Environmental and Economic Trade-offs in Consumer Electronic
Products Recycling: A case study of cell phones and computers
A. K. Bhuie1, O.A. Ogunseitan1, J-D. M. Saphores2, and A. A. Shapiro3,4
1
Program in Industrial Ecology, Department of Environmental Health, Science, and Policy, University of California,
Irvine; 2Dept. of Planning, Policy & Design, and Economics Department UCI; 3Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California
Institute of Technology, Pasadena; 4Department of Chemical Engineering and Material Science, UCI
Tel: 949-824-9845; Fax: 949-824-2056; Email: abhuie@uci.edu
Abstract-Used consumer electronic products are the fastest
growing segment of the U.S. waste stream, and cell phones
(due to short life expectancies) are major contributors. Like
personal computers (PCs), a typical cell phone contains several
hazardous materials including antimony, arsenic, beryllium,
cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc. Most of the persistent
toxicants in cell phones are found in the printed wire assembly
and liquid-crystal display. It is estimated that a total of 700
million cell phones and 325 million PCs could become
obsolete in the United States by 2005. In addition, 130 million
cell phones and 20 million PCs are retired each year; and more
than 500 million phones and 240 million personal computers
are stockpiled. However, the fate of retired cell phones differs
from that of retired PCs: approximately 70% of retired
collected cell phones are refurbished and resold (the remaining
units are recycled or discarded) whereas only a small
percentage of PCs are ever used again. Considerable attention
has been focused at State, national, and international levels to
develop policies that minimize the environmental impacts of
electronic waste in general, but there is little consistency
between the strategies developed in different jurisdictions
because trade-offs between economic costs and environmental
benefits are not well understood. This paper presents results of
a survey conducted to better understand the economics of cell
phone recycling. We find that the net cost to recyclers of
collecting each cell phone ($6) far exceeds the estimated cost
to transport, sort, dismantle, refine, and dispose of hazardous
and non-hazardous wastes ($0.74) associated with discarded
phones. These results were compared with the collection and
processing cost of PCs for which recycling is typically not
profitable. Our findings are informative for formulating better
policies to manage the end-of-life of consumer electronic
products.
1. INTRODUCTION
Over the last two decades, the rapid pace of technological
innovation has resulted in a broad range of obsolete electronic
devices from large household appliances such as refrigerators,
washers and dryers, and air-conditioners to hand-held cellular
phones, fluorescent lamp bulbs (tubes), stereos, and
computers. Studies conducted in Europe estimate that the
quantity of electronic waste is increasing by 3% to 5% per year
- almost three times faster than the municipal waste stream [1,
2, 3]. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) more than 4.6 million tons of electronic waste was
disposed of in landfills in the US in the year 2000 [4]; this
amount is predicted to grow fourfold in the next few years [5],
0-7803-8250-1/04/$20.00 © 2004 IEEE.
especially as consumers discard old electronic products to
acquire newer and more powerful models.
The fastest increasing category of consumer
electronic products is cell phones. Sales of cell phones have
increased by more than 41% since 2000 in the US [6].
According to some estimates, approximately 250,000 tons of
used cell phones could be stockpiled by 2005 [6, 7].1 Even
though the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet
Association (CTIA) reports that the growth in US cell phone
subscriptions declined from approximately 27% in 2000 to
9.4% in 2002, there are indications that the rate of increase in
cell phone subscription is about to increase again in the near
future [8].
As they become obsolete, cell phones are often stored
away before being thrown out in the trash [6, 7]. A similar fate
awaits PCs: on average; two to three obsolete computers may
be stored in garages, closets or storage spaces [5, 9].
Government researchers estimate that three quarters of all
computers sold in US are stockpiled, awaiting disposal [4, 5].
