Author: Alicia

#13: One Man’s Trash is Still Another Man’s Trash

AliciaThe Solution

Now let’s talk about the impact we have when we dispose of household objects we don’t want with the intent of someone else reusing the item, or the item being recycled into more useful materials. Huge amounts of waste are produced annually in 1st world countries, and to lessen that guilt and environmental cost, many people attempt to at least recycle some of their waste. While recycling is definitely a more eco-friendly solution than simply incinerating all trash, we often overestimate its environment-saving potential. Moreover, indiscriminate recycling, or aspirational recycling, actually serve to hinder, and even nullify the benefits of recycling.

 

The act of recycling usually comes from a good place, but lack of information and laziness often reduce the potential goodness that can come from this waste solution. Thus, it is important to learn a couple things about how recycling is actually carried out by waste management companies.

 

  1. Throwing non-recyclables into a recycling bin hinders the recycling process.

Did you know? Non-recyclable items in recycling bins can cause an entire batch of recyclables to be thrown into the landfill or incinerator. This is because non-recyclables such as greasy pizza boxes and low-grade plastics can contaminate other perfectly recyclable objects. Moreover, it is difficult for waste management companies to sift out a few of these offending objects amidst tonnes of recyclable waste. Recycling companies still depend on making a profit after all, and it is not cost-efficient to employ people to sort through every object recycled. This required cost to manage recyclables, combined with the decreasing prices for selling recyclables, put pressure on recycling companies to package and export recycling more hastily. Not to mention, in 2018 China greatly reduced the imports of “foreign garbage” (Albeck-Ripka, 2018), banning certain types of recyclables and only accepting recyclables that are no more than 0.5 percent contaminated (World Trade Organisation, 2017). This means that much more recycling is in fact going to landfills, especially if people recycle indiscriminately. Do your part and check out this list of non-recyclables.

 

2. Recycling still negatively impacts the environment, just at a slower rate.

There are limitations to recycling. Not only does a portion of recycling still routinely end up being incinerated or dumped, but the process of recycling also consumes energy and emits pollutants. Many countries are still dependent on exporting their recycling to other countries who are willing to process it. This process requires fuel to sort through and transport recycling to the designated country. Moreover, increased fuel consumption also means more air pollution generated as a result of burning fuel. While recycling is a beneficial process, it may be more effective to reduce the rate of consumption altogether by encouraging reuse of objects, thus reducing waste output, as shown in this TED talk video below:

 

 

3. Clothing recycling is not as effective as we are likely to believe.

Have you ever come across a clothing recycling bin in fast fashion stores like H&M (below)? While clothing retailers might lead you to believe that you can lessen the burden of fast fashion by recycling clothes, the technology required to properly recycle clothing is unable to catch up with the sheer speed of consumption. Not only does the process of breaking down clothing fibres reduce the quality of the fibres, but the amount of clothing being thrown out is too much to process with the current level of technology (Bain, 2016). A lot of fabric is still dumped in the trash, and the remainder is being ‘donated’ (read: dumped) by the tonnes in developing countries like Africa, where it causes further damage at its final destination (Rodgers, 2015).

 

Author: Alicia Tiu

 

References

Albeck-ripka, L. (2018, May 29). Your Recycling Gets Recycled, Right? Maybe, or Maybe Not. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/29/climate/recycling-landfills-plastic-papers.html

Bain, M. (2016, November 30). Recycling or donating your unwanted clothes “is not a solution” for the planet, Greenpeace says. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://qz.com/849209/greenpeace-takes-aim-at-clothes-recycling-for-doing-next-to-nothing-to-reduce-fashions-environmental-footprint/

Miller, K. (2017, January 14). 13 Advantages and Disadvantages of Recycling. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://futureofworking.com/13-advantages-and-disadvantages-of-recycling/

Rodgers, L. (2015, February 11). Where do your old clothes go? Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-30227025

We Want Refill. (2018, August 14). Aspirational Recycling: When Good Intentions Have Harsh Consequences. Retrieved July 22, 2020, from https://wewantrefill.com/aspirational-recycling-when-good-intentions-have-harsh-consequences/

 

#12: So what can we do?

AliciaThe Solution

Now that we are more aware of the ecological impacts of the household objects we buy, as well as the harmful chemicals that may be released into our homes, what steps can we take to reduce these negative impacts? The most effective method is to be a mindful consumer: to reduce the number of items we buy and to know what we are purchasing.

