Article and Review E-Waste: A Global Hazard
Annals of Global Health
Volume 80, Issue 4, July–August 2014, Pages 286-295
Abstract
Background
Waste from end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment, known as e-waste, is a rapidly growing
global problem. E-waste contains valuable materials that have an economic value when recycled.
Unfortunately, most of the e-waste is recycled in the unregulated informal sector and results in
significant risk for toxic exposures to the recyclers, who are frequently women and children.
Objectives
The aim of this study was to document the extent of the problems associated with inappropriate e-waste
recycling practices.
Methods
This was a narrative review that highlighted where e-waste is generated, where it is recycled, the range
of adverse environmental exposures, the range of adverse health consequences, and the policy
frameworks that are intended to protect vulnerable populations from inappropriate e-waste recycling
practices.
Findings
The amount of e-waste being generated is increasing rapidly and is compounded by both illegal
exportation and inappropriate donation of electronic equipment, especially computers, from developed
to developing countries. As little as 25% of e-waste is recycled in formal recycling centers with adequate
worker protection. The health consequences of both direct exposures during recycling and indirect
exposures through environmental contamination are potentially severe but poorly studied. Policy
frameworks aimed at protecting vulnerable populations exist but are not effectively applied.
Conclusions
E-waste recycling is necessary, but it should be conducted in a safe and standardized manor. The
acceptable risk thresholds for hazardous, secondary e-waste substances should not be different for
developing and developed countries. However, the acceptable thresholds should be different for
children and adults given the physical differences and pronounced vulnerabilities of children. Improving
occupational conditions for all e-waste workers and striving for the eradication of child labor is non-
negotiable.
Introduction
The adverse consequences for health and the ecology of exposure to waste products from human
consumption have long been recognized. A relatively recently recognized hazardous waste product
comes from discarded electrical and electronic equipment (EEE).1 Such products contain costly
components that have economic value if recycled. However, EEE also contains potentially hazardous
substances that may be directly released or generated during the recycling process, generating what is
known as e-waste. The creation and release of hazardous byproducts often occurs in the so-called
“informal” sector of e-waste recycling where modern industrial processes are not used and where
worker protection often is inadequate. Unprotected exposure to e-waste is not advisable for any
individual. Of exposed groups, children are particularly vulnerable to many of the components in e-
waste. In this article, we will review the scope of the problem associated with discarded EEE and
component recycling, outline the regulatory approaches to minimize adverse health effects, and
highlight current areas for improvement.
The Scope of the Problem: Defining, Quantifying, and Tracking E-waste
EEE includes items that have either a battery or a power cord. E-waste generated from discarded EEE
is commonly divided into 3 main categories: large household appliances (refrigerators and washing
machines), information technology (IT) and telecom (personal computers, monitors, and laptops), and
consumer equipment (TVs, DVD players, mobile phones, mp3 players, and leisure and sporting
equipment). Equipment components including batteries, circuit boards, plastic casings, cathode-ray
tubes, activated glass, and lead capacitors also are considered to be e-waste. There are varying
estimates as to the amount of domestic, regional, and global e-waste produced. According to StEP
(Solving the E-waste Problem Initiative), the 2012 global generation of e-waste totaled 45.6 million
metric tons.3The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) approximated that the amount of e-
waste produced in 2012 is enough to fill 100 Empire State buildings and averages to more than 6.8 kg
(15 lb) for every living person. The global population is nearly 7 billion but although there are only 4.5
billion toilets worldwide, there are estimated to be at least 6 billion mobile phones. In 2012 alone, China
reportedly generated 11.1 million tons of e-waste and the United States produced 10 million tons.This
means that, on average, each American generates 29.5 kg of e-waste compared with the less than 5 kg
per person in China. These numbers likely underestimate the actual total amounts of e-waste.
The sheer volume of e-waste is problematic, but more concerning is the rapid increase of this complex,
global waste stream. E-waste is one of, if not the, fastest growing source of waste worldwide. The 2012
UN report projected that by 2017 global e-waste will increase a further 33% from 49.7 million to 65.4
million tons per annum. E-waste from cell phones in India alone is expected to increase 18-fold by 2020
The total amount of e-waste produced is exponentially increasing because of multiple factors.
