Citation: Nick K. Olrichs, J. Bernd Helms. Novel insights into the function of the conserved domain of the CAP superfamily of proteins[J]. AIMS Biophysics, 2016, 3(2): 232-246. doi: 10.3934/biophy.2016.2.232
[1] | K. Wayne Forsythe, Cameron Hare, Amy J. Buckland, Richard R. Shaker, Joseph M. Aversa, Stephen J. Swales, Michael W. MacDonald . Assessing fine particulate matter concentrations and trends in southern Ontario, Canada, 2003–2012. AIMS Environmental Science, 2018, 5(1): 35-46. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2018.1.35 |
[2] | Leonardo Martínez, Stephanie Mesías Monsalve, Karla Yohannessen Vásquez, Sergio Alvarado Orellana, José Klarián Vergara, Miguel Martín Mateo, Rogelio Costilla Salazar, Mauricio Fuentes Alburquenque, Ana Maldonado Alcaíno, Rodrigo Torres, Dante D. Cáceres Lillo . Indoor-outdoor concentrations of fine particulate matter in school building microenvironments near a mine tailing deposit. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(4): 752-764. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.4.752 |
[3] | Novi Sylvia, Husni Husin, Abrar Muslim, Yunardi, Aden Syahrullah, Hary Purnomo, Rozanna Dewi, Yazid Bindar . Design and performance of a cyclone separator integrated with a bottom ash bed for the removal of fine particulate matter in a palm oil mill: A simulation study. AIMS Environmental Science, 2023, 10(3): 341-355. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023020 |
[4] | Winai Meesang, Erawan Baothong, Aphichat Srichat, Sawai Mattapha, Wiwat Kaensa, Pathomsorn Juthakanok, Wipaporn Kitisriworaphan, Kanda Saosoong . Effectiveness of the genus Riccia (Marchantiophyta: Ricciaceae) as a biofilter for particulate matter adsorption from air pollution. AIMS Environmental Science, 2023, 10(1): 157-177. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023009 |
[5] | Carolyn Payus, Siti Irbah Anuar, Fuei Pien Chee, Muhammad Izzuddin Rumaling, Agoes Soegianto . 2019 Southeast Asia Transboundary Haze and its Influence on Particulate Matter Variations: A Case Study in Kota Kinabalu, Sabah. AIMS Environmental Science, 2023, 10(4): 547-558. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2023031 |
[6] | Tiffany L. B. Yelverton, David G. Nash, James E. Brown, Carl F. Singer, Jeffrey V. Ryan, Peter H. Kariher . Dry sorbent injection of trona to control acid gases from a pilot-scale coal-fired combustion facility. AIMS Environmental Science, 2016, 3(1): 45-57. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2016.1.45 |
[7] | Lucky Joeng, Shahnaz Bakand, Amanda Hayes . Diesel exhaust pollution: chemical monitoring and cytotoxicity assessment. AIMS Environmental Science, 2015, 2(3): 718-736. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2015.3.718 |
[8] | Sandrine Chifflet, Marc Tedetti, Hana Zouch, Rania Fourati, Hatem Zaghden, Boubaker Elleuch, Marianne Quéméneur, Fatma Karray, Sami Sayadi . Dynamics of trace metals in a shallow coastal ecosystem: insights from the Gulf of Gabès (southern Mediterranean Sea). AIMS Environmental Science, 2019, 6(4): 277-297. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2019.4.277 |
[9] | Lemuel Clark Velasco, Mary Jane Burden, Marie Joy Satiniaman, Rachelle Bea Uy, Luchin Valrian Pueblos, Reynald Gimena . Preliminary assessment of solid waste in Philippine Fabrication Laboratories. AIMS Environmental Science, 2021, 8(3): 255-267. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2021017 |
[10] | Flor Quispe, Eddy Salcedo, Hasnain Iftikhar, Aimel Zafar, Murad Khan, Josué E. Turpo-Chaparro, Paulo Canas Rodrigues, Javier Linkolk López-Gonzales . Multi-step ahead ozone level forecasting using a component-based technique: A case study in Lima, Peru. AIMS Environmental Science, 2024, 11(3): 401-425. doi: 10.3934/environsci.2024020 |
It has been known that excess exposure to airborne particulate matter (PM) may cause adverse health effects in human [1,2,3]. The most health-damaging particles are those with a diameter of 10 µm or less, which can penetrate and lodge deeply inside the lungs [1]. Chronic exposure to particles contributes to the risk of developing cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, as well as of lung cancer [2]. A 2013 assessment by International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization (WHO), concluded that outdoor air pollution is carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), with the PM components of air pollution most closely associated with increased cancer incidence, especially cancer of the lung [4]. As the adverse health effects of PM10 (particulate matter of less than 10 µm in diameter) are already known [5,6], the health risks associated with exposure to PM2.5 (particulate matter of less than 2.5 µm in diameter) are being extensively studied. To date, it has been reported that exposure to PM2.5 affects cerebrovascular and cardiovascular diseases, arrhythmia, cardiac insufficiency, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and respiratory system infection [7,8,9,10,11]. In addition, it is known that differences in toxicity are dependent on the chemical composition, size, surface area, shape, and crystal structure of the metal oxide particles [3,12,13].
The semiconductor industry is one of the fastest growing and most rapidly changing manufacturing sectors in the world. The use of diverse and complicated chemical substances to produce semiconductors is indispensable [14,15]. Most of the items of semiconductor manufacturing equipment are closed, and the chemicals used in the process are removed by exhaust ventilation systems. In addition, as for the major processes in low-pressure (vacuum) conditions, the chamber inside of the equipment is cleaned through an in-situ process using NF3 plasma, and the reaction residue is eventually removed [16,17]. However, despite the use of exhaust ventilation systems, it is impossible to completely remove the chemicals and by-products from the equipment inside. Process and/or product defects by air diffusion and cross-contamination of the process chemicals and their by-products are prevented by operating local exhaust ventilation systems during maintenance of the process equipment.
Herein, it is important not to overlook the generation of powders and airborne PM as by-products by chemical reaction of the metal precursors used as process materials during normal operation process, and their release into the workplace, as maintenance activity of the process equipment and scrubber (which can be used to remove some particulates and/or gases from industrial exhaust streams) can result in worker exposure and inhalation. Therefore, identification of the physicochemical characteristics of the powder by-products and airborne PM in work environment can play an important role in the field of industrial hygiene. This study aimed to investigate the concentrations and physicochemical properties (such as concentration, elemental component, size, and morphology) of airborne PM2.5 in the semiconductor manufacturing facilities, based on the precautionary principle.
