Stencil Printing Yield Improvements
Overcome Nodules and Scratches on Wire Bondable Plating on PCBs
Solder Paste Selection for Bottom Termination Components Attach
Jetting Solder Paste Opens Up New Possibilities
Advances Autonomous Driving V2X Technologies
Surface Insulation Resistance of No-Clean Flux Residues
Jetting Conductive Adhesives with Silver Coated Polymer Particles
Residues on Probing PCBAS-Consistent Connections Across No-Clean Fluxes
Latest Industry News
The Exodus Of Chinese Manufacturing
Autonomous Vehicles in China
How Much Gold Is in Your Computer and How Efficient It Is to Reclaim It
All must come aboard for a smooth ride to a carbon-neutral future
Memory Technologies Confront Edge AI's Diverse Challenges
How to Make Big Decisions When Facing an Unpredictable Future
Gartner Says Worldwide Robotic Process Automation Software Revenue to Reach Nearly $2 Billion in 2021
China rolls out fresh policies to boost hydrogen vehicle sales

Chemical Data vs Electrical Data - Which is a Better Reliability Predictor

Chemical Data vs Electrical Data - Which is a Better Reliability Predictor
This study looks to correlate IPC Chemical and Electrical CAF test results. The electrical testing utilized was found within the PCQR2 Database document.
Analysis Lab


Authored By:

Mark Northrup
IEC Electronics

Timothy A. Estes
Conductor Analysis Technologies, Inc.

Joe Russeau
Precision Analytical Laboratory, Inc.


The goal of this study was to correlate IPC Chemical and Electrical CAF test results. The electrical testing utilized for the test coupons was found within the PCQR2 Database document. The chemical testing of the coupons utilized Ion Chromatography (IC) testing in accordance with IPC-TM-650, method 2.3.28.


1. There currently are no Pass / Fail cleanliness criteria exist for the IPC ion chromatography method. Criteria used for this study was based on customer suggested levels.

2. The Current Pass / Fail criteria for CAF testing per PCQR2 are 107Ω latch level.

3. Per industry customer cleanliness criteria, the following groups failed chemical testing: * All, except P10 because there were no samples available after CAF testing

4. Per PCQR2 criteria the following groups failed electrical testing: * P5, P10, 08, 028 and 030

5. Neither method is a better CAF reliability predictor.

Initially Published in the SMTA Proceedings


No comments have been submitted to date.

Submit A Comment

Comments are reviewed prior to posting. You must include your full name to have your comments posted. We will not post your email address.

Your Name

Your Company
Your E-mail

Your Country
Your Comments

Board Talk
Solder Pallets With Titanium Inserts - Yes/No?
What Rate is World Class for SMT Machines?
Selective Solder Pot Temperatures
Top Side Reflow Causing Solder Balls
Trends for Printing Ultra Miniature Chips
Should We Measure Solder Paste Thickness?
Cleaning R.F. Circuits - Aqueous or Vapor?
Why Should We Consider Smart Feeders?
Ask the Experts
BGA reballing question
Conformal Coating Press Fit Connectors
Dust contamination after selective soldering
Moisture Sensitivity Level for Bare Boards
Contamination Using Solvent Dispensers
Challenges Placing RF Shields During SMT Assembly
Seeking Advise for a Solder Reflow Recipe
Critical Part Fixture During Reflow