Next Article in Journal
Can a-C:H-Sputtered Coatings Be Extended to Orthodontics?
Previous Article in Journal
Evaluation of Streptococcus mutans Adhesion to Stainless Steel Surfaces Modified Using Different Topographies Following a Biomimetic Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Friction and Wear Performance of CoCrFeMnNiW Medium-Entropy Alloy Coatings by Plasma-Arc Surfacing Welding on Q235 Steel
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of the Dispersion State in Y5O4F7 Suspension on YOF Coating Deposited by Suspension Plasma Spray

Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 08826, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Coatings 2021, 11(7), 831; https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11070831
Submission received: 8 June 2021 / Revised: 3 July 2021 / Accepted: 8 July 2021 / Published: 9 July 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plasma Processing of Thin Films, Coatings, and Advanced Materials)

Abstract

:
The stable Y5O4F7 suspension for dense yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF) coating by suspension plasma spraying (SPS) was developed. Electrostatically and electrosterically stabilized aqueous Y5O4F7 suspensions were prepared and compared with a commercially available Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant. The wettability and dispersibility of the Y5O4F7 suspensions were evaluated in terms of the zeta potential, average particle size, and size distribution with electrophoretic light scattering (ELS) and dynamic light scattering (DLS). The viscosity was measured and the sedimentation was tested to examine the fluidity and stability of the Y5O4F7 suspensions. When electrostatic (BYK-154) and electrosteric (BYK-199) dispersants were added to the Y5O4F7 suspension, the isoelectric point (IEP) of Y5O4F7 particles in the suspension shifted to lower pH. The zeta potential of both of electrostatically and electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspensions were higher than ±40 mV at pH of 8.6, respectively, which were much higher than of the Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant. Meanwhile, the average particle size of the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension was much smaller than that of the electrostatically stabilized one. The electrosteric stabilization had a great effect on improving the wettability and dispersibility of the Y5O4F7 suspension. The coating rate of the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension was the highest among the three tested suspensions. In addition, the YOF coating deposited with the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension had the highest hardness and the lowest porosity.

1. Introduction

In the semiconductor manufacturing industry, three-dimensional integrated circuits (3D ICs) with vertically stacked integrated circuit chips have been developed and widely used in NAND flash memory, called 3D V-NAND [1]. In scaling 3D V-NAND, the dry etching process has been advanced to create complex 3D structures with very high aspect ratio (HAR) features. In order to stack circuits in multi-layers, dry etching and cleaning processes are repeated many times in the semiconductor process chamber. Fluorocarbon etch gases such as C4F8, CHF3, and C3F7OCH3 are generally used for the plasma etching of silicon dioxide (SiO2) and silicon nitride (Si3N4) [2]. In extreme HAR plasma etch steps with those corrosive etching gases, the inner wall and other parts in the chamber were exposed to the high-power plasma and high temperature process for a long time, making them susceptible to plasma erosion and causing particles to be generated that act as contaminants [3,4].
Previously, the inner wall and parts in the etching chamber were spray-coated by yttrium oxide (Y2O3) for the protection from aggressive plasma. Since Y2O3 is chemically more stable than other ceramic materials such as Al2O3 or SiO2, it has been used as a plasma resistant material [5]. When the Y2O3 coating is exposed to the fluorocarbon plasma, a fluorination layer is formed on a part of its surface [5]. The fluorination layer acts as a protection layer from the fluorocarbon plasma [5]. However, when a part of surface of the Y2O3 coating is converted to the thin YXOYFZ layer, fluoride particles similar to YF3 generate from the surface of the coating as contaminants in the process of forming the fluorination layer on its surface [5,6].
Recently, it was found that yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF) containing fluorine was hardly etched from the fluorocarbon plasma [5]. The reason why the YOF coating has better plasma resistance than the Y2O3 coating was investigated in our previous study, where the dense YOF coating with a trigonal crystalline structure is chemically more stable than the Y2O3 coating because of the higher bonding strength [7]. In addition, since the fluorination layer with a high fluorine density is already thickly formed on the YOF coating surface, the probability for the formation of contaminants is low, and the plasma resistance is much better than that of other ceramic materials, such as Y2O3 or Al2O3 [7]. Therefore, the YOF coating is expected to minimize the contaminants generated by aggressive fluorocarbon plasmas in the HAR etching process.
The atmospheric plasma spraying (APS) process is widely used in the coating of plasma resistant materials because it is more cost-effective and suitable for the large area than other coating methods, such as ion plating. However, when the plasma resistant material is coated with the APS process, a lot of large pores and cracks tend to form in the coating [8]. Since the higher hardness and lower porosity of the coating are required for the better plasma resistance, the porous coating by the APS process is still vulnerable to the high-density plasma. In other words, the plasma resistant materials coated by the APS process has a limitation to break through the current cell stacking limitation in 3D V-NAND. In our previous study, the YOF coating, which has a higher hardness and lower porosity than those of the coating by the APS process, was successfully deposited by the suspension plasma spraying (SPS) process [7,9]. The SPS process can produce a dense YOF coating by overcoming the disadvantages of large pores and cracks formed in the coating deposited by the APS process [10,11]. Because the size of the feedstock particles in the droplet is as small as 2 µm or less, the particles are fully melted by the thermal energy in the plasma flame and the splat size of the coating layer could be small enough to produce a dense coating [12]. Our previous works had focused on understanding the mechanism of the SPS process and on the optimum process conditions for the dense YOF coating.
In the SPS process, it was found that the quality of the suspension plays a critical role in the YOF coating. If the Y5O4F7 suspension is in poor conditions due to the severe flocculation, the suspension feeding would be unstable during the SPS process, and large pores and cracks may form in the YOF coating due to incomplete melting of the particles. In this study, the influence of the stability and particle size of the Y5O4F7 suspension on the YOF coating behavior was investigated in order to develop a suspension suitable for the dense YOF coating by the SPS process. Electrostatically and electrosterically stabilized aqueous Y5O4F7 suspensions were prepared and evaluated based on the wettability and dispersibility, which were compared with those of a commercially available Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant. The optimum stabilization condition and formulations of the Y5O4F7 suspension for the dense YOF coating by the SPS process were determined.

