{"history":[],"article":{"id":"f831ff94-14f5-41f8-83ea-7c278eeea583","title":"Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive","slug":"restriction-of-hazardous-substances-directive","content":":::summary\n**Type:** Directive \n**Number:** 2002/95/EC \n**Title:** Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment \n**Madeby:** [Council](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-council) & [Parliament](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-parliament) \n**Madeunder:** Art. 95 EC \n**Ojrefurl:** http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0095:EN:HTML eur-lex.europa.eu \n**Ojref:** L37, 13 February 2003, pp. 19–23 \n**Made:** 27 January 2003 \n**Commenced:** 13 February 2003 \n**Implementation:** 13 August 2004 \n**Commprop:** C365E, 19 December 2000, p. 195, C240E, 28 August 2001, p. 303. \n**Escopin:** C116, 20 April 2001, p. 38. \n**Cropin:** C148, 18 May 2001, p. 1. \n**Parlopin:** C34E, 7 February 2002, p. 109. \n**Amendedby:** Directive 2008/35/EC; Decision 2005/618/EC, Decision 2005/717/EC, Decision 2005/747/EC, Decision 2006/310/EC, Decision 2006/690/EC, Decision 2006/691/EC, Decision 2006/692/EC, Decision 2008/385/EC. \n**Replacedby:** Directive 2011/65/EU, 3 January 2013 \n**Status:** Recast \n:::\n\n# \nThe **Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive** 2002/95/EC (**RoHS 1**), short for **Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment**, was adopted in February 2003 by the [European Union](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-union).\nThe initiative was to limit the amount of hazardous chemicals in electronics.\nThe RoHS 1 [directive](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-union-directive) took effect on 1 July 2006, and is required to be enforced and became a law in each member state.\nThis directive restricts (with [exceptions](https://bliptext.com/articles/)) the use of ten hazardous materials in the manufacture of various types of electronic and electrical equipment.\nIn addition to the exceptions, there are [exclusions](https://bliptext.com/articles/) for products such as solar panels.\nIt is closely linked with the [Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive](https://bliptext.com/articles/waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment-directive) (WEEE) 2002/96/EC (now superseded ) which sets collection, recycling and recovery targets for electrical goods and is part of a legislative initiative to solve the problem of huge amounts of toxic [electronic waste](https://bliptext.com/articles/electronic-waste).\nIn speech, RoHS is often spelled out, or pronounced, , , or , and refers to the EU standard, unless otherwise qualified.\n\n# Details\nEach European Union member state will adopt its own enforcement and implementation policies using the directive as a guide.\n**RoHS** is often referred to as the \"lead-free directive\", but it restricts the use of the following ten substances:\n**Maximum Permitted Concentration: 0.1%**\n**Max for Cadmium: 0.01%**\nDEHP, BBP, DBP and DIBP were added as part of DIRECTIVE (EU) 2015/863 which was published on 31 March 2015.\nPBB and PBDE are [flame retardants](https://bliptext.com/articles/flame-retardant) used in several plastics.\n[Hexavalent chromium](https://bliptext.com/articles/hexavalent-chromium) is used in [chrome plating](https://bliptext.com/articles/chrome-plating), chromate coatings and [primers](https://bliptext.com/articles/primer-paint), and in [chromic acid](https://bliptext.com/articles/chromic-acid).\nThe maximum permitted concentrations in non-[exempt products](https://bliptext.com/articles/) are 0.1% or 1000 [ppm](https://bliptext.com/articles/parts-per-million) (except for [cadmium](https://bliptext.com/articles/cadmium), which is limited to 0.01% or 100 [ppm](https://bliptext.com/articles/parts-per-million)) by weight.\nThe restrictions are on each homogeneous material in the product, which means that the limits do not apply to the weight of the finished product, or even to a component, but to any single material that could (theoretically) be separated mechanically – for example, the sheath on a cable or the [tinning](https://bliptext.com/articles/tinning) on a component lead.\nAs an example, a [radio](https://bliptext.com/articles/radio) is composed of a case, [screws](https://bliptext.com/articles/screws), [washers](https://bliptext.com/articles/washer-hardware), a circuit board, speakers, etc. The [screws](https://bliptext.com/articles/screws), [washers](https://bliptext.com/articles/washer-hardware), and case may each be made of homogenous materials, but the other components comprise multiple sub-components of many different types of material.\nFor instance, a circuit board is composed of a bare [printed circuit board](https://bliptext.com/articles/printed-circuit-board) (PCB), [integrated circuits](https://bliptext.com/articles/integrated-circuit) (IC), [resistors](https://bliptext.com/articles/resistors), [capacitors](https://bliptext.com/articles/capacitors), [switch](https://bliptext.com/articles/switch)es, etc. A [switch](https://bliptext.com/articles/switch) is composed of a case, a lever, a spring, contacts, pins, etc., each of which may be made of different materials.\nA contact might be composed of a copper strip with a surface coating.\nA [loudspeaker](https://bliptext.com/articles/loudspeaker) is composed of a permanent magnet, copper wire, paper, etc.\nEverything that can be identified as a homogeneous material must meet the limit.\nSo if it turns out that the case was made of plastic with 2,300 ppm (0.23%) PBB used as a flame retardant, then the entire radio would fail the requirements of the directive.\nIn an effort to close RoHS 1 loopholes, in May 2006 the European Commission was asked to review two currently excluded product categories (monitoring and control equipment, and medical devices) for future inclusion in the products that must fall into RoHS compliance.\nIn addition the commission entertains requests for deadline extensions or for exclusions by substance categories, substance location or weight.\nNew legislation was published in the official journal in July 2011 which supersedes this exemption.\nNote that batteries are not included within the scope of RoHS.\nHowever, in Europe, batteries are under the European Commission's 1991 Battery Directive (91/157/EEC ), which was recently increased in scope and approved in the form of the new [battery directive](https://bliptext.com/articles/battery-directive), version 2003/0282 COD, which will be official when submitted to and published in the EU's Official Journal.\nWhile the first Battery Directive addressed possible trade barrier issues brought about by disparate European member states' implementation, the new directive more explicitly highlights improving and protecting the environment from the negative effects of the waste contained in batteries.\nIt also contains a programme for more ambitious recycling of industrial, automotive, and consumer batteries, gradually increasing the rate of manufacturer-provided collection sites to 45% by 2016.\nIt also sets limits of 5 ppm mercury and 20 ppm cadmium to batteries except those used in medical, emergency, or portable power-tool devices.\nThough not setting quantitative limits on quantities of lead, lead–acid, nickel, and nickel–cadmium in batteries, it cites a need to restrict these substances and provide for recycling up to 75% of batteries with these substances.\nThere are also provisions for marking the batteries with symbols in regard to metal content and recycling collection information.\nThe directive applies to equipment as defined by a section of the WEEE directive.\nThe following numeric categories apply:\nIt does not apply to fixed industrial plant and tools.\nCompliance is the responsibility of the company that puts the product on the market, as defined in the Directive; components and sub-assemblies are not responsible for product compliance.\nOf course, given the fact that the regulation is applied at the homogeneous material level, data on substance concentrations needs to be transferred through the supply chain to the final producer.\nAn IPC standard has recently been developed and published to facilitate this data exchange, IPC-1752.\nIt is enabled through two PDF forms that are free to use.\nRoHS applies to these products in the EU whether made within the EU or imported.\nCertain exemptions apply, and these are updated on occasion by the EU.\n\n## Examples of product components containing restricted substances\nRoHS restricted substances have been used in a broad array of consumer electronics products.\nExamples of components that have contained lead include:\nCadmium is found in many of the components above; examples include plastic pigmentation, [nickel–cadmium (NiCd) batteries](https://bliptext.com/articles/nickel-cadmium-battery) and [CdS](https://bliptext.com/articles/cadmium-sulfide) photocells (used in night lights).\nMercury is used in lighting applications and automotive switches; examples include [fluorescent lamps](https://bliptext.com/articles/fluorescent-lamp) and [mercury tilt switches](https://bliptext.com/articles/mercury-switch) (these are rarely used nowadays).\nHexavalent chromium is used for metal finishes to prevent corrosion.\nPolybrominated biphenyls and diphenyl ethers/oxides are used primarily as flame retardants.\n\n## Hazardous materials and the high-tech waste problem\nRoHS and other efforts to reduce hazardous materials in electronics are motivated in part to address the global issue of consumer electronics waste.\nAs newer technology arrives at an ever-increasing rate, consumers are discarding their obsolete products sooner than ever.\nThis waste ends up in landfills and in countries like China to be \"recycled\".\n\"In the fashion-conscious mobile market, 98 million U.S. cell phones took their last call in 2005. All told, the EPA estimates that in the U.S. that year, between 1.5 and 1.9 million tons of computers, TVs, VCRs, monitors, cell phones, and other equipment were discarded. If all sources of electronic waste are tallied, it could total 50 million tons a year worldwide, according to the UN Environment Programme.\"\nAmerican electronics sent offshore to countries like Ghana in West Africa under the guise of recycling may be doing more harm than good.\nNot only are adult and child workers in these jobs being poisoned by heavy metals, but these metals are returning to the U.S. \"The U.S. right now is shipping large quantities of leaded materials to China, and China is the world's major manufacturing center,\" [Dr. Jeffrey Weidenhamer](https://bliptext.com/articles/jeffrey-weidenhamer) says, a chemistry professor at Ashland University in Ohio.