Continue to Site

Welcome to our site!

Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

  • Welcome to our site! Electro Tech is an online community (with over 170,000 members) who enjoy talking about and building electronic circuits, projects and gadgets. To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

RoHS

Status
Not open for further replies.

Speakerguy

Active Member
What is your take on the restrictions on lead used in solder and electronics components enacted by RoHS? Is it an effective and worthwhile policy, is it grossly flawed, or somewhere in between?

I know this sort of ventures into politics, but I've been doing a lot of reading on it lately and it's something that could have a dramatic effect on both the environment and industry.
 
I think that RoHS will help.

I make crystal oscillators for a living, and they contain electronic components, but they are also used in circuits with other electronic components. As RoHS was being introduced, our customers were demanding RoHS oscillators before we could buy RoHS components.

I think that a lot of Asian and American component suppliers decided that Europe wasn't important to them and they wouldn't switch to RoHS on most components.

For instance, about a year before RoHS was required, Microchip had a web page saying that a small range of popular microcontrollers would be the only ones available in Lead-Free.

2 years later they were discounting several million dollars worth of microcontrollers with tin-lead plating, and all new microcontrollers arrive in Lead-Free only.

I don't know why things seemed to change round like that. It could be that component manufacturers changed as fast as they could, but that was some years, and they had a lot of stock. It could also be that the component manufacturers decided that only a small fraction of their output went to Europe, but they were caught out by all the manufacturers and sub-contractors who didn't want to mix RoHS and non-RoHS products or production. As the vast majority of electronics sold worldwide is versions of stuff sold in Europe, or shares factories with stuff sold in Europe, so there is in fact very little market for Non-RoHS components without making it a nightmare to keep types of components separate.
 
P.I.T.A

Lead-free solder (as it is) is rubbish for anything except the environement - but even then it is worse for the environement due to secondary causes

1) lead-free grows wiskers over time (and it doesn't take that long). This results in inevitable shorting of adjacent pins. Result the user throws his electronics goods out prematurely (resulting in increased waste and polution from now increased dumping of electronics goods...)

2) it melts at a higher temp which means wave-soldering is a PITA because there is a nice profile that needs to be followed (to allow flux to clean contacts, effective fluidity of solder, tension for pulling parts together) components during wave-soldering and hand-soldering are getting (thermally) stressed more resulting in decreased life

Yer lead in the environement is bad, but... what they have done is moved the problem elsewhere.

I can't stand lead-free from a practical P.O.V. but from a limited/blinkers view of it yer "it reduces lead waste"
 
You only need 3% lead to stop whiskering. THe temperature thing is a pain in the ass though.
 
dknguyen said:
You only need 3% lead to stop whiskering. THe temperature thing is a pain in the ass though.

The maximum permitted concentrations are 0.1% or 1000 ppm (except for cadmium, which is limited to 0.01% or 100 ppm) by weight of homogeneous material. This means that the limits do not apply to the weight of the finished product, or even to a component, but to any single substance that could (theoretically) be separated mechanically—for example, the sheath on a cable or the tinning on a component lead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Substances_Directive
 
Google tin whiskers. I don't remember the particular article, but it made a good case about the regulations creating worse problems than the problem they are trying to solve.
 
I agree, lead free solder is toiletry for any decent work.
... and it doesn't have that nice smell =P...
 
What I would like to see is a comparative failure analysis of devices made with lead-free solder and leaded solder under various conditions of time, temp, and vibration. Add to that the comparative defect rate during manufacturing.

On some hand-assembled commercial products I have seen, such as power supplies, the lead-free soldering was so bad, I didn't feel confident putting them into airplanes as critical components without re-soldering.

Relative to comments about lead being bad for the environment. The amount of lead is constant, except for trivial increases from radioactive decay. Humans may redistribute it, but so do other factors, such as wind, tides, wave actions, and rivers.

The greatest problem is keeping people, primarily children, from eating its oxides and other compounds. As an element, it is relatively safe. For example, lead bullets can be left in soft tissue, unless they lie near a bone. There is no increase in serum levels of lead otherwise.

John
 
In the 70's the automakers were forced to produce cars that were in theory better for the environment. Once could argue that the technology needed to produce a clearner car did not exist. The cars built to meet these laws may have achived the letter of the law but were possibly worse for the enviroment. They used more gas and did not stay in tune due to the problems caused by EGR and other hacks.

We could be in for the same sort of thing here. Lets hope that it does not take 10 or 15 years to get it right.

speakerguy79 said:
What is your take on the restrictions on lead used in solder and electronics components enacted by RoHS? Is it an effective and worthwhile policy, is it grossly flawed, or somewhere in between?

I know this sort of ventures into politics, but I've been doing a lot of reading on it lately and it's something that could have a dramatic effect on both the environment and industry.
 
I agree that change can be and often is difficult. Premature change as an over-reaction can be both ineffective and contra-productive. A good part of the toxicity from lead in children derives from behavior, not its presence in electronic devices. The disorder of eating river mud (pica), which leads to lead poisoning, is a social problem, not an engineering one. Ever have a real mud pie? Go to some of the impoverished areas of the American South. They are still there.

My fear is that tin solder is a quick substitute, like the egr and other gimmicks, that did not work well in the long run. The difference is that electronics are used as critical components in many systems on which lives depend, and there is no practical back up. Moreover, such devices made today, will be around for many years.

