ARTICLE

pubs.acs.org/est

Institutional Disposition and Management of End-of-Life Electronics

Callie W. Babbitt,,* Eric Williams,, and Ramzy Kahhat

Golisano Institute for Sustainability, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York, USA
School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

bS Supporting Information
ABSTRACT: Institutions both public and private face a challenge to develop policies to
manage purchase, use, and disposal of electronics. Environmental considerations play an
increasing role in addition to traditional factors of cost, performance and security.
Characterizing current disposition practices for end-of-life electronics is a key step in
developing policies that prevent negative environmental and health impacts while maximizing potential for positive social and economic benets though reuse. To provide a baseline,
we develop the rst characterization of quantity, value, disposition, and ows of end-of-life
electronics at a major U.S. educational institution. Results of the empirical study indicate that
most end-of-rst-life electronics were resold through public auction to individuals and small
companies who refurbish working equipment for resale or sell unusable products for
reclamation of scrap metal. Desktop and laptop computers sold for refurbishing and resale
averaged U.S. $20 100 per unit, with computers sold directly to individuals for reuse
reaching $250 350 per unit. This detailed assessment was coupled with a benchmarking
survey of end-of-life electronics management practices at other U.S. universities. Survey results indicate that while auctions are still
commonplace, an increasing number of institutions are responding to environmental concerns by creating partnerships with local
recycling and resale entities and mandating domestic recycling. We use the analyses of current disposition practices as input to
discuss institutional strategies for managing electronics. One key issue is the tension between benets of used equipment sales, in
terms of income for the institution and increased reuse for society, and the environmental risks because of unknown downstream
practices.

1. INTRODUCTION
Because of the rapid proliferation of information and communication technology (ICT), global ownership and use of computers
and other consumer electronics have increased at an unprecedented
rate. Although this digital revolution has the potential to expand
commercial and social systems to previously unheard of capacity,
it has also been the focus of growing concern about potentially
negative environmental and social impacts associated with manufacturing, use, and end-of-life (EOL) management of computers
and other electronic products. In particular, disposition of EOL
electronic equipment, also termed e-waste or e-scrap, has come
under increasing controversy and scrutiny by manufacturers, consumers, nongovernmental organizations, and regulators, because of
the potential for environmental, economic, and social benets and
damages, depending on how these products are managed.
Trade of second-hand electronics between developed and
developing countries has been questioned because of environmental and human health impacts generated by informal electronic recycling activities in some importer countries.1 Informal
electronic recycling activities have been recognized in China,
Ghana, India, Nigeria, and Pakistan.2 5 A wide body of research
has focused on Guiyu, China, the most well-known electronic
recycling town in the world. Results have conrmed negative
impacts related to recycling activities, such as elevated heavy metal
r 2011 American Chemical Society

concentrations in water bodies resulting from acid leaching processes to recover copper and precious metals from printed circuit
boards, high dioxin concentration in air and soil from open burning
of insulated copper cables to recover copper, and high blood lead
levels in children exposed to electronic recycling activities.6 12
On the other hand, reuse of end-of-rst-life computers can
positively impact society. The lower price of second hand computers, compared to new devices, and increasingly prevalent computer
donation programs are escalating computer accessibility in low
income communities around the world. Increased accessibility is
lauded for helping reduce the digital divide and improve contemporary education settings.13 Moreover, small and medium businesses in developing countries view the used computer trade as an
opportunity to redene traditional business. Computers are an
essential tool for running modern enterprise, and the low price of
used equipment allows more small businesses to use them.14
Additionally, there are clear economic benets in the postconsumer
computer disposition industry, particularly through asset management, refurbishment, manufacturing, materials and parts recovery,
Received: August 18, 2010
Accepted: April 25, 2011
Revised:
April 21, 2011
Published: May 09, 2011
5366

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1028469 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 53665372

