Journal of Cleaner Production 209 (2019) 846e854

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Ensuring best E-waste recycling practices in developed countries: An

Australian example
Pablo Dias a, b, *, Andre

a Moura Bernardes b, Nazmul Huda a
a
Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
b
Programa de Po
s-Graduaça~o em Engenharia de Minas, Metalúrgica e de Materiais (PPGE3M), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Av.
Bento Gonçalves, 9500, 91509-900, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The waste electrical and electronic equipment (e-waste) management is one of the great challenges faced
Received 12 June 2018 in the twenty-first century due to the steep e-waste increase worldwide and their potential to be both a
Received in revised form source of valuable materials and a hazardous source of contamination. In this study, the management of
11 October 2018
e-waste is discussed having the Australian recycling scheme as an example. The investigation on the
Accepted 28 October 2018
Available online 29 October 2018
actual recycling process and the associated cost analysis revealed important outcomes for the decision-
making process of determining which equipment (or materials) will be exported and which will be
recycled domestically. It is shown that scrap computers are the only equipment with enough intrinsic
Keywords:
Electronic waste
value to justify the domestic recycling without requiring any external subsidy. Furthermore, the
Recycling importance of such subsidy, of regulations and monitoring are discussed, principally for e-waste with an
Recycling cost intrinsic value smaller than computers. The results indicate that labor accounts for more than 90% of the
Waste management cost of first stage recycling in Australia, which can be extrapolated to countries where labor is expensive.
WEEE management Finally, in the interest of achieving a better waste management worldwide, this study provides argu-
ments to encourage a better monitoring of the recycling processes undertaken internationally and/or the
promotion of downstream recycling processes in developed countries.
© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction 2011; Schluep, 2014a). They are a particularly important waste

stream because of their potential to be pollutants or resources
In the current ever growing population (and ever growing (Sugimura and Murakami, 2016). They include a mixture of organic
consumption per capita), improving resource efficiency is crucial and inorganic materials, which contain toxic agents, such as cad-
(Worrell and Reuter, 2014). In addition to consumption reduction, mium, lead, mercury and bromated flame retardants (Bakhiyi et al.,
other actions towards waste minimization such as reuse of prod- 2018; Fowler, 2017), as well as valuable and scarce material, such as
ucts and recycling have an important role in contributing towards a copper, gold, platinum and rare earths (European Commission,
sustainable resource management (Nelen et al., 2014; Worrell and 2017; Ikhlayel, 2017).
Reuter, 2014). While municipal solid waste had the world's pri- Leaving e-waste recycling to the free market - dependant on the
mary focus during the beginning of the 21st century, the attention intrinsic value of the materials contained therein - is not enough,
has now shifted to waste electrical and electronic equipment mainly due to the high cost of decontamination (Toffolet, 2016).
(WEEE) e also known as e-waste (Premalatha et al., 2014). WEEE Thus, in the interest of maximizing resources efficiency and mini-
are old, end-of-life or discarded appliances that use electricity or, in mizing the amount of e-waste sent to landfills, several nations
a broader definition, obsolete devices dependent on electric current introduced take-back systems and regulatory frameworks to sort
or electromagnetic field to work properly (European Commission, and manage this specific waste stream by applying concepts of
extended producer responsibility (EPR), product stewardship (PS),
collection and recycling targets. Some examples include the French
* Corresponding author. Programa de Po
s-Graduaç~
ao em Engenharia de Minas, Eco-syste mes (Toffolet, 2016), the Japanese Recycling Act (Hotta
Metalúrgica e de Materiais (PPGE3M), Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul et al., 2014), the German ElektroG (Wang et al., 2017), the Austra-
(UFRGS), Av. Bento Gonçalves, 9500, 91509-900, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Dias), [email protected]
lian NTCRS (National Television and Computer Recycling Scheme)
(N. Huda). (Morris and Metternicht, 2016). These, however, are almost

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.306
0959-6526/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 P. Dias et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 209 (2019) 846e854 847

