Measuring the Impact of Reusing Raw Materials Produced from Recycling Telecommunications Equipment on Carbon Emissions Using the LCA Method: The Case of Mobile Phones

Abstract

This study investigates the environmental impact of reusing raw materials obtained from recycling telecommunications equipment, focusing on mobile phone production. The main objective is to compare the environmental effects of virgin and recycled raw materials within a life cycle perspective, covering processes from raw material extraction to factory production stages. The analysis evaluates carbon emissions as the primary indicator while also considering energy and water consumption as supporting indicators. The research was carried out in two phases. First, a manual calculation approach was applied using data from existing literature to estimate environmental impacts per mobile phone. In the second phase, the same dataset was modeled with software to ensure consistency and validate the results. Findings show that recycling significantly reduces environmental impacts compared to virgin material production. In the virgin production scenario, the production of one smartphone generated 2.4074 kg CO₂-eq emissions, consumed 56.08 MJ of energy, and required 0.0524 m³ of water, whereas the recycling scenario reduced these values to 0.2596 kg CO₂-eq, 10.37 MJ, and 0.00482 m³, respectively. Overall, recycling achieved approximately 89.2% lower carbon emissions, 81.5% lower energy consumption, and 90.8% lower water use per phone. Among the materials examined, the highest emission reductions were observed in precious metals and aluminum. Overall, the results demonstrate that recycling plays a crucial role in lowering environmental burdens and conserving natural resources. The study highlights the importance of integrating recovered materials into smartphone manufacturing and provides quantitative evidence supporting recycling as an effective strategy for sustainable production and environmental protection.

Keywords

• Carbon Emissions
• Circular Economy
• Environmental Impact
• Life Cycle Assessment
• Mobile Phone Production
• Recycling

Supporting Institution

Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK)

Project Number

1919B012428914

Ethical Statement

There are no ethical issues after the publication of this manuscript.

Thanks

This project was supported by the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye (TÜBİTAK) under the 2209-A – 2024 First Term University Students Research Projects Support Program, with the application number 1919B012428914. I would like to express my gratitude to TÜBİTAK for its support to young researchers and its contributions to science.

References

1. [1]. Belkhir, L, Elmeligi, A. 2018. Assessing ICT global emissions footprint: Trends to 2040 and recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production; 177: 448–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.239
2. [2]. Harding, K. G. 2011. An Introduction to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). Chemical Technology; 22-25.
3. [3]. Gupta, N, Köpter, R S, & Sharma, S L. 2024. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): A tool for sustainable development and environmental management of products. International Journal of Industrial and Product Design Engineering; 1(2): 16–25.
4. [4]. International Organization for Standardization. 2006. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework (ISO 14040:2006).
5. [5]. International Organization for Standardization. 2006. Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines (ISO 14044:2006).
6. [6]. Finnveden, G, Hauschild, M Z, Ekvall, T, Guinée, J, Heijungs, R, Hellweg, S, Koehler, A, Pennington, D, Suh, S. 2009. Recent developments in life cycle assessment. Journal of Environmental Management; 91(1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.06.018
7. [7]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2015. Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (accessed at 28.11.2025).
8. [8]. Ercan, M, Malmodin, J, Bergmark, P, Kimfalk, E, Nilsson, E. 2016. Life Cycle Assessment of a Smartphone. https://doi.org/10.2991/ict4s-16.2016.15