By 2005, one cell phone and one computer could become
obsolete for every new cell phone and computer put on the
market [7]. The small size of cell phones makes collection and
potential recycling of components more likely than for
computers. According to ReCellular Inc, the recycling
collection rate of cell phones has increased dramatically.2 It is
important to note, however, that the backlog of cell phones
does not seem to be decreasing, which creates potential
environmental risk [7]. By contrast, the recycling rate for PCs
is still quite low i.e. 10-11%. In 1998, 20.6 million PC Central
Processing Unit (CPUs) and 15.8 million Cathode Ray Tube
(CRT) monitors became obsolete, but only 2.3 million CPU
and 1.5 million CRT were recycled [10]. To formulate better
recycling policies, it is useful to investigate the factors that
most influence the net cost of recycling cell phones and
computers and to contrast the two. We used structured
interviews and surveys to collect data from fifteen private US
electronic recycling firms throughout North America, focusing
on those who have signed a true stewardship electronic
recycling program in conjunction with members of the
1
These are conservative estimates based on cell phone penetration in the total
population. Penetration measures subscribers as a percentage of the total
population, i.e. the total number of cell phones in use as a percentage of
population (Inform, 2002).
2
ReCellular Incorporated was established in 1991 to trade and refurbish
wireless equipment, including cell phones and reconditioned mobile phones
(http://www.recellular.net/brochure/about.asp).
74
Computer Take Back Campaign, including Basel Action used primarily on printed wire assemblies, cables, and plastic
Network (BAN), and the Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition housings. Some brominated flame-retardants can be persistent,
(SVTC).3 Our findings are summarized below. bioaccumulative, and toxic; their other impacts are still being
evaluated [15, 16]. Like Pb, the use of Polybrominated
2. MATERIAL COMPOSITION Biphenyls (PBBs) and Polybrominated Diephenyls Ethers
Despite the relatively small size of individual cell phones (PBDEs) in electrical and electronic products sold in the EU is
(when compared to other electronic products) their disposal banned under the RoHS Directive beginning in July 2006. A
into the domestic waste stream is problematic because of their comparison of the material composition of cell phones and
potentially large numbers and their material composition; the desktop computer is given in Table 1.
hazardous materials they contain can pollute the air when The estimated number of cell phones retired per year
burned in incinerators or leach into soil and drinking water (100-200 million) in the US is based on the average economic
sources when buried in landfills. Many of these toxic life of a phone, which is currently approximately 1.5 years
substances, including antimony (Sb), arsenic (As), beryllium down from 3 years in 1995 according to Fishbein [6], who also
(Be), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), lead (Pb), nickel (Ni), and estimates that the US stockpile of retired cell phones could
zinc (Zn), can persist and bioaccumulate in the environment exceed 500 million by the end of 2005. This number assumes
[6, 7]. In particular, Pb (a suspected carcinogen) has adverse that more than 700 million phones will be retired in the US by
effects on the central nervous system, immune system, and 2005, which could generate up to 198,500 kg of Pb in the
kidneys, and it has been linked to developmental abnormalities waste stream. While 75% of the units may be stockpiled, the
[11, 12]. Its main application in cell phones and other other 25% (between 150 and 210 million units) could be
electronic products is in solder used to attach components to landfilled or incinerated. This represents a significant
each other and to printed wire assemblies [13]. Because of its potential source of PBBs, PBDEs, Pb, Al, Fe, Sn, Cu, Ni, Zn,
health effects, lead (Pb) has been banned (along with a few Ag, Si, and Hg in the waste stream. The new rule issued by the
other hazardous substances) starting July 1, 2006 from new US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to allow
electrical and electronic products sold in the European Union consumers to move their existing conventional home phone
(EU), through the Directive on Hazardous Substances in numbers to a cell phone could also cause more cell phones to
Electrical and Electronic Products (the RoHS Directive)4 [7]. be retired in the US, therefore creating more opportunities for
Table 1: Material composition comparison between cell pollution5. According to the US EPA [4], consumer electronic
phone and desktop personal computer products (including cell phones) are a fast growing segment of
Recent Cell Phone*, PC with CRT** Municipal Solid Waste. Recently, data released by the Central
