Challenges and Solutions

for Cleaning No-Clean Flux

Residues from Surface
Mount Components
Eric Camden
Foresite, Inc
Kokomo, IN
 Experimental Procedure
Test Vehicle
Umpire Board

Populated with LCC,

TQFP, and BGA

Other parts available,

focusing on low standoff
SMT components for this
study
 DOE Details
In this study we looked at four groups of
10 Umpire test boards with identical level
of contaminates. 40 Umpire boards were
all processed with no-clean paste and then
each component area was doped with 5ml
of liquid flux, using a syringe to control
application. The processing conditions are
as follows
 Group Details
Control – Fluxed Not Cleaned
Group 1 – DI water only wash and rinse
Group 2 – saponified wash with DI water
rinse
Group 3 – saponified wash, steam
cleaned , DI water rinse
 Wash Details
2 FPM
140oF
60 PSI Top
40 PSI Bottom
52 each 1 GPM Nozzles total for wash,
rinse tank mirrors wash.
 Test Matrix
After the cleaning process all four groups
of boards went through SIR testing and
Ion Chromatography testing to determine
the most effective cleaning approach. All
SIR testing was performed to IPC TM-650
2.6.3.3(A), and IC was performed to IPC
TM-650 2.3.28, with the IC extractions
being performed on localized areas
beneath the components after removal.
 Control Group
Control group was not
washed at all after
conditioning

Examples of BGA,
LCC, and QFP on
board and underneath
components
Control Group continued
 Baseline IC Data
Sample Description Acetate Cl- Br- NO3- SO42- WOA Na+ NH4+ K+
Foresite Limits SMT NC <3 <3 <12 <3 <3 <25 <3 <3 <3
Control - not cleaned
Control Umpire 4 BGA 6.65 3.05 0.96 0.69 3.36 398.95 6.25 4.91 1.74
Control Umpire 4 LCC 7.61 3.71 0.21 0.53 3.44 181.24 7.15 5.61 1.36
Control Umpire 4 TQFP 8.54 4.57 0.50 0.70 3.23 155.32 6.69 6.30 1.40
Control Umpire 4 Ref. area H2 2.36 3.84 0 0.52 1.86 2.67 0.51 1.74 1.37
Control Umpire 5 BGA 9.42 4.14 0.69 0.47 2.82 385.02 5.78 6.95 1.28
Control Umpire 5 LCC 5.78 3.64 0.34 0.31 3.06 187.87 4.89 4.26 1.69
Control Umpire 5 TQFP 6.07 4.25 0.42 0.50 3.38 148.98 4.51 4.48 1.21
Control Umpire 5 Ref. area 1.92 3.36 0.06 0.69 1.16 6.54 0.65 1.42 1.88
Control Umpire 6 BGA 9.47 4.26 0.62 0.53 3.44 385.45 6.95 6.99 1.70
Control Umpire 6 LCC 10.63 4.84 0.39 0.69 3.60 177.62 3.97 7.84 1.88
Control Umpire 6 TQFP 8.95 3.98 0.26 0.89 3.29 176.54 5.24 6.60 1.27
Control Umpire 6 Ref. area 2.67 3.48 0 0.80 1.69 5.02 0.51 1.97 1.92
Control Umpire 12 BGA 10.33 4.42 0.37 0.69 3.06 391.24 5.77 7.62 1.21
Control Umpire 12 LCC 9.85 3.50 0.34 0.47 3.39 180.36 6.52 7.27 1.88
Control Umpire 12 TQFP 9.52 3.51 0.34 0.59 3.51 162.71 4.54 7.02 1.65
Control Umpire 12 Ref. area 2.65 3.69 0.06 0.65 1.22 4.24 0.53 1.96 1.84
 Baseline SIR Data
Board # Pattern Initial 24 hour 96 hour 168 hour Final
Umpire 8 BGA 1.78E+12 4.17E+07 2.88E+07 6.31E+06 1.78E+12
Umpire 8 LCC 1.67E+12 8.32E+05 8.32E+05 8.32E+05 1.20E+06
Umpire 8 TQFP 8.99E+11 6.46E+06 5.50E+06 5.01E+06 1.20E+09
Umpire 8 Head2 2.14E+11 8.32E+09 9.55E+09 1.10E+10 7.76E+11
Umpire 9 BGA 1.82E+12 3.09E+07 3.02E+07 2.29E+07 1.58E+12
Umpire 9 LCC 1.78E+11 8.32E+05 8.32E+05 8.32E+05 8.32E+05
Umpire 9 TQFP 1.74E+12 5.37E+07 3.72E+07 2.63E+07 6.17E+11
Umpire 9 Head2 3.98E+11 2.57E+09 1.70E+09 1.51E+09 1.78E+12
Umpire 10 BGA 2.34E+11 8.32E+05 8.51E+05 9.55E+05 9.12E+05
Umpire 10 LCC 1.78E+12 2.63E+07 1.86E+07 1.66E+07 2.00E+09
Umpire 10 TQFP 2.09E+11 1.00E+06 2.00E+06 1.12E+06 9.77E+05
Umpire 10 Head2 1.62E+11 8.31E+10 1.91E+09 8.91E+09 1.12E+11
Umpire 11 BGA 1.86E+12 3.09E+07 1.62E+07 1.29E+07 1.66E+12
Umpire 11 LCC 1.32E+11 8.32E+05 8.32E+05 8.32E+05 1.62E+06
Umpire 11 TQFP 6.71E+11 8.13E+05 8.91E+05 8.51E+05 9.77E+05
Umpire 11 Head2 7.59E+12 1.77E+09 1.12E+09 1.10E+09 9.12E+11
 Control Results
Bad.

Of course these are worse case scenario

type boards but good baseline data for the
3 cleaned groups.
 Group 1-IC Results
DI water only wash and rinse
Sam ple Description Acetate Cl- Br- NO3- SO42- WOA Na+ NH4 + K+
Foresite Limits SMT NC <3 <3 <12 <3 <3 <25 <3 <3 <3
DI Water Washed ONLY - Aquastorm 200 heated to 140F
Group 1 Umpire 20 BGA 2.01 3.07 0.16 0.51 1.71 135.65 2.87 2.72 1.24
Group 1 Umpire 20 LCC 5.62 3.72 0.18 0.44 3.81 104.74 3.25 7.62 2.06
Group 1 Umpire 20 TQFP 5.33 3.45 0.34 0.36 3.55 118.21 2.35 7.22 2.11
Group 1 Umpire 20 Ref. area 2.04 2.64 0.09 0.27 1.56 1.16 0.42 2.77 1.82
Group 1 Umpire 21 BGA 2.98 3.48 0.26 0.49 3.03 201.36 2.52 4.04 1.05
Group 1 Umpire 21 LCC 5.55 3.64 0.14 0.60 2.40 101.38 2.13 7.52 1.50
Group 1 Umpire 21 TQFP 5.23 3.11 0.57 0.45 2.76 121.31 4.12 7.09 1.44
Group 1 Umpire 21 Ref. area 1.54 2.04 0 0.21 1.06 1.68 0.56 2.09 1.19
Group 1 Umpire 22 BGA 4.21 3.70 0.40 0.80 2.91 167.95 3.25 5.71 1.61
Group 1 Umpire 22 LCC 5.74 3.51 0.21 0.42 3.59 96.65 3.26 7.78 1.36
Group 1 Umpire 22 TQFP 5.64 4.15 0.63 0.75 3.41 105.27 3.25 7.64 1.14
Group 1 Umpire 22 Ref. area 1.69 2.14 0.08 0.40 1.16 1.88 0.45 2.29 1.89
Group 1 Umpire 23 BGA 4.86 4.24 0.62 1.08 3.63 175.64 2.98 6.59 2.07
Group 1 Umpire 23 LCC 6.59 4.33 0.22 0.46 1.78 97.89 2.54 8.93 1.20
Group 1 Umpire 23 TQFP 6.85 4.04 0.65 0.85 2.97 124.51 2.69 9.28 2.94
Group 1 Umpire 23 Ref. area 2.74 2.41 0.07 0.55 1.21 1.92 0.51 3.71 1.23
 Group 1-SIR Results
DI water only wash and rinse
Board # Pattern Initial 24 hour 96 hour 168 hour Final
Umpire 14 BGA 2.19E+12 1.41E+08 2.95E+08 9.55E+07 1.55E+10
Umpire14 LCC 2.24E+12 2.09E+07 8.51E+07 2.24E+07 5.37E+08
Umpire 14 TQFP 1.74E+12 6.17E+07 1.29E+08 5.75E+07 9.55E+07
Umpire 14 Head2 1.70E+12 1.32E+09 1.95E+09 9.12E+09 1.66E+12
Umpire 15 BGA 2.04E+12 9.33E+07 5.89E+07 5.01E+07 1.95E+10
Umpire 15 LCC 2.14E+11 4.27E+07 3.09E+07 3.02E+07 3.89E+09
Umpire 15 TQFP 1.91E+12 7.08E+07 3.89E+07 4.17E+07 1.91E+08
Umpire 15 Head2 1.95E+12 8.51E+09 1.23E+09 7.76E+09 1.62E+12
Umpire 16 BGA 1.62E+12 2.14E+08 1.41E+08 9.33E+07 1.91E+08
Umpire 16 LCC 1.32E+12 4.07E+07 2.82E+07 2.82E+07 5.37E+06
Umpire 16 TQFP 2.04E+12 7.76E+07 4.68E+07 4.79E+07 5.79E+07
Umpire 16 Head2 2.04E+12 4.07E+09 2.24E+09 7.94E+09 1.38E+12
Umpire 17 BGA 1.86E+12 1.38E+08 7.41E+07 6.92E+07 2.09E+09
Umpire 17 LCC 9.33E+10 3.63E+07 2.51E+07 2.69E+07 7.24E+07
Umpire 17 TQFP 2.00E+12 5.89E+07 3.55E+07 3.63E+07 1.86E+08
Umpire 17 Head2 2.04E+12 9.10E+09 7.94E+09 6.76E+09 1.95E+12
 Group 1 Results
Still Bad.