200 mm and 300 mm wafer fabrication facilities are divided into fab (CR) and plenum; and fab, clean sub fab (CSF), and facility sub fab (FSF); respectively (Figure 1a, b). Herein, fab means a clean room (CR) where semiconductor process is operating, and an area in which the operation and maintenance of process equipment is performed. Meanwhile, plenum, CSF, and FSF are areas that provide equipment to process the chemicals needed for wafer fabrication. Also, it houses accessory equipment, such as pump, chiller, and scrubber for the treatment and exhaustion of excess chemicals.
Fresh air is supplied in the plenum or CSF by the outdoor air handling unit (OAHU) system, which purifies outdoor air (Figure 1c). FA supply rates of the 200 and 300 mm wafer fabrication facilities are approximately 10 and 25%, respectively. Furthermore, air handling and contamination control systems strictly control semiconductor clean rooms for airborne particles, temperature, humidity, air velocity, air change, vibration, and differential pressure. In addition, acids, alkalis, and ozone are controlled by chemical filters. Based on the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14644-1, the number concentrations of airborne particles in the 200 and 300 mm wafer manufacturing facilities under process operation conditions (except for maintenance) are controlled to be ≤1 × 102 #/m3 and ≤1 × 105 #/m3, respectively, at a particle size of 0.1 µm and over [18,19].
Generally, the semiconductor fabrication processes include photolithography (PHOTO), dry etching (ETCH), cleaning (CLN), metallization (METAL), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), diffusion (DIFF), ion implantation (IMP), and chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) [14,15]. The entire manufacturing process consists of 400 to 500 steps, according to the specific semiconductor device; most devices require multiple steps through the same processes, at different stages.
This study was conducted in two semiconductor fabrication facilities in Korea that produce 200 and 300 mm wafers, respectively, and their areas are approximately 8400 and 15,600 m2, respectively. Herein, each fabrication facility is generally called "line". The sampling sites were the CR, plenum, CSF, and FSF of the two lines (Figure 1a, b). Generally, the layout of the process equipment in the CR is divided into four sections, and the ETCH, PHOTO, METAL/CVD, and DIFF processes, and the CLN process, are located in these sections. In this study, ETCH, PHOTO, DIFF, METAL, CVD, and CLN were selected among the various semiconductor manufacturing processes. In addition, office and outdoor air were included in the measurement target for comparative analysis with semiconductor work places.
Measurements of airborne PM2.5 concentrations (e.g., number and mass) and size distribution were carried out by optical particle sizer (OPS, TSI 3330, TSI Inc., Shoreview, MN, USA), which is capable of counting particle sizes in two size ranges from 0.3 to 2.5 µm, i.e., 0.3–1.0 µm and 1.0–2.5 µm, for 6 hours (9:30 a.m.–3:30 p.m., based on workers' core working hours) at a flow rate of 1.0 L/min, during operation of process equipment and scrubber. The detection limits of the number and mass concentration of the OPS are 0.001 #/cm3 and 0.001 µg/m3, respectively. To approximate the conditions of exposure, all airborne PM2.5 measurements and samplings were conducted within 0.2–0.5 m from each item of process equipment and scrubber at about 1.0–1.2 m above floor level. Twenty-five samples (CR (8), Plenum (4), CSF (5), and FSF (8)) were taken around major items of process equipment and scrubber during normal operation conditions. In addition, the measurement of airborne PM2.5 in the office and outdoor air were carried out under the same measurement conditions, except for the measurement in outdoor air, which was performed at about 25 m above ground, and the concentrations were compared to those of the airborne PM2.5 in the CR, plenum, CSF and FSF. The number of samples in the office and outdoor air was eleven and six, respectively.
In order to identify the elemental component, size, and shape of the airborne PM, samples were collected by airborne area sampling, which was performed for 30 min at a 2.0 L/min flow rate, using pre- and post- calibrated air sampling pumps (GirAir3, Gilian, Sendidyne Inc., Clearwater, FL, USA) connected with a polycarbonate membrane filter (pore size 0.22 µm, diameter 37 mm, Millipore, Bedford, MA, USA) in a 3-piece 37 mm cassette (225-3LF, SKC Inc. Eighty Four, PA, USA). Forty-nine samples (CR (16), Plenum (8), CSF (8), FSF (8), Office (4), and Outdoor Air (5)) were taken under the same sampling conditions. The elemental component, size, and morphology of the airborne PM were determined by SEM (JSM-7001F, JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) equipped with energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS, INCA 2000, Oxford Instruments, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK). Before SEM-EDS analysis (accelerating voltage: 15–20 kV, magnification: 2,000–20,000X magnification), the PVC membrane filters (airborne PM is collected on the filter surface) were coated with 20 nm of gold (Au), using a sputter coater (Cressington 108 auto, Cressington Scientific Instrument Ltd., England, UK) for 120 s at 37 mA to form electro-conductive film.
Figure 2 shows the number concentrations of the airborne PM2.5 measured with the OPS in the semiconductor fabrication facilities during normal operation conditions. The PM2.5 concentrations in the CR and plenum for line A (the 200 mm wafer fabrication facility) ranged ND-0.288 #/cm3 and ND-0.540 #/cm3, respectively. On the other hand, for line B (the 300 mm wafer fabrication facility), the concentrations in the CR, CSF, and FSF ranged ND-0.048 #/cm3, ND-4.766 #/cm3, and 9.261–134.088 #/cm3, respectively.
The reason for the relatively high PM2.5 concentration in the FSF compared to those in the CR, plenum, and CSF can be explained in terms of the semiconductor fabrication facility structure and the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system (Figure 1c). After being put into the outdoor air handling unit (OAHU), the air is transferred to the plenum or CSF, before the entry of the outdoor airborne particles into the CR. The purified particles are then supplied to the CR through the ultra-low penetration air filter (removal efficiency of airborne particles based on 0.1 µm diameter: 99.99995%). Therefore, most particles greater than 0.1 µm in the air are removed, and the particle levels in the CR are very low (airborne particle management criteria: line A, 1 × 102 #/m3; and line B, 1 × 105 #/m3).
For FSF in line B, even though the outdoor airborne particles are purified the same through OAHU, the controlled airborne particle size and its removal efficiency, and air circulation process are different from those of the OAHU adjusted in the CR (Figure 1c). Herein, the removal efficiencies of airborne particle of the pre- and medium filters in the OAHU system for the FSF are more than 80 and 90% based on 10 and 0.5 µm diameter, respectively. The periodic replacements of the filters are 3 and 6 months, respectively. In addition, the water showering system (WSS) and high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter are not adjusted in the OAHU system for the FSF. Meanwhile, PM can be generated and released to the FSF, because workers in the FSF do not wear dust-free garments. For these reasons, the PM level in the FSF is relatively high, compared to that in the CR, plenum and CSF.
