3.8 Proceedings Paper

Comparative Examining and Analysis of E-waste Recycling in Typical Developing and Developed Countries

Journal

WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR RESOURCE UTILISATION
Volume 35, Issue -, Pages 676-680

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.065

Keywords

WEEE; recycling; environmental impact; assessment; problem

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study is to comparative examining and analysis of electronic and electric waste (e-waste) between developing and developed countries. In fact, most of the developing countries are suffering from informal recycling, because of enormous number of unemployed people engaged in the collection and recycling at family workshop. They are working in different level of community for collection of refused electronic products directly from consumer, followed by sell it to refurbishers and recyclers. These are completely recycled through backyard recycling or primitive or crude methods includes open burning to extract metals, acid leaching for precious metals at family level workshop. These activities are running due to lacking of legislation, treatment standards, environmental protection measures, recycling infrastructure and awareness. Due to absence of updated data of WEEE generation in India with respect of other two countries China, USA and Europe, it cannot possible to make effective control system. The study is based on literature survey by using different database science direct, google scholar with several keywords such as key words e-waste or electronic waste or WEEE recycling or management in India, China, USA and Europe etc. The obtained output from this comprehensive work will make a strong contribution to scientific knowledge and valuable for scientists and policy-makers to solve the e-waste problems towards best available techniques and best environmental practices in future. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available