Low Temperature Pyrolysis and Exfoliation of Waste Printed Circuit Boards: Recovery of High Purity Copper Foils

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Assessment: The manuscript presents a novel approach for the recovery of high-purity copper foils from waste printed circuit boards (WPCBs) using low-temperature pyrolysis and exfoliation techniques. The topic is highly relevant given the increasing electronic waste and the need for sustainable recycling methods. The study is well-structured and provides significant insights into the recovery process, including detailed experimental procedures and comprehensive analysis of the results.

Comments:

1. Introduction: The introduction provides a good background on the importance of recycling WPCBs and the challenges associated with traditional methods. However, it would benefit from a more detailed discussion on the existing methods for copper recovery and their limitations. This would help to better position the novelty and advantages of the proposed method.

2. Literature Review: The literature review is thorough but could be enhanced by including recent studies that focus on low-temperature pyrolysis and exfoliation techniques in different contexts. This would help to establish the broader applicability of these methods and highlight any gaps that this study aims to fill.

3. Methodology: The methodology is well-detailed, allowing for reproducibility of the experiments. The choice of low-temperature pyrolysis and the parameters selected are well-justified. However, more information on the equipment used and the specific conditions (e.g., temperature profiles, duration, and atmosphere) would add clarity.

4. Results and Discussion: The results are presented clearly, with appropriate use of tables and figures to illustrate the findings. The discussion effectively interprets the data, but it could be strengthened by comparing the results with those of other studies. Additionally, a more in-depth analysis of the purity levels achieved and potential factors affecting them would be beneficial.

5. Potential Further Study: The authors encouraged to discuss potential further study as it is challenging in the research forefront of temperature study, incorporating the literature as follows: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2023.103554, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2024.104204, and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csite.2023.103773

6. Conclusions: The conclusions are well-drawn and supported by the data presented. The manuscript could benefit from a section on future work, outlining potential improvements to the process and additional research needed to address any remaining challenges.

Minor Points:

• There are a few grammatical errors and typos throughout the manuscript that should be corrected.
• Some figures and tables could be better labeled for clarity.

Recommendations:

1. Expand the literature review to include recent studies on similar pyrolysis and exfoliation techniques.
2. Provide more detailed descriptions of the experimental conditions and equipment used.
3. Include a comparative analysis of the results with other studies in the discussion.
4. Conduct and present a more detailed environmental and economic analysis.
5. Correct grammatical errors and improve figure/table labeling.

Conclusion: The manuscript presents a valuable contribution to the field of electronic waste recycling. With minor revisions and additional analyses as suggested, it has the potential to significantly advance our understanding of sustainable recovery methods for high-purity copper foils from WPCBs. I recommend this manuscript for publication after minor revisions.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper shows an investigation of the low temperature pyrolysis and exfoliation of waste printed circuit boards: Recovery of high purity copper foils. This topic is interesting and can be published after the following comments being addressed.

(1) Giving the background of this study in the abstract.

(2) Clearing the innovation of this study in the introduction section.

(3) Explaining the reason for the data in Fig. 5. Why the changing trend at various temperature is different?

(4) The conclusion should be rewritten and more specific information should be given, besides, listing the conclusion one by one, rather than one paragraph.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Given the complexity of EE products and the WEEE generated, finding the most effective way to isolate elements such as copper is a major challenge for all recyclers. Therefore, this work makes an important contribution to the implementation and development of recycling.

Therefore, the work should be better described into the part methodology the processing and technology.

In the results, an economic analysis of the profitability of this method in relation to the amount of copper obtained by processing the plates should be added.

In this way, the application of the technology in the real and actual sector will be confirmed.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken the comments into account and made changes to the work, for which I thank them.