ACTIVATION CHEMICAL ETCHING RATE VS WEIGHT LOSS STUDY
Joshua B. Dacles
Plating Process
End of Line Engineering Department
OJT Trainee
jojodacles984@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The current activation process is needed for the oxide
removal in the lead frame surface. This paper shows the
different weight loss vs different concentration and time.
Results show that the data is normally distributed and
the concentration and processing time is directly
proportional to the etching strength.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In these modern times, technology is fast progressing.
Developing new alternatives, processes, machines,
electronics, that could make man’s job and life easier
and more comfortable. Among the industry that is
rapidly growing nowadays is the semiconductor
industry. They have been the center of development of
new and more efficient quality products of integrated
chips and transistors that is essential in the production
of electronic machines. On Semiconductor is one of the
major and renowned manufacturing companies in the
field of semiconductor.
In order to come up with the final product in a
semiconductor facility, it will foremost undergo a lot of
processing in order for it to prepare and be set in order.
One of these processes is the plating process wherein
the leadframe of the different type of packages are being
plated with a metal to enhance its solderability
properties, to prevent oxidation, and for aesthetic
purposes as well.
In the On Semiconductor Philippines Inc. Cebu, they are
using tin as the plating material for their products. The
usual lead frame that they are using is copper-based.
The package will be exposed to many chemical
solutions in the plating process and the activation
solution is one of them.
Activation process is essential because during the
process, the metal oxides present in the packages are
removed by the solution. The activation solution is
composed of Slotetch 21, Hydrogen peroxide and water.
In the plating area, they have a specific concentration
1
that is constantly maintained to provide optimum
results.
Slotetch 21 is a weak acidic, fluoride-free activator for
copper alloys which contains small quantities of silicon
and nickel. In conventional, fluoride-free copper
activations, these copper alloys form a black film.
Activation Slotetch 21 has a low stripping rate. Copper
oxide layer are removed without attacking the base
material. Hydrogen peroxide is present in the solution
because of its cleaning properties. Hydrogen peroxide
increases the stripping rate of the activation solution.
This is needed as the process is in automated equipment
with processing time completed in seconds only.
1.1Objective
The objective of this report is to determine the etching
rate of the activation solution with different
concentrations and processing time basing from the
weight loss obtained from the experiment.
1.2 Scope
This evaluation is limited to all copper leadframe
packages only.
2.0 EXPERIMENTAL SECTION
The technical data sheet (TDS) and material safety data
sheet (MSDS) of the different chemistries being
qualified were carefully reviewed. Based on these TDS,
the Design of Experiment (DOE) leg per chemistry was
devised in determining the best parameter which will be
used in the evaluation of the good units.
This study explores the effect of the Slotetch21 solution
and Hydrogen Peroxide on the following input
parameter and output response:
1) concentration
2) processing time
3) weight loss
2.1 Materials

1. PQFN dummy panel, used for the evaluation.

2. Slotetch 21 and H2O2.
3. Petri dishes, graduated cylinders, beakers, and
Erlenmeyer flasks.

Table 1. Parameters The panels were weighed prior to the immersion in the
solution. The panels were then immersed on the
Input Parameter solution in a Petri dish by using the proposed
DOE Conc S21 Conc H2O2 processing time. After immersion, the panels were
Leg (ml/L) (ml/L) Time (sec) then washed with DI water to remove the
1 chemicals. Then, they were dried in the oven at
100 50 5
approximately 60ºC for 2-3 minutes.
2 300 5 20
3 200 27.5 12.5 The panels were then weighed again in the
4 100 50 20 analytical balance to obtain its final weight.
5 300 50 20
6 300 5 5 3.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
7 300 5 5
Table 3.1 Weights of Panels in their DOE LEG
8 100 5 5
9 100 5 20 DOE LEG weight 1 (g) weight 2 (g)
10 300 50 5 1 9.57 9.5668
11 100 50 5 10.1497 10.146
12 100 5 20 2 9.8324 9.8306
This table shows the different concentrations of Slotetch
21 and H2O2 with corresponding processing time. These 9.6099 9.608
data was provided by the SAS JMP software. For 3 10.174 10.1718
Slotetch 21, 100-300 ml/L; for H2O2, 50-100 ml/L; the 10.1791 10.174
time, 5-20 seconds.
4 10.2311 10.2277
2.2 Procedure 10.1872 10.1846
5 9.6991 9.6948
The PQFN 8x8 panel types were prepared by cutting the 9.7354 9.7294
strips into its four panels. There were a total of 40
panels prepared for the experiment, but only 24 panels 6 9.8275 9.8252
is needed, the remaining panels are only for reservation 9.7684 9.7652
in case the first trials fails. The panels were then 7 9.5191 9.5171
numbered from 1 to 40 using a scriber.
9.5315 9.5304
After the calculation of the volumes required for the 8 9.4778 9.4769
different concentrations of solution, the chemicals’ 9.5193 9.5176
volume were then measured using 100, 25 and 10 ml
9 9.5937 9.5914
graduated cylinders. The Slotetch 21 was first added to
the water in the beaker. The solution is continuously 9.586 9.5838
mixed using the hotplate with magnetic stirrer. After the 10 9.5686 9.5655
solution has been completely mixed, H2O2 was then 9.7732 9.7708
added to complete the activation solution
Figure 1.1 11 10.1435 10.1399
Figure 1.1 shows the actual PQFN dummy panel-type 9.5606 9.5576
frame used in the experiment. 12 10.2127 10.2107

