Inosolv 400 Fotopur - BASF.com

Validated 

Eco-Efficiency 

Eco Efficiency 

Analysis 

Eco-Efficiency Analysis 

Inosolv 400 Fotopur ® 

Electronic Chemicals - Systems 

Dr. P. Saling 

On behalf of 

BASF Electronic Materials GmbH 

In co-operation with 

A. Pausch 

S. Kunz 

B. Ferstl 

Ludwigshafen, March 2006

Summary 

� The eco-efficiency study was prepared to compare different alternatives for cleaning wafers with 

post plasma etch residues with different chemicals for the electronic industry. The alternative in 

focus is Inosolv 400 Fotopur as a new cleaning agent for this application It is not only the price 

and environmental impact of the alternative materials, which are important to the comparison. A 

life-cycle view should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the different alternatives. 

� The most eco-efficient alternative was the “Inosolv 400 Fotopur”-Alternative. This alternative is 

much more better due to costs and environmental performance than all the other alternatives 

under investigation. The distance to them was robust and significantly. 

� The use of the Inosolv system is much more sustainable than all the others under investigation 

and have a lot of potentials for further development to increase their sustainability in the future. 

Dr. P. Saling, GUP/CE, Electronic Chemicals, Systems-CR, 31/03/2006 

2

Third party opinion 

8. Summary 

For a comparison of alternatives for cleaning wafers with post plasma etch residues for the electronic 

industry with the Eco-Efficiency Analysis „Removal of post plasma etch residues of 10.000 wafers in a 

batch process“ , a “Critical Review” was performed according to DIN EN ISO 14040:1997. 

The certified Eco-Efficiency Analysis (“BASF-method”) and qualified data were used to assess three 

alternatives and calculate their eco-efficiency. 

All steps and the analysis were calculated by using the BASF methodology. The single results and the 

generated overall result are accurately made and correct. Some minor changes were discussed due to 

ecotoxicological data and are mentioned in the final version of March 31st, 2006. 

The result shows lower costs and a significantly better Eco-Efficiency for the Inosolv 400 Fotopur system 

according to the other alternatives under investigation in the batch cleaning process. 

Köln, den 31.03.06 

Bernhard Priesemuth Dr. C. Lutermann 


3

Certification with the Eco-Efficiency Label 

Label Eco-Efficiency Analysis 

Requirements 

BASF AG has developed a new label for products that have been evaluated by an Eco- 

Efficiency Analysis. The awarding of the label is dependent on demanding requirements: 

After realisation of the analysis a third party evaluation (critical review) is requested. 

Furthermore, publication of the results of the analysis will be undertaken via internet. 

The label can be carried on for three years. After that period, a revision of the analysis is 

required due to cover market developments and product diversity. 

1. Accomplished Eco-Efficiency Analysis according to the methodology 

certified by TÜV Rheinland/ Berlin-Brandenburg, Germany. 

2. Verification of the investigated product to be more eco-efficient for the 

defined customer benefit than other alternatives as result of the analysis. 

3. Presentation of a third party evaluation (so-called Critical Review 

according ISO 14040 ff.). 

4. Publication of the results via internet on website www.oeea.de, which is 

referred to on the label. 

5. Payment of the licence fee for the duration of three years (s. price list). 


4

Introduction I, general remarks 

� Only a Batch-process for the wafer cleaning is assessed in the study. 

� In the study Spray Tool processes are calculated in the base case. 

� Aqueous systems do not need explosives protection devices. 

� The wafers will be cleaned in packages of 25 pieces. 

� Time savings during the process will not be linked in the first approach with investment costs. 


5

Objectives and Use of the Eco-Efficiency 

Study 

Validated 

Eco-Efficiency 

Analysis method 

� The study was made to compare different alternatives for cleaning wafers with post plasma 

etch residues with different chemicals for the electronic industry. The alternative in focus is 

Inosolv 400 Fotopur as a new cleaning agent for this application It is not only the price and 

environmental impact of the alternative materials, which are important to the comparison. A 

life-cycle view should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the different alternatives. 

� The study used the methodology of the eco-efficiency analysis, developed by BASF as a 

life-cycle tool to show and assess different parts of the life-cycle of the chemical reactions 

and related materials which are required to achieve the desired product. It is one method 

between others that are able to assess environmental data over the whole life cycle. 

� The ecological calculations of the single results in each category are following the ISO-rules 

14040 ff in the main points. The quantitative weighting step to get the ecological fingerprint 

and the portfolio are not covered with the ISO-rules. The eco-efficiency analysis has more 

features than are mentioned in the ISO rules. 

