E-Waste Recycling - Southern Nazarene University

Running Head: E-Waste Recycling 35

Innovation and Empowerment: SNU-Tulsa Research Journal, Volume 3, Issue 1

E-Waste Recycling

Randy Shelton, B.S.

Abstract

Electronic waste and the minimal regulations involving recycling have developed into a

global problem. Discarded and unwanted electronics are finding their way into landfills and

exported to third-world countries which use primitive recycling methods that have an impact on

the surroundings. These waste components are responsible for hazardous pollution of the

environment and affect the health of the population. Suggestions are presented for reducing

such waste.

E-Waste Recycling 36


Introduction and Statement of the Problem

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of the project was to improve understanding of electronic waste (e-waste) and the

effect on health and the environment on a global scale. The project involved examining data and

policies of governmental, national, and global organizations in dealing with electronic waste and

recycling efforts from 1980 to 2008. Methods of recycling were examined as well as the

hazardous composition of electronic components and the result on the environment. Data on

human health were provided from studies (Huo, 2007;Li, 2006; Schmidt, 2006) of major waste

recycling sites in Africa, India and China.

Organizational Context

Setting of the problem. Consumers desire new products with the latest features. Even

though an existing product performed well, electronic equipment was replaced at an alarming

rate. The electronics industry thrived on planned obsolescence and as an example, the average

computer was only 2.5 years old (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2008a). Many

corporations have budgeted a certain percentage of equipment replacement yearly. Numerous

companies have provided for a complete replacement strategy within four years of all computer

systems.

The amount of electronic waste due to replacement of obsolete or unwanted electronics

continues to rise. Electronic waste has become a global problem affecting both developed and

undeveloped countries. Within the United States, e-waste recycling efforts are minimal. The



labor costs associated with recycling electronics are more than the value of the removed

components (McConnell, 2009).

Technology is making a difference in some areas to assist in reducing electronic waste.

CRT, or television type monitors with large glass tubes, have disappeared from store shelves.

Flat panels, or LCD monitors, have replaced CRT units. Flat panels are less expensive, are one

fourth the weight, use one third less power, have a longer service interval, and take significantly

less space than CRT counterparts (UCLA, 2010). Due to the hazardous makeup of e-waste,

dumping in landfills is no longer an option. Local, state, and national governments have passed

regulations restricting or outlawing e-waste in landfills. Restrictions on where to place unwanted

electronic refuse has given rise to other outlets of disposal.

As the world’s largest producer of e-waste, the United States opposed the United Nations

Basel Convention banning the export of electronic waste to undeveloped countries

(Agoramoorthy, 2006). The United States only recognizes the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act as the authority on illegal e-waste exports. Under the act, exporters legally ship e-

waste freely as long as the goal was recycling.

History and background. With the introduction of mass production in the 1920s and

1930s, a new method of manufacturing, planned obsolescence, was developed. Obsolescence

became an aspect of production and incorporated into products, features that almost certainly

went out of favor in a short time. Planned obsolescence induced consumers to purchase new

models of the products (The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, 2009).



Electronic waste has been a problem since the first electrical and electronic devices were

manufactured. The influx of new and more powerful electronics fueled the increasing amount of

disposed e-waste. New products with added features have driven and influenced consumers’

buying habits. Vying for increased market share, corporations constantly upgrade or release new

models in an effort to draw in new customers.

The introduction of the Apple iPhone, for example, sparked a major shift in cell phone

technology. With the myriad features and available applications, basic cell phone

communication became outdated. The touch screen made the iPhone popular with customers.

As a result, the iPhone release caused eager consumers to replace or upgrade their existing

phones. The thousands of replaced phones became a part of the waste stream. As technology

made it possible to manufacture items smaller, it also made it possible to make these products

cheaper. The more inexpensive a product becomes, the more available it is to a larger consumer

market.

Personal computers were also a major source of e-waste due to obsolescence. The

constant release of new and upgraded software was a force for replacing computer equipment.

