting these 
> materials in dry2-propanol (or methanol) and dipping my 4" wafers into 
> the solution.  Total solution will remain 100-200mL, just enough to 
> immerse my wafers, and I will then process the wafers on innotec and 
> metallica.
>
>  
>
> Please review these chemicals as well and let me know if there are any 
> concerns.
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
>  
>
> Robert
>
>  
>
> *From:* Robert Huang
> *Sent:* Friday, March 05, 2010 9:15 AM
> *To:* specmat at snf.stanford.edu
> *Subject:* request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...
>
>  
>
> Dear SNF Spec Mat committee:
>
>  
>
> I would like to use a new chemical in SNF, aluminum tri-sec butoxide 
> (99.99% trace metal basis), and would be obtaining 5-10mL in solution 
> from Sigma-Aldrich.  Below is a link to their website on this material:
>
>  
>
> http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=511609|ALDRICH&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEY&F=SPEC 
> <http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=511609%7CALDRICH&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO%7CBRAND_KEY&F=SPEC>
>
>  
>
> In addition, I'm attaching the MSDS sheet for this material.
>
>  
>
> My intent is to dilute this material (comes in liquid form) in 
> dry2-propanol, then dip my 4" wafers into the solution.  I presume 
> this processing would need to be done at wbsolvent.  I plan to use 
> 100-200mL of total solution in quartzware, basically whatever is the 
> minimum amount needed that will allow me to immerse my wafers in the 
> solution.  Afterwards I intend to process the wafers further on the 
> innotec and metallica tools.
>
>  
>
> Please let me know if there are any concerns or any special handling 
> requirements.
>
>  
>
> Regards,
>
>  
>
> Robert Huang
>
> roberth at quswami.com <mailto:roberth at quswami.com>
>
> 408-854-0450
>


-- 
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 mbaennin at stanford.edu  Tue Apr 20 21:30:50 2010
From: mbaennin at stanford.edu (Matthias Baenninger)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:30:50 -0700
Subject: HgTe/CdTe in MRC Etcher
Message-ID: <000001cae10b$6c0c5d80$44251880$@edu>

Dear Special Materials Committee,

 

I sent an email about this a while ago but I think it might have been lost
because I was not an SNF labmember at that time and hence not authorized to
email to specmat.

 

I am a postdoc in David Goldhaber-Gordon's group working on mercury
telluride quantum wells. I'd like to inquire about the possibility of
etching our material in the MRC etcher at SNF.

I am aware of the toxicity of HgTe, but would like to point out that the
amount of material we would etch is exceedingly small:

Our devices are no more than 5x5 mm and we would etch a maximum of about
100nm (approximately 90nm Hg_0.3Cd_0.7Te and <10nm HgTe). I.e. the maximum
etched material would be about 2.5e-6 cm^-3 or <20 micrograms. MSDS for HgTe
and CdTe are available on the Stanford ES&H website.

 

The heterostructures are grown on a CdTe(Zn 4%) substrate, however, we would
not etch deep enough to reach the substrate.

 

All other processing (except possibly ebeam lithography, see separate email)
would be done outside SNF.

 

Please let me know, if you need any further information.

 

Many thanks,

Matthias Baenninger

Coral login: mbaennin

 

-----------------------------------

Matthias Baenninger, PhD

Goldhaber-Gordon Group

Stanford University

McCollough Bldg., Room 224

476 Lomita Mall

Stanford

CA 94305-4008

USA

Phone: +1 (650) 723-5892

-----------------------------------

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100420/6f521258/attachment.html>

From mbaennin at stanford.edu  Tue Apr 20 21:31:58 2010
From: mbaennin at stanford.edu (Matthias Baenninger)
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 21:31:58 -0700
Subject: HgTe/CdTe in Raith
Message-ID: <000e01cae10b$94410760$bcc31620$@edu>

Dear Special Materials Committee,

 

In addition to my inquiry about using the MRC etcher (see separate email),
I'd also like to check if I could use the Raith to do ebeam lithography on
HgTe/CdTe devices. The material is identical, i.e. Hg_0.3Cd_0.7Te/HgTe
heterostructures grown on a CdTe (Zn 4%) substrate. Spinning of the resist
and developing would be done externally,  so the device would be covered in
PMMA during the entire process done at SNF.

 

Many thanks,

Matthias Baenninger

Coral login: mbaennin

 

-----------------------------------

Matthias Baenninger, PhD

Goldhaber-Gordon Group

Stanford University

McCollough Bldg., Room 224

476 Lomita Mall

Stanford

CA 94305-4008

USA

Phone: +1 (650) 723-5892

-----------------------------------

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100420/b63a60a2/attachment.html>

From mtang at stanford.edu  Wed Apr 21 07:53:45 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:53:45 -0700
Subject: HgTe/CdTe in Raith
In-Reply-To: <000e01cae10b$94410760$bcc31620$@edu>
References: <000e01cae10b$94410760$bcc31620$@edu>
Message-ID: <4BCF1179.2030405@stanford.edu>

Hi all --

I don't believe there is any reason that he should not be able to 
process these materials in the Raith, since the temperatures would not 
be expected to be very high. It isn't likely the beam would be directed 
at the material itself, but just the resist on top. And I can't imagine 
the vapor pressure would be higher than for resist.

As for the MRC request, I caught part of the conversation between Jim 
McV and Jim K about this -- at that time, I think both were in agreement 
that if they had their own complete, dedicated set of quartzware and 
shields, we could minimize the possible risk of off-gassing in 
subsequent runs. The concern, I believe, was not the individual piece or 
two, but coming up with a broader, workable solution in case this work 
expands or similar materials are introduced. I think the one thing that 
had not been resolved was how to handle the diffusion pump oil (not a 
user issue, but a maintenance staff safety concern.) I suspect the 
safest solution (unless we ban the material from etchers) would be to 
require staff wear PPE while performing pump oil changes.

What does everyone else think?