9. [9]. Sahan, M, Kucuker, M A, Demirel, B, Kuchta, K, Hursthouse, A. 2019. Determination of Metal Content of Waste Mobile Phones and Estimation of Their Recovery Potential in Turkey. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health; 16(5): 887. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16050887
10. [10]. Foxway. 2023. Handprint report: Mobiles 2023: Giving new life to used smartphones: Estimating the positive impact of Foxway using the handprint approach (Report). https://www.foxway.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/handprint-report-mobiles-2023-eng.pdf (accessed at 28.11.2025).
11. [11]. Tian, L, Guo, Y, Song, Y. 2025. A Method for Calculating the Life Cycle Carbon Footprints of Smartphones Driven by Scenarios. https://doi.org/10.3233/ATDE241336
12. [12]. Zink, T, Maker, F, Geyer, R, Amirtharajah, R, Akella, V. 2014. Comparative life cycle assessment of smartphone reuse: repurposing vs. refurbishment. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment; 19: 1099–1109. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0720-7
13. [13]. Pamminger, R, Glaser, S, Wimmer, W. 2021. Modelling of different circular end-of-use scenarios for smartphones. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment; 26: 470–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-021-01869-2
14. [14]. Moheb-Alzadeh, H, Sadeghi, A H, Sahebi Fakhrabad, A, Jaunich, M K, Kemahlioglu-Ziya, E, Handfield, R B. 2023. Reverse logistics network design to estimate the economic and environmental impacts of take-back legislation: A case study for E-waste management system in Washington State. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2301.09792
15. [15]. He, P, Feng, H, Chhipi-Shrestha, G K, Hewage, K, Sadiq, R. 2022. Life Cycle Assessment of e ‐Waste – Waste Cellphone Recycling. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356571615_Life_Cycle_Assessment_of_e_-Waste_-_Waste_Cellphone_Recycling (accessed at 29.11.2025).
16. [16]. Mangmeechai, A. 2022. The life-cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and life-cycle costs of e-waste management in Thailand. Sustainable Environment Research; 32(16). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42834-022-00126-x
17. [17]. Esopere, Y, Yabar, H, Mizunoya, T, Richards, D. 2024. Leveraging Life Cycle Assessment and System Dynamics Model Analysis for an Integrated Household E-Waste Management System in Yaoundé, Cameroon. Urban Science; 8(3): 77. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci8030077
18. [18]. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ (accessed at 29.11.2025).
19. [19]. International Aluminium Institute (IAI). 2024. Aluminium Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions. https://international-aluminium.org/statistics/greenhouse-gas-emissions-aluminium-sector/?publication=greenhouse-gas-emissions-aluminium-sector&filter=%7B%22row%22%3Anull%2C%22group%22%3Anull%2C%22multiGroup%22%3A%5B%5D%2C%22dateRange%22%3A%22annually%22%2C%22monthFrom%22%3Anull%2C%22monthTo%22%3Anull%2C%22quarterFrom%22%3A1%2C%22quarterTo%22%3A4%2C%22yearFrom%22%3A2023%2C%22yearTo%22%3A2023%2C%22multiRow%22%3A%5B71%2C72%2C73%2C74%2C75%2C76%2C77%5D%2C%22columns%22%3A%5B83%2C84%2C85%2C86%2C87%2C88%2C89%2C90%2C91%5D%2C%22activeChartIndex%22%3A1%2C%22activeChartType%22%3A%22table%22%7D (accessed at 29.11.2025).
20. [20]. International Copper Association (ICA). 2018. Copper Environmental Profile. https://internationalcopper.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/ICA-EnvironmentalProfileHESD-201803-FINAL-LOWRES-1.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
21. [21]. International Energy Agency (IEA). 2021. GHG emissions intensity for lithium by resource type and processing route. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/ghg-emissions-intensity-for-lithium-by-resource-type-and-processing-route (accessed at 28.11.2025).
22. [22]. International Energy Agency (IEA). 2021. GHG emissions intensity for class 1 nickel by resource type and processing route. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/ghg-emissions-intensity-for-class-1-nickel-by-resource-type-and-processing-route (accessed at 28.11.2025).
23. [23]. International Energy Agency (IEA). 2021. Indicators for water use for selected minerals. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/indicators-for-water-use-for-selected-minerals (accessed at 29.11.2025).
