Recycling research on spent fluorescent lamps on the basis of extended producer responsibility in China

Abstract

Mercury is a physiological toxin released by spent fluorescent lamps (SFLs) and is considered a serious pollutant. As the world's largest producer of fluorescent lamps, China suffers from SFL pollution because of inefficient recycling and management of SFLs. Drawing upon the most successful practices worldwide, this paper suggests the recycling of SFLs on the basis of the extended producer responsibility (EPR) system in China. Manufacturers and importers are the main parties responsible for the take-back, recycling, and disposal of SFLs in the EPR system. In view of the situation in China and to address the objectives of the EPR system, this paper recommends the implementation of a third-party take-back mode for small-and medium-scale enterprises and of a takeback mode for large enterprises to be carried out by original equipment manufacturers. This paper suggests an extended responsibility fund to finance and support the SFL recycling system and discusses in detail the different recycling network systems and fund flows of the two take-back modes. By conducting a case study, the authors determine that the subsidy rate for SFLs that a recycling company can obtain from the extended responsibility fund for recycling and disposing of lamps can be set at $1.35/kg. The authors also predict the levy level that fluorescent lamp manufacturers must submit.Implications: For policymakers, a proper and effective way to manage and recycle spent fluorescent lamps (SFLs) is necessary. The recommended system and the predicted number values of the subsidy rate and levy level can be the basis in practice. For people, the proper management measures will reduce exposure from SFLs effectively, especially the risk of exposure to mercury. For society, the measures can help increase resource utilization rate. For manufacturers, an effective extended responsibility fund will motivate them to improve processing technique and green design.

Byproduct Surplus: Lighting the Depreciative Europium in China’s Rare Earth Boom

“…If all of EoL Eu in China can be effectively recycled, ≈20% of the primary Eu supply will be reduced. Nevertheless, the recycling of spent fluorescent lamps has not been well implemented in China because there has been no effective recycling system. , Although the recycling process of Eu has been studied at the lab scale, there is no effective industrial-level recycling procedure of Eu that is currently operating, even in the European Union, which has relatively complete recycling systems of electronic wastes . Under the current EoL treatment procedure, spent fluorescent lamps are collected and treated mainly for preventing mercury contamination, and the Eu-doped phosphor residues are usually disposed of in landfills because most of phosphor residues do not meet high-purity requirements for commercial use. , More importantly, the surplus of Eu significantly reduced its price by 97% from 2011 to 2018, which further discouraged its recycling.…”

The Development Path of the Lighting Industry in Mainland China: Execution of Energy Conservation and Management on Mercury Emission

“…Some researchers proposed that the contents of mercury in FLs should be lowered by the manufacturers to effectively cut the cost, avoid serious environmental pollution and easily recycle mercury later [47]. Also, it is necessary to implicate extended producers’ responsibilities on FLs during the management and recycling of FLs [48]. Other researchers paid attention to the comprehensive influence of the policy makers and product manufacturers.…”

Economic feasibility of recycling rare earth oxides from end-of-life lighting technologies

“…Under the EPR, the government either allows manufacturers to charge customers recycling fees at the time of purchase and fund the recycling process (Asari et al 2008), or levies advanced recycling fees from manufacturers and uses it to subsidize the third-party recycling facility (Fan et al 2005). However, the current EPR policy aims to manage mercury, not REOs (Peng et al 2014). Therefore, should REOs recycling be a policy objective, current EPR policy can be expanded to bear the cost of REOs recycling.…”