NumberReviewerAffiliationSectionFrom PageTo PageFrom LineTo LineCommentPrimary EPA Response1Mike ShererTitleDRE should be destruction and removal efficiency, not "or" on coversheet.We disagree. The term we use is taken from the2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GreenhouseGas Inventories, Annex 4 Glossary for Industrial Process and Product Use Sector.The reasoningfor using 'or" follows: If something is destroyed it is removed. So, to include both is redundant.But, because materials may be removed from the environment by removing them from the wastestream (capture, for example), removal is a distinctly different method than destruction. Hence,the use of 'Destruction or Removal Efficiency'.2Mike Sherer2.2.181724It is stated that Method 1 does not require access to process tool.However, shutting the tool down and running gases through it with nowafer production is considered access by fab personnel. Can this bechanged?Yes, this will be modified.3Mike ShererOverallThere is no discussion or methodology regarding testing with multiplePOU abatement device inlets, which impacts how to do DRE testingand the DRE results due to many factors. Multiple inlets representprobably 90% or more fab installs. Is there any plans for this guidance?This will be addressed with the IBM testing, and the protocol will modified accordingly.4Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.1.351924This is not true. Based upon extensive experience I can state that theperformance of the abatement tool is very dependent upon the effluentof the reactor. What comes out of a plasma using reactor is NOT whatgoes into the reactor. The type, concentration, and species of PFC outof a plasma reactor is very different than goes into it. I believe thismethodology is scientifically unsound.The comment needs further explanation to support the claim that the "methodology is scientificallyunsound." It is not clear to us what is "not true." We agree that what "comes out of a plasma usingreactor isnotwhat goes into the reactor." But, what's the relationship of this statement to theunsoundness of Method 1 for measuring the DRE of CF4, SF6 or NF3? It seems the claim beingmade is that plasma-formed products from use of CF4, SF6 and NF3 affect the perfromance ofcommercially available abatement systems, that, for example, the presence of SiF4, which is themajor produced formed during chamber cleaning with CF4, consequentially alters CF4abatement, or the presence of F2 formed in an NF3 plasma consequentially alters the abatementof NF3. Were this a concern, then one would see manufacturers of abatement systems specifcingPFC destruction efficiencies only after first performing tool- and recipe-specific testing for theiradvertised systems.5Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.2.2.383638I do not agree that two FTIR can be used unless there methodology todetermine machine to machine variance. This introduces instrumenterror.While it is true, and we acknowledge that using 2 FTIRs may introduce instrument error intomeasurement, it is questionable if adequate precision may be achieved using one FTIR. This isnot to say that it is not possible to achieve desired precision. Using one FTIR will require knowingwith confidence what the scrubber loading is. If sufficient inlet data is acquired to accomplish this,and then the FTIR is switched to the outlet of the scrubber and the same process is run on thetool then the protocol will work just as well as using two FTIRs. The emission factors for aparticular process run on the same chamber are usually very reproducible. Sufficient data can becollected to achieve the desired precision. For all intent and purposes, the precision of theconcentration measurements can be made acceptably small whether one is using one or twoFTIR systems by taking sufficient spectra and averaging. Under such conditions that overallreliability of the measured DRE is governed by the accuracy of the FTIR calibration, which isindependent of the number of FTIR systems.6Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.2.2.383942Absolutely unacceptable. We are assuming we know something aboutthe destruction within the system before testing the system. QMS mustbe used to measure dilutionThe comment seems to suggest a preference for permitting only noble gases to determine thedilution factor instead of permitting use of