Leaching Assessments of Hazardous Materials in Cellular Telephones

Lincoln, John; Ogunseitan, Oladele A.; Shapiro, Andrew A.; Saphores, Jean-Daniel

doi:10.1021/es0610479

Cited by 114 publications

(104 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The toxicity need not be limited to the metals, other materials are also responsible for adverse effects (Fishbein 2002). Disposal of mobile phones into landfill is a real possibility under the current business model which can result in leaching these materials and metals into the environment (Kiddee et al 2013;Lincoln et al 2007;Uryu et al 2003). The location of recycling will have an effect upon its eventual environmental impact (Soo and Doolan 2014;Wong et al 2007;Rochat et al 2007), and it is shown that governmental legislation plays an important role in the controls placed upon emissions.…”

Section: Recyclingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redefining scope: the true environmental impact of smartphones?

Suckling

Lee

2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The aim of this study is to explore the literature surrounding the environmental impact of mobile phones and the implications of moving from the current business model of selling, using and discarding phones to a product service system based upon a cloud service. The exploration of the impacts relating to this shift and subsequent change in scope is explored in relation to the life cycle profile of a typical smartphone. Methods A literature study is conducted into the existing literature in order to define the characteristics of a Btypicalŝ martphone. Focus is given to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in different life cycle phases in line with that reported in the majority of literature. Usage patterns from literature are presented in order to show how a smartphone is increasingly responsible for not only data consumption but also data generation. The subsequent consequences of this for the balance of the life cycle phases are explored with the inclusion of wider elements in the potential expanded mobile infrastructure, such as servers and the network. Results and discussion From the available literature, the manufacturing phase is shown to dominate the life cycle of a Btypical^smartphone for GHG emissions. Smartphone users are shown to be increasingly reliant upon the internet for provision of their communications. Adding a server into the scope of a smartphone is shown to increase the use phase impact from 8.5 to 18.0 kg CO 2 -eq, other phases are less affected. Addition of the network increases the use phase by another 24.7 kg CO 2 -eq. In addition, it is shown that take-back of mobile phones is not effective at present and that prompt return of the phones could result in reduction in impact by best reuse potential and further reduction in toxic emissions through inappropriate disposal. Conclusions The way in which consumers interact with their phones is changing, leading to a system which is far more integrated with the internet. A product service system based upon a cloud service highlights the need for improved energy efficiency to make greatest reduction in GHG emissions in the use phase, and gives a mechanism to exploit residual value of the handsets by timely return of the phones, their components and recovery of materials.

show abstract

Section: Recyclingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Redefining scope: the true environmental impact of smartphones?

Suckling

Lee

2015

Int J Life Cycle Assess

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The EPA Method 3050B requires the preparation of the samples using nitric acid, hydrochloric acid and hydrogen peroxide (30 %). Details of the method have been reported elsewhere and have been variously used in the characterization of electronic waste devices (DTSC, 2004a, b;Li et al, 2006;Lincoln et al, 2007). The sample digests were subsequently analyzed for Cr, Co, Cd, and Ni by atomic absorption spectroscopy (UNICAM SOLAAR 32).…”

Section: Sample Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Heavy metal characterization of waste portable rechargeable batteries used in mobile phones

Nnorom

Osibanjo

2009

Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ten brands of spent portable rechargeable batteries used in mobile phones (lithium-ion and nickel metal hydride) were collected and disassembled and the battery electrode and printed wiring board prepared using the EPA Method 3050B. The metal concentrations were determined by atomic absorption spectrometry. The mean (± standard deviation) concentrations and range of cobalt, chromium, nickel and cadmium in the battery electrodes were 361284±32281mg/kg (range 20870-575330 mg/kg); 25.3 ± 4.6 mg/kg (7.9-149 mg/kg); 75272 ± 14630 mg/kg (3589-266607 mg/kg) and 2.8 ± 0.6 mg/kg (0.2-16.3 mg/kg), respectively. Similarly, the mean values of cobalt, chromium, nickel and cadmium in the PWB were 564 ± 165 mg/kg (56.1-4068 mg/kg); 28.1 ± 4.0 mg/kg (ND-97.2 mg/kg); 735 ± 188 mg/kg (22.7-2727 mg/kg) and 1.8 ± 0.3 mg/kg (ND-7.2 mg/kg), respectively. The Li-ion battery electrodes contained significantly higher levels of cobalt (p < 0.01) whereas, the NiMH battery contained significantly higher nickel (P < 0.01). All the results for the cobalt and nickel levels in the battery electrodes exceeded the toxicity threshold limit concentration used in the toxicity characterization of solid wastes (cobalt, 8000 mg/kg; nickel , 2000 mg/kg). In fact, the mean cobalt level of the battery electrode is about 45 times the toxicity threshold limit concentration limit for cobalt while the mean nickel result is about 38 times the toxicity threshold limit concentration. Spent portable rechargeable batteries should be handled as toxic materials that require special treatment. Implementation of a well-coordinated management strategy for spent batteries is urgently required to check the dissipation of large doses of toxic heavy metals and rare earth into the environment.

show abstract

“…metals and organic compounds can leach from e-waste discarded in landfills [16][17][18]. Limited studies of e-waste incineration according to the best-available technology resulted in the production of toxic organic chemicals including dioxin, furan, metal, and biphenyls [19,20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risks of toxic ash from artisanal mining of discarded cellphones

Hibbert

Ogunseitan

2014

Journal of Hazardous Materials

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t s• We simulated artisanal incineration of four component categories of cellphones.• We identified metals and organic chemicals in the resulting electronic waste ash.• We used USETox model to demonstrate potential ecotoxicity and human health impacts.• We identify targets for risk reduction for hazardous chemicals in cellphones. a r t i c l e i n f o b s t r a c tThe potential environmental and human health impacts of artisanal mining of electronic waste through open incineration were investigated. A market-representative set of cellphones was dismantled into four component categories-batteries, circuit boards, plastics and screens. The components were shredded, sieved and incinerated at 743-818• C. The concentrations of 17 metals were determined using U.S. EPA methods 6010C (inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometry; 6020A (inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry, or 7471B and 7470A (cold-vapor atomic absorption). EPA Method 8270 (gas chromatography/mass spectrometry) was used to identify polyaromatic hydrocarbon compounds and polybrominated diphenyl ethers. EPA Method 8082A was used to measure polychlorinated biphenyls and EPA Method 8290 was used for dioxin/furans in the residue ash. The life cycle assessment model USEtox ® was used to estimate impacts of the ash residue chemicals on human health and the ecosystem. Among metals, copper in printed circuit boards had the highest ecotoxicity impact (1610-1930 PAF m 3 /kg); Beryllium in plastics had the highest impact on producing non-cancer diseases (0.14-0.44 cases/kg of ash); and Nickel had the largest impact on producing cancers (0.093-0.35 cases/kg of ash). Among organic chemicals, dioxins from incinerated batteries produced the largest ecotoxicological impact (1.07E − 04 to 3.64E − 04 PAF m 3 /kg). Furans in incinerated batteries can generate the largest number of cancers and non-cancer diseases, representing 8.12E − 09 to 2.28E − 08 and 8.96E − 10 and 2.52E − 09 cases/kg of ash, respectively. The results reveal hazards of burning discarded cellphones to recover precious metals, and pinpoints opportunities for manufacturers to reduce toxic materials used in specific electronic components marketed globally.

show abstract

Leaching Assessments of Hazardous Materials in Cellular Telephones

Cited by 114 publications

References 15 publications

Redefining scope: the true environmental impact of smartphones?

Redefining scope: the true environmental impact of smartphones?

Heavy metal characterization of waste portable rechargeable batteries used in mobile phones

Risks of toxic ash from artisanal mining of discarded cellphones

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About