Characterising Soldering Fluxes

For a number of years electronic manufacturers of printed circuit assemblies have used rosin‐based soldering fluxes. Post‐solder cleaning was accomplished with chlorinated or chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) solvents. With the elimination of these solvent options due to their destructive effect on the stratospheric ozone layer, manufacturers are considering alternative cleaners for rosin flux or new flux choices which can be cleaned with water or left uncleaned. Many of the flux formulations are relatively new and their long‐term effect on the performance of products manufactured with them is unknown. Although ionic contamination testers can alert one to the ionic levels remaining on an assembly, there is no direct relationship between the total ionic level and the corrosivity of the soldering flux. Surface insulation resistance testing is used in the industry, but the results are misunderstood by many. This is due to the fact that SIR data represent a complex dependency on a number of factors including (1) the test conditions (temperature, humidity, bias), (2) the area of interactions (often referred to as the number of squares), (3) the separation between lines on the interdigitated comb pattern, (4) the presence or absence of bias voltage during the test and (5) the nature of the substrate. All of these factors have been the driving force to develop a quantitative screening test for soldering flux residues. This test, originally reported by Dr David Bono, is being modified and developed at Georgia Tech to provide a quantitative evaluation of flux residue corrosivity. This work, in collaboration with the work being performed by the French UTE, will result in a new international standard. This paper reports the latest data on this important test development.