CF4 of SF6 under some limited, reliably measurableconditions under which it could be reliably pressumed destruction would be inconsequential. Ifconditioins that would permit use of CF4 or SF6 are too rare or too uncertain then the protocolwould exclude the use of tracers other than the noble gases. Our experience suggested that a"measured" temperature of 800 C for thermal, noncataluytically assisted abatement systemswould be such a condition (600 C for the correspondingly catalytically assistend systems). We areaware that the both the 800 C and 600 C temperatures have a limited and somewhat anecdotalbasis but thought a consensus might be establishable. If a supportable consensus cannot bedeveloped, however, then the final DRE measurment protocol would be modified to allow the useof only noble gases.7Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.2.2.389434Filter is unacceptable. It will absorb fluorinated species andcompromise the mass balance. Deal with the particles.PFCs do not adsorb on filters - this protocol does not address the mass balance of reactive byproducts.8Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.2.2.6111518Where did the 800 number come from? I have seen partialdecomposition below this temperature. Again, this is not truePlease refer to response to comment #6.9Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.2.2.6111821NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. Absolutely unacceptable. You cannot useCF4 as tracer and certainly not SF6.The molecules are inert. Also, theyare species being tested. This is absolutely, totally unacceptable.Don't you want an inert tracer?10Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.Table 212FTIR in Analytical Equipment column: unacceptableWe disagree. If CF4 and SF6 are inert (not destroyed by the abatement system), then they maybe used and may be measured using FTIR. Please refer to comment #6.11Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.Table 2Caption12This is untrue.Please refer to response to comment #10.12Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.Table 212Neon is totally acceptable.In principle neon is useful. However, in practice Ne+ has m/e 20 which corresponds to numerouspotential interferences at this mass which needs careful consideration. This consequentialcomplication can be avoided by using Kr, which is why it is favored over Ne in the protocol.13Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.OverallI see no methodology used to measure potential losses in the lines orpumps from the reactor.Please explain the relevance of this comment. We believe the tracer method accounts for anyconsequential losses.14Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.OverallI see no methodology to verify reactor parameters (efficiency, MFCsetc)Please explain the relevance of this comment to the purpose of measuring abatement systemDRE.15Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.OverallFar too many unsourced statements. Citing only yourself is notacceptable.Most work devoted to measuring PFC abatement system performance is unpublished,confidential or both. Seldom do abatement system manufacturers or device manufactures publishresults in the peer reviewed literature. It is just this condition that prompted the development ofthis still draft protocol. We would welcome referenced work to inform the development of aprotocol.16Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.OverallDilution adjusted methods introduce far too many chances of error.They should not be used.We disagree that "far too many chances of error" arise when "dilution adjusted methods" are usedto measure PFC abatement system DREs. The results provided in the studies referenced in thedraft Protocol unambiguously challenge the unsupported assertion that "they should not be used."17Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.OverallControl samples should be used. Redundancy in measurement isrequired.Please explain the relevance of this comment. What kind of control samples? What kind ofmeasurement redundancy is required?18Chris HertzlerTechHarmonics Inc.OverallI see no comments upon the need for baselining QMS and FTIRagainst their initial calibration set points. Nor do I see reference torequired system pressure to measure various PFCs at variousconcentrations. This is an important part of the protocol.We