4.6 Article

Highly efficient recovery of high-purity Cu, PVC, and phthalate plasticizer from waste wire harnesses through PVC swelling and rod milling

期刊

REACTION CHEMISTRY & ENGINEERING
卷 5, 期 9, 页码 1805-1813

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/d0re00303d

关键词

-

资金

  1. Environment Research and Technology Development Fund of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan [JPMEERF20193R01]
  2. Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Novel methods for recycling waste wire harnesses, namely, dry rod milling (which involves the swelling of the cables followed by milling) and wet rod milling (which involves the simultaneous swelling and milling of the cables), were developed for the simultaneous recovery of the Cu wires, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) coatings, and phthalate plasticizer in high purity. The swelling of the PVC coatings facilitated the separation of the coatings from the Cu wires at moderate rod milling speeds and allowed for the extraction of the plasticizer.n-Butyl acetate was used as the swelling solvent and resulted in a sufficient degree of swelling (the volume increased to similar to 3.5 times that of the original cables), thus allowing for the quantitative extraction of the plasticizer, which was diisononyl phthalate (DINP). The complete stripping of the PVC coatings and Cu wires from 20 cm-long cables could be performed within 60 min by both dry and wet milling at a low rotation speed (15 rpm). Furthermore, more than 90 wt% of the Cu wires longer than 10 cm could be recovered for subsequent Cu refining. The usedn-butyl acetate was regenerated by distillation and exhibited PVC swelling properties comparable with those in the fresh state. Thus, the developed methods allow for the successful quantitative recovery of high-purity Cu, PVC, and DINP without requiring any of the complex multistep physical separation processes involved in the conventional granulation technique for the recycling of waste wire harnesses.

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

4.6
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