Consumer demand and a high obsolescence rate lead to frequent and unnecessary purchases of
EEE.For example, new cell phone models are released at highly regular intervals. Not only do cell
phone models evolve, but the accessories, such as chargers, often change with each new model. Short
innovation cycles and low recycling rates contribute to rapidly rising quantities of e-waste. The
acceptable consumer life span of EEE has been dropping, causing significant additions to e-waste. The
average life span of computers has reportedly dropped in recent years by 50% from 4 to 2 years.
Computers and cell phones are used for a wide variety purposes, including educational campaigns
where a laptop is provided to each student. Computer access and skills are valuable to education but
such initiatives also have the unintended consequence of adding to the global burden of e-waste.
E-waste is a global, interregional, and domestic problem. Of the 20 million to 50 million tons generated
yearly, it is estimated that 75% to 80% is shipped to countries in Asia and Africa for “recycling” and
disposal. Loopholes in current e-waste regulations allow for the export of e-waste from developed to
developing countries under the guise of “donation” and “recycling” purposes. The Parties to the Basel
Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal (The
Basel Convention),launched The Partnership for Action on Computing Equipment (PACE) to facilitate
environmentally sound management of used and end-of-life computing equipment. Among other tasks,
PACE has provided guidelines on what functionality computers and computer components, including
batteries, should have to be considered usable computers and, as such, suitable for donation.
According to PACE, a charitable donation is the “transfer of computing equipment or its components,
that are not waste, for their intended direct reuse for purposes of charity without any monetary rewards
or benefits, or for barter.”The UNEP Guidelines on Environmentally Sound Testing, Refurbishment and
Repair of Used Computing Equipment provide a set of principles for donations of functioning used
computing equipment. These principles are to:
1.provide a useful product;
2.provide an appropriate product;
3.ensure and verify availability of technical support in recipient community.
4.test, certify and label functionality.
5.ensure availably of training in recipient community;
6.ensure full transparency, contract, notification, and consent prior to delivery; and
7.export in accordance with applicable national and international controls.
If followed as closely as possible, these principles could drastically minimize the amount of end-of-life
computing equipment that is mislabeled and exported as donated “functional used computing
equipment” that is really waste.
Distinguishing between types of e-waste is essential. The Basel Convention technical guidelines on
transboundary movements of e-waste and used EEE differentiate waste streams based on functionality
and the need or potential for repair (Table 1).16 To test the functionality of used EEE, specifically
computing equipment, one can conduct a Power on Self Test (POST).
Classifying the Multiple types of E-waste
Type of Stream: New and functioning EEE
- New products or components being delivered and shipped between different countries. This stream is
classified as “non-waste” by default (new products for distribution).
Type of Stream: Used and functioning EEE suitable for direct reuse
-The equipment needs no further repair, refurbishment, or hardware upgrading. This stream can be
classified as “non-waste”; however, in some countries export/import restrictions apply.
Type of Stream: Used and nonfunctioning but repairable EEE
-Equipment that can be repaired, returning it to a working condition performing the essential functions it
was designed for. Testing is required to determine this condition. Classification of this stream is under
discussion by Basel Parties, as the repair process may result in hazardous parts being removed in the
country of repair, thus possibly resulting in transboundary movement of hazardous waste. Some
countries would classify this stream as “waste”; others classify it as “non-waste.”
Type of Stream: Used and nonfunctioning and nonrepairable EEE
-The common form of “e-waste.” Can be mislabeled as “used EEE.” Should be classified as “waste.”
WEEE EEE that is waste within the meaning of the Waste Framework Directive context, including
components and subassemblies. Should be classified as “waste.”EEE, electrical and electronic
equipment; WEEE, waste electrical and electronic equipment.
The final destination of nearly 70% of e-waste is either unreported or unknown. Approximately 25% (2.1
million tons) of the estimated 8.7 million tons of e-waste produced in the European Union (EU) each
year is collected and recycled in formal processing plants where workers are protected by modern
industrial standards. The remaining 75% is added to the “hidden flow” of untraced and unreported e-
waste.10 The European Environment Agency estimates that up to 1.3 million tons of discarded EEE are
exported from the EU annually mostly to Africa and Asia.6 In 2005, European seaports were inspected
and 47% of waste bound for export was not being exported legally. In 2003, 23,000 metric tons of
undeclared e-waste from the United Kingdom was illegally exported to India, Africa, and Asia.18 Eighty
percent of e-waste generated in the United States reportedly contributes to the global “hidden flow” of e-
waste; it is not registered meaning it is either unofficially exported, dumped into landfills, or incinerated.
