4.7 Article

Damage threshold of substrates for nanoparticles removal using a laser-induced plasma shockwave

期刊

APPLIED SURFACE SCIENCE
卷 539, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apsusc.2020.148282

关键词

Nanoparticles removal; Laser induced plasma; Damage threshold of substrates; Thermodynamic effects

资金

  1. Joint Fund of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
  2. China Academy of Engineering Physics NSAF [U2030108]
  3. Key R&D Program of Sichuan Province [2019YFG0263]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With technological advancement, plasma shockwaves are commonly used for cleaning, but research on their mechanism and conditions is lacking. Nanoparticles reduce substrate yield strength, leading to increased local pressure and damage probability.
With technological advancement, plasma shockwaves have become widely used as a novel cleaning method to remove nanoparticles. However, insufficient research has been conducted on their cleaning mechanism and application conditions, and the yield strength of substrates has been directly used as their damage threshold. we find that this definition is inaccurate. We treat clean and nanoparticle-coated silicon substrates with a laser induced plasma shockwave to explore the effects of the presence of nanoparticles on the substrate during cleaning. We have confirmed the effect of nanoparticles on the substrate by simulating the mechanism of temperature and stress propagation between the particles and the substrate. This is because the yield strength of the substrate is greatly reduced by the increase of temperature under the action of shock wave. At the same time, the stress transferred by particles to the substrate increases, resulting in local high-pressure area and pit formation. Moreover, this study finds that the presence of nanoparticles increases the probability of damage to the substrate by an approximate factor of two. And the dependence of the damage threshold of the substrate on the size of the nanoparticles is demonstrated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据