\n\"It's not all that surprising things are coming full circle and now we're getting contaminated products back.\"\n\n## Changing toxicity perceptions\nIn addition to the high-tech waste problem, RoHS reflects contemporary research over the past 50 years in biological toxicology that acknowledges the long-term effects of low-level chemical exposure on populations.\nNew testing is capable of detecting much smaller concentrations of environmental toxicants.\nResearchers are associating these exposures with neurological, developmental, and reproductive changes.\nRoHS and other environmental laws are in contrast to historical and contemporary law that seek to address only acute toxicology, that is direct exposure to large amounts of toxic substances causing severe injury or death.\n\n## Life-cycle impact assessment of lead-free solder\nThe [United States Environmental Protection Agency](https://bliptext.com/articles/united-states-environmental-protection-agency) (EPA) has published a [life-cycle assessment](https://bliptext.com/articles/life-cycle-assessment) (LCA) of the environmental impacts of lead-free and tin–lead [solder](https://bliptext.com/articles/solder), as used in electronic products.\nFor bar solders, when only lead-free solders were considered, the tin/copper alternative had the lowest (best) scores.\nFor paste solders, [bismuth](https://bliptext.com/articles/bismuth)/[tin](https://bliptext.com/articles/tin)/silver had the lowest impact scores among the lead-free alternatives in every category except [non-renewable resource](https://bliptext.com/articles/non-renewable-resource) consumption.\nFor both paste and bar solders, all of the lead-free solder alternatives had a lower (better) LCA score in toxicity categories than tin/lead solder.\nThis is primarily due to the toxicity of lead, and the amount of lead that leaches from printed wiring board assemblies, as determined by the leachability study conducted by the partnership.\nThe study results are providing the industry with an objective analysis of the life-cycle environmental effects of leading candidate alternative lead-free solders, allowing industry to consider environmental concerns along with the traditionally evaluated parameters of cost and performance.\nThis assessment is also allowing industry to redirect efforts toward products and processes that reduce solders' environmental footprint, including energy consumption, releases of toxic chemicals, and potential risks to human health and the environment.\nAnother life-cycle assessment by IKP, University of Stuttgart, shows similar results to those of the EPA study.\n\n## Life-cycle impact assessment of BFR-free plastics\nThe ban on concentrations of [brominated flame retardants](https://bliptext.com/articles/brominated-flame-retardant) (BFR) above 0.1% in plastics has affected plastics recycling.\nAs more and more products include recycled plastics, it has become critical to know the BFR concentration in these plastics, either by tracing the origins of the recycled plastics to establish the BFR concentrations, or by measuring the BFR concentrations from samples.\nPlastics with high BFR concentrations are costly to handle or to discard, whereas plastics with levels below 0.1% have value as recyclable materials.\nThere are a number of analytical techniques for the rapid measurement of BFR concentrations.\n[X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy](https://bliptext.com/articles/x-ray-fluorescence-spectroscopy) can confirm the presence of bromine (Br), but it does not indicate the BFR concentration or specific molecule.\n[Ion attachment mass spectrometry](https://bliptext.com/articles/ion-attachment-mass-spectrometry) (IAMS) can be used to measure BFR concentrations in plastics.\nThe BFR ban has significantly affected both upstream (plastic material selection) and downstream (plastic material recycling).\n\n## 2011/65/EU (RoHS 2)\nThe RoHS 2 directive (2011/65/EU) is an evolution of the original directive and became law on 21 July 2011 and took effect on 2 January 2013.\nIt addresses the same substances as the original directive while improving regulatory conditions and legal clarity.\nIt requires periodic re-evaluations that facilitate gradual broadening of its requirements to cover additional electronic and electrical equipment, cables and spare parts.\nThe CE logo now indicates compliance and RoHS 2 declaration of conformity is now detailed (see below).\nIn 2012, a final report from the [European Commission](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-commission) revealed that some EU Member States considered all toys under the scope of the primary RoHS 1 Directive 2002/95/EC, irrespective of whether their primary or secondary functions were using electric currents or electromagnetic fields.\nFrom the implementation of RoHS 2 or RoHS Recast Directive 2011/65/EU on, all the concerned Member States will have to comply with the new regulation.\nThe key difference in the recast is that it is now necessary to demonstrate conformity in a similar way to the LVD and EMC directives.\nNot being able to show compliance in sufficiently detailed files, and not ensuring it is implemented in production is now a criminal offence.\nLike the other CE marking directives it mandates production control and traceability to the technical files.\nIt describes two methods of achieving presumption of conformity (Directive 2011/65/EU Article 16.2), either technical files should include test data for all materials or a standard accepted in the official journal for the directive, is used.\nCurrently the only standard is EN IEC 63000:2018 (based on IEC 63000:2016 superseded EN 50581:2012), a risk based method to reduce the amount of test data required (Harmonised Standards list for RoHS2, OJEU C363/6).\nOne of the consequences of the requirement to demonstrate conformity is the requirement to know the exemption use of each component, otherwise it is not possible to know compliance when the product is placed on the market, the only point in time the product must be 'compliant'.\nMany do not understand that 'compliance' varies depending on what exemptions are in force and it is quite possible to make a non-compliant product with 'compliant' components.\nCompliance must be calculated on the day of placing on the market.\nIn reality this means knowing the exemption status of all components and using up stock of old status parts before the expire date of the exemptions (Directive 2011/65/EU Article 7.b referring to Decision 768/2008/EC Module A Internal production control).\nNot having a system to manage this could be seen as a lack of diligence and a criminal prosecution could occur (UK Instrument 2012 N. 3032 section 39 Penalties).\nRoHS 2 also has a more dynamic approach to exemptions, creating an automatic expiration if exemptions are not renewed by requests from industry.\nAdditionally new substances can be added to the controlled list, with 4 new substances expected to be controlled by 2019.\nAll these mean greater information control and update systems are required.\nOther differences include new responsibilities for importers and distributors and markings to improve traceability to the technical files.\nThese are part of the NLF for directives and make the supply chain a more active part of the policing (Directive 2011/65/EU Articles 7, 9, 10).\nThere has been a recent additional amendment 2017/2102 to 2011/65\n\n## 2015/863 (RoHS 2 amendment)\nThe RoHS 2 directive (2011/65/EU) contains allowance to add new materials and 4 materials are highlighted for this attention in the original version, the amendment 2015/863 adds four additional substances to Annex II of 2011/65/EU (3/4 of the new restrictions are recommended for investigation in the original directive, ref Para 10 of preamble).\nThis is another reason that simple component RoHS compliance statements are not acceptable as compliance requirements vary depending on the date the product is placed on the market (ref IEC 63000:2016).\nThe additional four substances restriction and evidence requirements shall be applied for products placed on the market on or after 22 July 2019 except where exemptions permit as stated in Annex III., although at the time of writing no exemptions exist or have been applied for, for these materials.\nThe four additional substances are\nThe maximum permitted concentrations in non-exempt products are 0.1%.\nThe new substances are also listed under the REACH Candidate list, and DEHP is not authorised for manufacturing (use as a substance) in the EU under Annex XIV of REACH.\n\n# Scope exclusions\nWith the recast of the original RoHS (I) Directive (2002/95/EC), the scope of the directive was decoupled from the scope of the WEEE Directive and an open scope was introduced.\nThe RoHS (II) Directive (2011/65/EU) was applicable to all electrical and electronic equipment.\nScope limitations and exclusions were specifically introduced in Article 2(4) a) – j) of the recast Directive.\nAll other EEE was in scope of the Directive, unless specific exemptions have been granted through Commission delegated acts (see next paragraph).\nThe scope exclusions are listed below\nThis Directive does not apply to:\n

equipment which is necessary for the protection of the essential interests of the security of Member States, including arms, munitions and war material intended for specifically military purposes;

equipment designed to be sent into space;

equipment which is specifically designed, and is to be installed, as part of another type of equipment that is excluded or does not fall within the scope of this Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of that equipment, and which can be replaced only by the same specifically designed equipment;

large-scale stationary industrial tools;

large-scale fixed installations;

means of transport for persons or goods, excluding electric two-wheel vehicles which are not type-approved;

non-road mobile machinery made available exclusively for professional use;

active implantable medical devices;

photovoltaic panels intended to be used in a system that is designed, assembled and installed by professionals for permanent use at a defined location to produce energy from solar light for public, commercial, industrial and residential applications;

equipment specifically designed solely for the purposes of research and development only made available on a business-to-business basis.

