4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Characterisation of polymer fractions from waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and implications for waste management

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 67, 期 9, 页码 1866-1876

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2006.05.077

关键词

WEEE; PBDD/F; brominated flame retardants; polymer types; polymer recycling; thermal treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is an increasing interest in the end-of-life management of polymers present in waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE). This is mainly due to high recycling and recovery quotas set by the European WEEE directive, which can only be fulfilled by including the plastic fraction in recycling and recovery approaches. Previous studies identified a high material diversity and various contaminants in WEEE plastics, including heavy metals, polybrominated biphenyls (PBB), diphenyl ethers (PBDE), as well as polybrominated dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans (PBDD/F). These substances are regulated by European directives that limit their levels in marketable products. Consequently, both material diversity and contaminants are strong arguments against material recycling and point to hazardous waste treatment. However, recent developments in the production of flame retardants and electrical and electronic goods aimed to reduce contaminants and material diversity. Thus, the present study summarises updated contaminant levels of plastic fractions of European WEEE, as well as data on materials in waste housing polymers. Material characterisation revealed housing fractions to be interesting sources for polymer recycling, which however has to implement potent material separation and/or bromine elimination techniques. With respect to contaminants, our data indicate an effective phase-out of PBB, but still high levels of PBDE and PBDD/F are found. Sources and implications for the material recycling and thermal recovery approaches are discussed in detail. (c) 2006 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