Mary



Matthias Baenninger wrote:
>
> Dear Special Materials Committee,
>
> In addition to my inquiry about using the MRC etcher (see separate 
> email), I?d also like to check if I could use the Raith to do ebeam 
> lithography on HgTe/CdTe devices. The material is identical, i.e. 
> Hg_0.3Cd_0.7Te/HgTe heterostructures grown on a CdTe (Zn 4%) 
> substrate. Spinning of the resist and developing would be done 
> externally, so the device would be covered in PMMA during the entire 
> process done at SNF.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Matthias Baenninger
>
> Coral login: mbaennin
>
> -----------------------------------
>
> Matthias Baenninger, PhD
>
> Goldhaber-Gordon Group
>
> Stanford University
>
> McCollough Bldg., Room 224
>
> 476 Lomita Mall
>
> Stanford
>
> CA 94305-4008
>
> USA
>
> Phone: +1 (650) 723-5892
>
> -----------------------------------
>


-- 
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  Thu Apr 22 11:49:39 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 11:49:39 -0700
Subject: [Fwd: Using Niobium and Tin in Metalica]
Message-ID: <4BD09A43.9050806@stanford.edu>

Hi all --

Is this OK? Jiquan plans to get his own targets.

Mary

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Using Niobium and Tin in Metalica
Date: 	Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:33:56 -0700
From: 	Jiquan Guo <jqguo at stanford.edu>
To: 	'Mary Tang' <mtang at stanford.edu>
References: 	<4BCC72AC.8090004 at stanford.edu>



Mary:

I?m going to use Niobium(Nb) and Tin(Sn) in Metalica. I?m listing the 
vapor pressure of them below. Both have lower vapor pressure than 
Indium. I?ll get them from KJ Lesker.

http://www.lesker.com/newweb/deposition_materials/depositionmaterials_CertForm.cfm?partno=EJTSNXX501A4

http://www.lesker.com/newweb/deposition_materials/depositionmaterials_CertForm.cfm?partno=EJTNBXX351A2

Thanks.

Jiquan


	

T(K)

	

T(K)

	

T(K)

Vapour pressure(Pa)

	

Nb

	

In

	

Sn

1

	

2942

	

1196

	

1497

10

	

3207

	

1325

	

1657

100

	

3524

	

1485

	

1855

1K

	

3910

	

1690

	

2107

10K

	

4393

	

1962

	

2438

100k

	

5013

	

2340

	

2893

Melting point

	

2750

	

430

	

505

Boiling point

	

5017

	

2345

	

2875

	
	

	
	

	
	

	
	

	
	

	
	

	
	

	
	

	
	

	
	


-- 
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 jperez at snf.stanford.edu  Thu Apr 22 13:54:05 2010
From: jperez at snf.stanford.edu (Jeannie Perez)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:54:05 -0700
Subject: [Fwd: Using Niobium and Tin in Metalica]
In-Reply-To: <4BD09A43.9050806@stanford.edu>
References: <4BD09A43.9050806@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <4BD0B76D.30208@snf.stanford.edu>

Hi,
I do have Tin for Innotec and Metalica. I've never purchased Nb for 
either metal system.
Jeannie

Mary Tang wrote:
> Hi all --
>
> Is this OK? Jiquan plans to get his own targets.
>
> Mary
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:     Using Niobium and Tin in Metalica
> Date:     Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:33:56 -0700
> From:     Jiquan Guo <jqguo at stanford.edu>
> To:     'Mary Tang' <mtang at stanford.edu>
> References:     <4BCC72AC.8090004 at stanford.edu>
>
>
>
> Mary:
>
> I?m going to use Niobium(Nb) and Tin(Sn) in Metalica. I?m listing the 
> vapor pressure of them below. Both have lower vapor pressure than 
> Indium. I?ll get them from KJ Lesker.
>
> http://www.lesker.com/newweb/deposition_materials/depositionmaterials_CertForm.cfm?partno=EJTSNXX501A4 
>
>
> http://www.lesker.com/newweb/deposition_materials/depositionmaterials_CertForm.cfm?partno=EJTNBXX351A2 
>
>
> Thanks.
>
> Jiquan
>
>
>     
>
> T(K)
>
>     
>
> T(K)
>
>     
>
> T(K)
>
> Vapour pressure(Pa)
>
>     
>
> Nb
>
>     
>
> In
>
>     
>
> Sn
>
> 1
>
>     
>
> 2942
>
>     
>
> 1196
>
>     
>
> 1497
>
> 10
>
>     
>
> 3207
>
>     
>
> 1325
>
>     
>
> 1657
>
> 100
>
>     
>
> 3524
>
>     
>
> 1485
>
>     
>
> 1855
>
> 1K
>
>     
>
> 3910
>
>     
>
> 1690
>
>     
>
> 2107
>
> 10K
>
>     
>
> 4393
>
>     
>
> 1962
>
>     
>
> 2438
>
> 100k
>
>     
>
> 5013
>
>     
>
> 2340
>
>     
>
> 2893
>
> Melting point
>
>     
>
> 2750
>
>     
>
> 430
>
>     
>
> 505
>
> Boiling point
>
>     
>
> 5017
>
>     
>
> 2345
>
>     
>
> 2875
>
>     
>     
>
>     
>     
>
>     
>     
>
>     
>     
>
>     
>     
>
>     
>     
>
>     
>     
>
>     
>     
>
>     
>     
>
>     
>     
>
>



From edmyers at stanford.edu  Thu Apr 22 14:41:57 2010
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:41:57 -0700
Subject: [Fwd: Using Niobium and Tin in Metalica]
In-Reply-To: <4BD0B76D.30208@snf.stanford.edu>
References: <4BD09A43.9050806@stanford.edu>
 <4BD0B76D.30208@snf.stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20100422144058.051692c0@stanford.edu>

All,

I believe we have done Nb in the past and it should be OK.  Jeannie, 
it seems like Jiquan volunteered to by his own targets.

