As requested by a number of people here is the basic text in the last cleaning survey. The graphs have been removed. I hope this will increase the number of people who will spare 5min to answer the new survey that has been re posted. CLEANING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE ELECTRONICS INDUSTRY UK SURVEY RESULTS 1991 to 1994 by Bob Willis THE SMART GROUP 86 EASTON STREET HIGH WYCOME BUCKS HP11 1LT TEL: 0494 465217 FAX: 0494 473975 The following survey results show the general changes taking place in the electronics industry for cleaning printed board assemblies. The results were obtained from three individual surveys conducted at cleaning seminars organised by National Physics Laboratory, Electrovert Consulting Services and The SMART Group. The seminars were organised in Scotland in Ireland during October 1992 and in England during June 1991. Over 150 people attended the seminar in England with 70 people in Scotland and over 30 people in Ireland. A copy of the survey questionnaire sheet is attached to the results. The results are shown in graphical form and provide the basic data obtained from the survey. The intention of the surveys was to give a basic idea of the direction being taken by those people attending the individual technical events. The survey has recently been repeated by The SMART Group during October 1993. The results are based on 85 responses from England, Ireland and Scotland. The second figures are just for England. Bob Willis During the seminar held in Scotland 80% of the people attending were from companies involved in assembling printed board, many of which were from small and medium volume manufactures. The highest percentage (39%) of companies were assembling between 100-1000 boards per week. The smallest group were those who were only assembling 1-100 boards per week. The most popular specifications use for cleanliness assessment were the MIL/IPC standards which were generally the most popular standards for each of the surveys. The existing method most commonly used during 1991/2 for cleaning electronic assemblies was CFC 113 (56%), which shows the slow change in the electronics industry. The process which is becoming the favoured choice as an alternative to the use of CFC 113 is the no-clean option (49%). As the use of nitrogen is also considered a no clean option this raises the total to 57% who favour the no-clean approach. The results of the survey conducted in Ireland provided similar results to Scotland with 82% of those attending being directly involved with assembly of printed boards. The survey results from Ireland tended to be based on larger companies who were producing between 100-5000 boards per week. The specifications most often used by companies in Ireland were the MIL/IPC documents which may in this case have been expected as many of the companies represented are US based manufacturers. Less than 50% of Irish manufacturers are currently using CFC 113 as a cleaning solvent. Aqueous cleaning has always been a popular technique favoured by companies based in Ireland, again mainly influenced by the US manufacturers. As was the case in Scotland the Irish results indicate that no-clean is the most popular process for the future. If the nitrogen results were also added to the no-clean figure this would yield a figure of over 60% who were in favour of no-clean. The final results were obtained from a survey conducted in England and were taken from the largest group of over 170 delegates. The companies represented at the seminar (49%) were mainly medium volume companies, assembling between 100 to 1000 boards per week. The results from the England survey indicated again that MIL/IPC specifications are the most often used guide to printed board cleanliness. Although the need to change has been highlighted in many publications it has been indicated at each of these seminars that there is a reluctance to make a decision on an alternative to CFC cleaning. The results from the survey in England indicated that no-clean was the preferred option although it was not as popular as it was in Scotland and Ireland. The lower percentage figures for the no-clean option may have been due to the time delay between the three surveys. To provide a better understanding of the UK's view on cleaning alternatives the results of the three surveys have been combined. The combined results in terms of the direction which is being taken on alternatives to CFC does radically change the results. During this final survey the bulk of the companies 76% were assembles producing 100-1000 boards per week. The MIL/IPC specifications were again the most quoted document and used as a reference. Still at this point 56% of assembly facilities were using CFC as a cleaning agent with no clean the next with a much lower figure of 13%. In terms of future plans no clean was considered to be the best option for the future with 36% and aqueous with 22%. The final set of graphs show the results from the most recent survey conducted during October 1993 and show the direction being taken by manufacturing plants to eliminate CFC cleaning. The surveys were conducted by Bob Willis of Electronic Presentation Services. Further copies of these results may be obtained by contacting The SMART Group, the address of which appears on the front cover of this report. The results are available free of charge, please do not photocopy this document as the SMART Group would like to gauge the level of interest in this information. For further information on the survey, contact Bob Willis on Tel: 0245 351502 Fax: 0245 496123.