\n\n\n# Restriction exemptions\nThere are over 80 exemptions, some of which are quite broad.\nExemptions will automatically expire after 5 or 7 years unless renewed.\nAccording to [Hewlett-Packard](https://bliptext.com/articles/hewlett-packard): \"The European Union is gradually narrowing the scope of and expiring many of the current RoHS exemptions. In addition, it is likely that new substance restrictions will be introduced in the next several years.\"\nSome exemptions:\nMedical devices were exempt in the original directive.\nRoHS 2 narrowed the exemption's scope to active implantable medical devices only (Category 4h).\nIn vitro diagnostic devices (IVDD) and other medical devices are now included.\nAutomotive vehicles are exempt (Category 4f).\nVehicles instead are addressed in the [End of Life Vehicles Directive](https://bliptext.com/articles/end-of-life-vehicles-directive) (Directive 2000/53/EC).\n\n# Detecting RoHS Compounds with XRF\nX-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) helps detect hazardous substances restricted under the RoHS directive.\nIt identifies heavy metals like lead, mercury, and cadmium quickly and efficiently.\nXRF works best for inorganic elements, making it a popular tool for compliance testing.\n\n## How XRF Works\nXRF uses X-rays to excite atoms in a sample.\nWhen atoms stabilize, they release energy as photons.\nThe device measures this energy to identify elements in the sample.\nEach element emits a unique energy, allowing precise detection.\nXRF creates an energy spectrum showing what elements are present and how much of each exists.\nThis data supports both qualitative and quantitative analysis.\n\n## XRF for RoHS Testing\nXRF effectively detects key RoHS-restricted elements like lead, mercury, and cadmium.\nIt can also find chromium but cannot tell if it’s hexavalent chromium.\nAdditional tests are necessary for that.\nHowever, XRF cannot analyze organic compounds such as phthalates or PBBs.\nXRF can detect total bromine which works as a pre-screening method.\nHowever, these substances require other methods like gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for precise detection.\nXRF offers many advantages.\nIt’s fast and non-destructive, meaning samples remain intact after analysis.\nIt works well for solid materials with minimal preparation, saving time and reducing costs.\nHandheld XRF devices allow on-site testing, making them useful in industrial and environmental settings.\nThese devices analyze samples in seconds, increasing efficiency.\n\n## Limits of XRF\nXRF struggles to detect light elements like carbon or oxygen.\nIt also cannot analyze molecules or organic substances.\nDespite these limits, XRF remains a top choice for detecting heavy metals and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations like RoHS.\n\n# Labeling and documentation\nProducts within scope of the RoHS 2 directive must display the [CE mark](https://bliptext.com/articles/ce-mark), the manufacturers name and address and a serial or batch number.\nParties needing to know more detailed compliance information can find this on the EU Declaration of Conformity for the product as created by the manufacturer (Brand owner) responsible for the design or the EU representative.\nThe regulation also requires most actors in the supply chain for the product (importer and distributors) to keep and check this document, as well as ensuring a conformance process has been followed and the correct language translation for instructions are provided.\nThe manufacturer must keep certain documentation to demonstrate conformity, known as a technical file or technical records.\nThe directive requires the manufacturer to demonstrate conformity by the use of test data for all materials or by following a harmonised standard (IEC 63000:2016 is the only standard at the time of writing).\nRegulators may request this file or, more likely, specific data from it as it will likely be very large.\n# [The CE logo | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Conformit%C3%A9///Europ%C3%A9enne///%28logo%29.svg]\n# [RoHS and CE mark on a car charger | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Car///charger%2C///2///automobile///auxiliary///power///outlets///and///2///USB///sockets-9827.jpg]\n\n## History\nRoHS did not require any specific product labelling, but many manufacturers have adopted their own compliance marks to reduce confusion.\nVisual indicators have included explicit \"RoHS compliant\" labels, green leaves, check marks, and \"PB-Free\" markings.\nChinese RoHS labels, a lower case \"e\" within a circle with arrows, can also imply compliance.\nRoHS 2 attempts to address this issue by requiring the aforementioned CE mark whose use is policed by the Trading Standards enforcement agency.\nIt states that the only permitted indication of RoHS compliance is the CE mark.\nThe closely related WEEE ([Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive](https://bliptext.com/articles/waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment-directive)), which became law simultaneously with RoHS, depicts a waste-can logo with an \"X\" through it and often accompanies the CE mark.\n# [A RoHS mark | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/RoHS-2.jpg]\n# [The WEEE directive logo | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/WEEE///2.svg]\n\n# Future possible additions\nNew substance restrictions being considered for introduction in the next few years include phthalates, brominated flame retardants (BFRs), chlorinated flame retardants (CFRs), and PVC.\n\n# Other regions\n\n## Asia / Pacific\n\n## United States\nThe [Consumer Product Safety Act](https://bliptext.com/articles/consumer-product-safety-act) was enacted in 1972 followed by the [Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act](https://bliptext.com/articles/consumer-product-safety-improvement-act) in 2008.\nCalifornia has passed the [Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003](https://bliptext.com/articles/california-electronic-waste-recycling-act) (EWRA).\nThis law prohibits the sale of electronic devices after 1 January 2007, that are prohibited from being sold under the EU RoHS directive, but across a much narrower scope that includes LCDs, CRTs, and the like and only covers the four heavy metals restricted by RoHS.\nEWRA also has a restricted material disclosure requirement.\nEffective 1 January 2010, the California Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction Act applies RoHS to general purpose lights, i.e. \"lamps, bulbs, tubes, or other electric devices that provide functional illumination for indoor residential, indoor commercial, and outdoor use.\"\nOther US states and cities are debating whether to adopt similar laws, and there are several states that have mercury and PBDE bans already.\n\n## United Kingdom\nOn January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom completed its withdrawal from the European Union and subsequently entered a transition phase spanning from February 1 to December 31, 2020.\nThis event is commonly referred to as Brexit.\nDuring this transitional period, the United Kingdom conducted a comprehensive assessment of various regulations, including RoHS.\nUK RoHS stays well aligned with EU RoHS, with similar scopes, restricted substances, thresholds, and exemptions.\n\n## Ireland\nWorldwide standards and certification are available under the [QC 080000](https://bliptext.com/articles/qc-080000) standard, governed by the [National Standards Authority of Ireland](https://bliptext.com/articles/national-standards-authority-of-ireland), to ensure the control of hazardous substances in industrial applications.\n\n## Sweden\nIn 2012 Sweden's Chemicals Agency (Kemi) and Electrical Safety Authority tested 63 consumer electronics products and found that 12 were out of compliance.\nKemi claims that this is similar to testing results from prior years.\n\"Eleven products contained prohibited levels of lead, and one of polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants. Details of seven companies have been passed to Swedish prosecutors. Kemi says that levels of non-compliance with RoHS are similar to previous years, and remain too high.\"\n\n# Other standards\nRoHS is not the only environmental standard of which electronic product developers should be aware.\nManufacturers will find that it is cheaper to have only a single [bill of materials](https://bliptext.com/articles/bill-of-materials) for a product that is distributed worldwide, instead of customising the product to fit each country's specific environmental laws.\nTherefore, they develop their own standards, which allow only the strictest of all allowable substances.\nFor example, [IBM](https://bliptext.com/articles/ibm) forces each of their suppliers to complete a Product Content Declaration form to document compliance to their environmental standard 'Baseline Environmental Requirements for Materials, Parts and Products for [IBM](https://bliptext.com/articles/ibm) Logo Hardware Products'.\nThus, IBM banned [DecaBDE](https://bliptext.com/articles/decabromodiphenyl-ether), even though there was formerly a RoHS exemption for this material (overturned by the European Court in 2008).\nSimilarly, here is [Hewlett-Packard](https://bliptext.com/articles/hewlett-packard)'s environmental standard.\n\n# Criticism\nAdverse effects on product quality and reliability, plus high cost of compliance (especially to small business) are cited as criticisms of the directive, as well as early research indicating that the life cycle benefits of lead-free [solder](https://bliptext.com/articles/solder) versus traditional [solder](https://bliptext.com/articles/solder) materials are mixed.\nCriticism earlier on came from an industry resistant to change and a misunderstanding of solders and soldering processes.\nDeliberate misinformation was espoused to resist what was perceived as a \"non-tariff barrier created by European bureaucrats.\"\nMany believe the industry is stronger now through this experience and has a better understanding of the science and technologies involved.\nOne criticism of RoHS is that the restriction of lead and cadmium does not address some of their most prolific applications, while being costly for the electronics industry to comply with.\nSpecifically, the total lead used in electronics makes up only 2% of world lead consumption, while 90% of lead is used for batteries (covered by the battery directive, as mentioned above, which requires recycling and limits the use of mercury and cadmium, but does not restrict lead).