Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Novel Indicators To Better Monitor The Collection and Recovery of (Critical) Raw Materials in WEEE - Focus On Screens - Elsevier Enhanced Reader

    Uploaded by

    Jhully Martinez
    21 views12 pages
    Materias primas CRW

    Original Title

    Novel indicators to better monitor the collection and recovery of (critical) raw materials in WEEE_ Focus on screens _ Elsevier Enhanced Reader

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Materias primas CRW

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    21 views12 pages

    Novel Indicators To Better Monitor The Collection and Recovery of (Critical) Raw Materials in WEEE - Focus On Screens - Elsevier Enhanced Reader

    Uploaded by

    Jhully Martinez
    Materias primas CRW

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 12
    Resources, Conservation & Recycling 187 (2020) 10472, Content lists available at ScienceDisest Resources, Conservation & Recycling ELSEVIER journal homepage: www.slsevier.com/locatelresconrec Full length article Novel indicators to better monitor the collection and recovery of (critical) ® raw materials in WEEE: Focus on screens Rachel Horta Arduin’”, Fabrice Mathieux*’, Jaco Huisman‘, Gian Andrea Blengint Carole Charbuillet, Michelle Wagner*, Cornelis Peter Baldé", Nicolas Perry” Buropean Commission ~ ol Research Cemre, Sustnatie Resources Director, Via BB 2749, 21027, Ira, ay “tte dw Mitrs de Chambly, 1M Dore, UME 295, 72975 Ue Borg a ne “Une Non Umer, Vee Reese Fur Sse Prune (SCY, Pes Vr Nason 53117 Bae. Germany ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT ore cette Ep Un EU ent eny peoancaeey net ain ve come sytem cpm th clit ney gts by he WE bee hy pops Senn rv mine ini tinpe WEEE for ont bond ie cae eal weight apronhy ee aah ‘complementary flows and treatment performance. A case study focused on the screen category in France is ioe rnd neon tt xray ie so a ts pt py ikon {Gy enews Gt cot ar pss el ate OP. Tey ‘tenses nt gig sone FP, hve allt raree Slant chopper Otc gh rorin eRe te as ene oe a. C—rt“—~s*~*~—””—~:C.-C~C~éC*izC;zC;zC;*sS tr sh copoly pesos mo ie snr 20) alg). pals Gin een te a et ov mae pe th sy glam ba Oe sachs nT ed neo pe evento WEE fo we gent nay (te) mata suprs 1. Introduction counties (Tansel, 2017). Nowadays, there are no harmonized datasets available for sales ata global level that cover all counties in the world over more than a decade (Balilé et al, 20172Baldé etal, 20179) In 2012, about 60 Mt of EEE were placed on the market (POM), ameng Tel, General backround ‘The production of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) srsing, ‘worldwide, alongside a decrease, mainly in industrialized societies, in the lifespan of products such as small electronic devices (Bakker et al 2014; Ikhlayel, 2018). Consequently, the amount of electronic waste (e waste) of waste of electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) is rising globally, with an annual growth of approximately 5% (Ibaneseu eta, 2018). In 2016, 447 milion tons (Mt) of WEEE wore generated ‘worldwide (Bald ot 9, 2017,Baldé et s., 20173). However, similarly to EEE production, this amount is growing a different rates in diferent ‘wich 12-4 Mt in China, 9.1 Mein the EU, 7-4 Me in the USA, 3.0 Mt in India and 37 Mein South Ameriea (Eurostat, 2018 Xavier etal, 2018). Based on e-waste composition, its treatments driven by three main bbenefits/easons: economic, environmental, and public health. From an economic perspective, WEEE contains a variety of materials, including precious metas (eg. gol, silver and palladium) and other valuable metals (copper, aluminum and iron) (Inanescu et al, 2018). From a resource perspective, reeycling of e-waste, ata certain seale, deerenses the pressure on the environment due to the extraction of raw materials ~ Abbreviacion: Ag, Silver, Al, Aluminum; Au, Gold: Co, Cobalt; CRM, Critical Raw Material; CRT, Cathode-Ray Tube; Cu, Copper; EC, European Commission; EE, ecteal and Electronic Equipment; EU, European Unio: Fe, Won; FPD, Flat Papel Disp n Indiuns LCD, Liquid Crystal Displays LED, Light Emiting Diode; Lithium; Mg, Magnesium; Nd, Neod)mium: PCB, Printed Crcit Board Pd, Palladium; POM, Placed onthe Market; PMMA, Pljmedhyimethacrylte: Sb, Antimony; ‘TF, Thin Fl Transistor, WEEE, Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment * Coresponding author a: European Commision ~ Joint Research Centre, Sustainable Resouces Directorate, Via E. Fermi 2748, 21027, pa, tly ‘mall addresses rachel hora arduing-tordeaw te. Hota Arduin,fbvice mathe eueopne (. Mathews). htp://do.og/10.1016 7 sescones:2000.104772 Received 16 Jy 2019; Received in revised fem 7 Febranry 2020 Accepted 1:2 Febroary 2020 (0921-3449/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier BV. Ths an open access article under the OG BY-NCND license (oi reativecommonsiongienses/BY-NE-ND/.0/). from mineral deposits (Laurent et al, 2015; Meshram et al, 2019) [Recycling can also contribute to the security of raw materials supply and lead to a more cieular economy (Miaieux et sl, 2017). None theless, WEEE also contains hazardous substances that represent risks for human health and/or the environment (such as brominated flame retarcants and toxle metals like mereury and lead as well as CECS) that require specific treatment (Lixandru eta, 2017; Zhang and Xu, 2016). 1.2, WEEE management in Europe and curren indicators ‘The regulation of e-waste varies significantly between countries, as Well as the development level of WEEE management systems (ole and Corder, 2017; Tansel, 2017), In the FU, WEEE management is regulated by the WEEE Directive. The fist version of the WEEE Di- rective (Directive 2002/96/EC) came into force in 2002 parallel with the RoHS Directive (Diretive 2002/95/EC) that restricted the use of| certain hazardous substances in EEE products (Priege, 2012; Kumar et al, 2017) ‘Altera few years, both Ditectives were revised, and the new (recast) WEEE Directive (2012/19/2U) entered into force in August 2012. The [WEE Directive aims to prevent the generation of e-waste, a well 35.0 Improve the performance of the treatment operations for the reuse recycling and other forms of recovery (Wager and lischiet, 2015). The WEEE Dizectve establishes thre technical indieators to monitor WEEE systoms efficiency colletion rate, recyeling, preparation for reuse rate, ‘and recovery rate (art. 3 ofthe WEFE Dircetve). The WEEE categories, ‘according Co the recast WEEE Directive, are presented in Table Sl in ‘Supplementary Material ‘The revision ofthe collection rte calulation, and ofthe targets to be achieved by the Member States are among the main ehanges in the WEEE Directive recast, The first WEEE Directive required Member ‘States to collect at east 4 kg per eopita of WEEE from households, From 2016 to 2018, the minimum collection rate was 45% calculated on the total weight of WEEE collected, expressed as the percentage of the ‘overall weight of BEE placed on the market (POMD) In the three pre: ‘ceding years. As stated inthe Directive, from 2019, the Member States ‘can epore their collection rate based on the EEE POM, or in the WEEE ‘generated approach. By 2019, the minimum collection rae should be (65% of the EEE POM, or 8506 if calculated based on the WEEE gener ated approach (European Commission, 2012). ‘The WEEE generated approach considers the amount of waste leaving the stock once discarded, taking into account the lifespan of electronic equipment (Huisman eta, 2017). It ineludes wast collected by the oficial compliance schemes, as well as those captured by com plementary flows. The term complementary flows refers to all e-waste flows that are not reported at a national level by the official compliance systems. A certain portion of these flows is exported, incinerated or landfilled (Huisman etal, 2017). In order to have a common methodology for calculating WEEE ‘generated in the EU, the European Commission (EC) published the WEEE Calculation Tool (based on Magan’ et al,, 20155 see Section 3.1, So far, the POM metre isthe common approach for communication ‘and comparison of collection rates between the Member States, to igether with the collection of e-waste per capita. The collection rate dlverges significantly between the Member Staes (Vidl-Legaz et al. 2018). In 2016, for example, the collection rate was 66% in Sweden and 30% in Malta (Eurostat, 2018), Regarding the recycling and reuse rate, the WEEE Directive estab: lishes that it should be ealelated, foreach WEEE category, by dividing the overall weight that enters the reeyeling/preparing for reuse facility by the overall weight of e-waste collected, expressed as a percentage "WEEE Calculation Tool is avalible In: htp://e europa eu/environment/ waster ee/data enim, ess, Conservation & Rese 57 (2020) 109772 (art. 3 of the WEEE Directive). ‘The current WEEE Directive indicators allow a limited overview of WEEE management since recovery performances are measured in. an overall weight-based approach, without considering treatment losses and excluding flows not collected by the official schemes and captured by complementary flows (Haupt et al, 2016; Parajuly et al, 2017). Moreover, no incentives to recover specific materials, such as ertical raw materials (CRM), are set by the legislation (Chacerel et a, 2015; Priege, 2012; Kumar et a, 2017; Nelen etal, 2014; Van Pygen et al. 2016). 1.3, Novelty and goal ofthe sey Information regarding WEEE flows and secondary raw material availabilty i useful at various levels of decision making, including for EU and national poliey:makers, compliance schemes, recycles and leven designers. Nonetheless, the indicators currently in use provide neither an adequate picture of the amount of secondary resources available in eswaste, nor information about the final destination of these materials (Haupt eta, 2016). ‘This study, by better tracking the quality of WEEE flows, proposes an expansion of the current indicators proposed in WEEE legislation, timing to boost (critical) raw materials recovery. In past years, other studies applied and/or proposed indicators to assess WEEE chain per- formance, including metrics beyond the overall weight-based approach. Some studies caleulated the WEEE chain performance according to the WEEE Directive (eg. Wen etal, 2008), and others discussed the lim. tations of these indicators. Hisismsan (2002) developed the quotes for envisonmentally weighted recyelability (QWERTY) approach focused fn the determination of environmentally weighted recycling scores. Nelen etal (2014) developed a set of performance indicators including economic, environmental and ertieality priorities. Haupt etal. (2016) proposed that the reeycling rate be calculated separately according to the type of recycling: open-loop and closed-loop. ‘The novelty of this study is the scope of the indicators, and the rmethodotogieal approach suggested. The boundaries of collection and reeyeling rate indicators are enlarged in order to consider the com plementary flows and treatment performances. Moreover, this study comprehensively deseribes the methodology used and validates the indicators in a ease study. Considering the current information tracked by the official schemes, possible solutions for obtaining the necessary data to adopt the indicators ate discussed. The main objectives of this study are hence to + Identity adequate metres to highlight the nee for improving WEEE flow tracking to monitor WEEE schemes progress «Present a new spproach for calculating the collection and recycling rate, based on WEEE flow data, their composition and the perfor ‘mance of treatment processes + Identity the main challenges for the elements targeted in this tly, ‘o improve their recyeling rates «Validate the new approach with a case study of the screens category ln France; Discuss the feasibility and usefulness of such novel indicators. ‘The article illustrates the methodology using the example of screens (category Il of WEEE Directive ~ see Table SI in Supplementary Material) in France as one of the Member States transposing the WEEE Directives into national legislation, but the indicators suggested could be applied to different countries and WEEE categories. Sereens were selected as a ease study since they represent well how a change in technology influences the volumes and types of material available for collection and recycling (Cacchella etal, 2015). 2. Materials and methods After the assessment of the current WEEE Directive indicators and their limitations (Section 1.2), supplementary indicators are proposed to improve performance monitoring. In this section, the new indicators are expressed in equations, and the data requted to perform the cal= ‘ulations are presented in Section 3. ‘The current indicator are based on the overall weight of electronic waste and focus on e-waste management, Conversely, the indicators proposed in this study intend to provide information onthe WEEE chain treatment as @ potential supplier of secondary raw materials. They allow the collection and reeycling performance per target element to be tracked. The indicators are based on three parameters: (1) WEEE flows; (@) composition of (W)EEF; and (3) treatment performance. ‘An updated method is presented, including the data used to define the new input parameters (Section 3). The methodology used to map WEEE flows in France is presented in Section 31. The composition data used to qualify the lows, as well asthe elements targeted in the study, ‘re presented in Section 9 2. Furthermore, varios treatment scenarios for sereens considered in the study, as well as their performance, are detailed in Section 2.3. Section 4 summarizes the subsequent results for the sereens ease study In France. ‘The indicators are based on the classification system developed in the ProSUM projec fr assessing (WEEE composition (Fig. 1). The core ‘of this system lies in the representation of waste flow (1) as a re- ‘grouping of products 'p?) that are the sum of their constituent com Ponents ('), materials Cm’) and elements Ce) (Huisman etal, 2017) ‘The collection rate based on waste generated is the basis of the indicators proposed in this work. This approach allois us to assess the performance of the offical schemes, including the complementary flows in comparison to actual waste volumes, las, (1) and (2) present the colleetion and recycling rate considered inthis study, based on the Weight of waste generated per WEEE. category @ 2 ‘where CRy isthe collection rate of the WEEE category (D; RRy isthe recycling fate of the WEEE category (Qn is the number of diferent UNU-Keys related to the WEEE category (UNU-Keys is a clasifcation developed by the United Nations University to categorize different ‘baskets’ of WEEE products according to composition and lifespan properties (Baldé etal, 2015) WC isthe weight of ewaste collected by the official schemes (Deprouv et al., 2018, 2017; Monier et al. 