 
| Received: |
by ipc.org (Smail3.1.28.1 #2)
id m0u7BHt-00008wC; Wed, 10 Apr 96 20:35 CDT |
| Old-Return-Path: |
|
| Date: |
Wed, 10 Apr 1996 21:39:42 -0400 |
| Precedence: |
list |
| From [log in to unmask] Thu Apr 11 14: |
10:48 1996 |
| Message-ID: |
|
| X-Status: |
|
| Status: |
O |
| X-Mailing-List: |
|
| TO: |
|
| Return-Path: |
<TechNet-request> |
| Resent-Message-ID: |
<"b2i5H3.0.NTI.776Rn"@ipc> |
| Subject: |
|
| From: |
|
| Resent-From: |
|
| X-Loop: |
|
| Resent-Sender: |
|
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Brian:
I have been in touch with the Bay Area Air Quality People, and had some
discussions, and they are really quite reasonable people, just not real
chemically sophisticated.
As most of us know, not 10% of the organics in a resist stripper are
volatilized, and not 1% of the MEA is volatilized. This is because of the
fact that the MEA is consumed during the stripping operation, and goes to the
protonated form, R-NH4+, which is essentially completely non-volatile. I
have had some discussions with the folks, and they grudgingly admit that I
MIGHT be right, but the current regulations have no way of resolving the
conflict.
I offer myself as chemical expert to meet with these folks, and discuss each
ingredient, an its role in the stripper, and the likelihood of its being
volatilized.
Can I help, or would perhaps a paper on this subject be of help.
Rudy Sedlak
RD Chemical Company
Mountain View CA
415-962-8004
|
|
|