New operating systems and programs required an increasing amount of resources in memory,

processing power, and storage space. Corporations, desiring to use the latest operating system to

take advantage of greater computing efficiencies, found themselves with the need to replace

numerous older computers. Older systems which ran legacy applications successfully for several

years now were obsolete and entered the waste stream.



Scope of the problem. The scope of the study was limited to electronic waste. Other

types of waste including organic, recyclable, soiled, and toxic were not included. Specifically,

electronic waste was the fastest growing component of the waste stream and continued to grow

each year (EPA, 2008b).

Involvement in this project consisted of data provided by outside sources. The data

described those involved as recycling workers in the United States, China, Africa, and India.

Participants also included state, national organizations, and governments. Policies and

regulations also played a role in the outcome of how electronic waste was handled.

Significance of the Project

This project provided informational benefits to consumers and users of technology. The

public will be better informed of the meaning of electronic waste and the ramifications of

obsolete devices upon the environment and public health. Consumers will realize the importance

of proper recycling efforts versus the illegal disposal of electronic goods.

This study has the potential as a vehicle for change. Data provided could result in more

stringent governmental policies on exporting and recycling of electronic waste. A further benefit

could drive voters to question and push for the United States to ratify the United Nations Basel

Convention on exporting hazardous waste.

Definition of Terms

CRT: Cathode-ray tube; an older technology prior to the invention of LCD/Plasma screens.

Used in television and computer display screens and are comprised of a large glass screen/tube.



E-waste: Any broken or unwanted electrical or electronic device.

Hazardous Waste: Waste made up of toxic chemicals, radioactive materials, biological or

infectious materials.

Heavy Metals: Any metallic element with a high density that is toxic or poisonous in low

concentrations.

Leaching: The removal of materials by dissolving them away from solids.

Lead Poisoning: A medical condition caused by increased levels of lead in the blood.

Municipal Solid Waste: Waste products that include paper, glass, metal, plastic, rubber, leather,

textiles, wood, food, yard trimmings, and miscellaneous inorganic wastes. Does not include

hazardous materials.

Recycle: To extract useful materials for re-use.

Toxic: Any material capable of causing injury or death, especially by chemical means.

Review of the Literature

Heavy Metal Leaching of Personal Computer Components

Electronic waste (E-waste) describes the obsolete electronic products thrown away as

solid waste in landfills. E-waste also depicts electronic products nearing the end of their useful

life, or obsolete electronics or products no longer wanted by the original owner. Personal

computers were the most significant portion of this e-waste. In 2003 the EPA found that E-waste



was responsible for 1% of all the disposed solid waste in the United States. Although recycling

continued to be encouraged, only 9% of computers were recycled with the majority disposed into

landfills (Li, Richardson, & Walker, 2009). Additionally, large amounts of obsolete computers

have remained in storage, awaiting disposal. In California, six million obsolete personal

computers (PCs) and televisions were stored for disposal and the number has increased by

10,000 each day (Li, Richardson, & Walker, 2009).

Computers have a number of toxic and hazardous materials within their components.

Eight heavy metals including arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and

silver have been present in computers. These hazardous substances threaten human and

environmental health. A fifteen-inch cathode ray tube (CRT) computer monitor contains as

much as 1.5 pounds of lead. Barium, which coats the front of the screen, is so dangerous it can

affect the heart, blood vessels, and nerves. Phosphorous, used to make the screen glow, can

cause damage to kidneys, liver, lungs, and the nervous system. Improper disposal of electronic

components has allowed toxic and hazardous materials to leach into the soil. The largest culprit

in this instance was lead from computer monitors or CRTs. As a result, the EPA proposed a rule

in 2002 on the proper handling of CRT monitors. Other states have implemented regulations out

of environmental concerns as well. California, in 2000 and 2002, banned the disposal of

computer monitors in landfills. The state of Minnesota passed a law in 2005 to the same effect,

with Maine following with legislation in 2006.