 

This method of reducing consumption and making our purchases last longer is known as dematerialisation. It is the process of getting more out of fewer purchases. If you are interested in how dematerialisation works (on a large scale), check out this TED talk below:

 

 

This philosophy can be applied to our ordinary, daily lifestyle. Even little changes can make huge differences: An average Singaporean uses roughly 156 plastic bottles, 156 polypropylene plastics (think bubble tea cups!), and 208 plastic bags a year (Singapore Environmental Council, 2018). Imagine, if you only used a reusable bottle and a reusable nylon bag throughout an entire year, you would be saving 156 plastic bottles, 156 plastic cups and 208 plastic bags! We can apply this logic to most other purchases which we quickly consume and then trash. From clothing to electronics (do you really need a new phone every two years?!), to even food products, we can afford to reduce consumption of these items without really reducing the amount of happiness we derive from consuming these products. Moreover, instead of purchasing brand new items, we can alternatively purchase second-hand items, so that perfectly good stuff thrown out by other people do not immediately end up in the trash.

 

Dematerialisation also involves being more mindful of what we are purchasing; it is buying objects that can last longer, and have fewer impacts on our health and on the environment. For example, when we buy cheap polyester clothing, each time we wash the fabric, microplastics shed from the weave and are washed down the drain (Roos, 2017). These microplastics eventually end up in polluting our oceans and poison our fish. What we can do is reduce the amount of polyester clothing that we purchase, and instead opt for more durable cotton and organic weave clothing that we can use for longer periods of time without replacement. Alternatively, we can opt for purchasing services to repair objects, instead of replacing them willy nilly. Being aware of what we are purchasing also involves checking the label of our purchases, to see if there are any potentially harmful chemicals in them that could leech out into our air or water.

 

Author: Alicia Tiu

 

References:

Earth Day. (2018, March 29). Fact Sheet: Single Use Plastics. Retrieved July 21, 2020, from https://www.earthday.org/fact-sheet-single-use-plastics/

Mistra Future Fashion (2017). Microplastics Shedding from Polyester Fabric Report. Retrieved July 21, 2020, from http://mistrafuturefashion.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/MFF-Report-Microplastics.pdf

Singapore Environment Council (2018). Consumer Plastic and Plastic Resource Ecosystem in Singapore. Retrieved July 21, 2020, from https://sec.org.sg/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/DT_PlasticResourceResearch_28Aug2018-FINAL_with-Addendum-19.pdf

Sutherland, R. (2016). 2016 : WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER THE MOST INTERESTING RECENT [SCIENTIFIC] NEWS? WHAT MAKES IT IMPORTANT? Retrieved July 21, 2020, from https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26750

#11: Smelling Like Death

AliciaThe Problem

Another hallmark of the modern home is our attempt to make it smell fresh and pretty. Air fresheners can be seen in almost all homes, being placed in bathrooms and cabinets to cover any bodily scents and even often placed on top of ventilators in cars. Some people even attempt to substitute essential oils and other types of aromatherapy with air fresheners in order to save money (case in point, me).

 

However, lots of air freshener companies are rather vague when it comes to listing the ingredients on the back of the package, often writing only “XX fragrance” on the label (Made Safe, 2020) (below). Such non-disclosure could indicate questionable ingredients that may not be the most beneficial for users’ health.

 

 

On doing a little digging, I found a list of harmful chemicals that are routinely found in air freshener products. These include PAHs and VOCs (Steinemann, 2017; Made Safe, 2020):

  • 1,4-Diclorobenzene: This is known to reduce lung function, making one more vulnerable to respiratory disease
  • Acetaldehyde: This is a probable carcinogen.
  • Benzene: This is a known carcinogen, which also causes developmental problems in children.
  • d-Limonene: This is known to cause irritation. This substance is a sensitizer, which means it’s likely to increase the risk of future allergic reactions.
  • Formaldehyde: This is a known carcinogen.
  • Phthalates: This is associated with effects from endocrine disruption, including causing damage to the female reproductive system, as well as birth defects.