On the other hand, the number concentrations of PM2.5 in office of the semiconductor industry ranged 4.562–85.336 #/cm3 with a mean 30.199 #/cm3, and appeared to be similar to that in the FSF. Herein, the concentrations of PM2.5 in the office and the FSF were demonstrated to be partially affected by the outdoor airborne particles concentration. Airkorea (www.airkorea.or.kr) of the Korea Environment Corporation provides data and information of the ambient air pollution gathered by the ambient air quality monitoring network on the website in real-time for the public in Korea, and describes the ambient air quality based on the health risk of air pollution. The air quality index for PM10 (PM2.5) is as follows: "Good" (a level that has no impact on disease related to air pollution): 0–30 (0–15) µg/m3; "Moderate" (a level that may have a meager impact on patients in the case of chronic exposure): 31–80 (16–35) µg/m3; "Unhealthy" (may cause harmful effects for patients, and sensitive people in general can experience unpleasant feelings in health): 81–150 (36–75) µg/m3; and "Very Unhealthy" (may cause serious effects for patients, and sensitive group people in general people can experience harmful effects in health): more than 151 (76) µg/m3. Meanwhile, for the USA and Korea, the recommended standards of outdoor PM10 and PM2.5 are as follows: The outdoor PM10 and PM2.5 standards recommended by the United States Environmental Protection Agency are 150 and 35 µg/m3, respectively, for 24 hours [20]. Meanwhile, Korea standards by the Ministry of Environment are 100 and 50 µg/m3, respectively, under the same conditions [21].
Table 1 indicates the number concentrations of PM2.5 in the FSF and office according to outdoor air quality based on PM10. When the PM10 level in outdoor air was "Good", the mean concentrations of PM2.5 in the FSF and office were 12.821 #/cm3 and 10.556 #/cm3, respectively. In the case of "Unhealthy", the concentrations were 42.337 #/cm3 and 30.681 #/cm3, respectively. Meanwhile, the number concentrations of PM2.5 for "Good" and "Unhealthy" of the PM10 level in outdoor air were approximately 4–12 times higher than those of the FSF and office.
Classification | PM2.5 mean number concentration (range: min-max, unit: #/cm3) | ||
FSFc | Office | Outdoor Air | |
Gooda | 12.821 ± 1.658 (9.755–17.483) |
10.556 ± 5.543 (4.562–37.538) |
49.289 ± 19.217 (13.075–102.741) |
Unhealthyb | 42.337 ± 6.697 (25.440–71.310) |
30.681 ± 3.998 (21.894–44.760) |
373.463 ± 75.455 (181.580–550.785) |
a, b In the case of PM2.5, 0–15 and 36–75 µg/m3, respectively. cFSF: Facility sub fab. |
Table 2 represents the number concentration distributions according to the particle size, e.g., 0.3–1.0 µm and 1.0–2.5 µm in the semiconductor fabrication facilities and the office. For the plenum in line A, the portions of 0.3–1.0 µm particles corresponding to PM1 were 99.33%, respectively, of those of PM2.5, which contains 0.3–2.5 µm particles. It was demonstrated that most of the number concentrations of PM2.5 corresponded to those of PM1. For CSF, and FSF in line B, the proportions of PM1 corresponded to 98.44 and 99.67%, respectively, of PM2.5. In addition, the PM1/PM2.5 ratio in the office was 99.14%, which is similar to those in the CSF and FSF. The results showed that PM1 occupy most of the PM2.5 number concentration, and the PM1/PM2.5 ratios in these facilities were confirmed to have no relation to the PM levels in outdoor air.
Particle Size (µm) |
Mean number concentration (#/cm3) | ||||||
Line A | Line B | Office | Outdoor Air | ||||
CRa | Plenum | CR | CSFb | FSFc | |||
0.3–1.0 (PM1) | < DLd | 0.148 | < DL | 0.063 | 30.812 | 29.939 | 239.486 |
1.0–2.5 | < DL | 0.001 | < DL | 0.001 | 0.101 | 0.260 | 1.414 |
PM1/PM2.5 (%) | - | 99.33 | - | 98.44 | 99.67 | 99.14 | 99.41 |
aCR: Clean room. bCSF: Clean sub fab. cFSF: Facility sub fab. dDL: Detection limit (0.001 #/cm3). |
Figure 3 shows the mass concentrations of the airborne PM2.5 in the CR, plenum, CSF, and FSF during normal conditions, and in the office. The concentrations in the CR for lines A and B ranged ND-0.053 µg/m3 and ND-0.044 µg/m3, respectively. For the plenum, CSF, and FSF, the concentrations ranged ND-0.299 µg/m3 (mean: 0.029 µg/m3), ND-1.072 µg/m3 (mean: 0.016 µg/m3) and 0.574–25.941 µg/m3 (mean: 5.957 µg/m3), respectively. As mentioned above, for the same reason, the concentration of PM2.5 in the FSF was higher than those in the other fabrication facilities, such as the CR, plenum, and CSF. Meanwhile, the concentration in the office ranged 1.053–17.957 µg/m3, with a mean 6.416 µg/m3 for PM2.5.
Table 3 indicates the mass concentrations of PM2.5 in the FSF and office according to outdoor air quality based on PM10. The mean concentrations of PM2.5 under "Good" and "Unhealthy" situations of the micro-particle level in outdoor air were 10.423 and 76.155 µg/m3, respectively. When the PM10 level in outdoor air was "Good", the PM2.5 concentrations in the FSF and office were 2.525 and 2.346 µg/m3, respectively. In the case of "Unhealthy", the concentrations were 8.419 and 6.340 µg/m3, respectively. The mass concentrations of PM2.5 for "Good" and "Unhealthy" of the PM10 level in outdoor air increased 4–12 fold compared to those of the FSF and office.
Classification | PM2.5 mean mass concentration (range: min-max, unit: µg/m3) | ||
FSFc | Office | Outdoor Air | |
Gooda | 2.525 ± 0.321 (1.820–5.271) |
2.346 ± 1.131 (1.053–7.847) |
10.423 ± 3.897 (2.840–21.816) |
Unhealthyb | 8.419 ± 1.409 (4.921–13.644) |
6.340 ± 0.826 (4.375–9.513) |
76.155 ± 14.429 (37.793–110.430) |
a, bIn the case of PM2.5, 0–15 and 36–75 µg m-3, respectively. e FSF: Facility sub fab. |
Table 4 shows the PM2.5 mass concentrations according to the particle size in the semiconductor fabrication facilities and the office. For the plenum in line A, the particles of 0.3–1.0 µm corresponding to PM1 account for 96.43% of PM2.5, which contains 0.3–2.5 µm particles, respectively. In addition, for the CSF, and FSF in line B, the proportions of PM1 corresponded to 73.00 and 94.38% of PM2.5, respectively. The proportion of PM1 to PM2.5 mass concentration in the office was 86.55%, which is lower than the proportion (99.14%) of PM1 to PM2.5 number concentration. During normal operation conditions, the ULPA filter (removal efficiency: 99.99995% based on 0.1 µm particle) removes most of the airborne particles of more than 0.1 µm in the CR. However, the particles ranging 0.3–2.5 µm can exist in the CSF and FSF by inflow and residue from the outside, internal generation from workers and scrubbers, and so on. It can be speculated that the number concentrations of 1.0–2.5 µm particles in PM2.5 cause a large impact to the mass concentration of PM2.5. Meanwhile, the PM1/PM2.5 ratio and PM concentration are known to be different according to the area, season, and so on [22,23,24,25].
