2005
DOI: 10.1117/12.601435
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of wet-cleans and surface treatments on the adhesion of a photoresist to HDP-oxide substrate

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Adhesion of PR on substrate is one of the key issues in photolithography as poor adhesion between PR and the substrate will cause patterns dislocated or peeled in the developing process. This becomes a more serious issue by using ArF PR than by KrF or I-line ones [3]. Hexame--thyldisilazane (HMDS) and vapor priming systems has long been used to promote the resist adhesion to the underlying substrates, such as polysilicon, metals and SiO 2 layers in lithographic process.…”
Section: B Effects Of Adhesion Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Adhesion of PR on substrate is one of the key issues in photolithography as poor adhesion between PR and the substrate will cause patterns dislocated or peeled in the developing process. This becomes a more serious issue by using ArF PR than by KrF or I-line ones [3]. Hexame--thyldisilazane (HMDS) and vapor priming systems has long been used to promote the resist adhesion to the underlying substrates, such as polysilicon, metals and SiO 2 layers in lithographic process.…”
Section: B Effects Of Adhesion Treatmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Accordingly, the lithography tool sets required could be from I-line (365 nm), KrF (248 nm) to even ArF (193 nm) in the case for below 20 nm technologies. Although better resolution and overlay performance can be achieved by ArF lithography, much more defects were also found in using ArF PR for implant layer [3]. Numerous studies were carried out to investigate the defects reduction on conventional implant  Manuscript received July 11, 2015; revised December 23, 2015.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%