使用攜帶式X-ray螢光偵測儀監測微電子業維修作業環境中之砷暴露

Use of Portable X-Ray Fluorescence (PXRF) in Monitoring Arsenic Exposure during the Preventive Maintenance Task in the Microelectronic Industry

10.7005/JOSH.200706.0116

黃耀輝(Yaw-Huei Hwang)；朱萬澤(Wan-Tser Chu)；石東生(Tung-Sheng Shih)；蕭英德(Ying-Der Hsiao)；陳正堯(Cheng-Yao Chen)

砷 ； 鎵 ； 攜帶式X-ray螢光偵測儀 ； 微電子產業 ； Arsenic ； Gallium ； PXRF ； Microelectronics industry

勞工安全衛生研究季刊

15卷2期（2007 / 06 / 01）

116 - 129

繁體中文

Potential high level arsenic exposure during preventive maintenance work in the microelectronics industry has been of great concern in recent years. Portable X-ray fluorescence (PXRF), which has the advantages of convenience and speed, is one of the best choices for on-site arsenic monitoring. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of PXRF use in monitoring arsenic exposure for workplaces that use arsenic-based compounds as raw materials. Twenty-one standard arsenic wipe samples ranging from 5 to 5,000 μg/sample and 16 standard mixed wipe samples, with arsenic levels of 20 to 1,000 μg/sample and gallium levels of 50 to 750 μg/sample, were prepared for examination. In addition, sixty-one field samples were collected during a preventive maintenance task for molecular beam epitaxy and metal organic chemical vapor deposition in a gallium arsenide wafer plant. All the standard and field wipe samples were first analyzed by PXRF and then by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). The ICP-MS measurement was used as a standard to evaluate the performance of the PXRF measurement. Samples with an arsenic content less than 25 to 50 μg/sample tended to be overestimated by PXRF, while those with higher arsenic content were always underestimated with relative errors ranging from 10% to 25%. The detection limit and quantification limit for the PXRF arsenic measurement were 4.8 μg/sample and 16.1 μg/sample respectively. For arsenic content higher than 50μg/sample, variation coefficients of the PXRF measurements were all less than 5%. Arsenic content in all types of field wipe samples ranged widely from 2.5 to 57,000 μg/sample, with a geometric mean of 864.4 μg/sample (GSD=8.5). The highest arsenic exposure was found at the preventative maintenance working site (p＜0.0001). A high correlation r=0.978 (p＜0.0001) was observed between PXRF and ICPMS arsenic measurements. PXRF arsenic measurements might be biased by the co-existence of gallium and constrained by resolution width. Nevertheless, based on the aforementioned high correlation between PXRF and ICP-MS arsenic measurements, PXRF still yields a fairly reliable real time relative arsenic exposure for the purpose of on-site exposure monitoring, with a range from the PXRF quantification limit for arsenic of 16.1 μg/sample to the highest arsenic content in this study of 57,000 μg/sample.

Potential high level arsenic exposure during preventive maintenance work in the microelectronics industry has been of great concern in recent years. Portable X-ray fluorescence (PXRF), which has the advantages of convenience and speed, is one of the best choices for on-site arsenic monitoring. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of PXRF use in monitoring arsenic exposure for workplaces that use arsenic-based compounds as raw materials. Twenty-one standard arsenic wipe samples ranging from 5 to 5,000 μg/sample and 16 standard mixed wipe samples, with arsenic levels of 20 to 1,000 μg/sample and gallium levels of 50 to 750 μg/sample, were prepared for examination. In addition, sixty-one field samples were collected during a preventive maintenance task for molecular beam epitaxy and metal organic chemical vapor deposition in a gallium arsenide wafer plant. All the standard and field wipe samples were first analyzed by PXRF and then by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). The ICP-MS measurement was used as a standard to evaluate the performance of the PXRF measurement. Samples with an arsenic content less than 25 to 50 μg/sample tended to be overestimated by PXRF, while those with higher arsenic content were always underestimated with relative errors ranging from 10% to 25%. The detection limit and quantification limit for the PXRF arsenic measurement were 4.8 μg/sample and 16.1 μg/sample respectively. For arsenic content higher than 50μg/sample, variation coefficients of the PXRF measurements were all less than 5%. Arsenic content in all types of field wipe samples ranged widely from 2.5 to 57,000 μg/sample, with a geometric mean of 864.4 μg/sample (GSD=8.5). The highest arsenic exposure was found at the preventative maintenance working site (p＜0.0001). A high correlation r=0.978 (p＜0.0001) was observed between PXRF and ICPMS arsenic measurements. PXRF arsenic measurements might be biased by the co-existence of gallium and constrained by resolution width. Nevertheless, based on the aforementioned high correlation between PXRF and ICP-MS arsenic measurements, PXRF still yields a fairly reliable real time relative arsenic exposure for the purpose of on-site exposure monitoring, with a range from the PXRF quantification limit for arsenic of 16.1 μg/sample to the highest arsenic content in this study of 57,000 μg/sample.