� The methodology has been approved by the German TUV. This methodology was used by 

the "Öko-Institut - Institute for applied ecology" in Freiburg Germany in different APMEstudies. 

Öko-Institut uses a quite similar methodology with a different weighting system 

("Ecograde"). . TNO in the Netherlands using the BASF standard method with a different 

weighting system. The Wuppertal Institute accepts the method: “Basically, the large number 

of indicators used in the eco-efficiency analysis of BASF make relatively reliable statements 

possible …“. The method was initially developed by BASF and Roland Berger Consulting, 

Munich. 


6

Limits and Reglementation for the use of 

the Results 

� Results are valid for materials in the defined applications. They are not valid for different applications, 

which have nothing to do with the original process defined in the study. 

� The “cradle-to-grave” view focuses on all steps of the cleaning process. Steps before and after this 

process step are not considered. 

� The protection and safety issues for workplaces are calculated in this study following the German Law 

and regulation. 

� Further information on the eco efficiency methodology: http://www.oekoeffizienzanalyse.de 


7

Definition of Alternatives, Definition of the “User benefit” 

as reference to all following graphs where UB is mentioned 

as an abbreviation. 

User benefit 

Removal of post 

plasma etch 

residues of 

10.000 wafers in 

a batch process 

(8 inch 

equivalents) per 

month 

Alternative in focus 

• Inosolv 400 

Fotopur® 

Alternatives 

• Products A&B 

• Product C 


8

System Boundaries: 

Inosolv 400 Fotopur 

Water 

Remover 

composition 

Production 

Wafer with 

post plasma 

etch residues 

Electricity 

Use 

Cleaning 

Solvent 

Cleaning Step 1 

Washing 

Drying 

Recycling 

Used Cleaning 

solvent reservoir 

Filtration 

Water emissions 

Incineration/ 

Wastes 


9


Products A&B 

Water 

Remover 


Production 

Wafer with 

post plasma 

etch residues 

Iso-Propanol 

Electricity 

Sodium hydroxide 

Use 

Cleaning 

Solvent 



Remove of solvent 

Washing 

Drying 

Recycling 

Used Cleaning 


Filtration 

Air emissions 


Incineration/ 

Wastes 

Dr. P. Saling, GUP/CE, Electronic Chemicals, Systems-CR, 31/03/2006 10


Product C 

Water 

Remover 


Production 

Wafer with 

post plasma 

etch residues 

Iso-Propanol 

Electricity 


Use 

Cleaning 

Solvent 



Remove of solvent 

Washing 

Drying 

Recycling 

Used Cleaning 


Filtration 

Air emissions 


Incineration/ 

Wastes 


Data sources and quality of data sources 

Definition of qualities 

Very high: 

Direct access to data, 

internal and verified data, 

validity check is possible 

High: 

Direct access to data, 

internal and verified data 

with some uncertainties 

Medium high: 

No direct access to data, 

external data with some 

uncertainties 

Low: 

No direct access to data, 

external data with a lot of 

uncertainties 

Field Source Quality Year Valid for 

Chemical BASF, internal data from very high to 

processes 

Chemical 

production, benchmark high 2005 Germany 

processes BASF, internal data from very high to 

cleaning production 

high 2005 Germany 

BASF, internal data, Boustead very high to 2000- 

Precursors database 

high 

2005 Worldwide 

BASF, internal data, Boustead high to 

Auxillaries database 

medium high 2004 Worldwide 

Germany, 

Effluents, BASF, internal data, Boustead very high to 

Ludwigshaf 

Energy database 

high 2005 en 

Germany, 

Reycycling BASF, internal data from very high to 

Ludwigshaf 

processes production 

high 2005 en 

Recycling 

Germany, 

processes BASF, internal data from 

1994- Ludwigshaf 

solvents production high 

2004 en 


Results 


Base Case: Portfolio of Alternatives for 

Wafer Cleaning processes 

User 

benefit: 

Removal of post 

plasma etch 

residues of 10.000 

wafers in a batch 

process 

(8 inch 

equivalents) per 

month 

Sector of significant 

differences 

Environment (normalized) 

0,4 

1,0 

1,6 

1,6 

Low eco-efficiency 

1,0 

Costs (normalized) 

High eco-efficiency 

0,4 

Inosolv 400 


Products A&B 

Product C 

The most ecoefficient 

alternative in the 

Base case is the 



Interpretation of the Eco-Efficiency 

Portfolio 

� The most eco-efficient alternatives is the Inosolv 400 Fotopur 

system. With a major distance, the alternative Product C follows. 

