1 / 8

Conference on Substitution Hamburg, 13-14 June 2002

Working Group 3 Printed Circuit Boards. Introduction by: J. Lohse, Ökopol. Conference on Substitution Hamburg, 13-14 June 2002. Some Characteristics of Printed Circuit Boards:. Integral part of all electronic devices (IT, consumer goods, automotive etc.).

duc
Download Presentation

Conference on Substitution Hamburg, 13-14 June 2002

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Working Group 3 Printed Circuit Boards Introduction by: J. Lohse, Ökopol Conference on Substitution Hamburg, 13-14 June 2002

  2. Some Characteristics of Printed Circuit Boards: • Integral part of all electronic devices (IT, consumer goods, automotive etc.). • High-volume market, significant growth rates. • The dominating material is FR4 (glass-fibre reinforced epoxide). • UL-94 norm commonly applied defines classes V0, V1 related to resistance to flammability. • Substances most commonly applied to achieve flame resistance are brominated organic chemicals.

  3. Concerns about brominated flame retardants (BFR) • Toxic and suspected CMR properties of many BFR substances • Low biodegradability and/or formation of toxic metabolites • Diffuse losses from products in use • Ubiquitous occurrence in urban environment and remote areas • Found in human blood (exposed workers) • Found in human breast-milk (general population) • PXDD/F formation upon accidental fire • PXDD/F formation upon thermal stress during recycling

  4. Initiatives at the political level • Voluntary phase-out of some BFR by German chemical industry (after their behaviour as dioxin precursors was discovered) • Draft ROHS Directive requires substitution of PBB / PBDE • EU Risk Assessment on TBBA (ongoing) • Draft WEEE Directive requires dismantling of BFR-components • Legislative initiatives (e.g. in Germany and Denmark) • Eco-labelling criteria (EU flower, national & private labels) restrict the use of some or even all BFR. • Pressure from environmental NGOs.

  5. Initiatives at enterprise level (individual companies) • Circuit board manufacturer: disposal problem for production waste initiated search for substitutes • E&E manufacturer: early internal ban of PBB and PBDE - working towards total BFR phase-out to fulfill eco-label criteria • Car manufacturer: early internal ban of PBB and PBDE - working towards halogen-free materials in general where possible • Base-material supplier: offers halogen-free FR4 material and seeks first mover advantage • Market pressure from several Asian manufacturers • [parallel efforts in Asia and US to phase out Pb solder]

  6. Substitution strategies • Use of TBBA instead of PBB / PBDE • polymerized TBBA (reduces some but does not avoid all risks) • Phosphorus-based FR (shielding effect by solid-base reaction) • Mineral-based FR (ATH and similar - dilution & cooling effect) • Change of base material (e.g. foams, polysiloxane etc.) • Geometric separation of high and low voltage components • Reduce operating voltage. Substance --> material --> product level

  7. Use of P-based FR instead of TBBA - arguments and questions: • Economics • Additional cost of material ?! • Investments in process necessary ? • Dependance on single supplier ? ! • Technical functionality • Functional equivalence of substitute ? (safety standards, market requirements) • Communication / awareness • Necessity to involve all actors in the chain ! • Ecotox-profile as strong driver at company level ?? • Risk Assessment • Sufficient knowledge about ecotox-profile of substitutes ? • Regulative frame • Upcoming legislation ! • Existing standards in favour of traditional solutions ?! • Timing of innovation depends on parallel developments (e.g. Pb-free) !

  8. Questions to the Working Group:  Is it a case for substitution - YES or NO ?  If YES: what is needed to promote substitution ? (present barriers, supportive actions, legal or market instruments etc.)  If controversial: what would be the right procedure to decide ? (criteria; stakeholders to be involved; ...)  [if all say NO: why then are BFR high on the political agenda ?]

More Related