Issue link: https://iconnect007.uberflip.com/i/992528
66 PCB007 MAGAZINE I JUNE 2018 ENEPIG deposit. It was assumed that Pd lay- er of IGEPIG had some difference with that of EPIG because there was the different degree of Pd diffusion between EPIG and IGEPIG. So, as next step, Pd layer itself was focused for IGE- PIG and EPIG deposit. When the cross-section image of EPIG and IGEPIG deposits were compared by FIB-SEM which Pd was thicker as shown in Figure 8, and the grain size of Pd layer for IGEPIG seemed to be much bigger than that for EPIG. For EBSD analysis, IGEP (Au/Pd) and EP (Pd) on Pd activator were utilized instead of IGE- PIG and EPIG deposit. SEM image and the col- ors of inverse pole figure (IPF) image which shows crystal orientation of each metal (verti- cal plane) were compared at same magnifica- tion in Figure 9. It was easy to distinguish the interface between Pd and Cu from SEM imag- es. However, it was difficult to distinguish the Figure 6: Wide scan results of AES for each deposit after 16 hours at 175°C. Figure 7: Ratio of Pd, Cu, Ni, and Au intensity at the top surface for each deposit after 16 hours at 175°C.