4.7 Article

Comparative study on copper leaching from waste printed circuit boards by typical ionic liquid acids

期刊

WASTE MANAGEMENT
卷 41, 期 -, 页码 142-147

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.wasman.2015.03.037

关键词

WPCBs; Waste electric and electronic equipment; (WEEE); Ionic liquids (ILs); Copper; Leaching kinetics

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21377104]
  2. project of Science 82 Technology Pillar Program of Sichuan Province [2014ZZ0035]
  3. Scientific Research program of Shaanxi University of Technology [SLGQD13-5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Waste printed circuit boards (WPCBs) are attracting increasing concerns because the recovery of its content of valuable metallic resources is hampered by the presence of hazardous substances. In this study, we used ionic liquids (IL) to leach copper from WPCBs. [BSO3HPy]OTf, [BSO(3)HMIm]OTf, [BSO4HPy]HSO4, [BSO(4)HMim]HSO4 and [MIm]HSO4 were selected. Factors that affect copper leaching rate were investigated in detail and their leaching kinetics were also examined with the comparison of [Bmim]HSO4. The results showed that all six IL acids could successfully leach copper out, with near 100% recovery. WPCB particle size and leaching time had similar influences on copper leaching performance, while IL acid concentration, hydrogen peroxide addition, solid to liquid ratio, temperature, showed different influences. Moreover, IL acid with HSO4- was more efficient than IL acid with CF3SO3-. These six IL acids indicate a similar behavior with common inorganic acids, except temperature since copper leaching rate of some IL acids decreases with its increase. The results of leaching kinetics studies showed that diffusion plays a more important role than surface reaction, whereas copper leaching by inorganic acids is usually controlled by surface reaction. This innovation provides a new option for recovering valuable materials such as copper from WPCBs. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据