\nAnother criticism is that less than 4% of lead in landfills is due to electronic components or circuit boards, while approximately 36% is due to leaded glass in [cathode-ray tube](https://bliptext.com/articles/cathode-ray-tube) monitors and televisions, which can contain up to 2 kg per screen.\nThis study was done right after the [tech boom](https://bliptext.com/articles/tech-boom).\nThe more common lead-free solder systems have a higher melting point, e.g. a 30 °C typical difference for tin-silver-copper alloys, but wave soldering temperatures are approximately the same at ~255 °C; however at this temperature most typical lead-free solders have longer wetting times than [eutectic](https://bliptext.com/articles/eutectic) Pb/Sn 37:63 solder.\nAdditionally wetting force is typically lower, which can be disadvantageous (for hole filling), but advantageous in other situations (closely spaced components).\nCare must be taken in selection of RoHS solders as some formulations are harder with less ductility, increasing the likelihood of [cracks](https://bliptext.com/articles/fracture) instead of [plastic deformation](https://bliptext.com/articles/plastic-deformation), which is typical for lead-containing solders.\nCracks can occur due to thermal or mechanical forces acting on components or the circuit board, the former being more common during manufacturing and the latter in the field.\nRoHS solders exhibit advantages and disadvantages in these respects, dependent on packaging and formulation.\nThe editor of Conformity Magazine wondered in 2005 if the transition to lead-free solder would affect long-term reliability of electronic devices and systems, especially in applications more mission-critical than in consumer products, citing possible breaches due to other environmental factors like oxidation.\nThe 2005 Farnell/Newark InOne \"RoHS Legislation and Technical Manual\", cites these and other \"lead-free\" solder issues, such as:\n\n## Effect on reliability\nPotential reliability concerns were addressed in Annex item #7 of the RoHS directive, granting some specific exemptions from regulation until 2010.\nThese issues were raised when the directive was first implemented in 2003 and reliability effects were less known.\nAnother potential problem that some lead-free, high tin-based solders may face is the growth of [tin whiskers](https://bliptext.com/articles/whisker-metallurgy).\nThese thin strands of tin can grow and make contact with an adjacent trace, developing a [short circuit](https://bliptext.com/articles/short-circuit).\nLead in the solder suppresses the growth of tin whiskers.\nHistorically tin whiskers have been associated with a handful of failures, including a [nuclear power plant shutdown](https://bliptext.com/articles/millstone-nuclear-power-plant) and [pacemaker](https://bliptext.com/articles/artificial-cardiac-pacemaker) incident where pure tin plating was used.\nHowever, these failures pre-date RoHS.\nThey also do not involve consumer electronics, and therefore may employ RoHS-restricted substances if desired.\nManufacturers of electronic equipment for mission-critical aerospace applications have followed a policy of caution and therefore resisted the adoption of lead-free solders.\nTo help mitigate potential problems, lead-free manufacturers are using a variety of approaches such as tin-zinc formulations that produce non-conducting whiskers or formulations that reduce growth, although they do not halt growth completely in all circumstances.\nFortunately, experience thus far suggests deployed instances of RoHS compliant products are not failing due to whisker growth.\nDr. Ronald Lasky of Dartmouth College reports: \"RoHS has been in force for more than 15 months now, and ~$400B RoHS-compliant products have been produced. With all of these products in the field, no significant numbers of tin whisker-related failures have been reported.\"\nWhisker growth occurs slowly over time, is unpredictable, and not fully understood, so time may be the only true test of these efforts.\nWhisker growth is even observable for lead-based solders, albeit on a much smaller scale.\nSome countries have exempted medical and telecommunication infrastructure products from the legislation.\nHowever, this may be a moot point, since as electronic component manufacturers convert their production lines to producing only lead-free parts, conventional parts with [eutectic](https://bliptext.com/articles/eutectic-point) tin-lead solder will simply not be available, even for military, aerospace and industrial users.\nTo the extent that only solder is involved, this is at least partially mitigated by many lead-free components' compatibility with lead-containing solder processes.\n[Leadframe](https://bliptext.com/articles/leadframe)-based components, such as [Quad Flat Packages](https://bliptext.com/articles/quad-flat-package) (QFP), [Small Outline Integrated Circuits](https://bliptext.com/articles/small-outline-integrated-circuit) (SOIC), and [Small outline packages](https://bliptext.com/articles/small-outline-package) (SOP) with [gull wing leads](https://bliptext.com/articles/gull-wing-lead), are generally compatible since the finish on the part leads contributes a small amount of material to the finished joint.\nHowever, components such as [Ball grid arrays](https://bliptext.com/articles/ball-grid-array) (BGA) which come with lead-free solder balls and leadless parts are often not compatible with lead-containing processes.\n\n## Economic effect\nThere are no [de minimis](https://bliptext.com/articles/de-minimis) exemptions, e.g., for micro-businesses.\nThis economic effect was anticipated and at least some attempts at mitigating the effect were made.\nAnother form of economic effect is the cost of product failures during the switch to RoHS compliance.\nFor example, tin whiskers were responsible for a 5% failure rate in certain components of Swiss Swatch watches in 2006, prior to the July implementation of RoHS, reportedly triggering a US$1 billion recall.\nSwatch responded to this by applying for an exemption to RoHS compliance, but this was denied.\n\n# Benefits\n\n## Health benefits\nRoHS helps reduce damage to people and the environment in third-world countries where much of today's \"high-tech waste\" ends up.\nThe use of lead-free solders and components reduces risks to electronics industry workers in prototype and manufacturing operations.\nContact with solder paste no longer represents the same health hazard as it used to.\n\n## Reliability concerns unfounded\nContrary to the predictions of widespread component failure and reduced reliability, RoHS's first anniversary (July 2007) passed with little fanfare.\nMost contemporary consumer electronics are RoHS compliant.\nAs of 2013, millions of compliant products are in use worldwide.\nMany electronics companies keep \"RoHS status\" pages on their corporate websites.\nFor example, the AMD website states:\n\"Although lead containing solder cannot be completely eliminated from all applications today, AMD engineers have developed effective technical solutions to reduce lead content in microprocessors and chipsets to ensure RoHS compliance while minimizing costs and maintaining product features. There is no change to fit, functional, electrical or performance specifications. Quality and reliability standards for RoHS compliant products are expected to be identical compared to current packages.\"\nRoHS printed circuit board finishing technologies are surpassing traditional formulations in fabrication thermal shock, solder paste printability, contact resistance, and aluminium wire bonding performance and nearing their performance in other attributes.\nThe properties of lead-free solder, such as its high temperature resilience, has been used to prevent failures under harsh field conditions.\nThese conditions include [operating temperatures](https://bliptext.com/articles/operating-temperature) with test cycles in the range of −40 °C to +150 °C with severe vibration and shock requirements.\nAutomobile manufacturers are turning to RoHS solutions now as electronics move into the engine bay.\n\n## Flow properties and assembly\nOne of the major differences between lead-containing and lead-free solder pastes is the \"flow\" of the solder in its liquid state.\nLead-containing solder has a lower surface tension, and tends to move slightly to attach itself to exposed metal surfaces that touch any part of the liquid solder.\nLead-free solder conversely tends to stay in place where it is in its liquid state, and attaches itself to exposed metal surfaces only where the liquid solder touches it.\nThis lack of \"flow\" – while typically seen as a disadvantage because it can lead to lower quality electrical connections – can be used to place components more tightly than they used to be placed due to the properties of lead-containing solders.\nFor example, Motorola reports that their new RoHS wireless device assembly techniques are \"...enabling a smaller, thinner, lighter unit.\"\nTheir Motorola Q phone would not have been possible without the new solder.\nThe lead-free solder allows for tighter pad spacing.\n\n## Some exempt products achieve compliance\nResearch into new alloys and technologies is allowing companies to release RoHS products that are currently exempt from compliance, e.g. computer servers.\nIBM has announced a RoHS solution for high lead solder joints once thought to remain a permanent exemption.\nThe lead-free packaging technology \"...offers economical advantages in relation to traditional bumping processes, such as solder waste reduction, use of bulk alloys, quicker time-to-market for products and a much lower chemical usage rate.\"\nTest and measurement vendors, such as [National Instruments](https://bliptext.com/articles/national-instruments), have also started to produce RoHS-compliant products, despite devices in this category being exempt from the RoHS directive.\n\n# Practical\nRoHS compliance can be misleading because RoHS3 (EU) allows exemptions, ex. up to 85% lead content for high-temperature soldering alloys.\nTherefore good companies should clearly define their level of compliance in their product main datasheets (DS); ideally, they should provide a product content sheet (PCS) with full substance declaration by mass.\nSimilarly, good developers (and users) should carefully validate the product info to make sure they get the exact material safety expected.\nIndustry Examples:\nIdeal: RoHS3 compliant without exemptions\nGood Minimum Standard: RoHS3 compliant with exemption for lead-content on internal-only material (to help prevent lead-exposure on touch, lead-leakage in water)","current_revision":null,"created_by":"kACnuQmH5k9Nr5VNVEpVeg7XpvUmMctD","created_at":"2025-01-25T20:01:09.647Z","updated_at":"2025-01-25T20:01:09.647Z","search_vector":"'direct':5 'hazard':3 'restrict':1 'substanc':4","search_content":" \n**Type:** Directive \n**Number:** 2002/95/EC \n**Title:** Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment \n**Madeby:** [Council](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-council) & [Parliament](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-parliament) \n**Madeunder:** Art. 95 EC \n**Ojrefurl:** http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0095:EN:HTML eur-lex.europa.eu \n**Ojref:** L37, 13 February 2003, pp. 19–23 \n**Made:** 27 January 2003 \n**Commenced:** 13 February 2003 \n**Implementation:** 13 August 2004 \n**Commprop:** C365E, 19 December 2000, p. 195, C240E, 28 August 2001, p. 303. \n**Escopin:** C116, 20 April 2001, p. 38. \n**Cropin:** C148, 18 May 2001, p. 1. \n**Parlopin:** C34E, 7 February 2002, p. 109. \n**Amendedby:** Directive 2008/35/EC; Decision 2005/618/EC, Decision 2005/717/EC, Decision 2005/747/EC, Decision 2006/310/EC, Decision 2006/690/EC, Decision 2006/691/EC, Decision 2006/692/EC, Decision 2008/385/EC. \n**Replacedby:** Directive 2011/65/EU, 3 January 2013 \n**Status:** Recast \n \n\n# \nThe **Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive** 2002/95/EC (**RoHS 1**), short for **Directive on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment**, was adopted in February 2003 by the [European Union](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-union).\nThe initiative was to limit the amount of hazardous chemicals in electronics.\nThe RoHS 1 [directive](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-union-directive) took effect on 1 July 2006, and is required to be enforced and became a law in each member state.\nThis directive restricts (with [exceptions](https://bliptext.com/articles/)) the use of ten hazardous materials in the manufacture of various types of electronic and electrical equipment.\nIn addition to the exceptions, there are [exclusions](https://bliptext.com/articles/) for products such as solar panels.\nIt is closely linked with the [Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive](https://bliptext.com/articles/waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment-directive) (WEEE) 2002/96/EC (now superseded ) which sets collection, recycling and recovery targets for electrical goods and is part of a legislative initiative to solve the problem of huge amounts of toxic [electronic waste](https://bliptext.com/articles/electronic-waste).\nIn speech, RoHS is often spelled out, or pronounced, , , or , and refers to the EU standard, unless otherwise qualified.\n\n# Details\nEach European Union member state will adopt its own enforcement and implementation policies using the directive as a guide.\n**RoHS** is often referred to as the \"lead-free directive\", but it restricts the use of the following ten substances:\n**Maximum Permitted Concentration: 0.1%**\n**Max for Cadmium: 0.01%**\nDEHP, BBP, DBP and DIBP were added as part of DIRECTIVE (EU) 2015/863 which was published on 31 March 2015.\nPBB and PBDE are [flame retardants](https://bliptext.com/articles/flame-retardant) used in several plastics.\n[Hexavalent chromium](https://bliptext.com/articles/hexavalent-chromium) is used in [chrome plating](https://bliptext.com/articles/chrome-plating), chromate coatings and [primers](https://bliptext.com/articles/primer-paint), and in [chromic acid](https://bliptext.com/articles/chromic-acid).\nThe maximum permitted concentrations in non-[exempt products](https://bliptext.com/articles/) are 0.1% or 1000 [ppm](https://bliptext.com/articles/parts-per-million) (except for [cadmium](https://bliptext.com/articles/cadmium), which is limited to 0.01% or 100 [ppm](https://bliptext.com/articles/parts-per-million)) by weight.\nThe restrictions are on each homogeneous material in the product, which means that the limits do not apply to the weight of the finished product, or even to a component, but to any single material that could (theoretically) be separated mechanically – for example, the sheath on a cable or the [tinning](https://bliptext.com/articles/tinning) on a component lead.\nAs an example, a [radio](https://bliptext.com/articles/radio) is composed of a case, [screws](https://bliptext.com/articles/screws), [washers](https://bliptext.com/articles/washer-hardware), a circuit board, speakers, etc. The [screws](https://bliptext.com/articles/screws), [washers](https://bliptext.com/articles/washer-hardware), and case may each be made of homogenous materials, but the other components comprise multiple sub-components of many different types of material.\nFor instance, a circuit board is composed of a bare [printed circuit board](https://bliptext.com/articles/printed-circuit-board) (PCB), [integrated circuits](https://bliptext.com/articles/integrated-circuit) (IC), [resistors](https://bliptext.com/articles/resistors), [capacitors](https://bliptext.com/articles/capacitors), [switch](https://bliptext.com/articles/switch)es, etc. A [switch](https://bliptext.com/articles/switch) is composed of a case, a lever, a spring, contacts, pins, etc., each of which may be made of different materials.\nA contact might be composed of a copper strip with a surface coating.\nA [loudspeaker](https://bliptext.com/articles/loudspeaker) is composed of a permanent magnet, copper wire, paper, etc.\nEverything that can be identified as a homogeneous material must meet the limit.\nSo if it turns out that the case was made of plastic with 2,300 ppm (0.23%) PBB used as a flame retardant, then the entire radio would fail the requirements of the directive.\nIn an effort to close RoHS 1 loopholes, in May 2006 the European Commission was asked to review two currently excluded product categories (monitoring and control equipment, and medical devices) for future inclusion in the products that must fall into RoHS compliance.\nIn addition the commission entertains requests for deadline extensions or for exclusions by substance categories, substance location or weight.\nNew legislation was published in the official journal in July 2011 which supersedes this exemption.\nNote that batteries are not included within the scope of RoHS.\nHowever, in Europe, batteries are under the European Commission's 1991 Battery Directive (91/157/EEC ), which was recently increased in scope and approved in the form of the new [battery directive](https://bliptext.com/articles/battery-directive), version 2003/0282 COD, which will be official when submitted to and published in the EU's Official Journal.\nWhile the first Battery Directive addressed possible trade barrier issues brought about by disparate European member states' implementation, the new directive more explicitly highlights improving and protecting the environment from the negative effects of the waste contained in batteries.\nIt also contains a programme for more ambitious recycling of industrial, automotive, and consumer batteries, gradually increasing the rate of manufacturer-provided collection sites to 45% by 2016.\nIt also sets limits of 5 ppm mercury and 20 ppm cadmium to batteries except those used in medical, emergency, or portable power-tool devices.\nThough not setting quantitative limits on quantities of lead, lead–acid, nickel, and nickel–cadmium in batteries, it cites a need to restrict these substances and provide for recycling up to 75% of batteries with these substances.\nThere are also provisions for marking the batteries with symbols in regard to metal content and recycling collection information.\nThe directive applies to equipment as defined by a section of the WEEE directive.\nThe following numeric categories apply:\nIt does not apply to fixed industrial plant and tools.\nCompliance is the responsibility of the company that puts the product on the market, as defined in the Directive; components and sub-assemblies are not responsible for product compliance.\nOf course, given the fact that the regulation is applied at the homogeneous material level, data on substance concentrations needs to be transferred through the supply chain to the final producer.\nAn IPC standard has recently been developed and published to facilitate this data exchange, IPC-1752.\nIt is enabled through two PDF forms that are free to use.\nRoHS applies to these products in the EU whether made within the EU or imported.\nCertain exemptions apply, and these are updated on occasion by the EU.\n\n## Examples of product components containing restricted substances\nRoHS restricted substances have been used in a broad array of consumer electronics products.\nExamples of components that have contained lead include:\nCadmium is found in many of the components above; examples include plastic pigmentation, [nickel–cadmium (NiCd) batteries](https://bliptext.com/articles/nickel-cadmium-battery) and [CdS](https://bliptext.com/articles/cadmium-sulfide) photocells (used in night lights).\nMercury is used in lighting applications and automotive switches; examples include [fluorescent lamps](https://bliptext.com/articles/fluorescent-lamp) and [mercury tilt switches](https://bliptext.com/articles/mercury-switch) (these are rarely used nowadays).\nHexavalent chromium is used for metal finishes to prevent corrosion.\nPolybrominated biphenyls and diphenyl ethers/oxides are used primarily as flame retardants.\n\n## Hazardous materials and the high-tech waste problem\nRoHS and other efforts to reduce hazardous materials in electronics are motivated in part to address the global issue of consumer electronics waste.\nAs newer technology arrives at an ever-increasing rate, consumers are discarding their obsolete products sooner than ever.\nThis waste ends up in landfills and in countries like China to be \"recycled\".\n\"In the fashion-conscious mobile market, 98 million U.S. cell phones took their last call in 2005. All told, the EPA estimates that in the U.S. that year, between 1.5 and 1.9 million tons of computers, TVs, VCRs, monitors, cell phones, and other equipment were discarded. If all sources of electronic waste are tallied, it could total 50 million tons a year worldwide, according to the UN Environment Programme.\"\nAmerican electronics sent offshore to countries like Ghana in West Africa under the guise of recycling may be doing more harm than good.\nNot only are adult and child workers in these jobs being poisoned by heavy metals, but these metals are returning to the U.S. \"The U.S. right now is shipping large quantities of leaded materials to China, and China is the world's major manufacturing center,\" [Dr. Jeffrey Weidenhamer](https://bliptext.com/articles/jeffrey-weidenhamer) says, a chemistry professor at Ashland University in Ohio.