4.7 Article

Toxicity trends in E-Waste: A comparative analysis of metals in discarded mobile phones

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 380, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.120898

Keywords

Mobile phones; Human health; Ecotoxicity; Toxic elements; E-waste

Funding

  1. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2017M612704]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC21507090, NSFC21507115, NSFC 51575287]
  3. Development of Science and Technology Fund of Macau [FDCT 0011/2018/A]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mobile phones and various electronic products contribute to the world's fastest-growing category of hazardous waste with international repercussions. We investigated the trends in potential human health impacts and ecotoxicity of waste mobile phones through quantitative life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) methods and regulatory total threshold limit concentrations. A market-dominant sample of waste basic phones and smartphones manufactured between 2001 and 2015, were analyzed for toxicity trends based on 19 chemicals. The results of the LCIA (using USEtox model) show an increase in the relative mass of toxic materials over the 15-year period. We found no significant changes in the use of toxic components in basic phones, whereas smartphones contained a statistically significant increase in the content of toxic materials from 2006 to 2015. Nickel contributed the largest risk for carcinogens in mobile phones, but the contributions of lead and beryllium were also notable. Silver, zinc and copper contents were associated with non-cancer health risks. Copper components at 45,818-77,938 PAF m(3)/kg dominated ecotoxicity risks in mobile phones. Overall, these results highlight the increasing importance of monitoring trends in materials use for electronic product manufacturing and electronicwaste management processes that should prevent human and environmental exposures to toxic components.

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