Life cycle assessment of CRT lead recovery process

Int. J. Product Lifecycle Management, Vol. 7, Nos. 2/3, 2014 201

Copyright © 2014 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Life cycle assessment of CRT lead recovery process

Lucio Compagno, Carlo Ingrao, Antonio Giuseppe Latora and Natalia Trapani* Industrial Engineering Department (D.I.I.), University of Catania, Viale A. Doria 6, 95125 Catania, Italy Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author

Abstract: In recent years, the high rate of technological obsolescence and subsequent replacement of ICT devices has led to a significant increase in waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and oriented institutional stakeholders to promote recycling and material recovery to prevent the dispersion of hazardous substances into the environment and wastage of valuable resources. For cathode ray tube (CRT) WEEE, the standard treatment of end-of-life CRTs generates leaded glass which is usually landfill-disposed after inertisation. An experimental treatment was designed and applied to a pilot plant to obtain valuable secondary raw materials (SRMs). The industrialisation phase of the treatment requires assessing its sustainability according to the life cycle assessment approach. The paper analyses this treatment and from the significant results suggests it is environmentally sustainable.

Keywords: life cycle assessment; LCA; waste from electrical and electronic equipment; WEEE; cathode ray tube; CRT; lead recovery; lifecycle management.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Compagno, L., Ingrao, C., Latora, A.G. and Trapani, N. (2014) ‘Life cycle assessment of CRT lead recovery process’, Int. J. Product Lifecycle Management, Vol. 7, Nos. 2/3, pp.201–214.

Biographical notes: Lucio Compagno received his Mechanical Engineering degree in 1978 at University of Pisa, Italy. He started to work with big companies as a Mechanical Designer. In 1992, he joined University of Catania in Italy, where he is a Professor of Industrial Plants Management. His research interests include also logistics, industrial maintenance, and risk analysis. He is the Principal Investigator of public and private funded research projects.

Carlo Ingrao is a PhD from University of Catania. Since his Masters degree in Environmental Engineering, he has been dealing with LCA applying it to a huge number of topics in the field of agricultural, engineering and material sciences. Currently, he is holding a Research Fellowship at University of Foggia within the STAR*Agroenergy 7FP-project for bio-energy and bio-materials value-chain environmental assessment.

202 L. Compagno et al.

Antonio Giuseppe Latora is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow, In-Field Expert and Student Supervisor in Industrial Plant Management at the University of Catania. He mainly researches multiple-criteria decision-making applied in engineering. He was the Research Project Manager in the project described in this paper.

Natalia Trapani is a Researcher in Industrial Plant Management and teaches reliability and safety in production systems at the University of Catania. She mainly researches reliability, safety and maintenance in industrial plant but she is also interested in other industrial and management topics developed in cooperation with industrial stakeholders.

1 Introduction

Current trends in the European ICT market provide an estimate of about 12.3 million tons in 2020 of waste from electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) in the European Union (EU). Currently, only one third of such waste is handled properly: the remaining two-thirds go to landfills or treatment facilities that do not comply with EU rules, both within and outside the EU (European Commission, 2010). Such a large amount of WEEE makes it a source of ‘secondary raw materials’ and a ‘tradable commodity’ (United Nations Environment Programme, 2007).

Figure 1 shows a conceptual life cycle for electrical and electronic equipment (EEE) but also highlights the process of WEEE management, as suggested by the EU environmental Directives:

• 2012/19/EU, about WEEE

• 2011/65/EU, about restriction of hazardous substances

• 2009/125/EC, about eco-design requirements for energy-related products.

The main purpose of these directives is to obtain sustainable ICT products using the product lifecycle management approach which considers end-of-life management in product design and development phases, as in other production contexts (Savino et al., 2012, 2013; Syam and Jagathyraj, 2013; Le Duigou et al., 2012). According to such an approach, the EU Directives require the reduction of hazardous substances in EEE design (i.e., lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, selenium, hexavalent chromium and flame retardants), the reduction of ozone depleting substances, the prevention of WEEE through re-use, post-treatment recycling and recovery of secondary raw materials, and they consider waste disposal as the extreme solution.

