Experimental studies on cryogenic recycling of printed circuit board

  • Chris Y. Yuan
  • Hong C. ZhangEmail author
  • Gregory McKenna
  • Carol Korzeniewski
  • Jianzhi Li


Printed circuit board (PCB) recycling is an important challenge for today’s industry. This paper presents results from a study of cryogenic decomposition as a potential alternative recycling method for obsolete printed circuit board scraps. In this method liquid nitrogen is employed as a cryogen to form an environment as low as 77 K for PCB treatment. In order to test the effect of thermal stress set-up during the rapid cryogenic treatment, impact tests were used to simulate the current shredding process. The treated PCB scraps were investigated under a monocular microscope with a 200X magnitude for micro-crack effect observation. Fatigue behavior of the boards was also examined by repeating the cryogenic treatment. The experimental results, as analyzed, demonstrated no obvious support to this alternative PCB recycling method. The energy absorbed during the impact tests for the cryogenically treated boards is insignificantly different from those without the treatment.


Cryogenic Impact test Liquid nitrogen Printed circuit board Recycling 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



We gratefully acknowledge thefinancial support from National Science Foundation (project #: DMII 0225927)and the College of Engineering at Texas Tech University.


  1. 1.
    Taberman SO, Carlsson B, Erichson H, Brobech J, Gregersen JC (1995) Environmental consequences of incineration and landfilling of waste from electr(on)ic equipment. temaNord report to the nordic council of ministers, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Goosey M, Kellner R (2001) A scoping study end-of-life printed circuit boards. Department of Trade and Industry, Intellect & Shipley Europe LimitedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stanford Resources Inc. (1999) Electronic product recovery and recycling baseline report: recycling of selected electronic products in the United States. National Safety Council, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ENEA (1995) Priority waste streams: waste from electrical and electronic equipment, information document. Italian National Agency for New Technology, Energy and the Environment (ENEA)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilkinson S, Duffy N, Crowe M (2001) Waste from electrical and electronic equipment in Ireland: a status report. EPA topic reportGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mayes J, Nickerson S, Welsh J (2004) A multiscale approach to the effects of cryogenic environments on polymer matrix composites. AIAA-2004-1934, 45thAIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials conference, Palm Springs, CAGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hartwig G (1994) Polymer properties at room and cryogenic temperatures. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Takeda T, Shindo Y, Narita F (2004) The thermo-mechanical problem of internal and edge cracks in multi-layered woven GFRP laminates at cryogenic temperatures. American Institute of Physics proceedings 711(1):248–258Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Timmerman JF, Hayes BS, Seferis JC (2003) Cryogenic microcracking of carbon fiber/epoxy composites: influences of fiber-matrix adhesion. J Compos Mater 37(21):1939–1950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kuchnir M (1999) Mechanical and thermal properties of structural materials. In: Chao AW andTigner M (eds) Handbook of accelerator physics and engineering. WorldScientific, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yen C, Caulfield T, TienJK, Roth LD, Wells JM (1983) Cryogenic creep of copper. Metals/materials technology series, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Steven W, Sciver V (1986) Helium cryogenics. Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartzberg FR et al (1964) Cryogenic materials data handbook. Martin company, DenverGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Material Property Database. Temperature dependent elastic and thermal properties database. Accessed on 3/28/2006
  15. 15.
    Plastics Portal Europe. Properties of polystyrene. Accesed on 3/28/2006
  16. 16.
    Gwilym E, Owen JR (1981) A comparison of impact tests for assessment of fiber glass reinforced plastic toughness. Polym Eng Sci21 (8):467–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tjong SC, Xu SA, Mai YW(2003) Impact fracture toughness of short glass fiber-reinforced polyamide 6, 6 hybrid composites containing elastomer particles using essential work of fracture concept. Mater Sci Eng: A 347(1):338–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Clemons CM, Giacomin AJ, Koutsky JA (2004) Dynamic fracture toughness of polypropylene reinforced with cellulose fiber. Polym Eng Sci 37(6):1012–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ting RY, Cottington RL. Comparison of laboratory techniques for evaluating the fracture toughness of glassy polymers. J Appl Polym Sci 25(9):1815–1823Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Plastics Technology Laboratories. Izod Impact Testing (Unnotched Izod). on 03/31/2006

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Y. Yuan
    • 1
  • Hong C. Zhang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Gregory McKenna
    • 2
  • Carol Korzeniewski
    • 3
  • Jianzhi Li
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  2. 2.Department of Chemical EngineeringTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA
  3. 3.Department of ChemistryTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations