|
For additional spotlight stories please visit the Archive page.
|
Putting Together the E-Waste Puzzle:
Oladele Ogunseitan on the Need for a More Cohesive Approach |
By Lynne Robinson, Materials Technology@TMS News and Feature Writer
Posted on: 5/5/2009 12:00:00 AM... Experts from a variety of disciplines shared strategies and possible solutions to reducing and reclaiming electronic waste (e-waste) at “Green Materials and Processes for Managing Electronic Waste” at the TMS 2009 Annual Meeting. Featured as part of TMS’s inaugural “Materials and Society” track, the workshop not only examined advances in materials science and engineering, but also explored key policy, consumer, and product design issues. Organizing the workshop was Oladele A. Ogunseitan, professor and chair, Department of Population Health and Disease Prevention, University of California, Irvine. Ogunseitan was also instrumental in securing funds from the National Science Foundation and the University of California’s Toxic Substances Research and Teaching Program to make the workshop presentations “free to the world,” so that the dialogue and learning can continue. (The Webcasts of these presentations can be accessed at this link.)
|
|
Oladele Ogunseitan
|
Ogunseitan came to materials science by way of his extensive background in public health. Early in his career, he studied with a research group that was working on the biodegradation of toxic materials, such as polychlorinated biphenyls, that were being used extensively in transformers and other electric products. Ogunseitan’s research focused on mercury detoxification, lead detoxification, and the impacts of manganese on the environment. “I began thinking that there must be a way to reduce pollution problems at the source rather than at the end when the impacts had already occurred,” he said. “This led me to start collaborating more with product designers, materials scientists, and engineers.
“TMS has a reputation for bringing all these experts together, and it has been very exciting for me to discover the wide coverage of topics that minerals, metals, and materials touch,” Ogunseitan continued. “More recently, I have been encouraged by TMS leaders’ becoming engaged in the societal impacts of materials, and I am very proud to be invited as an inaugural member of the TMS Materials and Society Committee.”
Using his involvement with TMS as a springboard, Ogunseitan shared his perspectives on the global challenges that e-waste presents and the interdisciplinary strategies that are needed to prevent the e-waste stream from reaching the flood stage.
What was the impetus for the workshop, “Green Materials and Processes for Managing Electronic Waste,” that you organized for the TMS 2009 Annual Meeting?
The goal was to bring researchers together from various disciplines to articulate the state of knowledge from their perspective and to chart the directions for future work. Clearly, it is better if we do not simply talk among ourselves, but to bring various stakeholders to the table so that the influence can be broad and far reaching. We also need to engage younger researchers and students so that the tradition of interdisciplinary perspectives for “greener” technologies can be nurtured. I was very delighted by the spirited discussions at the workshop and symposia among industrialists, materials scientists, engineers, public health professionals, economists, and policy makers who contributed their views. I think that this was a unique educational opportunity for participants.
What have been the key milestones in the management of e-waste over the years?
For about 15 years, concerns have been raised by scientists, activists, and some government officials in the United States, Europe, and parts of Asia about the growing contribution of e-waste to the solid waste stream. In some ways, the rapid miniaturization and adoption of small consumer electronic products worldwide was not anticipated. That is why early efforts to manage e-waste focused on the reduction of toxic hazards primarily associated with the lead content of components such as cathode ray tubes and printed circuit boards. To some extent, this approach has been modestly successful, particularly with the introduction of key legislation in Europe (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) and Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS)), although the jury is still out on how effective this legislation will be in influencing the management of e-waste globally. The United States, a large generator of e-waste, does not have a nationally enforceable policy on reducing toxic hazards associated with electronic components, although a few states, such as California, have tried to adopt local policies modeled after RoHS.
|
|
“Americans have, on average, four large and 2.5 small electronic products per household that they may not know how to dispose of properly.”
|
In addition, a number of companies have sprung to life that are dedicated to the collection and refurbishment of discarded, defunct or used electronic products. This has led to many “Saturday Fairs” in the United States where people can take their e-waste to a collection center at no charge, although many find out that there are restrictions on the kinds of e-waste that is accepted. An unintended consequence with this development is that the refurbished product market has quickly spread the problem worldwide, with China, India, Nigeria, and Ghana, among other countries, becoming the dumping grounds for hazardous and useless e-waste.
Finally, with regards to e-waste management in the United States, it has become easier for consumers to keep their old cell phones, even if they switch from one carrier to another. This should encourage people to keep their equipment longer and contribute less to the waste stream. But, this potential advancement has been compromised, in part, by rapidly evolving technologies that make consumers want newer products because they are “better” designed, and “loaded with new features.” This challenge is not limited to cell phones, as we have seen with the adoption of flat screens for computers and the emergence of home entertainment equipment and cameras with expanded memories and more capabilities. Now, consumers are typically ready for new products barely two to three years after purchasing electronics that may still be functioning perfectly.
What are the most significant barriers to effective recycling of e-waste?
Consumer participation is the most important barrier to effective e-waste recycling. For example, our recent research indicates that Americans have, on average, four large and 2.5 small (less than 10 pounds) electronic products per household that they may not know how to dispose of properly. There are simply not enough social infrastructures to support e-waste recycling. We need to upgrade e-waste recycling policies to the level that supports consumer paper and plastic recycling. As another example, we have been able to contain a major part of lead pollution associated with automobile batteries because incentives are provided for their recycling, even though this is not a perfect solution.
The second major barrier to recycling is the design of electronic products. Many components are not compatible. Plastics and metals in the same products have to be carefully separated before proper recycling is possible. To be cost-effective, recyclers have to be able to dismantle e-waste into major compatible components so that they can realize the financial benefits. Another issue is that some electronics components are simply too cheap to support recycling. For example, small lithium-ion batteries are reputably not cost-effective to recycle given current technologies.
What has been the relationship of government and public understanding of e-waste and the science involved in managing this issue?
There has been an unfortunate disconnection among these three major sectors. At the consumer level, there initially was no systematic information provided to let people know that electronic products pose significant dangers to the environment and public health when they are discarded indiscriminately. So, we have ended up with a massive problem of e-waste being mixed with everyday solid waste and probably have a lot of e-waste in landfills worldwide. In addition, cottage industries have sprung up to retrieve gold, platinum, and other potentially valuable elements from e-waste without paying attention to the hazards created by “non-valuable” elements, such as lead, mercury, and nickel. This has created spot pollution, as has been documented in Guiyu, China, and Alaba Market in Lagos, Nigeria.
|
|
“The most important role in e-waste management is reserved for materials scientists and engineers, because the first step is to find and use non-hazardous components in electronic products.”
|
At the government level, the United States is not a signatory to the Basel Convention which restricts the shipment of hazardous waste from one country to another. Although U.S. Environmental Protection Agency officials participate in negotiations, they cannot enforce policies to prevent the distribution of the e-waste problem worldwide.
Finally, scientists have been rather slow to develop comprehensive interdisciplinary research strategies. These need to encompass “design-for-environment” development of new materials, sophisticated product life cycle analyses, consumer behavior surveys, and integrated environmental policies to guide industry behavior and manufacturing practices. All of these components are currently subject research programs that are not well coordinated, except in a few instances, such as the contribution of cell phones to e-waste.
What is the role of materials science and engineering in effectively addressing the e-waste issue?
The most important role in e-waste management is reserved for materials scientists and engineers, because the first step is to find and use non-hazardous components in electronic products. The transition to lead-free solders is an example here, but the revolution needs to be complete. There are numerous research issues associated with testing alternative materials for function, costs, and potential environmental impacts. Materials scientists and engineers are also needed to design better recycling and refurbishing protocols so that it is easy to separate incompatible components.
What are the most promising developments in managing e-waste in the future?
Effective management of e-waste has to begin with re-design. Manufacturers’ agreeing to make many component parts interchangeable worldwide could make repair and refurbishment much easier. Hazardous elements could also be reduced according to a centralized global policy, not just parochial ones in the European Union or California. Finally, societal infrastructures must evolve to the point where there is literally an e-waste “dump station” on most city blocks, and inhabitants of rural areas can “mail” their old products to collection stations. This is relatively easy to do for developed countries. Greater efforts to educate people who can afford electronic products in developing countries must also be part of the e-waste management challenge.
The benefits to society of the electronic age have been and continue to be revolutionary. However, the adverse impacts on public health and the environment seriously threaten the gains. We do have a wonderful opportunity to learn and make changes more quickly with e-waste management than we did in recognizing the environmental hazards associated with automobiles. We can still nip the e-waste problem in the bud, even though adverse effects have already occurred. With interdisciplinary scientific research, engineering, and public policy advancing simultaneously, it is certainly not a hopeless situation.
For additional spotlight stories please visit the Archive page.
|