2. Experimental Procedures

2.1. Preparation and Characterization of Suspension

Commercial Y5O4F7 powder (99.99%, Nippon Yttrium Co., Ltd., Omuta, Fukuoka, Japan) was used as a feedstock material. Aqueous Y5O4F7 suspensions which consist of Y5O4F7 particles with a solid concentration of 10 wt.% were prepared using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) grade deionized water as a solvent. The powder had a d50 agglomerate size of approximately 1.9 µm, as shown in Figure 1.
Two types of commercially available water-based dispersants were added to aqueous Y5O4F7 suspensions and their effects on the wettability and dispersibility of Y5O4F7 particles in the suspensions were evaluated and characterized: one was an electrostatic dispersant (BYK-154) and the other was an electrosteric dispersant (BYK-199). Properties of the dispersants used in this study are summarized in Table 1. In addition, a silicone-containing defoamer (BYK-019) without hydrophobic particles for aqueous systems was used in the Y5O4F7 suspensions. The silicone-containing defoamer is sensitive to pH and loses functionality, especially above pH 10.
Figure 2 shows the flowchart of preparing aqueous Y5O4F7 suspensions for SPS coating. The Y5O4F7 powder was dried for 24 h at 110 °C in a drying oven. The electrostatic or electrosteric dispersant (BYK-154 or BYK-199) of 1 wt.% and silicone-containing defoamer of 0.5 wt.% were first dissolved in HPLC grade deionized water, then the dried Y5O4F7 powder of 10 wt.% was added. The wetting of the particles in the suspension was carried out through continuous stirring so that the dispersing medium smoothly penetrates the Y5O4F7 particles. Then, high-intensity ultrasonication was used to break down the Y5O4F7 particles in the suspension for 30 min. After the ultrasonication process, the Y5O4F7 suspension was titrated by dilute KOH and HCl to have pH 8.6, which has the optimized colloidal stability. Then, the stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension was prepared by stirring and aging for more than 48 h.
Zeta potential, average particle size, and size distribution of Y5O4F7 particles in suspensions diluted to 0.05 wt.% were measured using a zeta potential and particle size analyzer (ELSZ-1000, Otsuka Electronics Co., Ltd., Osaka, Japan). The colloidal stability of the Y5O4F7 suspensions was determined by zeta potential measurements at various pH by electrophoretic light scattering (ELS), which measures the direction and velocity of the particle movement in a defined electric field. The electrophoretic mobility of the particles was automatically calculated by the analyzer and converted to the zeta potential using the Huckel and Smoluchowski equation [13]. The pH values of the suspensions were measured with a pH-meter (BP3001, Trans Instruments, Petro Centre, Singapore City, Singapore) and were adjusted with dilute HCl and KOH. The average particle size and the size distribution of the Y5O4F7 particles in the suspensions were determined by dynamic light scattering (DLS).
On the other hand, in order to determine the rheological properties and stability of Y5O4F7 suspensions, the viscosity of the suspensions was measured by a rotational rheometer (AR-G2, TA Instruments, New Castle, DE, USA) at a shear rate ranging from 1 to 1000 S−1, and a sedimentation test was performed to evaluate the stability of the suspensions for 24 h. In order to investigate the effects of suspension stability and particle size on YOF coating by the SPS process, the prepared suspensions were compared with a commercially available Y5O4F7 suspension (Nippon Yttrium Co., Ltd., Omuta, Fukuoka, Japan) without dispersant. All the properties of suspensions were measured at room temperature.