believe that both comments are outside the scope of the draft Protocol. We are assuming thatanalysts performing the measurement called for in the Protocol will properly use both QMS andFTIR systems and will consult, as required, Appendix A International SEMATECH TechnologyTransfer report (referenced in footnote 5, page 8 of the draft Protocol), which is consistent withEPA's method 320.19Joe Van GompelTitleTitle should read “... Destruction Removal Efficiency ...” not “...Destruction or Removal Efficiency...”We disagree. The term we use is taken from the 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National GreenhouseGas Inventories, Annex 4 Glossary for Industrial Process and Product Use Sector. Our reasoningfollows: If something is destroyed it is removed. So, to include both is redundant. But, becausematerials may be removed from the environment by removing them from the waste stream(capture, for example), removal is a distinctly different method than destruction. Hence, I favorusing 'Destruction or Removal Efficiency'."20Joe Van Gompel1.141215“...ISMI’s 2006 guidelines urges care when measuring DRE for PFCs”Should read “ISMI’s 2006 guidelines urge care when measuring DREfor PFCs. Also seen at end of section 2.2 (just above 2.2.1), footnote 5,top of 2.2.4, footnote 7 and 8.The noted grammatical adjustment will be made.21Joe Van Gompel1.3513Correct Sematech report number is 06124825A-ENG, not 0612485AENG.The report number will be corrected.22Joe Van Gompel2.1.572431Include hearing protection in this list. Subfabs are always loud due tothe close proximity of vacuum pumps. 8 hours in a subfab withouthearing protection will almost always exceed OSHA recommendations(85 dB).Hearing protection will be added to notables under safety protection. The wording will now read"(e.g., head protection,hearing protection, eye protection, and foot protection)."23Joe Van Gompel2.2.181724It should be noted that Method 1 can also be done using the mass flowcontrollers (MFCs) in the process tool such that the process gas ofinterest (e.g. CF4) is manually flowed through the process chamberwith the plasma switched off. In this way there is absolute consistencyin the flow of gases between Method 1 and Method 2.We believe this is what method 1 describes24Joe Van Gompel2.2.383942Edwards will push back on the use of combustor temperatures. TheTPU does not utilize chamber temperature as a prerequisite for DRE ofPFCs (e.g. Sematech 07124899A-ENG).We agree. Please see response to comment #6 regarding our search for "measurable" conditionsthat would permit use of tracers other than noble gases.25Joe Van Gompel2.2.4 and2.2.5911These sections repeatedly mention that the absorbances and ionintensities should be within one decade. Note that this rendersimpossible the DRE determination to any more than 90%. FTIR andQMS data are valid to 2 decades or more if done properly. In no caseshould IR data be trusted if the absorbance significantly exceeds 1, butIR data are often valid to < 0.01 A. This detail is also important in thatswapping out FTIR gas cells can be tedious and technically difficult,requiring significant purge time and tuning of the optics.Note also that FTIR need not be recalibrated on the spot. FTIR iscapable of utilizing previously-calibrated sample spectra. However it iscritical that a new background spectrum be collected at reasonableintervals (e.g. at the beginning of each new data series) to account forpossible instrumental drift due to temperature. The manufacturerrecommended diagnostics should be run at least daily.QMS intensity is normalized to account for drift in sensitivity. We agree that limiting absorbenciesand ion intensities to one decade is too restrictive. QMS has broader linear range, spanningseveral decades. The text will be modified so that IR absorbance be kept between 0.1 - 1.0, aspointed out in the comment; lower and higher absorbencies may be used provided sample dataare bracketed by calibration data.26Joe Van GompelFigure 211Title of Figure 2 has a typo – should be “Responses” not “Responser”.Why are they divided by 14?The noted grammatical adjustment will be made. This is not direct division but m/e 84normalized to m/e 14 (Kr+ signal is divided by N+ signal)27Joe Van Gompel2.2.611721Both Process flow and Total Volume flow can be measured by QMS.With QMS available, there is no need to measure Process flow