 

The amount of exposure to these chemicals is quite substantially increased as well with regular usage of air fresheners. Some studies have shown that certain electric air fresheners emit up to 17% of the Critical Exposure Limit for formaldehyde on their own (Schwartz, 2019), while other studies showed much larger emissions, up to 40% of the Critical Exposure Limit (Steinemann, 2017). This exposure is magnified when you consider using other potential emitters like cleaning agents and aerosol sprays simultaneously. Glade, a popular brand of air freshener in Singapore, produces scented oils which emit 4.5 parts per million of Phthalates (Natural Resources Defense Council, 2007). This moderate exposure, when combined with other indoor air polluters, can mean significant daily exposure to Phthalates.

 

Even in lower quantities, these emissions should not be considered ‘completely safe’ because we use tons of chemicals in our homes. These emissions could cause much worse compounded effects on our health than we may realise. Now that you know about the possible harmful pollutants in air fresheners, you can either opt to chuck them out for good or do more research into the brands that you consume before you buy them.

 

Author: Alicia Tiu

 

References:

Made Safe. (2020, February 21). Toxic Chemicals in Air Fresheners Lead to Indoor Air Pollution. Retrieved July 19, 2020, from https://www.madesafe.org/toxic-chemicals-in-air-fresheners/

Natural Resources Defense Council. (2007). Protect Your Family from the Hidden Hazards in Air Fresheners Retrieved July 19, 2020, from https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/fairfresheners.pdf

Schwartz, S. (2019, October 29). Your air freshener may be harmful to your health. Retrieved July 19, 2020, from https://www.considerable.com/home/cleaning-organizing/are-air-fresheners-bad-for-you/

Steinemann, A. (2017). Ten questions concerning air fresheners and indoor built environments. Building and Environment, 111, 279-284. doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.11.009

#9: Cooking Up a Storm

AliciaThe Problem

Today, we will be looking at another invisible source of pollution in the home. With pollutants this deadly, it makes the topic of air pollution rather personal. The offending object in question is the gas stove. While people have been transitioning from gas cooking to induction cookers in the modern home, a large proportion of people in the world still use gas stoves, some believing that it produces a higher quality of food. 

 

Gas stoves may be cleaner than other forms of stoves which use fuels like wood and coal, however, as with any form of combustion, it is capable of outputting harmful gases:

As you can see in the above news report video, gas stoves have been known to sometimes emit gases like nitrogen dioxide (NO2), carbon monoxide (CO2) and formaldehyde (HCHO). These emission levels can vary but are much higher faulty and dirty gas stoves. Each of these gases is harmful in their own ways: 

 

  • Nitrogen dioxide can dissolve in moisture in the air to form nitric acid, and these tiny acid aerosols can be easily inhaled into the lungs where it can cause irritation and inflammation (Hill, 2010). NO2 is also shown to reduce the effectiveness of the immune system, thus increasing susceptibility to colds (Ciencewicki, 2007). 
  • Carbon monoxide is often known as the ‘silent killer’, able to cause the loss of consciousness, heart failure and death of those exposed, often without them realising it (Hill, 2010).
  • Formaldehyde similarly causes irritation in the eyes and nasal passage, as well as headaches and nausea, and is also a known carcinogen in higher doses (Hill, 2010; Minnesota State Department of Health, n.d.).

 

These gases are mostly a product of incomplete burning, which is inefficient burning that is not fully able to reduce the natural gas to carbon dioxide and water vapour. This means that these gases are more likely to occur when the gas stove is not functioning properly. You can tell that this problem is occurring when you notice an orange flame from your gas stove, rather than a blue one. When you notice this, have your gas stove repaired in order to prevent exposure to the above toxic gases. Also, you can attempt to clean the air intake holes to allow the gas stove to have more ventilation, allowing the burner to have enough inflow of oxygen for burning (Lee, n.d).

 

Moreover, these gases are able to accumulate in the kitchen if there is poor ventilation. Not having an outflow of air prevents these gases from escaping. Even in a properly functioning stove, these gases are released in minute concentrations, and, if allowed to accumulate in an enclosed room, they can also bring about harmful effects to the exposed person. Thus, always ensure sufficient ventilation while cooking. You can do so by always turning on the stove hoods and vents when cooking, and if possible, by opening up windows and doors in the kitchen (Nicole, 2014).