Figure 1 EEE conceptual life cycle

Life cycle assessment of CRT lead recovery process 203

Today CE product marking (Directive 2008/768/EC) assures they are produced according to EU Directives but older EEE (and then WEEE) contains a complex mixture of hazardous and non-hazardous materials which usually require treatment and disposal as hazardous waste. Table 1 shows some EEE components containing lead with other possible hazardous materials (United Nations Environment Programme, 2007). Table 1 EEE components containing lead and other possible hazardous materials

EEE component containing lead Possible hazardous content

CRT Lead, antimony, mercury, phosphorus

Wiring/electrical Phthalate plasticiser, lead, brominated flame retardant (BFR)

Circuit board Lead, beryllium, antimony, brominated flame retardant (BFR)

Batteries Lead, lithium, cadmium, mercury

Figure 2 Complete CRT treatment process

CRT Monitor/TV dismantling

Panel/funnelseparation by cutting

Inertization by tumbling

CRT

plastic case, metal shadow maskprinted circuit board, cables, electron gun

unleaded panel glass

process water

neck, funnel,frit leaded glass

landfill disposal

inert leadedglass (1° cat.)

grindingby mill

chemical treatment

electrolytic treatment

inert leadedglass (0.9 mm)

leadedsolublesilicates

unleadedsolublesilicates

insolublesilicates

leadsulphide

STANDARD TREATMENT PROCESS

CURRENT TREATMENT PROCESS

EXTENDED TREATMENT PROCESS

COMPLETE TREATMENT PROCESS

Note: Standard, current and extended

Focusing on the cathode ray tube (CRT) treatment process, the standard approach, which is also used in the case plant, includes (see Figure 2):

• Dismantling phase: usually manual including the removal of the plastic case, metal shadow mask, printed circuit board, cables, electron gun, screws, bolts, brackets, etc. Most parts can be recycled and recovered. This stage also needs safety adjustments due to the vacuum in CRTs.


• Panel/funnel separation by diamond cutting with a PLC driven electromechanical device. Three outputs are obtained at this phase: neck, funnel and frit leaded glass; unleaded panel glass and processing water. The standard output of this phase is Secondary Raw Material for various manufacturing processes (Andreola et al., 2010, 2005; Schabbach et al., 2011; Ling and Poon, 2013, 2012a, 2012b; Lairaksa et al., 2013) or as the input for other treatments (Ling and Poon, 2012a; Mueller et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2013; Yuan et al., 2013; Seo et al., 2011).

The current treatment process for leaded glass terminates with the landfill disposal of inert glass after tumbling; this process separates the surface lead in the funnel coating from the leaded glass, but no recovery of the lead within the glass is allowed. The extended treatment (patent pending) avoids the landfill disposal of inert leaded glass. By grinding the inert leaded glass and treating the output by means of a chemical and electrolytic process the following valuable Secondary Raw Materials (insoluble silicates, unleaded soluble silicates and lead sulphide) are obtained.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is a methodology for environmental management which can assess potential impacts to the environment over the life cycle of a product, process or activity. LCA was in great part developed from its first applications (Guinée et al., 1993) and its relevance to environmental management in corporate and public decision making has become more evident (Azapagic, 1999) right up to the present when LCA has reached a certain maturity and methodological robustness (ISO 14040:2006; ISO 14044:2008; Finnveden et al., 2009). Currently, LCA tools are used in product/process selection, design and optimisation (Simion et al., 2013; Chatzisymeon et al., 2013; Corominas et al., 2013; Hetherington et al., 2014; Heijungs et al., 2010) and can integrate with simulation techniques (Andersson et al., 2012) or with design tools such as PLM and CAD (Theret et al., 2013; Rio et al., 2011) to help companies be fully aware of the environmental consequences of their actions, both on- and off-site.

The extended process has the potential to become the best available technology (BAT) for the treatment of CRT glass, but a life cycle analysis of the process is required to assess its environmental impact. The aim of the paper is to show how an LCA analysis can support the decision to develop a process from a pilot phase to industrial dimensions, as well as comparing the lifecycle environmental impact of the product (secondary raw material) to other means of obtaining the same product. This also empowers company awareness of how to improve the experimental plant and its management, and enlightens institutional stakeholders about whether an industrialisation project is environmentally sustainable and can be authorised. Such scope requires an LCA analysis of the product/process life cycle of the experimental treatment process, using an LCA tool (according to ISO 14040 and 14044) to evaluate its environmental sustainability according to EU environmental and regulatory norms. Another goal of the analysis is to understand the results and discussion of the assumptions to assess any opportunities to significantly improve environmental factors prior to industrialisation.


2 LCA analysis of the CRT treatment

2.1 Goal and scope definition

The first study concerns comparative LCAs of two alternative production processes as specified in Table 2 and shown in Figure 2. Table 2 Hypotheses of Scenarios 1 and 2

Element Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Input CRT monitor CRT monitor Process Current + Experimental extended treatment

process Current treatment process

Plant Industrial plant + Pilot plant Industrial plant Output Lead sulphide and lead silicates Inert leaded glass Output destination Secondary raw materials market Landfill disposal

The aim of this research is to assess whether the environmental impact of Scenario 1 is sustainable in the pilot plant hypothesis and if the same hypothesis can be applied to a large scale industrial plant. Scenario 1 eliminates the costly landfill disposal of leaded glass, reducing the risk of toxic release, and recovering the lead and other materials (silicates) for resale as secondary raw materials. The SimaPro7.3® software (Pré Product Ecology Consultants) was used for the project. It is one of the most popular software applications for LCA, providing analyses in line with the rules and principles defined by ISO standards.

The second study is a comparative LCA of two different production processes:

• metallic lead from standard industrial processes, available in software database (primary lead, Scenario A, and lead concentrate, Scenario C)

• metallic lead from CRTs (extended treatment process, Scenario B).

The research question is whether the metallic lead production of the pilot plant is environmentally competitive with consolidated industrial processes (Scenarios A and C).

Usually in LCA, a functional unit (FU) serves as a reference unit for normalising inputs and outputs and for enabling consistent comparisons. Here, the aim was to recover metallic lead from leaded glass, thus 1 kg of metallic lead recovered was considered as a ‘general FU’. By the way, since the system under analysis involves defining 6 sub-processes (disassembly, cutting, tumbling, grinding, chemical treatment and electrolysis), it was necessary to define an appropriate FU for each phase as reported in Table 3. Table 3 FUs of the sub-processes

Process phases Functional units Disassembly 1 kg of cathode-ray tube Cutting 1 kg of funnel glass Tumbling 1 kg of 1st category funnel glass Grinding 1 kg of ground glass 0.9 mm Chemical treatment 1 kg of plumbite and sodium silicate soluble fraction Electrolysis 1 kg of metallic lead


The analysis is only about treating CRTs that have already reached their end-of-life: current treatment (landfill disposal of inert leaded glass) precludes recovering any lead from inert leaded glass which is a valuable source of Secondary Raw Materials. The ‘complete treatment’ plant (shown in Figure 3) in addition to processing, includes internal transit and external transportation, energy flow, storage of materials and output (including scrap materials). The CRT life cycle was excluded from the analysis, i.e., the stages of raw material extraction, production, distribution and use of CRT remain outside the system’s boundaries. Table 4 Inventory report of the tumbling process (scenario 2)

Tumbling of funnel glass Functional unit 1 kg tumbled funnel glass of 1st category

Process output: products, co-products and waste

Materials Quantity Measurement unit Allocation base % allocation

Cone glass 1st cat. 1 kg Mass 80.38% Cone glass 2nd cat. 0.2441 kg Mass 19.62% Powders 0.0720 kg Mass (Landfill) Metals 0.0033 kg Mass (Recovery)

Process input: materials

Materials Quantity Measurement unit Comments

Cone (leaded) glass 1.3194 kg Funnel glass obtained by cutting process

Other input: processes, energy, transportations Input Quantity Measurement unit Comments

Internal transportation

0.0264 kg*km Cart transit

Electrical energy (produced by pv plant, 150 kwp)

0.0433 kWh Annual energy consumption of tumbling: 12.5 kWh /400 kg of funnel glass

Unit loading and material handling (big bag)

2.28*10–5 p Annual use of ten polypropylene big bags (three years life) 1,000 kg capacity for separate storage of 1st and 2nd cat. funnel glass

Transport of powder to landfill

1.8720 kg*km Obtained by multiplying the average distance required to reach the Alfa company site for landfill disposal by the quantity transported

Transport to plant for metal recovery

0.1815 kg*km Obtained by multiplying the average distance required to reach the Beta company by the quantity transported

Waste treatment process

Treatment Quantity Measurement unit Comments

Powder landfill 0.0720 kg Alfa company landfill disposal of powder Metal recovery 0.0033 kg Beta company metal recovery treatment


2.2 Life cycle inventory (LCI)

At this stage for each sub-process, input flow (consumption of raw materials, water and energy) and output flow (releases, emissions, waste) was recorded with reference to the FU according to material flow analysis (e.g., according to the law of conservation of mass). To clarify how this phase was carried out, Table 4 shows the inventory report of the tumbling process; the same data for Scenario 1 cannot be reported because of a patent pending for the experimental process.