2.2. Suspension Plasma Spraying and Characterization of YOF Coatings

YOF coatings were deposited by suspension plasma spraying (SPS) using the SPS equipment (Mettech’s Axial III, Northwest Mettech Corp., North Vancouver, BC, Canada), which has triple anodes and cathodes operated by three independent power supplies. This equipment has the advantage of co-axial feeding. The axial III SPS system with co-axial feeding has a higher coating efficiency than the SPS system with a radial feeding system, as we previously studied [7,9]. As shown in Figure 3, the suspension is injected directly through the plasma gun. Thereby, the heat generated from the plasma jet transfers between the suspension and the plasma jet [14]. The atomizing gas was supplied to the feeding line in the perpendicular direction in order to minimize the droplet size of the suspension through fragmentation by the injected argon flow. In this study, YOF coatings were deposited by the SPS process using three different Y5O4F7 suspensions: electrosterically stabilized, electrostatically stabilized, and commercially available suspensions without dispersant. The suspensions were vigorously stirred by the automatic stirrer during the SPS process to prevent particles from settling by gravity.
Al alloy 6061 with the dimension of 10 × 10 × 5 mm3 was used as a substrate. The substrate was sandblasted to have a surface roughness average (Ra) of ~2.8 µm by alumina particles less than 257 µm in size to improve the adhesion strength of the YOF coating. The substrate was preheated with the plasma flame by scanning the entire surface before the SPS coating process. The substrate was preheated to be 450 K, and the substrate temperature was increased to 570 K determined by a pyrometer (568 IR thermometer, Fluke, WA, USA) after the coating process. During the SPS process, the substrate was cooled by an air gun at a distance of 1000 mm to prevent the substrate damage from melting in the high-temperature plasma flame. The processing parameters of the YOF coating are shown in Table 2.
The cross-sectional microstructures and surface morphologies of YOF coatings were observed by field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM, SU-70, Hitachi, Tokyo, Japan). The hardness was measured by a Vickers hardness tester (Duramin-40, Struers, Cleveland, OH, USA) under a load of 200 gf (0.2 HV) with twelve indentations on the polished coating surface. The image analyzing program ImageJ software (version 1.51k) was used to analyze the porosity of the cross-section of the YOF coatings [15].

3. Results and Discussion

Figure 4 shows zeta potential measurements of aqueous Y5O4F7 suspensions containing two types of dispersants (BYK-154 and BYK-199) and the commercially available Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant by the ELS method as a function of pH. The zeta potential represents the dispersibility by the charge repulsion between particles in suspensions. The repulsive interaction between Y5O4F7 particles results from an electric double layer of the particle surface and is affected by the concentration of adsorbed ions and the ionic strength of the suspension [16]. The zeta potential increases with the thickness of the electric double layer and the total charge of the particle surface [17]. The suspension stability is closely related to a high zeta potential of the particles in suspension [18].
The isoelectric point (IEP) of particles in suspensions represents the pH at which the zeta potential becomes zero. It indicates no net charge at the particles surface, which means the sum of the negative and positive charges is zero. As the pH of the suspension increases above or decreases below the IEP, the zeta potential of the aqueous Y5O4F7 suspension becomes negative or positive, resulting from the adsorption of OH and H+ ions toward Y5O4F7 particles [19]. Figure 4 shows that the IEP of the Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant was the pH of 8.1, and the initial pH of the suspension before titration, which has the zeta potential of −8.58 mV, was 8.6. This means the charge repulsion between the particles was not strong enough to repel each other. As a result, the agglomeration of the Y5O4F7 particles would occur due to low surface charge densities of the particles.
To stabilize the aqueous Y5O4F7 suspension and thereby to prevent the agglomeration of particles, two types of dispersants were used. One is the electrostatic dispersant (BYK-154), which utilizes the electrostatic stabilization by the repulsive force of equally charged particles. The other is the electrosteric dispersant (BYK-199), which utilizes stabilization by the steric effects in addition to the electrostatic repulsion due to the presence of electric charges along the polymer chain [20].
If the zeta potential of the suspension is higher than ±30 mV, it is known to have moderate stability, and if it is higher than ±40 mV, it is known to have good stability [15]. As the pH of the Y5O4F7 suspension decreases toward acidic pH below IEP, the positive zeta potential may increase, and then the stability of the suspension may increase. However, since the acidic suspension corrodes metals, supplying it to the SPS equipment would damage the equipment. On the other hand, as the pH of the Y5O4F7 suspension increases toward basic pH above IEP, the negative zeta potential may increase. However, since the silicone-containing defoamer (BYK-019) loses its function above pH 10, the foaming may occur and feeding of the suspension would become unstable during stirring in the SPS process. Therefore, the Y5O4F7 suspension suitable for the SPS process should not be too acidic nor too basic. For these reasons, we wanted to create a stable Y5O4F7 suspension with a zeta potential higher than ±40 mV at around the initial pH of 8.6.
It was observed that when the electrostatic dispersant (BYK-154) and electrosteric dispersant (BYK-199) were added to the Y5O4F7 suspension, the IEP of the Y5O4F7 particles in the suspension shifted to more acidic values from 8.1 to 3.9 and 2.4, respectively. The IEP shift was attributed to the adsorption of the negatively charged dispersant onto the positively charged surface of the Y5O4F7 particles [21]. The zeta potential of the electrostatically and electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspensions was measured as −47.56 and −43.88 mV at pH of 8.6, respectively. The dispersants increased the electrical double layer of the surface of Y5O4F7 particles, and the charge density of the particle surface was high enough to repel each other. From these results, it was found that the electrostatic and electrosteric dispersant (BYK-154 and BYK-199) had an effect of improving the stability of the Y5O4F7 suspension. Therefore, the prepared Y5O4F7 suspensions turned out to have much better redispersibility than that of the commercially available Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant.
Figure 5 shows the average particle size measured in real time for 15 min at 3 min intervals and particle size distributions of Y5O4F7 suspensions by DLS. As shown in Figure 5a, the particle size of Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant gradually increased due to the agglomeration of the Y5O4F7 particles with the measurement time. Because the agglomeration continued to take place, the average particle size could not be accurately determined. If the agglomeration of the Y5O4F7 particles becomes severe, it can block the feeding line and may cause unstable feeding during the SPS process. In the Y5O4F7 suspension with the electrostatic dispersant (BYK-154) and electrosteric dispersant (BYK-199), however, the agglomeration occurred in a much less degree and the average particle size remained constant as about 716 and 281 nm, respectively. As seen from these results, the size of the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 particles was much smaller than that of the electrostatically stabilized Y5O4F7 particles. This difference cannot be explained simply by the difference in the zeta potential. The zeta potential of the suspension with the two types of dispersants was measured as −47.56 and −43.88 mV at a pH of 8.6, respectively, and there was no big difference in zeta potential. It could be inferred that this difference in average particle size was attributed to the difference in wettability between the suspensions. The wettability is related with the interfacial energy between the particles and the solvent, which would be affected by the adsorption of the dispersant.
