QWERTY and Eco-Efficiency analysis on cellular phone ...archive.basel.int/industry/qwerty-sweeden.pdf · QWERTY/EE analysis is performed with a very high level of detail for consumer

QWERTY and Eco-Efficiency analysis on cellular phone treatment in Sweden

The eco-efficiency of the direct smelter route versus

mandatory disassembly of Printed Circuit Boards

Date: 10 April 2004 Commissioned by: Jörgen Schultz El-Kretsen AB Written by: Jaco Huisman TU Delft OCP-Design for Sustainability Program [email protected]

SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................3

1 INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................................4 1.1 BACKGROUNDS .....................................................................................................................4 1.2 GOAL....................................................................................................................................6 1.3 APPROACH............................................................................................................................6

2 QWERTY ANALYSIS AND PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON CELLULAR PHONES.........................7 2.1 STARTING POINT....................................................................................................................7 2.2 QWERTY: ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES .....................................................................................8 2.3 ECO-EFFICIENCY: CONNECTING WITH ECONOMIC VALUES ........................................................9 2.4 COMPREHENSIVE MODELLING OF TAKE-BACK AND RECYCLING................................................10 2.5 PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON CELLULAR TREATMENT...................................................................10

3 INVENTORY ..................................................................................................................................12 3.1 FROM A THEORETICAL DUTCH SCOPE TOWARDS A EXISTING SWEDISH SCOPE.........................12 3.2 CELLULAR PHONE COMPOSITIONS.........................................................................................12

3.2.1 Data sources .................................................................................................................12 3.2.2 Data ‘reconciliation’ .......................................................................................................13 3.2.3 Smelter compositions....................................................................................................14 3.2.4 Producer compositions..................................................................................................15 3.2.5 Average composition.....................................................................................................15

3.3 DIFFERENCES IN (PRECIOUS) METAL CONTENTS ....................................................................16 3.4 EL-KRETSEN SETTINGS, COLLECTION AND TRANSPORT, DESTINATIONS FRACTIONS .................17 3.5 SMELTER SETTINGS, ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE ...................................17

4 RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................19 4.1 QWERTY AND ECO-EFFICIENCY RESULTS FOR THE ‘SMELTER MIX’ ........................................19 4.2 QWERTY AND ECO-EFFICIENCY RESULTS FOR THE ‘AVERAGE MIX’........................................21 4.3 QWERTY AND ECO-EFFICIENCY RESULTS FOR THE ‘PRODUCERS MIX’ ...................................22 4.4 RESULTS FOR ALL COLLECTED CELLULAR PHONES PER YEAR IN SWEDEN................................23 4.5 CHANGING COMPOSITIONS OVER TIME ..................................................................................24

5 DISCUSSION/ CONCLUSIONS/ RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................25 5.1 DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................25

5.1.1 Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis ..............................................................................25 5.1.2 Choice for an environmental assessment model ..........................................................25 5.1.3 Copper smelter recovery rates......................................................................................26 5.1.4 Health and Safety: Is Beryllium a potential problem? ...................................................26

5.2 CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................................................27 5.2.1 Backgrounds of the WEEE Annex II .............................................................................27 5.2.2 The WEEE Directive Annex II for cellular phone treatment ..........................................27 5.2.3 The WEEE Directive Annex II for other electronic products .........................................28

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................29 5.3.1 First steps to take for applying for an exemption on Annex II for Sweden ...................29 5.3.2 Medium term steps to take for applying for general amendment of Annex II ...............30 5.3.3 Further research and long term steps to take ...............................................................30

6 REFERENCES...............................................................................................................................31

APPENDIX A: AVERAGE CELLULAR PHONE COMPOSITIONS FROM SMELTERS ................32

APPENDIX B: AVERAGE CELLULAR PHONE COMPOSITIONS FROM PRODUCERS.............33

Summary The aim of this report is to investigate the environmental and economic consequences of the WEEE Directive, Annex II guidelines for cellular phones and whether the chosen set of rules are eco-efficient. Therefore, two scenarios for treatment of discarded cellular phones are compared: the current collection and treatment in Sweden for 2003 by sending handsets completely to a copper smelter (Boliden) versus following the WEEE Directive Annex II rules on ‘selective treatment’ of the PWB’s (printed circuit/ wiring boards), interpreted as manual dismantling. The outcomes of the analysis might be used to apply for an official EU-exemption for the direct smelter route for treatment of printed circuit boards from cellular phones in Sweden. The main steps needed for the eco-efficiency comparison of these two routes are to determine the environmental and economic performance over the complete end-of-life chain. The environmental performance and integral costs for recycling cellular phones are measured with a dedicated approach for take-back and recycling: the QWERTY/EE (Quotes for environmentally WEighted RecyclabiliTY and Eco-Efficiency) approach [1]. In this approach, environmental values are calculated based on streamlined and multiple LCA models (Life-Cycle Assessment). Important data collected for this analysis are: 1. Compositions of cellular phones produced from around 5 years ago till now from many

different sources (producers and metal smelters). 2. Take-back system settings for Sweden in addition to the current Dutch geography and

data in the QWERTY/EE approach. 3. Processing in a specific copper smelter: environmental and economic data from the

treatment at the Boliden complex copper smelter. The main results of the environmental and economic calculations are that the direct smelter route is clearly the most eco-efficient processing option for discarded cellular phones. This means that dismantling of PWB’s from cellular phones does leads to negligible better environmental performance against very high costs. The very negative eco-efficiency outcome for the ‘Annex II dismantling route’ will become even worse in the next few years, due to relatively increasing disassembly times (per amount of weight treated) and due to decreasing precious metal contents over time. The most uncertain parameters in the analysis are the precious metal contents in the handsets, the choice for a certain environmental assessment model with corresponding environmental perspective and the recovery rates at the copper smelter. Despite these three factors, the results appear to be very accurate and not sensitive to the various assumptions and choices made. The general trend that the direct smelter route is to be preferred over dismantling of PWB’s is a very stable outcome. The main conclusion from the analysis is that the direct smelter route is to be preferred from an eco-efficiency perspective, based on best available environmental and technical insights. Therefore it is recommended to demand an exemption of Annex II for the direct smelter route for cellular phones in Sweden, based on the scientific insights presented in this report and the description of the current status of available treatment technologies. It is advised to perform further research on the eco-efficiency of Annex II rules for PWB’s for other appliances in Sweden/ the EU in general and subsequently also on other treatment rules for capacitors, LCD (Liquid Crystal Display) screens, batteries and brominated flame-retardants. It is expected that in cases where fractions containing these components are send to state-of-the-art secondary material processing, the added value of mandatory treatment rules is negligible from an eco-efficiency perspective.

1 Introduction

1.1 Backgrounds This report is requested by El-Kretsen (Swedish take-back system for electronic products) in order to evaluate what the WEEE Directive Annex II means for treating cellular phones from an eco-efficiency perspective. This research focuses on the environmental and economic effects of sending collected cellular phones (without batteries) directly to a copper smelter versus the mandatory ‘selective treatment’ of printed circuit boards of the Annex II [6], In this analysis the stages: collection, transport, sorting, shredding and separation and subsequent of material fractions in Sweden are described from both an environmental as an economic perspective. In Figure 1, the general end-of-life chain for discarded products is displayed.

Use

Incineration energy recovery

Collection and treatment

Incinerationno energy recovery

LandfillRe-use (2nd hand)

Upgrading

Material production Production

Refurbishment

Material recyclingRefining

Raw materialextraction

Use

Incineration energy recovery

Collection and treatment

Incinerationno energy recovery

LandfillRe-use (2nd hand)

Upgrading

Material production Production

Refurbishment

Material recyclingRefining

Raw materialextraction

Figure 1. The end-of-life chain With the QWERTY/ EE approach (Quotes for environmentally WEighted RecyclabiliTY and Eco-Efficiency) [1],[2],[3], the environmental and economic behaviour connected to the steps in Figure 1 of products in general and in for cellular phones in particular can be quantified. Currently the collection percentage for discarded cellular phones is very low whereas many discarded phones are kept in stock by consumers and/or exported by refurbishers/ traders to other countries (like Eastern Europe/ Africa). This refurbishing or second hand use of old cellular phones is out of scope of this analysis. Generally speaking, the environmental benefits of this are regarded as positive while life-time extension prevents new material extraction. However, how the disposal phase looks like in countries outside the EU is unclear and out of the scope of this report. This report focuses on the material recycling arrow of Figure 1. Until now, Sweden is one of the very few countries in the EU collecting and treating cellular phones separately from the larger streams of discarded electronic products (like consumer electronics and IT equipment). In 2003, the total amount of separately collected cellular phones is determined as 36.500 kg or 243.000 pieces [4]. The general situation for collection and treatment in Sweden for the El-Kretsen system is displayed in Figure 2, [5].