Some of the inputs (such as transportation and electrical power data) are already available in the SimaPro7.3®database; others were defined specifically for this study (e.g. material handling and storage systems: roll cages, crates and big bag).

2.3 Life-cycle impact assessment (LCIA)

The assessment included both mandatory steps as per ISO (classification, characterisation, evaluation of damage) and optional ones (standardisation and balancing). In this way, the results can be expressed by means of equivalent numerical parameters. After a detailed analysis of the advantages and limitations of existing assessment methods, the IMPACT 2002+ method (Humbert et al., 2012) was deemed the most suitable because it can calculate the consumption of non-renewable energy and recognises carbon dioxide as the prime motive for the greenhouse effect and climate change. Table 5 shows the distinction between impact categories and damage categories: impact categories are those which negatively impact the environment emitted or consumed substances; damage categories are obtained by grouping the impact categories to represent environmental elements. The damage categories are reported in order of relevance to the current analysis. Table 5 Damage and impact categories according to IMPACT 2002+

Damage categories Impact categories Climate change Global warming Resources Non-renewable energy

Mineral extraction Human health Human toxicity

Respiratory inorganic Ionising radiation Ozone layer depletion Photochemical oxidation

Ecosystem quality Aquatic ecotoxicity Terrestrial ecotoxicity Terrestrial acidification/nutrification Aquatic acidification Aquatic eutrophication

The total damage associated with the process was evaluated in terms of single impact score (also ‘single score’ measured in Pt) obtained by SimaPro7.3® normalisation with the IMPACT 2002+ method. The single score results are relatively subjective because


they require all the impact categories, calculated with different units of measurement, to be unified into a single index by means of multiplication factors. However, this approach clearly represents the overall impact of the process and swiftly compares alternative processes: the higher the value of a single score, the greater the damage caused by the system. For each damage category, Table 6 shows the relative score (weighting value) and the ‘damage assessment’ value with its unit of measurement. Table 6 Weighting and damage values (IMPACT 2002+ method)

Damage categories Score (Pt.) Damage values Measurement unit Climate change 3.33e-5 0.329 kgeq CO2 Resources 3.21e-5 4.88 MJ primary Human health 3.19e-5 2.26e-7 DALY Ecosystem quality 4.37e-6 0.0598 PDF * m2/yr

In Table 6, disability-adjusted life year (DALY) is a measure of the overall severity of a disease, expressed as the number of lost years due to illness, disability or premature death; the potential damage fraction (PDF) is the fraction of species that have a high probability of not surviving in the affected area due to unfavourable living conditions.

Table 7 lists the impact categories which cause the three greatest amounts of damage; the scores, characterisation values and relative equivalent units of measurement are reported. Table 7 Weighting and characterisation values of the impact categories

Impact categories Score (Pt) Characterisation value Measurement unit

Global warming 3.33E-5 0.329 kgeq CO2 Non-renewable energy 3.21E-5 4.870 MJ primary Respiratory inorganics 2.90E-5 0.000294 kgeq PM 2.5

Figure 3 shows a section of the LCA flow diagram of the treatment process reporting the environmental impacts associated with the main steps.

In Figure 3 not all the processes created for LCA are shown, just those which most significantly affect total damage. The diagram is obtained by the SimaPro7.3® software which assesses the influence of each process and total impact, excluding the less significant contributions. Each process is represented by a block in which a red vertical bar shows the damage in terms of points (Pts)

The damage analysis showed that:

• the main environmental impacts are due to separating the two silicate fractions, soluble and insoluble, and in particular to the consumption of electrical energy and sodium hydroxide needed by the process

• the most affected damage categories are climate change, health and human resources, which present very similar damage values and are principally due to the use of a large amount of primary energy in the extended treatment process

• the most significant impact categories are global warming, non-renewable energy and respiratory inorganics.


