The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Uncovering the Recycling Potential of “New” WEEE in China
Abstract
Newly defined categories of WEEE have increased the types of China's regulated WEEE from 5 to 14. Identification of the amounts and valuable-resource components of the "new" WEEE generated is critical to solving the e-waste problem, for both governmental policy decisions and recycling enterprise expansions. This study first estimates and predicts China's new WEEE generation for the period of 2010-2030 using material flow analysis and the lifespan model of the Weibull distribution, then determines the amounts of valuable resources (e.g., base materials, precious metals, and rare-earth minerals) encased annually in WEEE, and their dynamic transfer from in-use stock to waste. Main findings include the following: (i) China will generate 15.5 and 28.4 million tons WEEE in 2020 and 2030, respectively, and has already overtaken the U.S. to become the world's leading producer of e-waste; (ii) among all the types of WEEE, air conditioners, desktop personal computers, refrigerators, and washing machines contribute over 70% of total WEEE by weight. The two categories of EEE-electronic devices and electrical appliances-each contribute about half of total WEEE by weight; (iii) more and more valuable resources have been transferred from in-use products to WEEE, significantly enhancing the recycling potential of WEEE from an economic perspective; and (iv) WEEE recycling potential has been evolving from ∼16 (10-22) billion US$ in 2010, to an anticipated ∼42 (26-58) billion US$ in 2020 and ∼73.4 (44.5-103.4) billion US$ by 2030. All the obtained results can improve the knowledge base for closing the loop of WEEE recycling, and contribute to governmental policy making and the recycling industry's business development.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Environmental effects of information and communications technologies
Williams, E. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature10682 · Cited by 304
Cited by
Toward sustainable and systematic recycling of spent rechargeable batteries
Zhang, X., Li, L., Fan, E., Xue, Q., Bian, Y., Wu, F., & Chen, R. (2018) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/c8cs00297e · Cited by 1,038
Urban Mining of E-Waste is Becoming More Cost-Effective Than Virgin Mining
Zeng, X., Mathews, J. A., & Li, J. (2018) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.7b04909 · Cited by 428
Self-citationGu, F., Guo, J., Zhang, W., Summers, P. A., & Hall, P. (2017) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.278 · Cited by 423
Global trends and future prospects of e-waste research: a bibliometric analysis
Gao, Y., Ge, L., Shi, S., Sun, Y., Liu, M., Wang, B., Shang, Y., Wu, J., & Tian, J. (2019) · Environmental Science and Pollution Research · doi:10.1007/s11356-019-05071-8 · Cited by 205
Ravindra, K., & Mor, S. (2019) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.158 · Cited by 123
Metadata
- Authors
- Zeng, X., Gong, R., Chen, W.-Q., & Li, J.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2016-01-11
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1347-1358
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2210555408
- Cited by
- 319
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 36.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.