The 20% of e-waste generated in the United States that is formally recycled includes the “official” export
of e-waste to India and China. Official e-waste exports from the United States encompass donated, and
often defunct, EEE.
The practice of developed countries exporting e-waste to developing countries has become
commonplace for a variety of reasons. High labor costs and stringent environmental regulations for
hazardous waste disposal in developed countries encourage the exportation of e-waste to less
developed and less regulated countries. Importing e-waste for recycling may provide some short-term
economic benefits. However, many developing countries lack the technology, facilities, and resources
needed to properly recycle and dispose of e-waste. Recyclers in developing countries that receive e-
waste from other countries frequently rely on rudimentary techniques to extract valuable materials from
e-waste. E-waste is physically dismantled by using tools such as hammers, chisels, and screw drivers.
Printed circuit boards are heated and components are removed. Gold and other metals are recovered
from the stripping of metals in open-pit acid baths. Plastics are chipped and melted without necessary
and protective ventilation.Burning electrical cables, often in open pits and at relatively low temperatures,
to retrieve copper is one of the most common crude recycling practices. Such primitive techniques may
appear efficient to the untrained and less equipped recyclers, but they do not ensure environmental
protection or occupational safety. In fact, these rudimentary methods may lead to the recovery of
materials that are only worth a fraction of the total potential economic return. When developed countries
export e-waste for recycling, the opportunity to establish more safe, clean, and efficient techniques is
lost.
Sources of Exposure
E-waste recycling can lead to direct or indirect exposure to a variety of hazardous substances that are
contained in EEE or formed and released by unsafe recycling practices Direct exposure entails skin
contact with harmful substances, the inhalation of fine and coarse particles, and the ingestion of
contaminated dust. Individuals who directly engage in e-waste recycling with poor protection incur high
levels of direct, occupational exposure. Unsafe recycling techniques used to regain valuable materials
often increase the risk for hazardous exposures. There often is a lack of suitable off-gas treatment
during such recycling processes, particularly smelting.
Potential Hazardous E-waste Exposures
Plastics are burned, often at low temperatures, to either dispose of computer casings or to retrieve
metals from electronic chips and other components. Incineration releases heavy metals such as lead,
cadmium, and mercury. The toxic fumes released by these techniques often contain polyhalogenated
dioxins and furans generated by incomplete combustion at low temperatures. Polystyrene form, rubber,
tires, crop residue, or biomass may be used as fuel for these fires and can cause harmful exposures,
independent of the burning e-waste. Additionally, the working materials used in rudimentary recycling
can be injurious. Working materials include cleaning solvents and reagents such as cyanide and other
strong leaching acids. Acid leaching can lead to direct contact with liquid acid and the inhalation of acid
fumes. “De-soldering” of circuit boards to recover rare and precious metals can release lead-saturated
fumes. The combination of toxic byproducts, working materials, and the actual e-waste may lead to
adverse health outcomes.
Environmental contamination that is the result of improper e-waste recycling can lead to indirect
exposures through contamination of soil, air, and water around e-waste recycling sites. Water
contamination has been documented in areas surrounding e-recycling towns in China; metal-
contaminated sediments and elevated levels of dissolved metals have been reported in rivers in and
around the e-waste recycling town of Guiyu.The release of hazardous chemicals into the environment
can lead to bioaccumulation, food contamination, and widespread ecological exposure. Children may be
exposed in schools, playgrounds, or homes that are near an e-waste recycling site. Concern
surrounding transplacental and breast milk exposure is high, although no direct data on the levels of
exposure exists. Environmental contamination and resulting ecological exposure requires intensive
research not only because hazardous e-waste recycling materials have the ability to spread far
distances but they also possess high environmental persistence capabilities. With longer half-lives,
these substances have the ability to remain in the environment for extended periods. Ecological
exposure may have long-term and widespread health risks.
