Preprint

UCRL-JC-145932

The Particle Cleanliness ..

Validation System

I. F. .Stowers, D. L. Ravizza

This article was submitted to

48thAnnual Technical Meeting of the Institute of Environmental
Sciences and Technology, Anaheim, CA, April 28 - May I,2002 ,

December 21,200l

U.S. Dej.mfment -_
of E nefgy

1nn Lawrence
Livermore

Approved for public release; further dissemination unlimited

 DISCLAIMER

This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States
Government. Neither the United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their
employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for
’ the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or
represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific
commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not
necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not
necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or the University of California, and
shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

This is a preprint of a paper intended for publication in a journal or proceedings. Since changes may be ’
made before publication, this’preprint is made available with the understanding that it will not be cited
or reproduced without the permission of the author.

This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy.

Available electronically at htttx/ /www.doe.zov/bridee

Available for a processing fee to U.S. Department of Energy

and its contractors in paper from
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information
P.O. Box 62
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062
Telephone: (865) 5768401
Facsimile: (865) 576-5728
E-mail: [email protected]

Available for the sale to the public from

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road .I
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: (800) 553-6847
Facsimile: (703) 605-6900
E-mail: [email protected]
Online ordering: htto: / /www.ntis.Pov/orderine.htm

OR

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

, Technical Information Department’s Digital Library
http://www.llnl.gov/tid/Library.html
 THE PARTICLE CLEANLINESS VALIDATION SYSTEM
Irving F. Stowers and Douglas L. Ravizza

Lawrence Liyermore National Laboratory, PO Box 808, L-463, Livermore, CA 94.55;

.’

Biography
Irving F. Stowers is a senior scientist at LLNL in the Laser Fusion Program where he has worked
since 1975. His expertise includes laser and flashlamp damage to optics; design and construction of the
Shiva, Nova, and NIF Laser Fusion Systems; fabrication of laser fusion targets; and the design and
construction of ultra precision machine tools. He ‘is the author of over 90 papers with more than 20 in the
field of precision cleaning and contamination control. He received his BS in Mechanical Engineering
from Northeastern University and his MS and ScD from MIT.
Douglas L. Ravizza is a senior technologist and the designer and builder of the PCVS system and
has worked at LLNL since 1983. He specializes in the design and construction of complex electro-
mechanical systems, especially those involving.digital imaging processing.

Abstract
The ‘Particle Cleanliness Validation System (PCVS) is a combination of a surface particle
collection tool and a microscope based data,reduction system for determining the particle cleanliness of
mechanical and optical surfaces at’ LLNL. Livermore is currently constructing the National Ignition
Facility (NIF), a large 192 beam laser system for studying fusion physics. The laser is entirely enclosed.
in aluminum and stainless steel vessels containing several environments; air, argon, and vacuum. It
.contains uncoated optics as well as hard dielectric coated and softer solgel coated optics which are, to
varying degrees, sensitive to opaque particles, translucent particles, and molecular contamination. To
quantify the particulate matter on structural surfaces during vendor cleaning and installation, a novel
instrument has been developed to-both collect surface particles and to quantify the number and size
distribution of these particles. The particles are collected on membrane filter paper which is “swiped” on
a test surface for a proscribed distance to collect sufficient particles to significantly exceed the
cleanliness of the filter paper. The swipe paper is then placed into a cassette for protection from further.
contamination and transported to a microscope with x-y motorized stage and image analysis software,
The surface of the swipe paper is scanned to determine both the background particle level of the paper,
the cassettecover, and the portion of the paper which made contact with the test surface. The cumulative
size distribution of the collected particles are displayed in size bins from 5 to 200 pm. The quantity of
particles exceeding 5 pm is used to compute the IEST-STD-1246D cleanliness Level. Eight image
analysis microscopes have been constructed for use with several dozen particle collection tools. About
30,000 cleanliness measurements have been taken to assure the clean construction and operation of the
NIF laser system.

Keywords
Cleanliness, precision cleaning particles, MIL-STD-1246, digital image processing, cleanroom,
particle size distribution.