Particle Size (µm) | Mean mass concentration (µg/m3) | ||||||
Line A | Line B | Office | Outdoor Air | ||||
CRa | Plenum | CR | CSFb | FSFc | |||
0.3–1.0 (PM1) | < DLd | 0.027 | < DL | 0.012 | 5.622 | 5.553 | 44.421 |
1.0–2.5 | < DL | 0.001 | < DL | 0.004 | 0.335 | 0.863 | 4.697 |
PM1/PM2.5 (%) | - | 96.43 | - | 75.00 | 94.38 | 86.55 | 90.44 |
aCR: Clean room. bCSF: Clean sub fab. cFSF: Facility sub fab. dDL: Detection limit (0.001 µg/m3). |
Figure 4 shows the result of the SEM-EDS analysis for identifying the elemental component, size, and morphology of the airborne PM during the normal operation conditions of process equipment and scrubber in lines A and B. For comparison, the airborne particles which sampled in the office and outdoor air were also analyzed. In the case of line A, the particles were determined at only the DIFF process area in the plenum (Figure 4a, b). All particle samples were composed of mostly O and Si, which means silica particles [26,27]. The particles were spherical and nearly spherical based on the primary particle, and bar-shaped particles did not exist [28]. The size ranged approximately 2.0–5.0 µm, which particles are likely to be formed by the agglomeration and/or aggregation of primary particles of less than 100 nm. Meanwhile, none of the particles were observed at the main process areas (i.e., ETCH, PHOTO, DIFF, and METAL) in the CR. For line B, in addition, the particles were observed only in the FSF (METAL, CVD, DIFF, and CLN areas). In all particles, O and Si were detected in common, and also Al, F, Fe, Mg, K, Ca, and Ti elements were intermittently detected according to the samples (Figure 4c–f). It was demonstrated that the SiO2, Al2O3, and TiO2 particles were found in most of the semiconductor process area. Meanwhile, no particles were evident on the filter media in the CR and CSF.
In all particles sampled in the office, O, Al, and Si were detected in common, and also Na, Fe, Mg, K, and Ca elements were intermittently detected according to the samples (Figure 4g, h, i). The size distribution of the particles typically ranged 1.5–6.0 µm. The morphology of the particles was mostly square type, which may have formed by irregular agglomeration and/or the aggregation of primary particles; nearly spherical particles were also intermittently detected. On the other hand, the size distribution of the particles in the outdoor air ranged approximately 2.0–20 µm, and the morphology was spherical and nearly spherical. The principal elements of the particles were O, Al, and Si; Fe, Mg, K, and Ca were also detected according to the samples (Figure 4j, k, l).
From these results, it was found that the chemical compositions of the airborne particles in the FSF and office were almost coincident with those of the particles sampled in outdoor air when the outdoor air indices were "Good", "Moderate", or "Unhealthy". Generally, it is important to identify the source of metal elements, because they differ, depending on the source. For example, it is known that the principal elements of PM at urban roadside are Ca and Fe. Meanwhile, Al, Si, and K are commonly detected in various sites such as urban roadside, urban background, and rural area [29]. In fact, these elements are the most frequently observed in various ambient air studies [24,30,31], which are also well matched with the components of the particles in this study.
The PM2.5 concentrations in the FSF (excluding CR, plenum, and CSF) were partially affected by the outdoor airborne particles concentration. In all particles, O and Si were detected in common; and also Al, F, Fe, Mg, K, Ca, and Ti elements were intermittently detected according to the samples. The elemental compositions of airborne particles in the FSF were almost coincident with those of the particles sampled in outdoor air. No particles were evident on the filter media in the CR and CSF. The morphology of the observed particles was spherical and nearly spherical based on the primary particle. The size ranged approximately 1.5–6.0 µm, and the particles were likely formed by agglomeration and/or aggregation of primary particles of less than 100 nm.
This study demonstrated semiconductor workplace with clean room, which is well controlled airborne particles, would be affected differently by particulate matters of outdoor air according to the manufacturing facilities. These results can provide useful information for the development of alternative strategies to improve the work environment and worker's health in the semiconductor industry. In this study, the exposure characteristics of PMs which can be generated during maintenance of various first scrubbers were not examined. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the exposure properties, such as the concentration, elemental component, size, morphology, and crystal structure of the airborne PMs and powder particles during the maintenance of various scrubbers.
The author is grateful to Ms. In-Suk Kim of the Memory Defect Science & Engineering Group of Samsung Electronics for supporting SEM-EDS analysis.
The author declares there is no conflict of interests.
