the costs of photoresist coating using spin, spray, and electrodeposition
P. Pham and Pasqualina M. Sarro, Delft University of Technology;
and Jurgen Bertens and Lucas van den Brekel, Besi Plating
cost of the photoresist coating process
is a major component of the cost of ownership in semiconductor manufacturing.
Minimizing the volume of resist used in coating applications results
in lower manufacturing costs by reducing both chemical consumption and
waste disposal costs. Estimating the amount of resist consumed and understanding
the parameters involved in the process help fabs to calculate the coating
article compares the costs of spin, spray, and electrodeposition (ED)
photoresist coating methods, which are used to form the thick (3–10-Ám)
resist layers that are often required to fabricate 3-D microstructures,
radio-frequency MEMS devices, and advanced packaging.1,2
To evaluate the costs of photoresist consumed in such processes, a figure
of merit is introduced that defines resist- coating efficiency. The
efficiency values cited here were derived from tests on 100-mm silicon
wafers. The article estimates resist costs only. It does not consider
equipment- and maintenance-related costs.
has two main components: solids and solvent (or aqueous solution, in
the case of ED resist). Only the solids contribute to the formation
of resist film. They are also the largest contributor to overall resist
costs. Moreover, during coating, only a portion of the resist is deposited
on the wafer—the rest is wasted material. Coating efficiency (CE)
is based on the amount of resist that is effectively deposited on the
wafer. A schematic diagram illustrating the coating efficiency of spin,
spray, and ED resist coating methods is presented in Figure
is the ratio of resist deposited on the substrate to the total volume
used. Representing the coating efficiency of each coating method, it
is defined as follows:
efficiency is primarily a function of the coating method or equipment
used and the size of substrate. More-efficient use of materials helps
to reduce manufacturing costs. In general, the CE of liquid spin coating
is approximately 2–5%, while the CE of spray coating is 15–40%
and the CE of electrodeposition coating is 60–95%. CE values vary
depending on system design and mode of operation.
Coating. The greatest disadvantage of spin coating is its low
coating efficiency. Since as much as 95% of the material is spun off
the wafer during the coating process, waste as well as production costs
must be considered. For example, the disposal cost of resist waste is
about 0.45 euro per liter, so that the overall cost of using the spin-coating
method is 160% that of the resist actually consumed.3
volume of material consumed in a standard (1–2-Ám) spin process
is 4 ml. However, to deposit resist layers thicker than 4 Ám or layers
over high topography (as in MEMS applications), the volume of material
required is even higher. Based on supplier production-line data, 3.5–5
ml of resist is required to coat a 100-mm wafer with a target thickness
up to 10 Ám.
general, the thickness of a spin-coated layer depends solely on the
spinning speed and the viscosity of the resist. However, when high-viscosity
material is used, the amount required is even higher to obtain a good
coat. The spin-coating tests described here used thick AZ4562 resist
from Clariant (now AZ Electronic Materials, Somerville, NJ), which has
a solids content of 39.5%.
Coating. The spray-coating tests for this study were performed
on a 101 system from EV Group (Schärding, Austria). The tool's
atomizer nozzle is designed to produce micron-sized droplets of resist.
During the spray process, the wafer is rotated at a low, angular velocity
while the spray nozzle moves across the wafer surface. Dispense volume
can be selected to achieve different film thicknesses. The spray-coating
method has more process variables to influence the resist thickness
than the spin-coating method. The thickness of the resist layer deposited
using the EVG 101 system is determined using the following formula:4
d = resist thickness (Ám), c = the solids content
of the resist solution (%), k = the distance of one scan segment
(steps), CE = coating efficiency (%), S = wafer area (cm2),
= volume dispensed (Ál/sec), and vn = the scanning speed of the spray
head in segment n (steps/sec) (n = 1, 2,...,15). The value
comes from the unit converter.
formula can also be used to calculate coating costs by determining the
volume of resist consumed. In that case, the resist thickness achieved
through spray coating is derived from the following equation:
d is the film thickness, V is the volume of resist
on the wafer, and S is the wafer area.
main factors affecting CE are the size and geometry of the substrate,
equipment maintenance needs, and the specific spray method and tool
configuration, such as atomizing air pressure, spray head, etc. In general,
the CE of a specific coating tool can be determined by practical data
or provided by the equipment supplier. Thus, the volume of resist on
the wafer is calculated as follows:
X c X CE
is the actual total volume of material consumed (in contrast to the
volume of resist deposited on the wafer).
the first and second equations are combined, the total volume of resist
can be expressed as follows:
= Vdis X
is the dispensed volume of resist (Ál/sec), which can be controlled
by the resist pump and the software, and tsc is the total scanning time
of the spray head, which sweeps from one side of the wafer to the other.
