A MEMS Clearinghouse® and information portal
for the MEMS and Nanotechnology community
RegisterSign-In
MEMSnet Home About Us What is MEMS? Beginner's Guide Discussion Groups Advertise Here
News
MEMSnet Home: MEMS-Talk: SU-8 3000 vs 2000 adhesion
SU-8 3000 vs 2000 adhesion
2010-12-11
Mikael Evander
2010-12-11
Bill Moffat
2010-12-12
Mikael Evander
2010-12-12
Andrew Sarangan
2010-12-12
Gareth Jenkins
2010-12-13
Bill Moffat
2010-12-13
Bill Moffat
2010-12-13
Yifan Wu
2010-12-15
Adrian Papas
2011-01-28
Mikael Evander
2011-01-28
Andrew Sarangan
2011-01-28
Mikael Evander
2011-01-28
Andrew Sarangan
2011-01-28
Dietrich Lueerssen
SU-8 3000 vs 2000 adhesion
Bill Moffat
2010-12-13
Andrew great choice of processing.  The real secret is not allowing moisture to
get back on the wafer.  With vacuum priming the vacuum dehydrates and then the
primer reacts with the wafer  with no chance of moisture seeing the wafer.  The
chemistries that work best for SU8 which is an epoxy based resist are either
APTES, APTMS or 3-GOPS.  The vapor pressure of these chemistries is such that a
simple vacuum vapor primer cannot work.  We have developed different units the
1224P or the LabKote for special vapor pressure chemicals.

Bill Moffat

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:mems-
[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew
Sarangan
Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 9:15 PM
To: General MEMS discussion
Subject: Re: [mems-talk] SU-8 3000 vs 2000 adhesion

I have also noticed some detrimental effects of HMDS on SU8. What has worked for
me is an etch clean of the wafer, vacuum bake and then quickly spin the SU8
while the wafer is still warm. The soft and post bake have to be ramped very
slowly, about 5C every 2 mins.
reply
Events
Glossary
Materials
Links
MEMS-talk
Terms of Use | Contact Us | Search
MEMS Exchange
MEMS Industry Group
Coventor
Harrick Plasma
Tanner EDA
Nano-Master, Inc.
Mentor Graphics Corporation
University Wafer
Addison Engineering