\ \
 Introduction
When the need to measure surface particle cleanliness was recognized in 1997, we surveyed
existing techniques used in aerospaceand microelectronic fabrication and determined that no existing
technique satisfied all of our needs. We therefore developed the filter paper swipe technique to extract
particles from surfaces, concentrate them one hundred fold, and then count the particles with a CCD
camera equipped microscope. The particle collection technique can be seen as the logical extension,of
the “white glove” test. Details of the collection efficiency and issues associatedwith measuring particle
cleanliness from I Level 50 to 2 Level 300 is described in sufficient detail that the technique could be
reproduced by others interested in measuring similar cleanlifiess levels.
The NIF Laser and Optical Cleanjiness
Particle and organic film cleanliness are important to the NIF laser system because they could
lead to beam obscuration and scatter losses. The use of cleanrooms, as described in Federal Standard
.209C[ I], minimizes the settling of airborne particulate contaminants. The inside of the laser beamline is
maintained at I Class 1.
Large aperture optics on NIF have a cleanliness requirement of Level 50-A/10 as installed.
Optical and structural surface cleanliness is fkrther specified as initial cleanliness (immediately after
cleaning) and as-assembled cleanliness. The- NIF laser system particle cleanliness requirements. are
defined in Table 1. The particle cleanliness levels span from less than Level 50 to Level 300 (a dynamic
,range of 1,OOO:lin particle concentration). Additional papers on the cleanliness issues associated with
the coristruction and operation of the NIF laser systems can be found in the bibliography [2, 3,4].
Table 1 Cleanliness Level requirements in the as-cleaned and as-assembled conditions for small optics
(I 40 mm), large optics (400 mm), and structural surfaces.
Surface cleanliness Levdl Surface cleanliness Level
(as-cleaned) (as-assembled)
Large optical surfaces I Level 50-A/10 = Level 50-A/3
Smail optical surfaces 5 Level 100 = Level 100
Structural surfaces enclosing large optics I Level 83-A/10 = Level 120-A/3
Structural surfaces enclosing small optics 5 Level 300-A = Level 300-A

Particle Cleanliness Levels

ML-STD-1246C and IEST-STD-CC1246D[5] define surface cleanliness-Levels for particles
and thin-films. It has been found that the surface particles generally follows a log10 (cumulative
cokentration) versus (log10particle diameter)2 function. Each surface cleanliness Level is named for the
largest particle size expected to be found in a 0.1 m2 [ 1 ft2] surface area. Thus a surface with a Level 100
distribution of contaminants, should have (on average) only one particle of 2 100 pm diameter on each
0.1 m2 [l fl?] and an analytically defined number of smaller particles down to 1 pm diameter. For a
particular cleanliness Level, the cumulative size distribution is given by the following equation and
shown graphically in Figure 1.
Particles 1 1 o0.926(L”g:“(L”““l)-L”g:o( particle diameter [PI))

O.lm’
 Partick diameter, ‘pm

Figure 1 IEST-STD-1246D plotted bn log-log2 axes which results in a series of straight lines representing
each cleanliness level. Cleanliness Level 100 allows only 1 particles / 0.1 m2 [/ft’] of 100.urn size or larger
and simultaneously allows 1,785 particles / 0.1 m2 [/ft’] of.5 pin size or larger. These two points are shown
as small circles (0) on the Level 100 cleanliness line.

Collecting Surface Particles

Surface Cleanliness Measurement
Although IEST-STD-1246D defines cleanliness Levels, it does not specifically define how to
measure this quantity. Measuring the particle surface concentration can be done either directly or
indirectly. Direct surface examination of very clean surfaces is difficult even with superior microscopic
techniques. For’example, a Level 100 surface has 1,785 particles (2 5um) / 0.1 m2 [/A21or the equivalent
of only 0.018 particles (2 5 urn) / mm*. At this concentration it will require the examination of 56 mm2
to statistically locate a single 5 urn particle. Since a count of only 1 particle is not statistically
significant, at least 4 x 56 = 224 mm2 will need examination to achieve a variance of 2 [41’2].
In contrast, indirect surface examination’techniques, such as liquid surface flushing followed by
filtration, will concentrate the particles onto a filter to be subsequently examined by a microscope. This
process will achieve 50x increase in particle concentration and thereby 1) reduces counting time over
direct surface examination, 2) improves counting statistics, and 3) increase particle concentration to
significantly above the background contaminant level of the filter paper (the signal-to-noise level).
The-authors have developed a dry surface wipi,ng technique that utilizes a membrane filter to
wipe [or swipe] a well defined area and then examine the, filter under a microscope. Unlike the direct
examination technique previously described CO.61 8 particles/ mm2], the swiping distance can be adjusted
(depending upon the cleanliness Level being ‘examined) to achieve at least 1 particle (2 5 urn) / mrn2’in
every microscope viewing area. Utilizing very clean filter paper with = 0.1 particles (2 5 urn) / mm* and
by adjusting the swiping distance from a few inches to several feet [see Table 21 it is possible to. reliably
measure particle cleanliness to below Level 50: The complete examination procedure and counting
statistics are described in MEL98-012 Surface Cleanliness Validation by Swiping for NIF
Components[6]. One advantage of the PCVS swipe tool compared to the ASTM F303 solvent’ flushing
‘1
test is the ability to easily examine overhead and vertical surfaces.

.
 ‘b3

Table 2 ‘Swipe length needed to achieve a specific particle concentration ratio. In particular, the first
column defines the particle cleanliness Level to be validated. The second column is the particle
concentration at 2 5 pm diameter as defined in IEST-STD-1246D. The third column defines the minimum
recommerided swipe length. The fourth column defines the particle concentration ratio achieved with the
minimum recommended swipe length.

Cleanliness Level

Alternative Particle Collection Methods

ASTM F303 and F306[7] +se a solvent to flush particles from 0.1 m* [l ft*] of surface area and
then recovers the particles’ on a membrane filter. The particles are then manually counted with a
microscope or with an image processing microscope. The particle cdncentration ratio is 54: 1 assumhig
that 100 ml of clean solvent is used to collect particles onto a 47 mm membrane filter. This procedure is
capable of measuring particle concentrations down to Level 86 assuming an initial filter cleanliness of
5 0.1 particle (2 5 pm) / mm*, a signal-to-noise ratio of 3: 1, and a fluid cleanliness of MIL-STD-1246
Level 50 [166 particle (2 5 pm) / 0.1 liter].
ASTM E1216[8] uses an adhesive tape to remove particles from surfaces and the tape is then
microscopically examined to determine the particle concentration. Since the pai-ticle concentratibn ratiq
is 1:1, this method is only capable of measuring a surface cleanliness bf Level 200 assuming a particle
cleanliness of the tape of I 0.1 particle (2 5 pm) / ,-* and a signal-to-noise ratio of 3: 1.
Pentagon Technologies[9] has developed the Q-III instrument that uses a moving gas stream to
collect particles from a surface and deliver them to an airborne particle counter where they are counted.
At its longest sampling time the instrument scans a 12 inch path that is 2 inch wide or l/6 fl?. This
sampling distance allows the instrument to measure particle concentrations down to about Level 38
assuming a minimum count of 10 particles 2 5 pm and assuming an 80% collection efficiency.
Emst[lO] at Eastman Kodak has developed a sticky roller technique for collecting particles on
surfaces. A 40.5 mm wide x 18 mm diameter roller is ‘passedover a 0.1 m* [l f?] area and then the
paflicles are transferred to a sticky tape. The sticky tape is in turn examined using an image analysis
microscope. The particle concentration ratio is 4 1:1 with samples taken from 0.1 m* [ 1 ft*]. This particle
collection procedure is able to measureparticle cdncentrations down TOLevel 93 assuming an initial tape
and roller cleanliness of I 0.1 particle (2 5 pm) / mm* and a signal-to-noise ratio of 3: 1.
The accuracy of all of these indirect particle collection techniques is highly dependent on their
collection efficiency. Measuring collection efficiency is, however, not a standardized procedure and
there are no standard dirty surfaces with which to repeatedly measure, using various particle collection
methods, to generate statistics on particle collection efficiency..
Effici$ncy of Swipe Collection Method
Ideally a particle collection method should remove 100% of the particles above ,I pm from a
surface. We’ve developed a procedure that repeatedly samples the same area’of a surface and measures
the particles removed during each swipe. The slope of the ctirve of particIes/area, plotted on a Log-linear
plot, representsthe removal efficiency. As shown in Figure 2, a total of five separatelbcations were each
swiped 10 times in sequence.For the first 4 swipes at each location, the swipe tool removed 85% of the
surface particles during each swipe of a surface. After 4 swipes, the particle removal rate began to
deviate from a constant percentage per swipe and after 6 swipes the particle concentration reached a
steady-statelevel corresponding to Level 65 [0.004 particles (2 5 pm) / mm21 which corresponds to the
particle cleanliness level of the swipe paper.