Ed

At 01:54 PM 4/22/2010, Jeannie Perez wrote:
>Hi,
>I do have Tin for Innotec and Metalica. I've never purchased Nb for 
>either metal system.
>Jeannie
>
>Mary Tang wrote:
>>Hi all --
>>
>>Is this OK? Jiquan plans to get his own targets.
>>
>>Mary
>>
>>-------- Original Message --------
>>Subject:     Using Niobium and Tin in Metalica
>>Date:     Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:33:56 -0700
>>From:     Jiquan Guo <jqguo at stanford.edu>
>>To:     'Mary Tang' <mtang at stanford.edu>
>>References:     <4BCC72AC.8090004 at stanford.edu>
>>
>>
>>
>>Mary:
>>
>>I'm going to use Niobium(Nb) and Tin(Sn) in Metalica. I'm listing 
>>the vapor pressure of them below. Both have lower vapor pressure 
>>than Indium. I'll get them from KJ Lesker.
>>
>>http://www.lesker.com/newweb/deposition_materials/depositionmaterials_CertForm.cfm?partno=EJTSNXX501A4 
>>
>>
>>http://www.lesker.com/newweb/deposition_materials/depositionmaterials_CertForm.cfm?partno=EJTNBXX351A2 
>>
>>
>>Thanks.
>>
>>Jiquan
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>T(K)
>>
>>
>>
>>T(K)
>>
>>
>>
>>T(K)
>>
>>Vapour pressure(Pa)
>>
>>
>>
>>Nb
>>
>>
>>
>>In
>>
>>
>>
>>Sn
>>
>>1
>>
>>
>>
>>2942
>>
>>
>>
>>1196
>>
>>
>>
>>1497
>>
>>10
>>
>>
>>
>>3207
>>
>>
>>
>>1325
>>
>>
>>
>>1657
>>
>>100
>>
>>
>>
>>3524
>>
>>
>>
>>1485
>>
>>
>>
>>1855
>>
>>1K
>>
>>
>>
>>3910
>>
>>
>>
>>1690
>>
>>
>>
>>2107
>>
>>10K
>>
>>
>>
>>4393
>>
>>
>>
>>1962
>>
>>
>>
>>2438
>>
>>100k
>>
>>
>>
>>5013
>>
>>
>>
>>2340
>>
>>
>>
>>2893
>>
>>Melting point
>>
>>
>>
>>2750
>>
>>
>>
>>430
>>
>>
>>
>>505
>>
>>Boiling point
>>
>>
>>
>>5017
>>
>>
>>
>>2345
>>
>>
>>
>>2875
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>




From edmyers at stanford.edu  Thu Apr 22 14:48:22 2010
From: edmyers at stanford.edu (Ed Myers)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:48:22 -0700
Subject: HgTe/CdTe in Raith
In-Reply-To: <4BCF1179.2030405@stanford.edu>
References: <000e01cae10b$94410760$bcc31620$@edu>
 <4BCF1179.2030405@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20100422144237.05163c90@stanford.edu>

All,

I think we have to figure out how to process these materials.  I'm 
not sure I follow Mary's logic of the Raith process, but if James is 
willing then it should be OK.

As for the MRC, we probably have been too cavalier about what ends up 
in the diffusion pump oil and how it is handled.  I think we should 
talk with the maintenance staff and make sure they understand there 
is more than likely hazardous materials in the oil.  We should also 
look at putting the system under a routine maintenance program.  I'm 
not that familiar with the tool, but it seems like there are some 
consumable components we should change out on a regular basis (and 
consider hazardous).  I had a talk with Jim Kruger and I though he 
was going to write up some suggestions.  One part involved how to do 
a wet clean and add some foil to capture some of the sputtered material.

Irrespective of approving this material, which I think we need to do, 
we should also come up with a better procedure for how to maintain the MRC.

Ed

At 07:53 AM 4/21/2010, Mary Tang wrote:
>Hi all --
>
>I don't believe there is any reason that he should not be able to 
>process these materials in the Raith, since the temperatures would 
>not be expected to be very high. It isn't likely the beam would be 
>directed at the material itself, but just the resist on top. And I 
>can't imagine the vapor pressure would be higher than for resist.
>
>As for the MRC request, I caught part of the conversation between 
>Jim McV and Jim K about this -- at that time, I think both were in 
>agreement that if they had their own complete, dedicated set of 
>quartzware and shields, we could minimize the possible risk of 
>off-gassing in subsequent runs. The concern, I believe, was not the 
>individual piece or two, but coming up with a broader, workable 
>solution in case this work expands or similar materials are 
>introduced. I think the one thing that had not been resolved was how 
>to handle the diffusion pump oil (not a user issue, but a 
>maintenance staff safety concern.) I suspect the safest solution 
>(unless we ban the material from etchers) would be to require staff 
>wear PPE while performing pump oil changes.
>
>What does everyone else think?
>
>
>Mary
>
>
>
>Matthias Baenninger wrote:
>>
>>Dear Special Materials Committee,
>>
>>In addition to my inquiry about using the MRC etcher (see separate 
>>email), I'd also like to check if I could use the Raith to do ebeam 
>>lithography on HgTe/CdTe devices. The material is identical, i.e. 
>>Hg_0.3Cd_0.7Te/HgTe heterostructures grown on a CdTe (Zn 4%) 
>>substrate. Spinning of the resist and developing would be done 
>>externally, so the device would be covered in PMMA during the 
>>entire process done at SNF.
>>
>>Many thanks,
>>
>>Matthias Baenninger
>>
>>Coral login: mbaennin
>>
>>-----------------------------------
>>
>>Matthias Baenninger, PhD
>>
>>Goldhaber-Gordon Group
>>
>>Stanford University
>>
>>McCollough Bldg., Room 224
>>
>>476 Lomita Mall
>>
>>Stanford
>>
>>CA 94305-4008
>>
>>USA
>>
>>Phone: +1 (650) 723-5892
>>
>>-----------------------------------
>
>
>--
>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 mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU  Thu Apr 22 15:26:54 2010
From: mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU (Jim McVittie)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:26:54 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: HgTe/CdTe in Raith
In-Reply-To: <4BCF1179.2030405@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.1004221459360.21376-100000@cis.Stanford.EDU>

Mary,

If it was just a small sample once in a while I doubt there would not be
much of a safety issue. But if we allow it, the use would grow and safety
issues would have to be addressed, so we have to look at the safety issues
up front. At present the all our toxic etch byproducts are volatile so
they go out the exhaust although I think it is best to assume vacuum oils
coming from the etchers are toxic and should be handled as such.  It is
not clear to me that all the etch products from HgTe/CdTe are volatile.  
The etching/sputtering process will likely fragement this material into
its components and other products. Since Hg, Cd and Te are all toxic,
there could be a problem for users opening the chamber and for the techs
working on the chamber and pumps. I doubt we have the time to work out the
details to insure that the system is safe after etch this material. I
suggest they get their own etch system in their lab and let them work out
the procedures for keeping its use safe.