[1] | Gibbs GM, Roelants K, O'Bryan MK (2008) The CAP superfamily: cysteine-rich secretory proteins, antigen 5, and pathogenesis-related 1 proteins--roles in reproduction, cancer, and immune defense. Endocr Rev 29: 865–897. |
[2] | Gibbs GM, O'Bryan MK (2007) Cysteine rich secretory proteins in reproduction and venom. Soc Reprod Fertil Suppl 65: 261–267. |
[3] | Yamazaki Y, Morita T (2004) Structure and function of snake venom cysteine-rich secretory proteins. Toxicon 44: 227–231. |
[4] | Choudhary V, Schneiter R (2012) Pathogen-Related Yeast (PRY) proteins and members of the CAP superfamily are secreted sterol-binding proteins. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109: 16882–16887. |
[5] | Xu X, Francischetti IM, Lai R, et al. (2012) Structure of protein having inhibitory disintegrin and leukotriene scavenging functions contained in single domain. J Biol Chem 287: 10967–10976. |
[6] | Kelleher A, Darwiche R, Rezende WC, et al. (2014) Schistosoma mansoni venom allergen-like protein 4 (SmVAL4) is a novel lipid-binding SCP/TAPS protein that lacks the prototypical CAP motifs. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 70: 2186–2196. |
[7] | Milne TJ, Abbenante G, Tyndall JD, et al. (2003) Isolation and characterization of a cone snail protease with homology to CRISP proteins of the pathogenesis-related protein superfamily. J Biol Chem 278: 31105–31110. |
[8] | Eberle HB, Serrano RL, Fullekrug J, et al. (2002) Identification and characterization of a novel human plant pathogenesis-related protein that localizes to lipid-enriched microdomains in the Golgi complex. J Cell Sci 115: 827–838. |
[9] | Serrano RL, Kuhn A, Hendricks A, et al. (2004) Structural analysis of the human Golgi-associated plant pathogenesis related protein GAPR-1 implicates dimerization as a regulatory mechanism. J Mol Biol 339: 173–183. |
[10] | Shoji-Kawata S, Sumpter R, Leveno M, et al. (2013) Identification of a candidate therapeutic autophagy-inducing peptide. Nature 494: 201–206. |
[11] | Kuballa P, Nolte WM, Castoreno AB, et al. (2012) Autophagy and the immune system. Annu Rev Immunol 30: 611–646. |
[12] | Eberle HB, Serrano RL, Fullekrug J, et al. (2002) Identification and characterization of a novel human plant pathogenesis-related protein that localizes to lipid-enriched microdomains in the Golgi complex. J Cell Sci 115: 827–838. |
[13] | Zhou Q, Hao L, Huang W, et al. (2016) The Golgi-Associated Plant Pathogenesis-Related Protein GAPR-1 Enhances Type I Interferon Signaling Pathway in Response to Toll-Like Receptor 4. Inflammation 39: 706–717. |
[14] | Baxter RM, Crowell TP, George JA, et al. (2007) The plant pathogenesis related protein GLIPR-2 is highly expressed in fibrotic kidney and promotes epithelial to mesenchymal transition in vitro. Matrix Biol 26: 20–29. |
[15] | Aalberts M, van Dissel-Emiliani FM, van Adrichem NP, et al. (2012) Identification of distinct populations of prostasomes that differentially express prostate stem cell antigen, annexin A1, and GLIPR2 in humans. Biol Reprod 86: 82:1–8. |
[16] | Van Galen J, Van Balkom BW, Serrano RL, et al. (2010) Binding of GAPR-1 to negatively charged phospholipid membranes: unusual binding characteristics to phosphatidylinositol. Mol Membr Biol 27: 81–91. |
[17] | van Galen J, Olrichs NK, Schouten A, et al. (2012) Interaction of GAPR-1 with lipid bilayers is regulated by alternative homodimerization. Biochim Biophys Acta 1818: 2175–2183. |
[18] | Olrichs NK, Mahalka AK, Kaloyanova D, et al. (2014) Golgi-Associated plant Pathogenesis Related protein 1 (GAPR-1) forms amyloid-like fibrils by interaction with acidic phospholipids and inhibits Abeta aggregation. Amyloid 21: 88–96. |
[19] | Yoshiike Y, Minai R, Matsuo Y, et al. (2008) Amyloid oligomer conformation in a group of natively folded proteins. PLoS One 3: e3235. |
[20] | Schwarzman AL, Gregori L, Vitek MP, et al. (1994) Transthyretin sequesters amyloid beta protein and prevents amyloid formation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 8368–8372. |
[21] | Chen J, Yagi H, Sormanni P, et al. (2012) Fibrillogenic propensity of the GroEL apical domain: a Janus-faced minichaperone. FEBS Lett 586: 1120–1127. |
[22] | Rekas A, Ahn KJ, Kim J, et al. (2012) The chaperone activity of alpha-synuclein: Utilizing deletion mutants to map its interaction with target proteins. Proteins 80: 1316–1325. |
[23] | Ofengeim D, Ito Y, Najafov A, et al. (2015) Activation of necroptosis in multiple sclerosis. Cell Rep 10: 1836–1849. |
[24] | Zhang L, Qu S, Liang A, et al. (2015) Gene expression microarray analysis of the sciatic nerve of mice with diabetic neuropathy. Int J Mol Med 35: 333–339. |
[25] | Karlsson O, Berg AL, Hanrieder J, et al. (2015) Intracellular fibril formation, calcification, and enrichment of chaperones, cytoskeletal, and intermediate filament proteins in the adult hippocampus CA1 following neonatal exposure to the nonprotein amino acid BMAA. Arch Toxicol 89: 423–436. |
[26] | Nishi H, Hashimoto K, Madej T, et al. (2013) Evolutionary, physicochemical, and functional mechanisms of protein homooligomerization. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 117: 3–24. |
[27] | Marianayagam NJ, Sunde M, Matthews JM (2004) The power of two: protein dimerization in biology. Trends Biochem Sci 29: 618–625. |
[28] | Ali MH, Imperiali B (2005) Protein oligomerization: how and why. Bioorg Med Chem 13: 5013–5020. |
[29] | Wang X, Sharp JS, Handel TM, et al. (2013) Chemokine oligomerization in cell signaling and migration. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci 117: 531–578. |
[30] | Zimmerberg J, Kozlov MM (2006) How proteins produce cellular membrane curvature. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7: 9–19. |
[31] | Park PS, Filipek S, Wells JW, et al. (2004) Oligomerization of G protein-coupled receptors: past, present, and future. Biochemistry 43: 15643–15656. |
[32] | Adi-Harel S, Erlich S, Schmukler E, et al. (2010) Beclin 1 self-association is independent of autophagy induction by amino acid deprivation and rapamycin treatment. J Cell Biochem 110: 1262–1271. |