(~ 0.08kg) (~ 26 kg) Valley and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Content (% of total weight) (% of total weight) Boards show that Pb is detectable in the leachate and
Plastics 46 23 monitoring wells of California landfills, although the exact
Lead (Pb) 0.9 7 sources have not been ascertained.6
Aluminum 9 14 To prevent environmental pollution, many
(Al) communities are prohibiting the incineration and the disposal
Iron (Fe) 8 21 of waste electronic equipment in landfills. In Europe, the
European Commission recently approved the Directive on
Tin (Sn) 1 1
Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment. This
Copper (Cu) 19 7
legislation would require that manufactures take-back used
Nickel (Ni) 1 0.8
electrical and electronic equipment. Policies requiring
Zinc (Zn) 3 2.2 manufacturers to be responsible for the costs of managing
Silver (Ag) 0.9 0.02 electronic waste are under consideration. In addition,
Silica (Si) 4 25 Australia recently implemented a nationwide cellphone
Mercury 1 0.01 recycling program.7 In the U.S., a number of States including
(Hg) California, Massachusetts and Minnesota are considering
* Nokia Corporation; ** SVTC, 1999 [14]; (plastics contain legislation that would make manufacturers absorb the cost of
polybrominated flame retardants, and hundreds of additives and
managing waste electronic products, including cell phones [6],
stabilizers not listed separately).
but the US is still lagging behind the EU or Japan8.
Brominated flame-retardants are another type of
hazardous materials present in both cell phones and computers;
these are added to plastics to reduce the risk of fire. They are

5
http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html
3
http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/recycle/pledge_signers.htm http://www.cellphonecarriers.com/home-portable-phone-numbers.html
4
http://www.epa.gov/epr/products/eintern.html; http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/NumberPortability/checklist.html
6
http://www.dti.gov.uk/sustainability/weee/#Summary_of_the_WEEE_and_Ro http://www.cawrecycles.org/ (Poison PCs and Toxic TVs: 2002 update).
7
HS_Directives http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,52375,00.html
8
http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/2002report.htm

0-7803-8250-1/04/$20.00 © 2004 IEEE. 75

 3. COSTS OF RECYCLING
The contrast between cell phone and computer recycling,
suggests that economic considerations are essential for the
emergence and success of private-sector recycling efforts.
However, improper handling, weak regulations and ‘sham’
recycling may increase environmental, public, and worker
exposure to hazardous materials. In the past, poorly regulated
recycling operations have resulted in toxic hazards and
expensive clean-up costs [17]. One potential drawback of
recycling is the apparent delay of environmental pollution and
the transfer of the problem from one medium or location to
another: hazardous materials are simply moved into secondary
products that will eventually require disposal. A more
sustainable alternative would be to design products with non-
hazardous materials, but it may take several years to
implement this strategy.
Computers are typically costly to recycle because of
their design (metals may be mixed with plastic in various parts
for example) and their large number of parts. The abundance
of plastics may also reduce the value of recycled materials
(although cell phones contain proportionally more plastics than
PCs). Finally, inadequately protected recycling workers may
incur health risks due to exposures to hazardous materials. In
contrast, cell phones are relatively easier to recycle despite
their content of toxic materials. The design of cell phones
facilitates disassembly and recycling [7]. But the main
difference between these two electronic products is the
existence of a viable market for reconditioned cell phones
which provides recycling services free of charge to consumers
who subscribe to cell phone service.
Several other characteristics of cell phones may
explain the stability of markets for cell phones (and their
absence for PCs). First, cell phones have a fairly high value
per unit weight compared to PCs, so they are relatively
cheaper to transport. Second, cell phones can be used by
Table 2: Cost comparison for collection and processing of
cell phone and personal computer (per unit)
Cost (US $) Cell Phone** Computer***
Collection* 6.00 23.50
Transportation 0.35 0.43
Sorting - 3.50
Dismantling 0.03 2.75
Refining 0.32 7.87
Dispose of non- 0.01 0.83
hazardous waste
Dispose of 0.03 5.00
hazardous waste
*Average (cell phone:$4 to $8; computer:$13 to $34) **Results from
survey conducted with fifteen private US electronic recycling firms;
***(Boon et al., 2000) [19].
people with a low literacy level, which is not the case for PCs.
