# Fluorine Plasma Corrosion Resistance of Anodic Oxide Film Depending on Electrolyte Temperature

• Accepted : 2018.01.25
• Published : 2018.01.31

#### Abstract

Samples of anodic oxide film used in semiconductor and display manufacturing processes were prepared at different electrolyte temperatures to investigate the corrosion resistance. The anodic oxide film was grown on aluminum alloy 6061 by using a sulfuric acid ($H_2SO_4$) electrolyte of 1.5 M at $0^{\circ}C$, $5^{\circ}C$, $10^{\circ}C$, $15^{\circ}C$, and $20^{\circ}C$. The insulating properties of the samples were evaluated by measuring the breakdown voltage, which gradually increased from 0.43 kV ($0^{\circ}C$) to 0.52 kV ($5^{\circ}C$), 1.02 kV ($10^{\circ}C$), and 1.46 kV ($15^{\circ}C$) as the electrolyte temperature was increased from $0^{\circ}C$ to $15^{\circ}C$, but then decreased to 1.24 kV ($20^{\circ}C$). To evaluate the erosion of the film by fluorine plasma, the plasma erosion and the contamination particles were measured. The plasma erosion was evaluated by measuring the breakdown voltage after exposing the film to $CF_4/O_2/Ar$ and $NF_3/O_2/Ar$ plasmas. With exposure to $CF_4/O_2/Ar$ plasma, the breakdown voltage of the film slightly decreased at $0^{\circ}C$, by 0.41 kV; however, the breakdown voltage significantly decreased at $20^{\circ}C$, by 0.83 kV. With exposure to $NF_3/O_2/Ar$ plasma, the breakdown voltage of the film slightly decreased at $0^{\circ}C$, by 0.38 kV; however, the breakdown voltage significantly decreased at $20^{\circ}C$, by 0. 77 kV. In addition, for the entire temperature range, the breakdown voltage decreased more when sample was exposed to $NF_3/O_2/Ar$ plasma than to $CF_4/O_2/Ar$ plasma. The decrease of the breakdown voltage was lower in the anodic oxide film samples that were grown slowly at lower temperatures. The rate of breakdown voltage decrease after exposure to fluorine plasma was highest at $20^{\circ}C$, indicating that the anodic oxide film was most vulnerable to erosion by fluorine plasma at that temperature. Contamination particles generated by exposure to the $CF_4/O_2/Ar$ and $NF_3/O_2/Ar$ plasmas were measured on a real-time basis. The number of contamination particles generated after the exposure to the respective plasmas was lower at $5^{\circ}C$ and higher at $0^{\circ}C$. In particular, for the entire temperature range, about five times more contamination particles were generated with exposure to $NF_3/O_2/Ar$ plasma than for exposure to $CF_4/O_2/Ar$ plasma. Observation of the surface of the anodic oxide film showed that the pore size and density of the non-treated film sample increased with the increase of the temperature. The change of the surface after exposure to fluorine plasma was greatest at $0^{\circ}C$. The generation of contamination particles by fluorine plasma exposure for the anodic oxide film prepared in the present study was different from that of previous aluminum anodic oxide films.

#### Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Research Council of Science and Technology (NST)

#### References

1. Huang, Yuelong, et al., Corrosion Science, 50(12), 3569-3575 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2008.09.008
2. Thamida, S. K., and Chang, H. C., Journal of Nonlinear Science, 12(1), 240-251 (2002).
3. Lee, W., and Park, S. J., Chemical reviews, 114(15), 7487-7556 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1021/cr500002z
4. Zhang, J. S., Zhao, X. H., Zuo, Y., and Xiong, J. P., Surface and Coatings Technology, 202(14), 3149-3156 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2007.10.041
5. Huang, Y., Shih, H., Daugherty, J., and Mansfeld, F., Corrosion Science, 51(10), 2493-2501 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2009.06.031
6. Mansfeld, F., and Kendig, M. W., Journal of the Electrochemical Society, 135(4), 828-833 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1149/1.2095786
7. Masuda, H., Hasegwa, F., and Ono, S. Journal of the electrochemical society, 144(5), L127-L130 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1149/1.1837634
8. Bradhurst, D. H., and Leach, J. L., Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 113(12), 1245-1249 (1966). https://doi.org/10.1149/1.2423797
9. Schwirn, K., Lee, W., Hillebrand, R., Steinhart, M., Nielsch, K., and Gosele, U., ACS nano, 2(2), 302-310 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1021/nn7001322
10. Aerts, T., Dimogerontakis, T., De Graeve, I., Fransaer, J., and Terryn, H., Surface and Coatings Technology, 201(16), 7310-7317 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2007.01.044
11. Chung, C. K., Liao, M. W., Chang, H. C., and Lee, C. T., Thin Solid Films, 520(5), 1554-1558 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsf.2011.08.053
12. Sulka, G. D., and Parkola, K. G., Electrochimica Acta, 52(5), 1880-1888 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electacta.2006.07.053
13. Chiu, R. L., Chang, P. H., and Tung, C. H., Thin Solid Films, 260(1), 47-53 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1016/0040-6090(94)06491-1
14. Stepniowski, W. J., and Bojar, Z., Surface and Coatings Technology, 206(2), 265-272 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2011.07.020
15. Debuyck, F., Moors, M., and Van Peteghem, A. P., Materials chemistry and physics, 36(1-2), 146-149 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0254-0584(93)90023-F
16. Wang, L. P., Li, G., Liu, X. H., Xia, S. Y., and Jia, H. B., Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 164(6), E117-E122 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1149/2.0971706jes
17. Spooner, R. C., Journal of The Electrochemical Society, 102(4), 156-162 (1955). https://doi.org/10.1149/1.2430017