t Location e

10,000

1,000

100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10
: Swipe Number

Figure 2 Swipe removal efficiency can be estimated by repeatedly swiping the same location and counting
the swipe paper. During the first 4 swipes of the same surface, the particle removal efficiency remained
constant at 85%.
The Swipe Tool Design

Figure 3 Photograph of swipe tool and swipe paper. The cellulose based swipe paper is available from two
commercial vendors.
The swipe tool, in its third generatipn design (see Figure 3 and Figure 4), consists of a Delrin
plastic swipe paper holder, a clamp to firmly hold one end of the swipe paper, an elastomer cushion that
applies a uniform pressure to the back of the swipe paper, and two rollers that prevent excessive for-Fe
from being applied to the swipe paper which might lead to tearing of the paper. A vertical force bf
0.5 kg [1 pound force] is sufficient to compress the elastomer sponge and efficiently collect particles
from relatively smooth surfaces. The preferred surface finish should be I 1.6 pm [63 microinch]
however, surfaces with twice this roughness can be swiped without damaging the surface of the swipe
paper.

Figure 4 Outline of swipe tool indicating the small square sponge that backs-up the swipe paper. The swipe
paper is held in place by a clamp. The swipe tool is held at 45’ and gently rocked up and down as it is
drawn across the surface. The downward force is about one pound which is regulated by rollers on each
side of the swipe tool and the hardness of the sponge.
Swipe Paper
The swipe paper is a commercially available cellulose membrane filter that has been cut to a
2 inch x 1.5 inch shape. Although most membrane filter paper is not purchased to a surface cleanliness
specification but rather to a pore size specification, the paper has been found to have a very repeatable
cleanliness froin lot to lot and between manufacturers. Typically, the paper has fewer than 5 0.1 particle
(2 5 urn) / mm2 which is equivalent to Level 153. Interestingly, it is possible to use this paper
cleanliness level to verify the particle cleanliness of surfaces up to 50 times cleaner because of the
particle concentration process inherent in swiping a surface.
Swipe Cassette
The particle collection procedure consists of placing a swipe paper into the swipe tool, swiping
(wiping) a surface for a defined swipe length, placing the swipe paper into a clean protective cassette,
cpunting the particles, and estimating the background contaminant level of the swipe paper with the
PCVS microscope described below.
The swipe cassette [see Figure 51 is an injectidn molded polycarbonate .housing and cover
designed to protect the swipe paper from further contamination and allows the paper to be examined
through the transparent cover.
Figure 5 Schematic of swipe cassette. The cover protects thk swipe paper from environmental
contamination and holds the paper to maintain a flat field-of-view for the microscope.