Figure 5b shows that the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 particles had a smaller size and narrower size distribution than those of the electrostatically stabilized Y5O4F7 particles. This means that the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 particles, which were initially agglomerated, had much better wettability with the solvent than that of the electrostatically stabilized ones and were disintegrated into small particles in the suspension. This is because the electrosteric dispersant (BYK-199) has a copolymer with much higher molecular weight than that of the electrostatic dispersant (BYK-154). The copolymer with higher molecular weight is known to lower the surface tension of the particles in the suspension by being adsorbed onto their surface more than that with lower molecular weight as the former has a higher surface activity [22]. After wetting, the disintegrated electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 particles would not be agglomerated and thereby the almost uniform size of the particles would be maintained by the steric effect and charge repulsion due to the high zeta potential of −43.88 mV. Therefore, it was confirmed that the electrosteric stabilization was highly effective in improving the wettability and dispersibility of the Y5O4F7 suspension and would be advantageous for the stable feeding of the tiny Y5O4F7 particles in the SPS process.
The stability of the Y5O4F7 suspensions was evaluated by the sedimentation test for 24 h at room temperature. The result is shown in Figure 6, where the relative sedimentation heights of the electrostatically and electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspensions and the commercially available Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant were compared as a function of time. The relative sedimentation height of the suspensions was determined based on the interface between the supernatant with the highest transparency and the opaque suspension. The Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant shows the lowest sedimentation height. This is because the agglomeration of Y5O4F7 particles occurred in the suspension very quickly due to the absence of dispersant and therefore the particle size increased, accelerating the sedimentation rate. After 24 h, the agglomeration and sedimentation of the particles formed a hard cake, which was difficult to redisperse.
On the other hand, the sedimentation rate of the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension was the slowest, followed by the electrostatically stabilized one. This is because the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 particles had good wettability and the size of the particles remained small over time, so they had been floating in the suspension for a longer time. In addition, both suspensions with the two types of dispersants did not form a hard cake and were well redispersed after 24 h. As a result, the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension exhibits the best performance in terms of suspension stability.
Figure 7 shows the viscosity of Y5O4F7 suspensions of 10 wt.% solid content with the electrostatic, electrosteric dispersant, and without dispersant as a function of the shear rate at room temperature. The viscosity of the suspensions was almost constant at shear rates higher than 10 S−1. The viscosity of Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant was 1.14 mPa·s measured by the rotational rheometer and those of Y5O4F7 suspension with the electrostatic and electrosteric dispersant were 1.08 and 1.10 mPa·s, respectively. All of these Y5O4F7 suspensions were prepared in an aqueous dispersing medium and their viscosities were almost similar to that of deionized water, which was 1.00 mPa·s at room temperature. The viscosity of the suspension is closely related to the fragmentation behavior of the suspension by the pressure of atomizing gas in the SPS process, and a low viscosity of the suspension is known to facilitate the atomization, decreasing the size of the suspension droplets [23]. Since the viscosities of the suspensions were similar, the atomization effect on the fragmentation would be similar. Therefore, the stability and particles size of the Y5O4F7 suspensions would be the main factors that affect the YOF coating in the SPS process.
Since the commercially available Y5O4F7 suspension had no dispersant, the suspension became so severely flocculated that the hard cake was formed and could not be redispersed after sedimentation. If this Y5O4F7 suspension is used in the SPS process, a very poor quality of the YOF coating is expected. Indeed, such an aspect is shown in Figure 8, which is the FE-SEM image of the cross-section of the YOF coating deposited with the severely flocculated commercially available Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant by the SPS process. The thickness of the YOF coating was 20 ± 2.5 µm. As shown in Figure 8, when the YOF coating was deposited using such Y5O4F7 suspension, many large pores and even cracks were observed throughout the YOF coating. Large, agglomerated particles resulting from severe flocculation would not be fully melted even by the sufficient thermal energy from the high-power plasma flame during the SPS process, which would not only reduce the growth rate, but also produce large pores and cracks in the YOF coating. In addition, the severely agglomerated Y5O4F7 particles resulted in unstable feeding throughout the feeding line during the SPS process. The feeding rate was not stable but varied abruptly away from the initial setting value during the process. Therefore, the stability of the Y5O4F7 suspension had a great influence on the microstructure of YOF coating in the SPS process.
For that reason, the commercially available Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant, which had not yet been severely flocculated prior to the process, was used in the process, and the YOF coating behavior was compared with that from the prepared electrostatically and electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspensions under the same conditions. Figure 9 shows FE-SEM images of YOF coatings deposited by the SPS process. The YOF coatings have a crystalline structure of a trigonal phase, as we had previously reported [7,9]. Figure 9a,b shows the cross-section and the surface of the YOF coating deposited using the commercially available Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant. Figure 9c,d shows the cross-section and the surface of the YOF coating deposited using the electrostatically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension. Figure 9e,f shows the cross-section and the surface of the YOF coating deposited using the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension. Thicknesses of the YOF coatings in Figure 9a,c,e were 20 ± 1.2, 30 ± 1.3 and 40 ± 1.5 µm, respectively. This result shows that the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension achieved the highest coating rate, followed by the electrostatically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension, and the Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant resulted in the lowest rate. Quantitatively, the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension produced the coating rate about twice as high as that of the commercially available Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant.
Figure 9b,d,f show that the FE-SEM images of surface morphologies of YOF coatings consist of smooth areas with large splats and rough areas with small splats. The completely melted particles spread over the growing surface and form smooth areas called splats [24]. However, the partially or incompletely melted particles form small splats producing rough areas throughout the YOF coating. In Figure 9b, the small splats with rough areas were observed over the entire surface of the YOF coating, implying that the agglomerated particles in the Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant were partially or incompletely melted. On the other hand, in Figure 9f, the large splats with smooth areas were observed over the entire surface, implying that the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 particles were well dispersed in the suspension with small particle sizes (~281 nm in Figure 5) and thus completely melted.
No cracks were observed in the cross-section images of the YOF coatings as shown in Figure 9. The YOF coatings in Figure 9a,e had the highest and lowest porosities, respectively, which are closely related with hardness. The porosity and the Vickers hardness of YOF coatings are shown in Figure 10. The Vickers hardness of the YOF coating deposited with the Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant was 511 ± 45 HV, and those of the YOF coatings deposited with the electrostatically and electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspensions were 531 ± 35 and 570 ± 44 HV, respectively. The porosities of the YOF coatings in Figure 9a,c,e were 0.66% ± 0.02%, 0.37% ± 0.01%, and 0.24% ± 0.01%, respectively. As a result, the YOF coating deposited with elctrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension had the highest hardness and the lowest porosity.
The differences in the coating rate and the microstructure are attributed to the stability and particle size of the Y5O4F7 suspension. Since the evaporation process is endothermic, about 25% of the plasma jet enthalpy is consumed in the evaporation of the solvent in the droplets and Y5O4F7 particles are melted by the remaining thermal energy in the plasma flame after evaporation of the droplets [25]. For that reason, the smaller the size of the dispersed Y5O4F7 particles in the droplets is, the more advantageous it is to deposit the dense YOF coating by the SPS process. The electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 particles were well dispersed in such small particle sizes that they would completely melt by the remaining thermal energy, increasing the deposition rate and decreasing the porosity of the YOF coating. On the other hand, since some of the agglomerated Y5O4F7 particles in the suspension without dispersant did not melt and remained in solid form, most of them were bounced away from the substrate during the process. In other words, the fully or partially melted Y5O4F7 particles contribute to the deposition rate and dense microstructure of the YOF coating, but the unmelted Y5O4F7 particles could not do so. From these results, the stability and particle size of the Y5O4F7 suspension had significant effects on the coating efficiency and microstructure of the YOF coating in the SPS process. Therefore, the electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension turned out to be the most suitable for the high coating efficiency and the dense microstructure of the YOF coating by the SPS process.

4. Conclusions

The electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension was developed for dense YOF coating by the SPS process. The zeta potential of the suspension was much higher than that of commercially available Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant at a pH of 8.6. The suspension was stable and well redispersed due to the high zeta potential, inhibiting the particles agglomeration. The electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension, which had the lower surface tension than that of the electrostatically stabilized one, maintained the smallest average particle size among the suspensions. The electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension produced the coating with the highest deposition rate, the lowest porosity, and the highest hardness, due to the smallest average particle size, which is advantageous for complete melting of Y5O4F7 particles during SPS.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.L.; data curation, S.L.; formal analysis, S.L. and J.L.; funding acquisition, N.H.; investigation, S.L. and N.H.; methodology, S.L.; project administration, N.H.; supervision, N.H.; writing–original draft, S.L.; writing–review & editing, S.L. and N.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Hou, S.Y.; Chen, W.C.; Hu, C.; Chiu, C.; Ting, K.C.; Lin, T.S.; Wei, W.H.; Chiou, W.C.; Lin, V.J.C.; Chang, V.C.Y.; et al. Wafer-level integration of an advanced logic-memory system through the second-generation COWOS technology. IEEE Trans. Electron Dev. 2017, 64, 4071–4077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kim, Y.; Lee, S.; Cho, Y.; Kim, S.; Chae, H. Plasma atomic layer etching of SiO2 and Si3N4 with heptafluoropropyl methyl ether (C3F7OCH3). J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A 2020, 38, 022606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Doemling, M.; Rueger, N.; Oehrlein, G.; Cook, J. Photoresist erosion studied in an inductively coupled plasma reactor employing CHF3. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B Microelectron. Nanometer Struct. Process. Meas. Phenom. 1998, 16, 1998–2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Kim, D.-M.; Oh, Y.-S.; Kim, S.; Kim, H.-T.; Lim, D.-S.; Lee, S.-M. The erosion behaviors of Y2O3 and YF3 coatings under fluorocarbon plasma. Thin Solid Film. 2011, 519, 6698–6702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Shiba, Y.; Teramoto, A.; Goto, T.; Kishi, Y.; Shirai, Y.; Sugawa, S. Stable yttrium oxyfluoride used in plasma process chamber. J. Vac. Sci. Technol. A Vac. Surf. Film. 2017, 35, 021405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kim, D.-M.; Jang, M.-R.; Oh, Y.-S.; Kim, S.; Lee, S.-M.; Lee, S.-H. Relative sputtering rates of oxides and fluorides of aluminum and yttrium. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2017, 309, 694–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Lee, S.; Lee, J.; Kim, W.; Hwang, N.-M. Plasma etching behavior of YOF coating deposited by suspension plasma spraying in inductively coupled CHF3/Ar plasma. Coatings 2020, 10, 1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kim, S.-J.; Lee, J.-K.; Oh, Y.-S.; Kim, S.; Lee, S.-M. Effect of processing parameters and powder size on microstructures and mechanical properties of Y2O3 coatings fabricated by suspension plasma spray. J. Korean Ceram. Soc. 2015, 52, 395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Lee, J.; Lee, S.; Han, H.N.; Kim, W.; Hwang, N.-M. Yttrium oxyfluoride coatings deposited by suspension plasma spraying using coaxial feeding. Coatings 2020, 10, 481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Joulia, A.; Bolelli, G.; Gualtieri, E.; Lusvarghi, L.; Valeri, S.; Vardelle, M.; Rossignol, S.; Vardelle, A. Comparing the deposition mechanisms in suspension plasma spray (SPS) and solution precursor plasma spray (SPPS) deposition of yttria-stabilised zirconia (YSZ). J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2014, 34, 3925–3940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Fauchais, P.; Rat, V.; Coudert, J.-F.; Etchart-Salas, R.; Montavon, G. Operating parameters for suspension and solution plasma-spray coatings. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2008, 202, 4309–4317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kitamura, J.; Sato, K.; Gifu, Z.T.; Burgess, A. Crystal and Micro Structures of Plasma Sprayed Yttrium Oxide Coatings by Axial Injection of Fine Powder Slurries. In Proceedings of the International Thermal Spray Conference, Beijing, China, 14–16 May 2007; pp. 567–572. [Google Scholar]
  13. Sze, A.; Erickson, D.; Ren, L.; Li, D. Zeta-potential measurement using the Smoluchowski equation and the slope of the current–time relationship in electroosmotic flow. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2003, 261, 402–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Marqués, J.L.; Forster, G.; Schein, J. Multi-electrode plasma torches: Motivation for development and current state-of-the-art. Open Plasma Phys. J. 2009, 2, 89–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rueden, C.T.; Schindelin, J.; Hiner, M.C.; DeZonia, B.E.; Walter, A.E.; Arena, E.T.; Eliceiri, K.W. ImageJ2: ImageJ for the next generation of scientific image data. BMC Bioinform. 2017, 18, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Moreno, R. The role of slip additives in tape-casting technology. I: Solvents and dispersants. Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 1992, 71, 1521. [Google Scholar]
