4.7 Article

Environmental and risk screening for prioritizing pollution prevention opportunities in the US printed wiring board manufacturing industry

期刊

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
卷 189, 期 1-2, 页码 315-322

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.02.044

关键词

Printed wiring boards; Pollution prevention; Environmental impact assessment; Toxics Release Inventory; Risk screening

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CMS-0524903]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Modern manufacturing of printed wiring boards (PWBs) involves extensive use of various hazardous chemicals in different manufacturing steps such as board preparation, circuit design transfer, etching and plating processes. Two complementary environmental screening methods developed by the U.S. EPA, namely: (i) the Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and Other Environmental Impacts (TRACI) and (ii) Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators (RSEI), are used to quantify geographic and chemical environmental impacts in the U.S. PWB manufacturing industry based on Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data. Although the release weight percentages of industrial chemicals such as methanol, glycol ethers and dimethylformamide comprise the larger fraction of reported air and water emissions, results indicate that lead, copper and their compounds' releases correspond to the highest environmental impact from toxicity potentials and risk-screening scores. Combining these results with further knowledge of PWB manufacturing, select alternative chemical processes and materials for pollution prevention are discussed. Examples of effective pollution prevention options in the PWB industry include spent etchant recovery technologies, and process and material substitutions. In addition, geographic assessment of environmental burden highlights states where promotion of pollution prevention strategies and emissions regulations can have the greatest effect to curb the PWB industry's toxic release impacts. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据