Computer Recycling Builds Garbage Dumps Overseas



The United States exported 50-80% of computer waste (Agoramoorthy, 2006). Millions

of tons of scrap electronics each year have been shipped to developing countries for recycling.

Cheap labor and low standards of environmental protection in India, China, Bangladesh,

Pakistan, and Africa have attracted shipments of E-waste. Obsolete computers are dumped or

burned, releasing hazardous substances into the environment. The 1989 United Nations Basel

Convention restricted hazardous waste transfers and was ratified by all the developed countries.

The European Union as well as other nations further expanded banning all exports of hazardous

waste to developing countries (Agoramoorthy, 2006). The United States was one of the few

countries in the world that has not ratified the Basel Convention. Currently, e-waste from the

United States was deemed legal only under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

Within the act, as long as the goal of exporting e-waste was for “recycling”, U. S. exporters can

ship e-waste legally (Agoramoorthy, 2006).

Taking Out the Electronic Trash

With the increasing use of technology, e-waste was seen as a global problem, according

to McConnell (2009). In the United States, the Natural Resources Defense Council reported

130,000 computers discarded each day (McConnell, 2009). Electronic equipment contained

hazardous materials. The hazardous types of materials make recycling cost prohibitive. The

breakdown and separation of useful materials from electronics often was worth more than the

salvaged materials’ resale value (McConnell, 2009). In the United States, fifteen dollars was the

net expense to recycle a single computer monitor, after deducting what the parts were worth.



Limited in capacity to manufacture information technology, Africa has become the

world’s latest destination for obsolete electronic equipment (Schmidt, 2006). Some of the

outdated material was somewhat functional. Donors of outdated electronics provide items in

good faith. Brokers, who arrange these shipments, use African importers to rid themselves of

unwanted electronic trash. According to the Computer and Allied Product Dealers Association

of Nigeria, up to 75% of the shipped electronics are irreparable junk (Schmidt, 2006). Even with

a bustling repair market, Nigeria, as well as other African nations, had little oversight, or

capacity, in safely dealing with e-waste. The majority of e-waste was disposed into landfills and

makeshift dumps. Investigators witnessed enormous piles of waste strewn throughout the

countryside (Schmidt, 2006). Some of the waste was used to fill in swamps. When piles of e-

waste were too high, they were set on fire, releasing toxic fumes (Schmidt, 2006). Researchers

witnessed barefoot children roaming over electronic waste piles (Schmidt, 2006). Livestock

used in the local diet, including chickens and goats, were observed ranging through the electronic

garbage. There were an estimated 500 shipping containers passing through Lagos, a Nigerian

port city each month with, as stated previously, up to 75% useless and irreparable junk.

As with New Delhi, India, Guiyu, China was a popular destination for e-waste (Huo, X.,

Peng, L., Xu, X., Zheng, L., Qiu, B., Qi, Z., et al., 2007). In an area totaling 52 square

kilometers with a resident population of 132,000 in 2003, and a migrant workforce of another

100,000, Guiyu processed millions of tons of e-waste yearly. Due to the very expensive

implementation of clean, safe, high-tech recycling, primitive processes were used. Old

equipment was disassembled into subcomponents using hand tools. Circuit boards were heated

over coal fires to melt solder to release individual electronic components. Acid baths were used



to extract precious metals. The waste acid was dumped into nearby fields and streams. Yellow

smoke from acid processing drifted from acid bath huts (Huo, et al., 2007). Plastic sorting was

performed according to color, rigidity, and luster. If plastic scraps were unable to be visually

sorted, scraps were burned and sorted according to the odor. Hammers were used to separate

batteries and monitor tubes. Remaining process residue was dumped in work areas, yards,

roadsides, open fields, irrigation canals, riverbanks, ponds, and rivers. Huo et al. (2007) reported

soaring levels of toxic contamination in dust, soil, river sediment, surface water, and

groundwater. Guiyu residents displayed high incidences of numerous health issues including

skin damage, headaches, nausea, gastritis, and ulcers. Lead, most widely used in electronics,

causes health problems from environmental contamination. Lead enters living systems through

food, water, air, and soil. As a result, children were more vulnerable to lead poisoning because

they absorbed more from their surroundings. High blood lead levels in children were defined as

greater than 10 micrograms per deciliter by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(Huo, et al., 2007).