As expected the data after wash with DI water

only is better than the control data but still
exhibits very high levels of corrosive flux
residues, primarily the acetate, WOA, and
ammonium. DI water alone does not have
enough cleaning energy to remove the
uncomplexed flux residues in tight spaces
 Group 2-IC Results
Saponified Wash/DI Rinse
Sample Description Acetate Cl- Br- NO3- SO42- WOA Na+ NH4 + K+
Foresite Limits SMT NC <3 <3 <12 <3 <3 <25 <3 <3 <3
Saponifier Washed - Aquastorm 200 heated to 140F
Group 2 Umpire 26 BGA 1.95 1.73 0.26 0.42 1.42 79.85 2.36 2.64 0.32
Group 2 Umpire 26 LCC 1.32 1.48 0.16 0.36 1.24 53.26 2.44 1.79 0.26
Group 2 Umpire 26 TQFP 1.36 1.10 0.06 0.25 1.49 74.11 2.63 1.84 0.25
Group 2 Umpire 26 Ref. area 0.84 1.09 0.04 0.33 0.78 0.22 0.41 1.14 0.17
Group 2 Umpire 29 BGA 1.96 1.05 0.23 0.45 1.36 84.06 2.06 2.66 0.26
Group 2 Umpire 29 LCC 1.50 0.86 0.19 0.62 1.75 61.48 2.14 2.03 0.25
Group 2 Umpire 29 TQFP 1.27 1.04 0.22 0.58 1.27 78.11 2.17 1.72 0.34
Group 2 Umpire 29 Ref. area 0.91 1.30 0.06 0.31 1.07 0.58 0.15 1.23 0.28
Group 2 Umpire 31 BGA 1.56 1.03 0.24 0.26 1.36 91.45 2.35 2.11 0.36
Group 2 Umpire 31 LCC 1.59 0.55 0.15 0.51 1.27 59.64 2.69 2.16 0.26
Group 2 Umpire 31 TQFP 1.47 1.14 0.42 0.22 1.32 81.41 2.48 1.99 0.25
Group 2 Umpire 31 Ref. area 0.84 0.98 0.06 0.09 0.89 1.02 0.34 1.14 0.36
Group 2 Umpire 35 BGA 1.71 1.36 0.40 0.41 1.63 74.58 2.36 2.32 0.41
Group 2 Umpire 35 LCC 1.67 1.45 0.10 0.36 1.78 63.28 2.05 2.26 0.51
Group 2 Umpire 35 TQFP 1.30 1.22 0.23 0.26 1.54 74.61 2.65 1.76 0.36
Group 2 Umpire 35 Ref. area 0.84 1.48 0.03 0.35 0.95 0.59 0.37 1.14 0.28
 Group 2-SIR Results
Saponified Wash/DI Rinse
Board # Pattern Initial 24 hour 96 hour 168 hour Final
Umpire 24 BGA 2.19E+12 1.17E+08 3.72E+08 9.33E+07 1.62E+10
Umpire 24 LCC 5.62E+12 2.34E+07 9.77E+07 3.47E+07 5.01E+09
Umpire 24 TQFP 2.09E+12 2.75E+07 1.07E+08 4.27E+07 8.91E+09
Umpire 24 Head2 2.09E+12 1.07E+09 1.95E+09 8.91E+09 1.48E+12
Umpire 25 BGA 2.14E+12 3.02E+07 1.45E+08 6.31E+07 1.78E+10
Umpire 25 LCC 6.17E+12 1.38E+07 9.12E+07 3.72E+07 5.37E+08
Umpire 25 TQFP 2.00E+12 1.91E+07 1.26E+07 4.68E+07 1.78E+10
Umpire 25 Head2 2.04E+12 1.15E+09 2.82E+09 3.79E+09 1.78E+12
Umpire 30 BGA 2.24E+12 1.12E+08 2.40E+08 1.02E+08 1.70E+09
Umpire 30 LCC 6.92E+12 2.19E+07 3.99E+07 3.55E+07 5.62E+09
Umpire 30 TQFP 1.95E+12 2.95E+07 2.02E+07 4.68E+07 1.38E+10
Umpire 30 Head2 2.00E+12 8.71E+09 1.86E+10 8.71E+10 1.07E+12
Umpire 32 BGA 2.82E+12 9.33E+07 3.99E+07 1.20E+08 8.32E+08
Umpire 32 LCC 5.75E+12 2.40E+07 1.02E+07 4.37E+07 4.52E+06
Umpire 32 TQFP 1.70E+12 2.69E+07 1.29E+07 6.92E+07 1.38E+09
Umpire 32 Head2 1.74E+12 1.17E+09 2.09E+09 1.26E+09 1.48E+12
 Group 2 Results
Better, but not quite good enough.

Group two results; wash with saponifier at 10%,

showed much better IC data overall but the
WOA levels are still very high and at these levels
would pose a mid to high risk of field failures.
The SIR data at this level of cleanliness perform
better than the first two groups, but still show
more failures than not.
 Group 3-IC Results
Saponified wash with Steam
Sample Description Acetate Cl- Br- NO3- SO42- WOA Na+ NH4 + K+
Foresite Limits SMT NC <3 <3 <12 <3 <3 <25 <3 <3 <3
Saponifier / Steam Washed - Aquastorm 200 heated to 140F
Group 3 Umpire 36 BGA 0.26 0.59 0.24 0 0 3.54 1.05 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 36 LCC 0.35 0.63 0.22 0 0 5.63 1.03 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 36 TQFP 0.33 0.59 0.26 0 0 4.77 0.87 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 36 Ref. area 0 0.24 0 0 0 0 0.22 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 37 BGA 0.45 0.63 0.13 0 0 2.43 0.97 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 37 LCC 0.65 0.38 0.27 0 0 4.27 0.69 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 37 TQFP 0.36 0.49 0.16 0 0 3.29 0.55 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 37 Ref. area 0 0.33 0.08 0 0 0 0.07 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 40 BGA 0.51 0.69 0.22 0 0 2.77 1.05 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 40 LCC 0.32 0.68 0.18 0 0 3.88 0.67 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 40 TQFP 0.22 0.58 0.21 0 0 3.54 0.39 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 40 Ref. area 0 0.27 0.08 0 0 0 0.05 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 44 BGA 0.21 0.40 0.24 0 0 2.05 0.94 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 44 LCC 0.29 0.36 0.15 0 0 3.14 0.85 0 0
Group 3 Umpire 44 TQFP 0.25 0.45 0.24 0 0 3.33 0.62 0 0
 Group 3-SIR Results
Saponified wash with Steam
Board # Pattern Initial 24 hour 96 hour 168 hour Final
Umpire 38 BGA 2.09E+12 8.68E+08 2.39E+09 8.45E+09 1.91E+12
Umpire 38 LCC 5.75E+11 4.07E+09 2.13E+09 2.04E+09 5.50E+12
Umpire 38 TQFP 1.95E+12 2.63E+09 1.70E+09 1.02E+10 1.78E+12
Umpire 38 Head2 2.00E+12 4.72E+09 3.02E+09 4.17E+09 1.95E+12
Umpire 39 BGA 2.04E+12 9.20E+08 8.51E+09 2.45E+10 1.70E+12
Umpire 39 LCC 4.68E+11 8.13E+08 1.15E+09 5.37E+09 3.72E+11
Umpire 39 TQFP 1.91E+12 9.33E+08 2.04E+09 9.33E+09 1.58E+12
Umpire 39 Head2 1.66E+12 1.38E+09 5.13E+09 2.57E+09 1.48E+12
Umpire 41 BGA 2.29E+12 3.72E+09 5.89E+09 2.14E+10 1.86E+12
Umpire 41 LCC 5.62E+11 9.33E+09 1.48E+09 5.75E+10 5.13E+11
Umpire 41 TQFP 1.82E+12 1.29E+09 2.19E+09 1.32E+10 1.41E+12
Umpire 41 Head2 1.91E+12 9.55E+09 2.19E+10 1.20E+10 2.04E+12
Umpire 45 BGA 1.91E+12 4.90E+09 3.89E+09 9.00E+09 2.57E+12
Umpire 45 LCC 6.03E+11 5.25E+08 1.41E+09 9.62E+09 5.01E+11
Umpire 45 TQFP 1.66E+12 1.00E+09 1.74E+09 1.19E+10 6.31E+11
Umpire 45 Head2 1.74E+12 1.66E+09 2.63E+09 3.72E+09 1.78E+12
 Group 3 Results
Good!