An additional source of indirect exposure to toxicants resulting from improper e-waste recycling
processes is “take-home exposure.” This exposure pathway refers to secondhand exposure to
hazardous substances incurred, especially by children, when the substance is brought into the home on
clothing, materials, or other objects that have been contaminated with harmful residue from e-waste
recycling. Take-home exposure has the capacity to cause low-level, chronic, and long-term exposure.
E-waste Recycling: Formal and Informal Sectors
The final destination of discarded EEE is frequently not in the same country or even on the same
continent where the equipment was purchased or used. Exportation of e-waste from developed to
developing countries is common. It is estimated that 23% of e-waste generated in developed countries
is exported to developing countries. E-waste recycling can be designated as part of the “formal” or
“informal” economic sector. Formal e-waste recycling entails specially constructed facilities with proper
equipment that allow for the safe extraction of the salvageable materials. These facilities, for the most
part, ensure safe working conditions. Not surprisingly, these facilities are expensive to build and run so
they rarely exist in less developed countries. Due to variable safety standards, some workers in these
facilities may still be at risk for low-dose exposures. Despite proper construction and technique, the
surrounding communities may still be at risk for environmental contamination and exposure. “Informal”
e-waste recycling is typically characterized as being beyond the reach of official governance,
unregulated, lacking structure, unregistered, and illegal.
Developed countries sometimes export older EEE as donations to developing countries. These
electronics often die sooner rather than later only increasing the total burden of waste in the “donation”-
receiving countries. The demand for imported foreign e-waste has increased as under- or unemployed
populations have discovered the potential economic gains from recycling e-waste. The demand in Asia
for e-waste heightened when scrap yards found they could extract copper, iron, silicon, nickel, and gold.
A mobile phone is 19% copper and 8% iron Countries where formal e-waste recycling has been
recorded include China India, Vietnam, Pakistan, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka,
Thailand, and Kenya.Official e-waste recycling facilities should conduct environmentally sound
management (ESM).15 ESM is defined as “taking all practicable steps to ensure that used and/or end-
of-life products and wastes are managed in a manner which will protect human health and the
environment.”There are 7 designated ESM criteria:
1.top management commitment to a systematic approach;
2.risk assessment;
3.risk prevention and minimization;
4.legal requirements;
5.awareness, competency, and performance measurement;
6.corrective action; and
7.transparency and verification.
Some companies offer free take-back services for old electrical and electronic products. In China, for
example, Nokia and Lenovo were among the first companies to do so.20 Despite the lack of a formal e-
waste recycling network in China, there are multiple certified e-waste treatment plans in many of the
major cities including 2 in Beijing, 6 in Tianjin, 7 in Shanghai, 4 in Suzhou, 1 in Huizhou, and 1 in
Harbin. There are 2 e-waste recycling sites in China that have been subject to a number of a studies on
the potential hazards of e-waste recycling: Guiyu in Guangdong province and Taizhou region in
Zhejiang province. These towns typify e-waste recycling sites in China. Guiyu has around 150,000
inhabitants and 80% of families are involved in e-waste recycling.E-waste recycling reportedly began in
Guiyu in the late 1980s. Laqiao is a town of 400,000 people in Taizhou and is the main e-waste
recycling site. At least 10% of the population in Laqiao participates in e-waste recycling which first
started in the 1970s. There are also e-waste recycling sites in Bengaluru and Delhi, India.West Africa
has e-waste recycling sites in Nigeria (Lagos) and Ghana (Accra, Agbogbloshie).
The informal sector of e-waste recycling is well supplied, mostly unregulated, and largely unknown.
Tracking the “hidden flow” of global e-waste is difficult and costly. Informal e-waste recycling often is
conducted by people with little to no protective equipment or technology. Informal e-waste recycling is
often home-based and family-run. Individuals, families, and communities that dismantle e-waste often
have made the choice of poison over poverty.