usingFTIR and PFCs.We agree. However, QMS measurements will require on-site calibration of QMS response toPFCs28Joe Van GompelTable 212The Edwards TPUs work differently, with High Fire and Low Fire. Thetotal flow will vary between these settings, as will the DRE. As thereare many Edwards TPUs in use for this application, the protocol shouldreflect the unique aspects of that POU device. I would be happy towork with you on that.The protocol should be valid for all PFC abatement systems.29Joe Van Gompel2.2.7122641I will suggest that a single FTIR can be used, but that the gas cell mustbe changed between the Process flow determination and the TotalVolume determination. FTIRs are expensive and you seriously limit thenumber of people capable of doing the measurements by requiring amatched set.One FTIR can be used. It would be necessary to alternate inlet and outlet measurements. Steadystate behavior could be verified by sampling for a sufficiently long period of time. It remains to beshown, however, whether sufficient precision can be achieved with just one FTIR system. This isnot to say that it is not possible to achieve the desired precision. Using one FTIR will requireknowing with confidence what the scrubber loading is. If sufficient inlet data is acquired toaccomplish this, and then the FTIR is switched to the outlet of the scrubber and the same processis run on the tool then the protocol will work just as well as using two FTIRs. The emission factorsfor a particular process run on the same chamber are usually very reproducible. Sufficient datacan be collected to achieve the desired precision.30Joe Van Gompel2.3.1.132This should read “When combining ...” not “When combing ...”.The noted grammatical adjustment will be made.31Joe Van Gompel2.31319Statistical analysis has never been my strong suit. Someone whounderstands the statistics should devise a standardized spreadsheet.All who follow the protocol should use this spreadsheet to generatethese values, or you will have a pretty wide range of wrong answers atthe end of the day.This is a good suggestion, and should be considered after reaching concurrence on theexperimental methods.32Joe Van GompelReferences21Are the referenced reports available for review?They soon will be.33Joe Van GompelOverallGenerally a good protocol. I think details will have to be sorted out toaddress the differences in the abatement devices (e.g. High Fire for theEdwards TPUs) as well as making the statistical analyses more plugand-chug instead of having everyone work them out for themselves, butthis is a very good start.Thank you. Please see comment #28.English Translation of General Question JEITA-PFCWG 9/1/2008Primary EPA Response 9/9/2008 in JapanesePrimary EPA Response 9/9/2008 in EnglishHow do you use this protocol finally ?例えばSEMIなどによる、よく知られたDRE測定ための信頼度のある業界基準として確立させたい。ISMIとJEITAのプロトコルを補完することを考えており、半導体プロセスからの排出を明確にしようとしています。Seek to establish as industry standard for measuring DRE with known, measured reliability - e.g., SEMI, etc.Intended to complement ISMI and JEITA protocols for characterizing process emissions during semiconductormanufacturing.Who use this protocol ?エレクトロニクス産業でPFCの排出を報告する誰でもが、F- GHG除害装置の性能について記述する/量を計ることができます。Anyone describing/quantifying the performance of a F-GHG abatement device used in electronics manufacturingfor the purpose of reporting PFC emissions.Will this protocol be the standard of the USA ?米国および各国政府によって今後参照されるでしょう。May be referenced in the future by U.S. and international governments.Will this protocol be the international standard ?私たちは望みます。それは現在の意図です。We hope. That's the current intent.Please show us your detailed schedule.EPAは利用できるように準備しています。スケジュールは進行中です。EPA to provide, when available. Schedule under development.How do you think to use this protocol ?世界各国のエレクトロニクス産業が、PFCの除害のDREを測定し報告する、マニュアル(標準方法)とすることを意図しています。Intended as manual (standard method) for how to measure and report DRE of systems for abating PFCsthroughout the international electronic manufacturing industry.Will you use this protocol to make a report of voluntary emission date or mandatory emission date ?自主的な報告のために推薦しますし;義務的な報告のために要求することもあるでしょう。Will recommend for voluntary reporting; may require for mandatory reporting.↑Did you inform Japanese government about this protocol ?Or will you inform Japanese government about this protocol ?まだしていません;私たちは次の改訂版で提案することを考えています。