A study of 165 children from Guiyu and 61 from an area not associated with electronic

recycling were selected to verify their blood lead levels. Researchers found 81.8% of Guiyu

children exceeded safe levels. This study involved 165 children with a median age of 5 living in

the Guiyu area. A group of 61 children residing in Chendan, where no electronic waste

processing occurs, were included as a comparison. The manual methods used to process e-waste

and how the refuse was disposed of contributed to contamination in the environment. Lead

residue from processing posed a major threat to health (Huo, et al., 2007).



Collaborating on E-scrap Standards

Standardizing global recycling processes to harvest valuable components in electrical and

electronic scrap (e-scrap), extending the life of products, and harmonizing world policy towards

e-scrap are goals of a new global initiative called Solving the E-waste Problem, or StEP

(Industrial Engineer, 2007). The initiative included the United Nations, manufacturers, recycling

companies, governmental, non-governmental, and academic groups as members. Valuable

resources used in the manufacture of electronic products were increasingly discarded. The StEP

initiative promoted salvaging increasingly precious resources and preventing these resources

from polluting the environment. Other groups, mentioned below, will also allow for the safe

disposal of components.

Of all obsolete computers, 75% were in storage somewhere (Descy, 2007). The National

Safety Council reported 63 million computers were obsolete in 2005. In addition, the council

estimated 500 million computers were in storage in 2007. To properly dispose of a personal

computer required removing all data. Data removal utilized an overwrite method to prevent

retrieval of information. Due to the toxic materials present in computers, PCs legally cannot be

thrown out with normal household refuse. Several options existed for disposal of obsolete

equipment in a more environmentally friendly manner.

Charities, need-based organizations, churches, civic groups, classrooms, and child-care

facilities were possible recipients (Descy, 2007). National organizations were available to assist

in finding non-profit organizations, disabled individuals, at-risk students, or the economically



disadvantaged worldwide. Computer manufacturers have programs as well and will either

recycle the equipment or allow trade-ins.

Methods

Hypothesis

The basic question and purpose of this research was to analyze levels and characteristics

of electronic waste (e-waste) and its effect on the environment and human health. The intended

result and outcome of this study was to determine if there was a need to control, reduce, and

properly dispose of obsolete or unwanted electronic devices. The null hypothesis was that there

was not a problem with electronic waste and additional waste reduction was not necessary. The

alternate hypothesis stated that electronic waste reduction was needed.

Design

The research design utilized to test the hypothesis consisted of a needs study using a

single sample t test. The study measured amounts of electronic waste produced in the United

States. The dependent variable consisted of yearly e-waste recycling percentages from EPA,

state, and industry data across 29 years from 1980 to 2008. This timeframe was used in an effort

to provide accuracy and to exclude or minimize extraneous variables. No independent variables

were used in this study.

Participants

The participants involved in this study were composed of individuals who purchased and

contributed to of the disposal of obsolete electronic devices within the United States. Therefore,



the population of the United States was chosen due to the country’s major contribution to global

e-waste recycling, disposal, and exportation.

Instrumentation

The dependent variable was consolidated from yearly e-waste recycling percentages. The

amount from this span varied from 0% for 1980 to as high as 25% for 2008 (EPA, 2008a). The

e-waste was predominately made up of televisions, cell phones, and computer related equipment

which consisted of desktops, portables, printers, multi-function printers, digital copiers, faxes,

mice, keyboards, CRT monitors, and flat panel displays.