24. [24]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (EPA). 2016. Documentation for greenhouse gas emission and energy factors used in the Waste Reduction Model (WARM): Background chapters. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-03/documents/warm_v14_background.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
25. [25]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2018. Life cycle assessment data for computer products, mobile phones and mixed waste. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-02/documents/lca_computer_-_phones.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
26. [26]. Angel, H. 2016. Water and carbon footprints of mining and producing Cu, Mg and Zn: A comparative study of primary and secondary sources. Master’s Thesis, Lund University. Student thesis series No. 378. https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8881212&fileOId=8881234 (accessed at 29.11.2025).
27. [27]. World Gold Council (WGC). 2019. Gold and climate change: Current and future impacts. https://www.gold.org/goldhub/research/gold-and-climate-change-current-and-future-impacts (accessed at 29.11.2025).
28. [28]. International Platinum Group Metals Association (IPA). 2025. The life cycle assessment of platinum group metals: Reference year 2022. https://www.ipa-news.com/assets/contentimg/sustainability/ipa-lca-3-fact-sheet-final-april-2025.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
29. [29]. Nogrady, B. 2016. Journal - Akıllı telefonlar değerli metallerle dolu. BBC News Türkçe. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/vert-fut-37691957 (accessed at 28.11.2025).
30. [30]. Berke, J. 2018. Here's how much metal it takes to make your iPhone. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-metal-in-an-iphone-2018-6 (accessed at 28.11.2025).
31. [31]. Gómez, M, Grimes, S, Qian, Y, Feng, Y, Fowler, G. 2023. Critical and strategic metals in mobile phones: A detailed characterisation of multigenerational waste mobile phones and the economic drivers for recovery of metal value. Journal of Cleaner Production; 419: 138099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138099
32. [32]. Sarıgül, T. 2020. Cep telefonunuzun içinde neler var? TÜBİTAK Bilim Genç. https://bilimgenc.tubitak.gov.tr/makale/cep-telefonunuzun-icinde-neler-var (accessed at 28.11.2025).
33. [33]. İstanbul Maden İhracatçıları Birliği (İMİB). 2021. İÇİNDE NE VAR PROGRAMI - CEP TELEFONUNUN İÇİNDE NE VAR. YouTube. https://share.google/a2r9cSVf6c0BlvcGl (accessed at 28.11.2025).
34. [34]. The Aluminum Association. 2014. Secondary aluminum ingot: Industry-average secondary aluminum ingot manufactured in North America (Environmental Product Declaration). https://www.aluminum.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/105.1_Aluminum_Assocication_EPD_Secondary_Aluminum_Ingot.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
35. [35]. The Aluminum Association. 2022. The environmental footprint of semi-fabricated aluminum products in North America: A life cycle assessment report. https://www.aluminum.org/sites/default/files/2022-01/2022_Semi-Fab_LCA_Report.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
36. [36]. World Economic Forum (WEF). 2024. Aluminium industry net-zero tracker: 2024 Edition. https://reports.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Net_Zero_Industry_Tracker_2024_Aluminium.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
37. [37]. European Aluminium (EA). 2024. Environmental Profile Report for the European Aluminium Industry: Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) data for aluminium production and transformation processes in Europe (Executive Summary). https://european-aluminium.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2024-11-07-European-Aluminium-EPR-2024-Executive-Summary.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
38. [38]. Bureau of International Recycling (BIR). 2016. Report on the environmental benefits of recycling: 2016 edition. https://www.bir.org/images/uploads/publications/BIR-CO2-report-2016-FIN-WEB.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
39. [39]. Eti Bakır. 2023. Carbon and water footprint report. https://www.cengizholding.com.tr/Content/files/uploads/1576/Eti%20Bak%C4%B1r%202023%20Carbon%20and%20Water%20Footprint%20Report.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
40. [40]. Reisert, P. 2019. Ecological footprint: What is more sustainable – gold mining or gold recycling? Edelmetall Blog. C. Hafner. https://blog.c-hafner.de/ecological-footprint-what-is-more-sustainable-gold-mining-or-gold-recycling/ (accessed at 28.11.2025).