Some e-waste workers are not fully, if at all, aware of the potential health risks involved with e-waste
recycling. Among some communities, e-waste recycling is considered more desirable than scavenging
through nonelectronic waste. Much of the informal e-waste recycling done in scrap yards and homes is
done by children. E-waste is informally processed in many countries, but a high-volume of informal e-
waste recycling has been reported in China, Ghana, Nigeria, India, Thailand, the Philippines, and
Vietnam China and India are among the countries where the largest amounts of e-waste is informally
processed In India, an estimated 25,000 workers are employed at unregulated e-waste scrap yards in
Delhi alone, where 10,000 to 20,000 tons of e-waste is processed annually. The informal sector thrives
under slack environmental regulation, high demand for second-hand EEE, and home collection of used
EEE by individual recyclers. Some countries, such as China, do not have a municipal e-waste collection
network system in place. This absence creates opportunities for home-based e-waste collection and
recycling. The informal and formal sectors of e-waste recycling are interdependent. Not only is informal
e-waste recycling likely hazardous for human health and the environment, but it also leads to supply
deficiencies in the formal sector. Currently, e-waste scavenging provides a source of livelihood, albeit a
risky one, to large numbers of people in developing countries
Vulnerable Populations
Marginalized populations bear a disproportionate amount of the negative effects of improper e-waste
practices. Most e-waste recyclers, in either the formal or informal sector, are poor and less educated
than the respective population average. E-waste recycling provides a source of income for people who
have few other economic opportunities. E-waste recycling, especially in the informal sector, is geared
toward high throughput and output. Occupational safety and environmental protection are not prioritized.
Poor children and women, especially those living in urban areas, represent a large portion of e-waste
recyclers. Due to the gaps in data, particularly in the informal sector, the total number of children
exposed to occupational health and safety risks from e-waste is difficult to estimate. However, the
International Labor Organization has reported that e-waste workers are often children Children are
considered ideal e-waste workers because they have small, dexterous hands that help them easily
dismantle discarded EEE.
The exploitation of children within the e-waste recycling industry is especially concerning given the
physiological attributes that contribute to a child’s vulnerability. Exposures to hazardous substances,
such as polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxins, at e-waste sites are higher for children than for adults.
Children are still growing so their intake of water, food, and air in proportion to their height and weight is
significantly higher compared to the intake of adults. Children also have a much larger ratio of surface
area to body weight than adults, resulting in an elevated risk for dermal absorption. Additionally, children
have a decreased ability to detoxify substances. During growth, a child’s developing systems are
significantly more sensitive to damage. Children often spend more time outdoors where hazardous
exposures are within closer proximity. From a behavioral standpoint, young children typically exhibit
hand-to-mouth behavior and crawl on the ground, which predictably leads to the direct ingestion of
potentially harmful substances. Children have an underdeveloped risk perception that can lead to
harmful exposures from e-waste.Finally, children have a longer life expectancy during which they would
live with the handicaps that injuries or exposure to toxic substances can provoke.
Effects of Exposure
The short- and long-term effects of exposure to hazardous e-waste substances are not fully understood,
however, there is research on the association between e-waste exposure and higher levels of chemicals
and metals in human-derived biological samples . The toxicity of many individual substances found in e-
waste is well documented, however, the toxicity of the mixtures of substances likely to be encountered
through e-waste recycling is less well known. Heavy metals and halogenated compounds appear to
have a major influence on potential health risks.
The potential adverse health effects of exposure to e-waste have been reviewed recently and may
include changes in lung function, thyroid function, hormone expression, birth weight, birth outcomes,
childhood growth rates, mental health, cognitive development, cytotoxicity, and genotoxity. It is also
possible that exposure to hazardous chemicals produced by e-waste recycling may have carcinogenic
effects and endocrine disrupting properties that could lead to lifelong changes due to neurodevelopment
anomalies, abnormal reproductive development, intellectual impairment, and attention difficulties
Elevated levels of 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine, a urinary biomaker of generalized, cellular oxidative
stress, were observed in the post-work-shift urine of e-waste workers. One study of Chinese e-waste
workers documented significantly higher levels of serum polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and
thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) than found in the control group. The increased exposure to PBDEs
from e-waste recycling may lead to interference with the thyroid hormone system and other adverse
health effects. Decreased lung function has been observed in boys aged 8 to 9 years living in an e-
waste recycling town but not in boys living in a control town. Significant negative correlations between
forced vital capacity, a measure of lung function, and blood chromium concentrations have been
reported. Lead is also an established neurotoxicant that can lead to intellectual impairment and damage
to the nervous, blood, and reproductive systems. Research findings indicate there is no threshold below
which lead exposure does not have adverse effects on a developing nervous system Brominated flame
retardants have a long half-life and reportedly lead to impaired learning and memory function; altered
thyroid, estrogen, and hormone systems; behavioral problems; and neurotoxicity. Cadmium tends to
bioaccumulate and can be highly toxic, especially to kidneys and bones. Mercury is thought to cause
damage to the brain and central nervous system, particularly during early development. The number of
harmful substances that humans could be directly or indirectly exposed to by e-waste is vast and
difficult to quantify. The concentrations of these materials are variable but often are notably high,
especially within the actual e-waste sites. Even if the concentrations of these substances are low, the
chemicals are often still toxic to humans and persistent in the environment. The heterogeneous nature
of hazardous exposures contributes to the difficulties surrounding the study of the effects e-waste
exposures.
There are additional aspects of e-waste exposure that may lead to adverse health outcomes. Even if
daily exposure is low, cumulative exposure is often high and extremely hard to measure. Even when the
effects of a single chemical at certain levels are well studied the effects of the mixtures of hazardous e-
waste substances are not well known. Within a mixture of chemicals, some substances may have
synergistic or modifying effects that could be extremely harmful.The reagents used in the recycling
process, such cyanide and other strong leaching acids, may contribute to the hazardous chemical e-
waste mixtures. Not only do the daily and cumulative doses of exposure matter when calculating risk,
but also the timing, or “life stage of exposure” is highly significant. Clearly, dismantling e-waste can also
directly lead to injury. Certain individuals, such as children, are more vulnerable given the sensitivity of
their developing systems. The timing of exposure also may indicate the expected duration of certain
resulting health effects of exposure.
Much research is needed on e-waste exposure and potential adverse health effects. Strong evidence
that links occupation exposure of hazardous e-waste substances to health effects is lacking. The
potential causal relationship between exposure and observed negative effects requires additional,
extensive research. Also, the combination of e-waste secondary chemicals and biological agents is
unknown. For example, the interaction between lead and mercury with the malaria parasite requires
further investigation. On a very basic, human level, research and development of treatment measures
for those exposed to hazardous e-waste materials is essential. Research on e-waste hazards can be
limited by poor access to uncontrolled settings, limited resources, and political and ethical concerns.
Monitoring and surveillance, especially of informal e-waste recycling operations, is sparse. Despite
these research obstacles, further studies are vital. Not only are risk assessments of e-waste exposure
critical, but also research that will help informal local, regional, and global e-waste recycling policy is
urgently needed.
How the Health Care Sector Contributes to E-waste
By definition, health care waste encompasses all waste produced from health care facilities, research
centers, and laboratories, as well as waste from medical activities. Approximately 80% of the waste
generated by health care facilities is similar to general, domestic waste and is considered
“nonhazardous.” The remaining 20% is considered “hazardous” as it may pose a chemical, radioactive,
or physical hazard to the environment and to human health. Although the common form of health care
waste includes syringes, needles, and expired pharmaceuticals, it is the discarded electrical health care
equipment that comprises health care e-waste.Health care facilities use, and thus discard, more
specialized medical devices and equipment. Examples of such include, but are not limited to,
sphygmomanometers, electrocardiograms, spectrophotometers, and microscopes. Some of these
devices and appliances come into direct contact with various chemicals and biologic agents that may be
harmful to human health. Before disposal, medical equipment requires technical and safe treatment,
which includes disinfection before repair or recycling. More research on the management practices of
health care e-waste is essential.
There is a global effort, prompted by the Minamata convention, to discontinue the use of mercury in
health care by 2020. Mercury-containing thermometers and sphygmomanometers are being replaced
with their respective electronic counterparts. This system-wide replacement of mercury-containing
devices may, in the long run, increase the amount of health care e-waste. Health care facilities
management needs to consider the life span of the medical devices they procure and then discard. E-
waste management must be integrated into hospital management policies and plans. It is also essential
that health care facilities establish waste registers for their EEE alongside the nonelectrical medical
equipment inventories. Health care facilities, organizations, providers, and professionals must not only
follow proper e-waste management procedures but they must also encourage the use of regulated and
safe e-waste recycling paths in an effort to ensure health at all levels.
E-waste Regulation and Policy
In the past, most e-waste regulations have been prompted by and focused on environmental protection.