The µ, or constant mean, for the test was 100.00 intended as a percentage. The µ was

calculated by examining the ideal amount for recycling. This amount is 100% of electronic

waste recycled. A high percentage score on the test meant more electronic waste was recycled.

A low percentage score meant less electronic waste was recycled. Obviously, 100% is a lofty

goal; however, I wanted to measure against the ideal mean. Ideally, we should recycle all

electronic wastes.

Procedure

A large, historical range of electronic waste was selected covering the 29 year period

from 1980 through 2008 to allow for increased accuracy. Each single year’s percentage of

recycled electronic waste was researched and provided as one of 29 data points for the dependent

variable. The data were compared to the µ of 100.00 and were, in turn, input into a single sample

t test to provide results of the hypothesis testing.



Data Analysis

Descriptive analysis. The data were used to determine a mean and standard deviation

for the dependent variable. The standard error of mean, critical, and actual values were

determined. The data were entered into WebSTATISTICA (Statsoft, 1992-2007) and graphs

produced. A diagram was created to reflect differences between historical electronic waste

recycling and the ideal recycling rate of 100%.

Inferential analysis. The alternative hypothesis stated that electronic waste was at an

unacceptable level (Ha: µs≤ µ). The null hypothesis was that electronic waste was not a problem

(Ho: µs >µ ). The level of significance was .05 with a single sample t used for hypothesis

testing.

Limitations

Reasons exist which may not allow readers the ability to reach a conclusion based on

information provided by this study. Due to the inclusion of the United States as a recycling

participant and the limited amount of time to complete this study, existing waste data provided

by governmental and state agencies as well as industry figures and research institutions were

relied upon. Data on electronic waste recycling was available from the EPA for only a ten-year

period. I assumed that the data from the government was reliable and valid; however, these were

not guaranteed.

Summary of Results

Descriptive Statistical Information



There were a total of 29 years of recycling data used in this test of electronic waste recycling.

The samples covered the period 1980 through 2008 and comprised data from the Environmental

Protection Agency, state agencies as well as industry figures and research institutions.

Examining Table 1 reflects a mean score of 7.563% with a standard deviation of 7.524%. A

histogram of total scores can be viewed in Figure 1.

Table 1

Descriptive Statistical Information

Figure 1. Histogram of percentage of electronic waste recycled – note that the program

extrapolates to less than zero. However, zero was the smallest amount.



Results of Significance Tests

The null hypothesis stated the sample would not show a significant difference and

increased electronic waste reduction was not necessary (Ho: µs ≥ µ). The alternative hypothesis

stated electronic waste was at an unacceptable level and waste reduction would be desirable Ha:

µs < µ). The test had a level of significance of .05. A single sample t test was utilized to deliver

the results. Given the 28 degrees of freedom, a critical value of -1.701 was established. The

calculated t-value was -66.154. The null hypothesis was soundly rejected. Based on test results,

increased electronic waste reduction was desirable. Figure 2 shows a box and whisker plot for

review.



Figure 2. Box and whisker plot of percentage of electronic waste recycled reveals that not even

the maximum percentage comes close to the target.

Using 100% as the target was certainly going to result in a rejection of the null

hypothesis. However, if one were more realistic and used a target of say, 50% correctly recycled

waste, the t test would have been -30.530. With 50% recycled waste, half of everything disposed

would be incorrectly disposed. Just with the 50% statistic, the null hypothesis would have been

soundly crushed. It seems there is a problem and the United States needs to do some serious

problem solving concerning its disposal of electronic waste.

Results of Needs Analysis

Electronic waste and its relationship to computer operating system requirements could be

a further test to explore. Each successive release of a major Windows operating system requires

additional hardware resources of processor speed, memory, and hard drive space. These factors

could potentially increase purchases of new computing equipment, thereby allowing obsolete

units to be discarded upon their inability to run the new operating system. Figure 3 points out

the increasing requirements of successive Microsoft Windows operating systems.



