Highlights

• UBC researchers find discarded LED lamps contain economically valuable concentrations of copper, silver, gallium, and REEs worth approximately $7,810-$16,169 per tonne.
• Recycling 1 tonne of LED lamps prevents approximately 262 tonnes of rock excavation.
• Industrial physical separation successfully upgrades copper and silver content but concentrates toxic lead, creating processing challenges that require careful environmental controls and design-for-recycling standards.
• LED recycling offers a strategic hedge against China's 91% dominance in rare earth refining and 98% control of gallium production.
• Recycling provides faster near-term domestic supply diversification than building new mines.

---

Mehdi Golzar-Ahmadi (opens in a new tab), a PhD candidate, and Dr. Maria Holuszko (opens in a new tab), both at  NBK Institute of Mining Engineering (opens in a new tab), University of British Columbia, report in a non-peer-reviewed SSRN preprint that discarded LED lamps—especially industrial recycler feedstock—can contain economically meaningful concentrations of copper, silver, gallium, and rare earth elements (REEs), while also delivering large “avoided mining” benefits.

By directly assaying real-world LED recycler streams before and after industrial physical separation, the team estimates LED waste can be worth ~US$7,810–$16,169 per tonne and that recycling 1 tonne of LED waste could prevent ~262 tonnes of rock excavation—a vivid metric meant to translate recycling into environmental value that policymakers and industry can act on.

Study methods

The researchers took three kinds of material: (1) tube LED lamps dismantled into strips and drivers, (2) shredded mixed LED recycler feedstock before separation, and (3) the same feedstock after industrial physical separation at a lamp recycling facility in British Columbia.

They then:

• Crushed and sieved samples into particle sizes (including very fine fractions where many metals concentrate).
• Compared aggressive lab digestion methods—four-acid digestion vs sodium peroxide fusion—and cross-checked with EDXRF, plus fire assay for precious metals.
• Used certified materials and a newly prepared LED reference material to improve quality control.
• Calculated economic value using metal content and market prices, and environmental benefit using the rock-to-metal ratio (RMR) concept (how much rock must be moved to produce a unit of metal).

Key findings that matter for the supply chain

1) LEDs are a real “urban mine”—especially for silver, copper, gallium, and select REEs.

The preprint highlights LED strips with high copper and measurable gallium and REEs, and shows that recycler feedstock already contains appreciable metal value before any upgrading.

2) Industrial physical separation works—but it changes the risk profile.

Physical separation upgraded copper and silver significantly, and reduced nuisance metals like aluminum and iron—good news for downstream processing efficiency. But it also concentrated toxic elements, notably lead (Pb), which rose sharply after separation. That’s a red flag because Pb can volatilize during high-temperature treatment and complicate smelting routes.

3) Design matters: some LEDs are “built to be recycled,” others are not.

Even within the same product category, construction differences (adhesives, bonded layers, glass vs polymer diffusers) changed how easily components could be separated and ground—directly affecting recyclability and cost.

4) The paper directly ties recycling urgency to China’s processing dominance.

Golzar-Ahmadi and Holuszko frame LED recycling as a supply-risk hedge for metals where global markets are highly concentrated. Independent supply-chain analysis supports that concern: the IEA estimates China accounts for about 91% of rare earth separation and refining, and China’s dominance is even more strategically sensitive in magnet materials. For gallium, CSIS notes China produces about 98% of low-purity gallium—the upstream starting point for many downstream applications.

Why this matters for the “China monopoly” problem: Even if new mines open in friendly countries, processing and refining remain the choke point. Recycling doesn’t “replace mining,” but it can create an alternative feedstock stream that reduces dependence on concentrated primary supply—especially for niche, high-leverage metals like gallium and heavy REEs.

Implications

• For recyclers: LED waste looks increasingly like a profit-motivated critical-metals stream, not just “lighting waste,” particularly when separation upgrades concentrate value.
• For manufacturers: The study strengthens the case for design-for-recycling standards (less adhesive bonding, easier disassembly, modular separations).
• For policymakers and investors: If China controls the refining bottleneck, scaling domestic recycling capacity is a practical near-term move—faster than building new mines and separations from scratch—while still requiring careful environmental controls.

Limitations and controversial points

• Not peer reviewed: This is a preprint, so conclusions should be treated as provisional until validated.
• Feedstock variability: LED waste is heterogeneous; results can swing by product mix, geography, and recycler process settings.
• RMR gap for REEs: The environmental “avoided mining” estimate does not fully capture REE impacts because RMR data are limited for some REEs—meaning benefits may be undercounted for certain critical elements.
• Toxicity tradeoff: The most controversial operational finding is that “upgrading” the stream can also upgrade hazards (Pb and other toxics), raising the bar for safe processing and potentially narrowing viable recovery routes.

Conclusion

This UBC preprint makes a clear, accessible case that LED recycling is no longer just waste management—it’s strategic urban mining. With China’s dominance strongest in the processing layers of critical minerals, the authors’ message is timely: targeted recycling streams like end-of-life LEDs can deliver real economic value while cutting primary mining burdens—provided industry confronts the toxicity and process-design challenges head-on.

Citations

• International Energy Agency (IEA), “With new export controls on critical minerals, supply concentration risks become reality” (rare earth separation/refining concentration).
• Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), “Beyond Rare Earths: China’s Growing Threat to Gallium Supply Chains” (China share of low-purity gallium).
• Nassar et al., “Rock-to-Metal Ratio: A Foundational Metric for Understanding Mine Wastes” (RMR concept).

©!-- /wp:paragraph -->