(それはステイクホルダーのコメントおよび提案を含んだものとなるでしょう)Not yet; propose we share the next, revised version, which will include stakeholder comments and suggestions.How to treat this protocol in connection with IPCC 2006 guideline ?2006のIPCCガイドラインでは、ガイドラインのユーザは除害装置の性能を保証する責任があると記述しています。2006IPCCガイドラインには、次のように書かれています。「Tirr2排出抑制技術・・除害効率ファクターは・・実際のプロセス条件で測定され、確認され、技術的に正常なプロトコルの使用、例えば、希釈の影響と同様にC2F6にCF4バイプロダクトを含む既知の測定誤差を含むもの、O2の使用、燃焼技術のどちらについても説明されていること」EPAは、開発中のこの標準プロトコルがこの役割をすることを提案します。(IPCC 2006、3巻、pg。6.20)2006 IPCC guidelines place the burden of assuring abatement device performance on the User of the Guidelines.As written in 2006 IPCC Guidelines, "Tier 2 emission control technology factors are applicable ONLY to . . .devices that . . . Have been measured and has been confirmed under actual process conditions, using atechnically sound protocol, which accounts for known measurement errors including, for example, CF4 by-productformation during C2F6 as well as the effect of dilution, the use of O2 or both in combustion abatementtechnologies." EPA's proposes that the standard protocol under development fill this role. (IPCC 2006, Vol. 3 pg.6.20)Did you know the discussion of NF3 gas in USA ?Is this protocol concerned about NF3 information (or problem) ?コメントがプレイサーとスウのJGRL 2008の論文を指す場合、EPAはよく知っています。草案のDREプロトコルにはエレクトロニクス産業で使用され、除害される他のガスと同様にNF3も入れています。If the comment refers to the JGRL 2008 paper of Prather and Hsu, EPA is familiar. The draft DRE Protocol doesaddress NF3 as well as any other gas used during electronic manufacturing that may be subject to abatement.Did you inform the preparation of this protocol to other country ,Korea,Taiwan, and so on ?全てのWSCの2008年のISESHの出席者に提示し、コピーを渡し、意見と反応を求めました。Presented at and provided copies to attendees of 2008 ISESH meeting for entire WSC consideration andfeedback.Don't you think this protocol restrain the voluntary emission reduction plan ?抑制はしません、しかし結果の正確さおよび確実性を改善したい。Not "restrain" but Improve accuracy and certainty of results.Did you inform this protocol in the world and collect any information and comment ?はい、9月18日の会合でJEITAのコメントおよびEPAの回答を共有しましょう。Yes, will share comments and EPA responses at Sept. 18 meeting with JEITA.What do you expect for Japanese SIA ?すべてのフッ素系温暖化ガスを使用する電子メーカーが使用を認める、柔軟な昀良の実際的なプロトコルに対し、EPAに助言し巧妙に作るのを協力してください。Help EPA to advise and craft the best practical protocol with flexibility allowing use by all F-GHG using electronicsmanufacturers.Did you inform SIA ? What action SIA does ? What action WSC does ?SIAにはドラフト版を渡しました。SIA was provided the draft. No formal response or action yet received from SIA or WSC.↑SIAからもWSCからもまだ正式なレスポンスかアクションはありません。Can you accept the easy measuring method proposed from Japanese SIA ?コメントが南百瀬氏と杉浦氏の特許のことを指し、セイコーエプソン社の2007年に更新された、2001年9月のFT- IRを使用した温室効果ガスの測定手順書のことを言っているのであれば、私たちはそれがFT- IRをガス濃度の定量的な測定に使用し、測光の精度に関連したものであるので、草案の「DREプロトコル」を拡大し、補足するための重要な問題であると考えています。さらに、私たちは、草案の「プロトコル」の中で、FT- IRが被検体が除害システムに影響されない場合、希釈比を測定するのに役立つと記述しています。If comment refers to patent by Isamu Namose and Toshikazu Sugiura and issued to Seiko Epson CorporationSeptember 2001 on measuring greenhouse gases using FT-IR and subsequently updated in 2007, then we believeit addresses important issues associated with photometric accuracy of using FT-IR for quantitative determinationsof gas concentration and therefore both augments and complements the draft "DRE Protocol." We also note that,according to the draft "Protocol", FT-IR is useful for measuring thedilution factorwhen the analyte is unaffected bythe abatement system.Proposal Question JEITA-PFCWG 9/1/2008Primary EPA Response 9/9/2008EPA Response 9/9/2008"Easy Measuring Method for PFCs Quantified by FT-IRSee response to comment #22. We believe the use of this method is appropriate, should be mentioned in theIntended to Complement Equipment Environmental Characterization"Protocol" and, therefore, should be added to the reference list.Guideline ("Intel Protocol")" is added to a reference place.コメント#22(Q18)のレスポンスを参照してください。私たちは、この方法の使用が適切でプロトコルの中で言及されるべきであり、したがって、参考文献一覧表に加えられるべきである、と信じます。Measurement by the frequency considered to be required for the control of maintenance of abatement equipment is desirable.As currently defined, the DRE protocol addresses just the method of measurement, not frequency. EPA doesn't現在定義されるように、DREプロトコルは頻度ではなく測定の方法を示しています。For example, measurement before and after a maintenance is recommended.believe scope should be expanded at this time. EPA is planning to evaluate the use of NDIR to monitor abatementEPAは、この時期に範囲を拡大するべきとは思いません。