\n\"It's not all that surprising things are coming full circle and now we're getting contaminated products back.\"\n\n## Changing toxicity perceptions\nIn addition to the high-tech waste problem, RoHS reflects contemporary research over the past 50 years in biological toxicology that acknowledges the long-term effects of low-level chemical exposure on populations.\nNew testing is capable of detecting much smaller concentrations of environmental toxicants.\nResearchers are associating these exposures with neurological, developmental, and reproductive changes.\nRoHS and other environmental laws are in contrast to historical and contemporary law that seek to address only acute toxicology, that is direct exposure to large amounts of toxic substances causing severe injury or death.\n\n## Life-cycle impact assessment of lead-free solder\nThe [United States Environmental Protection Agency](https://bliptext.com/articles/united-states-environmental-protection-agency) (EPA) has published a [life-cycle assessment](https://bliptext.com/articles/life-cycle-assessment) (LCA) of the environmental impacts of lead-free and tin–lead [solder](https://bliptext.com/articles/solder), as used in electronic products.\nFor bar solders, when only lead-free solders were considered, the tin/copper alternative had the lowest (best) scores.\nFor paste solders, [bismuth](https://bliptext.com/articles/bismuth)/[tin](https://bliptext.com/articles/tin)/silver had the lowest impact scores among the lead-free alternatives in every category except [non-renewable resource](https://bliptext.com/articles/non-renewable-resource) consumption.\nFor both paste and bar solders, all of the lead-free solder alternatives had a lower (better) LCA score in toxicity categories than tin/lead solder.\nThis is primarily due to the toxicity of lead, and the amount of lead that leaches from printed wiring board assemblies, as determined by the leachability study conducted by the partnership.\nThe study results are providing the industry with an objective analysis of the life-cycle environmental effects of leading candidate alternative lead-free solders, allowing industry to consider environmental concerns along with the traditionally evaluated parameters of cost and performance.\nThis assessment is also allowing industry to redirect efforts toward products and processes that reduce solders' environmental footprint, including energy consumption, releases of toxic chemicals, and potential risks to human health and the environment.\nAnother life-cycle assessment by IKP, University of Stuttgart, shows similar results to those of the EPA study.\n\n## Life-cycle impact assessment of BFR-free plastics\nThe ban on concentrations of [brominated flame retardants](https://bliptext.com/articles/brominated-flame-retardant) (BFR) above 0.1% in plastics has affected plastics recycling.\nAs more and more products include recycled plastics, it has become critical to know the BFR concentration in these plastics, either by tracing the origins of the recycled plastics to establish the BFR concentrations, or by measuring the BFR concentrations from samples.\nPlastics with high BFR concentrations are costly to handle or to discard, whereas plastics with levels below 0.1% have value as recyclable materials.\nThere are a number of analytical techniques for the rapid measurement of BFR concentrations.\n[X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy](https://bliptext.com/articles/x-ray-fluorescence-spectroscopy) can confirm the presence of bromine (Br), but it does not indicate the BFR concentration or specific molecule.\n[Ion attachment mass spectrometry](https://bliptext.com/articles/ion-attachment-mass-spectrometry) (IAMS) can be used to measure BFR concentrations in plastics.\nThe BFR ban has significantly affected both upstream (plastic material selection) and downstream (plastic material recycling).\n\n## 2011/65/EU (RoHS 2)\nThe RoHS 2 directive (2011/65/EU) is an evolution of the original directive and became law on 21 July 2011 and took effect on 2 January 2013.\nIt addresses the same substances as the original directive while improving regulatory conditions and legal clarity.\nIt requires periodic re-evaluations that facilitate gradual broadening of its requirements to cover additional electronic and electrical equipment, cables and spare parts.\nThe CE logo now indicates compliance and RoHS 2 declaration of conformity is now detailed (see below).\nIn 2012, a final report from the [European Commission](https://bliptext.com/articles/european-commission) revealed that some EU Member States considered all toys under the scope of the primary RoHS 1 Directive 2002/95/EC, irrespective of whether their primary or secondary functions were using electric currents or electromagnetic fields.\nFrom the implementation of RoHS 2 or RoHS Recast Directive 2011/65/EU on, all the concerned Member States will have to comply with the new regulation.\nThe key difference in the recast is that it is now necessary to demonstrate conformity in a similar way to the LVD and EMC directives.\nNot being able to show compliance in sufficiently detailed files, and not ensuring it is implemented in production is now a criminal offence.\nLike the other CE marking directives it mandates production control and traceability to the technical files.\nIt describes two methods of achieving presumption of conformity (Directive 2011/65/EU Article 16.2), either technical files should include test data for all materials or a standard accepted in the official journal for the directive, is used.\nCurrently the only standard is EN IEC 63000:2018 (based on IEC 63000:2016 superseded EN 50581:2012), a risk based method to reduce the amount of test data required (Harmonised Standards list for RoHS2, OJEU C363/6).\nOne of the consequences of the requirement to demonstrate conformity is the requirement to know the exemption use of each component, otherwise it is not possible to know compliance when the product is placed on the market, the only point in time the product must be 'compliant'.\nMany do not understand that 'compliance' varies depending on what exemptions are in force and it is quite possible to make a non-compliant product with 'compliant' components.\nCompliance must be calculated on the day of placing on the market.\nIn reality this means knowing the exemption status of all components and using up stock of old status parts before the expire date of the exemptions (Directive 2011/65/EU Article 7.b referring to Decision 768/2008/EC Module A Internal production control).\nNot having a system to manage this could be seen as a lack of diligence and a criminal prosecution could occur (UK Instrument 2012 N. 3032 section 39 Penalties).\nRoHS 2 also has a more dynamic approach to exemptions, creating an automatic expiration if exemptions are not renewed by requests from industry.\nAdditionally new substances can be added to the controlled list, with 4 new substances expected to be controlled by 2019.\nAll these mean greater information control and update systems are required.\nOther differences include new responsibilities for importers and distributors and markings to improve traceability to the technical files.\nThese are part of the NLF for directives and make the supply chain a more active part of the policing (Directive 2011/65/EU Articles 7, 9, 10).\nThere has been a recent additional amendment 2017/2102 to 2011/65\n\n## 2015/863 (RoHS 2 amendment)\nThe RoHS 2 directive (2011/65/EU) contains allowance to add new materials and 4 materials are highlighted for this attention in the original version, the amendment 2015/863 adds four additional substances to Annex II of 2011/65/EU (3/4 of the new restrictions are recommended for investigation in the original directive, ref Para 10 of preamble).\nThis is another reason that simple component RoHS compliance statements are not acceptable as compliance requirements vary depending on the date the product is placed on the market (ref IEC 63000:2016).\nThe additional four substances restriction and evidence requirements shall be applied for products placed on the market on or after 22 July 2019 except where exemptions permit as stated in Annex III., although at the time of writing no exemptions exist or have been applied for, for these materials.\nThe four additional substances are\nThe maximum permitted concentrations in non-exempt products are 0.1%.\nThe new substances are also listed under the REACH Candidate list, and DEHP is not authorised for manufacturing (use as a substance) in the EU under Annex XIV of REACH.\n\n# Scope exclusions\nWith the recast of the original RoHS (I) Directive (2002/95/EC), the scope of the directive was decoupled from the scope of the WEEE Directive and an open scope was introduced.\nThe RoHS (II) Directive (2011/65/EU) was applicable to all electrical and electronic equipment.\nScope limitations and exclusions were specifically introduced in Article 2(4) a) – j) of the recast Directive.\nAll other EEE was in scope of the Directive, unless specific exemptions have been granted through Commission delegated acts (see next paragraph).\nThe scope exclusions are listed below\nThis Directive does not apply to:\n equipment which is necessary for the protection of the essential interests of the security of Member States, including arms, munitions and war material intended for specifically military purposes; \n equipment designed to be sent into space; \n equipment which is specifically designed, and is to be installed, as part of another type of equipment that is excluded or does not fall within the scope of this Directive, which can fulfil its function only if it is part of that equipment, and which can be replaced only by the same specifically designed equipment; \n large-scale stationary industrial tools; \n large-scale fixed installations; \n means of transport for persons or goods, excluding electric two-wheel vehicles which are not type-approved; \n non-road mobile machinery made available exclusively for professional use; \n active implantable medical devices; \n photovoltaic panels intended to be used in a system that is designed, assembled and installed by professionals for permanent use at a defined location to produce energy from solar light for public, commercial, industrial and residential applications; \n equipment specifically designed solely for the purposes of research and development only made available on a business-to-business basis. \n \n\n# Restriction exemptions\nThere are over 80 exemptions, some of which are quite broad.