Figure 2. Swedish collection and treatment of electronic products

At the approximately 1000 collection points, all small household appliances, consumer electronic products and IT goods, large household appliances, fluorescent and gas-discharge lamps are collected. All these electronic products are transported to 32 dismantlers/ recyclers (18 for small appliances, 10 for large white goods, 3 for fluorescent light bulbs and 1 for energy saving lamps). Here, all products are sorted (according to 35 product groups of the various branch-organisations). The larger products are dismantled, except for cellular phones, CPU’s (central processing units) and laptops. For cellular phones in particular, the current situation consists of collection, sorting of products (corresponding to the respective branch-organisations) and dismantling of batteries followed by transport and direct treatment at the Boliden complex copper smelter. This set of stages is further addressed as the ‘direct smelter route’. Besides this route, due to the Annex II of the WEEE Directive [6], a ‘selective treatment’ is requested, which will also be included in the Swedish national Ordinance [7]. The Annex II treatment rules include the selective removal of printed circuit boards (PWB’s)1 of cellular phones in general and of other appliances with circuit boards sized larger than 10 cm2 specifically. This means that instead of the existing route, currently a manual dismantling step is needed to take the circuit boards out of the collected cellular phones. This route is further addressed as the ‘disassembly route’. In Table 1, these two routes plus the scenario of ‘no sorting’ are addressed. The ‘zero’ scenario of disposal with Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is used as a reference point.

Table 1. End-of-life scenarios investigated Nr. Scenario Description 0 MSW Disposal by consumers with Municipal Solid Waste 1 ‘No sorting’

route Products part of the IT and consumer electronics stream: Shredding and separation into four fractions: Cu, Al, Fe and residue fraction

2 Direct smelter route

Sorting + cellular phones directly to copper smelter

3 Disassembly route

Sorting + manual disassembly PWB’s, PWB’s to copper smelter, remaining through shredding and separation

4 Plastic recycling housings

See previous + plastic recycling of the housings dismantled

1 PWB is used as the abbreviation for Printed Circuit Board or Printed Wiring Board instead of PCB which can also refer

to an undesired substance

The first and fourth scenario of Table 1 are automatically generated within the QWERTY calculations and are included because they give additional information and reference values to the second and third scenario investigated.

1.2 Goal The goal of this environmental en eco-efficiency assessment is to compare two different end-of-life scenarios for cellular phone treatment in Sweden, the so-called ‘direct smelter route’ versus the ‘disassembly route’. The results will be used to evaluate the added value of the ‘selective treatment’ rules of the WEEE Directive, Annex II and whether an exemption for the direct smelter route should be recommended based on scientific and environmental insights, technical treatment possibilities and overall eco-efficiency calculations.

1.3 Approach QWERTY/EE analysis is performed with a very high level of detail for consumer electronics recycling in The Netherlands [1]. In addition to this, data collection is done to extend the current Dutch scope towards a Swedish scope. In Chapter 5, of the QWERTY/EE Ph.D. thesis, the issue of cellular phone recycling is already addressed from a theoretical point of view. In this report however, the calculations will be repeated based on actual data of the direct smelter route. Therefore, the three scenarios or routes described in the previous section will be described in the same comprehensive way as in [1]. Before starting with the actual data collection (Chapter 3) and the results (Chapter 4), the QWERTY concept will be introduced shortly, including a discussion on the previous research on cellular phone treatment (Chapter 2). In Chapter 5, discussion, conclusions and recommendations will be presented. In the discussion, the issue of beryllium will be discussed as well as the robustness and reliability of the results will be highlighted regarding the various choices and assumptions made. The conclusions will focus on the central question whether the Annex II is really contributing to eco-efficient development of take-back systems. The recommendation will include future steps to take based on the outcomes of this report for both the Swedish situation and ongoing ‘Annex II’ discussions in general.

2 QWERTY analysis and previous research on cellular phones

2.1 Starting point This section is written in order to provide some background information on the ideas behind, the reasons for QWERTY analysis and to illustrate the way of working: Product recyclability has mostly been calculated on a weight basis only, which is a poor yardstick from an environmental perspective and scientifically very inaccurate. It can lead to incorrect conclusions regarding initial environmental goals of take-back legislation. Calculations based on weight-based recyclability are likely to lead to incorrect decisions, especially when materials are present in low amounts, but with high environmental and economic values like precious metals in cellular phones. This notion has led to the development of the QWERTY concept for calculating product recyclability on a real environmental basis. The European take-back legislation for the electronics industry, the so-called WEEE Directive is primarily set up out of environmental motives [6]. The description of treatment performance and evaluation of recyclability targets, should therefore also take place in environmental terms. Currently this is only the case in a very limited way. In contrast to traditional Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) [8],[9], QWERTY analysis starts at the point of disposal. From here, the key question is to find out which end-of-life scenarios are preferable. As a consequence of this reasoning, usually environmental burdens appear for incineration and landfill scenarios and environmental gains appear, due to preventing new material extraction for recycling scenarios. In more detail, QWERTY calculations are based on three values as illustrated in Figure 3.

All materials recovered, best case

All materials to worst case end-of-life route

100%

0%

Minimum environmental impact

Actual environmental impact

Maximum environmental impact

QWERTY

QWERTY loss

All materials recovered, best case 100%

0%




QWERTY

QWERTY loss

QWERTY score



100%

0%




QWERTY

QWERTY loss


0%




QWERTY

QWERTY loss



100%

0%




QWERTY

QWERTY loss


0%




QWERTY

QWERTY loss

QWERTY score

Figure 3. Calculating QWERTY values

1. The minimum environmental impact is defined as all materials being recovered

completely without any environmental impact of end-of-life treatment steps, thus representing an environmental substitution value for newly extracted and produced materials. (Usually a negative value, maximum environmental gain as negative environmental impacts).

2. The maximum environmental impact for end-of-life treatment are defined as every material ending up in the worst possible (realistic) end-of-life route, including the environmental burden of pre-treatment: collection, transport and storage. The ‘realistic’ end-of-life scenarios under consideration are controlled landfill, incineration with or

without energy recovery and all subsequent treatment steps for material fractions in case of material recycling like a plastic recycler.

3. The actual environmental impacts based on the actual environmental performance of the end-of-life scenario under consideration are compared with the two boundary conditions and expressed as percentages.

All detailed backgrounds and formulas to calculate QWERTY values can be found in [1],[2],[3].

2.2 QWERTY: Environmental values The QWERTY calculations require ‘environmental values’. These values can be derived from any comprehensive environmental assessment model that provides these scores, but also from methods focusing on a single environmental effect, like for instance, eco-toxicity or resource depletion, can be used. The default method applied for this research is the Eco-Indicator ’99 method, a damage oriented LCA-method [8]. The approach is also called a top-down LCA-method since all contributions to all environmental effects are translated to actual damage inflicted to eco-system quality, human health and resource depletion. Results will be checked in Chapter 5 using sensitivity analysis based on the Danish EDIP’96 method to determine to influence of the choice of the environmental assessment model [9]. In addition to the default choice, also other methods are integrated in the QWERTY calculations to evaluate the environmental outcomes. It is also possible to evaluate on single environmental themes, like for instance on greenhouse effect. With this the disadvantages of applying a final weighting step as enumerated below are reduced, but it limits the relevance of results to single environmental themes only. Further considerations with respect to the use of LCA methods and methodologies for providing environmental values are: 1. In LCA there is always a ‘subjective’ evaluation step involved to weigh different

environmental themes and to produce a single end-point score. This is inherent to aggregated environmental scores of any kind. One reason for choosing the Eco-Indicator ’99 is that, compared to other LCA methods, it is the most transparent one regarding influence of different environmental perspectives and opinions of all factors that influence the final end-point score (and not only the final weighting step).

2. The starting point of the QWERTY concept is not the same compared to LCA. The QWERTY analysis starts at the point of disposal till the ‘end of the end-of-life’ phase, while LCA methods regard the full life-cycle of products, hence different system boundaries and allocation rules apply. Due to this different starting point, the QWERTY concept regards materials that are recycled as preventing extra environmental load (so negative values appear for recycled materials) due to new raw material extraction. Due to this choice, many problems with allocation and the definition of system boundaries are prevented.

3. An important requirement is an environmental database providing environmental values for all relevant end-of-life processing steps and materials. For all relevant processing of materials, the mass and energy balances must be transferred to corresponding environmental values. Especially for the end-of-life phase of products, there are usually many data gaps within current LCA-databases.

The results presented further will be checked in the discussion in Section 5.1 regarding the influence of the choice for a default environmental assessment model versus other models.

2.3 Eco-efficiency: Connecting with economic values In order to enhance the ‘eco-efficiency over the total end-of-life chain’, the outcomes of eco-efficiency calculations can support the stakeholders and enablers of take-back and recycling. These stakeholders are: authorities by helping formulating criteria for collection of disposed products and monitoring end-of-life performance of take-back systems; it enables producers to calculate economical and environmental values on forehand; it supports recyclers in finding the right avenues of future technology application and investments; from a consumer or society point of view it helps getting insights in the environmental impacts per amount of money being spent, directly or indirectly, whereas the consumers pay the environmental and economic bill in the end. In Figure 4, the four main eco-efficiency directions are shown in a two-dimensional eco-efficiency graph. The Y-axis represents the absolute environmental outcomes of the QWERTY calculations (in environmental millipoints), the X-axis represents the economic outcomes. The points in the graph are representing various end-of-life scenarios for one and the same product (or an individual component, assembly, fraction or product stream). The scenarios are based on changes in technology, design or system organization. Examples of such changes are for instance saving more products from the landfill (increasing collection rates), increasing plastic recycling and glass recycling, the effects of Design for End-of-Life activities or logistics changes.

Environmental gain

(€)

Costs

Environmental burden

(mPts)

Revenues

ENCOURAGE

AVOID

A

B CD

BALANCE

BALANCE

Figure 4. The four eco-efficiency directions

In order to achieve a higher eco-efficiency compared to an existing recycling scenario, one should move into the direction of the upper right part of Figure 4 (a ‘plus’ for environment and a ‘plus’ for economy). Besides this direction, the opposite direction (minus, minus) should be avoided and the (minus, plus) and (plus, minus) should be balanced or ranked. Based on Figure 4, application of the eco-efficiency method to analyze take-back and recycling includes two important steps: 1. Step 1 is application of a ‘vector approach’ as sketched above. This means that in first

instance four quadrants are selected. A ‘positive eco-efficiency’ is realized when for example the resulting vector is directed to the first quadrant (e.g. point A) of Figure 2 compared to the original situation (reference point). The opposite counts for the third quadrant. Options and directions is this case should be avoided from both an environmental as an economic point of view.

2. Step 2 includes calculation of environmental gain over costs ratios and ranking of the ‘quotient’ for the second and fourth quadrant. This is applied when an environmental improvement is realized and financial investments are needed to obtain this or in

reverse. In general, when multiple options are appearing in the fourth quadrant, the ‘quotient approach’ can be applied to determine how much absolute environmental improvement (mPts) is realized per amount of money invested (€).

It should be noted that the vertical axis represents the total societal costs for take-back and recycling, the actual costs or direction found per stakeholder can differ from this. For some parts of the recycling chain there always has to be paid: like for the transport and collection stage. In general, with setting up an financing take-back systems, there is a costs shift from public to private. The costs or vertical directions presented later on this report represent this societal perspective. In addition, the individual costs per stage can be calculated as well.

2.4 Comprehensive modelling of take-back and recycling All data, results and graphs presented in this section are based on the following important assumptions and starting points: 1. State-of-the-art recycling is based on best available shredding and separation

techniques [1]. These data are updated by [10] in 2004. 2. Data are originally representing the Dutch take-back system with relatively short

transport distances. 3. Economies of scale are realized for all examples and improvement options. 4. Costs for consumers for handing in products are excluded from the integral costs

unless stated otherwise. For all example products, chemical analysis of the Printed circuit boards is performed.

5. Accurate Life Cycle Inventories for metals are obtained from TU Delft, Department of Applied Earth Sciences [1].

6. The Eco-Indicator '99, Philips Best-Estimate, Hierarchic Perspective, Average Weighting set, weighting factor Resource Depletion – Minerals adjusted to 5%, is used as a default environmental assessment model [8].

7. All fractions sent to a subsequent process fall under the acceptance criteria applicable for this process or operation. The environmental effects of final waste disposal are obtained from [11]. All further underlying data for all process steps and stages and the environmental validation methods are published in [1],[2],[3].

From an economic perspective, included are data on: 1. Sorting, registering, transportation and buffer storage costs. 2. Integral costs for shredding and separation. 3. Costs and revenues at primary copper smelting: 4. Costs at ferro and aluminium smelter processes. 5. Costs at incineration sites, both MSW incineration and special waste incineration, also

including charges for all environmentally relevant materials (concentration dependent). 6. Costs at landfill sites, also including charges for all environmental relevant elements

occurring in disposed consumer electronics (concentration dependency). 7. Costs for plastic recycling including cleaning, upgrading and colour sorting. 8. Disassembly costs based on disassembly times for standard operations. 9. Revenues paid for all recovered materials. Including changes in metal prices over

time.

2.5 Previous research on cellular treatment Based on the aspects addressed in Section 2.4, in the QWERTY/EE Ph.D. thesis from June 2003 [1] already an eco-efficiency analysis is performed on the recycling of cellular phones. This theoretical analysis of the various scenarios possible was performed based on typically Dutch settings and a limited number of compositions available at the time. These results are repeated here and form a starting point for similar calculations based on actual treatment Swedish data for both the direct smelter route as the disassembly route.

In Figure 5 the 2003 results are repeated, including one extra scenario, based on plastic recycling of the housings in order to for instance increase the compliance with the recycling targets of the WEEE Directive [6].

Environmental gain

Costs

Environmental burden (mPts)

Revenues

(€)

- 87

+€ 0,46

‘Standard’ Recycling (four fractions)

- € 0,06

- 109

Disassembly + Plastic recycling

housings

+€ 0,54

- 108

Sorting and direct to smelter

(one fraction)

+ 5

- € 0,02 MSWX

Environmental gain

Costs

Environmental burden (mPts)

Revenues

(€)

- 87

+€ 0,46


- 87

+€ 0,46


- € 0,06

- 109


housings- € 0,06

- 109


housings

+€ 0,54

- 108


(one fraction)

+€ 0,54

- 108


(one fraction)

+ 5

- € 0,02 MSWX

+ 5

- € 0,02 MSW

+ 5

- € 0,02 MSWX

Figure 5. Results for different ‘Dutch’ scenarios for cellular phone recycling

The starting point in Figure 5 is an average 1999 cellular phone [12] disposed with MSW (costs are almost zero: -€ 0,02; small environmental burden: +5 mPts). When the same cellular phone is treated as part of the electronics stream (without battery), then a revenue is created (+€ 0,46 per piece) and an environmental gain is realised compared to the MSW scenario by avoiding new material extraction (-87 mPts). From there, the direct smelter route leads to even higher environmental and economic performance (+€ 0,54; -108 mPts). This means that the basic strategy of keeping circuit board materials together (avoiding shredding and separation) pays of. In addition, the choice can be made to apply for recycling of plastic housings. This additional activity however leads to very high costs (from +€ 0,54 revenue to –€ 0,06 costs) in relation to the environmental gain realised (only +1 mPt improvement). See Table 2.

3 Inventory

3.1 From a ‘theoretical Dutch scope’ towards an ‘existing Swedish scope’ The analysis of the last Section is based on a limited set of product compositions from 1999, on typical ‘Dutch’ settings and a not actually existing processing sequence. The outcomes should therefore be regarded as theoretical outcomes. Therefore, the analysis is repeated based on actual results and settings for treatment of cellular phones with the direct smelter route in Sweden. In addition to the previous research, data is gathered on the collection and sorting stage, the cellular phone compositions (over time) and the ‘environmental performance of the smelter in practice in order to come to eco-efficiency results based on current operations. Therefore, some additional data and underlying assumptions are needed for the extended analysis of comparing the direct smelter route versus disassembly of PWB’s for cellular phones in Sweden: 1. The batteries are excluded from the calculations, because they are removed in both

scenarios to be compared and no accurate processing descriptions are included in the QWERTY calculation modules.

2. Destinations and way of treatment of all fractions created must be determined for the El-Kretsen configurations.

3. Transport distances and costs of all steps involved must be known 4. Actual sorting, handling and overhead costs are to be included. 5. Materials included in the analysis are summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Materials included in the analysis Ag Silver Cr Chromine Pd Palladium Al Aluminium Cu Copper Plastics Plastics As Arsenic Epoxy Epoxy PlasticsFR + flame-ret. Au Gold Fe Ferro PVC PVC Be Beryllium Glass Glass Sb Antimony Bi Bismuth Hg Mercury Si Silicium Br Bromine Liquid Crystals Liquid Crystals Sn Tin Cd Cadmium Ni Nickel Zn Zinc Ceramics Ceramics Other Other Cl Chlorine Pb Lead

Obviously, accurate and important data needed for the analysis are cellular phone compositions.

3.2 Cellular phone compositions

3.2.1 Data sources The data used in this report on the chemical compositions of cellular phones over time from the various sources is displayed in Table 3. These data are gathered from contacting the producers Philips, SonyEricsson and Nokia [5],[12],[14]. Further data is obtained from Umicore and Noranda on production scrap and from these two plus El-Kretsen [5] on compositions of batches of cellular phones treated the last few years. The data in Table 3 is made anonymous. For more information see Appendix A: Average cellular phone compositions from smelters and Appendix B: Average cellular phone compositions from producers.

Table 3. Cellular phone composition data sources

Data source Description Year ‘Producers mix’

Weight/piece

Brand A Extended chemical analysis on 5 cellular phones 1999 1999 126 g Brand B Weight components plus chemical analysis of 4 phones

representing 2003 types and market shares 2003 75 g

Brand C Complete (!!!) chemical analysis (all elements) on a representative cellular phone. Additional analysis on compositions of 7 complete phones and 5 PWB’s

2003 80 g

Brand D Extended chemical analysis on a batch of production scrap, 6000 circuit boards, board weight over total weight ≈ 35%

2003 +/- 80 g

Brand E Extended chemical analysis on a batch of production scrap, two batches treated, board weight over total weight ≈ 35%. Including reliable/ important data on the spread in precious metal contents

2003 +/- 80 g

‘Smelters mix’ Smelter F Basic chemical analysis on the most important elements

(precious metals and environmentally relevant substances only) of a batch of 580 kg of cell phones

2003 80 g

Smelter G Chemical analysis on the most important elements (precious metals and environmentally relevant substances only) on two batches of 850 kg respectively 2000 kg of cellular phones

2001 and 2002

125 g

Smelter H Chemical analysis on the most important elements (precious metals and environmentally relevant substances only) on six batches of circuit boards, board weight over total weight ≈ 35%

2000 and 2001

125 g

Obviously the above data is from very different production and treatment years. In general a cellular phone is discarded after 3 years or more. Therefore there are substantial differences in age and composition of the 32 data sets. Also the way the compositions are determined varies: there are differences in chemical analysis methods used, number of elements included, sampling, etcetera. Therefore the individual data sets are ‘reconciled’ and aggregated into three data sets.

3.2.2 Data ‘reconciliation’ Roughly half of the 32 data sets are on relatively large batches of phones being analysed and treated at a smelter (from 500 to 2000 kg). The other data sets are on newly produced phones. In order to avoid calculation over 32 very different data sets, all data is ‘reconciled’ and aggregated into 3 data sets representing the changes in compositions over time. The reconcile steps used are: Step 1. The (extreme) lowest and highest values in the individual data sets (32) are

excluded. For example, one phone (first of a new generation) contained many Pd -containing condensators (1100 ppm in total) and could be regarded as an exemption.

Step 2. The ‘PWB only’ analyses are altered to estimated ‘total phone compositions' based on the average concentrations of materials found in the closest (production year, origin) ‘complete phone’ data sets.

Step 3. The average compositions per substance per data source are determined (10 sources). The spread in precious metal contents is watched closely. More ‘weight’ is give to the most extended data sets on this (for instance by taking into account the spread measured by Noranda over a longer period and multiple samples [16])

Step 4. The amount of glass appeared to be rather consistent (LCD weight). In some analyses only the weight of the glass is determined. In other the glass is included in the list of chemical elements (oxides). Therefore, the average amount of LCD

glass is determined from the phones where this is known and used as a general value for all other phones.

Step 5. Empty places due to substances not analysed in data from one source are filled with average data from the other sources. In this step more weight is given to the data sets with the most data points and highest accuracies

Step 6. Based on this, 10 average data sets are determined per source and divided into 4 ‘smelters data sets’ (representing phones with a production year of around 1999 and 6 ‘producer data sets’ with a production year of around 2003.

Step 7. All data are adjusted to 1 kg exactly by adjusting the plastics content for all data sets. The plastic content is not measured in most cases or is sometimes split up in type of plastic (with and without printed circuit board materials). Therefore, besides all elements analysed, the total weight is obtained by placing all other materials under the ‘plastics row’.

Step 8. An average ‘producer mix’, ‘smelters mix and ‘average mix’ is calculated on basis of the 10 data sets.

All specific compositions are included in Appendix A: Average cellular phone compositions from smelters and Appendix B: Average cellular phone compositions from producers. The three general data sets extracted from this can be characterised as such: [4], [12],[14],[15],[16] 1. The average weight of a cellular phone from the ‘smelter mix’ is calculated/ estimated

at 125 g. The corresponding disassembly time needed for 1 kg is estimated at 60 seconds per piece * 12,5 pieces = 750 s per kg.

2. The average weight of a cellular phone from the ‘producers mix’ is calculated/ estimated at 80 g. The corresponding disassembly time needed for 1 kg is estimated at 60 seconds per piece * 12,5 pieces = 750 s per kg.

3. The average weight of the ‘average mix’ is estimated at 100 g. The corresponding disassembly time needed for 1 kg is estimated at 60 seconds per piece * 12,5 pieces = 750 s per kg.

3.2.3 Smelter compositions The data sources of the smelter compositions are [4], [12],[14],[15],[16]. The data in Table 4 is representing the processing of cellular phones between 2000 and 2003 (production year 1999). The average production year however is estimated to be around 1999 (+/- 2 years). Again, the average weight of a cellular phone in this ‘smelters mix’ is 125 g, which means that there are 8 cellular phones are in a kg! These phones are treated around 2002 (+/- 1 year).

Table 4. ‘Smelter mix’, phones produced around 1999 Element (g) (g) (g) Al 39,3200 Be 0,0330 Sb 0,8418 Cu 168,4950 Br 9,4099 Sn 6,8867 Fe 77,9558 Cd 0,0002 Zn 6,4138 Glass 105,9372 Cl 0,0626 Silic.plast. 0,0000 Plastics 557,5022 Cr 3,4499 Epoxy 0,0000 Plastics FR 0,0000 Hg 0,0000 Liquid Crystals 1,5000 Other 0,0000 Ceramics 0,0000 Bi 0,3078 Ag 3,4633 Ni 11,2446 PVC 0,0000 As 0,0068 Pb 3,0136 Pt/ Ta 0,0362 Au 0,4388 Pd 0,1510 Total 1000,00

3.2.4 Producer compositions The data sources of the producer compositions in Table 5 are [4], [12],[14],[15],[16]. The average weight of a cellular phone in this ‘producer mix’ is 80 g, which means that there are 12,5 cellular phones in a kg!. This mix is representing the expected treatment around 2006 (+/- 1 year), so representing the production year 2003.

Table 5. ‘Producer mix’, phones produced around 2003 Element (g) (g) (g) Al 18,9633 Be 0,0219 Sb 0,7703 Cu 116,2145 Br 9,4099 Sn 5,3234 Fe 82,8234 Cd 0,0004 Zn 3,4275 Glass 105,9372 Cl 0,1253 Silic.plast. 0,0000 Plastics 634,4918 Cr 6,2697 Epoxy 0,0000 Plastics FR 0,0000 Hg 0,0000 Liquid Crystals 2,0000 Other 0,0000 Ceramics 0,0000 Bi 0,0489 Ag 1,4157 Ni 8,7567 PVC 0,0000 As 0,0068 Pb 3,4952 Pt/ Ta 0,0542 Au 0,3261 Pd 0,1178 Total 1000,00

3.2.5 Average composition The sources of the average calculated composition in Table 6 are [4], [12], [14],[15],[16]. The average weight of a cellular phone in this average mix is calculated on basis of the smelters and producers mix and is 100 g, which means that there are 10 cellular phones in a kg! This mix is representing the average treatment around 2004. The average production year however is estimated to be around 2001 (+/- 1 year).

Table 6. ‘Average mix’, phones produced around 2001 Element (g) (g) (g) Al 29,1417 Be 0,0330 Sb 0,8418 Cu 142,3547 Br 9,4099 Sn 6,8867 Fe 80,3896 Cd 0,0002 Zn 6,4138 Glass 105,9372 Cl 0,0626 Silic.plast. 0,0000 Plastics 595,9970 Cr 3,4499 Epoxy 0,0000 Plastics FR 0,0000 Hg 0,0000 Liquid Crystals 1,5000 Other 0,0000 Ceramics 0,0000 Bi 0,3078 Ag 2,4395 Ni 11,2446 PVC 0,0000 As 0,0068 Pb 3,0136 Pt/ Ta 0,0362 Au 0,3824 Pd 0,1510 Total 1000,0000

For the average data set, the composition of the cellular phone is displayed in Figure Figure 6.

Figure 6. Material composition pie average mix

It is clear that the plastics have the highest contributions to the pie, followed by copper, ferro and glass. The precious metals are not visible due to their appearance on ppm level. In the Section 4, the same pie will be presented for the contribution of materials to the QWERTY definition which represents the ‘environmental weight’ of this data set.

3.3 Differences in (precious) metal contents In Table 7, the spread in composition is presented for the most important elements and for the elements that have changed the most.

Table 7. Differences in composition smelter mix

produced 1999 (g/kg)

producers mix produced 2003 (g/kg)

Al 39,3200 18,9633Cu 168,4950 116,2145Ag 3,4633 1,4157Au 0,4388 0,3261Be 0,0441 0,0219Cr 0,6300 6,2697Ni 13,7325 8,7567Pb 2,5320 3,4952Pd 0,1843 0,1178Zn 9,4000 3,4275

There are some major changes in compositions found over time. Besides the precious metals, the concentrations of some materials are drastically decreased: aluminium, silver, beryllium and zinc. The concentrations of some materials have decreased: copper, nickel. The concentrations of chromine (+factor 10) and lead have increased. The concentrations of the most important materials, the precious metals are decreased substantially for silver (-60%) and decreased significantly for gold (-25%) and palladium (-35%). Some technical reasons, especially for the silver content, are that the amounts originate from PbSnAg - paste and that these amounts of paste have gone down last few years. Another reason might be that components used for "plating" with Ag/Pd/Pt -compounds have decreased.

It appears that the precious metals concentrations over time have decreased between 25% and 60%, which means that the amounts per cellular phone are even more decreasing! This also has consequences for the disassembly time and the corresponding costs per kg. The exact influence of this is determined in Section 4.5. The trend observed is confirmed by one of the producers. Finally, it has to be noted that the decrease in concentration will not continue much longer in new products but will fade out because of increasing functionality per weight.

3.4 El-Kretsen settings, collection and transport, destinations fractions In Table 8, the ways of transport and all distances are presented. The table includes all transport of all main stages and fractions being created. The data is used to replace the original Dutch settings in the QWERTY calculations and is needed to determine the environmental impacts of transport over the end-of-life chain.