Ironically, the auto industry industry throughout those 3 decades of improvement in emissions, was one of the greatest users of lead in it alloys. 12L14 and others can be machined at very high rates and is cheap.

John
 
jpanhalt said:
My fear is that tin solder is a quick substitute, like the egr and other gimmicks, that did not work well in the long run. The difference is that electronics are used as critical components in many systems on which lives depend, and there is no practical back up. Moreover, such devices made today, will be around for many years.

John

ROHS restrictions do not apply to MEDICAL, MILITARY, or AEROSPACE devices.

To be honest, I don't think the ROHS will do any good. Here in the UK, most electronic devices (TV's, HI-FI's etc) are recycled. I recently took a TV to our local waste disposal site, and I noticed that all of the electronic/electrical items are collected together.
I assume that they are seperated into their various parts and recycled.

Incidentaly, my brother-in-law runs a business as a mechanic. He sells lots of tyres, and due to the ROHS he can no longer use LEAD balancing weights on the tyres he fits.
I think this is a good thing because these often come off, and are found lying by the side of the road so the ZINC ones he now has to use are less harmful to the environment.
 
fingaz said:
ROHS restrictions do not apply to MEDICAL, MILITARY, or AEROSPACE devices.

Could you provide the citation for that?

I did a little searching and found that like so many regulations, implementation differs from intent. There are delays, amendments, and re-interpretations. Moreover, the government often doesn't follow the rules it writes.

Here are a few citations:

**broken link removed**

Article 2.3 of the WEEE Directive states that equipment connected with national security or military purposes is excluded from the scope of the directive. However, the RoHS Directive does not grant a similar exemption, but the governments current position is...[that the WEEE exemption applies to RoHS though not explicitly stated].

Another source stated in its Q&A:
This review [of possible exemptions] will be completed in 2006 and in the opinion of Paul Goodman at ERA Technologies, will eventually be included in the scope of RoHS although not until at least 2008 and more likely 2010.


From this brief review, it is unclear whether the so-called exemptions are based on questions of reliability and service or just a realization of the practical difficulty of dealing with so many small-volume, extremely specialized parts.

As a consumer, I have observed that non-RoHS parts are often more expensive and that a lot of medical equipment and devices is being converted or has converted. At the very least, it is using RoHS components, because equivalent non-RoHS components have disappeared from the market. Similarly, one finds replacement of components in aerospace. I don't know about the military (American), but then it uses Mil spec's that are decades old and cost is not a deterrent.

John
 
All they're saying is, that they're not going to bother if the circuit board of a bomb timer has lead solder on it.
 
jpanhalt said:
Could you provide the citation for that?

I did a little searching and found that like so many regulations, implementation differs from intent. There are delays, amendments, and re-interpretations. Moreover, the government often doesn't follow the rules it writes.

Here are a few citations:

**broken link removed**



Another source stated in its Q&A:


From this brief review, it is unclear whether the so-called exemptions are based on questions of reliability and service or just a realization of the practical difficulty of dealing with so many small-volume, extremely specialized parts.

As a consumer, I have observed that non-RoHS parts are often more expensive and that a lot of medical equipment and devices is being converted or has converted. At the very least, it is using RoHS components, because equivalent non-RoHS components have disappeared from the market. Similarly, one finds replacement of components in aerospace. I don't know about the military (American), but then it uses Mil spec's that are decades old and cost is not a deterrent.

John

I didn't say that medical, military or aerospace DO NOT use ROHS components, just that they are not required by law to use them.

I can say for certain that ROHS does not apply to medical devices (at least in the UK). I work in a hospital, and recently asked one of the radiologists about the LEAD APRONS which are still in use in the x-ray department.

I was curious because of the ROHS legislation. He told me that the ROHS does not apply to items used in connection with medical sevices. ie. they are still permitted to use lead aprons.

The actual ROHS legislation is written in terms that the average person cannot understand completely, and in fact most lawyers would not understand tham in full. Most legislation is written in this way so that the government, or lawyers can twist it to suit their own needs at that time.

(But that's just my opinion);)
 
Last edited:
THe lead vests isn't affected by ROHS the reason lead-acid batteries aren't- properties that are not reproducible at all to any degree of acceptability by other substances- and by the difference between Pb-Free and Pb solders, you can tell that the application has to be very important and the difference has to be quite extreme!

It's like asbestos. Lead and asbestos- the two most amazing and useful substances known to mankind that do just about everything...for a price. I suppose cadmium is also on the list.
 
Last edited:
The basis for some of the earlier comments on exemptions and applicability seems to be anecdotal. Here are two links to the directive provided by Arrow Electronics. The Arrow Electronics site has other useful links to related materials.

Full text:
https://www.arrow.com/green/aws/pdfs/rohs.pdf

Added exemptions:
https://www.arrow.com/green/legislation/rohs/rohs_exempions.html

I would also add to dknguyen's list of useful, but very toxic substances, beryllium and uranium. In fact, the list of metals with useful and toxic properties seems as long as the list of metals is. Consider, for example, selenium, tin, antimony, tellurium. BTW, I have a safe way to dispose of any gold you may want to get rid of.

John
 
one of my friend worked at a co that sold HPLCs and other analytical equipment. The CO sold RoHS compliant systems. But the service engineer used Lead-Tin alloy to solder the replacement parts. Bogus fellows...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

New Articles From Microcontroller Tips

Back
Top