Reading the Swipe Papei-

PCVS Microscope Design
The PCVS microscope is conventional in concept but unconventional ‘in implementation. Its
purpose is simply to repeatedly examine many small portions of the swipe paper surface and count all
particles 2 5 pm in equivalent diameter. The instrument must also function in two distinct modes; 1) as a
researchtool where the precise cleanliness of the sampled surface is needed as part of an investigation to
correlate cleanliness with optical damage, and 2) as a production QC tool whkre it is simply necessaryto
verify (or validate) that a surface is cleaner than a predetermined surface cleanliness level. These two
modes are accommodated by adjusting the length of the swipe as well as adjusting the number of images
captured on each swipe paper.
The microsccjpe is equipped with an x-y motor driven stage to move the cassette beneath a 6-
power objective lens. Each captured video frame is 640 pixel x 480 pixel and represents approximately-
1 mm’. The particles removed during the swipe collection procedure creates a band that is roughly
12 rows (= 12 mm) wide by 50 columns (= 50 mm) long and could seemingly require 600 video images..
to be captured and processed. However, additional rows of images are required as the physical centerline
of the paper may not coincide with the centerline of the x-y stage due to minor operator misalignments.
Also, an additional eleven rows are captured to measure the cleanliness of the un-swiped portions of .the
paper. This allows the swipe paper background cleanliness level to be monitored and subtracted from the
portion of the paper containing the collected particles, thereby significantly improving the counting
accuracy. Despite the large number of video images needed to count the particles on a swipe paper, the
scamiing process is accomplished in approximately 5 minutes using custom sotiare written using
LabView[ 111.
Image Analysis Procedure
After each image is captured it is processed 1) to enhance contrast by performing a background
subtraction, 2) converted to a binary image by thresholding the gray-scale image, 3) then particle
outlines are closed 4) donut images are filled-in, an< finally. 5) pixels within an enclosed area are
counted and converted to an equivalent circular diameter. Three ‘enclosed pixels are needed to identify a
5 pm diameter particle.
After all images from a single swipe paper are counted, the number of garticles are sorted into
bins of 5 pm to 200 pm in 5 pm increments.’ The quantity of particles exceeding 5 ,um is used to
compute the IEST-STD-1246D cleanliness,Level. The other 19 bins above 5 pm are not specifically
used to compute the cleanliness level but are preserved along with the swipe description information in a
databaserecord formed after each swipe cassette is read. The measured size distribution rarely follows
the exact shape of the MIL-STD-1246 size distribution due to the source of the contamination, as will be
discussedin the following section.

Figure 6 Illustration of the PCVS system. ‘I$e custom assembled system includes a microscope (right) with
B-power objective lens and motor driven x-y stage. The small video monitor displays the image from the
CCD camera whereas the large ,monitor displays the digitally processed image and provides the user
interface for the PCVS instrument.
Particle Size Distribution Compared to IEST-STD-1246?
The data in the 20 particle size bins collected from each swipe can be ,usedto compare with the
size distribution given by IEST-STD-1246D. Figure 7 shows 20 size distribution curves selected from
our database of nearly 30,000 swipe readings which were collected during August 2000. The readings
were selected randomly but in the range between Level 83 and Level 100 and represent surfaces
immediately after precision cleaning using high pressure DI’water. The curves indicate that nearly all of
the surfaces show fewer larger particles than would be ‘expected from the IEST-STD-1246D curves.
This finding is similar to what Welker[l2] .has observed; .and,.it is generally expressedas an increase in
the slope of the curve above the value 0.926 found in the Section entitled: Particle Cleanliness Levels.
Welker[ 121,for example, reported using undulation, low pressure spray, and ultrasonic agitation
to remove particles from surfaces and then counted the particles using a liquid particle counter. He
found that ,the nature of the size distribution depended on the material being tested and on the precise
particle removal technique. In general, undulation gave a coeffcieht slightly larger [typically 1.01than
the value of 0.926 found .in IEST-STD-CC1246D, low pressure spray resulted in a higher value
[typically 1.331,and ultrasonic agitation resulted in an even larger coefficient [typically 1:63].
In contrast, Tribble[ 131 found that the average IEST-STD-CC1246D coefficient measured at
several aerospace cleanroom facilities was 0.383 for surfaces contaminated by airborne settling. A
coefficient smaller than 0.926 indicates a higher number of larger diameter particles than predicted by
IEST-STD-CC1246D. Tribble further states that the normal 0.926 coefficient is more applicable to
precision cleaned surfaces where cleaning processesare more effective at removing larger size particles.
 1 100
Particle D:meter, pm