Figure 3. Comparison of minimum requirements for Microsoft Windows Operating Systems

Description of Alternatives

Existing policy and procedure. The existing method of dealing with electronic

recycling comprises several areas that contribute to the overall handling of the waste. The

United States has not ratified the United Nations Basil Convention on the outlawing of e-waste

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Windows 95 Windows 98 Windows 2000 Windows XP Windows Vista Basic

Windows Vista Premium

Windows 7

Windows Minimum Operating System Requirements

Processor Speed Mhtz Memory MB Hard Drive Space MB



exports to third-world countries. The U.S. only recognizes the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act that allows for export of electronic waste to any country as long as the intent is for

recycling. There are limited federal and state regulations governing e-waste. Some states have

enacted policies concerning e-waste but the majority of the states do not have any strict

enforcement. Those that do have some form of regulation have no consequences for not meeting

the stated objective. There are limited recycling efforts for electronics in the United States.

Building the infrastructure capable of handling e-waste is deemed too expensive. Not all

recycling is available free to the public. Recycling centers that do accept electronics often

charge fees to consumers who want to dispose of, for example, older style tube television sets.

People do not want to have to pay to recycle. Recycling efforts will not increase as long as it is

easier to dispose of the unwanted electronics overseas. This existing method allows for the

continuation of environmental pollution and health hazards for recipient nations incapable (or

unwilling) of properly handling of these types of hazardous materials.

Illegal export alternative. Another alternative to consider is for the United States to

ratify the United Nations Basel Convention on making it illegal to export electronic waste to

third-world countries. Complying with this mandate will cease all exports of waste to

impoverished countries and assist in drastically reducing the environmental and health impacts to

these nations. This method; however, without additional resources, will have a detrimental

impact on the United States. Without large scale environmentally friendly recycling and disposal

efforts, electronics will begin to stockpile within the country. Landfills will also become more

prevalent in areas that allow e-waste to be discarded. Allowing for this method without large

governmental assistance does not provide a long-term solution to unwanted electronics.



Aggressive recycling alternative. Perhaps the best alternative for reducing the impact

on the environment and health concerns involves a multi-prong approach in dealing with e-waste

recycling. Banning all electronic waste exports will go far in eliminating the impact of electronic

waste on third-world nations’ environment and the health of their population. Strict government

regulations should be enacted which govern the proper handling of e-waste on a national scale

instead of leaving it up to individual states. Increasing recycling efforts through governmental

support with tax credits and loans to provide an incentive to build environmentally friendly

recycling facilities, could work. This alternative would follow the European Union’s (EU)

example in dealing with electronic manufacturers. The EU has imposed a “take it back”

regulation affecting all electronics manufacturers if they want to sell their goods in Europe.

Manufacturers must “take back” all disposed electronics. Such a take back policy produces

pressure on the manufacturing community to create items with recycling in mind. Designing

products in a more modular manner with the ability to easily remove components versus melting

hard-wired connections has a benefit for both manufacturing and recycling. Manufacturers could

easily upgrade returned products to the latest models instead of completely re-engineering each

successive design. The recycling community could easily “unplug” these components instead of

relying on primitive methods involving melting connections.

Discussion and Conclusions

General Discussion and Conclusions

The purpose of the project was to improve understanding of electronic waste (e-waste) and the

affect on health and the environment on a global scale, documenting the need for change, and



suggesting an alternative to the present poor disposal procedures. Performing research on e-

waste has provided the means to reflect on the consequences of the lack of proper recycling

efforts. If a change is not made on a multi-national scale, pollution rates will increase. The

environment will suffer from additional amounts of chemical and hazardous material disposal.

What happens to the environment will also affect the health of numerous individuals who use

primitive methods to reclaim components from electronic devices and also those that live near

the abundant discard piles. Nations and individuals will continue to seek the easiest and most

cost effective way of dealing with e-waste. Unfortunately, that method all too often means

passing the problem off to someone else. Shipping e-waste to third-world countries is seen as

less trouble than creating an environmentally conscious solution. With the popularity of new,

more advanced, or cheaper electronics, the problem of what to do with the unwanted devices

causes the waste issue to escalate.

