Content uploaded by Andrew A. Shapiro
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Andrew A. Shapiro
Content may be subject to copyright.
30 OCTOBER 2009 VOL 326 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org
670
POLICYFORUM
The Electronics Revolution:
From E-Wonderland to E-Wasteland
SCIENCE AND REGULATION
Oladele A. Ogunseitan,
1
* Julie M. Schoenung,
2 Jean-Daniel M. Saphores,
3 Andrew A. Shapiro
4
Discarded electronics present serious threats
to health and ecosystems, making e-waste
regulations a policy priority.
Since the mid-1990s, electronic waste
(e-waste) has been recognized as the
fastest-growing component of the
solid-waste stream, as small consumer elec-
tronic products, such as cellular phones,
have become ubiquitous in developed and
developing countries ( 1). In the absence of
adequate recycling policies, the small size,
short useful life-span, and high costs of recy-
cling these products mean they are routinely
discarded without much concern for their
adverse impacts on the environment and pub-
lic health. These impacts occur throughout
the product life cycle, from acquisition of raw
materials ( 2) to manufacturing to disposal at
the end of products’ useful life.
This creates considerable toxicity risks
worldwide ( 3, 4). For example, the mean con-
centration of lead in the blood of children liv-
ing in Guiyu, China, a notorious destination
for improper e-waste recycling ( 5), is 15.3 µg/
dl. There is no known safe level of exposure to
lead; remedial action is recommended for chil-
dren with levels above 10 µg/dl ( 6). Polybromi-
nated diphenyl ethers used as fl ame-retardants
in electronics have been detected in alarm-
ing quantities (up to 4.1 ppm lipid weight) in
California’s peregrine falcon eggs, raising the
specter of species endangerment ( 7, 8).
We recently estimated that each U.S.
household has at least four small (≤4.5 kg)
and between two and three large (>4.5 kg)
e-waste items in storage ( 9); this represents
747 million e-waste items, weighing over
1.36 million metric tons. Moreover, most peo-
ple (67%) in the United States are not aware
of e-waste disposal restrictions or policies
( 9). The United States, one the largest gen-
erators of e-waste in the world ( 4), does not
have legally enforceable federal policies that
require comprehensive recycling of e-waste
or elimination of hazardous substances from
electronic products. Without a coherent U.S.
policy, informed by challenges faced by simi-
lar efforts around the world, it will be diffi cult
to reach a global consensus.
Patchwork of E-Waste Standards
The European Union (EU) adopted two com-
prehensive directives for managing e-waste:
the Restriction on the Use of Hazardous Sub-
stances (RoHS), and the Waste Electrical and
Electronic Equipment (WEEE) ( 10). China’s
own WEEE regulations will take effect in
2011. The Basel Convention ( 11), which reg-
ulates movement of hazardous wastes across
international borders (and includes a technical
working group on e-waste), has been ratifi ed
by 169 of the 192 United Nations (UN) mem-
ber countries. Unfortunately, the United States
is the only member country of the Organisa-
tion for Economic Co-operation and Devel-
opment that has not ratifi ed the convention.
Within the United States, only 19 states have
e-waste laws (14 others pending), although
most do not provide suffi cient infrastructure
or dedicated revenue streams to enforce com-
pliance and to promote public participation
( 9, 12, 13). This uneven patchwork of poli-
cies has created “risk holes.” Poor communi-
ties and developing countries are dispropor-
tionately affected. Consequences are particu-
larly troubling in Africa, China, and India ( 4,
14, 15). Markets for second-hand electronics
thrive in such places, along with improper
recycling of domestic and illegally imported
e-waste to recover valuable materials.
Potential Action in U.S. Congress
The U.S. Senate is considering the Electronic
Device Recycling Research and Develop-
ment Act (S. 1397, a version of bill H.R.
1580 passed by the House of Representa-
tives) ( 16– 18). If made law, the act could fund
e-waste engineering research, development,
and demonstration projects; engineering cur-
riculum development; and research into non-
toxic, environmentally responsible alterna-
tive products. The bill would also call for the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences to inves-
tigate barriers and opportunities for reduc-
ing e-waste, decreasing the use of hazardous
materials in electronic products, and enabling
product design for effi cient reuse and recy-
cling. The act addresses an especially overdue
need: It asks the National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology to establish a database
of physical properties of “green” alternative
materials for use in electronic products. Yet it
is unclear which properties will be available in
this database, or whether human and ecolog-
ical toxicity data, energy demand, and other
socioeconomic indicators will be included.
While developing and implementing
national policy in the United States, lessons
could be learned from challenges faced by
similar programs already under way. The
European Commission in 2007 began phas-
ing the REACH program (Registration, Eval-
uation, Authorization, and Restriction of
Chemical Substances) into enforceable law.
REACH addresses manufacturers’ respon-
sibilities to manage risks from chemicals in
1Program in Public Health and School of Social Ecology,
University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. 2Depart-
ment of Chemical Engineering and Materials Science, Uni-
versity of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA. 3Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Department of
Economics, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
4Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sci-
ence, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
*Author for correspondence. E-mail: Oladele.Ogunseitan@
uci.edu
Published by AAAS
on November 3, 2009 www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from
www.sciencemag.org SCIENCE VOL 326 30 OCTOBER 2009 671
POLICYFORUM
their products. There has been some confu-
sion about the overlap of REACH and RoHS.
They have different approaches to risk char-
acterization and management, and they spec-
ify different processes by which they can be
implemented by different EU members ( 19).
Also informative, from a major U.S. state-
level effort, is the contentious intersection
of California’s RoHS-like Electronic Waste
Recycling Act (EWRA), and the broader,
REACH-like, California Green Chemistry
Initiative (CGCI). EWRA focuses on very
specifi c chemicals, but the same consumer
electronics are covered by the CGCI, which
focuses on more comprehensive assessment
of toxic chemicals in consumer products and
comparative assessment of alternative chemi-
cals through the kind of database outlined in
S. 1397. Had it been signed into law, Califor-
nia Assembly Bill 147 would have required
manufacturers to declare hazardous materials
content in consumer electronics, a specifi ca-
tion that was not part of the original EWRA,
but that is essential for the CGCI ( 20).
Research Needs
Technology is available to recover precious
materials from e-waste, but the bottleneck is
consumer participation, collection, disman-
tling, and sorting to separate the material
components (e.g., plastics, different types of
metals, and glass). So, to make a difference in
confronting the global e-waste challenge, S.
1397 must call for policy research to charac-
terize the factors that motivate consumers to
recycle. For example, Californians are will-
ing to pay extra for “green” electronics prod-
ucts (e.g., containing fewer toxic substances,
capable of being economically recycled) and
to drive up to 8 miles to drop-off products for
environmentally sensitive recycling ( 21, 22).
In addition, political mandates and economic
incentives are key tools for engaging manu-
facturers, who will need to assume greater
responsibility for designing electronic prod-
ucts that contain safer materials and are eas-
ily managed after consumers no longer want
them ( 23, 24). Research to advance recycling
technology, such as through improved sorting
and labeling, and logistics of product take-
back, are necessary to make e-waste recy-
cling economically viable ( 25).
To have a larger impact, research must go
beyond management. Solutions to the e-waste
problem should not be developed as “end-of-
the-pipeline” treatments of hazardous waste;
the entire life cycle must be included in the
solution. There is a promising collaboration
between the UN Environment Programme
(UNEP) and the Society for Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry to produce guide-
lines for product social life-cycle assessment.
Integrating the guidelines with human dis-
ease end points or ecotoxicological assess-
ments remains problematic ( 26).
Research to identify alternatives to toxic
materials and investments in smelter facilities
to safely recycle e-waste sorely lag behind
the pace at which new electronic devices are
invented, which in turn supports consumers’
habits of buying replacements for electronic
products that are still functioning perfectly
( 4, 25, 27, 28). Improved standards for mate-
rials testing could eliminate the need for
exemptions to toxic-substance policies for
sensitive industries (e.g., medical, military,
and aerospace technologies) ( 29). Improved
testing of materials and a robust toxics data-
base may encourage manufacturers to con-
sider toxicity early during product design
rather than in retrospect, only after perfor-
mance standards and economic consider-
ations have fi rst been satisfi ed.
Education
S. 1397 calls for e-waste education programs,
but hurdles remain ( 30). The bill targets only
undergraduate engineering students and
industry professionals, but investigators in
other disciplines, such as toxicology, need to
be engaged. Efforts should include graduate
programs, where opportunities for cross-
disciplinary work are increased ( 31).
Conclusion
Bart Gordon, Chairman of the U.S. House
Committee on Science and Technology, said
that “we need our future engineers to under-
stand that whatever they put together will
eventually have to be taken apart ( 32).” The y
must also understand social, ecological, and
public health consequences of their inven-
tions. Manufacturers must adopt a cradle-
to-cradle stewardship model for their prod-
ucts ( 33). S. 1397 will be most effective if
its expected outcomes in research products,
inventions, and workforce and public edu-
cation are linked to regulatory policies that
provide uniform guidance for nationwide
e-waste management and “green” electronic
product design in light of international, inter-
disciplinary dimensions of the problem.
References and Notes
1. R. Widmer et al., Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 25, 436
(2005).
2. K. Hayes, R. Burge, Coltan Mining in the Democratic
Republic of Congo: How Tantalum-Using Industries Can
Commit to the Reconstruction of the DRC (Fauna & Flora
International, Cambridge, 2003).
3. J. D. Lincoln, O. A. Ogunseitan, J.-D. Saphores, A. A. Sha-
piro, Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 2572 (2007).
4. UNEP, E-Waste, the Hidden Side of IT Equipment’s Manufac-
turing and Use. Environ. Alert Bull. 5, 1 (2005); www.grid.
unep.ch/product/publication/download/ew_ewaste.en.pdf.
5. R. Stone, Science 325, 1055 (2009).
6. X. Huo et al., Environ. Health Perspect. 115, 1113
(2007).
7. M. Petreas, D. Oros, Chemosphere 74, 996 (2009).
8. A. Holden et al., Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 28, 1906 (2009).
9. J.-D. Saphores, H. Nixon, O. A. Ogunseitan, A. A. Shapiro,
J. Environ. Manage. 90, 3322 (2009).
10. J. M. Schoenung, O. A. Ogunseitan, J.-D. Saphores, A. A.
Shapiro, J. Ind. Ecol. 8, 59 (2004).
11. The Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary
Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal,
Nairobi Declaration on the Environmentally Sound Man-
agement of Electrical and Electronic Wastes and Decision
VIII/2; www.basel.int/meetings/cop/cop9/docs/09e.doc.
12. National Electronics Recycling Infrastructure Clear-
inghouse, www.ecyclingresource.org/ContentPage.
aspx?Pageid=28&ParentID=0.
13. Electronics Take Back Coalition, State Legislation, www.
electronicstakeback.com/legislation/state_legislation.htm.
14. H.-G. Ni, E. Y. Zeng, Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 3991
(2009).
15. A. Bandyopadhyay, Environ. Eng. Sci. 25, 1507 (2008).
16. Electronic Device Recycling and Development Act (S.
1397), introduced in the Senate 6 July 2009; http://
thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN01397:|/
bss/111search.html|.
17. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science and
Technology, Electronics Waste Research and Development
Act (H.R. 1580); http://science.house.gov/legislation/
leg_highlights_detail.aspx?NewsID=2403.
18. For the current status of H.R. 1580, see www.opencon-
gress.org/bill/111-h1580/actions_votes.
19. F. Abrams, “Dealing with the devil: Could REACH be better
than ROHS?” Electronics Design, Strategy, News, 5 Febru-
ary 2008; www.edn.com/article/CA6528666.html.
2 0. California Assembly Bill 147: Hazardous Waste: Electronic
Waste, www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=
ab_147&sess=CUR&house=B&author=saldana. Vetoed by
California Governor Schwarzenegger on 11 October 2009.
21. J.-D. Saphores, H. Nixon, O. A. Ogunseitan, A. A. Shapiro,
J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 50, 113 (2007).
22. J.-D. Saphores, H. Nixon, O. A. Ogunseitan, A. A. Shapiro,
Environ. Behav. 38, 183 (2006).
23. D. S. Khetriwal, P. Kraeuchi, R. Widmer, J. Environ. Man-
age. 90, 153 (2009).
24. H.-Y. Kang, O. A. Ogunseitan, A. A. Shapiro, J. M. Schoe-
nung, Environ. Sci. Technol. 41, 373 (2007).
25. H.-Y. Kang, J. M. Schoenung, Resour. Conserv. Recycling
45, 368 (2005).
26. UNEP and Society for Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Guidelines for Social Life Cycle Assessment
of Products: Social and Socio-economic LCA Guidelines
Complementing Environmental LCA and Life Cycle Costing,
Contributing to the Full Assessment of Goods and Services
Within the Context of Sustainable Development (U NE P,
Paris, 2009), 104 pp.
27. J. D. Lincoln, A. A. Shapiro, J. Earthman, J.-D. Saphores, O.
A. Ogunseitan, IEEE Trans. Electron. Packag. Manuf. 31,
211 (2008).
28. O. A. Ogunseitan, JOM J. Miner. Met. Mater. Soc. 59, 12
(2007).
29. A. A. Shapiro, J. Bonner, O. A. Ogunseitan, J.-D. Saphores,
J. M. Schoenung, IEEE Trans. Compon. Packag. Tech. 29,
60 (2006).
30. J. B. Zimmerman, P. T. Anastas, ACS Symp. Ser. 1011, 137
(2009).
31. J. M. Schoenung, O. A. Ogunseitan, D. Eastmond, in Pro-
ceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Sustain-
able Systems and Technology (ISSST), Tempe, AZ, 18 to 20
May 2009; 10.1109/ISSST.2009.5156760.
32. B. Gordon, fl oor speech on H.R. 1580, http://science.
house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=2435.
33. W. McDonough, M. Braungart, Cradle To Cradle: Remak-
ing the Way We Make Things (North Point Press, New York,
2002), 208 pp.
34. Funded in part by NSF (CMS-0524903) and the University
of California Toxic Substances Research and Teaching Pro-
gram (UC-44157).
10.1126/science.1176929
Published by AAAS
on November 3, 2009 www.sciencemag.orgDownloaded from