[33] | Ku B, Woo JS, Liang C, et al. (2008) An insight into the mechanistic role of Beclin 1 and its inhibition by prosurvival Bcl-2 family proteins. Autophagy 4: 519–520. |
[34] | Chiti F, Dobson CM (2006) Protein misfolding, functional amyloid, and human disease. Annu Rev Biochem 75: 333–366. |
[35] | Dobson CM (2003) Protein folding and misfolding. Nature 426: 884–890. |
[36] | Iannuzzi C, Irace G, Sirangelo I (2015) The effect of glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) on amyloid aggregation and toxicity. Molecules 20: 2510–2528. |
[37] | Oskarsson ME, Singh K, Wang J, et al. (2015) Heparan Sulfate Proteoglycans Are Important for Islet Amyloid Formation and Islet Amyloid Polypeptide-induced Apoptosis. J Biol Chem 290: 15121–15132. |
[38] | Kinnunen PK (2009) Amyloid Formation on Lipid Membrane Surfaces. The Open Biology Journal 2: 163–175. |
[39] | Burke KA, Yates EA, Legleiter J (2013) Biophysical insights into how surfaces, including lipid membranes, modulate protein aggregation related to neurodegeneration. Front Neurol 4: 17. |
[40] | Sunde M, Serpell LC, Bartlam M, et al. (1997) Common core structure of amyloid fibrils by synchrotron X-ray diffraction. J Mol Biol 273: 729–739. |
[41] | Glabe CG (2008) Structural classification of toxic amyloid oligomers. J Biol Chem 283: 29639–29643. |
[42] | Kayed R, Lasagna-Reeves CA (2013) Molecular mechanisms of amyloid oligomers toxicity. J Alzheimers Dis 33 Suppl 1: S67–78. |
[43] | Breydo L, Uversky VN (2015) Structural, morphological, and functional diversity of amyloid oligomers. FEBS Lett 589: 2640–2648. |
[44] | Haass C, Selkoe DJ (2007) Soluble protein oligomers in neurodegeneration: lessons from the Alzheimer's amyloid beta-peptide. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 8: 101–112. |
[45] | Kagan BL, Jang H, Capone R, et al. (2012) Antimicrobial properties of amyloid peptides. Mol Pharm 9: 708–717. |
[46] | Greenwald J, Riek R (2012) On the possible amyloid origin of protein folds. J Mol Biol 421: 417–426. |
[47] | Gsponer J, Babu MM (2012) Cellular strategies for regulating functional and nonfunctional protein aggregation. Cell Rep 2: 1425–1437. |
[48] | Fowler DM, Koulov AV, Balch WE, et al. (2007) Functional amyloid--from bacteria to humans. Trends Biochem Sci 32: 217–224. |
[49] | Maji SK, Perrin MH, Sawaya MR, et al. (2009) Functional amyloids as natural storage of peptide hormones in pituitary secretory granules. Science 325: 328–332. |
[50] | Puzzo D, Arancio O (2013) Amyloid-beta peptide: Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde? J Alzheimers Dis 33 Suppl 1: S111–20. |
[51] | Hervas R, Li L, Majumdar A, et al. (2016) Molecular Basis of Orb2 Amyloidogenesis and Blockade of Memory Consolidation. PLoS Biol 14: e1002361. |
[52] | Jacob RS, George E, Singh PK, et al. (2016) Cell Adhesion on Amyloid Fibrils Lacking Integrin Recognition Motif. J Biol Chem . |
[53] | Halfmann R, Jarosz DF, Jones SK, et al. (2012) Prions are a common mechanism for phenotypic inheritance in wild yeasts. Nature 482: 363–368. |
[54] | Li J, McQuade T, Siemer AB, et al. (2012) The RIP1/RIP3 necrosome forms a functional amyloid signaling complex required for programmed necrosis. Cell 150: 339–350. |
[55] | Parry TL, Melehani JH, Ranek MJ, et al. (2015) Functional Amyloid Signaling via the Inflammasome, Necrosome, and Signalosome: New Therapeutic Targets in Heart Failure. Front Cardiovasc Med 2: 25. |
[56] | Rapsinski GJ, Wynosky-Dolfi MA, Oppong GO, et al. (2015) Toll-like receptor 2 and NLRP3 cooperate to recognize a functional bacterial amyloid, curli. Infect Immun 83: 693–701. |
[57] | Heneka MT, Kummer MP, Latz E (2014) Innate immune activation in neurodegenerative disease. Nat Rev Immunol 14: 463–477. |
[58] | Maldera JA, Vasen G, Ernesto JI, et al. (2011) Evidence for the involvement of zinc in the association of CRISP1 with rat sperm during epididymal maturation. Biol Reprod 85: 503–510. |
[59] | Lu S, Faris JD, Sherwood R, et al. (2014) A dimeric PR-1-type pathogenesis-related protein interacts with ToxA and potentially mediates ToxA-induced necrosis in sensitive wheat. Mol Plant Pathol 15: 650–663. |
[60] | Borloo J, Geldhof P, Peelaers I, et al. (2013) Structure of Ostertagia ostertagi ASP-1: insights into disulfide-mediated cyclization and dimerization. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 69: 493–503. |
[61] | Prados-Rosales RC, Roldan-Rodriguez R, Serena C, et al. (2012) A PR-1-like protein of Fusarium oxysporum functions in virulence on mammalian hosts. J Biol Chem 287: 21970–21979. |
[62] | Sugiyama H, Burnett L, Xiang X, et al. (2009) Purification and multimer formation of allurin, a sperm chemoattractant from Xenopus laevis egg jelly. Mol Reprod Dev 76: 527–536. |
[63] | Asojo OA, Goud G, Dhar K, et al. (2005) X-ray structure of Na-ASP-2, a pathogenesis-related-1 protein from the nematode parasite, Necator americanus, and a vaccine antigen for human hookworm infection. J Mol Biol 346: 801–814. |
[64] | Ma D, Francischetti IM, Ribeiro JM, et al. (2015) The structure of hookworm platelet inhibitor (HPI), a CAP superfamily member from Ancylostoma caninum. Acta Crystallogr F Struct Biol Commun 71: 643–649. |
[65] | Tsolis AC, Papandreou NC, Iconomidou VA, et al. (2013) A consensus method for the prediction of 'aggregation-prone' peptides in globular proteins. PLoS One 8: e54175. |
[66] | Egge N, Muthusubramanian A, Cornwall GA (2015) Amyloid properties of the mouse egg zona pellucida. PLoS One 10: e0129907. |
[67] | Guyonnet B, Egge N, Cornwall GA (2014) Functional amyloids in the mouse sperm acrosome. Mol Cell Biol 34: 2624–2634. |
[68] | Swanson WJ, Aagaard JE, Vacquier VD, et al. (2011) The molecular basis of sex: linking yeast to human. Mol Biol Evol 28: 1963–1966. |
[69] | Garcia MC, Lee JT, Ramsook CB, et al. (2011) A role for amyloid in cell aggregation and biofilm formation. PLoS One 6: e17632. |