Strengths and Weaknesses of the Study

Strengths of this electronic recycling study include the large range of data. The 29 years

of recycling information assists in increasing the accuracy of the results and allows for trends in

recycling to be examined.

Weaknesses in this study include the wide variety of organizations that contributed

recycling data. No single source of recycling statistics was publicly available to cover a large

time span. Industry-wide electronics manufacturers and recyclers’ data were only available for

purchase instead of readily available for public review. There were insufficient data reported

from each state on a timely basis. The majority of states have no laws or policies and those that



do have no ramifications for not meeting these regulations. The federal agency, the EPA, does

not even provide its own data on a regular yearly basis.

Recommendations

Based on the project results, the country should embrace electronics recycling on a more

aggressive scale. More specifically, the federal government and each state need to enact more

strict regulations concerning the proper disposal and recycling of electronic waste. Governments

need to promote recycling centers accepting e-waste without charging fees for disposal. The

United States needs to ratify the Basel Convention on making the export of electronic waste

illegal to other countries. Manufacturers need to see the benefits of designing products more

modular with ease of upgrading in mind with the end result being less cost to bring new products

to market.

Of three alternatives described, only one has a clear advantage over the others in reducing

the impact of electronic waste. The existing method and procedure in place today promotes

shipping waste overseas. It provides no incentive to increase the recycling infrastructure and

does not regulate e-waste with a strong central set of policies.

Creating an alternative on banning exports of electronic waste is another consideration,

but also has flaws. Passing regulations making overseas shipping illegal without providing for a

way to dispose of and recycle unwanted devices will only stockpile the problem. Regulations

would reduce the impact on third-world nations, but would only increase the U. S. reliance upon

landfills and storage.



An aggressive recycling alternative is the best solution for reducing unwanted electronics.

This alternative needs a multi-pronged approach to be considered a success. Banning all exports

of electronic waste should be implemented. This will give relief to recipient nations’

environment and public health. The federal and state governments need to provide incentives to

create the recycling infrastructure necessary for environmentally friendly recycling and disposal.

Tax breaks, tax credits, loans, and other considerations need to be implemented to jumpstart the

recycling industry. Strict federal laws need to be created and enforced on the proper handling of

e-waste. This would allow for a strong central set of policies that would be enforced the same

everywhere. States have not been consistent in enacting recycling strategies. Finally, recycling

needs to be placed in the minds of the manufacturers themselves. The European Union’s “take

back” policy makes manufacturers receive unwanted devices for recycle. This policy causes

them to put recycling considerations in their product design. If “take back” were implemented in

the United States, then being required to take back products would put further pressure on

manufacturers. Creating products with more standardized and interchangeable components

would assist in the reduction of e-waste and would give additional incentive for manufacturers to

“take back” electronics. Instead of re-designing from scratch, the ability to re-use components

which meet production standards could lower the total cost of bringing new products to market.

Creating more modular components with the ability to easily remove them to upgrade the

product has the potential of benefitting both the manufacturing process and the disposal process.

As the recommended method is developed, a plan could be devised to evaluate this alternative.

A hypothesis could be considered in examining the aggressive recycling alternative. A

study could be devised which compared the amount of e-waste recycled prior to ceasing all



exports versus the amount of e-waste recycled after exports were banned. A paired t test could

be implemented to analyze before and after recycling amounts. The results could offer further

insight into electronic waste recycling.

Suggestions for Future Research

Additional research in the area of electronic waste is needed. This study has explained

the need to increase e-waste recycling; however, further studies in related areas could assist in

the overall goal of reducing electronic waste. Delving further into how e-waste is processed

could provide valuable information. Research needs to look closely at how items are

disassembled, processed, and individual components reclaimed. This research could assist in

increasing the amount of e-waste recycled versus exporting or discarding in a landfill.



