article · Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment
The rapid rise of electronic devices has driven a substantial increase in electronic waste, creating an urgent need for sustainable recycling methods to recover valuable materials. Current research focuses heavily on recycling technologies, particularly chemical approaches, though biological alternatives such as bioreactors and microbial systems are gaining attention. Managing plastic-based e-waste relies on primary, secondary, and tertiary recycling, whereas metal-based e-waste is addressed using metallurgical approaches. However, the sector faces key obstacles, including high technology costs, insufficient infrastructure, and absent uniform regulations. Addressing these requires remanufacturing for product reuse and the installation of effective recycling facilities. While techno-economic assessments demonstrate that certain recycling techniques are economically viable, ongoing research remains essential to improve their overall efficiency and reduce operational costs across different material streams.
Electronic waste contains valuable plastics and metals, but improper disposal threatens ecosystems and depletes finite resources. Establishing economically viable recycling and remanufacturing processes helps recover critical materials, minimise environmental contamination, and support circular economy practices. Clearer regulations and lower technology costs are essential to ensure these solutions can be adopted widely by industries and waste handlers globally.
This analysis targets recycling facilities, remanufacturers, and waste management operators handling metallic and plastic e-waste streams. While several primary, secondary, and metallurgical technologies are currently applied and demonstrate economic viability, biological methods require further optimisation. Commercial adoption remains constrained by high operational costs and inadequate infrastructure, meaning broader industry deployment depends on refining process efficiency and securing supportive regulatory frameworks.
AI-generated from the published abstract. Always read the original work before citing.
In today's world, the proliferation of electronic devices has led to a significant increase in electronic waste (e-waste) generation, necessitating the development of innovative approaches for sustainable management. E-waste recycling, which involves the recovery of valuable materials from discarded electronic devices, has emerged as a promising solution to the growing e-waste problem. This article presents an analysis of the current state of research on e-waste management, encompassing various recycling approaches, including mechanical, chemical, and biological methods. The analysis revealed that most of the research on e-waste management has focused on the development of recycling technologies, with a significant emphasis on the use of chemical methods. However, there is a growing interest in the use of biological methods, such as bioreactors and microbial technologies, for e-waste management. Many challenges including lack of uniform regulations, inadequate infrastructure, and high cost of recycling technologies were initiated. The formation of product reuse through remanufacturing, and the deployment of effective recycling facilities are necessary for the management of e-waste. The challenge is to develop innovative and cost-effective solutions to e-waste management (plastic-based e-waste and metals-based e-waste). Several technologies are currently applied to plastic-based e-waste and metals-based e-waste management. primary, secondary, and tertiary recycling of plastic-based e-waste and metallurgical approaches for metals-based e-waste are ideal methods for e-waste management. Furthermore, the techno-economic feasibility of different e-waste recycling approaches was estimated. The analysis suggests that while some recycling approaches are economically viable, there is a need for more research to optimize the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of these methods.
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1016/j.scenv.2024.100124
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.
