Why partially cleaning electronics after exposure to smoke or water can be worse than doing nothing at all…
Topping the list of “things the restoration contractor won’t tell you, simply because he or she doesn’t know any better” is that the partial cleaning of printed circuit boards (PCBs) exposed to contamination can be worse than not cleaning them at all.
The bad news – Electronic hardware can be damaged by exposure to a variety of contaminates introduced by disasters or accidents.
The good news – Many contaminates can be removed before they cause actual damage… but only if the PROPER cleaning agents and application techniques are utilized.
Need to know – If your restoration contractor is still using the same old cleaning techniques he or she has always used, your minor disruption could quickly turn into a major disaster.
Here’s a brief overview of what many equipment restoration contractors don’t know and why it’s vital to eliminate these contractors from your recovery plan.
The backstory
30 years ago – Most electronic components were designed to withstand cleaning processes (including exposure to water) employed during the manufacturing and preventative maintenance processing. These processes were originally developed to remove soldering flux residue from soldered printed circuit boards, which, if left in place would cause future damage. Later, in hopes of extending equipment life expectancies and reliability, advances were made to develop procedures capable of cleaning electronics operating in harsh environments (ships, paper mills, etc.). These widely accepted processes, developed and utilized by the manufacturers and maintenance companies, were used as a basis for developing “field” cleaning processes to handle loss-related contamination problems. The equipment restoration industry quickly adopted the processes to field-service equipment compromised by exposure to smoke and water and have made few changes since.
No more CFCs – Prior to 1990, PCBs were primarily cleaned with chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) to remove waxy flux residues, which were acids and would damage the soldered components if left intact. The Montreal Protocol planned for the eventual phase-out of CFCs, with production ending in the USA in 1995.
“No-clean” (aka “can’t clean”) fluxes – Since CFCs were no longer an option, many manufacturers shifted to alcohol and water-based cleaning chemistries. By default, components that were incorporated on PCBs were designed to withstand exposure to cleaning processing (specifically water-based cleaning agents). In 1990 “no-clean” fluxes were developed so that the post-soldering cleaning process could (eventually) be eliminated. Unlike previous flux residues, the newer residues (which remain corrosive) are designed to stabilize and remain on the board.
Water = corrosion
Why should you care about these “no-clean” fluxes?
Well, while the residues contain high solid resins (gummy consistency) and are reasonably stable in normal operating conditions, they become reactive (corrosive) with exposure to water. The grease-like encapsulate of the flux can be breached by exposure to water, but is extremely difficult to completely remove without specialized cleaning chemistries and application techniques. The newer generation of solder paste doesn’t eliminate the corrosive compounds found in flux, it simply encapsulates them on the PCB. As long as the flux remains encapsulated, it cannot become corrosive and cause damage to unprotected metal surfaces.
The antiquated cleaning processes employed by most equipment restoration contractors is only capable of breaching the protective coating (encapsulate) and becoming the catalyst for the flux to become reactive (corrosive).
What many equipment restoration contractors don’t know…
- Today, nearly 70% of all printed circuit boards (PCB’s) are assembled with no-clean solder paste – which is more accurately described as low-residue solder paste.
- The water-based cleaning/recovery processes the restoration industry has used for over 30 years can actually do more harm than good to PCBs.
- Typical contaminates that are routinely removed (“wet-cleaned”) by equipment restoration contractors would be better left in-place if they attempt to clean with old chemistries and techniques. Partial cleaning is worse than no cleaning!
- Unfortunately, the “dry-cleaning” processes employed by the same contractors generally yield no discernible benefits. Dry cleaning techniques traditional used by the contractors are little more than “show.”
- What many OEMs or their service providers don’t reveal, or don’t realize, is that there are a multitude of acceptable processes available to effectively decontaminate typical loss-affected electronics and sensitive mechanisms.
Tipping points within the industry
- Most of the OEMs are using components that cannot be cleaned with cleaning chemistries/techniques that have been employed by most of the equipment restoration contractors.
- It’s extremely difficult for Technicians to visually identify the components that can NOT be cleaned with standard processes.
- Only a handful of organizations are currently resourced and trained to properly address the removal of residues on modern electronic components.
From bad to worse
A cleaning process that was once straightforward has now become complicated. The cleaning techniques that the restoration industry has used in the past (and is continuing to use) can quickly make a bad situation even worse. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for problems to arise with equipment that was cleaned incorrectly until months (or even years) down the road. And even then, the initial problems are usually intermittent and VERY difficult to diagnose until they produce “smoking-gun” failures.
No news is not good news
Very few “experts” in the equipment/electronics restoration industry have kept-up with the technology, and are therefore unaware of the situation. Many of those who areaware are not familiar with the proper cleaning chemistries and application techniques — even fewer have actually changed their processing to accommodate the new demands in current designs and applications.
Effects:
Partial cleaning or incorrect cleaning techniques will increase vulnerabilities of the most sensitive components to future operational problems and/or damage. Adjusters, Consultants, Risk Managers and Contractors that recommend and/or engage “specialists” to clean mission-critical equipment assets are taking a huge gamble if they’re not sure whether the specialists is actually aware of the risks and reasonably qualified to perform the recovery processing.
Conclusion:
One disaster is enough. Knowing who to call during the initial phase of recovery may determine the difference between a minor disruption and a catastrophe. If you are interested in learning more about the restoration industry and discovering information that might protect you from risk, please comment below and let me know what topics you’re interested in. Follow me on LinkedIn… I have some exciting announcements to make and information to share over the next few months.
Leave a Reply