Figure 7 Size distribution of 20 randomly selected swipes from the PCVS database. The ‘upper solid curve
(red) represents Level 100 whereas the lower solid curve (blue) reprbsents Level 83 (Level 100/2). All of the
surfaces were precision cleaned before the swipe measurement was taken. The data show, a higher slope
than the value of 0.926 found in IEST-STD-CC1246D and a value of 1.2, shown as the green dashed line)
appears to fit the data. This increase in slope, is typical of precision cleaned surfaces where the cleaning
processes are more effective at removing larger particles. ,

Conclusions
To quantify ‘.the particulate. cleanliness of structura1 surfaces during vendor cleaning and
installation, a novel instrument has been developed to both collect surface particles and to quantify the
number atid size distribution of these particles. The instrument has sufficient colle&ion efficiency and
signal-to-noise ratio to reliably measure particle cleanliness from below Level 50 to above Level 300, a
dynamic range of 1,000:1. The system is composed of a simple “swipe” collection tool and a microscope
equipped with a CCD video camera connected to a custom programmed video image processing system.
At this time, it has been used to make over 30,000 particle cleanliness measurements.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the following individuals who contributed to the technical content of
this paper: John Ertel, George Hampton, Chris Choate, and Henry Wong.

Auspices Statement
This work was performed under.the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by the University
of California, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract No. W-7405-Eng-48.

Refb-ences
[I] FED-STD-209E Airborne Particulate Cleanliness Classes in Cleanrooms and Clean Zones,
Institute of Environmental Sciencesand Technology, 940 E. Northwest Highway, Mt. Prospect, IL.
 [2] I.F. Stowers, J.A. Horvath, J.A. Menapace, A.K. Burnham, and S.A. Letts, Achieving and
Maintaining Cleanliness in NIFAmpZifiers, SPIE Vol. 3492, 1998, LLNL UCRL-JC-130040.
[3] I.F. Stowers, Optical Cleanliness Speczjkations and Cleanliness VeriJication, SPIE, Denver,
Colorado, July 18-23, 1999, LLNL, UCRL-JC-132939.
[4] S.C. Summer, I.F. Stowers, R.A. Predmore, D.E. Van Doren, S.A. Stephenson;CIeun Construction
Protocol for the National Ignition Facility Beampath and Utilities, 2002 Proceedings IEST, in
publication.
[S] IEST-STD-1246D Product Cleanliness Levels and Contamination Control Program. Institute of
Environmental Sciencesand Technology, 940 E. Northwest Highway, Mt. Prospect, IL 60056.
[6] I.F. Stowers, D. Ravizza, Surface Cleanliness Validation by Swiping for NIF Components, LLNL,
MEL98012, also available as NIF5002426.
[7] ASTM F303 Standard Practice for Sam&ing Aerospace Fluids for Components, and ASTM F306
Standard Practice for Sampling Particulates From Man-Accessible Storage Vesselsfor Aerospace
Fluids by Vacuum Entrainment Technique.
[ 81 ASTM El 2! 6 Standard Practice for Samplingfor Surface Particulate Contamination by Tape Lift.
[9] Pentagon Technologies, 210 Hammond Avenue, Fremont, CA 94539.
[lo] Gerard Ernst, Eastman Kodak, Rochester, NY, private communication.
[ 1l] LabVIEW, National Instruments Corporation, 11500 N Mopac Expwy, Austin, TX 78759-3504.
[ 121 Roger W. Welker, Size Distribution of Particles Extractedfrom Dlyerent Materials Compared with
the MIL-STD-1246 Parttcle Size Distribution, 2000 Proceedings IEST, pp 119-123.
[13] A.C. Tribble, et al, Contamination Control Engineering Design Guidelines for the Aerospace
Industry, NASA Contractor Report 4740. Also available as Fundamentals of Contamination
Control, Volume TT44, SPIE Press,Bellingham, WA.