There is currently a high demand for cell phones in many
developing countries that were lagging behind in the
installation of conventional communication equipment.
The cost of collecting a PC consisting of a central
processing unit (CPU) and a monitor currently ranges from
$13 to $34 per unit [18]. Consumers pay the collection fee.
0-7803-8250-1/04/$20.00 © 2004 IEEE.
Some collection programs are free, but others ask the
consumers to pay the recycling fee [18]. The cost of properly
disposing of old computers and televisions could easily run
$25 to $50 or more per unit [20]. By contrast, the collection
cost of cell phone ranges from $4 to $8 per unit and processing
costs ranges from $0.70 to $0.75 per unit. A comparative
assessment of costs associated with dismantling and discarding
cell phones and PCs is provided in Table 2.
The overall recycling cost of cell phones ranges from
$8 to $10 per unit. The cost of refurbishing cell phones ranges
from $15 to $30, but the resale price of refurbished cell phones
reaches $40 to $50, resulting in a net profit to cell phone
recyclers. These estimates vary according to the brand and
condition of cell phones [7]. Most companies collect every
brand of cell phones; the top five phones in order of decreasing
sale quantities are Motorola c60, Nokia 5125, Nokia 5190,
Nokia 8260, and Samsung 6100 [7]. Collected phones are
tested to determine whether they operate satisfactorily, and
defective parts are repaired or replaced. Approximately 70% of
collected phones are refurbished and donated or they are resold
outside the US. The remaining 30% are recycled.
Approximately 50% of refurbished cell phones are sold in
Latin America, Africa, Russia, India, China, or Pakistan and
20% are sold back in the US [7].
ReCellular, Inc. is the largest cell phones recycler,
with an 80% market share in the U.S; it generates $25 to $30
million in annual revenues from sales of refurbished cell
phones and recyclable material from all sources. It collects
approximately 3 million phones per year. If 130 million
phones are estimated to be retired per year and 75 million
pieces are stockpiled, then approximately 22 million units may
eventually be disposed of in landfills or burnt in incinerators
unless a major national policy is crafted in the near future
because the stockpile of defunct phones is increasing [2, 7; see
Table 3].
Table 3: Estimated number of cell phones retired per year
(2-years life-time) in the US
Year Use* (million) Retired* Stockpiled*
(million) (million)
2001 193 96.5 72.38
2002 195 97.5 73.13
2003 197 98.5 73.88
2004 198 99 74.25
2005 200 100 75
(Source: *INFORM, 2002) (Retired = Number of cell phone in use/2
year life-time; Stockpiled = 75% of retired cell phone)
The largest and most successful cell phone collection
programs in the US are the Wireless Foundation’s, Donate-a-
Phone program, and Verizon Hopeline program. They account
for the majority of the cell phone recollected (nearly 2.5
million phones from 1999 to 2003 [7]). Both Donate-a-Phone,
and Hopeline rely on ReCellular. The other two smaller
programs, Collective Good, and Charitable Recycling collect a
small number of phones on their own (survey conducted for
this study) [7]. Wireless Recyclers, Collective Good, and
Charitable Recycling also provide customers with a rebate on a
76
trade-in for an old cell phone with the purchase of a new one.9
By contrast, four of the five major manufacturers of computers
(IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Compaq, and Gateway), the Sony
Corporation, and the nationwide retailer, Best Buy, have
initiated independent recycling programs for PCs [18].