 

Author: Alicia Tiu

 

References:

Ciencewicki, J., & Jaspers, I. (2007). Air Pollution and Respiratory Viral Infection. Inhalation Toxicology, 19(14), pp. 1135-1146. https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370701665434

Hill, M. (2010). Air pollution. In Understanding Environmental Pollution, pp. 117-154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840654.006

Lee, V. (n.d.). Why Is My Gas Stove Burning Orange? Retrieved July 12, 2020, from https://www.hunker.com/12003355/why-is-my-gas-stove-burning-orange

Minnesota State Department of Health. (n.d.). Formaldehyde in Your Home. Retrieved July 12, 2020, from https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/air/toxins/formaldehyde.htm

Nicole, W. (2014). Cooking Up Indoor Air Pollution: Emissions from Natural Gas Stoves. Environmental Health Perspectives, 122(1). https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.122-A27

Roberts, D. (2020, May 07). Gas stoves can generate unsafe levels of indoor air pollution. Retrieved July 12, 2020, from https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2020/5/7/21247602/gas-stove-cooking-indoor-air-pollution-health-risks

#8: Poison in a Spray Can

AliciaThe Problem

This next common household pollutant might feel obviously harmful to you, but how much do we really know about the insecticides we freely spray to keep cockroaches and other insects away? We are going to explore how knowing which insecticides to use and how to use them in the home is significant to you, the average homemaker.

 

You may recognise some common brands of insecticides in Singapore being mentioned here, including: 

  • Baygon (Propoxur)
  • Shieldtox (Chlorpyrifos)
  • And the notable mention, mothballs (Naphthalene)

 

A quick search in NEA’s document of registered pesticides can tell you what the main active ingredient is in your household insecticide. These chemicals are for general use. This means that while some monitoring is done to make sure the insecticides are sold in acceptable concentrations, there is little regulation on how much is used at each time, and how it is used. The marketing companies are supposed to include usage recommendations on the product packaging by themselves. Despite the fact that household insecticide has become quite commonplace and that we rarely think twice about picking up the insecticide spray, there is actually a lot we do not know about the effects of insecticide use. 

 

First of all, especially in the use of aerosol spray cans, insecticides are released into the air as both water droplets and aerosols. While the water droplets will fall out of the air, the aerosols are tiny enough to be suspended in the air for hours. This is how the chemicals involved can be easily breathed in by unwitting humans (Hill, 2010). Moreover, the aerosols can be unknowingly deposited on the skin and absorbed into the body. Because the aerosols remain suspended in air for quite some time, it does not only affect the insecticide user. Anybody in the household, including children and pets can breathe in the chemicals.

 

Moreover, most of these chemicals (notably propoxur, chlorpyrifos and naphthalene) are semi-volatile organic compounds, which means they can change between matter states rapidly (Hill, 2010). This also makes it a lot easier to breathe in the chemicals unknowingly in their gaseous form. Moreover, the aerosol form of propoxur and chlorpyrifos can persist on surfaces like plush toys and cloth furnishings for up to two weeks (Whyatt, et. al., 2007), meaning that the exposure to the toxic chemicals extends far beyond the spraying of insecticide.

 

Now let us look into the harmful effects of the toxic chemicals themselves. All of these chemicals are at the very least severe irritants, causing irritation to surfaces acutely exposed to the chemical (eyes, skin) and, if breathed in, the lungs. Moreover, there is evidence showing that young children exposed to chlorpyrifos had developmental disorders and slower reflexes (Hu, 2018), and both propoxur and naphthalene are known human carcinogens (National Center for Biotechnology Information, n.d.). 

 

The harm of naphthalene does not just stop there. Naphthalene is a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, which makes them difficult to degrade. The chemical is able to persist for long periods of time in the environment, and when inhaled or ingested, can be bioaccumulated in fat (Hill, 2010). This means that the effects and health risks from the chemical can be magnified with each exposure. This is bad for wildlife as well, as the bioaccumulation of the chemical can cause large health impacts to animals further up the food chain.

 

It seems the exposure to such chemicals should be kept to an absolute minimum where possible. But in the modern household, not using insecticide may seem hard to do. Here are some tips to reduce health risks to yourself and your family members if using insecticides cannot be avoided:

  1. Ensure enough ventilation when using insecticides, to allow the outside air to dilute the toxic gas.
  2. If possible, place surfaces that have insecticide droplets on them (especially carpets and other fabric surfaces) outside to allow the chemicals to fully evaporate and be blown away.
  3. Don’t use mothballs, but if you have to, place them in sealed containers. Only open the containers outside.