exclusively found in OECD countries (Schluep, 2014a). in recent years (Dias et al., 2018a), but knowledge about how WEEE
In the current global setup, e-waste in a given country is either is processed in the destination countries, as well as the environ-
landfilled domestically, recovered domestically or exported (Kumar mental and health damages of the workers being caused, is still
et al., 2017). In 2013, Li et al. (2013) showed the global trend of insipid. Therefore, the questions concerning the choice between
WEEE export: developed nations such as the EU countries, USA, export and domestic recycling, in continental developed nations, is
Canada, Japan and Australia shipped their e-waste to developing still a matter of research, especially studies that take into consid-
countries in south-east Asia and Africa. When import restrictions eration real-world scenarios and deal with the cost of recycling
were enforced in a given destination country (e.g. China), new (Islam and Huda, 2018). How is the decision-making process to
destination countries with inadequate WEEE recycling facilities determine whether a certain e-waste will be exported or not? To
appeared (Kumar et al., 2017; Shinkuma and Huong, 2009). Later, in what extent is the difference in wages paid to the e-waste labor
2014, Premalatha et al. (2014) suggested that in spite of national force important in determining where the waste will be processed?
and international efforts to revert the situation, the trafficking of e- What is the importance of legislation in ensuring best e-waste
waste from the economically better-off countries to the less recycling practices? Can developed countries fully recycle e-waste
economically well-off countries continued. In 2016, e-waste was without subsidy? What is the cost of first stage recycling in high
still being sent to Africa or Asia under false pretences of used goods labor cost countries? This study aims to address these key ques-
(“second-hand”), as opposed to waste (Garlapati, 2016). These used tions and give a foundation for them to be answered.
goods have been reported to lead to illegal re-exportation
(Shinkuma and Huong, 2009) and are sometimes recycled in 2. Methodology
destination countries, instead of reused (Sugimura and Murakami,
2016). Illegal exportation of waste happens mainly to countries less 2.1. The recycling routes e possible scenarios
demanding in environmental terms, which can provide cheaper
outlets (Tansel, 2017; Toffolet, 2016). In 2017, the same trend re- E-waste recycling, for this study, was broken down into two
mains, and additional developing nations destinations were re- stages: i) first stage recycling as per the Australian regulations
ported (e.g., Brazil in South America and Mexico in North America) (Australia, 2011), which include initial trial, dismantling and
(Kumar et al., 2017; Tansel, 2017). shredding of a product and ii) downstream recycling, which in-
Among the reasons for these legal or illegal exportations, cludes advanced physical separation, specific recycling and refining
Sthiannopkao and Wong (2013) explain that while developed processes (Dias et al., 2018b). There are currently three possible
countries have laws to recycle WEEE safely, the compliance with outcomes for e-waste collected in Australia through the national
such laws frequently runs against economic interests. Sugimura scheme (NTCRS): (I) Both first stage and downstream recycling
and Murakami (2016), for instance, claim that there is no eco- occur in Australia ei.e. Domestic first stage and downstream
nomic incentive for scrap dealers to sell domestically in Japan. recycling, (II) Domestic first stage recycling and international
Another reason is lack of viable resource recovery processes in downstream recycling, (III) International first stage and down-
industrialized nations (Sahajwalla et al., 2016). Moreover, the stream recycling. The outcome is dependent mainly in market
market value of a given material may vary whether its recycled forces and they can be explained by looking at the revenues and
abroad or domestically (Sugimura and Murakami, 2016). cost associated with the recycling process (Equation (1).
The consequences of this trans-boundary e-waste movement
have been widely reported in scientific literature. The lack of P ¼RC (1)
regulation and/or enforcing leads to the “get the best, dump the
rest” policy, where waste with little value is dumped or incinerated Where P is profit, R is revenue and C is cost. The revenues and costs
causing severe environmental damage and posing human health for a NTCRS first stage recycler (FSR hereafter) in Australia are
risks (Egeonu and Herat, 2016; Kumar et al., 2017; Sahajwalla et al., summarized in Table 1.
2016; Schluep, 2014a, p. 25; Yoshida et al., 2016). Because of the low The FSR receives money from the co-regulatory arrangements
labor cost, developing countries apply labor intensive processing as per mass of processed material (A); this money originates from the
the main treatment to separate materials and components, open liable parties, who are required to fund a co-regulatory arrange-
burning to recover metals and open dumping to dispose of residual ment (Dias et al., 2018a). After gathering the material, the FSR may
fractions (Schluep, 2014b). In these countries, the informal recy- dismantle and sort the waste into its various components or it may
cling sector is largely active (Herat and Agamuthu, 2012; Rochman undertake minimal waste processing (such as removing the bat-
et al., 2017) and the potential health related problems seem to be teries) and then export the majority of the product for it to be
acute, especially due to lack of proper handling of the waste (Han
et al., 2018; Oguri et al., 2018; Oliveira et al., 2012; Song and Li,
Table 1
2015). Revenues and costs associated with first stage recycling in Australia.
The main solutions proposed to tackle the current setup include
Designation Description Revenue or Unit
the ban of end-of-life electronic devices export (including devices
Cost
labelled as “for reuse”) (Bakhiyi et al., 2018; Egeonu and Herat,
2016; Kiddee et al., 2013; Sugimura and Murakami, 2016) and the A Money received from co-regulatory Revenue $
arrangement mass
introduction of a certification system and/or an international pro- B Material sale to domestic downstream
cessing standard (e.g. WEEELABEX) (Leroy, 2012; Li et al., 2013; recycler
Toffolet, 2016). C Material sale to international downstream
In Australia, the recent creation of the regulatory framework and recycler
D Collection Cost $
the national recycling scheme (NTCRS) have been able to divert
E Processing mass
significant amounts of e-waste from landfill. However, due to the F Shipping (freight)
lack of a downstream recycling industry and the shortfall of a G Council rebate
mechanism to promote downstream recycling, the majority of the H Landfill
e-waste collected through the scheme is exported for processing I Real estate/Facility (rent) Cost $
J Certifications
overseas (Golev et al., 2016; Lane et al., 2015). Exports have grown
848 P. Dias et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 209 (2019) 846e854

dismantled overseas. After dismantling, the FSR can sell the sepa- revenue generated by the sale of components C becomes C0 to
rated components to domestic (B) or international (C) downstream highlight that one is the price received for the dismantled com-
recyclers (DSR hereafter). The costs associated with the collection ponents and the other is for the whole equipment (as is),
(D) of e-waste through the scheme may or may not be a re- respectively.
sponsibility of the FSR. Nevertheless, it accounts for a cost because
if the co-regulatory arrangement does the collection, this will  
P3 0 0 I J
certainly incur in a decrease in revenue A (Table 1). The cost of ¼AþC  DþF þGþ þ (4)
m m m
processing (E) encompasses all the energy, manpower and ma-
chinery used to run the recycling operation. The cost of freight (F)
may include ground and/or maritime transportation of processed
e-waste from the FSR to the DSR. Some councils charge a rebate (G) 2.2. The market forces e determining the scenario
from the FSR for the e-waste the former has collected (this gener-
ally only occurs in metropolitan councils that deal with large vol- The FSRs are responsible for the decision of whether to under-
umes of e-waste). The cost of landfill (H) is associated with the take the first stage recycling or not, and whether to sell the material
federated state in which the waste will be landfilled, the hazard- to domestic or international recyclers e this happens because the
ousness of the waste and the amount of waste being discarded. regulations in place have a vague definition for the term “recycle”
Finally, there is the cost of leasing (rent) a facility for operation (I) (Dias et al., 2018a). Legislation and technology availability play an
and the cost to obtain compliance (J) with the Australian-New important role and have priority over the market forces in deter-
Zealand standard for collection, storage, transport and treatment mining which route e-waste will take. Legislation refers to rules
of end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment - AS5377 and regulations that restrain free exchange, e.g. Australia has re-
(Australia/New Zealand Standard, 2013), which became mandatory strictions on which countries can receive e-waste material, ac-
from June 2016. The cost to obtain the certification includes the cording to OECD regulations (OECD, 2008). Thus, even if a country
actual certification fee, the cost of installing undercover areas, offered a better price for a certain e-waste material, the FSR might
safety and security measures and the administration cost associ- not be able to go forward with the transaction because of these
ated with auditing, reporting and tracking of materials. regulations. Similar restrictions apply to the transboundary
The profit equation for each of the three possible scenarios is movement of hazardous waste. The availability of technology is also
described hereafter. fundamental. If the country does not have the capability of recy-
Scenario I. Domestic FSR and DSR: The profit for scenario I (P1) is cling a certain material/component, it eliminates the possibility of
given by equation (1) relating the costs and revenues presented in domestic downstream recycling. For the majority of the NTCRS e-
Table 1. In this scenario, C equals zero given the processed e-waste waste components in Australia, however, legislation allows both
is not being sold overseas. domestic and international downstream recycling and the tech-
nology is available domestically.
The outcome of the possible scenarios is generally determined


P1 I J according to the profit it generates, the greater profit being favored.
¼ A þ B  D þ E þ F þ G þ H ð1  eÞ þ þ (2) The decision varies according to equipment (computer, printer, CRT,
m m m
etc.), component (circuit board, hard drive, glass, etc.) and period
Where A, B, D, E, F, G, H are defined in Table 1, m is mass of waste (because B, C and F vary with the price of commodities, volume of
and e is efficiency, given in percentage. Thus, if the dismantling international trade, etc.). Therefore, the decision is constantly
process is 100% efficient, the term (1-e) becomes zero and there is updated by the FSR and can change from time to time. A flowchart
no landfill cost. If, however, the process if 60% efficient, the term representing the decision-making process is displayed in Fig. 1.
becomes 0.4 because 40% of the material in weight needs to be In Australia, e-waste is never exported for international first
landfilled. Since most of the terms are mass dependent, the equa- stage recycling then imported for domestic downstream recycling
tion can be simplified by dividing the whole equation by the mass, (e.g. a batch of computers is exported to be dismantled abroad and
which results in equation (2). The same will be done for the other the dismantled components are imported to be processed in
scenarios. Australia). This limits the possible outcomes for the scenarios and
the decision can be made by relating P1, P2 and P3.
Scenario II. Domestic FSR and international DSR: The profit for
scenario II (P2) is given by equation (3) taking into account that B P3 P2
equals zero, since the processed waste is being sold internationally  ¼ ±ve (5)
m m
and not domestically. Also the cost of freight F becomes F0 to
highlight that one is domestic freight and the other is international, P2 P1
respectively.  ¼ ±ve (6)
m m

 Where m is mass of waste, P1, P2 and P3 are the profits obtained in

P2 0 I J scenario 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Therefore, if equation (5) is positive,
¼ A þ C  D þ E þ F þ G þ Hð1  eÞ þ þ (3)
m m m then scenario III is favored, if it is negative, then scenario II is
favored. Similarly, if equation (6) is positive, scenario II is favored, if
it is negative, then scenario I is favored. Equation (5) can be com-
Scenario III. International FSR and DSR: The profit for scenario III bined with equations (3) and (4) to generate equation (7), which
(P3) is given by equation (4) taking into account that B equals zero, has already been subtracted and simplified.
for the same reason of scenario II. The processing cost of FSR is also
P3  P2  0 
zero, given the process is not undertaken by the FSR ðE ¼ 0Þ. The ¼ C  C þ ½E þ Hð1 þ eÞ (7)
landfill cost is also zero in this scenario, given the waste is being m
exported. Therefore, the international recycler would deal with any Equation (7) can be broken down into two categories: i) the sale
waste arising from the first stage recycling ðH ¼ 0Þ. Finally, the price difference between a dismantled equipment and an
 P. Dias et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 209 (2019) 846e854 849

(a) Processes used by facility to recycle e-waste;

(b) Equipment used;
(c) Power requirement of every equipment used;
(d) Amount of waste processed monthly/yearly;
(e) Fuel used in the recycling process;
(f) Number of employees working in the recycling;
(g) Type of employee's contract (permanent, casual, disability);
(h) Working hours of the facility;
(i) Time taken to process e-waste;
(j) Average time a certain equipment operates in a day;
(k) Average lifespan of the machinery used.

These data were used to calculate the cost of the processes

undertaken by FRS (Unknown E in Table 1). The calculations
required the cost of electricity and fuel paid by the FSR, which were
obtained directly with some FSR and averaged with tailored quo-
tations from electricity and fuel suppliers, respectively. The quo-
tations took into account type of activity, state and usage. The
process calculations also assumed the following.

 Minimum wage in Australia is 843 AUD per week for full-time

worker and 27.75 AUD per hour for casual worker within recy-
cling sector in 2017 (Fair Work, 2017).
 In 2017, 248 (about 68%) of the 365 days were working days;

The cost of machinery amortization was calculated by contact-

ing machinery suppliers to obtain quotes, which were averaged and
diluted over their lifespan.
To determine the price paid by domestic DSR (Unknown B in
Table 1) and the price paid by international DSR (Unknowns C and
C’), offers from twelve buyers were averaged using online market
websites. Furthermore, eleven direct quotation via email were
obtained and six FSR informed the prices they received for their
products. The prices were collected for non-dismantled equipment
(“as is equipment”) and e-waste components/commodities. The
international offers covered North America, Europe and Asia. The
prices in the recycling market vary according to supply and de-
Fig. 1. Decision making flowchart for the possible e-waste recycling routes in Australia. mand, prices of materials made from primary resources and
P1 ¼ profit for scenario 1; P2 ¼ profit for scenario 2; P3 ¼ profit for scenario 3; behavior of markets and its stakeholders (Worrell and Reuter,
DSR ¼ downstream recycling.
2014). All the currency conversions (AUD, USD, EUR, CNY, JPY,
KWR, MYR) were made using Bloomberg (2018), taking into ac-
count the mean rates of every month from April 2017 to March 2018
equipment as is (or an equipment with minimum dismantling) to create a yearly average for the financial year of 2017e2018.
0
ðC  CÞ and ii) the cost of domestic first stage processing ðEÞ and The price of e-waste (B and C) can be understood as the price per
disposal ½Hð1 þ eÞ. commodity or the price per equipment. In order to compare C and
Similarly, equation (6) can be combined with the profit equa- C’ (equation (7), C also needs to be calculated per equipment.
tions for P1 equation (2) and P2 equation (3) to generate equation Therefore, the breakdown of each equipment was also obtained
(8), which has already been subtracted and simplified. during the visits by observing the process and taking note of all the
different components dismantled for a certain equipment. Later,
P2  P1  
¼ ðC  BÞ þ F  F
0
(8) component breakdown spreadsheets of three recyclers were used
m to obtain an average distribution of component per equipment.
As shown in Fig. 1, equation (8) defines whether scenario I or These data were combined with the market prices of every
scenario II will prevail, for the case in which scenario III has already component/commodity in the market according to equation (9).
been discarded using equation (7). Equation (8) highlights that the
difference in the price paid between the international and domestic X
n
offer ðC  BÞ and the difference between national and international XiPi (9)
0
freight ðF  F Þ determine whether scenario I will occur or not. i

Where n is the amount of i components in a given equipment

2.3. Determining the unknowns (computer, printer, CRT monitor, flat screen, etc.), Xi is the given
mass percentage (component/equipment) of component i and Pi is
In order to determine the unknowns in equations (7) and (8), 15 the given average market price for component i (in AUD/weight).
out of 31 (48.4%) companies working as first stage recyclers under Equation (9) was used to calculate the total market value of a given
the NTCRS were visited. During visits, the processes used were dismantled equipment.
observed and the following data were collected. To determine the shipping costs (Unknowns F and F’ in Table 1),
850 P. Dias et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 209 (2019) 846e854

a combination of data from the FSR and direct quotations from two The total cost of processing equals to the sum of these items
different Australian logistics companies was used. The quotations divided by the processed e-waste output, given in mass. It was
aimed to cover all possible shipping scenarios including domestic found that first stage recycling consumes 39.7 kW per ton of e-
and international freights (Table 2). The international routes waste in average in Australia. Facilities that are more automated,
covered the main countries currently receiving NTCRS compo- process, in average, 3840 tons of e-waste per year, while the facil-
nents/commodities reported in previous studies (Dias et al., 2018a) ities where dismantling is mostly manual, process, in average, 1361
and, within these countries, the main ports. The domestic freights tons of e-waste per year. The latter figure is increased to 1742 tons
covered the shipping amongst the primary centers in the country of e-waste per year if the Australian Disability Enterprises (ADEs)
assuming a scenario in which WEEE was collected in one location, are disregarded in the average.
but downstream was available in another (e.g. WEEE collected and The cost of first stage recycling is highly dependent on the cost
dismantled in Melbourne but shipped to Sydney for downstream of labor, which represents, in average, 23.5 (±7.5) times the cost of
recycling). energy and fuel combined (Fig. 2). The cost of fuel is mainly related
Triangulation concept was applied to the gathered data to in- to LPG (about two times greater than diesel and gasoline), which is
crease the reproducibility of this study and provide a realistic used in most forklifts at the facilities. Diesel powers some forklifts,
average for the current market setup (2017e2018). A summary of some internally used trucks, compressors, generators and a few
the sources used in the triangulation is displayed in Table 3. other pieces of equipment. The cost of water is negligible for the
operation as it accounts for about 0.09% of the total processing cost.
The following main cost is the investment in machinery, which
3. Results includes leasing (or buying) trucks/forklifts and purchasing electric
screwdrivers, compressors, balers, pallet stretch wrapping ma-
3.1. First stage recycling in Australia chines, etc. It also includes importing or ordering larger pieces of
equipment such as automated separation lines, cable shredder-
The observation of the processes used and the visit to the re- sorters and specific tailor-made machines. The total average pro-
cyclers allowed breaking down the first stage recycling cost (Un- cessing cost for first stage e-waste recycling in Australia is
known E in Table 1) into the following items. approximately 483 Australian dollars per ton (E ¼ 483 AUD/ton).
Furthermore, it was found that the cost of landfilling (Unknown
 Electric energy (used to power equipment/machinery, lighting, H in Table 1) is negligible because the vast majority (more than 90%)
fans, air conditioner, some forklifts, etc.) of the first stage recyclers has an efficiency of 95% or higher, i.e. they
 Fuel (either diesel, gasoline or LPG - liquefied petroleum gas e forward to downstream processing at least 95% in weight of all
used to run generators, forklifts and/or trucks) waste they receive. In addition, the waste produced is limited to
 Machinery (amortization of the initial investment to purchase timber products, polystyrene (PS), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and
or lease the machinery/equipment used) small bits and pieces that may be lost during disassembly (bolts,
 Labor (wages/salary of the workforce responsible for the manual fragments of PCBs, etc.), all of which are not considered hazardous
dismantling of WEEE).

Table 2
Possible shipping scenarios quoted for international and domestic freights.

Port of loading Port of discharge (country) Commodity

International Freight Sydney Busan (South korea) Baled plastics (PVC, ABS)
Melbourne Jakarta (Indonesia) Hard disc drives (HDD)
Brisbane Osaka/yokohama (Japan) Printed circuit boards (PCB)
Adelaide Port klang (Malaysia) Cables
Shanghai (China)

Sending Location Receiving Location Commodity

Domestic Freight Sydney Sydney Any non-hazardous e-waste

Melbourne Melbourne
Brisbane Brisbane
Adelaid Adelaide

Table 3
Summary of triangulations used to validate data obtained.

Data Data source Relevant toa

Energy used in recycling FRS electric consumption Calculated from data obtained Informed by equipment Processing (E)
process spreadsheet during visits manufacturer
Price of commodities (domestic Obtained during visits to FSR Website of buyers displaying prices Direct quotation from commodities Material sale (B and C)
and international) buyers
Electricity cost Obtained during visits to FSR Direct quote from energy company Direct quote from energy company Processing (E)
A B
Fuel cost Obtained during visits to FSR Direct quote from supplier A Direct quote from energy company Processing (E)
B
International shipping cost Obtained during visits to FSR Direct quote from logistics Direct quote from logistics Shipping (F0 )
(freight) company A company B
Domestic shipping cost Obtained during visits to FSR Direct quote from logistics Direct quote from logistics Shipping (F)
(freight) company A company B
a
All the information in this column is related to the revenues and costs presented in Table 1.
 P. Dias et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 209 (2019) 846e854 851

Table 4
Material value for dismantled e-waste calculated relating material breakdown and
material pricing for financial year of 2017e2018.

Average of C CeE Profitable Domestic

(AUD/ton)a (AUD/ton)b Dismantling?

Notebooks 1150 >0 Possibly

Desktops 867 >0 Possibly
Flat Screens 366 <0 No
CRTs 141 <0 No
a
C is determined as a range because prices for commodities are given as a range;
displayed value is the mean of the range for the purpose of comparison. bGiven C0 is
always greater than zero, if C-E is smaller than zero, then equation (11) will not be
satisfied.

varies from 174 to 682 AUD per ton, which means that this market
fluctuation will determine whether its profitable to dismantle this
type of e-waste domestically or not.
These results highlight the importance of the subsidy (or “gate
fee”) paid by the liable parties in schemes like the NTCRS.
Furthermore, they highlight the importance of clear regulations
that state the material needs to be processed domestically, since, in
general, it is more profitable for companies to collect the waste and
forward it to international recyclers than to process it domestically.
This is especially true in Australia, given its high wages in com-
parison to neighbor countries (Table 5) and the importance of these
wages in the first stage recycling cost (Fig. 2). Finally, it shows that
for items with an intrinsic value smaller than 483 AUD per ton, such
Fig. 2. Breakdown of first stage recycling cost in Australia.
as flat screens and CRTs, the subsidy is crucial to allow domestic
recycling; and for CRTs e which generally cannot be exported - the
materials. Therefore, the cost of disposal is minimal. Most of these subsidy is crucial for recycling to happen at all.
materials are gathered and disposed of as general waste (also
known as household waste). Therefore, the efficiency term, (1-e) is
3.2. Downstream recycling
considerably small (0.05 or less) as well as the landfilling cost,
which allows the term H(1-e) in equation (7) to be neglected and
Data concerning the domestic and international freight cost
rewritten as equation (10).
(unknowns F and F0 in Table 1) revealed that it is about 50% more
P3  P2  0  AUD expensive to transport the dismantled goods domestically than it is
¼ C  C þ 483 (10) to export it to the main countries that receive this type of material.
m ton
Thus, the term F e F0 in equation (8) can be rewritten as approxi-
Where P3  P2 is the profit difference between scenario 3 and 2, m mately 0.5F’. Moreover, for all scenarios of shipping explored, F is
0
is mass of waste and ðC  CÞ is the sale price difference between a always greater than F’.
dismantled equipment and an equipment as is. The domestic Data comparing domestic and international offer show that,
dismantling of a certain equipment will only be economically ad- with the exception of steel, the international market offers higher
vantageous if the profit of scenario II is superior to the one in revenue than the domestic market for dismantled e-waste goods
scenario III (Fig. 1). This can be expressed mathematically as having (Fig. 3). In addition to steel, platinum, gold and some circuit boards
P2 > P3 or the difference between P3 and P2 smaller than zero. can have a greater domestic offer, but, as shown in Fig. 3, it requires
Therefore, equation (10) can be rearranged to these conditions, specific market conditions. This trend has also been observed in
which generates equation (11). other developed countries, such as Japan, where international offer
for mixed-metal scrap from e-waste is about four fold greater than
0 0 AUD domestic (Sugimura and Murakami, 2016).
C  C >E or C  C > 483 (11) International downstream recycling is favored over domestic if
ton
the profit of scenario II is superior to the one in scenario I (Fig. 1).
Equation (11) indicates that the dismantling of a certain item
This can be expressed mathematically as having P2 > P1 or the
will be economically feasible in Australia if the value added by
difference between P2 and P1 greater than zero. Therefore, equa-
dismantling the equipment is greater than the cost of domestic
tion (8) can be rearranged to these conditions and take into account
dismantling, which is about 483 AUD per ton of waste. According
the finding for freights, which generates equation (12).
the findings, C is always greater than C’ (C > C0 ), i.e., dismantled
WEEE is more valuable than WEEE “as is”. However, the difference  0  0
P2  P1 F F
between C and C0 is equipment dependent, i.e., varies according to ¼ ðC  BÞ þ >0 or >B  C (12)
m 2 2
the e-waste in question. Among the equipment encompassed by
the NTCRS (desktop/laptop computers, CRT monitors/televisions, Equation (12) shows that the domestic downstream recycling is
flat screen monitors/television, printers and peripherals), com- unlikely to happen when taking into account economic factors. It
puters have the highest material value (Table 4) and are the only will only be profitable when the difference between domestic and
type of equipment that can satisfy equation (11). Both C and C0 international offer exceeds half the cost of international freights,
fluctuate according to balance of supply and demand. For the cur- and, as shown, this can only happen for a handful of materials
rent financial year (2017e2018), the difference for computers (C-C’) (Fig. 3).
852 P. Dias et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 209 (2019) 846e854

Table 5
Comparison of minimum wage in countries involved in the recycling of Australian e-waste.

Country Wage Unit Year of reference USD per hour Australia/Others Reference

Australia 18.29 USD/Hour 2018 14.18 1.00 (Fair Work, 2018)

Japan 8 USD/Hour 2016 8 1.77 (ILO, 2018a)
Korea 5 USD/Hour 2015 5 2.84 (ILO, 2018a)
Hong Kong 4 USD/Hour 2016 4 3.54 (ILO, 2018a)
Chinaa 13.93 CNY/Hour 2016 2.14 6.63 (Wage Indicator, 2018a)
Thailand 8.68 THB/Day 2017 1.09 13.07 (The Maptics, 2017)
Indonesiab 9288.23 IDR/Hour 2018 0.89 15.98 (Wage Indicator, 2018b)
Singapore No Minimum Wage e e e e (ILO, 2018b)
a
Minimum wage calculated using simple average of all provinces.
b
Minimum wage calculated using simple average of all regions.

and because the international offer for dismantled goods is

generally higher than the domestic offer. Furthermore, there is the
limitation of technology, structure and consumer market reported
in previous works (Dias et al., 2018a). The downstream recycling
structure in Australia is virtually non-existent for a vast range of
commodities. While the export option may present the best
outcome for the FSR, it is a loss for the country, which could
potentially benefit from the US$ 120 million that the NTCRS ma-
terials have in recovery value (Golev and Corder, 2017) and ensure
sound e-waste processing - as defined in its legislation. The country
also loses several potential jobs generated by a downstream in-
dustry, which has been reported to create 5.4 full time equivalents
jobs for every 1000 ton of e-waste processed (ADEME, 2014).
Moreover, Toffolet (2016) claims that innovation is a crucial
Fig. 3. Comparison of international and domestic offer for the same components/ element in e-waste management systems and is necessary to
materials for financial year of 2017e2018. Values above one (highlighted) indicate that
gradually structure the recycling industry. The search for innova-
international offer is greater than domestic. Stacked bars indicate bottom and top
values considering bottom and top market prices proportions. tion is embedded in the National Waste Policy, the core of the
regulatory framework around the NTCRS (Environment Protection
and Heritage Council, 2009). What innovation can be expected in
4. Discussion the current export setup? What could drive innovation in the
country if the system in place outsources the majority of the
Because first stage recyclers are autonomous in deciding what to recycling processes abroad?
do with the waste, the greater profit tends to be preferred. In this Generally, most of the costs in e-waste recycling is related to
study, it was shown that, in Australia, it is economically advanta- collection logistics, sorting and the transport of these products to
geous to outsource both first stage recycling (i.e., dismantling and recycling centers (Toffolet, 2016). Australia currently undertakes all
sorting) and downstream recycling to countries overseas. of these major costs and then exports the goods before final recy-
The international first stage recycling is favored because the cost cling phase. In a way, it currently applies the ‘best of two worlds’
of processing is greater in Australia as compared to its neighboring model backwards (Wang et al., 2012).
countries. This is mainly because of the labor cost, which accounts Since the international recycling (both first stage and down-
for more than 90% of the total first stage recycling cost. Close range stream) is economically preferable over the domestic, the Austra-
countries such as Thailand and Indonesia have a contrasting wage lian scheme has two options to maintain the standards established
reality in comparison to Australia, where the minimum wage is 13- in its regulatory framework:
fold greater than that of these east-Asian countries (Table 5). In this
sense, the cost of first stage recycling could potentially be reduced i) Monitoring: Invest in monitoring for both first stage and
by seven times by outsourcing the process to Indonesia, for downstream recycling to minimize both improper WEEE
instance. This is the reality of most developed countries, where the handling abroad and environmental damage, and maximize the
minimum wage is comparable to that of Australia. Therefore, if safety of the recycling sector's labor force. This involves constant
there is no legislation in place to regulate the exchange of e-waste, monitoring from independent auditors to ensure that the
it tends to be exported to countries where the labor is cheap. As companies receiving the waste abroad are compliant with the
shown in the introduction of this work, these countries commonly safety regulations and standards proposed by Australia. Toffolet
compromise environmental standards in exchange of financial (2016) argues that such auditors must be specially trained and
gains, which incur in detrimental health impacts to e-waste have no connections with operators or take-back systems.
workforce, environmental contamination and loss of scarce and Furthermore, Australia (or any e-waste source country) needs to
critical materials. Moreover, when waste is processed abroad, it falls be accountable for the negative impacts this kind of trans-
under the legislation of that specific country and out of the legis- boundary movement can promote. This can be achieved by
lation of the country of origin. Thus, it is hard to maintain the regularly (and randomly) using GPS (geographical position
standard required by the Australian regulation once the waste system) devices in discarded e-waste to check their end-of-life
leaves the country. To achieve this, a great effort of monitoring is destination and by imposing severe fines to the institutions
necessary. whose waste is identified in irregular sites.
The international downstream recycling is favored because in- ii) Domestic recycling: The second option is to invest in domestic
ternational freights (shipping) is cheaper than domestic freights downstream recycling and gradually ban the export of waste to
 P. Dias et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 209 (2019) 846e854 853

ensure there is a minimal volume for recycling. This would setup shows the need for clarification on the regulations to ensure
naturally generate more jobs within the sector and possibly that first stage recycling will be fully undertaken domestically.
result in economic gains for the country, given it would stop If developed countries like Australia wish to ensure the stan-
exporting low value commodities and begin to produce high dards they have established are being followed (i.e., that safe e-
value ones, such as gold, silver, copper, etc. Furthermore, the waste management and recycling is taking place), they should
domestic downstream recycling requires the development of either invest in national and international monitoring (first stage
technology capable of processing smaller volumes of waste in and downstream recycling processes) or invest in domestic
relation to the current technologies. This would also assist with downstream recycling. In the current setup, installing and
the cost of logistics within the country. Domestic freights are expanding the domestic downstream recycling automatically en-
more expensive than international freights, so Australia would courages the domestic first stage recycling. To achieve this, gov-
benefit from the development of local downstream recycling by ernment and private initiative should work together e especially
avoiding the domestic transportation of goods. The simulation during the installation stages. Finally, the insights presented in this
and quotes considered the transport between the main cities in paper can serve as valuable resources for future planning, policy-
Australia, but this transportation cost is eliminated if down- making and maximizing resource efficiency.
stream facilities are available in all these main cities, for
instance. If all the waste within a state is combined into a Acknowledgments
downstream recycling hub of that state, the transport cost could
potentially be reduced. Government and private initiative The authors gratefully thank Capes, CNPq (Brazil) and Mac-
should work together to develop this industry: Government can quarie University (Australia) for their financial support.
limit the amount of exports through regulation, while also
assisting companies financially with machinery acquisition;
References
given the high initial cost, unachievable by most companies
currently operating. The private initiative can take advantage of ADEME, 2014. 2012 Inventory of waste treatment sites for WEEE (Inventaire 2012
the export limitation to invest in research and development of des sites de traitement de de
chets d’e
quipements e
lectriques et e

lectroniques).
ADEME - Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l’Energie.

small plant downstream recycling e allowing a cost-efficient
Australia, 2011. Product Stewardship (Televisions and Computers) Regulations 2011.
recycling with a lower volume threshold. This is particularly Australia/New Zealand Standard, 2013. Collection, Storage, Transport and Treatment
important because big machinery investments would require of End-of-life Electrical and Electronic Equipment (AS/NZS 5377:2013).
Bakhiyi, B., Gravel, S., Ceballos, D., Flynn, M.A., Zayed, J., 2018. Has the question of e-
constant high volumes of e-waste input, which is not always a
waste opened a Pandora's box? An overview of unpredictable issues and
reality in the Australian scenario. challenges. Environ. Int. 110, 173e192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2017.10.
021.
If a given process is not highly efficient, i.e., the percentage of Bloomberg, 2018. Markets - Currency. Retrived on April 23 2018 from. www.
bloomberg.com.
non-recovered (and therefore landfilled) waste is not negligible, Dias, P., Bernardes, A.M., Huda, N., 2018a. Waste electrical and electronic equipment
the environmental cost of exporting is higher than that of pro- (WEEE) management: an analysis on the australian e-waste recycling scheme.
cessing domestically due to the environmental impact of transport. J. Clean. Prod. 197, 750e764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.06.161.
Dias, P., Machado, A., Huda, N., Bernardes, A.M., 2018b. Waste electric and electronic
This also argues in favor of domestic first stage recycling: all non- equipment (WEEE) management: a study on the Brazilian recycling routes.
recoverable material separated during international processing J. Clean. Prod. 174, 7e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.219.
travels unnecessary distances to be landfilled. Egeonu, N., Herat, S., 2016. E-waste: a problem or an opportunity? Review of issues,
challenges and solutions in African countries. Int. J. Environ. Waste Manag. 17,
318e339. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWM.2016.078602.
5. Conclusions Environment Protection and Heritage Council, 2009. National Waste Policy: Less
Waste, More Resources. Status Report, Australian Government.
European Commission, 2017. COMMUNICATION from the COMMISSION to the
The results obtained in this study show that in countries where
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, the COUNCIL, the EUROPEAN ECONOMIC and SOCIAL
labor is expensive (generally the “developed countries”), there is a COMMITTEE and the COMMITTEE of the REGIONS on the 2017 List of Critical
need for regulations in the recycling system. Without regulations, Raw Materials for the EU, COM/2017/0490 final.
European Commission, 2011. Environment - Waste -WEEE - Study on Photovoltaic
economic factors override environmental factors, i.e. free market is
Panels Supplementing the Impact Assessment for a Recast of the Weee
not enough to ensure e-waste will be recycled in an environmen- Directive.
tally sound manner or recycled at all, which runs against the pri- Fair Work, 2018. What Is the Current National Minimum Wage? Retrieved 24 April
mary policies established in several of these countries. 2018 from. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/how-we-will-help/templates-and-
guides/fact-sheets/minimum-workplace-entitlements/minimum-wages.
In Australia, the companies responsible for recycling e-waste Fair Work, 2017. The PACT Calculator. Pay and Conditions Tool. Retrieved 23
under the NTCRS are autonomous in deciding what to do with the February 2018 from. https://calculate.fairwork.gov.au.
waste and therefore the greater profit is favored, which implies in Fowler, B.A., 2017. Chapter 2 - metals, metallic compounds, organic chemicals, and
E-waste chemical mixtures. In: Fowler, B.A. (Ed.), Electronic Waste. Academic
outsourcing both first stage and downstream recycling interna- Press, Boston, pp. 17e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803083-7.00002-0.
tionally. This is due to the high difference in wages paid in devel- Garlapati, V.K., 2016. E-waste in India and developed countries: management,
oped and developing countries and to the fact that first stage recycling, business and biotechnological initiatives. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
54, 874e881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.106.
recycling is a labor-intensive activity. Better monitoring tools need Golev, A., Corder, G.D., 2017. Quantifying metal values in e-waste in Australia: the
to be developed to ensure environmentally sound processes are value chain perspective. Miner. Eng. 107, 81e87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
being used once WEEE is exported to low income countries. The mineng.2016.10.021.
Golev, A., Schmeda-Lopez, D.R., Smart, S.K., Corder, G.D., McFarland, E.W., 2016.
only e-waste components that are not exported are the ones with Where next on e-waste in Australia? Waste Manag. 58, 348e358. https://doi.
negative economic net value or those whose export is restricted by org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.025.
law. Moreover, this study highlights the need of funding from the Han, W., Gao, G., Geng, J., Li, Y., Wang, Y., 2018. Ecological and health risks assess-
ment and spatial distribution of residual heavy metals in the soil of an e-waste
liable parties (importers and manufacturers) for e-waste to be
circular economy park in Tianjin, China. Chemosphere 197, 325e335. https://
recycled in Australia, because the only NTCRS equipment that have doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.01.043.
positive market value capable of justifying their first stage recycling Herat, S., Agamuthu, P., 2012. E-waste: a problem or an opportunity? Review of
without subsidy are computers. This is, however, subject to market issues, challenges and solutions in Asian countries. Waste Manag. Res. 30,
1113e1129. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734242X12453378.
fluctuations and even computers may result in an economic lia- Hotta, Y., Santo, A., Tasaki, T., 2014. EPR-based electronic home appliance recycling
bility. Furthermore, the decision-making process and the current system under home appliance recycling Act of Japan. Inst. Glob. Environ. Strat.
854 P. Dias et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 209 (2019) 846e854

1e29. mapping electronic waste flows in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Environ. Dev. 24, 1e8.
Ikhlayel, M., 2017. Environmental impacts and benefits of state-of-the-art tech- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev.2017.02.002.
nologies for E-waste management. Waste Manag. 68, 458e474. https://doi.org/ Sahajwalla, V., Pahlevani, F., Maroufi, S., Rajarao, R., 2016. Green manufacturing: a
10.1016/j.wasman.2017.06.038. key to innovation economy. J. Sustain. Metall. 2, 273e275. https://doi.org/10.
ILO, 2018a. International Labour Organization. Statutory Nominal Gross Monthly 1007/s40831-016-0087-z.
Minimum Wage – Harmonized Series. Schluep, M., 2014a. Chapter 25 - waste electrical and electronic equipment man-
ILO, 2018b. International Labour Organization. How Many Countries Have a Mini- agement. In: Handbook of Recycling. Elsevier, Boston, pp. 397e403. https://doi.
mum Wage? Retrieved 23 April 2018 from. http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/ org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396459-5.00025-8.
wages/minimum-wages/definition/WCMS_439073. http://www.ilo.org/global/ Schluep, M., 2014b. Chapter 29 - informal waste recycling in developing countries.
topics/wages/minimum-wages/definition/WCMS_439073. In: Handbook of Recycling. Elsevier, Boston, pp. 439e444. https://doi.org/10.
Islam, M.T., Huda, N., 2018. Reverse logistics and closed-loop supply chain of Waste 1016/B978-0-12-396459-5.00029-5.
Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE)/E-waste: a comprehensive litera- Shinkuma, T., Huong, N.T.M., 2009. The flow of E-waste material in the Asian region
ture review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 137, 48e75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. and a reconsideration of international trade policies on E-waste. Environ.
resconrec.2018.05.026. Impact Assess. Rev. 29, 25e31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2008.04.004.
Kiddee, P., Naidu, R., Wong, M.H., 2013. Electronic waste management approaches: Song, Q., Li, J., 2015. A review on human health consequences of metals exposure to
an overview. Waste Manag. 33, 1237e1250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman. e-waste in China. Environ. Pollut. 196, 450e461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
2013.01.006. envpol.2014.11.004.
Kumar, A., Holuszko, M., Espinosa, D.C.R., 2017. E-waste: an overview on generation, Sthiannopkao, S., Wong, M.H., 2013. Handling e-waste in developed and developing
collection, legislation and recycling practices. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 122, countries: initiatives, practices, and consequences. Sci. Total Environ. 463 (464),
32e42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.01.018. 1147e1153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.088.
Lane, R., Gumley, W., Santos, D., 2015. Mapping, Characterising and Evaluating Sugimura, Y., Murakami, S., 2016. Problems in Japan's governance system related to
Collection Systems and Organisations. Characterising Eval. Collect. Syst. Organ. end-of-life electrical and electronic equipment trade. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
Monash Univ. Aust. 112, 93e106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.04.009.
Leroy, P., 2012. 4 - the WEEE Forum and the WEEELABEX project. In: Waste Elec- Tansel, B., 2017. From electronic consumer products to e-wastes: global outlook,
trical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) Handbook, Woodhead Publishing Se- waste quantities, recycling challenges. Environ. Int. 98, 35e45. https://doi.org/
ries in Electronic and Optical Materials. Woodhead Publishing, pp. 66e77. 10.1016/j.envint.2016.10.002.
https://doi.org/10.1533/9780857096333.1.66. The Maptics, 2017. Thai Min Wage by Province 2017. Retrieved 23 February 2018
Li, J., Lopez, N., B, N., Liu, L., Zhao, N., Yu, K., Zheng, L., 2013. Regional or global WEEE from. http://sites.psu.edu/bill/2017/02/27/thaiminwage/.
recycling. Where to go? Waste Manag. 33, 923e934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Toffolet, R., 2016. Chapter 1 - WEEE management. In: Chagnes, A., Cote, G.,
wasman.2012.11.011. Ekberg, C., Nilsson, M., Retegan, T. (Eds.), WEEE Recycling. Elsevier, pp. 1e30.
Morris, A., Metternicht, G., 2016. Assessing effectiveness of WEEE management https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803363-0.00001-8.
policy in Australia. J. Environ. Manag. 181, 218e230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Wage Indicator, 2018a. China Minimum Wage 2016-2017. Retrieved 23 April 2018
jenvman.2016.06.013. from. https://wageindicator.org/main/salary/minimum-wage/china-custom.
Nelen, D., Manshoven, S., Peeters, J.R., Vanegas, P., D'Haese, N., Vrancken, K., 2014. Wage Indicator, 2018b. Minimum Wages in Indonesia with Effect from 01-01-2018
A multidimensional indicator set to assess the benefits of WEEE material to 31-12-2018. Retrieved 23 April 2018 from. https://wageindicator.org/main/
recycling. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 305e316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.06. salary/minimum-wage/indonesia.
094. Wang, F., Huisman, J., Meskers, C.E.M., Schluep, M., Stevels, A., Hagelüken, C., 2012.
OECD, 2008. Decision of the Council Concerning the Control of Transboundary The Best-of-2-Worlds philosophy: developing local dismantling and global
Movements of Wastes Destined for Recovery Operations. Environment Policy infrastructure network for sustainable e-waste treatment in emerging econo-
Committee. mies. Waste Manag. 32, 2134e2146. Special Thematic Issue: Waste Manage-
Oguri, T., Suzuki, G., Matsukami, H., Uchida, N., Tue, N.M., Tuyen, L.H., Viet, P.H., ment in Developing Countries. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012.03.029.
Takahashi, S., Tanabe, S., Takigami, H., 2018. Exposure assessment of heavy Wang, H., Gu, Y., Li, L., Liu, T., Wu, Y., Zuo, T., 2017. Operating models and devel-
metals in an e-waste processing area in northern Vietnam. Sci. Total Environ. opment trends in the extended producer responsibility system for waste
621, 1115e1123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.115. electrical and electronic equipment. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 127, 159e167.
Oliveira, C.R. de, Bernardes, A.M., Gerbase, A.E., 2012. Collection and recycling of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.002.
electronic scrap: a worldwide overview and comparison with the Brazilian Worrell, E., Reuter, M.A., 2014. Recycling. In: Handbook of Recycling. Elsevier,
situation. Waste Manag. 32, 1592e1610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2012. pp. 3e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-396459-5.00001-5.
04.003. Yoshida, A., Terazono, A., Ballesteros, F.C., Nguyen, D.-Q., Sukandar, S., Kojima, M.,
Premalatha, M., Abbasi, T., Abbasi, S.A., 2014. The generation, impact, and man- Sakata, S., 2016. E-waste recycling processes in Indonesia, the Philippines, and
agement of E-waste: state of the art. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, Vietnam: a case study of cathode ray tube TVs and monitors. Resour. Conserv.
1577e1678. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2013.782171. Recycl. 106, 48e58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2015.10.020.
Rochman, F.F., Ashton, W.S., Wiharjo, M.G.M., 2017. E-waste, money and power: