4.8 Article

Assessment of Noise and Heavy Metals (Cr, Cu, Cd, Pb) in the Ambience of the Production Line for Recycling Waste Printed Circuit Boards

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 494-499

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es202513b

关键词

-

资金

  1. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 program) [2009AA06Z318]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21077071]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The crush - pneumatic separation - corona electrostatic separation production line provides a feasible method for industrialization of waste printed circuit boards (PCBs) recycling. To determine the potential environmental contamination in the automatic line workshop, noise and heavy metals (Cr, Cu, Cd, Pb) in the ambience of the production line have been evaluated in this paper. The mean noise level in the workshop has been reduced from; 96.4 to 79.3 dB since the engineering noise control measures were employed. Noise whose frequency ranged from 500 to 1000 Hz is controlled effectively. The mass concentrations of TSP and PM10 in the workshop are 282.6 and 202.0 mu g/m(3), respectively. Pb (1.40 mu g/m(3)) and Cu (1.22 mu g/m(3)) are the most enriched metals in TSP samples followed by Cr (0.17 mu g/m(3)) and Cd (0.028 mu g/m(3)). The concentrations of Cu, Pb, Cr, and Cd in PM10 are 0.88, 0.56, 0.12, and 0.88 mu g/m(3), respectively. Among the four metals, Cr and Pb are released into the ambience of the automatic line more easily in the crush and separation process. Health risk assessment shows that noncancerous effects might be possible for Pb (HI = 1.45), and noncancerous effects are unlikely for Cr, Cu, and Cd. The carcinogenic risks for Cr and Cd are 3.29 x 10(-8) and 1.61 x 10(-9), respectively. It indicates that carcinogenic risks on workers are relatively light in the workshop. These findings suggest that this technology is advanced from the perspective of environmental protection in the waste PCBs recycling industry.

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

4.8
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