Classification of suppressor additives based on synergistic and antagonistic ensemble effects

Three fundamental types of suppressor additives for copper electroplating could be identified by means of potential Transient measurements. These suppressor additives differ in their synergistic and antagonistic interplay with anions that are chemisorbed on the metallic copper surface during electrodeposition. In addition these suppressor chemistries reveal different barrier properties with respect to cupric ions and plating additives (Cl, SPS). While the type-I suppressor selectively forms efficient barriers for copper inter-diffusion on chloride-terminated electrode surfaces we identified a type-II suppressor that interacts non-selectively with any kind of anions chemisorbed on copper (chloride, sulfate, sulfonate). Type-I suppressors are vital for the superconformal copper growth mode in Damascene processing and show an antagonistic interaction with SPS (Bis-Sodium-Sulfopropyl-Disulfide) which involves the deactivation of this suppressor chemistry. This suppressor deactivation is rationalized in terms of compositional changes in the layer of the chemisorbed anions due to the competition of chloride and MPS (Mercaptopropane Sulfonic Acid) for adsorption sites on the metallic copper surface. MPS is the product of the dissociative SPS adsorption within the preexisting chloride matrix on the copper surface. The non-selectivity in the adsorption behavior of the type-II suppressor is rationalized in terms of anion/cation pairing effects of the poly-cationic suppressor and the anion-modified copper substrate. Atomic-scale insights into the competitive Cl/MPS adsorption are gained from in situ STM (Scanning Tunneling Microscopy) using single crystalline copper surfaces as model substrates. Type-III suppressors are a third class of suppressors. In case of type-land type-II suppressor chemistries the resulting steady-state deposition conditions are completely independent on the particular succession of additive adsorption. In contrast to that a strong dependence of the suppressing capabilities on the sequence of additive adsorption ("first comes, first serves" principle) is observed for the type-IIIsuppressor. This behavior:is explained by a suppressor barrier that impedes not only the copper inter-diffusion but also the transport of other additives (e.g. SPS) to the copper surface. (C) 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A new universal, standardized implant database for product identification: a unique tool for arthroplasty registries.

INTRODUCTION Every joint registry aims to improve patient care by identifying implants that have an inferior performance. For this reason, each registry records the implant name that has been used in the individual patient. In most registries, a paper-based approach has been utilized for this purpose. However, in addition to being time-consuming, this approach does not account for the fact that failure patterns are not necessarily implant specific but can be associated with design features that are used in a number of implants. Therefore, we aimed to develop and evaluate an implant product library that allows both time saving barcode scanning on site in the hospital for the registration of the implant components and a detailed description of implant specifications. MATERIALS AND METHODS A task force consisting of representatives of the German Arthroplasty Registry, industry, and computer specialists agreed on a solution that allows barcode scanning of implant components and that also uses a detailed standardized classification describing arthroplasty components. The manufacturers classified all their components that are sold in Germany according to this classification. The implant database was analyzed regarding the completeness of components by algorithms and real-time data. RESULTS The implant library could be set up successfully. At this point, the implant database includes more than 38,000 items, of which all were classified by the manufacturers according to the predefined scheme. Using patient data from the German Arthroplasty Registry, several errors in the database were detected, all of which were corrected by the respective implant manufacturers. CONCLUSIONS The implant library that was developed for the German Arthroplasty Registry allows not only on-site barcode scanning for the registration of the implant components but also its classification tree allows a sophisticated analysis regarding implant characteristics, regardless of brand or manufacturer. The database is maintained by the implant manufacturers, thereby allowing registries to focus their resources on other areas of research. The database might represent a possible global model, which might encourage harmonization between joint replacement registries enabling comparisons between joint replacement registries.