1. Material Safety Data Sheet-Gallium
2. ASTM(2003).E1792-03, Standard specification for wipe sampling materials for lead in surface dust.West Conshohocken:ASTM International.
3. Baldwin D,King B,Scarpace L(1998).Ion implanters: chemical and radiation safety.Solid State Technology,31,99-105.
4. Baldwin DG,Rubin JR,Horowitz MR(1993).Industrial hygiene exposures in semiconductor manufacturing.J Semiconductor Safety Associ,7,19-21.
5. Chang KL,Liao WT,Yu CL,Lan CCE,Chang LW,Yu HS(2003).Effects of gallium on immune stimulation and apoptosis induction in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells.J Toxicol and Appl Pharm,193,209-217.
6. Chen CJ,Chiou, HY,Huang WI,Chen SY,Hsueh YM,Tseng CH,Abernathy CO,Calderon RL,Chappell WR, (editors.)(1997).Arsenic: Exposure and health effects.London:Chapman & Hall.
7. Chen CJ,Hsueh YM,Chiou HY,Hsu YH,Chen SY,Horng SF,Abernathy CO,Calderon RL,Chappell WR, (editors.)(1997).Arsenic: Exposure and health effects.London:Chapman & Hall.
8. Choe KT,Trunov M,Menrath W,Succop P(2002).Relationship between lead level on painted surface and percent lead in the particles aerosolized during lead abatement.Appl Occup Environ Hyg,17,573-579.
9. Clark S,Menrath W,Chen M,Roda S,Succop P(1999).Use of field portable X-ray fluorescence analyzer to determine the concentration of lead and other metals in soil sample.Ann Agric Environ Med,6,27-32.
10. Content RM(1989).Control methods for metal and metalloids in III-V materials vapor-phase epitaxy, hazard assessment and control technology in semiconductor manufacturing.American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
11. Dost AA(1996).Monitoring surface and airborne inorganic contamination in the workplace by a field portable X-Ray Fluorescence spectrometer.Ann Occup Hyg,40,589-610.
12. Harper M,Hallmark TS,Bartolucci AA(2002).A comparison of methods and materials for the analysis of leaded wipes.J Environ Monit,4,1025-1033.
13. Herman MA,Sitter H(1996).Molecular beam epitaxy-Fundamental and current status.New York:Springer-Verlag.
14. Hwang YH,Chen SC(2000).Monitoring of low level arsenic exposure during maintenance of ion implanter.Arch Environ Health,55,347-354.
15. Hwang YH,Lee ZY,Wang JD,Hsueh YM,Lu IC,Yao WL(2002).Monitoring of arsenic exposure with speciated urinary inorganic arsenic metabolites for ion implanter maintenance engineers.Environ Res,90,207-216.
16. IARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risks to humans (Vol 86): Cobalt in hard-metals and cobalt sulfate, gallium arsenide, indium phosphide and vanadium pentoxide
17. IARC(1987).Evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans.Lyon:International Agency for Research on Cancer.
18. IARC(1980).IARC monographs on the evaluation of the carcinogenic risk of chemical to humans: Some met al and metallic compounds.Lyon:International Agency for Research on Cancer.
19. Kalinicky DJ,Singhvi R(2001).Field portable XRF analysis of environmental samples.J Hazard Mater,83,93-122.
20. Katz A, (editor.)(1992).Indium phosphide and related materials: processing, technology, and devices.Norwood, MA:Artech House.
21. Lance LL(2002).Childhood lead poisoning investigation: Evaluating a portable instrument for testing soil lead.J Environ Health,64,9-13.
22. Lead on surface by a portable X-ray fluorescence analyzer (Method number OSS1)
23. Morley JC,Clark CS,Deddens JA,Ashley K(1999).Evaluation of a portable X-ray fluorescence instrument for the determination of lead in workplace air samples.Appl Occup Environ Hyg,14,306-316.
24. MS Excel(2002).Microsoft Excel 2002.Redmond, WA:Microsoft Corporation.
25. NIOSH(1994).Manual of Analytical Method.Cincinnati:National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
26. NIOSH(1987).Request for assistance in reducing the potential risk of developing cancer from exposure to gallium arsenide in the microelectronics industry.Cincinnati:National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health NIOSH ALERT, DHHS (NIOSH).
27. NIOSH(1998).Manual of Analytical Method.Cincinnati:National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
28. NITON Corporation(1997).XL 309 & 700 Series User`s Guide.Bedford, MA:NITON Corporation.
29. The registry of toxic effects of chemical substances-Gallium arsenide
30. SAS(2000).SAS/STAT User`s Guide.Cary, NC:SAS Institute Inc.
31. Sterling DA,Lewis RD,Luke DA,Shadel BN(2000).A port able X-ray fluorescence instrument for analyzing dust wipe sample for lead: evaluation with field sample.Environ Res,83,174-179.
32. Sterling DA,Roegner KC,Lewis RD,Luke DA,Wilder LC,Buchette SM(1999).Evaluation of four sampling methods for determining exposure of children to contaminated household dust.Environ Res,80,130-141.
33. Ungers LJ,Jones JH(1986).Industrial hygiene and control technology assessment of ion implantation operations.Am Ind Hyg Assoc J,47,607-614.
34. Webb DR,Sipes IG,Carter DE(1984).In vitro solubility and in vivo toxicity of gallium arsenide.Toxicol Appl Pharmacol,76,96-104.
35. Yamauchi H,Takahashi K,Yamamura Y(1986).Metabolism and excretion of orally and intraperitoneally administered gallium arsenide in the hamster.Toxicology,40,237-246.