Environmental Science & Technology

ARTICLE

Table 1. Characterization of End-of-Life Electronics at Arizona State University (ASU) in 2008

computer

laptop

monitor

hard drive

accessory

printer

server

copier

units sold in 2008 (estimated)

2170

303

1330

859

238

420

237

mean age in years (standard deviation)

7.4 (2.9)

8.0 (3.2)

9.4 (6.6)

11.3 (3.3)

ND

10.1 (3.1)

7.0 (2.1)

127
8.1 (2.4)

age range in years

1.4 23

2.9 16

1.2 19

8.5 16

ND

1.2 14

2.0 10

4.7 13

mean price in U.S.$ (standard deviation)

19 (5.70)

68 (35)

10 (6.50)

5 (2.10)

15 (18)

12 (10)

46 (42)

20 (8.40)

Sale price range in U.S.$

1.30 275

1.30 385

0.40 125

1.20 35

0.80 200

0.80 190

1.40 475

3.80 100

and material processing. This young and growing economic activity

creates employment in developed and developing countries. In
2006, the electronics disposition industry in the United States
created more than 19 000 jobs, more than 100% increase compared
with reported 2003 values.15
The ability to create policies and practices that prevent or reduce
negative environmental and health impacts associated with e-waste
management, while maximizing potential for positive social and
economic benets though reuse, is contingent on a thorough
understanding of the generation, characterization, and disposition
of these materials. Recent work has addressed these issues through
material ow analyses of EOL electronic products and examination
of e-waste management systems in the U.S. (e.g., refs 16 18),
primarily focusing on residential and commercial sectors. However,
it has also been demonstrated that the U.S. higher education sector
may be a major contributor to computer purchasing, use, and
disposal19 and the impacts associated with those life cycle stages. In
2010, U.S. universities may carry a total stock of close to 13 million
computers and generate over 2 million units per year for EOL
management.19 Because of both the increasing integration of
sustainable practices in higher education and relatively open
policies of data availability (compared to private rms), it was
expected that studying e-waste management practices at colleges
and universities may provide data and trends in EOL equipment
disposition and ows that could inform at a broader level.
Therefore, this study undertakes the characterization of the
quantity, age, value, disposition, and ows of computers and other
enterprise electronics through common EOL pathways for a large,
public institution of higher education. In addition to this characterization, the study also has secondary goals to (1) determine if
value of end-of-life equipment is a predictor of aftermarket use or
EOL fate, (2) assess how institutional policies can shape EOL
management practices, and (3) use this information as input to the
continual development of sustainable strategies for institutional
electronics management. To our knowledge, this is the rst
analysis of material ows and management of end-of-life electronics for higher education.

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1. Case Study. This study focused on EOL management of
institutionally owned desktop and laptop computers and related
electronic equipment at Arizona State University (ASU). This
institution was selected because it is one of the largest universities
in the U.S. (approximate enrollment of 66 000 students in 2008
and over 12 000 employees), and, therefore, expected to be
representative of other large, public institutions. Furthermore,
ASU maintains a database of all inventory purchased, including
computers and computer equipment, facilitating the investigation of equipment disposition.
2.2. Characterization of Materials Flow. This case study was
based on direct site observations, data collection, interviews, and

documentation of the disposition of computer equipment at

Arizona State University between February and August, 2008.
More details on data collection appear in the Supporting
Information (SI).
2.3. Characterization of Management: Benchmarking E-waste
Management Practices in Higher Education. To determine how
practices observed in this case study compared to other colleges and
universities across the U.S., a nonprobabilistic survey was conducted
of e-waste practices in other universities. Surveys were distributed by
email to members of the College and University Recycling Consortium email distribution list, which is comprised of recycling, surplus
operations, and sustainability managers from public and private higher
education institutions from across the U.S., from which individuals
representing 20 of these institutions responded by telephone or email.
Each participant was asked the following questions:
1. How are end-of-life electronic products (computers,
printers, monitors, other peripherals) handled at your
institution?
2. Does your institution have mandatory or voluntary procurement policies that require extended producer responsibility for end-of-life electronic products or that add frontend fees for electronic product purchase that support endof-life management?
3. Does your institution require recycling of electronic
products or materials domestically?
All responses to prompted questions were recorded, as was
any additional information or voluntary responses provided.

3. RESULTS
3.1. End-of-Life Equipment Flows and Disposition. On the
basis of the characterization of EOL electronic device sales,
Table 1 shows the estimated total flow of each type of electronic
equipment leaving ASU through surplus property sales in 2008.
Disposed equipment had widely variable ages at EOL (Table 1),
ranging from about 1-to-20 years for computers and monitors,
and 2-to-15 years for printers, copiers, and servers. However,
mean ages of all devices tended toward 7-to-10 years. This age,
calculated as the time between original equipment purchase and
disposition by the institution, likely includes both the actual time
of use of the equipment, as well as unknown periods of storage by
individuals or departments before ultimate disposition through
surplus property.
Table 1 also illustrates the wide range of sale prices for each
type of equipment, which varied according to age and quality of
equipment, as well as by the purchasing entity and the aftermarket fate of the devices. Based on interviews with purchasers
and surplus property sta, these purchasing entities included
Scrap metal dealers
E-waste recycling rms
Refurbishment rms:
5367

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1028469 |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 53665372

Environmental Science & Technology

ARTICLE

Figure 1. Share of each buying entity toward total purchases of EOL desktop (A) and laptop (B) computers.

Table 2. Revenue Streams for ASU Surplus Property Management Associated with Purchased Desktop and Laptop
Computers between February and October, 2008a
category

o Intending to export and resell working equipment (to

Mexico)
o Intending to domestically refurbish and resell equipment (in the Phoenix, AZ area)
Individuals planning personal reuse of equipment.
The percentage by which each of the above buyer entities contributes to total purchase of desktop and laptop computers is shown in
Figure 1. Close to 50% of desktop computers were purchased by
refurbishers based in Mexico and Phoenix and over 40% were
purchased by e-waste recyclers and scrap metal dealers (Figure 1A).
On the other hand, only about 30% of laptop computers were
purchased by scrap metal dealers or e-waste recyclers, with the
expected EOL pathway of recycling for material recovery, whereas
the remainder of laptops (particularly those of newer vintage) were
purchased by individuals and refurbishers, with the expected EOL
pathway of secondary use or resale (Figure 1B).
3.2. Economic Value of End-of-Life Pathways. The recorded
equipment sale price was expected to provide insight into the

total (U.S.$)

1680

5990

7680

refurbish and resale

4480

544

5030

export for resale

5120

967

6090

e-waste recycling

2410

39

2440

total

Figure 2. Desktop (A) and laptop (B) computer sale price range by
type of purchasing entity.

laptops (U.S.$)

individual reuse

scrap metal
a

desktops (U.S.$)

226

93

319

13 900

7640

21 600

Columns may not sum because of rounding.

potential value stream associated with each disposition pathway.

Of the computers characterized in Table 1, data on both the
classification of purchasing entity type (from the above list) and
sales price were available for 877 of the laptops and desktops. The
remaining computers not characterized by this assessment were
missing either price or, more likely, purchasing entity information
when buyers did not disclose any identifying details. For both
desktops and laptops, relatively clear delineations were observed in
sale price for each purchasing entity (Figure 2): less than $20 per
unit for recycling and material recovery; up to about $100 per unit
for refurbishing and resale, and up to $250 (desktops, Figure 2A)
and $400 (laptops, Figure 2B) for individual reuse. More detail on
price and age distributions for each purchasing entity appears in
the S.I. Comparably, in a recent study on importation of used
computers to Peru, mainly from the United States, shipment value
per computer in 2007 was between $10 15, $ 30 35, and $ 60 80,
for Pentium II, III, and IV computers, respectively, for computers
intended for reuse.14
Both the sales price and volume contribute to the overall
revenue stream associated with surplus auction management of
equipment. For the 877 computers for which sale price and buyer
categorization data are available, total revenue stream for each
disposition pathway was calculated (Table 2). Due to the high
frequency of laptop purchases by individuals, and the high value
associated with the reuse of laptops, this revenue stream is greater
than any other category. Further, when considering all pathways
of reuse, by individuals or by resale through a second party, these
combined revenue streams are more than six times greater than
that of total sales to scrap metal dealers or e-waste recyclers for
material recovery.
5368