The lowest Eco-Efficiency is detected for the Products A&B. 

� The best environmental position is found for Inosolv 400 Fotopur, 

the worst for Products A&B. 

� The best cost position is found for Inosolv 400 Fotopur, the worst 

for Product C and followed by Products A&B. 


Total costs 

Euro/UB 

60000 

50000 

40000 

30000 

20000 

10000 

0 



Products A&B Products A&B 

Waste water 

Drum Handling, Drum processes 

Customer's Evaluation Costs 

Wastes, Effluents, Recycling 

Energy and water use 

Packaging and transportation 

Solvents 

Remover 

Remark: “UB” means in 

all graphs “User 

Benefit”, which was 

defined in the user 

benefit definition at the 

beginning of the study! 


Ecology Fingerprint of BASF 

Area use 

Resources consumption 

Energy consumption 

1,00 

0,50 

0,00 

Risk potential 

Emissions 

Toxicity potential 

Inosolv 400 Fotopur® 

Products A&B 

Product C 

1,0 = worst position, better 

results ordered relatively 

Interpretation of the Ecological 

Fingerprint 

� The best environmental performance was detected for the 

alternative Inosolv 400 Fotopur. With a major distance, the 

alternatives Products A&B and Product C are following and have 

the worst ecological position. 

� It was shown the significant better performance due to the 

environment of the Fotopur systems. 

� The most differentiating categories between the alternatives with a 

low ecological performance are the risk- and the toxicity potential. 


Results of the 

Environmental Evaluation 


Energy consumption 

MJ/UB 

500000 


300000 

200000 

100000 

0 

-100000 

-200000 



Products A&B Product C 




Solvents 

Remover 


Comparison of Resource Consumption 

kg/(a*Mio t) 1/2 /UB 

3000 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 

-500 

Inosolv 400 Fotopur® Products A&B Product C 

Sand 

Bauxite 

Limestone 

Iron ore 

Phosphate 

Sulfur 

NaCl 

Lignite 

Gas 

Oil 

Coal 


Air Emissions: 

Global Warming Potential (GWP) 

g CO2-equivalent/UB 

30000000 

25000000 

20000000 

15000000 

10000000 

5000000 

0 


Wastes, 

Effluents, 

Recycling 

Energy and 

water use 

Packaging and 

transportation 

Solvents 

Remover 



Summer smog (POCP) 

g Ethen-equivalent/UB 

16000 

14000 

12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 


2000 

0 

-2000 


Wastes, 

Effluents, 

Recycling 

Energy and 

water use 

Packaging and 


Solvents 

Remover 



Acidification Potential (AP) 

g SO2-equivalent/UB 


120000 

100000 

80000 

60000 


20000 

0 


Wastes, Effluents, 

Recycling 

Energy and water 

use 

Packaging and 


Solvents 

Remover 



Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) 

g CFCs-equivalent/UB 

7,00 

6,00 

5,00 

4,00 

3,00 

2,00 

1,00 

0,00 





Solvents 

Remover 


Water Emissions 

critical waste water volume l /UB 

2500000 

2000000 

1500000 

1000000 

500000 

0 



Products A&B Product C 




Solvents 

Remover 


Normalized Wastes 

kg/UB 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 





Solvents 

Remover 


Toxicity Potential - Production 

Toxicity Evalution points/UB 

16000000 


12000000 

10000000 

8000000 

6000000 


2000000 

0 



Solvents 

Remover 


Toxicity Potential – Use of the products 

Toxicity Evalution points/UB 

9000 

8000 

7000 

6000 

5000 


3000 

2000 

1000 

0 



Solvents 

Remover 


Eco-Toxicity Potential 

Eco-Toxicity Evalution points/UB 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 


300 

200 

100 

0 


Ecotox Recycling 

Ecotox Use 


Risk Potential - Production 

Risk evaluation factors 

2500 

2000 

1500 

1000 

500 

0 


Danger of 

Explosion 

Working and 

Working related 

Accidents, Truck 

Shipping 

Working and 


Accidents, Oil and 

Gas Industry 

Working and 


Accidents, 

Chemical Industry 


Risk Potential – Use phase 

Risk evaluation factors 

16000 


12000 

10000 

8000 

6000 


2000 

0 


Workers Deseases, 

Computer Ind. 

