Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 8564–8570
Spatial Assessment of Net Mercury Emissions from the Use of Fluorescent Bulbs M A T T H E W J . E C K E L M A N , †,‡ P A U L T . A N A S T A S , §,|,⊥ A N D J U L I E B . Z I M M E R M A N * ,†,|,⊥ Department of Chemical Engineering, Environmental Engineering Program, Center for Industrial Ecology, Department of Chemistry, School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511
Received January 13, 2008. Revised manuscript received August 21, 2008. Accepted August 27, 2008.
While fluorescent lighting is an important technology for reducing electrical energy demand, mercury used in the bulbs is an ongoing concern. Using state and country level data, net emissions of mercury from the marginal use of fluorescent lightbulbs are examined for a base year of 2004 for each of the 50 United States and 130 countries. Combustion of coal for electric power generation is generally the largest source of atmospheric mercury pollution; reduction in electricity demand from the substitution of incandescent bulbs with fluorescents leads to reduced mercury emissions during the use of the bulb. This analysis considers the local mix of power sources, coal quality, thermal conversion efficiencies, distribution losses, and any mercury control technologies that might be in place. Emissions of mercury from production and end-of-life treatment of the bulbs are also considered, providing a life-cycle perspective. Net reductions in mercury over the entire life cycle range from -1.2 to 97 mg per bulb depending on the country. The consequences for atmospheric mercury emissions of several policy scenarios are also discussed.
Introduction When fluorescent bulbs were first produced at the turn of the 20th century, there were already warnings from the medical community about mercury’s effect on human health. Mercury exposure, depending on its form, can lead to a variety of health effects including neurological damage, particularly during fetal and child development. While the use of mercurycontaining fluorescent bulbs has increased greatly over the past 80 years, especially in commercial and industrial establishments, global mercury emissions have been historically dominated by industries such as chlor-alkali production, electrical switching, waste combustion, and coal combustion for heat and electric power. With the introduction of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) in the 1970s, however, and the technology’s recent and growing penetration into the resi* Corresponding author phone: 203-432-9703;
[email protected]. † Department of Chemical Engineering. ‡ Center for Industrial Ecology. § Department of Chemistry. | School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. ⊥ Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering. 8564
9
e-mail:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008
dential market, concerns about exposure to mercury from shattered and discarded spent bulbs has garnered increasing attention. It is anticipated that the residential market will continue to grow due to government policies, rising electricity costs, “green purchasing” trends, and advertising campaigns. Mercury is an essential component of the current generation of fluorescent bulbs, which account for more than 80% of the mercury in the lighting sector (1). Manufacturers have worked to reduce the amount of mercury in lamps over time partly because of regulatory pressure and partly to assuage customers. In 1985 the average mercury content of a T8 bulb sold in the United States was nearly 50 mg; by the mid 2000s that number had fallen by more than 90% (2-4). In April 2007, members of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) signed on to a voluntary mercury reduction target for CFLs, capping the amount of mercury in each bulb at 5 mg. Large retailers have additionally pressured suppliers to reduce the mercury content below the NEMA standard. While the amount of mercury contained in each bulb is relatively small, the large market for lighting means that, in total, fluorescent bulbs represent a significant category of mercury-containing wastes in many mercury emissions inventories (Table 1). In the United States, there are an estimated 4.2 billion mercury-containing lamps in circulation, of which about 4 billion are fluorescents (14). Some 700 million of these lamps are discarded annually (15). Several studies have examined the loss of mercury from fluorescent bulbs, most of them focusing on the disposal stage (15-17). More general research on the material flows of mercury also typically covers the lighting sector (18-20). According to these studies, mercury contained in fluorescent bulbs is emitted to the atmosphere in three primary ways: bulb breakage during transport, vaporization during incineration, and evaporation from landfills. Estimates of emissions from end-of-life handling of fluorescent bulbs range from 6.6% to 30% of the contained mercury, most due to breakage in transit. The most comprehensive analysis, which is still highly uncertain, estimates that approximately 13% of the mercury contained in fluorescent lamps is eventually released to the atmosphere (18). Proper recycling can reduce the environmental burden of lamp disposal. In aggregate, proper recycling (with mercury recovery) is applied to approximately 20% of all discarded bulbs in the United States, accounting for the recovery of almost 2.3 tons of mercury (2). While there are strong concerns about mercury losses to the environment from breakage, fluorescent lamps also decrease total emissions of mercury through reduced demand for electric power. The relative risks posed to humans and the environment by release of mercury through power plants versus that of fluorescent light bulbs is complex. The toxicity of elemental or inorganic mercury that one might incur from direct exposure to a broken bulb is significantly less than that of organic mercury and is primarily associated with chronic exposure. Organic mercury, most commonly methyl mercury, formed through biological processes following deposition of inorganic mercury in the environment from sources such as power plants, is known to have a wide range of serious toxicological end points. While a comprehensive relative risk assessment of mercury from power plants and mercury from fluorescent bulbs would include important factors of environmental fate, speciation, projections of acute versus chronic exposures, toxicity of various mercury forms, and epidemiological factors, such an assessment is beyond the scope of this analysis. As an element that is known to 10.1021/es800117h CCC: $40.75
2008 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 10/01/2008
TABLE 1. Past Research on the Contribution of Fluorescent Lamps to Overall Mercury Emissions
c
inventory area China Japan Mexico United States Northeast U.S. Europe Russian Federation Global
authors
contribution of fluorescent lamps to overall Hg emissions (kg)
contribution of fluorescent lamps to overall Hg emissions (%)
Streets et al. (5) Kida and Sakai (6) Asari et al. (7) Acosta-Ruiz and Powers (8) USEPA (9) NESCAUM (10) Pacyna et al. (11), EMEP Danish Environmental Protection Agency (12) Pacyna et al. (13)
24,520a 1,100b 229 1,400 227 210 550b,c 66,400d
4.6% 4.1% 0.7% 1% 5% 0.1% 1.3% 3%
a From manufacturing of mercury-containing lamps and batteries. b Calculated using 25% release factor during disposal. Sum of manufacturing and waste management losses. d Only waste management losses.
persist, bioaccumulate, and biomagnify in the environment, the contributions to atmospheric mercury emissions from these two routes, rather than exposure, is the present focus. Nearly all (99%) mercury emissions from the power generation sector are a result of coal-combustion (9). This indicates that any potential reduction in mercury emissions is largely dependent on the characteristics of the coal-fired power sector and the specific coal being used for energy generation. Previous research into net mercury emissions from fluorescent bulbs has focused simply on the percentage of coal in the mix of electricity generation; however, other important factors include the quality and mercury content of the coal, the level of coal precleaning, power plant thermal efficiencies, electricity imports/exports, and any mercury control technologies that are utilized. The present study aims to incorporate these factors into a detailed geographic accounting of the tradeoff between reduced atmospheric mercury emissions from the energy sector through the use and disposal of fluorescent bulbs and direct mercury emissions at end of life, both domestically and globally. Clearly there are other benefits associated with reducing electricity demand, particularly the reduction of energy use and associated greenhouse gas emissions; however, this study focuses on mercury only. As such, this quantitative analysis will provide insight as to where fluorescent lamp use is most beneficial in terms of reducing total atmospheric mercury emissions, considering both energy savings and bulb disposal. A global perspective is important as atmospheric mercury is a transboundary pollution issue; for example, current estimates are that less than half of all mercury deposition within the United States comes from domestic sources (21), with much of the balance originating from industrial facilities in Asia. Scenario modeling is utilized to inform several potential policy choices for various regions. These results can potentially contribute to focusing policy and marketing efforts toward reducing total mercury emissions to the environment.
