4.7 Article

Recovery of heavy metals from waste printed circuit boards: statistical optimization of leaching and residue characterization

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE AND POLLUTION RESEARCH
Volume 26, Issue 24, Pages 24417-24429

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-019-05596-y

Keywords

Electronic waste; Recycling; Heavy metals; Design of experiments; Analysis of residue

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council through Laureate Fellowship [FL140100215]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Despite attempts to enhance the recycling of waste printed circuit boards (WPCBs), the simultaneous recovery of major metals of WPCBs using an efficient approach is still a great challenge. This study mainly concerned with applying an effective statistical tool to optimize the recovery of metal content (i.e., Cu, Fe, Zn, Pb, Ni, Sn, and Al) embedded in WPCBs using a leaching agent without any additive or oxidative agent. Another target was to optimize a multi-response recovery process by minimizing time, energy, and acid consumption during the leaching. Effective parameters and their levels, including leaching time (20-60 min), temperature (25-45 degrees C), solid to liquid (S/L) ratio (1/8-1/20 g/ml), and acid molarity (1-2.7 M), were optimized. A well-established statistical approach (i.e., response surface methodology (RSM)) was applied to precisely quantify and interpret the effects. General optimum conditions for nine responses were introduced with the desirability of approximate to 85%. Finally, the solid residue of leaching was characterized and results showed the morphology, structure, and composition of the residue content (i.e., polymers and ceramics) remained the same after the leaching, indicating the neutral behavior of the leaching process on these two materials. Also, thermal behavior and phase analysis of the original WPCBs and leaching residue were compared and analyzed. Graphical abstract

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available