The scanning time is determined by the scanning speed of the spray head.
the experiment presented here, the scanning time was fixed at 60 seconds
for a specific coating recipe. Practical data showed that the spray
tool's CE was about 20%. The wafer area on a 100-mm wafer is 78.5 cm2.
When the second, third, and fourth equations are combined, the consumed
resist can be calculated as followed:
equation is used to determine the volume of resist consumed for known
target film thicknesses. Using it, the investigators were able to calculate
the number of wafers that were coated and the cost of resist at different
film thicknesses. In Figure 2, the relation between the volume of resist
consumed and the resist thickness is plotted for solutions with solids
contents ranging from 5 to 15%. In fact, CE is only an approximation
value. Operator skill and tool maintenance are very important for achieving
stable CE values.
2: Volume of photoresist consumed versus resist film thickness.
the spray coater in this experiment can use only low-viscosity solutions
(<20 cSt) or those with low solids content, thick resist layers can
be formed using solutions with a low solids content. By using solutions
with a low solids content, device manufacturers can reduce resist costs
because solids are the expensive part of the solution.
experiments reported in this article compared two types of resist. The
first, AZ 4823, is a commercial spray-coating material with a solids
content of 15%. The second, a version of AZ4562 diluted in methylethyl
ketone (MEK), is used to coat high-topography wafers and has a solids
content of 10%. The solids content in 1 L of diluted AZ4562 solution
is 75% less than that in 1 L of regular AZ4562.
3 shows the number of wafers coated per liter of resist using a spin
coater with AZ4562 and a spray coater with either AZ4823 or dilute AZ4562.
The volume of resist used for each wafer in the spin-coating process
was 3 ml to achieve a target thickness of 3 Ám and 4–4.5 ml to
achieve a thicker layer. The resist volume used in the spray coater
was determined using the fifth equation. While AZ4823 in the spray system
coated the largest number of wafers per liter, AZ4562 in the spin system
coated the lowest. (The former was 2–3 times larger than the latter.)
3: Number of wafers coated using 1 L of photoresist on spin and
cost of resist used to achieve different film thicknesses is plotted
in Figure 4. Spin coating is the most expensive process, while spray
coating using AZ4562-MEK is the lowest.
Coating. The ED coating process is quite similar to electroplating.
It uses a resist solution in the form of an emulsion with a solids content
of 10%. The solids particles, which are approximately 100 nm in size,
are positively charged for positive resist and negatively charged for
4: Cost of photoresist per wafer using spin-coating and spray-coating
coating requires a conducting seed layer on the wafer surface. When
high voltage is applied between the conducting layer and the counterelectrode,
the resist particles migrate and deposit on the seed layer to form a
resist film. The deposition step occurs within a few seconds. Since
the resist is an insulating layer, the current decreases rapidly as
the resist thickness increases. Deposition stops when the current drops
ED has a higher CE value than either the spin or the spray method, it
is performed in a bath. Therefore, its cost depends on the lifetime
of the resist bath and the throughput of the coating process.
5: Cost per wafer versus lifetime of photoresist bath using an electrodeposition
evaluate the cost of the ED coating process, resist bath, wafer throughput,
and coating frequency data were considered in the laboratory. These
data were collected for three baths that used Eagle 2100 negative resist
from Shipley (now Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials, Marlborough, MA).
Coating was performed on a Resist Coater ED plating system from Meco
(now Besi Plating, Drunen, The Netherlands). While it is difficult to
pinpoint the cost of the resist used in this test because of its fluctuating
market price, a calculation was made for coating 100-mm wafers with
a target thickness of 10 Ám. Figure 5 shows the relationship between
cost per wafer and bath lifetime. The curve is based on the data summarized
in Table I. The per-wafer cost of resist drops rapidly as bath lifetime
increases. For example, cost per wafer for a one-year bath lifetime
is one-tenth that for a one-month lifetime. In addition to achieving
long bath lifetimes, the ED coating system's high capacity helps reduce
the cost of resist.
I: Electrodeposition resist-coating bath data.
spray, and electrodeposition methods have been investigated to determine
resist consumption levels and costs. The volume of resist consumed in
a spin coater is higher than that consumed in a spray coater, resulting
in higher cost per wafer. The volume of resist used in spray coating
can be controlled by several parameters, such as layer thickness and
the solids content of the resist solution. The cost of resist used in
the ED method is strongly dependent on the lifetime of the resist bath
and the throughput.
identification of the parameters that affect the volume of material
required to coat wafers or resist costs per wafer is very useful for
estimating total costs. Furthermore, it can help manufacturers choose
solutions that reduce resist consumption or perform process optimizations.
Reducing resist consumption and fluids waste is crucial for achieving
low-cost manufacturing goals.
authors wish to acknowledge the whole IC-process group of DIMES-Delft
University of Technology for its technical support.
NP Pham et al., "Photoresist Coating Methods for the Integration
of Novel 3-D RF Microstructures," IEEE Journal of MEMS 13,
no. 3 (2004): 491–499.
C Christensen et al., "Wafer Through-Hole Interconnections with
High Vertical Wiring Densities," IEEE Transactions on Components,
Packaging and Manufacturing A 19, no. 4 (1996): 516–521.
P Haaland, J McKibben, and M. Paradi, "Fundamental Constraints
on Thin Film Coatings for Flat Panel Display Manufacturing," in Proceedings
of the Display Manufacturing Technology Conference (San Jose: SID,
NP Pham, JN Burghartz, and PM Sarro, "A Model for Film Thickness
Using Direct Spray Coating," in Proceedings of the IEEE Electronics
Packaging Technology Conference (Piscataway, NJ), 773–776.
Phuong Pham, PhD, performs postdoctoral work at Delft University
of Technology (The Netherlands). Her research interests include micromachining
technology for radio-frequency and IC components, lithography for special
applications, and 3-D integration. From 1997 to 1998, she worked as a research assistant in
the surface and intersurface of advanced materials group at the Centre
Commisariat d'Atomique (Saclay-France). She received a PhD in electrical
engineering from Delft University of Technology. (Pham can be reached
at +31 15 2781237 or firstname.lastname@example.org.)
M. Sarro, PhD, is responsible for research
on integrated silicon sensors and microsystems technology at Delft University's
Institute of Microelectronics and Submicron Technology (DIMES). From
1981 to 1983, she was a postdoctoral fellow in the photovoltaic research
group in the engineering department at Brown University (Providence,
RI). In 1996, she became associate professor in the electronic components,
materials, and technology laboratory at Delft University, and, in 2001,
she become A. van Leeuwenhoek professor there. The author and coauthor
of more than 250 journal and conference papers, she reviews for several
journals. She received a laurea (MS) degree in solid-state physics from
the University of Naples, Italy, and a PhD in electrical engineering
from Delft University in the area of infrared sensors based on integrated
silicon thermopiles. (Sarro can be reached at +31 15 2787708 or email@example.com.)
Bertens is a wafer technology engineer at Besi Plating
(Drunen, The Netherlands) and is actively involved in ED resist
coater development. Since 1997, he has worked at DIMES as process engineer
on the location-controlled crystallization of silicon with an excimer
laser. He received a BS in applied physics from HTS Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
(Bertens can be reached at +31 416 384384 or
van den Brekel, PhD, is responsible for operational support
and process development for the production and implementation of electroplating
equipment at Besi. He joined Meco Equipment Engineers as a process technology
manager in 1996. Before that, he worked at Unilever Research & Development
in the area of detergents processing. He received a PhD in chemical
engineering from the Technical University of Delft in 1987. (Lucas van
den Brekel can be reached at +31 416 384384 or firstname.lastname@example.org.)