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1028469 |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 53665372

Environmental Science & Technology

ARTICLE

Table 3. E-Waste Management Practices at Surveyed

Institutions
management strategy

percent usea

donation to local organization

19%

sales through public auction

direct sales to individuals

29%
38%

contracted e-waste recycling

90%

OEM technology renewal program

10%

Note: Most institutions employ multiple mechanisms, so percentage

sums to >100%.

3.3. Benchmarking E-Waste Strategies Across U.S. Higher

Education Institutions. To expand this case study, general

characteristics of e-waste management at other colleges and

universities were assessed from respondents in nonprobabilistic
surveys of campus recycling, sustainability, or surplus operation
managers. Respondents included public universities, private
colleges, and community colleges, of varying locations and sizes.
Almost 60% of these institutions employ multiple means for
disposing of EOL equipment, typically through tiered combination of sales (direct or auction) and donation of newer, functioning equipment and contracts with an e-waste recycling firm for
management of the remaining, older products. Of the institutions
with only one mechanism for equipment management, contractual e-waste recycling was used in 78% of cases. Public sales or
auctions, like that at ASU, were used by 30% of surveyed
institutions. The aggregated breakdown of e-waste management
mechanisms used at responding institutions is shown in Table 3.
In addition to these responses, numerous universities volunteered information about other policies and practices that they
enact with respect to electronic products and waste management.
Two respondents indicated their computer purchasing policies
stipulate that equipment must meet criteria in the Electronic
Product Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT), an incentive
based system by which original equipment manufacturers
(OEMs) declare their products performance in specified environmental areas. Two universities also provided information
about technology renewal programs, in which computers are
leased on a three-year cycle, after which the OEM takes back the
equipment for resale or recycling. More information on this
survey and responses is provided in S.I.

4. DISCUSSION OF CASE STUDY RESULTS

On the basis of the value of EOL electronic equipment purchased
for reuse and resale (Table 2), it is clear that the practice of public
sales of equipment has direct economic benets to the institution.
For example, revenue generated by equipment sales can support
sta and defray operating costs. Further, resale of electronic
equipment can extend the product lifespan, provide access to
computers for those who may not be able to obtain new equipment,
spur economic activity where computers are resold or refurbished,
and possibly decrease or delay equipment entering the waste stream.
Juxtaposed against these benets, however, are potential risks
associated with this management strategy. By auctioning equipment
to scrap dealers and e-waste recyclers that do not have contractual
obligation to the institution, it is impossible to verify how equipment
is being managed or monitor the ultimate fate of assets, which may
still bear institutional tags or contain secure data. Even where
computers are purchased for intended reuse, the individual possessing the computer at the end of its second life may not have the

knowledge, ability, or motivation to dispose of the computer in a

sustainable fashion. In the case of products exported for reuse,
without a process to certify and label functional products or
partnerships with shared liability between exporter and importer,
their export may result in unwanted environmental and human
health negative impacts.5,18
Thus, the challenge to institutions like ASU is to create sustainable institutional e-waste management practices and policies that
balance the economic, social, and environmental benets possible
from reuse of end-of-rst-life electronics and the risks of environmental and human health impacts from improper management of
these products in the waste stream. The diversity in responses to
the survey of other universities (Table 3) shows that there is little
consistency among universities in the U.S. as to how this balance is
achieved. This situation is juxtaposed against that in Europe, where
higher education and other institutions have more limited and welldened options as prescribed by compliance requirements of the
Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Directive.20
Without either comprehensive federal e-waste regulations or
science-based best practices for e-waste management, U.S. institutions need better guidance to make decisions that balance both
current and future risks and benets associated with various policies
and disposition methods. It is important to note that while
institutions may be most attentive to decisions about electronics
management when a product reaches the end of its rst life and
must be physically disposed of, that decision process is in fact built
on factors introduced across the electronic product life cycle
(additional context in the S.I).