 

Author: Alicia Tiu

 

References:

Dich, J., Zahm, S. H., Hanberg, A., & Adami, H. O. (1997). Pesticides and cancer. Cancer causes & control : CCC, 8(3), 420–443. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1018413522959

Hill, M. (2010). Air pollution. In Understanding Environmental Pollution (pp. 117-154). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840654.006

National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. Propoxur, CID=4944, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Propoxur (accessed on July 10, 2020)

National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. Chlorpyrifos, CID=2730, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Chlorpyrifos (accessed on July 10, 2020)

National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database. Naphthalene, CID=931, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Naphthalene (accessed on July 10, 2020)

National Environment Agency.  (2019). List of Registered Public Health Pesticide and Repellent Products. Retrieved from  https://www.nea.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/approved-list-of-pesticides-(june-2019).pdf (accessed on July 10, 2020)

Whyatt, R. M., Garfinkel, R., Hoepner, L. A., Holmes, D., Borjas, M., Williams, M. K., Reyes, A., Rauh, V., Perera, F. P., & Camann, D. E. (2007). Within- and between-home variability in indoor-air insecticide levels during pregnancy among an inner-city cohort from New York City. Environmental health perspectives, 115(3), 383–389. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9546

Hu, X. (2018, August 26). The Most Widely Used Pesticide, One Year Later. Retrieved from http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2018/widely-used-pesticide-one-year-later/ (accessed on July 10, 2020)

#5: A Deadly Passion for Fashion

AliciaThe Problem

Another commodity in our daily lives is the very clothes on our back. Not only do we rely greatly on them for basic cover and warmth, they also demonstrate socio-economic status and personal identity. However, with the advent of fast fashion trends, we have come to consume much more clothing than we need, often even discarding pieces of clothing after one or two times of use. How much pollution does fast fashion really produce? Let’s explore some of the fashion industry’s ugliest effects.

 

In Production:

As shown in the video above investigating the working conditions and surrounding environments of tanneries in Dhaka, there is large scale pollution of the communal river and water supply with chemicals such as chromium, which are used in treating leather hides. Nearby residents are chronically exposed to such chemicals because they cannot afford to buy water or fish from unpolluted locations. They are also in direct contact with the chemicals when they work in the tanneries, as well as when they use the river water for cleaning. This is merely one example of how, in places with poor regulation of industrial waste, textile and leather industries are able to excessively pump dye chemicals into the air and water. Using only chromium (often used in tanneries and in paints and dyes) as an example, chronic exposure can result in:

  • Increased chance of cancer in the respiratory tract
  • Respiratory irritation
  • Severe skin illnesses and scarring
  • Liver abnormalities

 

Moreover, you may be surprised to find out that in order to produce 1 cotton T-shirt, 2700 litres of water is needed. You can find out more about the textile industry’s usage of water by watching this mini-documentary here.

This is an excessive wastage of a resource necessary for every living being in the world. Not only does this demonstrate the textile industry’s inefficient usage of the resource, but at the same time highlights the contamination of that same resource.

 

In Disposal

Shockingly, one garbage truck volume equivalent of clothing is dumped or burned in a landfill every second and the fashion industry’s carbon emissions make up 10% of the global total, with fashion companies on average burning 30% of their total stock produced (McFall-Johnsen, 2019). Such emissions contribute greatly to air pollution worldwide, particularly with the increasingly high turnover rates of clothing in stores and subsequent shorter time before excess clothing enters the dump. 

 

Aside from such air pollution, water is another natural resource rampaged by the fashion industry. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) approximates that 35% of all oceanic microplastics are due to synthetic textiles from clothing, particularly polyester, which is non-biodegradable in water bodies. Such microplastics eventually reach the ocean such as through the release of water from washing clothes and can be absorbed by aquatic organisms and humans as well. Several thousand additives are used by the plastic industry and thus such absorption and the ambiguity surrounding the toxicity of microplastics is worrying. Furthermore, the risk of ingesting other harmful chemicals and organisms attached to the plastic (pathogenic bacteria and viruses for instance), are another concern. Microplastics are still very much a new area of research and the continual release of them from the fashion industry specifically remains unchecked and prevalent. 

