This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RoHS article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Add new text under old text. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Start a new topic Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

European Union Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Occupational Safety and Health Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Environment Mid‑importance This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Law This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

On 16 June 2008, RoHS was linked from Slashdot, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

On 7 December 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive to RoHS. The result of the discussion was moved.

Eastern Applied Research - RoHS Compliance Testing [1]

Newark InOne - distributor (Newark is pushing for a U.S. RoHS law:[2]

Fischer Technology [3]

So, let me get this straight. If we can't find common ground we're still supposeto trust our industry to make products that will be used to help regulate the bits and parts and peices that can help keep us alive? Can any one say MEDTRONIC? Our choices seem to be self truncating. All for now. DPANYD

In section 3.1 of the RoHS article, Labeling and Documentation - History (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RoHS_Compliant#History), is the statement, "In addition, the closely related WEEE (Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive) trash-can logo with an "X" through it is an indicator that the product may be compliant.", which is followed by the in-line template, "[Dubious - Discuss]".

I am unable to find said discussion here on the article's Talk page. As I am reading the questionable sentence, it says that products which contain the WEEE's X'd trashcan logo are safe to throw in the regular garbage. However, I've always assumed just the opposite, that items which carry this logo are required to be properly disposed/recycled, and should not be just thrown away with the regular garbage.

If the said [Dubious - Discuss] template as mentioned is directing to a section in this Talk article, could someone reply to my comment here with the link so that I can read the discussion? If not, then could this discrepancy be addressed (WEEE's X'd trashcan logo means un/safe to throw away in regular garbage)?

Thank you for your time/assistance whomever replies.
Christopher, Salem, OR (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DeNoel,

The WEEE logo is as you describe, it's meant to discourage disposing of high-tech electronic devices into the trash and encourage recycling or re-use. I'd like to see the dubious template removed, because WEEE and RoHS are directly related. My intent was to relate that products that fall under WEEE also generally fall under the RoHS regulations as far as I know, and so they go hand-in-hand. Prosecreator (talk) 05:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not realy. In fact that statement is faaar from true.

In document called "RoHS - 10 year later" (avilable at https://www.circuitinsight.com/programs/55274.html) we could read: ″From 2006 to 2008, the number of corrosion-related failures of IT/datacom equipment directly attributable to lead-free manufacturing regulations – by conservative estimates – increased by upwards of 250%.″ and also ″Between 2009 and 2011, as manufacturers began to replace silver with other materials, the failure rate stabilized and showed a slight decline, but failures were still above pre-RoHS levels.″ So no, reliability concerns were definitely not "unfounded"

In that section we could also read that "RoHS 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." but in attached link we could found only: ″Is the board performance affected with RoHS processing? Although we cannot address new RoHS compliant components, the characteristics of the material used in building the RoHS compliant laminate do not vary significantly from laminate that is less temperature resistant; therefore we would not expect a significant change in the performance of the board.″ So what phrase on linked website support statement that RoHS "surpassed" anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.113.32.126 (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The current lead says RoHS 1 restricted ten hazardous substances, but RoHS 1 originally restricted six substances. The ten-substance list reflects later additions. Hiroono1 (talk) 09:36, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not seem to mention IEC 62321. Since RoHS implementation requires analytical test methods as well as a restricted-substance list, it may be useful to add a brief reference to IEC 62321:2008, Electrotechnical products — Determination of levels of six regulated substances, which addressed the original six RoHS substances.

Suggested wording:

Analytical test methods for the six substances originally restricted under RoHS 1 were standardized internationally in IEC 62321, Electrotechnical products — Determination of levels of six regulated substances, which was originally issued in 2008 and has since been revised and expanded. Hiroono1 (talk) 09:52, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The existing reference to IBM Engineering Specification 46G3772 appears to refer to a later IBM supplier environmental requirements document. In the HDD RoHS implementation context, however, the relevant document was the HGST version of 46G3772. HGST was formed from IBM’s hard disk drive business after it was sold to Hitachi, and the HGST document inherited the same IBM specification number. That HGST version defined restricted-substance control, supplier declarations, and practical screening and measurement methods for RoHS-compliant HDD materials and parts before IEC 62321 was issued in 2008. Hiroono1 (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]