5. STRATEGIC ISSUES IN E-WASTE MANAGEMENT

In this section, we build lessons learned from the case study
into a broader, qualitative analysis of strategies by which institutions manage electronics and e-waste. Four common management practices were identied by universities: (1) purchase of
EPEAT or other green certied equipment, (2) implementing
technology renewal or leasing systems, (3) contracting with a
sustainable e-waste recycler, and (4) publicly auctioning equipment. Combining these practices could form a comprehensive
solution for institutional e-waste management. We discuss the
comparative risks and benets of each practice and comment on
research needed to better understand benets and costs. In each
of these practices, multiple objectives may be maximized depending on the electronics management strategy employed. To help
frame the relevant discussion, Figure 3 qualitatively illustrates
competing priorities for these four practices that institutions may
wish to optimize, such as direct economic benets due to sales,
mitigating end-of-life risk, ability to extend product lifespan
through reuse, and use of products designed for EOL management. The trade-os illustrated in Figure 3 show that no single
solution currently employed by universities is able to meet all of
these stated objectives, although each has independent factors
that bear further consideration, as discussed in more detail below.
5.1. Green Product Design and Procurement. Notable
among voluntary responses to the institutional survey is that
many universities are prioritizing EOL management strategies as
part of procurement policies, such as requiring all purchased
computers to be EPEAT ranked. EPEAT provides ratings on
environmental performance, including design for end-of-life, for
computers and other electronic, intended to guide large-scale
purchasers to select equipment based on these environmental
characteristics. The expected advantage of this policy is that EOL
5369

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1028469 |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 53665372

Environmental Science & Technology

ARTICLE

Figure 3. Trade-os associated with institutional EOL equipment management practices. Shaded ovals indicate that the management practice in
question (numbers 1 4) has the potential to meet the stated goals on the horizontal and vertical axes.

EPEAT computers would, regardless of their disposition path,

contain higher content of recycled and recyclable materials, be
easier to disassemble, and provide material identifications enabling
more efficient waste and material handling.21 Further, EPEAT
products that are designed for upgradability may offer the ability to
extend the product lifespan. While EPEAT purchasing is not in
itself a solution to the equipment disposition challenge, its
adoption may be part of an additive solution, such as EPEAT
requirements plus contractual agreements with an e-waste vendor,
who assures responsible recycling and material disposition.
5.2. Product Use Phase Management. While not an explicit
part of any of the management strategies discussed here, the
product use stage plays an important role in determining quality
and quantity of equipment requiring EOL management each
year (Table 1). Universities may, like ASU, create policies that
prioritize technical support for devices 3-years-old and newer.
Policies that discourage extended use of older equipment may be
an important factor leading to the observed decreasing computer
lifespan at universities over time.19 Developing policies with a
flexible IT support framework or more routine maintenance and
upgrade opportunities may allow institutions to decrease and
delay the quantity of electronics entering the waste stream.
However, once a product does reach the end of its useful life, it
is commonly placed in storage for an extended time before
disposition.22 While the product may not have been functionally
obsolete after the first use, it is likely too old for reuse after this
storage period. Therefore, the ability to immediately direct endof-first-life products to the appropriate management avenue and
eliminate the storage phase may contribute to increased potential
for refurbishment and reuse.
5.3. Product-Leasing Programs. Limited survey respondents
also participate in computer leasing programs, which allow
institutions to lease equipment based on a set (e.g., 3-year) refresh
rate and provide a streamlined system through which EOL
equipment is returned to an OEM or third party for donation,
redeployment, or recycling, thus shifting the product management liability from the consumer to the manufacturer.23 Computer leasing systems have been lauded as a sustainable practice,
based on the expectation that more equipment will be reused,
remanufactured, or recycled if it returns to the OEM at end-oflife.24 Because leasing keeps equipment in a commercial channel
at EOL (either purchased by the leasing party or returned for
redeployment or recycling), products are less likely to be stored
indefinitely while their value depreciates to the point at which
they can no longer be resold in any secondary market.24

