4.7 Article

Exposure to hazardous substances in Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) recycling sites in France

Journal

WASTE MANAGEMENT
Volume 39, Issue -, Pages 226-235

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.02.027

Keywords

WEEE; Chemical risk; Exposure assessment; Cathode ray tubes; Recycling; Ambient concentration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) or e-waste recycling sector has grown considerably in the last fifteen years due to the ever shorter life cycles of consumables and an increasingly restrictive policy context. Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs) from used television and computer screens represent one of the main sources of e-waste. CRTs contain toxic materials such as lead, cadmium, barium, and fluorescent powders which can be released if recycling of CRTs is not appropriate. Exposure to these harmful substances was assessed in nine workshops where CRT screens are treated. Particulate exposure levels were measured using a gravimetric method and metals were analysed by plasma emission spectrometry. The maximum levels of worker exposure were 8.8 mg/m(3), 1504.3 mu g/m(3), 434.9 mu g/m(3), 576.3 mu g/m(3) and 2894.3 mu g/m(3) respectively for inhalable dust, barium, cadmium, lead and yttrium. The maximum levels of airborne pollutants in static samples were 39.0 mg/m(3), 848.2 mu g/m(3), 698.4 mu g/m(3), 549.3 mu g/m(3) and 3437.9 mu g/m(3) for inhalable dust, barium, cadmium, lead and yttrium. The most harmful operations were identified, and preventive measures for reducing the chemical risk associated with screen recycling were proposed. Workplace measurements were used to define recommendations for reducing the chemical risks in CRT screens recycling facilities and for promoting the design and development of clean and safe processes in emerging recycling channels. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available