[70] | Da Ros VG, Munoz MW, Battistone MA, et al. (2015) From the epididymis to the egg: participation of CRISP proteins in mammalian fertilization. Asian J Androl 17: 711–715. |
[71] | Caballero J, Frenette G, D'Amours O, et al. (2012) Bovine sperm raft membrane associated Glioma Pathogenesis-Related 1-like protein 1 (GliPr1L1) is modified during the epididymal transit and is potentially involved in sperm binding to the zona pellucida. J Cell Physiol 227: 3876–3886. |
[72] | Busso D, Goldweic NM, Hayashi M, et al. (2007) Evidence for the involvement of testicular protein CRISP2 in mouse sperm-egg fusion. Biol Reprod 76: 701–708. |
[73] | Doty A, Buhi WC, Benson S, et al. (2011) Equine CRISP3 modulates interaction between spermatozoa and polymorphonuclear neutrophils. Biol Reprod 85: 157–164. |
[74] | Ernesto JI, Weigel Munoz M, Battistone MA, et al. (2015) CRISP1 as a novel CatSper regulator that modulates sperm motility and orientation during fertilization. J Cell Biol 210: 1213–1224. |
[75] | Burnett LA, Xiang X, Bieber AL, et al. (2008) Crisp proteins and sperm chemotaxis: discovery in amphibians and explorations in mammals. Int J Dev Biol 52: 489–501. |
[76] | Burnett LA, Anderson DM, Rawls A, et al. (2011) Mouse sperm exhibit chemotaxis to allurin, a truncated member of the cysteine-rich secretory protein family. Dev Biol 360: 318–328. |
[77] | Usmani SM, Zirafi O, Muller JA, et al. (2014) Direct visualization of HIV-enhancing endogenous amyloid fibrils in human semen. Nat Commun 5: 3508. |
[78] | Castellano LM, Shorter J (2012) The Surprising Role of Amyloid Fibrils in HIV Infection. Biology (Basel) 1: 58–80. |
[79] | Doncel GF (2006) Exploiting common targets in human fertilization and HIV infection: development of novel contraceptive microbicides. Hum Reprod Update 12: 103–117. |
[80] | Gebbink MF, Claessen D, Bouma B, et al. (2005) Amyloids--a functional coat for microorganisms. Nat Rev Microbiol 3: 333–341. |
[81] | Garcia-Sherman MC, Lundberg T, Sobonya RE, et al. (2015) A unique biofilm in human deep mycoses: fungal amyloid is bound by host serum amyloid P component. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 1: 15009. |
[82] | Syed AK, Boles BR (2014) Fold modulating function: bacterial toxins to functional amyloids. Front Microbiol 5: 401. |
[83] | Pisa D, Alonso R, Rabano A, et al. (2015) Different Brain Regions are Infected with Fungi in Alzheimer's Disease. Sci Rep 5: 15015. |
[84] | Oh J, Kim JG, Jeon E, et al. (2007) Amyloidogenesis of type III-dependent harpins from plant pathogenic bacteria. J Biol Chem 282: 13601–13609. |
[85] | van Loon LC, Rep M, Pieterse CM (2006) Significance of inducible defense-related proteins in infected plants. Annu Rev Phytopathol 44: 135–162. |
[86] | Van Loon LC, Van Strien EA (1999) The families of pathogenesis-related proteins, their activities, and comparative analysis of PR-1 type proteins. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 55: 85–97. |
[87] | Niderman T, Genetet I, Bruyere T, et al. (1995) Pathogenesis-related PR-1 proteins are antifungal. Isolation and characterization of three 14-kilodalton proteins of tomato and of a basic PR-1 of tobacco with inhibitory activity against Phytophthora infestans. Plant Physiol 108: 17–27. |
[88] | Rauscher M, Adam AL, Wirtz S, et al. (1999) PR-1 protein inhibits the differentiation of rust infection hyphae in leaves of acquired resistant broad bean. Plant J 19: 625–633. |
[89] | Benhamou N (1995) Immunocytochemistry of plant defense mechanisms induced upon microbial attack. Microsc Res Tech 31: 63–78. |
[90] | Lee YK, Hippe-Sanwald S, Lee SC, et al. (2000) In situ localization of PR-1 mRNA and PR-1 protein in compatible and incompatible interactions of pepper stems with Phytophthora capsici. Protoplasma 211: 64–75. |
[91] | Santén K, Marttila S, Liljeroth E, et al. (2005) Immunocytochemical localization of the pathogenesis-related PR-1 protein in barley leaves after infection by Bipolaris sorokiniana. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 66: 45–54. |
[92] | Teixeira PJ, Costa GG, Fiorin GL, et al. (2013) Novel receptor-like kinases in cacao contain PR-1 extracellular domains. Mol Plant Pathol 14: 602–609. |
[93] | Jiang G, Hunter T (1999) Receptor signaling: when dimerization is not enough. Curr Biol 9: R568–71. |
[94] | Chen YL, Lee CY, Cheng KT, et al. (2014) Quantitative peptidomics study reveals that a wound-induced peptide from PR-1 regulates immune signaling in tomato. Plant Cell 26: 4135–4148. |
[95] | Chien PS, Nam HG, Chen YR (2015) A salt-regulated peptide derived from the CAP superfamily protein negatively regulates salt-stress tolerance in Arabidopsis. J Exp Bot 66: 5301–5313. |
[96] | Buch F, Pauchet Y, Rott M, et al. (2014) Characterization and heterologous expression of a PR-1 protein from traps of the carnivorous plant Nepenthes mirabilis. Phytochemistry 100: 43–50. |
[97] | Osman A, Wang CK, Winter A, et al. (2012) Hookworm SCP/TAPS protein structure--A key to understanding host-parasite interactions and developing new interventions. Biotechnol Adv 30: 652–657. |
[98] | Moyle M, Foster DL, McGrath DE, et al. (1994) A hookworm glycoprotein that inhibits neutrophil function is a ligand of the integrin CD11b/CD18. J Biol Chem 269: 10008–10015. |
[99] | Asojo OA (2011) Structure of a two-CAP-domain protein from the human hookworm parasite Necator americanus. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr 67: 455–462. |
[100] | Del Valle A, Jones BF, Harrison LM, et al. (2003) Isolation and molecular cloning of a secreted hookworm platelet inhibitor from adult Ancylostoma caninum. Mol Biochem Parasitol 129: 167–177. |
[101] | Horn M, Bertling A, Brodde MF, et al. (2012) Human neutrophil alpha-defensins induce formation of fibrinogen and thrombospondin-1 amyloid-like structures and activate platelets via glycoprotein IIb/IIIa. J Thromb Haemost 10: 647–661. |
[102] | Canobbio I, Abubaker AA, Visconte C, et al. (2015) Role of amyloid peptides in vascular dysfunction and platelet dysregulation in Alzheimer's disease. Front Cell Neurosci 9: 65. |