\nExemptions will automatically expire after 5 or 7 years unless renewed.\nAccording to [Hewlett-Packard](https://bliptext.com/articles/hewlett-packard): \"The European Union is gradually narrowing the scope of and expiring many of the current RoHS exemptions. In addition, it is likely that new substance restrictions will be introduced in the next several years.\"\nSome exemptions:\nMedical devices were exempt in the original directive.\nRoHS 2 narrowed the exemption's scope to active implantable medical devices only (Category 4h).\nIn vitro diagnostic devices (IVDD) and other medical devices are now included.\nAutomotive vehicles are exempt (Category 4f).\nVehicles instead are addressed in the [End of Life Vehicles Directive](https://bliptext.com/articles/end-of-life-vehicles-directive) (Directive 2000/53/EC).\n\n# Detecting RoHS Compounds with XRF\nX-Ray Fluorescence (XRF) helps detect hazardous substances restricted under the RoHS directive.\nIt identifies heavy metals like lead, mercury, and cadmium quickly and efficiently.\nXRF works best for inorganic elements, making it a popular tool for compliance testing.\n\n## How XRF Works\nXRF uses X-rays to excite atoms in a sample.\nWhen atoms stabilize, they release energy as photons.\nThe device measures this energy to identify elements in the sample.\nEach element emits a unique energy, allowing precise detection.\nXRF creates an energy spectrum showing what elements are present and how much of each exists.\nThis data supports both qualitative and quantitative analysis.\n\n## XRF for RoHS Testing\nXRF effectively detects key RoHS-restricted elements like lead, mercury, and cadmium.\nIt can also find chromium but cannot tell if it’s hexavalent chromium.\nAdditional tests are necessary for that.\nHowever, XRF cannot analyze organic compounds such as phthalates or PBBs.\nXRF can detect total bromine which works as a pre-screening method.\nHowever, these substances require other methods like gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) for precise detection.\nXRF offers many advantages.\nIt’s fast and non-destructive, meaning samples remain intact after analysis.\nIt works well for solid materials with minimal preparation, saving time and reducing costs.\nHandheld XRF devices allow on-site testing, making them useful in industrial and environmental settings.\nThese devices analyze samples in seconds, increasing efficiency.\n\n## Limits of XRF\nXRF struggles to detect light elements like carbon or oxygen.\nIt also cannot analyze molecules or organic substances.\nDespite these limits, XRF remains a top choice for detecting heavy metals and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations like RoHS.\n\n# Labeling and documentation\nProducts within scope of the RoHS 2 directive must display the [CE mark](https://bliptext.com/articles/ce-mark), the manufacturers name and address and a serial or batch number.\nParties needing to know more detailed compliance information can find this on the EU Declaration of Conformity for the product as created by the manufacturer (Brand owner) responsible for the design or the EU representative.\nThe regulation also requires most actors in the supply chain for the product (importer and distributors) to keep and check this document, as well as ensuring a conformance process has been followed and the correct language translation for instructions are provided.\nThe manufacturer must keep certain documentation to demonstrate conformity, known as a technical file or technical records.\nThe directive requires the manufacturer to demonstrate conformity by the use of test data for all materials or by following a harmonised standard (IEC 63000:2016 is the only standard at the time of writing).\nRegulators may request this file or, more likely, specific data from it as it will likely be very large.\n# [The CE logo | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Conformit%C3%A9///Europ%C3%A9enne///%28logo%29.svg]\n# [RoHS and CE mark on a car charger | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Car///charger%2C///2///automobile///auxiliary///power///outlets///and///2///USB///sockets-9827.jpg]\n\n## History\nRoHS did not require any specific product labelling, but many manufacturers have adopted their own compliance marks to reduce confusion.\nVisual indicators have included explicit \"RoHS compliant\" labels, green leaves, check marks, and \"PB-Free\" markings.\nChinese RoHS labels, a lower case \"e\" within a circle with arrows, can also imply compliance.\nRoHS 2 attempts to address this issue by requiring the aforementioned CE mark whose use is policed by the Trading Standards enforcement agency.\nIt states that the only permitted indication of RoHS compliance is the CE mark.\nThe closely related WEEE ([Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive](https://bliptext.com/articles/waste-electrical-and-electronic-equipment-directive)), which became law simultaneously with RoHS, depicts a waste-can logo with an \"X\" through it and often accompanies the CE mark.\n# [A RoHS mark | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/03/RoHS-2.jpg]\n# [The WEEE directive logo | upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/WEEE///2.svg]\n\n# Future possible additions\nNew substance restrictions being considered for introduction in the next few years include phthalates, brominated flame retardants (BFRs), chlorinated flame retardants (CFRs), and PVC.\n\n# Other regions\n\n## Asia / Pacific\n\n## United States\nThe [Consumer Product Safety Act](https://bliptext.com/articles/consumer-product-safety-act) was enacted in 1972 followed by the [Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act](https://bliptext.com/articles/consumer-product-safety-improvement-act) in 2008.\nCalifornia has passed the [Electronic Waste Recycling Act of 2003](https://bliptext.com/articles/california-electronic-waste-recycling-act) (EWRA).\nThis law prohibits the sale of electronic devices after 1 January 2007, that are prohibited from being sold under the EU RoHS directive, but across a much narrower scope that includes LCDs, CRTs, and the like and only covers the four heavy metals restricted by RoHS.\nEWRA also has a restricted material disclosure requirement.\nEffective 1 January 2010, the California Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction Act applies RoHS to general purpose lights, i.e. \"lamps, bulbs, tubes, or other electric devices that provide functional illumination for indoor residential, indoor commercial, and outdoor use.\"\nOther US states and cities are debating whether to adopt similar laws, and there are several states that have mercury and PBDE bans already.\n\n## United Kingdom\nOn January 31, 2020, the United Kingdom completed its withdrawal from the European Union and subsequently entered a transition phase spanning from February 1 to December 31, 2020.\nThis event is commonly referred to as Brexit.\nDuring this transitional period, the United Kingdom conducted a comprehensive assessment of various regulations, including RoHS.\nUK RoHS stays well aligned with EU RoHS, with similar scopes, restricted substances, thresholds, and exemptions.\n\n## Ireland\nWorldwide standards and certification are available under the [QC 080000](https://bliptext.com/articles/qc-080000) standard, governed by the [National Standards Authority of Ireland](https://bliptext.com/articles/national-standards-authority-of-ireland), to ensure the control of hazardous substances in industrial applications.\n\n## Sweden\nIn 2012 Sweden's Chemicals Agency (Kemi) and Electrical Safety Authority tested 63 consumer electronics products and found that 12 were out of compliance.\nKemi claims that this is similar to testing results from prior years.\n\"Eleven products contained prohibited levels of lead, and one of polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants. Details of seven companies have been passed to Swedish prosecutors. Kemi says that levels of non-compliance with RoHS are similar to previous years, and remain too high.\"\n\n# Other standards\nRoHS is not the only environmental standard of which electronic product developers should be aware.\nManufacturers will find that it is cheaper to have only a single [bill of materials](https://bliptext.com/articles/bill-of-materials) for a product that is distributed worldwide, instead of customising the product to fit each country's specific environmental laws.\nTherefore, they develop their own standards, which allow only the strictest of all allowable substances.\nFor example, [IBM](https://bliptext.com/articles/ibm) forces each of their suppliers to complete a Product Content Declaration form to document compliance to their environmental standard 'Baseline Environmental Requirements for Materials, Parts and Products for [IBM](https://bliptext.com/articles/ibm) Logo Hardware Products'.\nThus, IBM banned [DecaBDE](https://bliptext.com/articles/decabromodiphenyl-ether), even though there was formerly a RoHS exemption for this material (overturned by the European Court in 2008).\nSimilarly, here is [Hewlett-Packard](https://bliptext.com/articles/hewlett-packard)'s environmental standard.\n\n# Criticism\nAdverse effects on product quality and reliability, plus high cost of compliance (especially to small business) are cited as criticisms of the directive, as well as early research indicating that the life cycle benefits of lead-free [solder](https://bliptext.com/articles/solder) versus traditional [solder](https://bliptext.com/articles/solder) materials are mixed.\nCriticism earlier on came from an industry resistant to change and a misunderstanding of solders and soldering processes.\nDeliberate misinformation was espoused to resist what was perceived as a \"non-tariff barrier created by European bureaucrats.\"\nMany believe the industry is stronger now through this experience and has a better understanding of the science and technologies involved.\nOne criticism of RoHS is that the restriction of lead and cadmium does not address some of their most prolific applications, while being costly for the electronics industry to comply with.\nSpecifically, the total lead used in electronics makes up only 2% of world lead consumption, while 90% of lead is used for batteries (covered by the battery directive, as mentioned above, which requires recycling and limits the use of mercury and cadmium, but does not restrict lead).\nAnother criticism is that less than 4% of lead in landfills is due to electronic components or circuit boards, while approximately 36% is due to leaded glass in [cathode-ray tube](https://bliptext.com/articles/cathode-ray-tube) monitors and televisions, which can contain up to 2 kg per screen.\nThis study was done right after the [tech boom](https://bliptext.com/articles/tech-boom).\nThe more common lead-free solder systems have a higher melting point, e.g. a 30 °C typical difference for tin-silver-copper alloys, but wave soldering temperatures are approximately the same at ~255 °C; however at this temperature most typical lead-free solders have longer wetting times than [eutectic](https://bliptext.com/articles/eutectic) Pb/Sn 37:63 solder.\nAdditionally wetting force is typically lower, which can be disadvantageous (for hole filling), but advantageous in other situations (closely spaced components).\nCare must be taken in selection of RoHS solders as some formulations are harder with less ductility, increasing the likelihood of [cracks](https://bliptext.com/articles/fracture) instead of [plastic deformation](https://bliptext.com/articles/plastic-deformation), which is typical for lead-containing solders.\nCracks can occur due to thermal or mechanical forces acting on components or the circuit board, the former being more common during manufacturing and the latter in the field.\nRoHS solders exhibit advantages and disadvantages in these respects, dependent on packaging and formulation.\nThe editor of Conformity Magazine wondered in 2005 if the transition to lead-free solder would affect long-term reliability of electronic devices and systems, especially in applications more mission-critical than in consumer products, citing possible breaches due to other environmental factors like oxidation.\nThe 2005 Farnell/Newark InOne \"RoHS Legislation and Technical Manual\", cites these and other \"lead-free\" solder issues, such as:\n\n## Effect on reliability\nPotential reliability concerns were addressed in Annex item #7 of the RoHS directive, granting some specific exemptions from regulation until 2010.\nThese issues were raised when the directive was first implemented in 2003 and reliability effects were less known.\nAnother potential problem that some lead-free, high tin-based solders may face is the growth of [tin whiskers](https://bliptext.com/articles/whisker-metallurgy).\nThese thin strands of tin can grow and make contact with an adjacent trace, developing a [short circuit](https://bliptext.com/articles/short-circuit).\nLead in the solder suppresses the growth of tin whiskers.\nHistorically tin whiskers have been associated with a handful of failures, including a [nuclear power plant shutdown](https://bliptext.com/articles/millstone-nuclear-power-plant) and [pacemaker](https://bliptext.com/articles/artificial-cardiac-pacemaker) incident where pure tin plating was used.\nHowever, these failures pre-date RoHS.\nThey also do not involve consumer electronics, and therefore may employ RoHS-restricted substances if desired.\nManufacturers of electronic equipment for mission-critical aerospace applications have followed a policy of caution and therefore resisted the adoption of lead-free solders.\nTo help mitigate potential problems, lead-free manufacturers are using a variety of approaches such as tin-zinc formulations that produce non-conducting whiskers or formulations that reduce growth, although they do not halt growth completely in all circumstances.\nFortunately, experience thus far suggests deployed instances of RoHS compliant products are not failing due to whisker growth.\nDr. Ronald Lasky of Dartmouth College reports: \"RoHS has been in force for more than 15 months now, and ~$400B RoHS-compliant products have been produced. With all of these products in the field, no significant numbers of tin whisker-related failures have been reported.\"\nWhisker growth occurs slowly over time, is unpredictable, and not fully understood, so time may be the only true test of these efforts.\nWhisker growth is even observable for lead-based solders, albeit on a much smaller scale.\nSome countries have exempted medical and telecommunication infrastructure products from the legislation.\nHowever, this may be a moot point, since as electronic component manufacturers convert their production lines to producing only lead-free parts, conventional parts with [eutectic](https://bliptext.com/articles/eutectic-point) tin-lead solder will simply not be available, even for military, aerospace and industrial users.\nTo the extent that only solder is involved, this is at least partially mitigated by many lead-free components' compatibility with lead-containing solder processes.\n[Leadframe](https://bliptext.com/articles/leadframe)-based components, such as [Quad Flat Packages](https://bliptext.com/articles/quad-flat-package) (QFP), [Small Outline Integrated Circuits](https://bliptext.com/articles/small-outline-integrated-circuit) (SOIC), and [Small outline packages](https://bliptext.com/articles/small-outline-package) (SOP) with [gull wing leads](https://bliptext.com/articles/gull-wing-lead), are generally compatible since the finish on the part leads contributes a small amount of material to the finished joint.\nHowever, components such as [Ball grid arrays](https://bliptext.com/articles/ball-grid-array) (BGA) which come with lead-free solder balls and leadless parts are often not compatible with lead-containing processes.\n\n## Economic effect\nThere are no [de minimis](https://bliptext.com/articles/de-minimis) exemptions, e.g., for micro-businesses.\nThis economic effect was anticipated and at least some attempts at mitigating the effect were made.\nAnother form of economic effect is the cost of product failures during the switch to RoHS compliance.\nFor example, tin whiskers were responsible for a 5% failure rate in certain components of Swiss Swatch watches in 2006, prior to the July implementation of RoHS, reportedly triggering a US$1 billion recall.\nSwatch responded to this by applying for an exemption to RoHS compliance, but this was denied.\n\n# Benefits\n\n## Health benefits\nRoHS helps reduce damage to people and the environment in third-world countries where much of today's \"high-tech waste\" ends up.\nThe use of lead-free solders and components reduces risks to electronics industry workers in prototype and manufacturing operations.\nContact with solder paste no longer represents the same health hazard as it used to.\n\n## Reliability concerns unfounded\nContrary to the predictions of widespread component failure and reduced reliability, RoHS's first anniversary (July 2007) passed with little fanfare.\nMost contemporary consumer electronics are RoHS compliant.\nAs of 2013, millions of compliant products are in use worldwide.\nMany electronics companies keep \"RoHS status\" pages on their corporate websites.\nFor example, the AMD website states:\n\"Although lead containing solder cannot be completely eliminated from all applications today, AMD engineers have developed effective technical solutions to reduce lead content in microprocessors and chipsets to ensure RoHS compliance while minimizing costs and maintaining product features. There is no change to fit, functional, electrical or performance specifications. Quality and reliability standards for RoHS compliant products are expected to be identical compared to current packages.\"\nRoHS printed circuit board finishing technologies are surpassing traditional formulations in fabrication thermal shock, solder paste printability, contact resistance, and aluminium wire bonding performance and nearing their performance in other attributes.\nThe properties of lead-free solder, such as its high temperature resilience, has been used to prevent failures under harsh field conditions.\nThese conditions include [operating temperatures](https://bliptext.com/articles/operating-temperature) with test cycles in the range of −40 °C to +150 °C with severe vibration and shock requirements.\nAutomobile manufacturers are turning to RoHS solutions now as electronics move into the engine bay.\n\n## Flow properties and assembly\nOne of the major differences between lead-containing and lead-free solder pastes is the \"flow\" of the solder in its liquid state.\nLead-containing solder has a lower surface tension, and tends to move slightly to attach itself to exposed metal surfaces that touch any part of the liquid solder.\nLead-free solder conversely tends to stay in place where it is in its liquid state, and attaches itself to exposed metal surfaces only where the liquid solder touches it.\nThis lack of \"flow\" – while typically seen as a disadvantage because it can lead to lower quality electrical connections – can be used to place components more tightly than they used to be placed due to the properties of lead-containing solders.\nFor example, Motorola reports that their new RoHS wireless device assembly techniques are \"...enabling a smaller, thinner, lighter unit.\"\nTheir Motorola Q phone would not have been possible without the new solder.\nThe lead-free solder allows for tighter pad spacing.\n\n## Some exempt products achieve compliance\nResearch into new alloys and technologies is allowing companies to release RoHS products that are currently exempt from compliance, e.g. computer servers.\nIBM has announced a RoHS solution for high lead solder joints once thought to remain a permanent exemption.\nThe lead-free packaging technology \"...offers economical advantages in relation to traditional bumping processes, such as solder waste reduction, use of bulk alloys, quicker time-to-market for products and a much lower chemical usage rate.\"\nTest and measurement vendors, such as [National Instruments](https://bliptext.com/articles/national-instruments), have also started to produce RoHS-compliant products, despite devices in this category being exempt from the RoHS directive.\n\n# Practical\nRoHS compliance can be misleading because RoHS3 (EU) allows exemptions, ex. up to 85% lead content for high-temperature soldering alloys.\nTherefore good companies should clearly define their level of compliance in their product main datasheets (DS); ideally, they should provide a product content sheet (PCS) with full substance declaration by mass.\nSimilarly, good developers (and users) should carefully validate the product info to make sure they get the exact material safety expected.\nIndustry Examples:\nIdeal: RoHS3 compliant without exemptions\nGood Minimum Standard: RoHS3 compliant with exemption for lead-content on internal-only material (to help prevent lead-exposure on touch, lead-leakage in water)","revisionCount":0},"hasMore":false,"nextCursor":null}