However, while transfer of product responsibility back to the

OEM may be one step in achieving improved EOL management
practices, leasing in and of itself does not automatically ensure
that environmental goals of EOL product recovery are being met
(Figure 3).25 For example, a refresh rate of three years may be less
than the functional lifespan of most electronic equipment, and in
markets where higher returns can be realized from material
recycling than from product redeployment, this planned, premature obsolescence results in computers that could potentially
be reused instead being recycled for metal recovery. Similarly,
considering the high energy intensity associated with computer
manufacturing, leasing scenarios with short refresh cycles can
result in adverse life cycle environmental impacts for computers.26
On the other hand, extending the planned refresh cycle would
result in fewer purchases of new products and lower costs for the
institution, but also in older equipment with low resale potential
being returned at EOL. Therefore, the benet from mitigating
institutional risk through leasing programs has to be considered
against the spectrum of equipment lifespan.
5.4. Certified E-Waste Recyclers. Contracting with an e-cycling firm, a common disposition mode for 78% of surveyed
institutions, allows the institution to transfer risk, in part, to the
recycling firm, albeit at a direct economic cost (Figure 3).
However, this risk is only mitigated if the e-cycling company
follows responsible practices with respect to environment and
human health. Although in the past it has been difficult to assess
to what extent e-waste recyclers followed responsible practices,
increased attention on e-waste management has led to development of third-party certification mechanisms for e-waste recyclers. Developed by Basel Action Network, the e-Stewards
Standard for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment incorporates an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) protocol for environmental management systems
(ISO 14001) and includes criteria related to data security, worker
protection, management of toxics in e-waste, accountability for
the international reverse supply chain, and exporting toxic
materials in e-waste.27 Concurrently, the Responsible Recycling
Practices of the Recycling Industry Operating Standard program
(R2-RIOS) is implemented as the Certified Electronics Recycler
Program, administered by the Institute of Scrap Recycling
Industries (ISRI). This program is based on voluntary best
management practices for the electronics recycling industry,
particularly related to environmental and worker health and
safety performance of electronics recyclers.28 While participation
in either certification process cannot guarantee that an e-cycler is
5370

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1028469 |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 53665372

Environmental Science & Technology

complying with legal requirements and best environmental and
safety practices, it does provide a hallmark by which institutions
can evaluate potential vendors. Further, integrating a certification
requirement in a request for proposal or bidding process that
allows for an in-depth evaluation of an e-waste recyclers business
and operational practices can provide additional assurance to
institutions.
5.5. Reusability of Equipment for Auction. As an alternative
to the unrestricted sales of products in surplus auctions, some
universities (including ASU, after this study was conducted) are
modifying auction practices to limit sales of nonfunctional or
obsolete equipment to minimize risk of improper recycling, while
retaining potential benefits of selling usable products. One
practice is to conduct presale assessment of product age, quality,
and operational status, and then only sell devices determined to
be functional or repairable. Results shown in Figure 2 and in
previous work14 indicate that sale price is a good predictor of
aftermarket fate, such that using a price floor on the order of
$10 20 per unit would likely deter sale of equipment with no
reuse potential. As discussed previously, sale of working, reusable
equipment provides both economic benefit to the institution and
to the purchasing entity and provides environmental benefit
when computer lifespan is extended (Figure 3). However,
beyond removing nonworking devices from the sales flow and
documenting all transactions, institutions have little protection
against the risks associated with any unsafe waste handling
practices occurring far downstream.

6. EXTENSIONS
It is clear that a more integrative approach must be developed
to provide guidance and develop electronics best management
practices for all institutions, including universities. To enable a
more clear way forward, it will be necessary to extend the
characterization of e-scrap pathways and their respective risks
and benets outside of the institutional boundary. For example,
product leasing, as discussed here, presents a number of clear
advantages for institutions but is still characterized by unknowns
requiring resolution, including the relative diversion rate of
reclaimed products into either recycling or reuse markets, the
eect of product age and quality on postlease product reuse
potential, and the ability of leasing management companies to
provide substantive reporting or guarantees on equipment fate.
Similarly, reuse of electronics was also discussed as an essential
management strategy, but one that carries its own as yet not
quantied risks associated with downstream decisions made
outside institutional control. Mitigating these risks will require
additional development of responsible trade practices for repairable and reusable electronics as well as regulation and certication for reuse markets, similar to recent eorts focused on
certication practices for recyclers.
ASSOCIATED CONTENT

bS

Supporting Information. Additional results and information are available. This information is available free of charge via
the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author

*E-mail: callie.babbitt@rit.edu. Phone: (585) 475-6277.

ARTICLE

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We gratefully acknowledge and thank Kerry Suson and Keith
Elgin of Arizona State University Capital Asset Management for
assistance in data collection, Sreedhar Vadlapudi and Erin Daugherty for assistance in data extraction and analysis, and the Golisano
Institute for Sustainability writing group for useful feedback. This
work was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation via Grant CBET-0731067 in the Environmental Sustainability
program.
REFERENCES
(1) Basel Action Network (BAN) and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition (SVTC). Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia 2002.
http://www.ban.org/E-waste/technotrashnalcomp.pdf.
(2) Streicher-Porte, M.; Widmer, R.; Jain, A.; Bader, H.-P.;
Scheidegger, R.; Kytzia, S. Key drivers of the e-waste recycling system:
Assessing and modelling e-waste processing in the informal sector in
Delhi. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2005, 25 (5), 472491.
(3) Steiner, S., Risk Assessment of E-waste Burning in Delhi, India.
Diploma Thesis, Federal Institute of Technology, ETH, Zurich. 2004.
(4) Keller, M., Assessment of gold recovery processes in Bangalore, India
and evaluation of an alternative recycling path for printed wiring boards, A
Case Study. Diploma thesis at the Institute for Spatial and Landscape
Planning, Regional Resource Management at the ETH Zurich. 2006.
(5) Osibanjo, O.; Nnorom, I. The challenge of electronic waste
(e-waste) management in developing countries. Waste Manage. Res.
2007, 25 (6), 489501.
(6) Qu, W.; Bi, X.; Sheng, G.; Lu, S.; Fu, J.; Yuan, J.; Li, L. Exposure
to polybrominated diphenyl ethers among workers at an electronic
waste dismantling region in Guangdong, China. Environ. Int. 2007, 33
(8), 10291034.
(7) Huo, X.; Peng, L.; Xu, X.; Zheng, L.; Qiu, B.; Qi, Z.; Zhang, B.;
Han, D.; Piao, Z. Elevated blood lead levels of children in Guiyu, an
electronic waste recycling town in China. Environ. Health Perspect. 2007,
115 (7), 11137.
(8) Leung, A. O. W.; Luksemburg, W. J.; Wong, A. S.; Wong, M. H.
Spatial distribution of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans in soil and combusted
residue at Guiyu, an electronic waste recycling site in southeast China.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41 (8), 27302737.
(9) Deng, W. J.; Louie, P. K. K.; Liu, W. K.; Bi, X. H.; Fu, J. M.; Wong,
M. H. Atmospheric levels and cytotoxicity of PAHs and heavy metals in
TSP and PM2.5 at an electronic waste recycling site in southeast China.
Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40 (36), 69456955.
(10) Wong, M. H.; Wu, S. C.; Deng, W. J.; Yu, X. Z.; Luo, Q.; Leung,
A. O. W.; Wong, C. S. C.; Luksemburg, W. J.; Wong, A. S. Export of toxic
chemicalsA review of the case of uncontrolled electronic-waste
recycling. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 149 (2), 131140.
(11) Li, H.; Yu, L.; Sheng, G.; Fu, J.; Peng, P. a. Severe PCDD/F and
PBDD/F Pollution in Air around an Electronic Waste Dismantling Area
in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41 (16), 56415646.
(12) Yu, X. Z.; Gao, Y.; Wu, S. C.; Zhang, H. B.; Cheung, K. C.;
Wong, M. H. Distribution of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soils at
Guiyu area of China, aected by recycling of electronic waste using
primitive technologies. Chemosphere 2006, 65 (9), 15001509.
(13) Baskaran, A.; Muchie, M., Bridging the Digital Divide: Innovation
Systems for ICT in Brazil, China, India, Thailand and Southern Africa;
Adonis & Abbey Publishers, Ltd.: London, U.K., 2006.
(14) Kahhat, R.; Williams, E. Product or waste? Importation and
end-of-life processing of computers in Peru. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009,
43 (15), 60106.
(15) IAER Electronics Recycling Industry Report; International Association of Electronics Recyclers (IAER): Albany, NY, 2006.
(16) United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
Management of Electronic Waste in the United States 2007. http://
www.epa.gov/ecycling/manage.htm.
5371

