IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/inecol/v8y2004i4p59-85.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Adopting Lead‐Free Electronics: Policy Differences and Knowledge Gaps

Author

Listed:
  • Julie M. Schoenung
  • Oladele A. Ogunseitan
  • Jean Daniel M. Saphores
  • Andrew A. Shapiro

Abstract

For more than a decade, the use of lead (Pb) in electronics has been controversial: Indeed, its toxic effects are well documented, whereas relatively little is known about proposed alternative materials. As the quantity of electronic and electrical waste (e‐waste) increases, legislative initiatives and corporate marketing strategies are driving a reduction in the use of some toxic substances in electronics. This article argues that the primacy of legislation over engineering and economics may result in selecting undesirable replacement materials for Pb because of overlooked knowledge gaps. These gaps include the need for: assessments of the effects of changes in policy on the flow of e‐waste across state and national boundaries; further reliability testing of alternative solder alloys; further toxicology and environmental impact studies for high environmental loading of the alternative solders (and their metal components); improved risk assessment methodologies that can capture complexities such as changes in waste management practices, in electronic product design, and in rate of product obsolescence; carefully executed allocation methods when evaluating the impact of raw material extraction; and in‐depth risk assessment of alternative end‐of‐life (EOL) options. The resulting environmental and human health consequences may be exacerbated by policy differences across political boundaries. To address this conundrum, legislation and policies dealing with Pb in electronics are first reviewed. A discussion of the current state of knowledge on alternative solder materials relative to product design, environmental performance, and risk assessment follows. Previous studies are reviewed, and consistent with their results, this analysis finds that there is great uncertainty in the trade‐offs between Pb‐based solders and proposed replacements. Bridging policy and knowledge gaps will require increased international cooperation on materials use, product market coverage, and e‐waste EOL management.

Suggested Citation

  • Julie M. Schoenung & Oladele A. Ogunseitan & Jean Daniel M. Saphores & Andrew A. Shapiro, 2004. "Adopting Lead‐Free Electronics: Policy Differences and Knowledge Gaps," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 8(4), pages 59-85, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:8:y:2004:i:4:p:59-85
    DOI: 10.1162/1088198043630496
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1162/1088198043630496
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1162/1088198043630496?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:inecol:v:8:y:2004:i:4:p:59-85. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1088-1980 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.