Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2022 Sep 20;19(19):11843.
doi: 10.3390/ijerph191911843.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mercury Exposure among Populations and Environments in Contact with Electronic Waste

Gwen Aubrac  1 , Ashley Bastiansz  2 , Niladri Basu  2
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Mercury Exposure among Populations and Environments in Contact with Electronic Waste

Gwen Aubrac et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. .

Abstract

Electronic waste (e-waste) recycling releases mercury (Hg) into the environment, though to our knowledge Hg levels at such sites have yet to be examined on a worldwide basis. A systematic review of scientific studies was conducted to extract, analyze, and synthesize data on Hg levels in e-waste products, environments near recycling sites, and in people. Data were extracted from 78 studies from 20 countries, and these included Hg levels in 1103 electrical and electronic products, 2072 environmental samples (soil, air, plant, food, water, dust), and 2330 human biomarkers (blood, hair, urine). The average Hg level in products was 0.65 μg/g, with the highest levels found in lamps (578 μg/g). Average soil and sediment Hg levels (1.86 μg/g) at e-waste sites were at least eight times higher than at control sites. Average urinary Hg levels (0.93 μg/g creatinine) were approximately two-fold higher among e-waste workers versus control groups. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that e-waste recycling may lead to Hg contamination in environments and human populations in close proximity to processing sites. These findings contribute to a growing knowledge base of mercury exposure through diverse source-exposure pathways, and the work has potential policy implications in the context of the Minamata Convention.

Keywords: electronic waste; mercury; metals; occupational health; review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA chart indicating the number of articles that were identified, screened, and included in this literature review for the three main study groups.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Central Tendency Values of Mercury in E-Waste Products. Results encompass data from 1103 e-waste products: phones (n = 89); lamps (n = 69); monitors, screens, and liquid crystal displays (n = 419); batteries (n = 235); printed circuit boards (n = 259); and other e-waste products (n = 32).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Central Tendency Values of Mercury in Environmental Samples Exposed to E-Waste. The data are represented as boxplots based on data from individual studies (indicated as circles when they are out of the boxplot range). Control sample refer to exposure group 3 or exposure group 4, and exposed samples refer to exposure group 1 or exposure group 2 depending on the data available. Guidelines for each media were extracted from the average European topsoil mercury concentration for soil [21], OSHA and NIOSH for air [22], the USDA for food [23], and the U.S. EPA for water [24].
Figure 4
Figure 4
Central Tendency Values of Mercury in Biomarker Samples of Populations Exposed to E-Waste.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Basu N., Horvat M., Evers D.C., Zastenskaya I., Weihe P., Tempowski J. A State-of-the-Science Review of Mercury Biomarkers in Human Populations Worldwide between 2000 and 2018. Environ. Health Perspect. 2018;126:106001. doi: 10.1289/EHP3904. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Eagles-Smith C.A., Silbergeld E.K., Basu N., Bustamante P., Diaz-Barriga F., Hopkins W.A., Kidd K.A., Nyland J.F. Modulators of mercury risk to wildlife and humans in the context of rapid global change. Ambio. 2018;47:170–197. doi: 10.1007/s13280-017-1011-x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ha E., Basu N., Bose-O’Reilly S., Dórea J.G., McSorley E., Sakamoto M., Chan H.M. Current progress on understanding the impact of mercury on human health. Environ. Res. 2017;152:419–433. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2016.06.042. - DOI - PubMed
    1. UNEP—UN Environment Programme Global Mercury Assessment 2018. [(accessed on 4 March 2019)]. Available online: http://www.unep.org/resources/publication/global-mercury-assessment-2018.
    1. Forti V., Balde C.P., Kuehr R., Bel G. The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, Flows and the Circular Economy Potential. United Nations University/United Nations Institute for Training and Research, International Telecommunication Union, and International Solid Waste Association. 2020. [(accessed on 19 April 2022)]. Available online: https://collections.unu.edu/view/UNU:7737#viewAttachments.