As a consequence of the above conclusions, it is recommended that energy performance in the industrialisation phase be improved by reducing the consumption of electricity in the extended treatment process (particularly in the electrolytic cell) and by the use of renewable energy sources.

Figure 3 A section of the LCA flow diagram of the complete treatment process (see online version for colours)

1 kgLead from

electrolytic cell

0.000102

0.999 kgsoluble fraction

9.25E-5

0.229 kginert leaded

glass (0.9 mm)

6.06E-6

0.0687 kgNaOH ETH S

2.07E-5

1.33 MJMV Electrical energy use

7.48E-5

0.23 kginert leaded

glass (1st cat.)

5.98E-6

3 Discussion

Detailed analysis of the environmental impacts of the complete treatment process is preparatory to the LCA’s comparative analysis of the two scenarios described in Table 2. These scenarios are identical differing only at the stage when the leaded glass is tumbled: this is landfill-disposed in Scenario 2 or used as input in Scenario 1.

It is now appropriate to summarise some fundamental assumptions that were made in the analysis:

1 The extended treatment process was carried out in a pilot plant: energy equilibriums were then conducted according to equipment nominal values without considering relative rates of absorption, thus arriving at a very conservative analysis. Nonetheless, the results show how plant energy performance can be improved.


2 Although some authors do not agree on how the LCA results from a pilot plant can be extended to a large scale industrial plant (Shibasaki et al., 2007), the LCA of a pilot plant prior to developing a large scale plant is a common research approach (Simion et al., 2013; Chatzisymeon et al., 2013; Corominas et al., 2013; Hetherington et al., 2014; Heijungs et al., 2010) because it can resolve some uncertainties typical of LCA applications in early research development, since most pilot plant hypotheses are acceptable for large scale plants.

3 The environmental assessment related to Scenario 2 assumed that for landfill disposal, the tumbled leaded glass had to be considered inert, but the actual disposal costs are typical of dangerous materials whose long term effects are not always known.

The comparison presented in Figure 4 is, therefore, of two end-of-life scenarios requiring the same input (both quantitatively and qualitatively): 1 kg of tumbled leaded glass.

Scenario 1 was created in SimaPro7.3® using materials and processes available from the databases, the setup data being provided by the company; Scenario 2 is a predefined process available in the software database as ‘disposal, inert material landfill’.

The graph in Figure 4 shows that the benefits of recovering metallic lead and sodium silicate justify the environmental impacts caused by the extended treatment process and therefore this scenario is more sustainable, from an environmental point of view, than landfill disposal.

Figure 4 Comparison of (a) Scenario 1 and (b) Scenario 2 damage

‐21‐18‐15‐12‐9‐6‐30369

1215182124

Extended treatment process Disposal, inert material, landfill/CH S

Pt * 10^

6

Human health Ecosystem quality Climate change Resources

Method IMPACT 2002+ V2.05 / IMPACT 2002+ / Single Score

(a) (b)

Environmental impact should be quantified as the sum of the damage and benefits of each scenario; Figure 5 shows how the cumulative damage compares.


Figure 5 Cumulative damage score of Scenarios 1 and 2

4.32983

5.859743

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Extended treatment process Disposal, inert material, landfill/CH S

Pt * 10^6

Method IMPACT 2002+ V2.05 / IMPACT 2002+ / Single Score

Figure 6 Comparison of scenario A, B and C damage

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Lead primary production Lead from extended CRT treatment process

Lead concentrate production

Pt * 10^

6

Human health Ecosystem quality Climate change ResourcesMethod IMPACT 2002+ V2.05 / IMPACT 2002+ / Single Score

The results also suggest another environmental benefit of the extended treatment process which is not producing metallic lead and silicates by means of industrial technologies having a greater impact: primary lead production in Europe, according to an industrial standard process classified in SimaPro7.3® database (Scenario A) and production of lead by means the process called ‘lead concentrate production’ (lead with 65–80% of


concentration representing an intermediate product in the production of metallic lead) classified in SimaPro7.3® database (Scenario C). As Scenario B is considered, metallic lead recovery from the CRT extended treatment process credibly assumes that the output product is as applicable as primary lead. Figure 6 compares scenarios A, B and C.