Working and 


Accidents, 

Computer Ind. 

Danger of Fire 

Danger of 

Explosion 


Use of Area 

Weighted Area Use m²a /UB 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 


200 

0 





Solvents 

Remover 


Glossary 


Glossary of Abbreviations and 

Technical Terms I 

AOX: abbr. for adsorbable organic halogen, a category of water emissions 

AP: abbr. for acidification potential or acid rain. In this impact category, the effects of air 

emissions that lower the local pH values of soils and can thus e.g. cause forest death 

are taken into account. 

BOD: abbr. for biological oxygen demand. This is a method for determining wastewater 

loads. 

CB: abbr. for user benefit. All impacts (costs, environment) are specific to this user benefit 

which all alternatives being evaluated have to fulfill. 

CH 4 : abbr. for methane. 

Cl - : abbr. for chloride. 

COD: abbr. for chemical oxygen demand. This is a method for determining wastewater. 

loads. 

CO 2 : abbr. for carbon dioxide. 

critical volume: operand for assessing the extent to which wastewater is polluted by 

mathematically diluting the wastewater with fresh water until the allowed limit value is 

reached. This volume of fresh water that has been added is referred to as the critical 

volume. 



Technical Terms II 

municipal waste: waste that may be deposited on a normal household landfill. 

emissions: emissions are categorized as emissions into air, water and soil. These broad 

groupings are further subdivided into more specific categories. 

energy unit: energy is expressed in Megajoules (MJ). 1 MJ is equivalent to 3.6 kilowatt 

hours (kWh). 

feedstock: the energy content that is bound in the materials used and can be used e.g. in 

incineration processes. 

GWP: abbr. for global warming potential, the greenhouse effect. This impact category 

takes into account the effects of air emissions that lead to global warming of the 

earth’s surface. 

hal. HC: abbr. for halogenated hydrocarbons. 

halogenated NM VOC: abbr. for halogenated non-methane volatile hydrocarbons. 

HC: abbr. for various hydrocarbons or hydrocarbon emissions into water. 

HCl: abbr. for hydrogen chloride. 

HM: abbr. for heavy metals. 



Technical Terms III 

impact potential: name of an operand that mathematically takes into account the impact 

of an emission on a defined compartment of the environment. 

material consumption: in this category, the consumption of raw materials is considered 

along with worldwide consumption and remaining reserves. Thus, a raw material with 

smaller reserves or greater worldwide consumption rates is more critically weighted. 

NH 3 : abbr. for ammonia emissions. 

NH 4 + : abbr. for emissions of ammonium into water. 

NM VOC: abbr. for non-methane volatile organic compound. 

N 2 O: abbr. for N 2 O emissions. 

NO x : abbr. for various nitrogen oxides. 

normalization: in the eco-efficiency analysis, the worst performance in each ecological 

category is normalized to a value of one. Thus alternatives with better performance in 

that category will lie between zero and one on the ecological fingerprint. 

ODP: abbr. for ozone depletion potential, damage to the ozone layer. This impact category 

takes into account the effects of air emissions that lead to the destruction of the ozone 

layer of the upper layers of air and thus to an increase in UV radiation. 



Technical Terms IV 

PO 4 3- : abbr. for emissions of phosphate into water. 

POCP: abbr. for photochemical ozone creation potential. This effect category takes into 

account the effects of local emissions that lead to an increase in ozone close to the 

ground and thus contribute to what is known as summer smog. 

risk potential: impact category assessing the effects of risk factors over the complete life 

cycle. Risks such as transportation risks, dangers of explosion, dangers of accidents, 

etc. may be included 

SO x : abbr. for various sulfur dioxides. 

SO 4 2- : abbr. for emissions of sulfates into water. 

special waste: waste that has to be deposited on a special landfill. 

system boundary: determines what aspects are considered in the study. 

Time span: The period for which a raw material is still available and can be used. The 

current use of the raw material in relation to what is currently known to be the amount 

that is still available and can be used industrially is the basis for the assessment. 



Technical Terms V 

Total N: Collective term for all water pollutants that contain nitrogen and that cannot be 

included in one of the other categories. 

Toxicity potential: In this category, the effect of the substances involved is assessed with 

regard to their effect on human health. It relates solely to possible material effects in 

the whole life span. Further data have to be used to assess a direct risk. 

The symbols have the following meanings: T+: very toxic; T: toxic; Xn: harmful; C: 

corrosive; Xi: irritating.

Inosolv 400 Fotopur - BASF.com

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?