Skip to Content

Semiconductor Manufacturing: No Tresspassing

November 1, 1998

As computers get smaller and smaller, contamination becomes a bigger issue in manufacturing them. Even the vacuum chambers used in “clean rooms” aren’t completely free of wayward particles-and even tiny particles can ruin an expensive set of silicon wafers.

Existing defenses against these trespassers aren’t particularly sharp. They work by periodically checking the surfaces of silicon wafers for impurities. These methods are hit-and-miss, and they’re helpless against particles smaller than two-tenths of a micrometer.

Now William Reents, a chemist at Lucent Technologies’ Bell Labs, has put together a laser-based instrument to zero in on particles as small as one-thousandth of a micrometer, a twohundredfold improvement. What’s more, the device can determine in real time the chemical composition of the contamination, helping pinpoint its source.

Reents’ invention pulls particles through a thin capillary tube. A laser zaps the particles, ionizing the atoms; the ions are then accelerated toward a detector. The time it takes for each ion to reach the detector depends on the ion’s mass, and that information can be used to determine the chemical makeup of the particle.
Tests are under way to see how the detector performs attached to actual clean-room equipment. If all goes well, Bell Labs hopes to entice an equipment maker to produce an instrument rugged enough to stand up to manufacturing conditions.

Keep Reading

Most Popular

The inside story of how ChatGPT was built from the people who made it

Exclusive conversations that take us behind the scenes of a cultural phenomenon.

How Rust went from a side project to the world’s most-loved programming language

For decades, coders wrote critical systems in C and C++. Now they turn to Rust.

ChatGPT is about to revolutionize the economy. We need to decide what that looks like.

New large language models will transform many jobs. Whether they will lead to widespread prosperity or not is up to us.

Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong?

An approach that promised to democratize design may have done the opposite.

Stay connected

Illustration by Rose Wong

Get the latest updates from
MIT Technology Review

Discover special offers, top stories, upcoming events, and more.

Thank you for submitting your email!

Explore more newsletters

It looks like something went wrong.

We’re having trouble saving your preferences. Try refreshing this page and updating them one more time. If you continue to get this message, reach out to us at customer-service@technologyreview.com with a list of newsletters you’d like to receive.