For the process equipment, if performance stability can be confirmed through process condition management during operation, the number ofsystem performance over time. Should NDIR prove successful then its output might prove to be an indicator ofmeasurements can be reduced because the reaction efficiency and the generation rate of by-products are considered maintainable.EPAは、モニターとなる除害システムの性能を非分散型赤外分校器(NDIR)の使用を長期間にわたって評価することを計画しています。when DRE measurement, maintenance or both is required.非分散型赤外分光器(NDIR)の測定が上手くいったら、その結果から、DRE測定、メンテナンスあるいFor the abatement equipment, If the correlations among decomposition rate variation factors including those before and after maintenance,は両方がいつ必要かの指標が決められると考えています。variation ranges, and variation parameters have been determined or if the abatement equipment is provided with a mechanism capable ofconfirming that performance is maintained, only daily inspection (monitoring) needs to be conducted, so that the number of measurements canbe reduced.Makers' own measurement is enabled.Using the protocol validates the equipment makers measurements and provides confidence in the reported values.Everyone makes measurement possible.プロトコルの使用は設備メーカーの測定を有効にし、報告された値に対する信用を与えます。It applies also to the measurement for making a maker's independence improvement.It uses for the continuous control of maintenance of emissions.Application also of measurement of a decomposition rate is enabled.If comment is suggesting that method described in draft "Protocol" is capable of measuring gas utilizations, productこのコメントが、草案の「プロトコル」に述べられていた方法がガス利用、工程構成レートおよび排出のIt uses also for the continuous control of maintenance of emissions.formation rates and continuous measurement of emissions, EPA concurs. But that goes beyond the intent and連続測定のことを示唆している場合、EPAは同意します。しかし、それは、草案の「プロトコル」の意図および範囲を越えています。scope of the draft "Protocol." It seems more practical methodsmay exist for continuously monitoring emissions連続的な排出のモニタリングには、より多くの実用的方法が存在するかも知れませんが、(例えば28列(e.g., NDIR as noted in response to comment on row 28). For periodic checks of emissions, the method describedにコメントした非分散型赤外分光(NDIR))。in the draft "Protocol" seems practical.排出の定期点検については、草案の「プロトコル」に述べられていた方法が実用的に思えます。Measurement by one set of FT-IR is also possible.One FTIR can be used. It may be necessary to switch gas cells (use longer path length) to accommodate the high1つのFTIRの使用も可能でしょう。除害システムでは高希釈率に対応して、ガスのセル(より長いビーム路程を使用する)を切り替えることdilution present in the abatement system. It would be necessary to alternate inlet and outlet measurements.が必要かもしれません。Steady state behavior could be verified by sampling for a sufficiently long period of time. It remains to be shown,また、入口と出口の測定を交互にすることが必要でしょう。十分に長いサンプリングで、定常状態の振る舞いを確認することができるかもしれませんが、1つのhowever, whether sufficient precision can be achieved with just one FTIR system.FTIRシステムで十分な精度を達成することができるかを示すことが必要です。If 2 cm-1 is possible technically as for resolutionFor PFCs 2cm-1 resolution is sufficient provided the absorbance bands are fairly wide and are not rotationallyVerification by the JEITA/Epson method is performed in 2 cm-2 library.PFCについては、もし吸光度帯域がかなり広く、その範囲が周囲の変化に従って変化しないならば、resolved. Further, the analyst must assure that sample spectra resolution matches calibration resolution, and thatCalculation speed is very slow in 0.5 cm-2 library use.2cm- 1分解能は十分かも知れません。しかしながら、分析担当者は、スペクトル分解能が検量線分解能とマッチしているか、また、その算出method for accounting for interfering gases is adequate at low resolutions. The FTIR system during development ofのメソッドで妨害ガスがローレゾリューションの条件で適切である、と保証しなければなりません。the draft "Protocol" sampled at 2Hz per scan for 0.5 cm-1 resolution, resulting in approximately 30 sample spectra草案の「プロトコル」のFTIRシステムでは2Hzでスキャンを行い、毎分30のスペクトルが取れていまcollected every minute.す。How about extending the range in 0.1 to 1.0, if the absorbance range has narrow linearity?If the comment is noting that the range of linearity of Beer's Law linear range varies among analytes and that thisIn the JEITA/Epson method, the straight line range is specified and it measures in the representation library there.ベールの法則の線形の範囲の線形性の範囲が被検体ガスによって変わり、これが重要であるべきでshould be of concern, then EPA concurs. EPA believes that if the operator keeps the absorbance in the 0.1 - 1.0ある、とコメントが述べている場合、RPSは同意します。(RPSって何?)From the acquisition data in that case, the linearity of absorbance changes with gas.absorbance range for a given analyte the chance of an error induced by deviations from Beer's law is minimized.EPAは、オペレーターが与えられた被検体に対して0.1 - 1.0の吸光度範囲の中で吸光度を維持すれAlso in order to take these in, reference of the JEITA/Epson method is effective.Currently available FT-IR spectrometers offer two ways to handle nonlinearities: (1) bracketing samples withば、ベールの法則からの偏差によって引き起こされたエラーの機会が昀小化されると考えます。Since those methods are shown by especially the Excel sheet, the difference of the result depended on the difference in a worker's skill can becalibration data and using polynomial fits to the calibration curves or (2) using weaker absorption bands..made into the minimum.現在利用可能なFT- IR分光計は、非線形を扱う2つの方法を提供します:(1)較正データを備えたサンプルを一括し検量線への多項式適合を使用すること、あるいは(2)より弱い吸収帯を使用する。..An analytical curve check at a spot is not realistic.The comment seems to suggest a practical concern that questions the universal applicability of on-site calibrationThere, it is considered as means by the check of one kind of representation gas.gases and dynamic dilution systems. The commenter's suggested approach of checking/verifying path lengthThis is the method of the JEITA/Epson method.コメントは、実用的事項について、共通的なオンサイトでの検量ガスや動的な希釈システムへの提案seems satisfactory provided good calibration curves are available for all analytes of interest. Typically ethylene isSince the relative absorption intensity of IR absorption is universal, it is satisfactory by performing compensation of cell length, etc. by check byと思います。このコメンターの提案する、経路長の確認、検証は、関係する全てのガスについて良い検量線が取られているのであれば、満足するものと思われます。used to verify path length. In cases where on-site calibration gases and a dynamic dilution blending system arethe representation gas which can be prepared with equipment.典型的に、エチレンは経路長を確認するために使用されます。unavailable at the tool, using path length reference gas may be acceptable. It then becomes necessary to evaluateEspecially the thing for which the analytical curve check of each gas is performed on the spot is impossible by high pressure gas management実地の校正用ガスおよび動的な希釈混合システムがツールとして利用不可能な時に、経路長リファレthe impact of this approach on achieving the precision standard of 5%.of each company etc.ンスガスの使用は受理可能かもしれません。その後、5%の精度標準の達成に対するこのアプローチの影響を評価することが必要になります。It is impossible also from a field not only a factory administration side but economical for the standard reference gas of all the gas to come tohand.Although analytical curve accuracy is less than ±5%, 5% of error is already in a certain state in an analytical curve, and it is impossible toobtain 5% of measurement result.It is also already 5.4% of accuracy to have united with 2% of error by the correlation coefficient.Since there is possibility of decomposition of 600 °C and at least 800 °C or less of external wall temperature of abatement equipmentAt 600 - 800C in theory CF4 should work as a tracer gas provided that there are no "hot spots" in the flame whichTracer gas can be the same also by how to enter from the abatement equipment latter part,「ホットスポット」が無い状態で、600- 800°Cが燃焼の中で壁温度に反映されていれば、理論上CF4はトレーサー・ガスとして使えるでしょう。are not reflected in the wall temperature. The autoignition temperature of CF4 >1100CCF4の自己発火温度>1100°C(http:/ /www.nationmaster.com/ encyclopedia/ CF4)。Use of PFC gas is also attained.(http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/CF4). In the limited tests EPA has done, CF4 has worked as tracerとして働きました。EPAが行った制限のあるテストでは、「測定された」壁温度が800C以下だった場合、CF4はトレーサーwhen the "measured" wall temperatures have been 800C or less. DREs measured using either CF4 or Kr as theトレーサー・ガスとしてCF4かKrのいずれかを使用して測定されたDREは、高精度と共に、同じ値となりました。.tracer gas were the same, with high precision.On the above-mentioned conditions, use of ethylene is also possible.EPA believes that for flame-based abatement systems using ethylene will not work as it will combust at 600C. InEPAは、燃焼式除害システムでは、エチレンは使えないと思います、なぜなら、600°Cではそれは燃えてしまうでsuch systems the fuel is methane (CH4). Even if the comment refers to C2F4, it too combusts in a flameしょう。(autoignition temperature is 392C).そのようなシステムでは、燃料はメタン(CH4)です。コメントがC2F4を指しても、それは燃焼(自己発火温度は392Cです)の中でまた燃え尽きます。If the dilution rate measurement in meters, such as an anemometer and a flow instrument, is also possibleEPA does not believe that using an anemometer would achieve the measurement precision sought. One wouldEPAは、風速計の使用が求められた測定精度を達成するだろうと思いません。通過する流れの全プロフィルを必要とし、その結果を体積に変換しなくてはなりません。need the entire profile across the flow and then convert the result to a volume. While achievable in principle, EPA理論としては達成可能ですが、EPAは生じるエラーが提案された5%の数値を数倍超過するだろうと思います。believes the resulting error would exceed the proposed 5% figure several-fold. For a flow meter (like a mass flow流量計(マスフローメータのような)測定のために,MFMの通過量をすべて吸引しなくてはなりません。meter) measurement to succeed passing all of the flow through the MFM would be required. that doesn't seemそれは実用的ではないでしょう。practical. Further, calibration of that MFM would present challenges? Would one use dry air and correct forさらに、MFMの較正に挑戦しますか?誰が、使用する空気を乾かし、湿気のために修正するでしょうか。moisture? It seems unlikely that the desired measurement precision could be achieved..それでは、測定精度が十分とはありえないでしょう。It is whether 60-point measurement has large load (opinion).At the sampling rates of modern FT-IR systems, 60 data points at the same calibration flow rate does not seemexcessive when one is collecting a data point every 2.2 seconds. Total measurement time is approximately 2現代のFT- IRシステムのサンプリングレートで、同じ較正流量の60のデータポイント、1つが2.2秒ごとにデータをminutes for 60 data points. Data obtained at this rate could also demonstrate the steady state concentration exiting集めている場合、過度とは思えません。the scrubber.合計の測定時間は60のデータポイントのためにおよそ2分です。これらのデータは、さらにスクラバーを出る定常状態濃度を示すでしょう。NumberReviewerAffiliationSectionFrom PageTo PageFrom LineTo LineCommentPrimary EPA Response34Dr. Shou-nan LiITRI Taiwan1.141215This is not correct. In Taiwan, the ITRI Method has been used for abatementperformance evaluation of local scrubbers since 2001. The ITRI Method isshown in the following 3 published papers:• Li et al.,(2004). Default values appear to be overestimating PFC emissionsfrom fabs. Solid-State Technology, Sep. 2004.• Li et al., (2002). FTIR spectrometers measure scrubber abatementEfficiencies.• Solid-State Technology, July 2002.• Li et al., (2001). Improved Technique for Evaluating Point-of-use AbatementSystems. Semiconductor Fabtech, 14th Edition, June 2001.We will incorporate these references in thenext draft. However, we stand by theoriginal text. While we acknowledge theremay be published methods for measuringPFC DREs there is not industry standardmethod, like there is for characterizingemissions from semiconductormanufacturing process tools.35Dr. Shou-nan LiITRI Taiwan2.2.181724The process tool is kept off while data is collected. In this way, the by-producedPFC (CF4) will not be measured. Please read the following paper by BOCEdwards and ITRI:Czerniak et al., (2007). Has the Challenge of PFCs really Been Solved ?Semiconductor International (2007), Oct.We agree that perhaps this is confusing.As Dr. Li states, if the process tool is off(RF off) then by-product PFCs, such asCF4 formed during C2F6/O2 chambercleans or C4F8 etch processes, would notbe measured. We will clarify text.36Dr. Shou-nan LiITRI Taiwan2.2.492425It is stated, the FTIR should be operated at 0.5 cm-1. However, the FTIR shouldbe operated at 0.5 and 1.0 cm-1.We agree with Dr. Li that 0.5 or 1 cm-1resolution can be used providedcalibrations for both resolution areavailable.37Dr. Shou-nan LiITRI Taiwan2.2.5101213This is not necessary. Even in Fig.2, the calibration is not conducted usingPFCs. Usually, we can use ethylene or other standard gas for FTIR calibration.Only necessary to calibrate QMS on site.FTIR can be calibrated in lab.38Dr. Shou-nan LiITRI Taiwan2.2.6111518At this condition of 600C with a catalyst, the DRE for CF4 and SF6 is greaterthan 80%. We cannot measure the flow rate using CF4/SF6 at this condition.Similarly, at 800C without a catalyst, the DRE for CF4 and SF6 could be greaterthan 30%. Thus, significant error could be produced.At 600 - 800C in theory CF4 should workas a tracer gas provided that there are no"hot spots" in the flame which are notreflected in the wall temperature. Theautoignition temperature of CF4 >1100C(http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/CF4). In the limited tests EPA has done,CF4 has worked as tracer when the"measured" wall temperatures have been800C or less. DREs measured using eitherCF4 or Kr as the tracer gas were the same,with high precision. (We have data on onesystem - Tech Harmonic - may bespeculative on our part to assume othersystems will behave the same. Seediscussion of comment #6 on DREComment Tab.39Dr. Shou-nan LiITRI TaiwanReferences21All cited references are internal reports from US EPA or SEMATECH, how can areader of this protocol reach these cited references ?Soon they will be available at EPA'swebsite.