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013} WG is the weight of e-waste generated ess, Conservation & Rese 57 (2020) 109772 (caleulated based on the amount of EEE placed on the market in the preceding years, and on the corresponding product lifespan (Deprouw eta, 2018, 2017; Fangeat, 2017)); WR Is the weight of e waste that enters the reeyeing facilites (Depo etal, 2018, 20175 Monier et al., 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013). See Section 3.1 for further details on the sereens flow teackng. ‘The current metrics to calewlate the collection rate according tothe WEEE Directive (see Section 1.2) consider a macroscopic assessment of| the collection performance for all eswaste categories, The approach suggested in Ea. (1) (CR) should be applied per WEEE category In onder to asess the collection and reeyeling rate per element, data regarding the WEEE composition and treatment performance pars meters are required. Fas. (3) and (4) present the collection and re cycling rate calculation per target element. Bhwo x x6) cn, = BO Ba Tn OS) De WG, xT, Hy @ Wo x DL, City x(1~ SG) x EE, Ska Pa pg, = EEAG XE Cy (1 ~ 55) E WG Ey where Gf ste collection rte ofthe target element (in the WEEE category (0); Rs the recycling rate ofthe target element (e) in the WEEE category (0; 1 isthe number of components (e) and materials (am) present i theciferen product (p); Hes the element () content, per component (@) and materials (m) in the products (p); SG the Scavenging rate per camponent (€) (components scavenging level fom WEEE collected by the oficial schemes ~ see Section 3-1); 8 the ‘umber of treatment scenarios oral the produets (SR the sorting nd shredding rate ofthe fraction (that contains the element (PR isthe efficiency of the final recycling operation of the target element @ [RR quantifies only che elements recycled into secondary caw ma terials with the same or snilar properties (closed or semi-closed loop reeyeling approach). Thus, it does not eapure alloying elements in secondary metals reecled in an open oop approach (often with lesser ality and reduced functionality). Cig o 3, New input parameters 31, Tracking seren flows ‘The stating point of the study is the quantification of WEEE gen- exated. This parameter i essential to calculate the indicators presented in Section 2. As presented by Wang (2014), different methods for ‘quantifying e-waste generation are discussed inthe literature. cesemccon oO a & eg: Laptops 8. Alumiium alloy eg. Alumiaium Fig. 1. ProSUM clasfiation system (Adapted fom lst eta, 2017), We suggest using the methodology with the WEEE Calculation Tool developed by the EC to caleulate WEEE generated in a given year. Tis ‘approach is based on the amount of EEE POM in the preceding year, ‘and on the corresponding produet lifespan (Baldé etal, 2017s,Bslde ‘el, 2017), Fort etal. (2018) defined this parameter and the related mathematical equations based on the Weibull distribution. This prob- ability function describes the discard behavior for BEE, ‘The previlled data on the quantities of EEE POM available in the tool are caleulated based on the apparent consumption methodology. ‘The apparent consumption uses availabe statistical data of domestic production (PRODCOM statistics) plus imports and exports (CN codes) to quantify POM (Magalini ct al, 2015). The data in the tool is manually updated with recent POM data in France (2016 and 2017) from the national registers ofthe French Environment & Energy Man: agement Agency (ADEME) (Deprouw et al, 2018, 2017; Fangeat, 2017) In order to be able to calculate the lifespan per product, the tool converts the POM input data per WEEE category into POM per UNU: Keys. The UNU-Keys classification divides diferent types of WEEE items (about 900 products, elustered into 660 main product types, ‘clustered in sub keys with common compositions, sizes and lfespans) Into $4 categories (@aldlé et al, 2015). Bach eategory of e-waste Is ‘composed of different UNU-Keys, The sereen category comprises both the cathode-ay tube (CRT) and flat panel display (FPD) sereens. The UUNU-keys related to the category targeted in this study (new eategory I screens), as well asthe amount generated in 2017 in France are pre sented in Table $2 in Supplementary Material ‘The UNU-key 0303 comprises tablets and laptops, and a share of 7% ‘and 93% ofthe total weight, respectively, forthe tablets (030301) and laptops (030302) is considered base on data from the Urban Mining Platform’ (Huisman et al, 2017). ‘The Weibull distribution function then models the lifespan profile of ‘each UNU-key according to shape and scale parameters defined for each UNU key, derived from multiple country studies (Baldé ct al. 2017a,Baldé et al, 2017; Forti etal, 2018; Magali eta, 2015). ‘The second step in tracking the sreen flows aims at quantifying the sereens collected by theofficial schemes, as well as the complementary flows, Data on screens collected are obtained from ADEME (Deprouw et al, 2018, 2017; Monier et al, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013) ‘Currently, the national registers only track the total amount of WEEE, collected and treated per category and/or waste steams, Usually, there Is no detailed assessment in terms of breakcown of the flow per type’ category of products and, or thei clustering per UNU-key In order to convert the data of WEEE collected per category in UNU: keys, data provided by the ProSUM project and Ecologic, one of the ‘complianee sehemes in Franee, is used. For the EU 28-2, the ProSUM. project determined an average share of UNU-keys collected per Member States (Huisman etal, 2017). According to data provided by Ecologic, until 2016, screens collected by the offical schemes were mainly CRT (00%). n 2017 it ehanged slightly, and FPD represented approximately 15%. The share of UNU-keys considered in WERE collected in France is presented in Table 83 in Supplementary Material, [WEEE not collected by the offical schemes ends up in other non: documented routes (complementary flows), including equipment re- used, e-waste disposed in the municipal waste stream, as well as ur documented exports either a (Ilegal) waste or as reusable Items igum et al, 2019; Huisman etal, 2015; Vidal-Legaz et al, 2018) ‘Another relevant source of non-dacumented flows from the official ‘schemes is component scavenging (luisman el, 2017), Seavenging is ‘consequence of plundering inthe e-waste collection points, and also ‘of components removed by the consumers before disposing ofthe e waste. Based on a study performed by ERA (Magalini and iuisman, 2018), i can be substantiated that key valuable components = urban Mining Platform is avaiable in: wie. urbanminepatorme ess, Conservation & Rese 57 (2020) 109772 are scavenged, for example 30% of cables from the reported flow of screen devices. The other screen components and corresponding per centages considered to be seavenged are presented in Table $4 in Supplementary Matera 2.2, Seren compositions ‘To tack the target elements in e-waste flows, data about the com: positon of produets and waste Flows is essential The composition of screens depends on producers, the functionalities of the device, and changes in technologies. Nowadays, producers do not report EEE composition, and the compliance schemes usually do not sample waste composition on a regular bass. Data fram the ProSUM project ie used forthe UNU-keys composition ofthe sereen category (Soe Table $5 in Supplementary Material). The advantage ofthis classification is that i allows a uniform description of all composition parameters, Like the share of products (e- per UNU key) tothe waste flow (p- and the metal content ina particular alloy (em) used in specific components (m-e). This information is necessary {o determine the recoverability of elements based on the technological processes available. Often, WEEE composition data is provided 2s the content ofthe elements in flows oF products (eg. the quantity of anti ‘mony or gold in tablets). However, the recoverability ofthe elements is Influenced by their content in materials and components. For example, antimony can be recovered efficiently in processes based on complex lead/copper/nickel metallurgy (> 80%), but antimony in plastics and CRT glass is generally not recycled (Chancevel et al, 20155 Hageliken, 2006). After a first analysis of screen compositions with data available in the Urban Mine Platform, we selected some target elements for this study. As previously mentioned, e-waste treatment is driven by ec- nomi, environmental, and public health conskeratfons. Thus Instead of selecting only elements that are present insignificant quantities by ‘weight (the main focus of WEEE chain ta comply with the weight-based targets), we also selected elements present in smaller quantities but with high intrinsic value (market price) and/or included in the 2017 (CRMs list for the EU. The following 11 elements were selected: (1) critical raw materials: antimony (Sb), cobalt (Co, indium (In), mag: nesium (Mg), neodymium (Nd) and palladium (Pd; (2) non-critical ew ‘materials: aluminum (AD, gold (AW, silver (Ag), copper (Cu) and Ii {hium (Li. Lithium was considered in this study even if its intrinsic value is rather average (3 times higher than copper but 2000 times lovter than gold), and iis not considered a CRM inthe Ist lst becase its economic importance is slightly below the limit (= 2.8). However, lithium supply risk is above the limit considered in the criticality zone (2), and with its rapidly growing consumption, the economic im- portance may change in the future criticality assessment ‘The targeted elements are present in different components of CRT and FPD screens, Aluminum and magnesium are present insignificant ‘quantities in different types of alloys in screen casings. Among others, PBs contain precious metals (Ag, Aw and Pd), as well as base metals like aluminum and eopper. Copper is also present in cables and CRT Sereen motors. Antimony is mostly found in plastic components (ap plied as a synergist for brominated flame retariants), and CRT lass. Lithium and cobalt are mainly present in batteries in tablets and lap tops. Indium and neodymium are mainly present in FPD, respectively, in thin-ilm-transistor (TFT) in liquid-rystal displays (LCD) and mag: nets in drives 3.3, Screen treatments Between the e-waste collection by the offical schemes and the ac tual production of secondary raw materials, there is a complex chain of processes driven by economic and’ environmental interests (Mathieus etal, 2008; Valero Navazo et al, 2013). This chain includes several stakeholders in charge of transport, storage, clean-up, shredding 140% 2 120% = = 100% & & z x & zw 8 & 5 z zg 2 z g 0% g = 5 S a0 20% om 2012 2013 2014 201s ess, Conservation & Rese 57 (2020) 109772 z z = Ih CR, tesedon POM ne z ee ( I ci based on WEEE generated 20162017 Fig. 2. Comparison of ciferen approaches for caleloting WEEE category I collection rate (CR). and sorting (Tesfaye e al, 2017). In order to calculate the recycling rate of the official schemes per target element, various treatment seenarios are defined based on lit: ‘erature and expert judgment (researchers, compliances schemes, and recyclers) of the current practices. The treatment scenarios are de- scribed below and summarized in Table $6 in Supplementaey Matera 9.1, Televsions and monitore Due to ferences in technologies and cleaning requirement, the screens are frst sorted into CRT and PPD. CRT sereens include both televisions and monitors, and their treatment consists of casing dis ‘mantling, removal ofthe electron gun, pressurization ofthe CRT and, following the EU WEEE Directive, removal of the CRT and PCBs. The remaining electronics undergo shredding and separation into fractions That are sent to further recovery processes (Huisman et al, 2008; Monier etal, 2013), FPD screens comprise a wider range of equipment types and inclide different types of technologies: LCD, light-emitting diode (LED) and plasma. Nowadays, in France, the FPD waste stream is mostly com: prised of mercury backlights containing LCDs (Froelich and Sulpice, 2016). Mereury-free LED sereens are the natural evolution of LCD screens andi since they were put on the market later on, itis ex pected that the volume in screen waste stream will increase in the following years (Cucchiclla et al, 2015). ‘The fist step of FPD treatment is manual sorting, according (0 different technologies. Then, treatment is followed by dismantling (manual or mechanical) and removal of high-value components and/or hazardous components required by the EU WEEE Directive (e.g, PCBS ‘and backlighting lamps that contain mercury). The remaining parts are forwarded to a shredder and further separation of fractions. Recently, ‘automatic LCD reeyeling processes have started to be implemented in Europe (Horta Arctin eta, 2019), 33.2. Tablets and laprops ‘The treatment scenarios considered are based on interviews with recyclers in Furope and identified as representative scenarios forthe EU (Tecchio et al, 2018) According tothe WEEE Divective, the batteries of tablets and laptops should be removed before e-waste treatment, but possibly some tablets are dicectly shredded mixed with other WEEE. Laptops can follow two main processing routes after battery and display panel removal a fist one based on the shredding and sorting of fac ons; and a second one including a medium-depth manual dismantling ‘of components before shredding and mechanical sorting. The manual dismantling of tablets and laptops are the most effective in terms of materials recovery. However, its use is limited due to high abor costs 3.3.3. Preprocessing and recycling ‘As ean be noticed from the treatment scenario description, dis: ‘maniling is typieally followed by a size reduction step (Indar et al. 2018), After the waste is shredded, itis separated into different frac ions (F) by a variety of sorting techniques (Bigum et al, 20125 De Meester etal, 2019) Due to technological limitations, output fractions of sorting pro- esses are not pure (Horta Arduin et al, 2019). Por this reason, a transfer coefficient matrix {= wsed to determine the real quantity of elements (¢ inthe sorting factions (F) (se sorting and shredding rate ing (4), The transfer coeficient matrix used i presented in Table S7 In Supplementary Material. These values ean significantly change be- tween diferent companies according (0 the technologies used, as well asthe dismantling and shredding processes before mechanical sorting. Lastly, the effcieney of final operations that recover secondary #oiv materials from the sorted) components and fractons (gate-o-gate ap- proach) is also considered. This performance is commonly calle “re eycling rate” In the literature, but to distinguish It from the reeyeling rate indicators discussed in this study, itis defined here as the “ef ciency of the final recycling operation” (eee Fs, (4). The efficiencies considered in this study are presented in Table S8 in Supplementary Material 4, Results 4.1, Colleton rate Fig, 2 presents the collection rate forthe sereen category (CRQ) in France from 2012 to 2017, based on the POM spprosch and WEEE senerated (Eq, (1). AS previously discussed, the WEEE Directive does rot set collection targets per WEEE category, but on the totals. None theless, to monitor what is being collected by’the offical schemes, its rceessiry to have a closer view pet WEEE category. ‘The official schemes in France comply largely with the targets based, ‘on the POM approach. This high performance is due tothe diffeence in the type (and overall weight) of e-waste collected by the official schemes and EEE placed on the market. The official schemes eollet mostly ORT sereens and since 2008 only FPD screens, much lighter, have been placed on the market. In contrast, when considering the lifetime of the diferent devices, the result is drastically lower. The waste generated approach shows the need to improve collection and to adopt indicators that ean better monitor the performanee ofthe official ha Arun, a 200 seen 000 Sereens collected) 0000 2000 au au3 aoe 21s ese Cnsovatn & Reng 57 (2020) 109772 vs = Sercenseoeted (t) cow WH CRT Monitors = im cRrTys = z BE FPP Monivors FRDTVs wm = a BB Tabietsand laptops = 0% 0s ws % a 2017 Fig. 8, Collection performance per type of WEEE sreens schemes. ‘ig. 2 presents the weight of sercens collected per UNU-Keys (1), 98 ‘well asthe eolletion rate based on the waste generated approach (CR) per type of sereen (FPD and CRT). CRT screens have a higher collection rate in comparison to FPD sereens. The high eolletion of CRT sereens reflects changes in technology and the subsequent replacement by PDs. The number of FPD devices in the reported collection flows reaching reeveling facilites is stil limited, and significantly below the share ofthe device in the WEEE generated. The low collection of FPDs is influenced by the difficulties in eapruring monitors, Ts, tablets and laptops due to seavenging of products, and reuse outside the oficial flows (including exports). In terms of weight, the amount of FPD collected in 2017 (11,546 0) ‘sto times higher than the collection in 2012 (6,258 1) EPD collection should inerease inthe following years, and overtime, CRT amounts will, ‘g0 down to zero (Huisman eal, 2008). [FDP screens represent diferent types of equipment that also have lifferent collection performances, Changes in the type of sereens eol- ected will impact collection rate results, as well as the type of materials recovered due to differences in sereen compositions. 4.2. Collection rate per target element ‘The total amount and the share of target elements in WEEE sereens in France in 2017 are presented in Fie. Al im Appendix A. Prom @ ‘weight-based perspective, aluminum and capper account for around ‘80% of the elements targeted in the study Silver, gold, neodymium and palladium represent only about 0.1% ‘of the overall weight of WEEE generated and collected by the oficial schemes (about 22 ¢ and 4 ¢ in 2017, respectively). Nevertheless, pre cious metal recycling is the main economic driving force for WEEE reeyeling (> 954%) (Charles etal, 2017; Ueberschaar et al, 2017), The concentration of copper, gol, silver and palladium in the e-waste stream Is significantly higher compared to primary ore grades in eon: ventional mining operations (Kumar etal, 2017). ‘ig. 4 presents the palladium content in WEEE generated per UNU- ‘keys in France in 2017, and the subsequent share in WEEE collected by the offical schemes and complementary flows. Besides being a precious meta, palladium i also nthe list of ertical raw materials forthe EU. Pallavi and other precious and/or critical materials (eg, Av, Ag, {In and Nd) are mainly present in FPD screens (> 75% of screens gen erated content), As can be noticed in Fig, 4, more than 50% of the palladium collected nowadays is from PCBs of CRT devices. Due to the low collection of FPD, most ofthe palladium, as well as other precious tund/oreritical materials, are not collected by the offical schemes and consequently, are not yet available in reporeed recycling ‘he collection rte per element (CR) in 2017 is presented in Fig, A2 in Appendix A, applying Eo. (3). all targeted elements have lower Performance than the collection rate calculated based on the overall \weight of sereens (CR, (429% as presented in Fig 2). The differences in collection rate performances per targeted element from 79% up to 28%) reinforce the need for moze detalled monitoring. Besides the gap be- twween the overall quantities of WEEE generated and collected, the share ofthe complementary ows and the quality of what is being collected by the official schemes should also be monitored. ‘The clements with a higher collection rate (CR.) are those sig- nificantly present in CRT screens (Cu andl Mg, both with 37%). Even if CCRT devices contain more than SOM of the Mg and Cu generated, as shown in Fig. % CRTs do not have a 100% collection rate. Conse- ‘quently, inthe ease of copper, only 59% ofthe copper generated in CRT devices is collected by the oficial schemes, the remaining travels with complementary product flows and components scavenging. This, com- bined with the low eolletion of FPD devices by the official schemes (only 139% of the copper generated by FPD Is collected, explains the limited resulting collection rate ofthe element. ‘The metals with medium collection performance (e.g. Al and In) are prevalent in the FPD TVs and monitors that have a growing collection rate, Lastly, the elements with lower collection rates (e.g. Go, Li and Ne with less than 10%) are significantly present in laptops and tablets ‘whose colletion rate by the oficial schemes is still modest (less than 410% of FPD screens collected in 2017), ‘Scavenging of higher-valued components (e.. PCB, drives) from the official collection channels (1) reduces the value of reported material content (Huisman etal, 2017), In 2017, seavenging accounted for up to 696 ofthe amount diverted from official schemes. The impact of com: onent scavenging per target element is presented in Fig, A2 in Appendix A. Precious metals like gold and palladium are mostly concentrated in CB in FPD sereens (above 50%). Based on BERA data (see Section 2.1), itis considered that sof PCB collected are scavenged. As previously mentioned, most of the FPDs are diverted into complementary flows, consequently, the impact of components scavenging seems negligible when compared with the total generation, but It significant for the Volume collected. Copper is more affected by component scavenging, since itis present in PCB, but also in other components of diferent ‘ypes of screens that have similar or higher scavenging, lke coils (copper wire) and cables (Fs. 5). ha Arun, a Generated s6 WH CRITVsand Monitors B|_FPD Monitors ig. 4. Tota weight and share of plain per UNU:key ln WEEE category 43, Recycling rate From 2012 to 2015, the weight-based recycling rate target for screens (former categories Sa andl 4a) according to the WEEE Directive approach was 65%. From 2015, the target include both recycling and ‘teuse and increased to 70% (European Commission, 2012). The sereen ‘recycling rate in France complies with the WEEE Directive target. The performance has been quite stable in recent years ~ between 829% and ‘85%. In this study, the recycling rate ofthe overall weight of screens (i is considered as the ratio of materials sent to recycling facilities, divided by the waste generated (Eq, (2). This approach complies with the goal of the study to understand and quantity the flows of WEEE ‘The recycling rate results based on the WEEE generated approach (Rp, even without considering the sorting and recovery losses, are significantly different feom the WEEE Directive approach. This difer- ‘ence is due tothe change in the indicator stope: instead of considering ‘only the WEEE collected by the official schemes, RRe considers the WERE generated. Thus, in 2017, 43% of WEEE generated was collected by the official schemes, and 26% of the e-waste wae sent to secycling {aeiltes ~ in contrast to the 829% recycling rate reported by the com> pliance schemes. Although the waste management hierarchy indicates ‘waste reduction and reuse as the preferred options (Manfredi and Goralezyk, 2013), reeyeling isthe main treatment in Prance, Reuse i £ & Cue coils 60% 50% 5 son 30% a 20m . WJ % cables reo Copper concentration (4) ese Cnsovatn & Reng 57 (2020) 109772 Collected oe WE rrvrvs MM Tablets. Laptops 4 France (2017) still modest and not well documented by the official schemes 4.4, Recyeing rate per target element Fig. 6 presents the recycling rate, from 2012 to 2017, (in %6) per target element recycled calculated in accordance with Ea. (4). The re sults consider only the elements recycled by the official schemes. In 2017, 16,718 tof target elements were generate in the sereen category in France, The oficial schemes collected 4,521 1, and 2,707 were re cycled. Table 1 presents the amount (in tons) recycled per target ele- ment in 2017, Teis assumed, based on literature and discussions with reeyelers that no industia-seale proces is currently available to recover neodymium, ‘magnesium, and lithium from batteries ~ hence thelr recycling rate is ‘equal to 2eF0 and is not presented in the graph. Magnesium is curently recycled as part of the aluminum valve stream in alloys (Mathiewe etal, 2017), As mentioned in Section 2, the seope of the Indicators does not include recycling in mixed alloys In terms of weight, aluminum and copper accounted for 99% of, target elements recycled. Copper is the target element withthe highest recycling rate (289% in 2017). ‘Whea comparing the differences in reeyeling performance ftom 2012 to 2017, besides the impact of the overall weight collected by the oficial schemes, the influence ofthe type of sereens collected overtime IL CRT TVs and Monitors I PDNonitor, Wm UFPptvs Tablets, HE Laptops ‘ : = ss ig 5. Dstebuton of copper per component (-) per UNU-key (ep) in WEEE categcy te) generated (2017) ess, Conservation & Rese 57 (2020) 109772 wn ts 39% a wm . et Zz wm i ec 2% —o 1% 1% a me a ———— Ss et | wn 18 708 08 016 017 Fi. 6 Retin rato tage element (RR) in WEE catego Tbe 1 look athe cllecton and recycling econ of ome target elements Tagt ements eyed om renin Fre (2017). present ins qantas onongtwhish ae the CRM ee ae get element arget element Amount recycled in 2017 (tons) taraarenaartie ee = ink 04 ‘We identified that the modest results are related to four main dif- teeta mil Ag 2 fells in proving performance rates (1) low collection bythe of aa 04 ficial schemes, especially of FPD screens; (2) difficulties in manual or a sos Ineshankal preprocessing, (3) absence of tecyling processes at an : : instal sal; (2) aw eoomomie Incas compare to reeylng Cite me nmeins ——oo 8 com ® oe Manual sorting of high-value components (eg. PCRS and drives) Me ° increases resource efficiency (in terms of the quantity and quality of 7 = recoverable materials) ut ental higher laor eats Cesta S se Dotés Techie a, 2018), The lack of efficent pre-processing me ‘Total 270719 chanical technologies also limits recycling. Design plays an essential ‘can be identified. Even ifthe total weight of screens collected in 2017 ‘decreased in comparison to previous years, (Fig. 2), the amount of gold recycled inereased - driven by the inerease of FDPs collected. The same ‘effet ean be observed for elements like aluminum and palladium, even despite a decrease in the overall weight of screens collected. None theless, their recycling rate has decreased due to the growth of FDPs generated in contrast to their modest collection. ‘Taking a closer look at cobalt, mainly present in batteries, the ‘quantity generated from 2012 to 2017 has more than doubled. Tablets ‘and laptops still have a modest collection, but that collection has sig nificantly increased in the lst 5 years (from 558 tons in 2012 to 1,255 ¢ in 2017). Except for palladium, the CRMs targeted in this study have a lower recycling rate in comparison to non-ritical materials. Prt of the equipment and components diverted from the official schemes is potentially reeyeled and reused in unoficial flows. In ad dition to not contributing to offical targets, some of them are recycled/ reused outside the EU and this results in economic and material losses for the EU. Assuming that all components seavenged from sereens in France in 2017 were sent to recycling, it is estimated that around 450 t ‘of target elements were recycled (mostly Cuand Al, but also of elements ‘such as Au and Pé that have high intrinsic value) 5. Discussion WEE officially reported as collected by the official schemes (based ‘on POM approach) are usually efficiently recycled in terms of overall weight, However, as lustrated by the case study, when taking a closer role ifthe reeyeing yields ean be improved with easier dismantling and sorting of components (Ardente ct al, 2014). Magnets in drives, for example are often embecided and glued in pace in the proxuets making their extraction and recycling diffeult(Lixandra etal, 2017). Moreover, for some elements, the costs (economic and/or enviror- imental) of reeyeling them as @ pure element may be higher than ran ‘material production. Seing the limits of recycling all elements present in WEEE, a metric to consider open-loop recycling should be analyzed ina fru study Love recycling rates of CRMS are, among others, related to the fact that processes to recover some CRMs are only found in pilot plants (Peeters et al, 2018; Zimmermann and Gosling Reisemann, 2013). Several potential recycling processes for neodymium available in Iickel-plated neodymium magnets (NéFeB) and indium in TFT panels have been deserbed in the literatuce, but none of them has been de: veloped commercially due to low productivity and high costs (@Padhan et a, 2017; Via-Mella and Pongricz, 2016). The increase of PD share in serens collected may contribute to reach the critical mass recescary to make the recovery process of certain metals like indium economically viable (Ardent t al, 2014), High recycling costs and low economic and regulatory incentives tend 10 discourage the recycling of eertain materials. Besides neody- ‘ium and indium previously described, lithium present in batteries and AALLI alloys is also generally not considered for recycling because virgin material is relatively low-priced (Meshram etal, 2019), Overall, improving the recycling of CRMs from WEEE could de- srease EU demand for raw materials and eventually even reduce theit criticality in some eases (Blengini et al, 2017), Losses of special metals (including ertical raw materials) are actually flagged by the Indicator 17 concerning WEEE management of the Raw Material Seoreboard 2018 published by the European Commission (Vidal-Legaz etal. 2018) Hence, there is real Interest for decision-makers, including business and policy-makers, to run the indicators presented in this paper. The assessment of economic viability and the potential environmental benefits of the recyeling strategies for CRMs could stimulate investment in industrial seale processes. Nevertheless information about the eon: tent of CRMs in (WEEE Is crucial for viability studies (Peeters et al, 2018), The recent approval of eco-design requirements for servers and data storage products (European Commission, 2018) making the in ication of cobalt content in batteries and neodymium in the hard drives compulsory, can be seen as an essential initiative taken by policy-makers towards data availablity and transparency to support tracking CRMs in (WEEE. ‘The Feasibilty of eompliance schemes and policy-makers to run the Indicators suggested in this work regularly depends on the availability ‘of data to calculate them. While WEEE category collection and re: ‘eyeling rate (CRy and RR) could be adopted in the short term, the collection and recycling rate per target element (CR, and BR,) requires strategies to solve problems of data availability. A way f0 increase feasibility is to reduce the scope ofthe indicators to only afew selected (ertical) raw materials, a also shown in Section 4 Since GR, and RR, sistem boundaries consider the waste generate, the WEEE Caleslation Tool should be adopted by the Member States. In France, the compliance schemes perform annual characterization ‘campaigns to quantify the amount of WEEE collected per category, as wel as the average composition per waste stream. An assessment of the share of equipment (eg. UNU-keys) in sereens collected, as well as of the components scavenged could be included in the annual character ization, As discussed by Baster et al, (2016), future regulations should include flow monitoring via sampling and measurement. That would allow the changes in the type of equipment collected by the official schemes to be monitored, and would quantify the materials potentially allable for reyeling. Regarding (W)EEE composition, collaboration between producers ‘and recyclers to find a cost-effective and ecient way of producing and sharing produet and component data would support data gathering (ownes etal, 2017). However, this fs not an ise that can be solved in the short term. A short/medium-trm solution isto use ProSUM data Nevertheless, this i nota solution for the long-term because the com: position of the electronic device changes rapidly with advances in technology. 6. Conclusions ‘This work proposes an extension of the current indicators to assess WEEE schemes performance. Our method is based on three input parameters: eras low tracking, WEEE composition, and efficiency of reeyeling processes, The scope of the new indicators includes the par lel lows which divert secondary resources from the oficial schemes. ‘The results of the ease study confirm that monitoring the perfor: mance per target element in comparison to overall weight indicators lows an overview ofthe volume and the grade of potential sacondary resourees also allows us to identify the main challenges to improving ‘Supplementary materials ess, Conservation & Rese 57 (2020) 109772 material recovery, aiming for a circular economy. In the ease of screens, we observed a significant diference in the colletion performance of CRT and FPD sereens. In 2017, FDP te- presented 47% of WEFE generated. However, CRTs represent 85% of the screens collected by the official schemes. Consequently, the col lection and recyeling rate of elements mainly present in FDPs, andl more specifically in tablets and laptops, is three to four times lower than the elements present in CRT devices. Thus, it is important to have in- Aicators to monitor the quality of e-waste collected and recycled by the official schemes Iris important to remark thatthe feasibility of the indicators pre: sented in this work relies mainly on gathering data related tothe three input parameters. Besides the challenges related to gathering data, it may be dificult for compliance schemes and policy-makers to con- Uinuously monitor and interpret results for many elements or materials The development of a single score indicator calculated by weighting and summing elemental indicators could be a solution. However, It should be ensured that important data on the elements’ performance would not be lost. Altsmatvely, national and EU policy-makers cot define a limited number of elements to track based on eritieality, ec: omic and/or environmental arpect ‘Together with previous. studies published in the literature (rdente et a, 2014; Haupt et a, 2016; Huisman, 2003; Nelen et al. 2014; Parajly etal, 20175 Tansel, 2017; Van Eygen etal, 2016), this Work could support the development of indicators evaluating diferent environmental, economic and criticality priorities related to raw ms- terials: Future policies could adopt indicators beyond the weight-based approach and better practices in WEEE management in order to i prove the ewaste tracking and recovery of (critical) raw materi Doing so, more targeted WEEE management activities have the poten- tial to extend their scope from waste and hazardous substances mar- agement to enhance the supply of quality secondary (eritical) raw materials Diselaimer ‘The views expressed in the article ate personal and do not ne: cessrily reflect an oficial postion of the European Commission, Declaration of Competing Interest ‘The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to ine lence the work reported inthis paper. Acknowledgments ‘This work isa result of a PRD thesis developed at Arts et Métiers 1M Laboratory and was performed during a research stay at the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. The authors acknowl: ledge the financial support from the French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME) and Ecologic (a French compliance scheme) (TEZ16-18) Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at dos:10.1016/j.sesconrec.2020.108772, Appendix A Novel indicators to better monitor the collection and recovery of (ericel) ravw materials in WEEE: focus on sereens Fig. AL, A2,A3, ea Art, ess, Conservation & Rese 57 (2020) 109772 WEEE generated 1669 Complementary ows Iatat Msc Ba Ba Bc Mic Mn Mui MMs Mine Mira Bis Fig. AL. WEEE category Il in France: total amount and target clement’ share (2017), ie WEEE colbeted 4508 4% 7% 39% 30% 25% 2% 13% 10% % I : Hil Ae AL Al a Co In i Me Nd Pd Ss Ck uy Hh ital as materia HEL Non critica av materials Fig. 2. WERE catgory IL in France: collection rate per target element (2017) 100% 00%. 0% 0% 60%. 50% 40% 30 20% 10% om Mom A G& LG GC hb Mm Ni Pd Sb TH Complementary product lows J Components scavenging Collected by the compliance schemes 2 g 2 Fig. AB. WEEE category Il in France: target element generated (2017). References Adee F Mit Reto M214 Regi of eco pay sens Store gig a tna een mpovnent eo Cea Sao abr, px /onory/lo ole race 04080 ‘adr 6 Wn, aa De Hane 218 Pat a fo ean: oping pe ening design. Pred 2, 1056 Mp// Sta eg Bai CP, Bunun Rr SE, Ker Me, MiP, Mayan E, Huan, J, Ta Ras Was Suc Cin on Geen Reon td Tel Unla ats User = ScrCLE Dau CPs Fo Vs Gay Ru Sieg P2174 he Gl Ease ita 17: Quan Rowe aa Roe Bat Mocuvit HMep Wag F 37, Maul Ue fh WEEE Cetin To. Europe Comms, ‘ue eal 306 Rese) Log RA Asda, Hans, 0.2016 Hay cen andes ef WEEE cite ep ol estan te se Saag 57, 1-28 pear oleae ‘gun Mrmr, tee 202 Madey high de WEEE ‘ldegule sus Har Ma 3, 14 Mops ag te amecanitacoo, bisa, Penn, Cees, TH, Ss, C2012 WHEE a peat ‘ic inven era wae ane ne rerio mpd Soe We ay 38,2072 2h hp /d.ay ulema a wm Bln A MP, Dem N,V Pes, LT, ile Bat, ‘ti Raps sine eo yn oy ‘ore py ne opm nerma ign ea Fey 1218. /enrg odoin 70808 ‘aap Fy Marwede Ne Ns tam... 215, xing equines of i nem it adc gun emu Cos ae ot, ute niger 1 otras TE 0 ‘at rg Hall, Maton Tier 27. A ivesiton fem pect oper em of AM a EEE pe Serge yng a au 8 9 ns ust nda any Ka SRP 015, Rese o WEEE ‘coi ama fet nt wae ape. Sst, Ee fe 91 20 28 he’ dae lore oer se Det Race, Pe eb, Yo Deal 219 Uy mate wae snd ley sat eg spor ayo NESE ‘Siig Ree onan Rey epee Dwar, AJ, Chuo, Fagen 207 Rapp Aan Rete es ‘ic upon Setigun Erez app Rane 21 Depo Joes Gowen Ss Panes A Pat 01 Tap Al age ca Doqupcess Bes Beni: 20 "fa WS, Mis, Caco Py Eimer Hl ey e207 Fropectg Seay aw Maran he iene wd ing Wes (Gea SRecomedans Repo hip doer Nab NG 2 3975, ture Comin 208 Ateneo Gmision Relic) Lying doen Tete outer Sead Un Steger Pra ieraee 208/155 a the Copan Panes a of eC nd Ane mint eto (2 017/203 (WH dimen). UR ep ‘remeron nds“ nar docunetonaiaa = "eras san nave anpge” aang aoe 3129) ‘men Cis, 212 eave 1/1/00 evap alae! nd of “Re caelon Ws cand Peon Epon HEED e090 soo iorverri ora or ene uaa 2008 We aes an enc lp WWW Decne it hp, ecerpacsaroione acme 23519, Fong, 517 eas es ele de Das Eades Bees “acrenqe Map Rapport ners hse tes 2070. For Vas, Kae R208 Ewan sc: leo aslo pati eg W201 Revo mati ee) fh deci lc - ‘ena opon formu conven Wate Many. Re 3,16 ipl eir7 Ovation oc, Sue, D, 2016 Ln Ge Be Cnc ds 0 Ones DEEE Delton dc sam (WWW Decne URL HYPERLINE naed 259) eter Gi 2047 et es in ease sta eae “ha pee er En 10709197 eters Toten ‘eat Hagen C2006 Inrovng ta rus denen ees i rors te 36 SE Ofer 1625 po 101108 ‘ag Me ano, Helve, 5, 216 Do fe he i prima noe ‘ticle? nS ee me om ca Audi Cu, Maron el, omg, S, Chalet, ate, iA ey. M 01 ene of xape dette nye econ ‘6: tupan esas extended pier pray Waste any 1-3 Sipe Scar Ne) women 18202 ese Cnsovatn & Reng 57 (2020) 109772 Hulman. J. 2008 The Owery/EE Conc, Quant Recta atd Eo ieocy ‘orotate of Comune Sacro Prot uta J Hote Leer Ly Ste, My Hen Lada dl Creighis V oy, Vrms Mtns Vor de B'S, Gene, Dior, Naa Suyane,T- Wing Meher, ale Mga Fy Za, in, 2 Manis, Boa, A; Zan, A, 315, ounring WEEE Leal Tins {Gy Samar Rope Mat Asn Layl As ne Ay nd ‘commends Radi niet Nats Ue, TEP, nd Para aim ny ef Shderoan AL, Chace PCa Amand Wt Rain Rote Vs Mie Hers Ben, 2017 rapecig Secon Ra sein he Ub ead ng Waste (rst at Report Brase,Blg ima, gain, Fa RM, Oi al J, end, Ati, Size Sees A308 Reef Diet 52% on Naseer an Fics Eupment (WEEE = inal Rep 701040 42488/ET0/% aes, Caen (ric), Teas Core 2018. seen ofthe rte iene and secroni ele agenn sates profi ai {Diya deveoped snd decoy European Union sunt, Wate Mae, 7, 55-53, mpeg 10 1016s wea 20171202, Ihe M 2018 A pate apors s -waste mansgenen ste for Geeoing cunt 3 aro. 170, 19-130 ged oe 1 016) Jeeroao17 107 ‘yA Hee ER on Huebsch ED, Le PAUL, 2018. Becton waste 3 ‘Sonar snr eel mae: magenta eve eosin ee ano ree 135, 296-312. ig ly/101016/reoe 2017 0703 upar, A hse, pins, LCR, 207, Eat an overview o generat, olson, etn and recling rahe. Ren Cree, Racy 12, 32-2 ings teten/ 1010 sence 201701008 Lar Sa Sng Patel, 2015. Sane pone tome Tanai by deen of eect rods conceal douse. Cn, Po oe, a2 toner 10.0167 ep 97508081 Luan A, Venton P ttn, Poca Hal B, Ya YW, A, Gh, Te any Cueah 0, 2017 leo nd cn fares poe ‘ot mmpots fo wos te ol tae nin Was Ma Mogan Hasan, 218 WEEE Recycling Enon ~The Shxtoings of “sen ana ne. gaia. Wong en, J, KR Dl K, va Sle, V. Hes, nce Soy, ei, 201 Styne aoa erica and tere Equpest (WEED, Monte. Gorey M. 2013 Lie ye nds montoring the eae reaanceo European wee maegeen Resour, conse, Reger 818-16 Fre /suor/1010to) recone 0120. 008 ous Arne, F, Bob S. Nis Pegi GANS Dis, P agora “ors De Mt, Witmer, Pe Hanoy, Save Ga {reine Hayy, Corina, Eames earn Slr, 8, 317 ica naw Matera ad tb Clr eto - Bakr Reporte Sre/io.zea/aeia Mathis och By Meow, P, 208, ReSICED merece ini en metho fr ole rec bed on 4 mules ret he covery. Can Prod 16 27-298 Sry 101 pe 20507 oe Mesa P. Fane. BDA, 209. Feng of lity ad sail eng respec of cin scares anes a sur overiwReou POLE Ea"Scan ip/doory ovate essed atm 1.0 Moni, Dero, dor, M, Cuvee 5, 2016 Rapport Anu Reb des Daca Dimes Ecgs et congus “Rapport Anu 2915 Monier, Depo, Sore Mc Laie W215 Rapport Anneli Reve des Dashes Degen ecg: t Econ appr Ane 2018 Mens Depot er Ebi 208 Rap Ana on ‘ite de Renn Relies Saget Bo Elemis DERE): opt Aan! 2012 Monier Depo, A, Lage Jove, My 14 Rapport Asal Regie ds Neen Ds Moan Ss Prete, Vang, Po ae Ws Vrncen, K 2014. A lr i ose bt Wo cling tte et 8, ae Dada. Nag, A, Sng 207. Rane sayin ys o DFE maw ore aromenugy 174 2-218 pss 10 1000, ail ey ny a 237. We lec el oe) "near: ows antes and manasometRewet Cnr. Ree 12, 86-72 postr Jape, Nel, by Ueber, MV ket, Dl, ER ‘Soi. Frege eyeing polite o wash 5 cse mid ‘cing NDE gn hard i ree Po. 18, 96-108 i/o 10. 1016 er 017 1.080, “ame, 2917. From cto commer ped mes loa unk, wate ‘nani, meen valenee Eson nt 96,848 Ne sly OTe “esa P. Arent F- Matwede M. Ce. init, G, MBs F, 2018 ‘Aas of Water ony Ape of Penal Campers Pode Go. Iie tor 1.278/8923, ‘ostre,F nrs,D, Hamuyul, J, Tien. us, 2017, nro wan ning pats optimal recovery of ours fom wt Mer Ea. 1, Sool pas Soko i0 solo meng 01706018. eterna M, oto, 4. Retr, VS 2017. Changes for cea ew ater over fon WEEE th ase sty of au: Wase Mana 60, 98-545. sho /10 1016 woman 20161200, ‘Valero Nava, Vie nde, Tales Pei, 2013. Mater ow ais “denny eee of i ane marl recovery eocenes et Lie (jee Ass 19, 57-579 poor O07 11367 01306535. Van Bye, E, De Mester, Ta, HB, Del, J, 2016 Resource sang by aban imi the case o esata laptop compas i Blum. Resour Csr. Reeyl 107, 3-04 Vidal ege By longi, GA, Mathis, Fat, C, Moni, its, VY Hames Arent, F Ns, P Mos, Te, Wit, Pei. Lf Caras, Pave bin, PA. Blagers, BH, Halsnan J, yar U, Pest Fl Gera, none esi, 2018 on Ra nia 218. Wage, PA, Hier, 2015 ieee sessment of post

    You might also like