Recently, e-waste guidelines have been adopted and enforced because of human health concerns.The
1989 Basel Convention, which has been ratified by 181 countries, prohibits the export of e-
waste.Despite export regulations this convention has a loophole that permits e-waste exportation if it is
intended for “re-use.” This detail leads to a large quantity of near end-of-life EEE being exported. These
older electronic products have short life spans, if any at all, once they reach the export countries. As a
result, the e-waste designated for “re-use” only ends up contributing to the e-waste problem in the
developing, recipient countries. Within the EU, the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive
requires manufacturers and importers within member states to take back their products from consumers
and ensure sound environmental methods are used to dispose of the e-waste.
One of the first steps toward e-waste regulation was made in 1988 when 4000 tons of toxic waste from
Italy was dumped in Koko Port, Nigeria. This led to the promotion of the Harmful Waste Decree 4, which
criminalized the transportation, deposit, import, selling, buying, or negotiating that involved trade of
harmful waste in Nigeria. Failing to abide by this decree could lead to a life sentence in prison. Nigeria
had a notable influence on the text of the Basel Convention and was also the first African country to sign
and ratify the agreement. Despite these actions, Nigeria currently faces considerable threats from e-
waste. The Bamako Convention on the ban of the import into Africa and the control of transboundary
movement and management of hazardous wastes within Africa is a treaty among African countries that
prohibits the import of hazardous wastes into member countries.
Several initiatives have attempted to raise awareness of the need for appropriate regulation to protect
against the health consequences of improper e-waste recycling practices, including the following:
the Libreville Declaration framed during the first Inter-Ministerial Conference on Health and
Environment in Africa in 2008;
the Busan Pledge for Action on Children's Environmental Health (2009);
the Strategic Approach to Integrated Chemical Management's expanded Global Plan of Action,
issued at the International Conference on Chemical Management (2012); and
the Geneva Declaration on E-waste and Children's Health (2013).
There are several suggested methods to help guide the improvement and strengthening of e-waste
policy. These methods entail Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), Life Cycle Assessment (LCA),
Material Flow Analysis (MFA) and Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA). EPR promotes the “3 Rs”: “Reduce,
Reuse, and Recycle” and shifts the responsibility of safe e-waste recycling pathways from the municipal
authorities to the producers. As defined by The OECD this environmental policy approach provides a
strong incentive for companies to produce easily recycled and less toxic electronics. EPR is difficult to
implement given the resistance of financially endowed producers. The LCA uses a “cradle-to-grave”
approach to consider the environmental and total impact of a specific product. Obstacles arise from the
lack of inventory data, particularly in developing countries, which is required to complete this
assessment. The MFA traces a substance from production to application to recycling and disposal. As
expected, it can be challenging to trace products. The MCA is a critical analysis tool for decision making
as it provides a complete picture of alternative scenarios and solutions. Criteria are ranked according to
shared priorities. With this technique, stakeholders can weigh the cost and benefits for all involved
parties. Regulating recycling, particularly within the informal economic sector, is challenging. Banning
informal recycling is typically ineffective because the practice is easily relocated due to the nonexistent
requirements on labor or facilities. Incentive-based policies that protect human health and the
environment must be proactive and practical.
Conclusion
E-waste recycling is necessary but it should be conducted in a safe and standardized manor. When
possible, e-waste should be refurbished and reused as a complete product instead of dismantled.When
refurbishment in not possible, e-waste should be dismantled by trained, protected, and well-
compensated workers in technologically advanced e-waste recycling facilities in both developed and
developing countries. There are several fundamental principles from which all e-waste regulation should
be based on. First, acceptable risk thresholds for hazardous, secondary e-waste substances should not
be different for developing and developed countries. However, the acceptable thresholds should be
different for children and adults given the physical differences and pronounced vulnerabilities of children
Completely eliminating the presence of toxic components in EEE, although efficient, is not realistic.
Although there are research needs, educational and awareness programs on the potential risks of e-
waste recycling also should be developed and implemented. These programs are of vital importance in
developing countries.Improving occupational conditions for all e-waste workers and striving for the
eradication of child labor is non-negotiable. Interventions should be specific to the local culture, the
geography, and the limitations of the particularly vulnerable communities. Policies that would provide
incentives to promote safe, regulated, and recompensed recycling for e-waste should be universal.
