Deconstruction #1: Sophie’s Toothbrush

October 30, 2012 by
Filed under: Design and Society 

When Sophie needed a new toothbrush, she was overwhelmed by the ridiculous choice of products available that all (give or take the odd tongue scrubber) do exactly the same thing. There are an awful lot of toothbrushes being made, and even more being thrown away. The NHS recommends that you “replace your brush or brush attachment every three months”. If we had all stuck to this advice in 2011, we would have thrown away 224.4 million toothbrushes in England and Wales alone.

So what happens to these toothbrushes when we throw them away? From the look of the one that Sophie found washed up on a beach, not a huge amount happens to them at all. Despite having been battered by the tides, this toothbrush looked in pretty good nick. So when these toothbrushes are sitting in landfill, they are doing just that. Sitting there. Wasted. All 224.4 million of them.

Then Sophie found a toothbrush that really puzzled her: A disposable electric toothbrush. The packaging clearly states to replace it after 3 months. It also carries the WEEE symbol, meaning that the consumer is responsible for ensuring the product is correctly recycled. But how? Sophie had no idea how to go about this. She couldn’t put it in with her regular recycling, and she didn’t want to just put it in the bin. So she took it apart!

Inside the toothbrush, along with a battery she found a motor, just like the ones that we have in our mobile phones to make them vibrate. The funny thing is, the motor wasn’t attached to the bristles. All this toothbrush does is make our hand vibrate.

She decided to send it to her friend Hywel at Sheffield Hallam University who took a closer look.

He found the plastic made up 85% of the weight of the tootbrush, and the motor alone was 10% of the total weight. Within this tiny 10% he has so far found the following ‘ingredients’:

Hydrogen
Boron
Carbon
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Aluminium
Iron
Chromium
Nickel
Tungsten
Copper
Tin
Neodymium

This vast list is before we even get to the polymers used. These will contain fillers that he hasn’t yet measured, but titanium is likely to appear here.

The Royal Society of Chemists place Carbon and Tin as having a medium supply risk, and Tungsten and Neodymium as high. This means that if consumers don’t know how to recycle these small electrical items  they fall through the gaps and these precious elements are locked in landfill, increasing the pressure on supply

The way to break this cycle is through systems thinking where everyone plays a role through the life cycle of the product,  including the designer. Product designers could work with the design commissioner to make it easier to take the toothbrush apart (without the need for a saw!), packaging designers could work with supply chains to make recycling directions clearer, and government, brands and consumers could reassess the need for a disposable electric toothbrush in the first place,

Join us in our investigation into closed loop design. Why don’t you take something apart and see what you discover? (making sure you take the necessary safety precautions of course!) To contribute to our deconstruction series, contact Hilary.chittenden@rsa.org.uk or come along to one of our Great Recovery e-waste workshops, taking place throughout November.

This post was originally published on the Great Recovery blog.

 

Comments

  • http://www.chrisdymond.com Chris Dymond

    How does landfill mining fit in to ‘closed loop design’?
    Not that disposable electric toothbrushes are a sensible thing, but should appliances be designed for easy recycling or easy mining? And which is least energy and labour intensive now and in the future?

    • Hilary Chittenden

      I think in an ideal world we want to stop things from reaching landfill in the first place – design for repair or recycling would be a good place to start!

      • http://www.chrisdymond.com Chris Dymond

        Yes, but what we *think* isn’t really relevant, because we’re invariably wrong when we think about complex systems. We’re wrong usually because we simplify things by ignoring parts of the system that have an influence. In this particular system, we already have landfills full of material and there are efforts to mine them. So is it more efficient (in the whole) to mine all kinds of waste from landfills, or to recycle specific items by designing them to be dismantled and then processing them individually? I wonder if any data exists on this and what it tells us?

  • Hilary Chittenden

    Great blog Sandy! Thanks so much – and glad to hear that you will be taking your toothbrush apart when it gives up – make sure you send us a photo when you do!