SU-8 Testing (v1f) Thin SU8 on glass slide Test: (1)Soft Bake (SB) and (2)Post Exposure Bake (PEB)

“Control” Recipe Spin Coating: rpm; rpm –expected thickness: 600 nm Soft Bake (SB): 60 93°C Exposure: W PEB: 93°C Develop: 4 min in SU8 developer SU8 developer rinse IPA rinse/Nitrogen Dry

1 st Set of Tests 4 samples; 8 devices/sample 4 Wells (W)+4 Blanks (B)/sample S1: “Control”: Misaligned (see next slide); All shorted; R(W) ~ 8.6 Ω; R(B) ~ 10 Ω Test Parameters for S2-4: –SB (RT Evap) and 60°C, same times for each S2: 8 min: R(W) = (2.7±0.8) Ω; R(B) = (11±0) MΩ; C(B) = (15.0 ± 0.1) pF S3: 13 min: R(W) = (4.9±?) Ω; R(B) = (6 ± 8) MΩ; C(B) = (17.0 ± 0.5) pF S4: 15 min: R(W) = (4 ± 1) Ω; R(B) = (11±0) MΩ; C(B) = (17 ± 0) pF Cracking patterns seen in S2, S3, S4

Findings/Discussion 1 st Set “Control”: All shorted –The “misalignment” ONLY causes 1.Top contacts don’t fully overlap guide circles on bottom that could result in the top contact not covering the well (is this the case? If not say so) – will NOT cause short 2.Top contacts touching two exposure regions –either single + double exposures (normal) – NOT cause short, –or single + no exposures (should not happen but may - according to Mark, but microscopy can tell us – presence of a well – check to confirm and revise here …) – MAY cause short (ONLY no exposure) 30 min RT Evap + various PEB 60°C: All good –All Wells are shorted with a narrow range of R –All Blanks have good Cs also with narrow range Next thing to do is to estimate thickness from geometry from C –The two longer PEB exhibit ~10% larger C (difference in dielectric constants or thickness?) –All three show undesirable cracking patterns (under baked/sticky surface or over baked – low solvent, bubbling etc.?)

2 nd Set of Test Samples 4 samples 2 “Controls”: S5-6 Test Parameters for S7-8: –1 min 93°C and Vary SB 60°C S7: SB: 2.5 min S8: SB: 5 min

Finding Discussions for 2 nd Set (S5-S8) Comparing the Controls: S5 is essentially all shorted while S6 is nominally good aside from the 2 damaged devices. To note however the shorts are much higher resistances than from Set 1. S7 and S8 are all shorted but with R(W) < R(B) and R(W)<10Ω 6

2 nd Test Results - “Control 1” S5 DeviceCapacitance( pF) Resistance( Ω) Type 129.4B 20.5W x10 6 B 424W 524B 67W 7 421B 817W Summary: W: 4/4 Shorted B: 3/4 Shorted R(W): (12 ± 10) Ω Excluding #3 R(B): (158± 230) Ω C(B,#3) – very low (9.38 pF) compared to 1 st set but comparable to S6 (also a Control - next slide).

“Control 2” S6 DeviceCapacitance( pF) Resistance( Ω) Type 1 Damaged9.74.6x10 6 W x10 6 B 3 Damaged x10 5 W x10 7 B 5142W x10 7 B 746W x10 4 B Summary: W: 2/4 Shorted (2 Damaged by high voltage – 1V) B: 0/4 Shorted R(W): (94± 68) Ω; C(B): (9.6± 0.5) pF

2.5 min SB S7 DeviceCapacitance( pF) Resistance( Ω) Type 113.4W 2428B 310.8W 4294B 53.7W 65.7B 74.1W 811.6B Summary: All Shorted R(B): (185 ± 211) Ω; R(W): (8 ± 5) Ω

5 min SB S8 DeviceCapacitance( pF) Resistance( Ω) Type 14.8W 216B 31.9W 444B 54.3W 6?B 7* ?W x10 6 B Summary: W: 3/4 Shorted (why not 4/4?) B: 3/4 Shorted R(Blank): (30 ± 20) Ω (#8 excluded) R(Well): (3.7 ± 1.6) Ω (#7 excluded) 7*: Re-measured (need to double check R)

“Control 20x This image size is good (covering the entire crossbar) – perhaps larger ones covering up to the reference dots would be even better; at the current stage, there’s no need to have too many zoomed in images.

“Control 2” 100x

“Control1” 100x

2.5min SB 100x

5min SB 100x

3 rd Set of Test Samples 2 samples Test Parameters for S9-10: –1 min 93°C and Vary SB 60°C S9: SB: 8 min S10: SB: 12 min

Back Contact not continuous – visually can’t see where it’s broken Measured Cs (can measure 2-terminal R) W: 2/4 Shorted B: 1/4 Shorted C(B): (19.3 ± 0.6) pF (excl. #2) DeviceCapacitance( pF) Resistance( Ω) Type 1W 2 B 312W 419B 5W 619B 7 W 820B 8 min - S9

12 min - S10 DeviceCapacitance( pF) Resistance( Ω) Type 14.5W 218B 36.7W 4121B 53.9W 6127B 75W 8 118B Summary: W: 4/4 Shorted B: 4/4 Shorted Avg Well Resistance: 5.0± 1.2Ω Avg Blank Resistance: 96± 52Ω Double Exposed (16s)