41. [41]. WWF Switzerland. 2021. The impact of gold: Sustainability aspects in the gold supply chains and Switzerland’s role as a gold hub. https://www.wwf.ch/sites/default/files/doc-2021-11/2021-11-WWF-The-Impact-of-Gold.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
42. [42]. Seblos, G. 2024. Primary gold GHG emissions intensities decline. S&P Global Commodity Insights. https://www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence/en/news-insights/research/primary-gold-ghg-emissions-intensities-decline (accessed at 29.11.2025).
43. [43]. Nuss, P, Eckelman, M J. 2014. Life Cycle Assessment of Metals: A Scientific Synthesis. PLOS One, 9(7), e101298. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101298
44. [44]. Aurubis. 2024. Life cycle assessment of Aurubis silver and gold. https://www.aurubis.com/dam/jcr:94d7abdf-f751-4ffc-8fdb-59b7a73a2401/Aurubis_Report%20LCA%20Silver%20and%20Gold%202024.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
45. [45]. Aurubis. 2025. Environmental footprint declaration: Aurubis silver. https://www.aurubis.com/dam/jcr:7ad70594-f37f-4028-b766-3db39c03b0df/Aurubis_Report%20LCA%20Silver%20and%20Gold%202024.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
46. [46]. Carbon Trust. 2025. MKS PAMP SA – Carbon footprints of RJC CoC recycled silver grains (25 kg and 6509 g): Product emissions report. https://www.mkspamp.com/sites/mksandpamp/files/2025-05/PER%20Silver%20Grains%202025.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
47. [47]. The Cobalt Institute (CI). 2022. Life cycle assessment of cobalt products (Final report; Reference year 2019). https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/Cobalt-Institute-LCA-Final-Report_v5.02_final.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
48. [48]. Conte, N. 2022. The carbon emissions of producing energy transition metals: Charted. Elements. https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/the-carbon-emissions-of-producing-energy-transition-metals-charted/#:~:text=While%20electric%20vehicles%20decarbonize%20automotive,tonnes%20of%20CO2%20emissions (accessed at 29.11.2025).
49. [49]. Machala, M L, Chen, X, Bunke, S P, Forbes, G, Yegizbay, A, de Chalendar, J A, Azevedo, I L, Benson, S, Tarpeh, W A. 2025. Life cycle comparison of industrial-scale lithium-ion battery recycling and mining supply chains. Nature Communications; 16: 988. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-56063-x
50. [50]. The Cobalt Institute (CI). (n.d.). The Cobalt Institute conducted a life cycle assessment of cobalt and cobalt compounds including cobalt sulphate to inform stakeholders about the potential environment impacts of the production of cobalt. https://www.cobaltinstitute.org/responsible-sustainable-cobalt/life-cycle-assessment/ (accessed at 29.11.2025).
51. [51]. Kelly, J C, Wang, M, Dai, Q, Winjobi, O. 2021. Energy, greenhouse gas, and water life cycle analysis of lithium carbonate and lithium hydroxide monohydrate from brine and ore resources and their use in lithium-ion battery cathodes and lithium-ion batteries. Resources, Conservation and Recycling; 174: 105762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105762
52. [52]. Stanford University. 2025. Recycling lithium-ion batteries delivers significant environmental benefits. Stanford Report. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/01/recycling-lithium-ion-batteries-cuts-emissions-and-strengthens-supply-chain? (accessed at 29.11.2025).
53. [53]. Mistry, M, Gediga, J, Boonzaier, S. 2016. Life cycle assessment of nickel products. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment; 21: 1559–1572. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-016-1085-x
54. [54]. Persson, A. 2024. Understand your nickel emissions. CarbonChain. https://www.carbonchain.com/blog/understand-your-nickel-emissions (accessed at 29.11.2025).
55. [55]. Franklin Associates. 2022. Cradle-to-gate life cycle analysis of acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) resin (Final report). https://www.americanchemistry.com/better-policy-regulation/plastics/resources/cradle-to-gate-life-cycle-analysis-of-acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene-abs-resin (accessed at 29.11.2025).
56. [56]. Bage Plastics. 2022. Sustainable, recycled granules by bage plastics with excellent carbon footprint. https://bage-plastics.com/sustainable-recycled-granules-by-bage-plastics-with-excellent-carbon-footprint/ (accessed at 29.11.2025).
57. [57]. Tinz, J, de Ancos, T, Rohn, H. 2023. Carbon footprint of mechanical recycling of post-industrial plastic waste: Study of ABS, PA66GF30, PC and POM regrinds. Waste; 1(1): 127–139. https://doi.org/10.3390/waste1010010
58. [58]. Buxmann, K, Koehler, A, Thylmann, D. 2016. Water scarcity footprint of primary aluminium. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment; 21: 1605–1615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0997-1
59. [59]. Madaka, H, Babbitt, C W, Ryen, E G. 2022. Opportunities for reducing the supply chain water footprint of metals used in consumer electronics. Resources, Conservation & Recycling; 176: 105926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105926
60. [60]. Norgate, T, Lovel, R R. 2006. Sustainable water use in minerals and metal production. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series; 133-141.
61. [61]. Peña, C A, Huijbregts, M A J. 2014. The Blue Water Footprint of Primary Copper Production in Northern Chile. Journal of Industrial Ecology; 18: 49-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12036
62. [62]. Güney, E, Demirel, N. 2021. Water Footprint Assessment of Carbon in Pulp Gold Processing in Turkey. Sustainability; 13(15): 8497. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158497
63. [63]. Lezak, S, Wilson, C, Ansar, A, Bazilian, M. 2022. The case against gold mining. Environmental Research Letters. 18. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac9f26
64. [64]. Halkes, R T, Hughes, A, Wall, F, Petavratzi, E, Pell, R, Lindsay, J J. 2024. Life cycle assessment and water use impacts of lithium production from salar deposits: Challenges and opportunities. Resources, Conservation and Recycling; 207: 107554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107554
65. [65]. Hanna, F, Somers, C, Anctil, A. 2025. Life cycle assessment of lithium-ion battery recycling: Evaluating the impact of recycling methods and location. Environmental Science & Technology; 59(28): 14432–14443. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.4c13838
66. [66]. Fröhlich, T, Liebich, A, Volz, S. 2014. Eco-profiles and Environmental Product Declarations of the European Plastics Manufacturers - Polypropylene (PP). https://www.plasticseurope.org/en/resources/eco-profiles (accessed at 29.11.2025).
67. [67]. The Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR). 2020. Virgin vs. recycled plastic life cycle assessment energy profile and life cycle assessment environmental burdens (White paper). https://plasticsrecycling.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/APR-Recycled-vs-Virgin-LCA-May2020.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
68. [68]. Choate, W T, Green, J A S. 2003. U.S. aluminum production energy requirements: Historical perspective, theoretical limits, and new opportunities. https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2003/data/papers/SS03_Panel1_Paper02.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
69. [69]. Schäfer, P, Schmidt, M. 2020. Discrete-point analysis of the energy demand of primary versus secondary metal production. Environmental Science & Technology; 54(1): 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.9b05101
70. [70]. International Aluminium Institute (IAI). (n.d.). Aluminium recycling saves 95% of the energy needed for primary aluminium production. https://international-aluminium.org/landing/aluminium-recycling-saves-95-of-the-energy-needed-for-primary-aluminium-production/ (accessed at 29.11.2025).
71. [71]. Fritz, B, Aichele, C, Schmidt, M. 2020. Environmental impact of high-value gold scrap recycling. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment; 25: 1930–1941. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-020-01809-6
72. [72]. Dai, Q, Dunn, J, Kelly, J C, Elgowainy, A. 2017. Update of life cycle analysis of lithium-ion batteries in the GREET® model. Argonne National Laboratory. https://greet.anl.gov/files/Li_battery_update_2017 (accessed at 29.11.2025).
73. [73]. Sociedad Química y Minera (SQM). 2021. Sustainability of lithium production in Chile. https://sqmlitio.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SQM-Sustainable-Lithium-English-20210504.pdf (accessed at 29.11.2025).
74. [74]. Norgate, T, Rankin, W. 2000. Life cycle assessment of copper and nickel production. Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publication Series; 133-138.
75. [75]. Wei, W, Samuelsson, P B, Tilliander, A, Gyllenram, R, Jönsson, P G. 2020. Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Nickel Products. Energies; 13(21): 5664. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13215664