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1028469 |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 53665372

Environmental Science & Technology

ARTICLE

(17) Kang, H.; Schoenung, J. Estimation of future outows and

infrastructure needed to recycle personal computer systems in
California. J. Hazard. Mater. 2006, 137 (2), 116574.
(18) Kahhat, R.; Kim, J.; Xu, M.; Allenby, B.; Williams, E.; Zhang, P.
Exploring e-waste management systems in the United States. Resour.,
Conserv. Recycl. 2008, 52 (7), 955964.
(19) Babbitt, C.; Kahhat, R.; Williams, E.; Babbitt, G. Evolution of
product lifespan and implications for environmental assessment and
management: a case study of personal computers in higher education.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43 (13), 510612.
(20) EAUC Insight: The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
Directive. http://www.eauc.org.uk/sorted/les/weee_insight_guide_
1.pdf (accessed January 15, 2011).
(21) Environmental Performance Criteria for Desktop Personal Computers, Notebook Personal Computers and Personal Computer Displays;
IEEE Standard 1680.1, Section 4; Piscataway, NJ, 2010.
(22) Saphores, J.-D. M.; Nixon, H.; Ogunseitan, O. A.; Shapiro, A. A.
How much e-waste is there in U.S. basements and attics? Results from a
national survey. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90 (11), 33223331.
(23) Macauley, M.; Palmer, K.; Shih, J.-S. Dealing with electronic
waste: modeling the costs and environmental benets of computer
monitor disposal. J. Environ. Manage. 2003, 68 (1), 1322.
(24) Fishbein, B. K.; McGarry, L. S.; Dillon, P. S. Leasing: A Step
Toward Producer Responsibility; INFORM, Inc.: New York, NY, 2000.
(25) Lifset, R.; Lindhqvist, T. Does leasing improve end of product
life management?. J. Ind. Ecol. 1999, 3 (4), 1013.
(26) Intlekofer, K.; Bras, B.; Ferguson, M. Energy implications of
product leasing. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44 (12), 44094415.
(27) Performance requirements excerpted from the e-Stewards
standard for responsibly recycling and reuse of electronic equipment,
version 1.0. e-Stewards: 2009.
(28) Responsible Recycling (R2)-Recycling Industry Operating Standard (RIOS) Scorecard; Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries, Inc.:
Washington, DC, 2010.

5372

dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1028469 |Environ. Sci. Technol. 2011, 45, 53665372