Data and Methods The present analysis, covering the 50 United States and 130 countries, examines the marginal effect of replacing one incandescent 60W bulb with a CFL of equal luminous intensity over the life cycle of the bulb. Generally, life-cycle atmospheric mercury impacts from lightbulbs are confined to three stages: production, use, and waste management. Production. Because of the longer lifetimes of fluorescent bulbs compared to incandescents, fewer physical bulbs are needed to provide equivalent lighting services. Thus, fewer bulbs need to be manufactured, leading to a decrease in mercury emissions, primarily from the reduction of coalfired electricity used in production and fabrication of these avoided bulbs. Based on studies of direct and indirect mercury emissions from the manufacture of fluorescent and incan-
descent bulbs (22, 23), the slight increase in emissions of mercury during fluorescent rather than incandescent lamp manufacturing is assumed to be insignificant compared with other life cycle stages. Use. CFLs are assumed to be four times as efficient as incandescent bulbs in terms of lumens-per-watt output, with a rated lifetime of 10,000 h. The replacement of one 60W incandescent bulb with a CFL translates to a final energy savings of approximately 450 kWh over the useful life of the bulb. For each of the United States, the difference in net mercury emissions during use was calculated in two ways: using data supplied from Department of Energy’s eGRID and data supplied from the Energy Information Agency. eGRID provides various emissions factors for CO2, mercury, NOx, and SO2 per unit of electricity for every power plant in the country (24) based on measured and estimated mercury emissions data for 1999, scaled to 2004 use of fossil fuel inputs. One disadvantage of eGRID is that it omits emissions data for several states and all U.S. territories, thus giving an incomplete picture of the country. Emissions data for Montana also had to be adjusted due to large discrepancies between eGRID and state sources (25). Another disadvantage is that it is not possible to ascertain the baseline factors that were used in determining mercury emmisions from each power plant, including grid transfers, coal quality and mercury content, and pollution control efficacy. A second calculation was made using state-level information largely derived from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). For each state, a standard two-step process was used to ascertain the amount of mercury emitted per unit of electricity use: 1. accounting up the energy chain from final energy (electricity) use back to primary energy (coal and oil inputs to power plants) in order to determine how much coal or oil is used per unit of electricity consumption in each state; 2. estimating how much mercury is emitted per unit of coal or oil consumed in power generation. The percentage of electricity generation due to coal or oil in a particular state was calculated from data given by the EIA. For border states that engage in international grid transfers, these percentages were adjusted to account for electricity imports and exports to/from Canada and Mexico, which in turn were scaled by these countries’ national contribution of coal-fired generation to their electricity supply. One subtlety is that these grid mix percentages change during the day as power dispatchers respond to peak demand by bringing (generally gas-fired) units online. The proportion of a lightbulb’s electricity demand that is actually supplied by coal-fired generation is dependent on the lighting load relative to the total load in a particular area. In the residential sector, lighting demand and total demand are largely VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
8565
FIGURE 1. Mercury and the life cycle of the CFL. Note: adapted from ref 18. coincident, with the lighting peak occurring only slightly later in the day, based on evidence from California (26) as well as international sources (i.e., Australia) (27, 28). The average grid mix percentages also include gas-fired peak generators that are online during times of high lighting demand, and so in the absence of appropriate national and international time-of-day grid mix data, the annual average grid mix percentages were deemed acceptable. For the United States, an electrical efficiency of 33% was assumed, representing the conversion efficiency of primary coal energy to electricity (29). State-averaged values for the heat content of coal and oil were obtained from the EIA, as was a national transmission and distribution loss of 6.7% (29). For the second step, a general North America mercury emission factor for coal combustion of 0.18 g Hg t-1 (30) and for oil combustion of 0.0006 g Hg t-1 (13) was used. Mercury control technology was assumed to have an efficiency of 40% (13). Equation 1 (corresponding to step 1 above) describes the marginal savings of primary energy due to the increased energy efficiency of replacing one incandescent bulb with a CFL: E)