2
 10.1979 10.1949 and 50ml/L H2O2 with a processing time of 20 seconds.
This table shows the obtained weights of the panels The lowest value came from DOE LEG 8 that has a
before and after the immersion in the solution. average weight loss of 0.0013g.
Analytical balance was used to measure the weights.

Table 3.2 Weight loss and Average Weight loss

DOE Weight Loss Average

LEG (g) Weight Loss
Figure 3.1 Variability Chart
1 0.0032 0.00345
0.0037
2 0.0018 0.00185
0.0019
3 0.0022 0.00365
0.0051
4 0.0034 0.003
0.0026
5 0.0043 0.00515
0.006
6 0.0023 0.00275
0.0032
7 0.002 0.00155
0.0011
8 0.0009 0.0013
0.0017
9 0.0023 0.00225
0.0022
10 0.0031 0.00275
0.0024
3.1 Variation in Average Weight Loss
11 0.0036 0.0033
0.003 The variability chart shown in fig. 3.1 shows the
12 0.002 0.0025 variance between each DOE-LEG. There is a big gap
between the two data that has the same/equal
0.003 parameters. LEG 6 and 7 has the same concentration of
This table shows the weight loss of each panel by S21 (300ml/L) and H2O2 (5ml/L) with equal processing
subtracting the new weight from its original weight and time of 5 seconds. The desired results must have an
then getting the mean of the two weights to obtain the almost equal average weight loss for the same
average weight loss. concentration and time. Instead the data results from the
experiment have a difference of 0.0012. This large
From the data shown in table 3.2, the highest average variation signifies that there is some assignable in the
weight loss was obtained in the DOE LEG 5 of evaluation.
0.00515g, which has a concentration of 300ml/L of S21

3
This error is caused by immersing two panels at a time
in the solution. The ideal procedure is to use only one
panel at a time in order for the panel to be fully expose
to the solution, because if there are two panels, most
likely, there will be some parts of the panel that is not
exposed to the solution.

Figure 3.2 Normal Distribution

The data obtained from the experiment was found out as

normal as shown in figure 3.1. Despite of the error that
was found on the variability chart, the data was still
within the normal range or anticipated results. This
means that the solutions were prepared correctly and the
concentrations are followed as expected.
To check if the data is normal, the value for Prob<W
must be greater than 0.05. The obtained value was
0.6253 which is above the limit value for Prob>W.

Figure 3.4 Prediction Profiler

Figure 3.3
Since the data is normal, it was able to have its
prediction profiler. It will show the overall weight loss
of the panels you have used in the experiment. In this
section you can also verify if the concentration data and
processing time is directly proportional to the weight
loss. In the profiler, you can change the values of the
parameters and it will give you different overall weight
loss.

4.0 CONCLUSION

In conclusion, based on the results of the experiment,

the etching rate of the activation solution is faster when
the concentration is higher for both constituents
(Slotetch 21 and H2O2).

4
5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended to use the optimum parameter which

will give the higher weight loss but less processing time.

6.0 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author would like to express his utmost gratitude to

his manager and mentor: Engr. Graciela Delos Santos.
She is an effective mentor and teaches her trainee all the
necessary information to be a good professional in the
near future. The author would also like to thank the
people in the plating area: Ate Liza, Kuya Bryan, Ate
Dindin, Ate Gloria, Ate Elena, Kuya Ronnie, and Ate
Precy for being so kind and helpful to the author on the
course of his on-the-job training.

7.0 REFERENCES

1. Technical Data Sheets of SLOTETCH 20 by

Schloettter Galvanotechnik.

8.0 ABOUT THE AUTHOR 9.2 Panels before immersion

Joshua B. Dacles is an OJT trainee in the Plating

Department. He is currently a 4th year student taking up
Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering at Central
Philippine University-Iloilo City.

9.0 Appendices

9.1 Constituents of the Activation Solution

5
9.3 Panels after immersion in the Activation Solution