Table 8. Transport ways and distances Transport phase Average

Distance (km) Way of transport

Remarks

Transport Consumer to Retailer/ Municipality

5 Passenger car Estimated average and allocated single distance

Transport Retailer/ Municipality to Dismantler

100 Truck (40t) To DE recyclers

Transport Residue fraction 50 Truck (40t) Average distance to nearby landfill/ residue site

Transport Copper fraction 900 Truck (40t) Average distance to Boliden Transport Aluminium fraction 500 Truck (40t) To nearest Aluminium

smelter Transport Ferro fraction 500 Truck (40t) To nearest Ferro smelter Transport Glass fraction 1000 Truck (40t) To Schott-glass Transport Plastic fraction 500 Truck (40t) To nearest plastic recycler

In Table 9, the main economic parameters for transport, overhead, sorting and shredding are displayed.

Table 9. Main economic parameters Transport, overhead, sorting and shredding costs €/kg Current transport, collection and overhead costs 0,0400 Average transport costs El Kretsen 0,0810 Sorting cellular phones 0,3000 Dismantling battery 0,1000 Shredding and separation Cellular phones 0,1000 Total costs incl. shredding 0,6210 Total costs excl. shredding 0,5210

For the values of the recovered materials, the average London Metal Exchange data of February. 2004 are applied. Shredding and separation settings are based on an update of the data used in [1] by Mirec [10] and are representing state-of-the-art shredding and separation.

3.5 Smelter settings, environmental and economic performance In Table 10, the main copper smelter settings are displayed.

Table 10. Copper smelter settings 1985 2002 2005 Input Recovery Rate Recovery Rate Recovery Rate recovery as saleable product, but excluding slag content Pb* 100% 80% 10% >50% Sn* 100% >50% 5% >50% Ni* 100% 80% 80% >80% Ag* 100% >99% >99% >99% Au* 100% >99% >99% >99% Zn* 100% >80% >80% >80% Cu* 100% >99% >99% >99% Sb* 100% 70% 50% 80% Bi* 100% 20% 25% 80% Pd* 100% >99% >99% >99% recovery as saleable product , including slag Fe 100% >98% >98% >98% Al 100% >98% >98% >98% SiO2 100% >98% >98% >98% MgO 100% >98% >98% >98%

Besides the above parameters, also the energy recovery (replacement of pet-cokes) is taken into account based on the heating value of the plastics send to the smelter. Furthermore, the overall emissions allocated on an economic basis per year for the metals produced/ processed, are included in the calculations. In Section 5.1, Discussion the influence of these settings on the environmental outcomes is highlighted.

4 Results

4.1 QWERTY and Eco-efficiency results for the ‘smelter mix (1999)’ The dominance of the precious metals to the environmental calculations is displayed in Figure 7. In contrast to the material composition of Figure 6, the main environmental contribution is for three – quarters resulting from the gold and palladium content. From the remaining materials, the copper and plastics content contribute the most. The domination of the precious metals explain the why the strategy of keeping all valuable materials on the PWB together is preferable. The central question is how the various scenarios score in detail on fulfilling the main treatment strategy for cellular phones.

Figure 7. Contribution of materials to the QWERTY definition

The results for the various scenarios introduced in Section 1 are discussed here. The recycling and recovery percentages are according to the Dutch monitoring protocol [18]. The environmental QWERTY values show that the ‘direct smelter route’ scores almost equal compared to the ‘Annex II disassembly route’. In addition to this comparison it is clear that sorting cellular phones out of the regular stream has a positive effect. Furthermore, it is shown that even when plastic recycling would be applied on the housings after the disassembly step, the extra environmental benefit is negligible, but the effect on the recycling and recovery rates is substantial. See Table 11.

Table 11. Recycling, recovery and QWERTY percentages for the ‘smelter mix’ Nr. Scenario Recycling Recovery QWERTY

0 MSW (100% landfill) 0% 0% 19,0% 1 ‘No sorting’ route 81,8% 81,8% 69,0% 2 Direct smelter route 100,0% 100,0% 73,8% 3 Disassembly route 70,0% 70,0% 74,3% 4 Plastic recycling housings 100,0% 100,0% 75,3%

In addition to these environmental outcomes, the question is what the economic outcomes are in relation to the above recycling, recovery and QWERTY percentages. In Table 12, the absolute environmental and economic outcomes for the same scenarios are presented.

Table 12. Environmental and economic results Nr. Scenario mPts €

0 MSW (100% landfill) 8,5 € 0,16 1 ‘No sorting’ route -934,8 € -4,43 2 Direct smelter route -1024,9 € -4,86 3 Disassembly route -1035,2 € -0,29 4 Plastic recycling housings -1052,3 € -0,25

Table 12 shows that in relation to the minor environmental improvement realised with the ‘disassembly route’ compared to the ‘direct smelter route’, the economic results is very negative. The costs of the disassembly step are very high compared to the small environmental improvement. This is caused by the fact that the main strategy of ‘not losing’ PWB materials is met by both scenarios. The very small difference in environmental outcomes between the direct smelter route and the disassembly route are mainly caused by transporting more plastics over a longer distance (Boliden is on average further away than the plastic destination: incineration with energy recovery (+/- 6 mPts). The other effect is slightly better incineration behaviour in the incinerator compared to the copper smelter (+/- 4 mPts). Both effects are not related to the principles of Annex II and could differ when there where other settings applicable. The outcomes of Table 12 are also displayed in the ‘Swedish’ Figure 8 which can be compared with the ‘Dutch’ Figure 5.

Figure 8. Eco-efficiency graph for four cellular phone recycling scenarios, ‘smelter mix’

It is clear that with Figure 8, the same trend appears as in Figure 5 of the earlier theoretical research. The graph shows that going from MSW towards recycling as part of the regular electronics streams leads to increased environmental and economic performance. This positive eco-efficiency is also found when sorting plus direct treatment in the Boliden copper smelter is applied. The disassembly of printed circuit boards has no significant contribution to the environmental scale and leads to very high cost inefficiency. Also when additional plastic recycling of the disassembled parts would be applied, then no significant environmental gain is realised. Compared to Figure 5, the difference between the ‘no sorting’ route and the ‘direct smelter’ route is smaller in Figure 8. This effect is mainly caused by improved shredding and separation settings in 2004 compared to the original settings in the Ph.D. thesis originating from 2001 [1]. Observing the quotient of environmental improvement per € invested from an eco-efficiency perspective, the result here is 24 mPts/€ invested for the disassembly route

versus regular treatment, which is very low. For the disassembly route compared to the direct smelter route, the results is only 2 mPts/€, which is totally negligible. These numbers are compared later on in Section 5.2.2 with Figure 15 for other improvement options for end-of-life chains of electronic products.

4.2 QWERTY and Eco-efficiency results for the ‘average mix’ (2001) The results in the previous Section are based on the ‘richest’ data set. The question is whether the results appear for the ‘average mix’. The data set from Table 6 is used for the following eco-efficiency calculations. Again, the QWERTY values show that the ‘direct smelter route’ scores almost equal compared to the ‘Annex II disassembly route’. Also in this case, the sorting of cellular phones out of the regular stream has a positive effect, the disassembly step is very costly again compared to very small extra environmental gain and plastic recycling does not add significant environmental value as well. See Table 13.

Table 13. Recycling, recovery and QWERTY percentages for the ‘average mix’ Nr. Scenario Recycling Recovery QWERTY

0 MSW (100% landfill) 0,0% 0,00% 19,3% 1 ‘No sorting’ route 81,8% 81,8% 67,9% 2 Direct smelter route 100,0% 100,0% 72,6% 3 Disassembly route 70,0% 70,0% 73,3% 4 Plastic recycling housings 100,0% 100,0% 74,4%

In addition to these environmental outcomes, the economic outcomes are presented in Table 14 for the same scenarios for the average data set.

Table 14. Environmental and economic results ‘average mix’ Nr. Scenario mPts € 0 MSW (100% landfill) 8,4 € 0,15 1 ‘No sorting’ route -768,8 € -3,56 2 Direct smelter route -844,2 € -3,94 3 Disassembly route -854,6 € 1,84 4 Plastic recycling housings -871,6 € 1,88

The absolute environmental values regained have decreased compared to the ‘smelter mix’. This is due to lower precious metal contents. The results are displayed per kg which means that the environmental gain per cellular phone is even lower, due to the decrease in weight as well in relation to the disassembly time needed. Here there are +/- 10 cellular phones per kg, instead of +/- 8 cellular phones in the previous Section. The eco-efficiency results are drawn in Figure 9. Again, taking the quotient of environmental improvement per € invested from an eco-efficiency perspective, the result is 19 mPts/€ invested for the disassembly route versus regular treatment, which is very low. For the disassembly route compared to the direct smelter route, the results is only 2 mPts/€, which is totally negligible. See Section 5.2.2 for comparison.

Figure 9. Eco-efficiency graph for four cellular phone recycling scenarios, ‘average mix’

4.3 QWERTY and Eco-efficiency results for the ‘producers mix’ (2003) The question in this Section is whether the results in the two previous Section also appear for the newest ‘producers mix’. The data set from Table 5 is used for the following eco-efficiency calculations mentioned in Table 15.