(Pinc - Pfl)λ Rconv(1 - Rdist)
(1)
where E ) marginal primary energy savings; Pinc ) rated wattage of incandescent bulb; Pfl ) equivalent wattage of fluorescent bulb; λ ) rated fluorescent bulb lifetime; Rconv ) conversion efficiency; and Rdist ) percent distribution losses. Marginal reduction in emissions of mercury to air from fossil fuel-based electricity is given by: Mr(Hg) ) E × (1 - Rcontrol) × RcoalCcoal(Hg)fcoal RoilCoil(Hg)foil + Hcoal Hoil
(
)
(2)
where Mr(Hg) ) mass of mercury reduced; Rcontrol ) percent Hg control of pollution abatement equipment; Rcoal and Roil ) proportion of coal and oil in the electricity mix; C(Hg) ) concentration of Hg in coal and oil; f ) fraction of Hg volatilized during combustion of coal and oil; H ) heat content of coal and oil. In expanding the analysis to a global perspective, data were primarily derived from the International Energy Agency 8566
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008
(IEA) including the percentages of coal- and oil-fired generation in electricity production as well as their respective average thermal conversion efficiencies (31, 32). Data on distribution losses and the heat content of coal and oil for each country were taken from the EIA’s International Energy Outlook (29). Mercury concentration and emission factors for coal combustion in different regions follow Pirrone et al. (30), while the mercury content of oil is a constant 0.0006 g Hg t-1. Waste Management. For the United States, each CFL bulb was assumed to have 5 mg of mercury, as set by the NEMA standard discussed above. Comprehensive state-level data were not available for recycling rates; a national rate of 21% was assumed, based on a best estimate of several sources (2, 3, 15, 18, 33). Following Aucott et al., it is assumed that of the remaining fraction that is not properly recycled, 25% of the mercury contained in the lamps is emitted to the atmosphere, primarily from breakage during transit (17). Based on reasonably strict air pollution controls in recycling plants themselves, recycling process emissions are assumed to be so small as to be insignificant (2). After final disposal, there can be re-emission to the atmosphere from landfilled bulbs, which in total is assumed to be 3.5% of the mercury flow entering the landfill (34). Equation 3 describes the marginal increase in air emissions of mercury during lamp disposal: Me(Hg) ) Mbulb(Hg) × [(0.25 + 0.035)(1 - Rrec)]
(3)
where Me(Hg) ) mass of mercury emitted; Mbulb(Hg) ) mass of mercury per bulb; and Rrec ) recycling rate. For other countries, lamp recycling data were collected from a number of sources and are presented in Table 2. In the case of the European Union, a distribution factor for the total proportion of mercury contained in lamps that is eventually emitted to the atmosphere was reported. Where information on recycling activities was unavailable, proxy data from similar countries in the region were applied. In the absence of proxy data, recycling rates were assumed as follows: OECD countries 20%; developing countries 5%; leastdeveloped countries 0%. There are likely regional differences in the amount of mercury emitted during lamp manufacturing; Streets et al. (5) report that there is a nearly 5% loss in the manufacture of fluorescent lamps in China, while Cain et al. report virtually
FIGURE 2. Net reduction in atmospheric mercury emissions from the replacement of one incandescent bulb with a CFL in the United States.
TABLE 2. Fluorescent Lamp Recycling Rates for Different Regions and Countries recycling distribution rate factor region/country applied applied Canada United States Mexico EU25 Belarus
7% 20% 0% 10%
9.1%
South Africa Korea Taiwan Japan
5% 12%a 87%b 9%c
-
source Hilkene and Friesen (35) USGS (34) Acosta-Ruiz (8) Kindbom and Munthe (36) UNEP (37) assumption, based on presence of recyclers Kim (38) Hilkene and Friesen (35) Asari et al. (7)
a This relatively high rate is due to the inclusion of fluorescent lamps in a national extended producer responsibility program. b Taiwan’s extremely high collection rate for fluorescent lamps is due to a compulsory recycling program. c The one fluorescent lamp recycler in Japan, Nomura Kosan Co. Ltd. reports that only 18% of the lamps that are collected are shipped to their Itomuka facility for recycling.
no losses in the United States (18). These values have been assigned to all non-OECD and OECD countries, respectively. The average mercury content of lamps used in each country was also difficult to assess; here we have applied an average value of 5 mg per bulb in OECD countries and 10 mg per bulb elsewhere. Results from each of the three major life cycle stages were summed to find the net change to mercury emissions from lamp replacement for each state/country. For both the United States and global assessments, regressions were performed to determine the main drivers of the variation in net mercury reductions.
Effects of Marginal Substitution of CFLs The analysis reveals a large geographic variation in the net emissions of mercury that can be prevented by a marginal increase in the use of fluorescent bulbs. This is true both for the United States and globally. In general, for regions where
coal is a major source of power, the substitution of CFLs for incandescent bulbs will result in a significant reduction in mercury emissions to the atmosphere. In places where coal will contribute less to electricity production or if energy portfolios expand to include renewables as a substitute for coal, the relative reduction of mercury emissions from this substitution would decrease. For the United States, the greatest reduction in emissions occurs in North Dakota, West Virginia, and New Mexico, all of which derive more than 85% of their electricity from coal. Interestingly, both Indiana and Wyoming use a higher percentage of coal and yet the reductions in those states is approximately half of that of New Mexico’s. This is due primarily to differences in coal quality and mercury content, precombustion treatment of coal, and the use of pollution control technology. There are several states where marginal increases in the use of CFLs will result in increased atmospheric mercury emissions, namely Alaska, California, Oregon, Idaho, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island. All of these states use little coal for electricity production, with the notable exception of New Hampshire (18.3%), which has a fairly low input mercury emissions rate for its coal (39). A simple regression on the percentage of coal in the electricity mix has an R2 value of 0.59. This means that nearly 40% of the variation in mercury emissions among states cannot be explained by this single variable, and that other factors such as coal quality and mercury content must also be examined when performing this type of analysis. There is significantly more variation in net reductions of atmospheric mercury emissions among the nations of the world than within the United States, with a range of -1.2 to 97 mg net reductions. Lighting efficiency is just one way to decrease mercury emissions through decreased energy demand; any electrical energy efficiency measure will have an effect, particularly in countries where the proportion of coal-derived electric power is high, the heat content of coal is low, and the level of pollution control is low. In Estonia, the country with the greatest potential for net reduction in mercury emissions, coal-derived power makes up 92% of all generation and the coal is of low quality, with a heat content of only 8.79 GJ t-1 and an assumed mercury content of 0.3 g Hg t-1. Countries such as Norway or Paraguay VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
8567
FIGURE 3. Net reduction in atmospheric mercury emissions from the replacement of one incandescent bulb with a CFL in 130 countries. that use a high proportion of hydro power, or the many that rely primarily on oil for thermal power generation, will experience an increase in atmospheric emissions of mercury associated with fluorescent bulbs. It can be seen from Figure 3 that this is the case in most areas of Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East. For this reason, these countries in particular should work to create efficient collection and recycling systems for end-of-life fluorescent bulbs. A multiple regression was run on the global data to determine the effects of different input variables on the net reduction in mercury emissions. Only countries that used a nonzero percentage of coal in their electricity mix were included (n ) 66). Those factors that were statistically significant (R ) 0.05) were the percentage of coal in the electricity supply mix, the heat content of the coal, the conversion efficiency, and the recycling emissions factor. Details can be found in the Supporting Information. In general, it appears that increasing the use of fluorescent lighting is an effective way to reduce life-cycle mercury emissions. In countries where there is a small percentage of coal-based power generation and little to no recycling, the use of fluorescents may instead increase national atmospheric mercury emissions. It is also the case that many of the countries where