Hewlett-Packard and IBM PC recycling service, both allow
consumers and businesses to recycle any manufacturer’s
computer equipment for a fee. Dell Computer Corporation,
Compaq, and Gateway also give their customers the option to
trade-in, recycle or donate old PCs in exchange for a rebate on
a new product [20]. A recent study predicts that 150 million
computers will be recycled by 2005, but an equal quantity may
also be landfilled [21].
4.ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC
CONSIDERATIONS
The disposal of cell phones and computers differs in their
implications for waste management because of their different
sizes and hazardous materials content [6, 22]. To keep waste
electronic products out of landfills and encourage recycling, a
cost-effective strategy must be implemented. Whereas the
environmental success of a recycling program depends on
external costs avoided, its financial success hinges on the costs
of collecting, sorting, and processing materials and on the
revenues from selling recycled materials [22]. For financial
viability, recycling costs should be covered by the revenues
from recycled materials, plus any subsidy to compensate for
landfill space saved and pollution avoided (after disposal and
during the avoided extraction of virgin materials). Several end-
of-life options could be considered: (1) reuse of the entire
product, (2) reuse of individual components, and (3) reuse of
constituent materials. Recycling does not have to be a closed
loop where the materials initially used for the production of
electronic product are returned back to new electronic
production. For example, keeping Pb in circulation reduces the
need for mining virgin Pb; and through reuse, landfill disposal
can be avoided. Although Pb in electronics accounts for less
than 4.2% of the total amount used in the US, it is estimated
that a substantial portion of the Pb content of landfill leachate
originates from electronic products [11]. There are no
comparable data on the fate of discarded electronic products
on Pb emissions from incinerators, but the impact from this
source is likely to be significant. Targeting Pb in some, but not
all, electronic products is controversial because it singularly
complicates the recycling of retired electronic products,
thereby creating the need to have two separate recycling
processes (one with and one without Pb) [3, 6, 22].
Cell phones contain many toxic substances, including
several persistent and bioaccumulative chemicals listed on the
US EPA’s “Waste Minimization List of Persistent,
Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Chemicals” [3, 6]. As
shown in Table 1, the composition by weight of plastics in cell
phones is 46% as compared to only 23% for computers. The
percentage of PBTs is of concern for cell phones because these
9 burning in incinerators. Finding ways to reduce program
www.wirelessrecycling.com
0-7803-8250-1/04/$20.00 © 2004 IEEE.
pollutants are environmentally recalcitrant, thereby increasing
the risk of human exposure and ecosystem effects [3, 6, 22].
Recycling electronic products is currently less
common and typically more costly than storing or dumping
them. Recycling involves disassembling an electronic product
into its components to recover individual constituents. This
process can be completed by hand for lower volumes of
material or it can be automated if larger volumes have to be
processed. In a typical PC, approximately 55 percent of
materials are considered economically recyclable (see Table 4
below).
The total revenue generated from the sale of
recovered material in a typical desktop PC is approximately
$34. However, when labor, transportation, and residual
disposal costs are included, it is not economical to recycle PC,
unless a subsidy can be justified based on the avoidance of
environmental costs. Environmental benefits from recycling
are, however, difficult to quantify. By contrast, in spite of their
small size, recycling cell phones is profitable because of the
existence of an active resale market.
Table 4: Recoverable components in a desktop computer
Component Percent (%) Value ($)
Plastics 23.00 11.73
Aluminum 6.30 9.11
Steel 20.50 4.18
Gold 0.001 6.27
Silver 0.02 1.03
Lead 6.30 1.93
Cadmium 0.01 0.01
Mercury 0.0022 0.00
Total 56.13 $34.26
Source: North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources [23].