Table 15. Recycling, recovery and QWERTY percentages for the ‘producers mix’ Nr. Scenario Recycling Recovery QWERTY

0 MSW (100% landfill) 0,0% 0,0% 19,6% 1 ‘No sorting’ route 81,8% 81,8% 66,3% 2 Direct smelter route 100,0% 100,0% 71,0% 3 Disassembly route 70,0% 70,0% 71,8% 4 Plastic recycling housings 100,0% 100,0% 73,1%

Indeed, also in this case, the QWERTY values show that the ‘direct smelter route’ scores almost equal compared to the ‘Annex II disassembly route’. The sorting of cellular phones out of the regular stream has a positive effect, the disassembly step is very costly again compared to the very small extra environmental gain and plastic recycling does not add significant environmental value as well. The absolute environmental values regained have decreased for all recycling scenarios, due to lower precious metal contents. The results are displayed per kg which means that the environmental gain per cellular phone is even lower, due to the decrease in weight. Here there are +/- 10 cellular phones per kg, instead of +/- 8 cellular phones in the previous Section. See Table 16.

Table 16. Environmental and economic results for the ‘producers mix’ Nr. Scenario mPts € 0 MSW (100% landfill) 8,3 € 0,15 1 ‘No sorting’ route -602,8 € -2,70 2 Direct smelter route -663,5 € -3,01 3 Disassembly route -673,9 € 4,26 4 Plastic recycling housings -690,9 € 4,30

The absolute environmental values regained have decreased, due to lower precious metal contents. The results are displayed per kg which means that the environmental gain per cellular phone is even lower, due to the decrease in weight. Here there are +/- 12,5 cellular phones per kg, instead of +/- 10 cellular phones in the previous Section. The eco-efficiency results are presented in Figure 10.

Figure 10. Eco-efficiency graph for four cellular phone recycling scenarios, ‘producer mix’

Also here, the quotient of environmental improvement per € invested from an eco-efficiency perspective, the result here is only 13 mPts/€ invested for the disassembly route versus regular treatment, which is again very low. For the disassembly route compared to the direct smelter route, the results is only 1 mPt/€, which is totally negligible. Again, see Section 5.2.2 for a further comparison with other improvement options.

4.4 Results for all collected cellular phones per year in Sweden Based on the above results, the total extra costs related to manual disassembly based on strict interpretation of the WEEE Annex II are estimated. The 2003 amount of 36,5 t cellular phones collected is used for all three production years (1999, 2001, 2003 with treatment years 2002, 2004 and 2006). Obviously, the total effect of changing compositions for Sweden over time is estimated here. (Notice that the with the 36,5 t also for coming years, it assumed that more cellular phones will be collected to come to the same total weight). The theoretical societal costs per year for the ‘direct smelter’ versus the ‘disassembly route’ are displayed in Table 17 (route nr. 2 and 3. of the previous tables, under the assumption of constant collection amount).

Table 17. Total ‘societal costs’ per year Direct smelter route Disassembly route Difference

36,5t Total costs (*1000 €) Total costs (*1000 €) ∆ (*1000 €) Cellular Phones 1999, treatment 2002?

177 (revenue) 10 (revenue) 167 (costs!)

Cellular Phones 2001, treatment 2004?

144 (revenue) 67 (costs!) 211 (costs!)

Cellular Phones 2003, treatment 2006?

110 (revenue) 156 (costs!) 266 (costs!)

It can be concluded that the extra costs being created by following the Annex II for cellular phones only are very high, especially in relation to the very little environmental gain. To rephrase it already in very simple words: the additional environmental gain of applying Annex II on 100 cellular phones by manual dismantling (costs: € 60,-) equals saving only 1 extra cellular phone from the waste bin (revenue € 0,60), (smelter mix, direct smelter route vs. MSW).

4.5 Changing compositions over time It is already discussed that there are large differences per producer and type of phone. The most detailed analysis with the given number of data points is with steps of two years. With this approach, the general trend is clear by using the three different composition sets for the calculations in Section 4.1 till 4.3. In Figure 11, eco-efficiency graphs of these Sections are repeated in one single graph with the same scenarios per kg of cellular phones.

Figure 11. Eco-efficiency graph for the three mixes, per kg The graph shows two underlying effects: On one hand, the decreasing material value of newer phones which causes the future scenarios to be positioned more the down-left side of the graph. On the other hand, the result of the relatively increasing disassembly time per phone causing the newer arrow nr. 3 to be directed much lower for future scenarios. Both effects become even clearer when the same graph is drawn per piece in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Eco-efficiency graph for the three mixes, per piece

Both Figure 11 as Figure 12 show that following the Annex II will lead to increasing costs for society per year for treating cellular phones when the Annex II is strictly enforced in the future due to the two effects described above.

5 Discussion/ Conclusions/ Recommendations

5.1 Discussion

5.1.1 Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis Many parameters are influencing the environmental and economic outcomes in general. Nevertheless, it is expected that three parameters determine the environmental results in particular. These are: 1. The amounts of precious metals. 2. The choice for a certain environmental assessment model. 3. The recovery percentages at the copper smelter. The influence of the precious metal contents on the results is already shown in Section 4 with Figure 11 and Figure 12. From there it can be concluded that the exact precious metal contents influence the absolute outcomes, but do not change the general trend that the direct smelter route is preferable. Next to the differences over time, the data uncertainty is reduced with having many individual data sets (32) available. Furthermore, the bandwidth in precious metal contents is known very well. As a result, in this uncertainty analysis, only the influence of the environmental assessment model and the recovery percentages at the smelter are assessed.

5.1.2 Choice for an environmental assessment model Referring to the discussion on using single environmental indicators and a default environmental assessment model in Section 2.2: In the calculations of Section 4, a weighting set is applied which is including the three main perspectives:

1. HH: Human Health perspective 2. EE: Ecosystem Quality 3. RD: Resource Depletion

In particular, the choice for including resource depletion is subject to discussion. It can be argued that depletion of resources is not an environmental but an economic problem. Furthermore, it is reported by [13] that there is large uncertainty in the determination of the specific characterisation factors for resource depletion of gold, palladium and tin. To illustrate the effect of excluding the resource depletion part, the same eco-efficiency calculations are rehearsed with a ‘zero’ weighting factor for this part. The outcome is presented in Figure 13.

Figure 13. EI’99 Without resource depletion

Although it is known that the resource depletion factors for gold and palladium contribute substantially to the absolute environmental outcomes of the calculation with resource depletion included, still the result of Figure 13 based on the ‘average mix’ is exactly the same as the original Figure 9. The reason is that the also without resource depletion, the energy used and other processing steps connected to mining and extracting gold are dominating the environmental outcomes, regardless which weighting set is used. This also illustrated by Figure 14. Here a totally different environmental assessment model is used: the EDIP’96 method [9]. Also here, the environmental results are dominated by ‘physics’ and are independent of the choice for a certain environmental assessment model. In other words: Different environmental perspectives lead, despite the fact that individual materials are valued differently, to exactly the same eco-efficiency directions.

Figure 14. EDIP’96 Without resource depletion

5.1.3 Copper smelter recovery rates The influence of the recovery percentages of the complex copper smelter on the results are investigated. A very important factor is that the recovery percentages for precious metals are already very high (>99%). This is obviously due to economic reasons. Only the recoveries of certain environmentally relevant substances are lower. This is especially the case for lead, tin and bismuth (See Table 10). Therefore, the influence of the improvement for these materials from the 2002 situation towards the 2005 situation is determined. The environmental outcomes show that in this case the absolute environmental results only marginally increases from 844,2 mPts to 844,6 mPts (for the direct smelter route under the default Eco-Indicator'99 and the ‘average mix’). So, no significant effect on the results is found here. The reason is obvious: also here, the calculations are dominated by the precious metal recoveries. The contribution of other factors like the transport distances used, the energy needed for shredding and separation, the collection infrastructure are known to have even less effect on uncertainty in the environmental outcomes. Therefore, it can be concluded that the results found in Section 4 are stable and the general differences found between the scenarios are very accurate.

5.1.4 Health and Safety: Is Beryllium a potential problem? One minor aspect to pay attention to is the Beryllium content of the cellular phone batches. Although the average content is decreasing from around 40 ppm for 1999 cellular phones towards 20 ppm for more modern phones, this concentration is still relatively high and should in practice probably be reported to the smelter. Normally the

acceptance limit for beryllium lies around 25 ppm, but there is no actual issue here while it is known that the beryllium source in cellular phones is not beryllium-copper oxide (which causes respiratory problems when dust is created at shredding or sampling) but beryllium-copper [17]. It should be noted however, that strictly following the Annex II for PWB’s would lead to higher concentrations in the PWB batches send compared to phone batches send in case of the direct smelter route.

5.2 Intermezzo: Backgrounds of the WEEE Annex II Before stepping into the main conclusions of this report, some remarks have to be made regarding the reasons for including selective treatment rules in the Directive: The basic reason for the inclusion of the Annex II in the WEEE Directive was the general fear in the past for hazardous substances ending-up on uncontrolled landfills and other waste sites and cause pollutions to air, water and soil. Besides the calculations in this report, there are three general reasons why the Annex II is not reflecting the current status and knowledge about electronics recycling anymore: 1. The WEEE Directive started to emerge in a period where still substantial amounts of

electronic products where landfilled. This is currently not the situation anymore in particular for those EU countries having efficient take-back systems in place.

2. Since then, the chemical compositions of electronic products have been changed dramatically. Due the RoHS Directive but also before, most of the hazardous substances like PCB’s, mercury and cadmium have been phased out already.

3. Due to the long ‘development’ and ‘implementation’ time of European Waste Directives in general, the current technical status of treatment processes is much more sophisticated. Most of the fractions containing environmentally relevant substances are being treated in a environmentally satisfying and efficient way, making dismantling not the only way of achieving ‘control’ anymore.

4. On top of that, end-of-pipe measures at (thermal) secondary material and waste processors have been developed in such a way that almost all environmentally relevant substances in electronic products are recovered or controlled.

The above reasoning is of course very general. The environmental calculations in [1] as well as in this report show that the control over potential toxics on landfill sites is not the main environmental benefit from the Annex II rules for printed circuit boards. It appears that by manual dismantling of ‘rich circuit boards’ with high precious metal contents, the environmental benefit is only caused by avoiding losses of valuable materials to other fractions. The main conclusion out of this is that the current treatment rules in the WEEE Directive are reflecting the state-of-the-art treatment of 1995 and that the original environmental goal intended can also be realised by proper and eco-efficient taking care of material fractions being created. In this report it is recommended to do this for cellular phones by legally supporting the ’direct smelter route’ above the ‘disassembly route’.

5.3 Conclusions

5.3.1 Main conclusions for cellular phone treatment As said in the previous paragraph, for cellular phones in particular, the environmental gains of dismantling printed circuit boards are only due to preventing losses of precious metals to other fractions. However, this goal can also be reached by keeping cellular phones separate from the larger WEEE streams and by sending directly to a state-of-the-art complex copper smelter. The position of the environmental benefits of the Annex II compared to other ‘improvement options’ is being calculated in [1] and placed in a ranking in Figure 15. .

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Increase collection metal dominated products

Separate coll. precious metal dom. prod. (low preciousmetal content)

Increase glass recycling 15% to 70%

Increase collection rates glass dominated products

Dedicated treatment metal dominated products (lowplastic content)

Plastic recycling medium sized housings (1-2,5 kg)

Prevention residue fractions to cement kiln (high plasticcontent)

Pick-up on demand collection at households

Plastic recycling small sized housings (0-1kg)

Disassembly PWBs and treatment with copper fraction*

Environmental gain (mPts/€ invested)

Figure 15. Disassembly of Printed circuit boards compared to other improvement options

The general outcome of this type of eco-efficiency consideration clear: avoid mandatory disassembly when the boundary condition of proper treatment of fractions created is fulfilled. So, based on the outcomes of Section 4.1 till 4.3 and taking into account the high stability of the outcomes in relation to the main parameters of uncertainty as calculated in Section 5.1, the main conclusion from the analysis in this report is that for cellular phones the direct smelter route is to be preferred from an eco-efficiency perspective, based on best available environmental and technical insights. Therefore it is recommended to demand an exemption of Annex II for the direct smelter route for cellular phones in Sweden, based on the scientific insights presented in this report and the description of the current status of available treatment technologies. In the recommendations of Section 5.4, further details are given on which steps to take as a consequence of this main conclusion and main recommendation. However, before this, a few remarks are made regarding the expected outcomes for other electronic products.

5.3.2 The WEEE Directive Annex II for other electronic products The eco-efficiency results of Section 4 show that the added value of dismantling printed circuit boards is scoring as the least eco-efficient option compared to many other options. For precious metal dominated products compared to other products the eco-efficiency is the highest due the material value on the circuit boards. The direct smelter route leads to practically the same environmental outcomes but is appearing in the WIN-WIN quadrant of Figure 4. This reasoning also leads to another very important conclusion: For products with lower precious metal concentrations, the resulting eco-efficiency is more depressed compared to the subject of this report, which makes that any economic investments made in this respect will not lead to significant environmental improvement in end-of-life pf products. Therefore it is recommended that not only an exemption for cellular phones should be requested, but also that the ‘selective treatment’ rules for printed circuit boards larger than 10 cm2 should be removed from the WEEE Directive entirely.

Besides cellular phones, currently more and more miniaturised products are placed on the markets. Examples of these are: portable MP3 players, PDA’s, organizers, small data storage devices, etc. For all these products, the precious meal contents are substantial and therefore much more electronic products other than cellular phones will qualify for the direct smelter route in the future.

5.4 Recommendations In [1] general recommendations are made regarding rebalancing waste policy strategies for consumer electronic waste in order to come to higher eco-efficiencies and less rules in general. The main rebalance steps that are recommended are to replace the current treatment rules like in Annex II, with putting more emphasis on the inputs and outputs of take-back system. In more detail this means that collection amounts should be increased, the highest level of re-application of materials (especially for CRT-glass) should be ensured and less focus should be given at treatment rules for recyclers. Such an approach would be beneficial for all stakeholders involved in WEEE discussions: producers (less costs), legislators (higher eco-efficiencies and less rules), system organizers (more efficient systems) and recyclers (efficient monitoring and better incentives for technology developments). The issue of the direct smelter route for cellular phones versus disassembly of PWB’s is a perfect example of such an eco-efficiency improvement. In this context, three steps are recommended for further action based on the conclusions of this report. These steps may be taken simultaneously, but it is recommended to start with a demand for an exemption for the direct smelter route for cellular phones in Sweden first.

5.4.1 First steps to take for applying for an exemption on Annex II for Sweden Regarding this initial steps, in the WEEE Directive there are two phrases applicable when an amendment/ exemption is requested: WEEE article 13: Any amendments which are necessary in order to adapt … Annex II (in particular taking into account new technical developments for the treatment of WEEE ... to scientific and technical progress shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 14(2). Before the Annexes are amended the Commission shall inter alia consult producers of electrical and electronic equipment, recyclers, treatment operators and environmental organisations and employees' and consumer associations. In addition, for cellular phones, there is specific room left open for PWB’s of cellular phones: WEEE Annex II, par. 4.: Within the procedure referred to in Article 14(2), the Commission shall evaluate as a matter of priority whether the entries regarding: — printed circuit boards for mobile phones, and — liquid crystal displays are to be amended. Both articles refer to article 14(2) which refers to the implementation procedure from the Council Decision 1999/468 [19]. This means basically that: 1. El-Kretsen should ask their Swedish national representative to appeal for an

amendment of WEEE Annex II to the EU, based on paragraph 4 and/or WEEE Article 13 on further technical and scientific progress. This appeal should be accompanied by this report.

2. The EU will ask the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to investigate the demand. 3. It is recommended as well to add a letter in which the producers, recyclers, treatment

operators and system organizers involved or knowing about this research support the main conclusions regarding the exemption for the direct smelter route as described in this report. Also representatives of other countries may be asked to appeal for the same exemption.

5.4.2 Medium term steps to take for applying for general amendment of Annex II In additional to the above first step, it also recommended to extend this research to the issue of strictly enforcing the Annex II for PWB’s in general. As indicated before, it expected that the eco-efficiency of disassembly of such boards would even mean a much lower eco-efficiency compared to the outcomes for cellular phones. This is also because no distinction is made between power boards and control boards. For the latter, also after disassembly, subsequent shredding and separation is required to remove ferro and aluminium for the copper fraction created. This means that such boards after dismantling should be shredded anyway, which lead to exactly the same separation characteristics as with disassembly. In this respect it is not likely that recyclers would start running two shredding and separation lines for products to be treated ‘selectively’ versus non-‘selectively’. Therefore the next step could be taken simultaneously or later: 4. Inform individual TAC members from various countries about this research, ask for

follow-up research on the issue of ‘selective treatment’ of PWB’s in general and provide them with copies of this report.

5.4.3 Further research and long term steps to take For the longer term, the following is advised: 5. Future research is recommended on the eco-efficiency of all Annex II rules for other

electronic product(s) (groups). This should also include investigations on the treatment rules for capacitors, LCD screens and brominated flame-retardants. It is expected that in cases where fractions containing these components are send to modern secondary material processing installations with sufficient control over environmentally relevant substances, the added value of treatment rules is negligible from an eco-efficiency perspective.

6. Ask other stakeholders involved in WEEE to support the findings of this and future research: This means in particular that the following parties should be informed and involved: a. The various national delegates of European take-back systems/ members of the

WEEE Forum b. Individual WEEE Producers, specifically Nokia, SonyEricsson and Philips who

contributed to this research by providing composition data and/ or their branche-organisation: EICTA

c. Individual TAC members d. (Swedish) recyclers, recycler organisation and the metal smelters: Boliden,

Umicore and Noranda e. Members of the Basel Action Program, Mobile Phone Recycling Initiative working

group who are active in defining best practice recycling standards for cellular phone treatment.

7. Based on this and such future research, multiple national representatives in the TAC can be asked to appeal for a general amendment of Annex II for PWB’s and other components for which the current status of treatment provides sufficient eco-efficiency performance.

As a final remark, it is advised to start with the recommendation of Section 5.4.1 and to ask the various stakeholders involved on their opinion and support for the medium and long term steps of Section 5.4.2 and 5.4.3.

6 References [1] J. Huisman, The QWERTY/EE concept, Quantifying recyclability and eco-efficiency for end-of-

life treatment of consumer electronic products, Ph.D. thesis, ISBN 90-5155-017-0, Delft University of Technology, May 2003, Delft, The Netherlands

[2] J. Huisman, C.B. Boks, A.L.N. Stevels, Quotes for Environmentally Weighted Recyclability (QWERTY), The concept of describing product recyclability in terms of environmental value, accepted for the International Journal of Production Research, Special Issue on Product Recovery, 41 (16): pp 3649-3665

[3] J. Huisman, A.L.N. Stevels, I. Stobbe, “Eco-efficiency considerations on the end-of-life of consumer electronic products”, accepted for the IEEE Transactions on Electronics Packaging Manufacturing, to be published in 2004.

[4] Personal communications with Jesper Nyberg, El-Kretsen, March 2004. [5] Personal communications with Jörgen Schultz/ Jörgen Svensson, El-Kretsen/ SonyEricsson,

March 2004. [6] Commission of the European Communities, Directive 2002/96/EC of the European Parliament

and of the Council on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE), Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels, February 13, 2003

[7] Introduction to the Swedish Ordinance on Producer Responsibility for Electrical and Electronic Products, see: http://www.el-kretsen.se/Index-e.htm, The complete regulations can be found in, Chapter 15 of the Environmental Code (SFS 1998:808), The Waste Ordinance (SFS 2001:1063), and the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency’s ordinance and advice on the professional treatment of WEEE (NFS 2001:8).

[8] M. Goedkoop, R. Spriensma, The Eco Indicator '99, a damage-oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Final Report, National Reuse of Waste Research Program. Pré Consultants, Amersfoort, The Netherlands

[9] H. Wenzel, M. Hauschild, L. Alting, Environmental Assessment of Products, Volume 1 (methodology, tools and case studies in product development, Chapman and Hall, London, United Kingdom, 1997

[10] Personal communications with Susanne Smits, Mirec Eindhoven, The Netherlands, April 2004 [11] A.M.M. Ansems, R.N. van Gijlswijk, J. Huisman, End of Life control and management of heavy

metals out of electronics, Proceedings of the 2002 International Symposium of Electronics and the Environment, San Francisco 2002

[12] Philips Consumer Electronics, Multiple environmental benchmarks 1998 – 2003, Philips Consumer Electronics, Environmental Competence Centre, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

[13] R. Spriensma, C. Alvarado, M. Goedkoop, LCA soldering materials, Report for Philips and Alpha Fry Technology, Amersfoort, February 2002

[14] Personal communications with Helena Castren, Nokia, March 2004 [15] Personal communications with Christian Haegeluken, Umicore Germany, March 2004. [16] Personal communications with Stephane Burban, Noranda Switzerland, March 2004 [17] Personal communications with Theo Lehner, Boliden, March 2004 [18] A.M.M. Ansems, S.M.H. van Leeuwen, Monitoring protocol for the treatment of Waste Electrical

and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), TNO Environment, Energy and Process Innovation, in commission for the Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing and the Environment, R 2003/115, March 2003, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands

[19] Commission of the European Communities, Directive 1999/468/EC, Council Decision of June 28, 1999, Laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission, Official Journal of the European Union, Brussels, L 184/23, July 17, 1999.

Appendix A: Average cellular phone compositions from smelters Only aggregated data is used in the main report. Here the specific data from the various sources is displayed for the smelter mix. On this data various reconciliation steps are taken in order to filter for differences in measuring, number of elements looked at and other data gaps (see Section 3.2.2). The data in the next figure is average data per column (representing multiple batches!) from the various smelters and the years of treatment. The right column is the average set based on both the smelters and producers data. The colours indicate where data is adjusted to come to a complete mass balance and where mismatches occur compared to the average data.

Reconciled data!!!

Analysis Smelter G Smelter G Smelter H Smelter I smelter averageAl 46,0000 41,0000 55,2800 15,0000 39,3200 29,1417Cu 117,0000 291,0000 137,9800 128,0000 168,4950 142,3547Fe 54,0000 52,0000 82,8234 123,0000 77,9558 80,3896Glass 105,9372 105,9372 105,9372 105,9372 105,9372 105,9372Plastics 621,7290 445,1490 587,4857 575,6452 557,5022 595,9970Plastics FR 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000Other 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000Ag 3,4000 5,0700 3,3870 1,9960 3,4633 2,4395As 0,0068 0,0068 0,0068 0,0068 0,0068 0,0068Au 0,2700 0,8000 0,3390 0,3460 0,4388 0,3824Be 0,0100 0,1400 0,0047 0,0219 0,0441 0,0330Br 9,4099 9,4099 9,4099 9,4099 9,4099 9,4099Cd 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0002CFC 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000Cl 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0626Cr 0,6300 0,6300 0,6300 0,6300 0,6300 3,4499Hg 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000Ceramics 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000Ni 18,0000 20,0000 2,4300 14,5000 13,7325 11,2446Pb 2,9289 2,9289 0,5700 3,7000 2,5320 3,0136PCB 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000Pd 0,1600 0,3100 0,1280 0,1390 0,1843 0,1510Sb 0,7000 1,4000 0,9133 0,6400 0,9133 0,8418Se 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000Sn 8,8000 16,2000 1,6900 7,1100 8,4500 6,8867FR 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000Zn 9,5000 6,3000 9,4000 12,4000 9,4000 6,4138Silic.plast. 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000Epoxy 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000Liquid Crystals 1,0000 1,0000 1,0000 1,0000 1,0000 1,5000Bi 0,5000 0,7000 0,5667 0,5000 0,5667 0,3078PVC 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000Pt/ Ta 0,0182 0,0182 0,0184 0,0180 0,0182 0,0362total 1000,0000 1000,0000 1000,0000 1000,0000 1000,0000 1000,0000total 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000

Manually adjustedMismatch producer - treated Reliable data but mismatch with averageReliable data (multiple data points/ accurate analysis)

Appendix B: Average cellular phone compositions from producers Here the specific data from the various sources is displayed for the producers mix. On this data a reconciliation step is taken in order to filter for differences in measuring, number of elements looked at and other data gaps (see Section 3.2.2). The data in the next figure is average data per column (representing multiple phone compositions) from the various producers and the years of production. The left column is the again the average set for all data. The colours indicate where data is adjusted to come to a complete mass balance and where mismatches occur compared to the average data. The data from Sony Ericsson is presented on request as the original data. In the report, also this data in ‘reconciled’ form is used, but not displayed here. Reconciled data!!!

average producer Brand A Brand B Brand C Brand D Brand E Brand F29,1417 18,9633 10,8443 17,5223 17,5223 27,6536 21,8517 18,3856

142,3547 116,2145 130,8931 134,3731 134,3731 108,3850 91,2625 98,000080,3896 82,8234 53,1566 92,9254 92,9254 92,2859 82,8234 82,8234

105,9372 105,9372 100,6451 108,5000 108,5000 106,1037 105,9372 105,9372595,9970 634,4918 680,8153 577,7331 578,9804 645,7155 670,2135 653,4932

0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,00000,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,00002,4395 1,4157 1,3791 1,6517 1,6517 1,0155 1,0319 1,76400,0068 0,0068 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0187 0,0175 0,00470,3824 0,3261 0,3464 0,3858 0,2964 0,3528 0,2880 0,28700,0330 0,0219 0,0000 0,0512 0,0244 0,0073 0,0224 0,02639,4099 9,4099 8,2847 11,0936 11,0936 7,1676 9,4099 9,40990,0002 0,0004 0,0000 0,0011 0,0011 0,0000 0,0000 0,00000,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,00000,0626 0,1253 0,2983 0,0000 0,0000 0,1833 0,0292 0,24083,4499 6,2697 0,0881 14,7140 14,7140 0,1166 0,5775 7,40820,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,00000,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000

11,2446 8,7567 0,8812 18,7981 18,7981 0,9612 6,8017 6,30003,0136 3,4952 3,4366 4,4016 4,0417 3,5412 2,1525 3,39770,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,00000,1510 0,1178 0,2114 0,1512 0,0357 0,0995 0,0693 0,14000,8418 0,7703 1,6569 0,8917 0,8917 0,0798 0,2217 0,88000,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,00006,8867 5,3234 4,5821 7,6337 8,4227 3,1049 2,2610 5,93590,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,00006,4138 3,4275 0,4406 6,7971 5,6732 1,1937 2,9342 3,52620,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,00000,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,00001,5000 2,0000 2,0000 2,0000 2,0000 2,0000 2,0000 2,00000,3078 0,0489 0,0401 0,0516 0,0544 0,0142 0,0933 0,04010,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,00000,0362 0,0542 0,0000 0,3238 0,0000 0,0000 0,0017 0,0000

1000,0000 1000,0000 1000,0000 1000,0000 1000,0000 1000,0000 1000,0000 1000,00000,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000 0,0000

Manually adjustedMismatch producer - treated Reliable data but mismatch with averageReliable data (multiple data points/ accurate analysis)

Documents

QWERTY and Eco-Efficiency analysis on cellular phone ...archive.basel.int/industry/qwerty-sweeden.pdf · QWERTY/EE analysis is performed with a very high level of detail for consumer