Scenario C makes the analysis even more conservative. The environmental advantages related to Scenario B are notable: the recovery of metallic lead by means of CRT extended treatment produces only 7% of the environmental damage of the production of primary lead. By comparing Scenarios B and C, the advantages of Scenario B can be appreciated: the recovery of metallic lead by means of the CRT extended treatment process produces only 36% of the environmental damage associated with lead concentrate production. It should be noted that the metal obtained from the extended treatment process is 99.9% pure.

4 Conclusions

CRTs treated by the tumbling and extended treatment process are new processes with the potential to become the BATs for the treatment of CRT glass and an ecological alternative for the production of lead. LCA is a sufficiently mature method for sustainability research according to EU environmental and regulatory norms, but the robustness of the results depends on a deeper awareness of the plant process and product characteristics. This research work was executed to support the company decision of realise a large scale plant and to demonstrate to the public stakeholder the environmental sustainability of the process. Some interesting results were obtained which assess the strengths and weaknesses of the innovative process, suggesting process/plant components which require further development to become environmentally friendly. A new LCA analysis is recommended after the pilot plant modifications and the completed design of the large-scale plant, to overcome any limitations due to upscaling the pilot plant results to the large-scale plant which may be considered a weakness of the study.

The future development of this study will be an LCCA of the extended treatment process using current data from the industrial plant utilising the optimised process, as per the results of this research study.

References Andersson, J, Skoogh, A. and Johansson, B. (2012) ‘Evaluation of methods used for life-cycle

assessment in discrete event simulation’, Proceedings of the 2012 Winter Simulation Conference, Berlin.

Andreola, F., Barbieri, L., Bondioli, F., Lancellotti, I., Miselli, P. and Ferrari, A.M. (2010) ‘Recycling of screen glass into new traditional ceramic materials’, International Journal of Applied Ceramic Technology, Vol. 7, No. 6, pp.909–917.

Andreola, F., Barbieri, L., Corradi, A. and Lancellotti, I. (2005) ‘Cathode ray tube glass recycling: an example of clean technology’, Waste Management & Research, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.314–321.

Azapagic, A. (1999) ‘Life cycle assessment and its application to process selection, design and optimisation’, Chemical Engineering Journal, Vol. 73, No. 1, pp.1–21.


Chatzisymeon, E., Foteinis, S., Mantzavinos, D. and Tsoutsos, T. (2013) ‘Life cycle assessment of advanced oxidation processes for olive mill wastewater treatment’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 54, pp.229–234.

Corominas, L.L., Foley, J., Guest, J.S., Hospido, A., Larsene, H.F., Moreraa, S. and Shaw, A. (2013) ‘Life cycle assessment applied to wastewater treatment: state of the art’, Water Research, Vol. 47, No. 15, pp.5480–5492.

Decision 2008/768/EC on a Common Framework for the Marketing of Products, and Repealing Council Decision 93/465/EEC [online] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32008D0768.

Directive 2009/125/EC Establishing a Framework for the Setting of Ecodesign Requirements for Energy-Related Products (Recast) [online] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009L0125.

Directive 2011/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2011 on the Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment [online] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32011L0065.

Directive 2012/19/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) [online] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32012L0019.

European Commission (2010) Being Wise with Waste: The EU’s Approach to Waste Management, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, ISBN 978-92-79-14297-0.

Finnveden, G., Hauschild, M.Z., Ekvall, T., Guinée, J., Heijungs, R., Hellweg, S., Koehler, A., Pennington, D. and Suh, S. (2009) ‘Recent developments in life cycle assessment’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 91, No. 1, pp.1–21.

Guinée, J.B., Udo de Haes, H.A. and Huppes, G. (1993) ‘Quantitative life cycle assessment of products: 1: Goal definition and inventory’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.3–13.

Heijungs, R., Huppes, G. and Guinée, J.B. (2010) ‘Life cycle assessment and sustainability analysis of products, materials and technologies. Toward a scientific framework for sustainability life cycle analysis’, Polymer Degradation and Stability, Vol. 95, No. 3, pp.422–428.

Hetherington, A.C., Borrion, A.L., Griffiths, O.G. and McManus, M.C. (2014) ‘Use of LCA as a development tool within early research: challenges and issues across different sectors’, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.130–143.

Humbert, S., De Schryver, A., Bengoa, X., Margni, M. and Jolliet, O. (2012) IMPACT 2002+: User Guide Draft for Version Q2.21 (version adapted by Quantis), Lausanne, Switzerland.

International Organization for Standardization (2006) ISO: Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework ISO 14040.

International Organization for Standardization (2008) ISO: Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines ISO 14044.

Lairaksa, N., Moon, A.R. and Makul, N. (2013) ‘Utilization of cathode ray tube waste: Encapsulation of PbO-containing funnel glass in Portland cement clinker’, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 117, pp.180–186.

Le Duigou, J., Bernard, A., Perry, N. and Delplace, J-C. (2012) ‘Generic PLM system for SMEs: application to an equipment manufacturer’, Int. J. Product Lifecycle Management, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp.51–64.

Ling, T.C. and Poon, C.S. (2012a) ‘Development of a method for recycling of CRT funnel glass’, Environmental Technology, Vol. 33, Nos. 22–24, pp.2531–2537.

Ling, T.C. and Poon, C.S. (2012b) ‘Feasible use of recycled CRT funnel glass as heavyweight fine aggregate in barite concrete’, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 33, pp.42–49.

Ling, T.C. and Poon, C.S. (2013) ‘Effects of particle size of treated CRT funnel glass on properties of cement mortar’, Materials and Structures, Vol. 46, Nos. 1–2, pp.25–34.


Mueller, J.R., Boehm, M.W. and Drummond, C. (2012) ‘Direction of CRT waste glass processing: electronics recycling industry communication’, Waste Management, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp.1560–1565.

Rio, M., Reyes, T. and Roucoules, L. (2011) ‘A framework for ecodesign: an interface between LCA and design process’, Annals of Faculty Engineering Hunedoara, Vol. IX, No. 1, pp.121–126.

Savino, M.M., Ouzrout, Y. and Mazza, A. (2012) ‘PLM maturity model: a multi-criteria assessment in Southern Italy companies’, Int. J. of Operations and Quatitative Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.159–179.

Savino, M.M., Ouzrout, Y., Mazza, A. and De Chiaro, S. (2013) ‘The sustainability of product compliance within lifecycle design’, Int. J. Product Lifecycle Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp.288–309.

Schabbach, L.M., Andreola, F., Lancellotti, I. and Barbieri, L. (2011) ‘Minimization of Pb content in a ceramic glaze by reformulation the composition with secondary raw materials’, Ceramics International, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp.1367–1375.

Seo, Y.C., Cho, S.J., Lee, J.S., Kim, B.S. and Oh, C. (2011) ‘A study on recycling of CRT glass waste’, International Conference on Environment and Industrial Innovation IPCBEE 2011, Vol. 12.

Shibasaki, M., Albrecht, S. and Kupfer, T. (2007) ‘Small scale and large scale plants – effect on life cycle assessment’, 17th European Symposium on Computer Aided Process Engineering – ESCAPE17.

Simion, I.M., Fortuna, M.E., Bonoli, A. and Gavrilescu, M. (2013) ‘Comparing environmental impacts of natural inert and recycled construction and demolition waste processing using LCA’, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Landscape Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp.273–287.

Syam, S. and Jagathyraj, V.P. (2013) ‘Airworthiness: monitoring of aircraft, engines & components’, Int. J. of Operations and Quantitative Management, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.201–220.

Theret, J.P., Evrard, D., Zwolinski, P., Witte, F., Le Guern, Y., Fliegner, M., Srocka, M. and Ciroth, A. (2013) ‘Integrating LCA with design tools (PLM, CAD)’, The 6th International Conference on Life Cycle Management in Gothenburg.

United Nations Environment Programme (2007) ‘Inventory assessment manual’, E-Waste, Vol. 1, International Environmental Technology Centre, Osaka/Shiga.

Yuan, W., Li, J., Zhang, Q., Saito, F. and Yang, B. (2013) ‘Lead recovery from cathode ray tube funnel glass with mechanical activation’, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp.2–10.

Zhang, C., Wang, J., Bai, J., Guan, J., Wu, W. and Guo, C. (2013) ‘Recovering lead from cathode ray tube funnel glass by mechano-chemical extraction in alkaline solution’, Waste Management & Research, Vol. 31, No. 7, pp.759–763.

Life cycle assessment of CRT lead recovery process

Documents

Transcript of Life cycle assessment of CRT lead recovery process