fluorescent lighting would be most effective at reducing emissions are also places where recycling infrastructure is lacking, such as those in Central Asia and southern Africa. It is also useful to look at the break point between emissions from fluorescent bulbs and power plants, or the point at which net atmospheric mercury emissions would be zero. Several break point curves are shown in Figure 4 where the percentage of coal in the electricity mix and the recycling rate are varied, while all other variables are kept constant at present United States values. For example, if the percentage of coal in the electricity mix is assumed to be 5%, increasing the recycling rate from 0 to 50% would change the net mercury reductions (negative emissions) from a negative number to a positive one. The break point increases with the recycling rate along the percentage coal axis; however, the break point for maximum recycling occurs for 8568
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008
a coal percentage of well less than 10%. This means that for countries such as the United States that derive a large percentage of their electricity from coal, replacing incandescents with CFLs will produce net mercury savings on a national basis for the foreseeable future. Fluorescent Lighting Policy Analysis. Around the world, there are a number of interesting policies regarding fluorescent lighting that have been enacted in recent years or are being discussed. These fall into three general categories: those that limit the amount of mercury in bulbs, those that mandate increases in recycling rates for fluorescents, and those that restrict the use of incandescents. There are also national and state programs to promote the use of CFLs, particularly for residential customers (40). In the European Union, the use of mercury and several other heavy metals in products is prohibited through the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive, which went into effect July 1, 2006. However, fluorescent lamps with 5 mg or less of mercury are eligible for an exemption, due to their usefulness for energy savings and a lack of functional alternatives (41). Canada has a standard in place to reduce the amount of mercury in lamps by 80% from 1990 baseline levels by 2010 (37). Increasing the recycling rate of fluorescent bulbs clearly shifts net mercury emissions, as shown in Figure 4. The United States aims to increase fluorescent lamp recycling rates to 80% by 2009 (35). By achieving this rate for the more than four billion fluorescent lamps currently in service, our analysis indicates that the United States would reduce the amount of mercury emitted to the atmosphere from the treatment and disposal of these bulbs by two-thirds, for a total savings of nearly 2 Mg (metric tons) for the current stock of fluorescents. Emissions can be reduced further through safeguards against mercury losses from lamp breakage during transport, such as plastic sheathing or other effective endof-life packaging. National and regional governments in Australia, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, and several European countries (among others) have policies banning the future sale and/or use of incandescents; in December of 2007, the United States
new technologies for the end of life could help reduce the negative impacts on human health and the environment.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge the Natural Resources Defense Council for background reference material and the four anonymous reviewers for their useful comments and suggestions.
Note Added after ASAP Publication Some units of measure were presented incorrectly in the version published ASAP October 1, 2008; the corrected version was published ASAP October 11, 2008. FIGURE 4. Break point curves for several modeled recycling rates.
TABLE 3. National Mercury Reductions from Various Policies policy
reduction (Mg)
80% recycling rate
2
incandescents ban
25
MACT in coal plants
56
renewable energy portfolio standard
5
Supporting Information Available Details regarding the country-by-country factors used in the calculation of net mercury emissions and the multiple regression results, and metals used in various LED bulbs. This material is available free of charge via the Internet at http://pubs.acs.org.
notes occurs over average fluorescent bulb lifetime (4 years) one-time substitution of fluorescents for incandescents continued installation of pollution control equipment sustained decrease in mercury from coal plants as renewables substitute for coal
enacted similar legislation to phase out the use of incandescent bulbs by 2012-2014 (42). A significant proportion (∼40%) of the several billion incandescent bulbs currently in use in the United States are for small fixturessthese will likely be replaced by small, low-power solid state bulbs such as light-emitting diodes (LEDs) (43). But the remainder may well be substituted with low-mercury-content CFLs. Assuming that demand for residential lighting grows at an annual rate of 0.8% (43), that in 2012 all large incandescent bulbs will be replaced by CFLs, that the recycling rate will increase to 25%, and that the power mix will be unchanged from the current situation, the United States will avoid approximately 25 Mg of mercury emmisions. For comparison, implementing the assumed maximum achievable control technology (MACT) of 90% mercury reduction in coal-fired power plants in 2012 (when net generation of electricity from coal is projected to reach 2170 billion kWh (44)) will reduce mercury emissions by approximately 56 Mg annually. Another policy comparison is raising the share of electric power generated from (nonhydro) renewable sources to 10% of the total in 2012 from the current level of 2.4% (assuming substitution for coal derived power), which would reduce mercury emissions by approximately 5 Mg of mercury (45). The private sector is also working to reduce mercury emissions from fluorescents, both by manufacturing lowmercury-content lamps and by increasing recycling and mercury recovery. Many of the largest CFL manufacturers such as GE, Royal Philips, Osram Sylvania, and Lights of America have achieved mercury levels 50% or more below the NEMA 5 mg standard. Looking to the future, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Vision 2020 project brought together researchers, manufacturers, and policy makers to push for the elimination of mercury from CFLs by 2020 (46). These reductions, coupled with appropriate handling systems and
Literature Cited (1) New England Waste Management Officials’ Association. Mercury Use in Lighting; NEWMOA: Boston, MA, 2006. (2) USGS. Mercury Flow Through the Mercury-Containing Lamp Sector of the Economy of the United States; U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, DC, 2006. (3) National Electrical Manufacturers Association. Fluorescent Lamps and the Environment; NEMA, 2001. (4) Jang, M.; Hong, S. M.; Park, J. K. Characterization and recovery of mercury from spent fluorescent lamps. Waste Manage. 2005, 25, 5–14. (5) Streets, D. G.; Hao, J. M.; Wu, Y.; Jiang, J. K.; Chan, M.; Tian, H. Z.; Feng, X. B. Anthropogenic mercury emissions in China. Atmos. Environ. 2005, 39, 7789–7806. (6) Kida, A.; Sakai, S. Preliminary Estimation of Mercury Emission Inventories for Japan’s Air. Waste Manage. Res. 2005, 16, 191– 203; in Japanese. (7) Asari, M.; Fukui, K.; Sakai, S.; Takatsuki, H. Substance Flow of Mercury and Fluorescent Lamp Recycling. Waste Manage. Res. 2005, 16, 223–235; in Japanese. (8) Acosta-Ruiz, G.; Powers, B. Preliminary atmospheric emissions inventory of mercury in Mexico; 12th Annual US EPA International Emissions Inventory Conference; 2003; Vol. 29. (9) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury Study Report to Congress. Volume II: An Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the United States; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA: Washington, DC, 1997. (10) Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management. Inventory of Anthropogenic Mercury Emissions in the Northeast; NESCAUM: Boston, MA, 2005. (11) Pacyna, J. M.; Mu ¨ nch, J. Anthropogenic mercury emission in Europe. Water Air Soil Pollut. 1991, 56, 51–61. (12) Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Assessment of Mercury Releases from the Russian Federation; Copenhagen, Denmark, 2005. (13) Pacyna, E. G.; Pacyna, J. M.; Steenhuisen, F.; Wilson, S. Global anthropogenic mercury emission inventory for 2000. Atmos. Environ. 2006, 40, 4048–4063. (14) Navigant Consulting, U.S. Lighting Market Characterization. Vol. 1: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption Estimate; Prepared for the Building Technologies Program, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy: Washington, DC, 2002. (15) Johnson, N. C.; Manchester, S.; Sarin, L.; Gao, Y.; Kulaots, I.; Hurt, R. H. Mercury Vapor Release from Broken Compact Fluorescent Lamps and In Situ Capture by New Nanomaterial Sorbents. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 5772–5778. (16) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Mercury emissions from the disposal of fluorescent lamps: Final report; Office of Solid Waste: Washington, DC, 1997. (17) Aucott, M.; McLinden, M.; Winka, M. Release of Mercury from Broken Fluorescent Bulbs. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 2003, 53, 143–151. (18) Cain, A.; Disch, S.; Twaroski, C.; Reindl, J.; Case, C. R. Substance Flow Analysis of Mercury Intentionally Used in Products in the United States. J. Ind. Ecol. 2007, 11 (3), 61–75. VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
9
8569
(19) Jasinski, S. M. The materials flow of mercury in the United States. Resour., Conserv. Recycl. 1995, 15, 145–179. (20) Sznopek, J. L.; Goonan, T. G. The Materials Flow of Mercury in the Economies of the United States and the World; U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey: Washington, DC, 2000. (21) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA’s Roadmap for Mercury; Washington, DC, 2006. (22) Shiino, T.; Takayoshi, U.; Hiroshi, O.; Humiaki, A. LCA of the lightbulb and fluorescent lamp. J. Illuminating Eng. Inst. Japan 1998, 82, 825–827; in Japanese. (23) Okada, Y.; Ueno, T.; Onishi, H.; Tachibana, H. Comparison of Eco-Efficiencies Between Several Product Categories of Lamps. Proc. 5th Int. Conf. EcoBalance 2002 2002, 427–430. (24) U.S. Department of Energy. eGRID; Washington, DC, 2004. (25) State of Montana Board of Environmental Review. Benefits and Costs of Various Options for Meeting CAMR through Control of Mercury from Electrical Generating Units; Helena, MT, 2006. (26) Brown, R. E.; Koomey, J. G. Electricity use in California: past trends and present usage patterns. Energy Policy 2003, 31, 849–864. (27) Stokes, M.; Rylatt, M.; Lomas, K. A simple model of domestic lighting demand. Energy Buildings 2004, 36, 103–116. (28) EMET Consultants, The Impact of Commercial and Residential Sectors: Energy Efficiency Initiatives on Electricity Demand; Sustainable Energy Authority of Victoria: Melbourne, Australia, 2004. (29) U.S. Energy Information Administration. International Energy Annual 2004; EIA: Washington, DC, 2006. (30) Pirrone, N.; Keeler, G. J.; Nriagu, J. O. Regional differences in worldwide emissions of mercury to the atmosphere. Atmos. Environ. 1996, 30, 2981–2987. (31) International Energy Agency. Energy Balances of non-OECD Countries: 2003-2004; Paris, 2006. (32) International Energy Agency. Energy Balances of OECD Countries: 2003-2004; Paris, 2006.
8570
9
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008
(33) U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste. Mercury Emissions from the Disposal of Fluorescent Lamps: Final Report; Washington, DC, 1997. (34) U.S. Geological Survey. Mercury Flow Through the MercuryContaining Lamp Sector of the Economy of the United States; Washington, DC, 2006. (35) Hilkene, C.; Friesen, K. Background Study on Increasing Recycling of End-of-life Mercury-containing Lamps from Residential and Commercial Sources in Canada; Environment Canada: Ottawa, ON, 2005. (36) Kindbom, K.; Munthe, J. Product-Related Emissions of Mercury to Air in the European Union; Swedish Environmental Research Institute: Go¨teborg, Sweden, 2007. (37) UNEP. Global Mercury Assessment; Nairobi, Kenya, 2002. (38) Kim, I. C. Korea’s policy instruments for waste minimization. J. Mater. Cycl. Waste Manage. 2002, 4, 12–22. (39) U.S. Department of Energy. eGRID; Washington, DC, 2004. (40) Martinot, E.; Borg, N. Energy-efficient lighting programs. Experience and lessons from eight countries. Energy Policy 1998, 26, 1071–1081. (41) European Commission. Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment (RoHS-directive); 2002. (42) The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; Reg. code PL110-140, 2007. (43) Vorsatz, D.; Shown, L.; Koomey, J.; Moezzi, M.; Denver, A.; Atkinson, B. Lighting Market Sourcebook for the US; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory: Berkeley, CA, 1997. (44) U.S. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2007; EIA: Washington, DC, 2007. (45) U.S. Energy Information Administration. Electric Power Annual with data for 2006; EIA: Washington, DC, 2007. (46) U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Lab. Vision 2020: The Lighting Technology Roadmap; NREL: Golden, CO, 2000.
ES800117H