	Jim   

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Mary Tang wrote:

> Hi all --
> 
> I don't believe there is any reason that he should not be able to 
> process these materials in the Raith, since the temperatures would not 
> be expected to be very high. It isn't likely the beam would be directed 
> at the material itself, but just the resist on top. And I can't imagine 
> the vapor pressure would be higher than for resist.
> 
> As for the MRC request, I caught part of the conversation between Jim 
> McV and Jim K about this -- at that time, I think both were in agreement 
> that if they had their own complete, dedicated set of quartzware and 
> shields, we could minimize the possible risk of off-gassing in 
> subsequent runs. The concern, I believe, was not the individual piece or 
> two, but coming up with a broader, workable solution in case this work 
> expands or similar materials are introduced. I think the one thing that 
> had not been resolved was how to handle the diffusion pump oil (not a 
> user issue, but a maintenance staff safety concern.) I suspect the 
> safest solution (unless we ban the material from etchers) would be to 
> require staff wear PPE while performing pump oil changes.
> 
> What does everyone else think?
> 
> 
> Mary
> 
> 
> 
> Matthias Baenninger wrote:
> >
> > Dear Special Materials Committee,
> >
> > In addition to my inquiry about using the MRC etcher (see separate 
> > email), I?d also like to check if I could use the Raith to do ebeam 
> > lithography on HgTe/CdTe devices. The material is identical, i.e. 
> > Hg_0.3Cd_0.7Te/HgTe heterostructures grown on a CdTe (Zn 4%) 
> > substrate. Spinning of the resist and developing would be done 
> > externally, so the device would be covered in PMMA during the entire 
> > process done at SNF.
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Matthias Baenninger
> >
> > Coral login: mbaennin
> >
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> > Matthias Baenninger, PhD
> >
> > Goldhaber-Gordon Group
> >
> > Stanford University
> >
> > McCollough Bldg., Room 224
> >
> > 476 Lomita Mall
> >
> > Stanford
> >
> > CA 94305-4008
> >
> > USA
> >
> > Phone: +1 (650) 723-5892
> >
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
James (Jim) P. McVittie, Ph.D.	        Sr. Research Scientist 
Paul G. Allen Building                  Electrical Engineering
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility       jmcvittie at stanford.edu
Stanford University             	Office: (650) 725-3640
Rm. 336X, 330 Serra Mall		Lab: (650) 721-6834
Stanford, CA 94305-4075			Fax: (650) 723-4659 




From mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU  Thu Apr 22 15:27:24 2010
From: mcvittie at cis.Stanford.EDU (Jim McVittie)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 15:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: HgTe/CdTe in Raith
In-Reply-To: <4BCF1179.2030405@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.1004221459360.21376-100000@cis.Stanford.EDU>

Mary,

If it was just a small sample once in a while I doubt there would not be
much of a safety issue. But if we allow it, the use would grow and safety
issues would have to be addressed, so we have to look at the safety issues
up front. At present the all our toxic etch byproducts are volatile so
they go out the exhaust although I think it is best to assume vacuum oils
coming from the etchers are toxic and should be handled as such.  It is
not clear to me that all the etch products from HgTe/CdTe are volatile.  
The etching/sputtering process will likely fragement this material into
its components and other products. Since Hg, Cd and Te are all toxic,
there could be a problem for users opening the chamber and for the techs
working on the chamber and pumps. I doubt we have the time to work out the
details to insure that the system is safe after etch this material. I
suggest they get their own etch system in their lab and let them work out
the procedures for keeping its use safe.

	Jim   

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Mary Tang wrote:

> Hi all --
> 
> I don't believe there is any reason that he should not be able to 
> process these materials in the Raith, since the temperatures would not 
> be expected to be very high. It isn't likely the beam would be directed 
> at the material itself, but just the resist on top. And I can't imagine 
> the vapor pressure would be higher than for resist.
> 
> As for the MRC request, I caught part of the conversation between Jim 
> McV and Jim K about this -- at that time, I think both were in agreement 
> that if they had their own complete, dedicated set of quartzware and 
> shields, we could minimize the possible risk of off-gassing in 
> subsequent runs. The concern, I believe, was not the individual piece or 
> two, but coming up with a broader, workable solution in case this work 
> expands or similar materials are introduced. I think the one thing that 
> had not been resolved was how to handle the diffusion pump oil (not a 
> user issue, but a maintenance staff safety concern.) I suspect the 
> safest solution (unless we ban the material from etchers) would be to 
> require staff wear PPE while performing pump oil changes.
> 
> What does everyone else think?
> 
> 
> Mary
> 
> 
> 
> Matthias Baenninger wrote:
> >
> > Dear Special Materials Committee,
> >
> > In addition to my inquiry about using the MRC etcher (see separate 
> > email), I?d also like to check if I could use the Raith to do ebeam 
> > lithography on HgTe/CdTe devices. The material is identical, i.e. 
> > Hg_0.3Cd_0.7Te/HgTe heterostructures grown on a CdTe (Zn 4%) 
> > substrate. Spinning of the resist and developing would be done 
> > externally, so the device would be covered in PMMA during the entire 
> > process done at SNF.
> >
> > Many thanks,
> >
> > Matthias Baenninger
> >
> > Coral login: mbaennin
> >
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> > Matthias Baenninger, PhD
> >
> > Goldhaber-Gordon Group
> >
> > Stanford University
> >
> > McCollough Bldg., Room 224
> >
> > 476 Lomita Mall
> >
> > Stanford
> >
> > CA 94305-4008
> >
> > USA
> >
> > Phone: +1 (650) 723-5892
> >
> > -----------------------------------
> >
> 
> 
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------
James (Jim) P. McVittie, Ph.D.	        Sr. Research Scientist 
Paul G. Allen Building                  Electrical Engineering
Stanford Nanofabrication Facility       jmcvittie at stanford.edu
Stanford University             	Office: (650) 725-3640
Rm. 336X, 330 Serra Mall		Lab: (650) 721-6834
Stanford, CA 94305-4075			Fax: (650) 723-4659 




From mtang at stanford.edu  Thu Apr 22 16:11:40 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 16:11:40 -0700
Subject: HgTe/CdTe in Raith
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.1004221459360.21376-100000@cis.Stanford.EDU>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.1004221459360.21376-100000@cis.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <4BD0D7AC.6030909@stanford.edu>

Hi Jim, Ed  --


I also followed up with Jim Kruger who said much the same thing.  He 
brought up the additional concern that even if users had their own 
chimney and quartzware, they would have to store it and clean it in a 
safe place.  And me, I'm worried about the pump oil. 

As for the Raith, James has been routinely allowing II-VI compounds in.  
Rationale is that the samples are largely cooled, and maybe only locally 
heated where the beam strikes -- and that's going to be covered in 
resist anyway -- and as Paul has indicated, the total energy is 
extremely low.  James says these materials were fairly routinely 
processed in ebeam at HP (they even deposited them in a sputter tool, 
during the last few days before a monthly pm.)


I'd like to propose that we OK this for the Raith.  As for the MRC, I 
would suggest we voice these concerns and offer to help them -- advice 
on getting an etcher for their own lab, due diligence with EH&S, 
alternatives on campus, etc.


What do you think?


Mary








Jim McVittie wrote:
> Mary,
>
> If it was just a small sample once in a while I doubt there would not be
> much of a safety issue. But if we allow it, the use would grow and safety
> issues would have to be addressed, so we have to look at the safety issues
> up front. At present the all our toxic etch byproducts are volatile so
> they go out the exhaust although I think it is best to assume vacuum oils
> coming from the etchers are toxic and should be handled as such.  It is
> not clear to me that all the etch products from HgTe/CdTe are volatile.  
> The etching/sputtering process will likely fragement this material into
> its components and other products. Since Hg, Cd and Te are all toxic,
> there could be a problem for users opening the chamber and for the techs
> working on the chamber and pumps. I doubt we have the time to work out the
> details to insure that the system is safe after etch this material. I
> suggest they get their own etch system in their lab and let them work out
> the procedures for keeping its use safe.
>
> 	Jim   
>
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Mary Tang wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi all --
>>
>> I don't believe there is any reason that he should not be able to 
>> process these materials in the Raith, since the temperatures would not 
>> be expected to be very high. It isn't likely the beam would be directed 
>> at the material itself, but just the resist on top. And I can't imagine 
>> the vapor pressure would be higher than for resist.
>>
>> As for the MRC request, I caught part of the conversation between Jim 
>> McV and Jim K about this -- at that time, I think both were in agreement 
>> that if they had their own complete, dedicated set of quartzware and 
>> shields, we could minimize the possible risk of off-gassing in 
>> subsequent runs. The concern, I believe, was not the individual piece or 
>> two, but coming up with a broader, workable solution in case this work 
>> expands or similar materials are introduced. I think the one thing that 
>> had not been resolved was how to handle the diffusion pump oil (not a 
>> user issue, but a maintenance staff safety concern.) I suspect the 
>> safest solution (unless we ban the material from etchers) would be to 
>> require staff wear PPE while performing pump oil changes.
>>
>> What does everyone else think?
>>
>>
>> Mary
>>
>>
>>
>> Matthias Baenninger wrote:
>>     
>>> Dear Special Materials Committee,
>>>
>>> In addition to my inquiry about using the MRC etcher (see separate 
>>> email), I'd also like to check if I could use the Raith to do ebeam 
>>> lithography on HgTe/CdTe devices. The material is identical, i.e. 
>>> Hg_0.3Cd_0.7Te/HgTe heterostructures grown on a CdTe (Zn 4%) 
>>> substrate. Spinning of the resist and developing would be done 
>>> externally, so the device would be covered in PMMA during the entire 
>>> process done at SNF.
>>>
>>> Many thanks,
>>>
>>> Matthias Baenninger
>>>
>>> Coral login: mbaennin
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------
>>>
>>> Matthias Baenninger, PhD
>>>
>>> Goldhaber-Gordon Group
>>>
>>> Stanford University
>>>
>>> McCollough Bldg., Room 224
>>>
>>> 476 Lomita Mall
>>>
>>> Stanford
>>>
>>> CA 94305-4008
>>>
>>> USA
>>>
>>> Phone: +1 (650) 723-5892
>>>
>>> -----------------------------------
>>>
>>>       
>>
>>     
>
>   


-- 
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/20100422/1aa47877/attachment.html>

From roberth at quswami.com  Mon Apr 26 07:38:36 2010
From: roberth at quswami.com (Robert Huang)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 07:38:36 -0700
Subject: final list of metal alkoxides ordered + all MSDS...
Message-ID: <6069B68202143B46A7CCC4CF2B81827A1F4C7A0BAF@QUSWAMI-DSRV1.quswami.local>

Hi Mary, SNF Specmat Committee,

I decided to order all the chemicals from Sigma Aldrich, including the anhydrous methanol and propanol that I will be using.  Below is the full list of what I'll be using, and I'm attaching all MSDS sheets here so that you have them in a single location.

Item #  Description     # of Units
341436  Tetramethyl orthosilicate - 25g 1
333948  Zirconium butoxide - 100ml      1
667943  Hafnium n-butoxide - 5g 2
201073  Aluminum tri-sec butoxide - 5g  1
322415  Dry Methanol - 100ml    1
278475  Dry2 Propanol - 100ml   3

Regards,

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Huang
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 2:52 PM
To: 'Mary Tang'
Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu
Subject: RE: additional material...RE: Addition to request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...

Hi Mary,

I have obtained access to an anaerobic glovebox on-campus at Stanford (also in CIS).  After preparing the solutions in the glovebox, I will transport the chemicals using the transport containers in the stockroom, and the solutions will remain in sealed containers during transport.  Once I'm in SNF, I will then be working at wbsolvent to immerse my wafers in solution heating the solution to 60-70C.  Do you see any other issues or concerns?  If not, I plan to go ahead and order the chemicals.

One final question, if I want to then anneal the wafers up to say 450C, would the specmat committee allow me to put the wafers in the FGA tube?  If not the FGA tube, any other appropriate equipment to do the anneal?

Regards,

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:14 AM
To: Robert Huang
Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: additional material...RE: Addition to request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...

Hi Robert --

Thanks!  The protocol describes preparation of the solutions in dry-IPA
under anaerobic glovebox conditions.  I'm afraid we do not have a
glovebox here at SNF -- were you planning to make up your solutions
here?   I'm also not sure how water/air reactive these chemicals are --
the MSDS say that they can form possibly explosive mixtures with water
-- but then, the MSDS for octadecyl trichlorosilane (OTS) says the same
and this is used a lot in the lab.  I suspect the chemicals you have are
similar, but you should check on this with the supplier.  (OTS is
moisture and air sensitive, but basically means that when you let it sit
around for a few hours, it turns into useless sand, but if you work
quickly, you can get a good surface coating down.)

So again, please check with your supplier on recommendations for
handling and using these chemicals.  We can't provide a glovebox here,
but you may not need one.  Our primary concern is safety (if these are,
indeed, explosive, then these are a definite no).  The secondary concern
is whether air/moisture exposure will adversely affect your experiment.
Please let us know what your supplier or other knowledgeable source
recommends.


Mary

Robert Huang wrote:
> Dear SNF Spec Mat committee:
>
> Attached is a paper which provides more details on how I plan to use
> these chemicals.  Look at the 1st paragraph in "Experimental Section"
> on p. 476 as well as the paragraph on p. 477 that starts "After
> sintering...".
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Robert Huang
> *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 12:46 PM
> *To:* specmat at snf.stanford.edu
> *Subject:* Addition to request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...
>
> Dear SNF Spec Mat committee:
>
>
>
> In addition to using aluminum tri-sec butoxide from Sigma-Aldrich, I?d
> like to use the following chemicals from Strem (links to Strem website
> are given and MSDS sheets attached):
>
>
>
> 1)      Aluminum s-butoxide - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/93-1308/
> (composition is actually the same as aluminum tri-sec butoxide from
> Sigma Aldrich, my original request)
>
> 2)      Hafnium t-butoxide - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/72-5800/
>
> 3)      Tetramethoxysilane - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/93-1459/
>
> 4)      Zirconium n-butoxide - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/93-4003/
>
>
>
> As with the aluminum tri-sec butoxide, I would be diluting these
> materials in dry2-propanol (or methanol) and dipping my 4? wafers into
> the solution.  Total solution will remain 100-200mL, just enough to
> immerse my wafers, and I will then process the wafers on innotec and
> metallica.
>
>
>
> Please review these chemicals as well and let me know if there are any
> concerns.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Huang
> *Sent:* Friday, March 05, 2010 9:15 AM
> *To:* specmat at snf.stanford.edu
> *Subject:* request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...
>
>
>
> Dear SNF Spec Mat committee:
>
>
>
> I would like to use a new chemical in SNF, aluminum tri-sec butoxide
> (99.99% trace metal basis), and would be obtaining 5-10mL in solution
> from Sigma-Aldrich.  Below is a link to their website on this material:
>
>
>
> http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=511609|ALDRICH&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEY&F=SPEC
> <http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=511609%7CALDRICH&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO%7CBRAND_KEY&F=SPEC>
>
>
>
> In addition, I?m attaching the MSDS sheet for this material.
>
>
>
> My intent is to dilute this material (comes in liquid form) in
> dry2-propanol, then dip my 4? wafers into the solution.  I presume
> this processing would need to be done at wbsolvent.  I plan to use
> 100-200mL of total solution in quartzware, basically whatever is the
> minimum amount needed that will allow me to immerse my wafers in the
> solution.  Afterwards I intend to process the wafers further on the
> innotec and metallica tools.
>
>
>
> Please let me know if there are any concerns or any special handling
> requirements.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Robert Huang
>
> roberth at quswami.com <mailto:roberth at quswami.com>
>
> 408-854-0450
>


--
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/20100426/9621db68/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Tetramethylorthosilicate_SA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 35700 bytes
Desc: Tetramethylorthosilicate_SA.pdf
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100426/9621db68/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: zirconium butoxide_SA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 102000 bytes
Desc: zirconium butoxide_SA.pdf
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100426/9621db68/attachment-0001.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: hafnium n-butoxide_SA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 54890 bytes
Desc: hafnium n-butoxide_SA.pdf
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100426/9621db68/attachment-0002.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: al-tri-sec-butoxide-97_SA.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 30600 bytes
Desc: al-tri-sec-butoxide-97_SA.pdf
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100426/9621db68/attachment-0003.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: methanol.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 33150 bytes
Desc: methanol.pdf
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100426/9621db68/attachment-0004.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 2-propanol.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 33150 bytes
Desc: 2-propanol.pdf
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100426/9621db68/attachment-0005.pdf>

From mtang at stanford.edu  Mon Apr 26 08:18:27 2010
From: mtang at stanford.edu (Mary Tang)
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:18:27 -0700
Subject: final list of metal alkoxides ordered + all MSDS...
In-Reply-To: <6069B68202143B46A7CCC4CF2B81827A1F4C7A0BAF@QUSWAMI-DSRV1.quswami.local>
References: <6069B68202143B46A7CCC4CF2B81827A1F4C7A0BAF@QUSWAMI-DSRV1.quswami.local>
Message-ID: <4BD5AEC3.6060306@stanford.edu>

Thanks Robert --

Just a few questions:  are there environmental constraints on your 
anneal?  (Inert gas?  Temperature control?  Cleanliness -- where do your 
wafers go afterwards?)

Also, is there a recommended hot plate pre-treatment before the anneal? 

And how long is your anneal?

fga2 is one option.  We have a Thermolyne muffle furnace outside the lab 
(no inert gas, but faster ramp/dwell/cool.)   It might be a good to try 
to minimize organics off-gasing with a prebake, which is often done for 
spin-on products. 


Mary

Robert Huang wrote:
> Hi Mary, SNF Specmat Committee,
>
> I decided to order all the chemicals from Sigma Aldrich, including the 
> anhydrous methanol and propanol that I will be using.  Below is the 
> full list of what I'll be using, and I'm attaching all MSDS sheets 
> here so that you have them in a single location.
>
> Item # 	Description 	# of Units
> 341436 	*Tetramethyl orthosilicate - 25g* 	1
> 333948 	*Zirconium butoxide - 100ml* 	1
> 667943 	*Hafnium n-butoxide - 5g* 	2
> 201073 	*Aluminum tri-sec butoxide - 5g* 	1
> 322415 	*Dry Methanol - 100ml* 	1
> 278475 	*Dry2 Propanol - 100ml* 	3
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Huang
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 2:52 PM
> To: 'Mary Tang'
> Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu
> Subject: RE: additional material...RE: Addition to request to use 
> aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...
>
> Hi Mary,
>
> I have obtained access to an anaerobic glovebox on-campus at Stanford 
> (also in CIS).  After preparing the solutions in the glovebox, I will 
> transport the chemicals using the transport containers in the 
> stockroom, and the solutions will remain in sealed containers during 
> transport.  Once I'm in SNF, I will then be working at wbsolvent to 
> immerse my wafers in solution heating the solution to 60-70C.  Do you 
> see any other issues or concerns?  If not, I plan to go ahead and 
> order the chemicals.
>
> One final question, if I want to then anneal the wafers up to say 
> 450C, would the specmat committee allow me to put the wafers in the 
> FGA tube?  If not the FGA tube, any other appropriate equipment to do 
> the anneal?
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:14 AM
> To: Robert Huang
> Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu
> Subject: Re: additional material...RE: Addition to request to use 
> aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...
>
> Hi Robert --
>
> Thanks!  The protocol describes preparation of the solutions in dry-IPA
> under anaerobic glovebox conditions.  I'm afraid we do not have a
> glovebox here at SNF -- were you planning to make up your solutions
> here?   I'm also not sure how water/air reactive these chemicals are --
> the MSDS say that they can form possibly explosive mixtures with water
> -- but then, the MSDS for octadecyl trichlorosilane (OTS) says the same
> and this is used a lot in the lab.  I suspect the chemicals you have are
> similar, but you should check on this with the supplier.  (OTS is
> moisture and air sensitive, but basically means that when you let it sit
> around for a few hours, it turns into useless sand, but if you work
> quickly, you can get a good surface coating down.)
>
> So again, please check with your supplier on recommendations for
> handling and using these chemicals.  We can't provide a glovebox here,
> but you may not need one.  Our primary concern is safety (if these are,
> indeed, explosive, then these are a definite no).  The secondary concern
> is whether air/moisture exposure will adversely affect your experiment. 
> Please let us know what your supplier or other knowledgeable source
> recommends.
>
>
> Mary
>
> Robert Huang wrote:
> > Dear SNF Spec Mat committee:
> > 
> > Attached is a paper which provides more details on how I plan to use
> > these chemicals.  Look at the 1st paragraph in "Experimental Section"
> > on p. 476 as well as the paragraph on p. 477 that starts "After
> > sintering...".
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Robert
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Robert Huang
> > *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 12:46 PM
> > *To:* specmat at snf.stanford.edu
> > *Subject:* Addition to request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in 
> SNF...
> >
> > Dear SNF Spec Mat committee:
> >
> > 
> >
> > In addition to using aluminum tri-sec butoxide from Sigma-Aldrich, I?d
> > like to use the following chemicals from Strem (links to Strem website
> > are given and MSDS sheets attached):
> >
> > 
> >
> > 1)      Aluminum s-butoxide - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/93-1308/
> > (composition is actually the same as aluminum tri-sec butoxide from
> > Sigma Aldrich, my original request)
> >
> > 2)      Hafnium t-butoxide - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/72-5800/
> >
> > 3)      Tetramethoxysilane - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/93-1459/
> >
> > 4)      Zirconium n-butoxide - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/93-4003/
> >
> > 
> >
> > As with the aluminum tri-sec butoxide, I would be diluting these
> > materials in dry2-propanol (or methanol) and dipping my 4? wafers into
> > the solution.  Total solution will remain 100-200mL, just enough to
> > immerse my wafers, and I will then process the wafers on innotec and
> > metallica.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Please review these chemicals as well and let me know if there are any
> > concerns.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 
> >
> > Robert
> >
> > 
> >
> > *From:* Robert Huang
> > *Sent:* Friday, March 05, 2010 9:15 AM
> > *To:* specmat at snf.stanford.edu
> > *Subject:* request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...
> >
> > 
> >
> > Dear SNF Spec Mat committee:
> >
> > 
> >
> > I would like to use a new chemical in SNF, aluminum tri-sec butoxide
> > (99.99% trace metal basis), and would be obtaining 5-10mL in solution
> > from Sigma-Aldrich.  Below is a link to their website on this material:
> >
> > 
> >
> > 
> http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=511609|ALDRICH&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEY&F=SPEC 
>
> > 
> <http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=511609%7CALDRICH&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO%7CBRAND_KEY&F=SPEC>
> >
> > 
> >
> > In addition, I?m attaching the MSDS sheet for this material.
> >
> > 
> >
> > My intent is to dilute this material (comes in liquid form) in
> > dry2-propanol, then dip my 4? wafers into the solution.  I presume
> > this processing would need to be done at wbsolvent.  I plan to use
> > 100-200mL of total solution in quartzware, basically whatever is the
> > minimum amount needed that will allow me to immerse my wafers in the
> > solution.  Afterwards I intend to process the wafers further on the
> > innotec and metallica tools.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Please let me know if there are any concerns or any special handling
> > requirements.
> >
> > 
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > 
> >
> > Robert Huang
> >
> > roberth at quswami.com <mailto:roberth at quswami.com>
> >
> > 408-854-0450
> >
>
>
> -- 
> 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 


-- 
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/20100426/a4880f37/attachment.html>

From roberth at quswami.com  Fri Apr 30 13:46:30 2010
From: roberth at quswami.com (Robert Huang)
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 13:46:30 -0700
Subject: final list of metal alkoxides ordered + all MSDS...
In-Reply-To: <4BD5AEC3.6060306@stanford.edu>
References: <6069B68202143B46A7CCC4CF2B81827A1F4C7A0BAF@QUSWAMI-DSRV1.quswami.local>,<4BD5AEC3.6060306@stanford.edu>
Message-ID: <3F24868DDBDC7B46B2289E33B58C4CB11F993B4950@QUSWAMI-DSRV1.quswami.local>

 Hi Mary,

After further literature search, I have decided not to do an anneal after immersion of my wafers in these metal alkoxide solutions.  To be clear, here are the details of the processing I intend to do, including the full set of steps after the metal deposition via these liquid solutions:


1)      "Dip" full 4" wafers into these metal alkoxide/solvent solutions at wbsolvent.  I plan to use the hotplates and my own glassware to heat the solutions to 70C.  The deposition times will be on the order of minutes, and I'll stay with the wafers/solutions at all times throughout processing.

2)      Removal from solution, then rinse at wbsolvent with appropriate solvent (either propanol or methanol), followed by N2 dry

3)      DI water rinse at wbgeneral followed by N2 dry

4)      Metal deposition on metallica

5)      Metal deposition on innotec

That's it.  Let me know if there are any other concerns.  At the moment, I plan to process wafers through this sequence in mid-May timeframe.

Regards,

Robert
________________________________
From: Mary Tang [mtang at stanford.edu]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 8:18 AM
To: Robert Huang
Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu
Subject: Re: final list of metal alkoxides ordered + all MSDS...
Thanks Robert --

Just a few questions:  are there environmental constraints on your anneal?  (Inert gas?  Temperature control?  Cleanliness -- where do your wafers go afterwards?)

Also, is there a recommended hot plate pre-treatment before the anneal?

And how long is your anneal?

fga2 is one option.  We have a Thermolyne muffle furnace outside the lab (no inert gas, but faster ramp/dwell/cool.)   It might be a good to try to minimize organics off-gasing with a prebake, which is often done for spin-on products.


Mary

Robert Huang wrote:
Hi Mary, SNF Specmat Committee,

I decided to order all the chemicals from Sigma Aldrich, including the anhydrous methanol and propanol that I will be using.  Below is the full list of what I'll be using, and I'm attaching all MSDS sheets here so that you have them in a single location.
Item #

Description

# of Units

341436

Tetramethyl orthosilicate - 25g

1

333948

Zirconium butoxide - 100ml

1

667943

Hafnium n-butoxide - 5g

2

201073

Aluminum tri-sec butoxide - 5g

1

322415

Dry Methanol - 100ml

1

278475

Dry2 Propanol - 100ml

3


Regards,

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: Robert Huang
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2010 2:52 PM
To: 'Mary Tang'
Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu<mailto:specmat at snf.stanford.edu>
Subject: RE: additional material...RE: Addition to request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...

Hi Mary,

I have obtained access to an anaerobic glovebox on-campus at Stanford (also in CIS).  After preparing the solutions in the glovebox, I will transport the chemicals using the transport containers in the stockroom, and the solutions will remain in sealed containers during transport.  Once I'm in SNF, I will then be working at wbsolvent to immerse my wafers in solution heating the solution to 60-70C.  Do you see any other issues or concerns?  If not, I plan to go ahead and order the chemicals.

One final question, if I want to then anneal the wafers up to say 450C, would the specmat committee allow me to put the wafers in the FGA tube?  If not the FGA tube, any other appropriate equipment to do the anneal?

Regards,

Robert

-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Tang [mailto:mtang at stanford.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 11:14 AM
To: Robert Huang
Cc: specmat at snf.stanford.edu<mailto:specmat at snf.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: additional material...RE: Addition to request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...

Hi Robert --

Thanks!  The protocol describes preparation of the solutions in dry-IPA
under anaerobic glovebox conditions.  I'm afraid we do not have a
glovebox here at SNF -- were you planning to make up your solutions
here?   I'm also not sure how water/air reactive these chemicals are --
the MSDS say that they can form possibly explosive mixtures with water
-- but then, the MSDS for octadecyl trichlorosilane (OTS) says the same
and this is used a lot in the lab.  I suspect the chemicals you have are
similar, but you should check on this with the supplier.  (OTS is
moisture and air sensitive, but basically means that when you let it sit
around for a few hours, it turns into useless sand, but if you work
quickly, you can get a good surface coating down.)

So again, please check with your supplier on recommendations for
handling and using these chemicals.  We can't provide a glovebox here,
but you may not need one.  Our primary concern is safety (if these are,
indeed, explosive, then these are a definite no).  The secondary concern
is whether air/moisture exposure will adversely affect your experiment.
Please let us know what your supplier or other knowledgeable source
recommends.


Mary

Robert Huang wrote:
> Dear SNF Spec Mat committee:
>
> Attached is a paper which provides more details on how I plan to use
> these chemicals.  Look at the 1st paragraph in "Experimental Section"
> on p. 476 as well as the paragraph on p. 477 that starts "After
> sintering...".
>
> Regards,
>
> Robert
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Robert Huang
> *Sent:* Monday, March 08, 2010 12:46 PM
> *To:* specmat at snf.stanford.edu<mailto:specmat at snf.stanford.edu>
> *Subject:* Addition to request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...
>
> Dear SNF Spec Mat committee:
>
>
>
> In addition to using aluminum tri-sec butoxide from Sigma-Aldrich, I'd
> like to use the following chemicals from Strem (links to Strem website
> are given and MSDS sheets attached):
>
>
>
> 1)      Aluminum s-butoxide - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/93-1308/
> (composition is actually the same as aluminum tri-sec butoxide from
> Sigma Aldrich, my original request)
>
> 2)      Hafnium t-butoxide - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/72-5800/
>
> 3)      Tetramethoxysilane - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/93-1459/
>
> 4)      Zirconium n-butoxide - http://www.strem.com/catalog/v/93-4003/
>
>
>
> As with the aluminum tri-sec butoxide, I would be diluting these
> materials in dry2-propanol (or methanol) and dipping my 4" wafers into
> the solution.  Total solution will remain 100-200mL, just enough to
> immerse my wafers, and I will then process the wafers on innotec and
> metallica.
>
>
>
> Please review these chemicals as well and let me know if there are any
> concerns.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> *From:* Robert Huang
> *Sent:* Friday, March 05, 2010 9:15 AM
> *To:* specmat at snf.stanford.edu<mailto:specmat at snf.stanford.edu>
> *Subject:* request to use aluminum tri-sec butoxide in SNF...
>
>
>
> Dear SNF Spec Mat committee:
>
>
>
> I would like to use a new chemical in SNF, aluminum tri-sec butoxide
> (99.99% trace metal basis), and would be obtaining 5-10mL in solution
> from Sigma-Aldrich.  Below is a link to their website on this material:
>
>
>
> http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=511609|ALDRICH&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO|BRAND_KEY&F=SPEC
> <http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=511609%7CALDRICH&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO%7CBRAND_KEY&F=SPEC><http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/ProductDetail.do?lang=en&N4=511609%7CALDRICH&N5=SEARCH_CONCAT_PNO%7CBRAND_KEY&F=SPEC>
>
>
>
> In addition, I'm attaching the MSDS sheet for this material.
>
>
>
> My intent is to dilute this material (comes in liquid form) in
> dry2-propanol, then dip my 4" wafers into the solution.  I presume
> this processing would need to be done at wbsolvent.  I plan to use
> 100-200mL of total solution in quartzware, basically whatever is the
> minimum amount needed that will allow me to immerse my wafers in the
> solution.  Afterwards I intend to process the wafers further on the
> innotec and metallica tools.
>
>
>
> Please let me know if there are any concerns or any special handling
> requirements.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Robert Huang
>
> roberth at quswami.com<mailto:roberth at quswami.com> <mailto:roberth at quswami.com><mailto:roberth at quswami.com>
>
> 408-854-0450
>


--
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<mailto:mtang at stanford.edu>

http://snf.stanford.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://snf.stanford.edu/pipermail/specmat/attachments/20100430/828a3c96/attachment.html>