  17. Graule, T.; Gauckler, L.J. Electrophoretic mobilities of ceramic slurries characterised by electrokinetic sonic amplitude (ESA). Ceram. Acta 1993, 5, 5. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kumar, A.; Dixit, C.-K. Methods for characterization of nanoparticles. In Advances in Nanomedicine for the Delivery of Therapeutic Nucleic Acids; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2017; pp. 43–58. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hang, J.; Shi, L.; Feng, X.; Xias, L. Electrostatic and electrosteric stabilization of aqueous suspensions of barite nanoparticles. Powder Technol. 2009, 192, 166–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Farinas, J.-C.; Moreno, R.; Mermet, J.-M. Effect of colloidal stability of ceramic suspensions on nebulization of slurries for inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 1994, 9, 841–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Jin, L.; Mao, X.; Wang, S.; Dong, M. Optimization of the rheological properties of yttria suspensions. Ceram. Int. 2009, 35, 925–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yang, D.; Qiu, X.; Pang, Y.; Zhou, M. Physicochemical properties of calcium lignosulfonate with different molecular weights as dispersant in aqueous suspension. J. Dispers. Sci. Technol. 2008, 29, 1296–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rampon, R.; Marchand, O.; Filiatre, C.; Bertrand, G. Influence of suspension characteristics on coatings microstructure obtained by suspension plasma spraying. Surf. Coat. Technol. 2008, 202, 4337–4342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Curry, N.; Van Every, K.; Snyder, T.; Susnjar, J.; Bjorklund, S. Performance testing of suspension plasma sprayed thermal barrier coatings produced with varied suspension parameters. Coatings 2015, 5, 338–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Fauchais, P.; Joulia, A.; Goutier, S.; Chazelas, C.; Vardelle, M.; Vardelle, A.; Rossignol, S. Suspension and solution plasma spraying. J. Phys. D Appl. Phys. 2013, 46, 224015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. FE-SEM image of commercial Y5O4F7 powder.
Figure 1. FE-SEM image of commercial Y5O4F7 powder.
Coatings 11 00831 g001
Figure 2. Flowchart of preparing aqueous Y5O4F7 suspensions for SPS coating.
Figure 2. Flowchart of preparing aqueous Y5O4F7 suspensions for SPS coating.
Coatings 11 00831 g002
Figure 3. Schematic of the Axial III SPS system [14].
Figure 3. Schematic of the Axial III SPS system [14].
Coatings 11 00831 g003
Figure 4. Zeta potential of Y5O4F7 suspensions measured by ELS as a function of pH.
Figure 4. Zeta potential of Y5O4F7 suspensions measured by ELS as a function of pH.
Coatings 11 00831 g004
Figure 5. (a) Average particle size measured in real time for 15 min at 3 min intervals and (b) particle size distributions of Y5O4F7 suspensions measured by DLS.
Figure 5. (a) Average particle size measured in real time for 15 min at 3 min intervals and (b) particle size distributions of Y5O4F7 suspensions measured by DLS.
Coatings 11 00831 g005
Figure 6. Relative sedimentation height of Y5O4F7 suspensions with two types of dispersants and without dispersant as a function of time.
Figure 6. Relative sedimentation height of Y5O4F7 suspensions with two types of dispersants and without dispersant as a function of time.
Coatings 11 00831 g006
Figure 7. Viscosity of Y5O4F7 suspensions of 10 wt.% solid content with two types of dispersants and without dispersant as a function of the shear rate at room temperature.
Figure 7. Viscosity of Y5O4F7 suspensions of 10 wt.% solid content with two types of dispersants and without dispersant as a function of the shear rate at room temperature.
Coatings 11 00831 g007
Figure 8. FE-SEM image of the cross-sectional microstructure of the YOF coating deposited with the severely flocculated Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant by the SPS process.
Figure 8. FE-SEM image of the cross-sectional microstructure of the YOF coating deposited with the severely flocculated Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant by the SPS process.
Coatings 11 00831 g008
Figure 9. FE-SEM images of the cross-sectional (a,c,e) and surface (b,d,f) microstructures of YOF coatings deposited by the SPS process. (a,b) Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant; (c,d) electrostatically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension; (e,f) electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension.
Figure 9. FE-SEM images of the cross-sectional (a,c,e) and surface (b,d,f) microstructures of YOF coatings deposited by the SPS process. (a,b) Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant; (c,d) electrostatically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension; (e,f) electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspension.
Coatings 11 00831 g009
Figure 10. Vickers hardness and porosity of YOF coatings deposited with the electrostatically, electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspensions, and Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant.
Figure 10. Vickers hardness and porosity of YOF coatings deposited with the electrostatically, electrosterically stabilized Y5O4F7 suspensions, and Y5O4F7 suspension without dispersant.
Coatings 11 00831 g010
Table 1. Properties of the dispersants.
Table 1. Properties of the dispersants.
Trade NameChemical CompositionAgent TypeRecommended SolventsMethod of Stabilization
BYK-154An ammonium salt of an acrylate copolymerWetting and dispersing agentAqueous systemElectrostatic (Charge repulsion)
BYK-199A copolymer with pigment-affinic groupsWetting and dispersing agentAqueous systemElectrosteric (Charge repulsion + Steric repulsion)
Table 2. Processing parameters for YOF coatings by SPS.
Table 2. Processing parameters for YOF coatings by SPS.
ParametersConditions
Electric power (kW)96
Ar/N2/H2 flow rate (slm)90/54/36 (5:3:2 ratio)
Total gas flow rate (slm)180
Arc current (A)230
Feeding rate (sccm)40
Atomizing gas flow rate (slm)30
Stand Off Distance (mm)50
Transverse speed (mm/s)1000
Scan time (coating cycles)20
Coating time (min)6
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lee, S.; Lee, J.; Hwang, N. Effect of the Dispersion State in Y5O4F7 Suspension on YOF Coating Deposited by Suspension Plasma Spray. Coatings 2021, 11, 831. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11070831

AMA Style

Lee S, Lee J, Hwang N. Effect of the Dispersion State in Y5O4F7 Suspension on YOF Coating Deposited by Suspension Plasma Spray. Coatings. 2021; 11(7):831. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11070831

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lee, Seungjun, Jaehoo Lee, and Nongmoon Hwang. 2021. "Effect of the Dispersion State in Y5O4F7 Suspension on YOF Coating Deposited by Suspension Plasma Spray" Coatings 11, no. 7: 831. https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings11070831

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop