Read Aloud the Text Content

This audio was created by Woord's Text to Speech service by content creators from all around the world.

Text Content or SSML code:

Hello and Good Morning everyone. Thank you all for being here. My name is Maryam Ibrahim and I’m a first year Ph.D. student at the University of California Irvine, in the department of Population Health and Disease Prevention. And the research that I’ll be presenting today, is part of a larger, collaborative project led by UC Irvine’s WISDOM initiative (which is the World Institute for the Sustainable Development of Materials), and funded by Microsoft Research. I am one of five individuals from the UC Irvine research group, including Eric Schwartz and Haoyang He, who will also be presenting their research today. So I’d like to introduce you to my research topic, which focuses on the applicability of Green Electronics Standards to the lifecycle of printed wiring boards, and the gaps and challenges that emerge at the component level, which can offer valuable opportunities for the innovation of electronic products. So, I’d like to begin by mentioning the environmental and human health impacts from the production of printed wiring boards, and the role of Green Electronics Standards in establishing environmental guidelines for the market of electronic devices. Then, I will introduce the specific aims and objectives of this study, and the methods involved in producing two main analyses:
 The Analysis of harmonization will evaluate regulatory gaps between the standards, and the need to achieve consensus on important sustainability issues. And the Analysis of gaps and challenges will identify the current limitations within the standards, in addressing the lifecycle impacts of printed wiring boards. And to conclude, I’ll discuss how these gaps can be leveraged as opportunities to support the future innovation of electronic products. So the printed wiring board is the fundamental hardware that’s built into all electronic devices, and it allows a wide range of functions to take place simultaneously, by providing mechanical support and electrical connections between the different electronic components. But currently, there is a big knowledge gap in addressing the sustainability of PWB materials and processes, which are often chemically intensive, and generate hazardous pollutants in the form of gas emissions, waste water effluents and solid waste. The board component is manufactured by compressing multiple layers of substrate material under extreme temperature and pressure to produce the PWB laminate. These layers consist of a flame-resistant epoxy resin matrix (called the FR-4) that is embedded with woven e-glass fibers, and sheets of copper foil that are etched into conductive pathways to form the circuit. Then, holes are drilled through the substrate and plated with copper to provide connectivity between the layers. And it’s estimated that this process produces about 46 pounds of waste, for every 4 pounds of finished product. But the onset of environmental impacts begins with the selection of raw materials, which can have far-reaching impacts on humans and ecosystems. First, the source chemicals for the epoxy resin, are produced by extracting and refining non-renewable crude oil, which releases a high amount of carbon emissions and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. Then, the flame retardant is either reacted with the resin, or added via a mixing process; and there are multiple toxicity endpoints associated with both occupational and environmental exposure. Even the production of e-glass generates fine particulate matter, which is a respiratory hazard. But it’s also very energy-intensive. And many lifecycle impact assessments show that energy consumption from electricity, followed by the chemical processes involved in producing the flame-resistant epoxy, are the two main contributors to global warming potential. And as resource demands grow, there will be increased competition for raw materials and energy; so, there is a need to source alternative materials that are environmentally benign and sustainable. So the goal is to target these sustainability impact areas through innovative design, and guide the electronics industry towards adopting green chemistry principles, environmentally benign lifecycle, and design for environment to promote the sustainable development of PWBs. And here, I’d like to highlight the specific chemical hazards from the production of the FR-4 composite, because these impacts can be avoided by sourcing alternative materials that are less toxic. So, the main precursors for the flame-resistant epoxy, are these ultra-refined petrochemicals, which are Phenol, Acetone, Propylene, and Benzene; which all contribute to the carbon emissions from the oil refineries that mass produce these reagents. Epichlorohydrin and Bisphenol-A (or BPA) are the two compounds that are cross-linked to form the polymer resin, and this is an irreversible process called thermosetting, which makes the board un-recyclable As a separate process, the flame retardant is produced by reacting Bromine with BPA to produce a reactive compound called tetra-bromo-bispenol and this is highly toxic, bio-accumulative and environmentally persistent. And because the board component cannot be recycled, most PWBs are either landfilled or incinerated, which releases more carbon and hazardous air pollutants, like dioxins and furans (which are thermal degradation products from TBBPA), and those are established carcinogens, neurotoxins, and endocrine disruptors. In addition to that, there are industry costs associated with maintaining adequate safety controls for these reactive chemicals. So, the question is, what role does Green Electronics Standards have in mitigating these impacts? And this was the central focus of my research. So today, we have more than 500 different green electronics standards and they vary based on geographic location, developing organization, certification agency, and (of course) environmental criteria. And the involvement of a diverse group of stakeholders in criteria development, also implies that there will be competing interests and different perspectives on sustainability. All of these factors translate into inconsistencies between the environmental criteria in terms of design specifications, verification requirements, sustainability thresholds, and even the acceptable levels of restricted toxic substances. Currently, the U.S. government uses EPEAT, which is the Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool, and this is a registry for sustainable electronic products. And it’s managed by the Green Electronics Council, which establishes organizational standards, based on product type. So for example, computers and displays comply with the IEEE standards; and servers comply with the NSF standards. Both of these organizations have required and optional criteria, and so EPEAT awards the level of environmental compliance based on a tiered system. Other independent organizations developed their own criteria through an entirely different regulatory framework. So for example, TCO Certified is a Swedish-based eco label, that combines performance criteria with environmental criteria; and they use Sustainability Performance Indicators (or SPIs) to track the environmental performance of their products. And these three standards have high impact in the electronics industry; so they were chosen as a case study to determine the applicability of G.E.S to PWB. And the specific aim of this research, was to evaluate the criteria from each of these three standards, and determine gaps and challenges in the sustainability of the PWB component. So each standard was designated as a group, and the relevant criteria was extracted and analyzed across four levels of environmental performance categories, which are Restricted Toxic Substances, Safer Material Alternatives, Design for Repair and Reuse, and End-of-Life Management. Then, two specific analyses were performed: The first one, is a harmonization analysis, which identifies the overlapping and discrepant criteria between the standards to gauge consensus on important sustainability issues. And the gap analysis identifies missing or incomplete standards that are needed to address the PWB component. And here, the lifecycle impacts of PWB was compared against the existing standards, and the gaps were identified as targets for criteria development. The diagram on the right, is the conceptual framework of the study; and it shows how these two analyses fit into the big picture perspective, and inform the need for a globally harmonized standard that can support innovation and promote a circular economy. The outer circle is open to indicate that these are living standards, that need to be updated frequently to keep up with the rapid pace of innovation, and the arrows represent the expansion of G.E.S through criteria development to address a broader scope of lifecycle impacts.