5. POLICY OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Many US electronic companies and the industry’s main trade
associations continue to argue against government-imposed
bans on hazardous material constituents in consumer electronic
products, but they have not committed to eliminating them
from their products [6]. Some European countries, as well as
Japan and Australia, have already passed legislation
establishing national manufacture take-back programs for cell
phones, however, no efforts was made to reuse cell phones or
to recover components for reuse [6]. In the US, only
California, Massachusetts, and Minnesota are considering
legislation that would make producers responsible for the costs
of dealing with their used electronic products. The legislative
experience of several states indicates that banning some
electronic products from landfills is possible, but fees imposed
on new products to fund take-back and recycling programs
tend to be perceived as additional taxes, and none have been
passed so far [6, 7]. Therefore governments need to cooperate
with electronics manufactures and non-government
organizations to design preventive strategies which drastically
limit the disposal of defunct products into landfills and their
expenses and to increase recycling revenues are among the
77
most viable strategies [7]. A well designed take-back program
would ideally provide incentives for manufacturers to design
products that contain fewer toxic components and are easier to
disassemble, reuse, and recycle. For example, Hewlett-
Packard’s (HP) customer take-back and recycling program is
the most comprehensive printer cartridge and hardware return
program in the world. This program maximizes material
recovery and ensures that electronics are recycled. Each
month, HP reuses or recycles more than 1.58 million Kg of
returned electronic hardware equipment in its US and
European product recovery centers, where they accept
computers and printers from all manufacturers. HP, however,
had to overcome several logistic and regulatory barriers to
implement its recycling program, partly because it faced
different regulatory requirements from different jurisdictions.
Standardization of regulatory procedures across geographical
and political boundaries will improve the implementation of
product take-back and recycling programs worldwide. This
applies equally to recycling cell phones and computers [24].
Providing discounts on new phones or phone service in
exchange for returned equipment can stimulate consumer
participation in take-back programs. In Austria, customers
receive free lottery tickets when they return their spent
batteries. Take-back programs are not yet popular for PCs,
however. In the private sector, take-back programs may be
more attractive for cell phones than for PCs because cell
phones are typically used as loss leaders to sell telephone
services whereas PC manufacturers have little involvement in
software and other services.
In addition, manufacturers can facilitate recycling and
reuse by incorporating these considerations in the early design
stages of a product. To reduce waste and raw materials use, a
product’s life cycle needs to be assessed to optimize
disassembly, components re-used, recycling and disposal at the
end of life. Although it may seem initially more costly,
implementing such an approach may in fact benefit
manufacturers by appealing to “green” consumers [24, 25].
Deposit/refund schemes are another attractive way to
boost recycling rates. A deposit/refund system imposes an up-
front charge for potential damages caused by improper
disposal but consumers who “do the right thing” by returning
used products are rewarded with most (or all) of their initial
deposit. Deposit/refund systems have been used with great
success for beverage containers, for example [6, 7, 27].
Studies show that the recycling rate of cans and bottles is three
times higher in states with deposit/refund systems than in
states without such systems [27]. However, some electronics
manufacturers have objected to the deposit/refund system for
two reasons: (1) deposit/refund system would decrease the
demand for their products by increasing their prices; and (2)
the volatility of the price of recycled materials makes it
difficult to have a viable electronic recycling industry.10 The
first objection seems misplaced if administrative costs can be
kept in check because the deposit serves to internalize
potential environmental costs and it is returned to consumers
10
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/recycle/
0-7803-8250-1/04/$20.00 © 2004 IEEE.
who are conscientious about environmental health. The second
objection is valid: there are some big swings in the price of
recycled metals: yearly changes of 20%, 30%, and even 40%
are not uncommon. In addition, except for nickel, a downward
trend was observed for the price of recycled aluminum,
copper, iron, and zinc from 1997 to 2001.11 Public intervention
may be needed to stabilize these markets.
Based on the discussion above, the following options are
recommended for consumer electronic products recycling [6,
7, 18]:
• Provide more information to the public about the
potential environmental and economic consequences
of improperly disposing of electronic waste.
• Establish and promote local electronic collection
events at public spaces such as malls or post offices
while other schemes (take-back programs and deposit
refund systems) are phased in.
• Study the creation of deposit-refund systems for
electronic products. Compare with the creation of
discounts and rebates by firms for customers who
trade in their used electronic products.