[103] | Wang YL, Kuo JH, Lee SC, et al. (2010) Cobra CRISP functions as an inflammatory modulator via a novel Zn2+- and heparan sulfate-dependent transcriptional regulation of endothelial cell adhesion molecules. J Biol Chem 285: 37872–37883. |
[104] | Alexandrescu AT (2005) Amyloid accomplices and enforcers. Protein Sci 14: 1–12. |
[105] | Hughes AJ, Hussain R, Cosentino C, et al. (2012) A zinc complex of heparan sulfate destabilises lysozyme and alters its conformation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 425: 794–799. |
[106] | Berthelot K, Lecomte S, Coulary-Salin B, et al. (2016) Hevea brasiliensis prohevein possesses a conserved C-terminal domain with amyloid-like properties in vitro. Biochim Biophys Acta 1864: 388–399. |
[107] | Lay FT, Mills GD, Poon IK, et al. (2012) Dimerization of plant defensin NaD1 enhances its antifungal activity. J Biol Chem 287: 19961–19972. |
[108] | Poon IK, Baxter AA, Lay FT, et al. (2014) Phosphoinositide-mediated oligomerization of a defensin induces cell lysis. Elife 3: e01808. |
[109] | Garvey M, Meehan S, Gras SL, et al. (2013) A radish seed antifungal peptide with a high amyloid fibril-forming propensity. Biochim Biophys Acta 1834: 1615–1623. |
[110] | Marangon M, Van Sluyter SC, Waters EJ, et al. (2014) Structure of haze forming proteins in white wines: Vitis vinifera thaumatin-like proteins. PLoS One 9: e113757. |
[111] | Yu XM, Griffith M (1999) Antifreeze proteins in winter rye leaves form oligomeric complexes. Plant Physiol 119: 1361–1370. |
1. | Chieh-Heng Wang, Chih-Ying Huang, Hwa-Kwang Yak, Hsin-Cheng Hsieh, Jia-Lin Wang, Identifying an unknown compound in flue gas of semiconductor industry – Forensics of a perfluorocarbon, 2021, 264, 00456535, 128504, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.128504 | |
2. | Kwang-Min Choi, Soo-Jin Lee, Physicochemical Characteristics and Occupational Exposure of Silica Particles as Byproducts in a Semiconductor Sub Fab, 2022, 19, 1660-4601, 1791, 10.3390/ijerph19031791 | |
3. | Aji Teguh Prihatno, Ida Bagus Krishna Yoga Utama, Yeong Min Jang, oneM2M-Enabled Prediction of High Particulate Matter Data Based on Multi-Dense Layer BiLSTM Model, 2022, 12, 2076-3417, 2260, 10.3390/app12042260 | |
4. | Zhaobo Zhang, Paul Westerhoff, Pierre Herckes, Evaluation of Potential Occupational Exposure and Release of Nanoparticles in Semiconductor-Manufacturing Environments, 2024, 15, 2073-4433, 301, 10.3390/atmos15030301 | |
5. | Marcello Ruberti, Environmental performance and trends of the world's semiconductor foundry industry, 2024, 1088-1980, 10.1111/jiec.13529 |
Classification | PM2.5 mean number concentration (range: min-max, unit: #/cm3) | ||
FSFc | Office | Outdoor Air | |
Gooda | 12.821 ± 1.658 (9.755–17.483) |
10.556 ± 5.543 (4.562–37.538) |
49.289 ± 19.217 (13.075–102.741) |
Unhealthyb | 42.337 ± 6.697 (25.440–71.310) |
30.681 ± 3.998 (21.894–44.760) |
373.463 ± 75.455 (181.580–550.785) |
a, b In the case of PM2.5, 0–15 and 36–75 µg/m3, respectively. cFSF: Facility sub fab. |
Particle Size (µm) |
Mean number concentration (#/cm3) | ||||||
Line A | Line B | Office | Outdoor Air | ||||
CRa | Plenum | CR | CSFb | FSFc | |||
0.3–1.0 (PM1) | < DLd | 0.148 | < DL | 0.063 | 30.812 | 29.939 | 239.486 |
1.0–2.5 | < DL | 0.001 | < DL | 0.001 | 0.101 | 0.260 | 1.414 |
PM1/PM2.5 (%) | - | 99.33 | - | 98.44 | 99.67 | 99.14 | 99.41 |
aCR: Clean room. bCSF: Clean sub fab. cFSF: Facility sub fab. dDL: Detection limit (0.001 #/cm3). |
Classification | PM2.5 mean mass concentration (range: min-max, unit: µg/m3) | ||
FSFc | Office | Outdoor Air | |
Gooda | 2.525 ± 0.321 (1.820–5.271) |
2.346 ± 1.131 (1.053–7.847) |
10.423 ± 3.897 (2.840–21.816) |
Unhealthyb | 8.419 ± 1.409 (4.921–13.644) |
6.340 ± 0.826 (4.375–9.513) |
76.155 ± 14.429 (37.793–110.430) |
a, bIn the case of PM2.5, 0–15 and 36–75 µg m-3, respectively. e FSF: Facility sub fab. |
Particle Size (µm) | Mean mass concentration (µg/m3) | ||||||
Line A | Line B | Office | Outdoor Air | ||||
CRa | Plenum | CR | CSFb | FSFc | |||
0.3–1.0 (PM1) | < DLd | 0.027 | < DL | 0.012 | 5.622 | 5.553 | 44.421 |
1.0–2.5 | < DL | 0.001 | < DL | 0.004 | 0.335 | 0.863 | 4.697 |
PM1/PM2.5 (%) | - | 96.43 | - | 75.00 | 94.38 | 86.55 | 90.44 |
aCR: Clean room. bCSF: Clean sub fab. cFSF: Facility sub fab. dDL: Detection limit (0.001 µg/m3). |
Classification | PM2.5 mean number concentration (range: min-max, unit: #/cm3) | ||
FSFc | Office | Outdoor Air | |
Gooda | 12.821 ± 1.658 (9.755–17.483) |
10.556 ± 5.543 (4.562–37.538) |
49.289 ± 19.217 (13.075–102.741) |
Unhealthyb | 42.337 ± 6.697 (25.440–71.310) |
30.681 ± 3.998 (21.894–44.760) |
373.463 ± 75.455 (181.580–550.785) |
a, b In the case of PM2.5, 0–15 and 36–75 µg/m3, respectively. cFSF: Facility sub fab. |
Particle Size (µm) |
Mean number concentration (#/cm3) | ||||||
Line A | Line B | Office | Outdoor Air | ||||
CRa | Plenum | CR | CSFb | FSFc | |||
0.3–1.0 (PM1) | < DLd | 0.148 | < DL | 0.063 | 30.812 | 29.939 | 239.486 |
1.0–2.5 | < DL | 0.001 | < DL | 0.001 | 0.101 | 0.260 | 1.414 |
PM1/PM2.5 (%) | - | 99.33 | - | 98.44 | 99.67 | 99.14 | 99.41 |
aCR: Clean room. bCSF: Clean sub fab. cFSF: Facility sub fab. dDL: Detection limit (0.001 #/cm3). |
Classification | PM2.5 mean mass concentration (range: min-max, unit: µg/m3) | ||
FSFc | Office | Outdoor Air | |
Gooda | 2.525 ± 0.321 (1.820–5.271) |
2.346 ± 1.131 (1.053–7.847) |
10.423 ± 3.897 (2.840–21.816) |
Unhealthyb | 8.419 ± 1.409 (4.921–13.644) |
6.340 ± 0.826 (4.375–9.513) |
76.155 ± 14.429 (37.793–110.430) |
a, bIn the case of PM2.5, 0–15 and 36–75 µg m-3, respectively. e FSF: Facility sub fab. |
Particle Size (µm) | Mean mass concentration (µg/m3) | ||||||
Line A | Line B | Office | Outdoor Air | ||||
CRa | Plenum | CR | CSFb | FSFc | |||
0.3–1.0 (PM1) | < DLd | 0.027 | < DL | 0.012 | 5.622 | 5.553 | 44.421 |
1.0–2.5 | < DL | 0.001 | < DL | 0.004 | 0.335 | 0.863 | 4.697 |
PM1/PM2.5 (%) | - | 96.43 | - | 75.00 | 94.38 | 86.55 | 90.44 |
aCR: Clean room. bCSF: Clean sub fab. cFSF: Facility sub fab. dDL: Detection limit (0.001 µg/m3). |