The test results for group 3 show acceptable

results on both the ion chromatography and SIR
test which indicates good field performance. The
steam energy combined with the saponifier on
the PCB between the wash and rinse cycles of
the in-line process are effective at removing all
of the uncomplexed no-clean flux residues.
 Conclusions
Sometimes more is indeed better.

With more cleaning energy applied with

steam pushing the saponified wash
underneath the low standoff components
the results are clear according to ion
chromatography and SIR testing, the more
energy you throw at it the cleaner and
more reliable the product becomes.
 Conclusions cont.
The parameters in the study are not intended to
be implemented into normal production of PCB’s
but for rescue and remedial cleaning of
contaminated assemblies.
Rescue cleaning is becoming a very important
option for hardware found to have cleanliness
issues long after the boards are built.
It is of most importance to remember not to build
a recipe according to flux manufacturer spec
sheets but to the product being built.
 Secondary Study
Flux residues are introduced to PCB’s in a
number of ways.
 Hand solder
 Selective solder
 Touch up
 Repair and Rework
 Real World Problems
A customer came to Foresite with a
problem with boards failing at ICT and
even more after environmental testing.
Most of the process was WS flux and the
PCB’s are washed after wave with a few
components being hand soldered after
wash due to water intolerant issues.
 Real World Problems
After looking at the entire process all of the
thermal profiles were well within acceptability
limits on the reflow and wave solder equipment.
A large water intolerant thru-hole transformer
was being hand soldered after wash.
Line operator was using a bottle of liquid flux to
achieve better solder joints faster without regard
to the effect of non-complexed no-clean flux has
on neighboring components.
 Real World Problems
Transformer has large thermal dissipation
properties and required massive amount
of heat to fully complex the NC flux, and
make an acceptable solder joint.
Liquid flux was spreading to resistor
network adjacent to transformer without
being fully complexed and causing the
failures.
 Real World Problems
Customer did not want to use localized
cleaning due to the issues with water
intolerant components.
Also did not want to use pen type de-fluxer
because of the flux being under resistors.

Solution?
 Real World Solution
Send the PCB’s through another thermal
excursion to fully complex the flux using a
reflow oven.
Lose the bottle of liquid flux!
Further education for line operators to
convey how every action impacts the
quality of the boards.
 IC Results
The PCB’s were tested with ion chromatography
to ensure that secondary thermal excursion was
effective at complexing the flux
Ionic Species Cl- NO2
-
Br- NO3
-
PO4
2-
SO4
2-
WOA
Bare Panel 0.78 0.10 0.05 0.20 0.48 2.93 0
After SMT 8.78 7.36 2.28 2.27 0 4.86 0
After Wave 370.23 0 0.28 0.28 0.02 1.42 5.37
After in line wash 1.14 0.10 0.07 0.22 0 2.20 0.37
Top side of hand solder 7.90 0.09 0.56 0.43 0.29 12.80 159.53
After secondary thermal 1.60 0.07 0.08 0.16 0.07 2.51 0.23
 IC Results
Looking at the IC results from a localized
extraction area over the resistor network
before and after thermal excursion the
levels of ionics is reduced to an
acceptable level.
 Final Conclusions
Flux is good
Active flux after the build process is bad
Thermal mass plays an important role in
soldering that no flux spec sheet can adjust for.
Flux can come from many sources
 Selective wave
 Palletized wave
 Secondary hand solder, repair/rework
 Localized cleaning
 Bottles of liquid flux are among the worst offenders.
Questions?
 Special thanks to
Terry Munson, Meaghan Munson,
Josh Fording, Cameron Solis for
support on this study.

Eric Camden
Foresite, Inc
Kokomo, IN
ericc@residues.com