References

Agoramoorthy, G. (2006, May 4). Computer 'recycling' builds garbage dumps overseas.

Nature, 441(7089), 25-25. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from MEDLINE database. doi

:10.1038/441025b.

Collaborating on e-scrap standards. (2007, May). Industrial Engineer: IE, Retrieved March 12,

2009, from Business Source Elite database.

Descy, D. (2007, July). Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: Good Earth and the Electronics Dilemma.

TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, pp. 3,5. Retrieved

March 12, 2009, doi:10. 1007/s11528-007-0045-5.

Disposition and End-of-Life Options for Personal Computers. (1997). Retrieved September 8,

2009, from http://www. ce. cmu. edu/greendesign/comprec/NEWREPORT. PDF

Electronics Recycling Volumes Climb 7% in 2008, According to Newly Published Index (2008).

Retrieved September 8, 2009, from http://www. electronicsrecycling. org/public/

UserDocuments/Press%20Release%20Per%20Capita%20Collection%20Index%204_30_

09. pdf

Environmental Protection Agency. (2008a). Electronics Waste Management In The United

States Approach I. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 27, 2009, from

http://www. epa. gov/epawaste/conserve/materials/ecycling/ docs/app-1. pdf



Environmental Protection Agency. (2008b). Statistics on the Management of Used and End-of-

Life Electronics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 18, 2009, from http://www.

epa. gov/ osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/ manage. htm

Huo, X. , Peng, L. , Xu, X. ,Zheng, L. , Qiu, B. ,Qi, Z. , et al. (2007, July). Elevated blood

lead levels of children in Guiyu, an electronic waste recycling town in China.

Environmental Health Perspectives, 115(7), 1113-1117. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from

MEDLINE database.

Li, Y. , Richardson, J. , Walker, A. , & Yuan, P. (2006, April). TCLP Heavy Metal Leaching

of Personal Computer Components. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 132(4), 497-

504. Retrieved March 12, 2009, doi:10. 1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2006)132:4(497).

McConnell, M. (2009, January). TAKING OUT THE ELECTRONIC TRASH IREM Member

divulges methods for disposing of e-waste. Journal of Property Management, 74(1), 60-

61. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from Business Source Elite database.

Minimum Hardware Requirements for a Windows 98 Installation. (2007). Retrieved April 27,

2009, from http://support. microsoft. com/kb/182751

Perry, T. (2005, June). Recycling Behind Bars. IEEE Spectrum, 42(6), 10-13. Retrieved March

12, 2009, from Military & Government Collection database.

planned obsolescence. The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third

Edition. Retrieved March 27, 2009, from http://dictionary. reference.

com/browse/planned obsolescence

Schmidt, C. (2006, April). Unfair trade: e-waste in Africa. Environmental Health Perspectives,

114(4), a232-5. Retrieved March 12, 2009, from MEDLINE database.



Statsoft, Inc. (1992-2007). WebSTATISTICA (data analysis software system), Version 7.

www. statsoft.com, Tulsa: Author.

System requirements for Microsoft Windows 2000 operating systems. (2007). Retrieved April

27, 2009, from http://support. microsoft.com/kb/304297

System requirements for Windows Vista. (2007). Retrieved April 2009, from http://support.

microsoft.com/kb/919183

System requirements for Windows XP operating systems. (2007). Retrieved April 27, 2009,

from http://support. microsoft. com/kb/314865

Choosing A Computer Screen; LCD or CRT?. Retrieved May 26, 2010, from http://ergonomics.

ucla. edu/articles/LCDvCRT. pdf

Windows 7 system requirements. (2009). Retrieved August 4, 2009, from http://windows.

microsoft. com/en-us/windows7/products/ system-requirements

Windows 95 Installation Requirements. (2007). Retrieved April 27, 2009, from http://support.

microsoft. com/kb/138349