↓ Skip to main content

New technology for recovering residual metals from nonmetallic fractions of waste printed circuit boards

Overview of attention for article published in Waste Management, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
New technology for recovering residual metals from nonmetallic fractions of waste printed circuit boards
Published in
Waste Management, June 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.03.030
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guangwen Zhang, Yaqun He, Haifeng Wang, Tao Zhang, Shuai Wang, Xing Yang, Wencheng Xia

Abstract

Recycling of waste printed circuit boards is important for environmental protection and sustainable resource utilization. Corona electrostatic separation has been widely used to recycle metals from waste printed circuit boards, but it has poor separation efficiency for finer sized fractions. In this study, a new process of vibrated gas-solid fluidized bed was used to recycle residual metals from nonmetallic fractions, which were treated using the corona electrostatic separation technology. The effects of three main parameters, i.e., vibration frequency, superficial air flow velocity, and fluidizing time on gravity segregation, were investigated using a vibrating gas-solid fluidized bed. Each size fraction had its own optimum parameters. Corresponding to their optimal segregation performance, the products from each experiment were analyzed using an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) and a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped with an energy dispersive spectrometer (EDS). From the results, it can be seen that the metal recoveries of -1+0.5mm, -0.5+0.25mm, and -0.25mm size fractions were 86.39%, 82.22% and 76.63%, respectively. After separation, each metal content in the -1+0.5 or -0.5+0.25mm size fraction reduced to 1% or less, while the Fe and Cu contents are up to 2.57% and 1.50%, respectively, in the -0.25mm size fraction. Images of the nonmetallic fractions with a size of -0.25mm indicated that a considerable amount of clavate glass fibers existed in these nonmetallic fractions, which may explain why fine particles had the poorest segregation performance.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 6 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 26%
Student > Master 4 17%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Other 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 7 30%
Engineering 6 26%
Chemical Engineering 2 9%
Chemistry 2 9%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 4%
Other 5 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2017.
All research outputs
#9,822,067
of 12,297,856 outputs
Outputs from Waste Management
#731
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,932
of 270,297 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Waste Management
#26
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,297,856 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.5. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 270,297 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.