3.8 Proceedings Paper

Characterisation and Techno-Economics of a Process to Recover Value from E-waste Materials

Publisher

SPRINGER INTERNATIONAL PUBLISHING AG
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-65261-6_88

Keywords

E-waste; Value recovery; Operating costs; Capital costs; Smelter

Funding

  1. Department of Education and Training, the Australian Government

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study focused on utilizing printed circuit boards collected from Bangladesh to recover valuable metals, ceramics, and other components. A simple three-stage process was designed to successfully recover metals such as copper, silver, gold, and tin.
Printed circuit boards, collected from Bangladesh, were melted to determine the proportion of metal, ceramic and volatile components. The concentration and amount of valuable elements in the e-waste were calculated from the analysis of the metal and ceramic phases. This information was used to design a simple three-stage process to recover the valuable components. The stages included smelting, electrorefining of a copper rich anode and melting of anode slimes and reduction of a tin rich slag. In this process, copper would be recovered as a high purity cathode, silver and gold recovered as a precious metal bullion from the processed anode slimes and tin recovered from the reduction of tin rich slag. A flowsheet simulation of this process was used to estimate the size of unit operations and process streams. Capital costs of the process situated in Bangladesh were estimated based on the equipment required and included capital on-costs. Operating costs were estimated from power, labour and consumables required as well as operating factors such as maintenance and administration. Cash inputs to the process were estimated from the value of product streams. The preliminary financial viability of the process was estimated, and net present value and internal rate of return are determined.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available