 

Many young adults our age are passionate about fashion and self-expression, and should such passion go towards holding the fashion industry accountable for their environmental impacts as well, much can be done to change the tide. If you are interested in learning more about both the fast fashion industry and its counter – the slow fashion movement, do check out the content below:

 

View this post on Instagram

For a local fashion industry heavily reliant on off-shore manufacturing, budget wholesale distribution and importing finished goods, what does fashion revolution mean when applied to the context of Singapore? . Are we prepared for the imperative shift that is required on a much larger scale and get down and dirty to rally change for systemic issues? Are we equipped with the knowledge and resilience to scale Fashion Revolution to a local context? . I am feeling optimistic today. As we thread carefully with respect and dignity for the world, how can fashion be represented ethically and fairly? . What does fashion revolution in Singapore mean to you? #fashionrevolutionweek #fashionrevolution #fashionrevolutionsingapore #noordinaryprotest

A post shared by No Ordinary Protest (she/her) (@noordinaryprotest) on

Authors: Alicia Tiu and Madeleine Shutler

 

References

Environmental Health and Medicine Education. (2008). Retrieved July 03, 2020, from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/csem.asp?csem=10

McFall-Johnsen, M. (2019, October 21). The fashion industry emits more carbon than international flights and maritime shipping combined. Here are the biggest ways it impacts the planet. Retrieved July 05, 2020, from https://www.businessinsider.com/fast-fashion-environmental-impact-pollution-emissions-waste-water-2019-10 

WWF. (2013). The Impact of a Cotton T-Shirt. Retrieved July 03, 2020, from https://www.worldwildlife.org/stories/the-impact-of-a-cotton-t-shirt

#4: The Toxic Cell

AliciaThe Problem

Whether it is the production of pollutants from directly using said common household items or production of pollution as a byproduct in manufacturing, it is time to uncover the specific hidden sources of pollutants in our homes. Today’s focus will be on batteries: especially lithium rechargeable batteries, which we use daily in our mobile phones and laptops, as well as in cars.

 

The Problem with Lithium-ion Batteries 

Ever heard reminders to properly dispose of your lithium-ion batteries in recycling boxes and collection points? You’d probably think that it’s because of the battery’s potential to explode, as shown by the many videos of Samsung phones bursting into flames. However, the real environmental danger lies in the fumes and toxic materials released by reactions within the lithium battery. Toxic gases such as CO, CO2 and Hydrogen fluoride (HF) are produced when lithium batteries react with humidity and heat. HF, in particular, is extremely corrosive and is a severe irritant. In contact with moisture, HF converts to hydrofluoric acid. It can cause prolonged damage to the eyes, respiratory system, as well as the skin. If you are interested in finding more about the dangers of lithium-ion batteries as well as how it is being recycled, do check out the video below:

 

Impacts on Water Bodies

Apart from the direct harmful impacts on human health, leakage of these gases (CO2, HF) promotes acidification of the environment. Once in the atmosphere, these gases can be transported by winds, and eventually deposited in nearby water bodies during storm events. Upon contact with water, HF will convert into hydrofluoric acid, and CO2 also dissolves to form carbonic acid. Both of these chemicals wreak havoc on the water body, by:

  • binding to Phosphorus, reducing the availability of the nutrients for aquatic plants and phytoplankton,
  • killing off more pH-sensitive aquatic organisms,
  • causing the water to become more transparent and result in increased UV damage,
  • causing bleaching of coral reefs and deformity of molluscs.

 

Byproducts in Production

Not only do the improper disposal of batteries create pollutants in the environment, but its mass production is also problematic. The main component in lithium-ion batteries is lithium metal, and the metal is locked in as salts in salt flats. 500,000 gallons of water is required to produce one tonne of lithium. The groundwater below salt flats in Chile is pumped to the surface, flushing out salts and minerals from the lower strata. The water is allowed to evaporate on the surface, leaving lithium salt sediments for collection. This severely depletes the water table. Moreover, the extraction of groundwater also creates the potential for contaminants to be introduced into the groundwater. This poses problems to nearby humans twofold. Not only is the water supply for agriculture and daily use disrupted, but the remaining water supply is also likely polluted with chemicals.

 

Author: Alicia Tiu

 

References

Larsson, F., Andersson, P., Blomqvist, P., & Mellander, B. (2017). Toxic fluoride gas emissions from lithium-ion battery fires. Scientific Reports, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09784-z.

National Research Council (US) Subcommittee on Acute Exposure Guideline Levels.. (2004). Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Selected Airborne Chemicals. Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for Selected Airborne Chemicals, 4. https://doi.org/10.17226/10902.

Katwala, A. (2018). The spiralling environmental cost of our lithium battery addiction. Retrieved July 01, 2020, from https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact.