4.7 Article

Formation of PBDD/F from PBDE in electronic waste in recycling processes and under simulated extruding conditions

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 116, 期 -, 页码 34-39

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.12.101

关键词

PBDE; PBDD/F; Waste electrical and electronic equipment; Recycling

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The increasing volumes of waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in Europe and developing economies demand for efficient disposal solutions. However, WEEE also contains toxic compounds and, therefore, there is a need for recycling technologies for WEEE that creates revenue without causing environmental harm. Among other fast developing economies, South Africa is tempting to make use of recycled plastic. Brominated flame retardants (BFRs) are additives used to protect plastic materials in electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) against ignition. Some BFRs are known persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and some BFRs can be transformed into highly toxic compounds such as polybrominated dibenzofurans and dioxins (PBDD/Fs). In this study, the contents of critical BFRs, i.e. polybrominated diphenyl ethers, and highly toxic PBDD/Fs were measured in WEEE material from Switzerland and South Africa. The formation of PBDD/Fs has been observed in two South African recycling processes and under controlled laboratory conditions. Total PBDE-contents in the South African and Swiss plastic waste varied between 1 x 10(3) and 7 x 10(6) mu g kg(-1). A few WEEE plastic fractions exceeded the RoHS limit of 1 x 10(6) mu g kg(-1) for PBDEs and thus they could not be used for recycling products without special treatment. The total content of Sigma PBDFs was around 1 x 10(3) mu g kg(-1). Such contents in materials do not pose a risk for consumer under normal conditions. Workers at recycling plants might be at risk. The measured formation rates of PBDFs were between 2 x 10(-5) and 2 x 10(-4) Sigma PEDE-1 min(-1). (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据