• Establish and implement “Eco-Efficiency Materials
Labeling” e.g. listing toxic constituents of electronic
products to support effective end-of-life management
procedures and policies.
• Increase trash surveys to prevent hazardous materials
from being disposed in landfills and increase
monitoring and enforcement of disposal laws.
• Encourage the re-design of electronic products that
are more easily refurbished and recycled.
• Fund research into designing electronic products that
do not contain hazardous substances as defined by the
current standards established by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act.
• Pass content laws that insure a market for recycled
materials and stabilizes their price, thus allowing the
recycling industry to develop and to reach financial
stability.
• Create a system to track loads of electronic waste and
discourage their shipment to developing countries
where no infrastructure is in place to properly recycle
toxic materials.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The industrial ecology research group gratefully acknowledges
the financial support provided by the National Science
Foundation award number DMI-0223894, and by
interdisciplinary research award number TS-30856 from the
University of California Toxic Substances Research and
Teaching Program. Additional support was provided by the
Industrial Ecology Faculty Fellowship Program from AT&T
Foundation. The authors are grateful to people interviewed for
this study, including representatives of the individual cell
phone recyclers. Special thanks to Julie Schoenung for
insightful suggestions.
11
Price volatility (1997-2001); Value $ (thousands)/Kg: Al (6032.55 –
4539.44); Cu (3457.19-1954.06); Fe (9539.84-5331.09); Pb (1122.33-
1062.21); Ni (474.99-601.25); Sn (104.22-96.50); Zn (496.03-360.75).
78
 REFERENCES
[1] K. Snowdon, B. Whitaker, and A. Ford. “WEEE: A
Directive too far?” Engineering Science and Education
Journal, vol. 9, # 10, pp. 42-48, 2000.
[2] A. Alec. “Europe Cracks down on E-Waste.” IEEE
Spectrum, vol. 39, #5, pp. 46-51, 2002.
[3] L.J Turbini, G.C. Munie, D. Bernier, J. Gamalski, and
D.W. Bergman. “Examining the environmental impact of lead-
free soldering alternatives.” IEEE Transactions on Electronics
Packaging Manufacturing, vol. 24, #1, pp. 4-9., 2001
[4] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Waste wise
Update, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA530-N-00-
007, October 2000 (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-
hw/reduce/wastewise/pubs/wwupda14.pdf)
[5] Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition (SVTC). Poison PCs and
Toxic TVs: Update (Toxic Electronic Waste is Harming Public
Health and the Environment), 2002
(http://www.cawrecycles.org)
[6] Fishbein, B.K. Waste in the Wireless World: The Challenge
of Cell Phones. © by INFORM, Inc. ISBN #0-918780-78-0,
2002 (http://www.cawrecycles.org)
[7] Most, E. Calling All Cell Phones: Collection, Reuse, and
Recycling Programs in the US. © by INFORM, Inc., 2003
(http://www.cawrecycles.org/Ewaste/ReportsResources/Callin
g_Cellphones.pdf)
[8] Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association
(CTIA). Semi-Annual Wireless Industry Survey Results (June
1985-Dec. 2002), 2003
(http://www.wow-com.com/pdf/MidYear_2003_survey.pdf)
[9] Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC). Exporting Harm:
Techno Trashing to Asia, 2002
http://www.svtc.org/cleancc/pubs/technotrash.htm
[10] National Recycling Coalition (NRC). Trends in
Electronics Recycling in the United States, 1999
http://www.nrc-recycle.org/resources/electronics/trends.htm
[11] O.A. Ogunseitan, J.M. Schoenung, J-D. Saphores, A.A.
Shapiro, A.K.Bhuie, H.Y. Kang, H. Nixon, and A.W. Stein.
The Devil that we know: Lead (Pb) replacement policies under
conditions of scientific uncertainty. Proceedings, Electronic,
Design, Manufacturing and the Environment, UC Irvine, April
2003.
[12] O.A. Ogunseitan, J.M. Schoenung, A.A. Shapiro, J-D
Saphores, A.K. Bhuie, and A.W. Stein. Biocomplexity
Dimensions of Industrial Ecology: Sectoral Trade-offs on
selecting Alternatives to lead (Pb) in electronics. Sustainable
Planning and Development, Ed. E. Beriatos et al., ISBN: 1-
85312-985-2, 2003
[13] A.A. Shapiro, J.K. Bonner, O.A. Ogunseitan, J-D.
Saphores, and J.M. Schoenung. Implications of Pb-free
microelectronics assembly in aerospace applications.
Submitted to IEEE Transactions, components and Packaging
Manufacturing Technology, Sept. 2003).
[14] Silicon Valley Toxic Coalition (SVTC). Poison PCs and
Toxic TVs: “Should PC Makers Recycle Wares? by Ted Smith,
1999.
0-7803-8250-1/04/$20.00 © 2004 IEEE.
[15] C.F. Murphy, and G.E. Pitts. “Survey of alternatives to
tin-lead solder and brominated flame retardants.” IEEE (0-
7803-6655-7/01), pp. 309-315, 2001
[16] A. Sjodin, L. Hagmar, E. Klasson-Wehler, K. Kronholm-
Diab, E. Jakobsson, and A. Bergman. “Flame retardant
exposure: Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in blood from
Swedish workers.” Environmental Health Perspectives, vol.
107, #8, pp. 643-648, 1999.
[17] N. P. Michaud, J. Katers, J. Barry. “Occupational risks
associated with electronics demanufacturing and CRT glass
processing operations and the impact of mitigation activities
on employee safety and health.” IEEE (0-7803-7743-5/03), pg.
323-328, 2003.
[18] Iowa Department of Natural Resources. in “Iowa
electronics waste characterization study”, Final Report,
submitted by Wuf Technologies, LLC, 7 South State Street,
Concord, NH 03301, 2002. Report Submitted to Waste
Management Assistance Bureau, 502 East 9th Street, Des
Moines, IA 50319.
[19] J.E. Boon, J.A. Isaacs, and S.M. Gupta. Economics of PC
Recycling. Conference proceedings; Presented at
Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing Conference,
Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Nov. 6-8, 2000.
[20] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency & Global Future
Foundation. Computers, E-Waste, and Product Stewardship: Is
California Ready for the Challenge? A Menu Policy Options
for Computer Extended Product Responsibility, 2001.
[21] H.S. Mathews, F.C. McMicheal, C.T. Hendrickson, D.J.
Hart. “Disposition and End-of-Life options for personal
computers.” Green Design Initiative Technical Report #97-10,
Carnegie Melon University, PA 15213, 1997.
[22] D. Smith, M. Small, R. Dodds, S. Amagai, and T. Strong.
“Computer monitor recycling: a case study.” Engineering
Science and Education Journal, pp. 159-164, (August) 1996.
[23] North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Report on “Electronics commodity profile: Markets
Assessment”. Published by Division of Pollution Prevention
and Environmental Assistance, 1998.
[24] A. Degher. “HP’s Worldwide Take Back and Recycling
Programs: Lessons on Improving Program Implementation.”
IEEE (0-7803-7214-X), pp. 224-227.
[25] D. Mangun, and D.L. Thurston. “Product portfolio design
for component reuse.” IEEE (0-7803-5962-3), pp. 86-92, 2000.
[26] C. Boks, J. Huisman, and A. Stevels. “Combining
Economical and Environmental Considerations in Cellular
Phone Design.” IEEE (0-7803-6962-3), pp. 20-26, 2000.
[27] S.J. Callan, and J.M. Thomas. “Managing Municipal
Solid Waste” in: Environmental Economics and Management.
Theory, Policy, and Applications. Second Edition; pg: 583-
585. Published by The Dryden Press, TX. 76102. ISBN: 0-03-
025631-3, 2000.
79