Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Resources, Conservation & Recycling

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec

Full length article

Comprehensive recycling of silicon photovoltaic modules incorporating

organic solvent delamination – technical, environmental and
economic analyses
Pablo Dias a, b, *, Lucas Schmidt b, Marina Monteiro Lunardi a, Nathan L Chang a, Gustavo Spier b,
Richard Corkish a, Hugo Veit b
a
School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
b
Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS), Programa de Pós-Graduação em Engenharia de Minas, Metalúrgica e de Materiais (PPGE3M), Av. Bento
Gonçalves 9500, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Photovoltaic (PV) panel manufacturing is increasing worldwide, which subsequently increases the amount of
Crystalline silicon waste PV. This study proposes to recycle waste PV using organic solvent delamination followed by downstream
Material recovery thermal and leaching procedures. Firstly, experimental data is obtained using small commercial modules by
LCA
replicating a recycling route taken from the literature. Based on the experimental results, life cycle cost analysis
LCCA
Recycling
(LCCA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) are applied to evaluate the experimental and optimized industry scale
Solar panel processes. Results show that the main profitable recycling avenues are for aluminum frame and junction box
removal; and that downstream processes can separate and recover all the remaining materials, but not profitably.
The laboratory and high-throughput-optimized processes, considering the median costs and revenues, have a net
cost of 29.00 and 3.30 USD per module, respectively. The complete recovery of materials using the proposed
method is unlikely to be profitable and this may only be achievable where labor is not expensive. Alternatively,
the complete recycling of waste PV could be made economically viable by reducing process time, increasing
automation and/or providing financial subsidies. The environmental analysis, however, shows that the opti­
mized process modelled here has a positive net environmental impact. The results are also compared against the
cost/environmental impact of landfilling such waste. In summary, the proposed recycling route is capable of
completely recovering the main materials in waste PV (aluminum frames, junction box, silver, copper tabbing,
silicon, backsheet and unbroken glass) and can have a positive environmental impact, but it is not economically
profitable.

1. Introduction waste electrical and electronic equipment stream in many jurisdictions.

Photovoltaic (PV) modules (or panels) can convert solar energy into
electrical energy through solar cells (or PV cells), which absorb light and
generate electron–hole pairs. The electrons and holes are then separated
and generate electrical power (Markvart and Castañer, 2012). The
modules can be made with different materials or technologies, but
crystalline silicon PV technology dominates the market (Chantana et al.,
2017; Latunussa et al., 2016; Philipps and Warmuth, 2019), accounting
for more than 97% of the PV production in 2019 (Masson and Kaizuka,
2019). These devices, while considered nonpolluting in many respects,
have a finite lifespan and eventually become waste, classified within the
Current photovoltaic modules have a performance warranty of 25 years
(to be extended to 30 years in the next decade) and a lifespan of about
20-25 years (expected to increase) (Sinha et al., 2020; Philipps and
Warmuth, 2019; Pinho and Galdino, 2014; VDMA, 2020). Current
forecasts estimate there will be anywhere from 60 to 78 million tonnes
of waste PV by 2050, and that installed capacity will increase ten-fold to
about 4500 GW in the same period (Chowdhury et al., 2020; Weckend
et al., 2016).
Managing and recycling end-of-life PV can minimize waste of envi­
ronmental and economic resources (Xu et al., 2018). This is due to the
avoidance of the negative impact a poorly managed end-of-life PV can

* Corresponding author at: School of Photovoltaic and Renewable Energy Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
E-mail addresses: p.dias@unsw.edu.au, pablo.dias@ufrgs.br (P. Dias).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105241
Received 18 June 2020; Received in revised form 2 October 2020; Accepted 26 October 2020
Available online 5 November 2020
0921-3449/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
P. Dias et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241

have on the environment and human health; and economic potential of Table 1
recovering materials of interest from end-of-life panels. The toxic ma­ Materials contained in a silicon PV module, their weight distribution, their
terials related to photovoltaics panels varies greatly with the technology economic value and recycling interest decision. Adapted from Deng et al. (2019)
being employed. Thin-film panels, for instance, can have substances and Dias and Veit (2018).
such as cadmium, gallium and tellurium, while crystalline silicon Material Weight percentage in a Pricea(USD/kg of Of interest to
generally contains lead and silver (Tao and Yu, 2015). Toxicity associ­ module (%) material) recycling?
ated with photovoltaic technologies are of concern because lead, tin, Junction 2 0.28 – 1 (each)b Yes
cadmium, silicon, and copper are known to be harmful to the ecosystem box
c
and human health (Kwak et al., 2020) and inappropriate disposal of this Silicon 2–3 1.7 – 2.7 Yes
Glass 69 - 75 0.04 – 0.167 Yes
waste may cause the leaching of such toxic metals to soil or water (Li Polymers 7 - No
et al., 2019). However, recent toxicity studies have found metal con­ (EVA,
centrations from waste PV leachates to be within regulations, implying PVF)
that their discard may be safe (Nain and Kumar, 2020a; Savvilotidou Copper 0.6 – 1 4.4 – 7 Yes
Silver 0.006 - 0.06 446 – 702 Yes
et al., 2017). The polymers associated with the panel are also of concern
Aluminum 10-20 1–2 Yes
since they can release toxic gasses when incinerated (Liao et al., 2020). Boron <0.1 - No
The toxicity and environmental risk associated with PV panels still lacks Phosphorus <0.1 - No
consensus and more studies are needed, according to a recent review Tin Dioxide <0.1 - No
(Kwak et al., 2020). Lead <0.1 - No

The other facet of the materials contained in PV panels are their a

intrinsic value, as silver, aluminum and copper are of economic interest
(Dias and Veit, 2018; Tao and Yu, 2015). Moreover, recovery and re-use
of metals such as aluminum, silver and copper from waste PV, has been
shown to have a net improvement on global warming, acidification and
eutrophication impacts, even when accounting for the negative impacts
of the extraction processes (Mathur et al., 2020). Crystalline silicon PV
modules also contain a significant quantity of silicon, which, although
abundant in the Earth’s crust, has been recently included onto the list of
critical raw materials for the EU by the European Commission because it
is a resource of high importance for both the economy and the envi­
ronment (EC, 2020). Additionally, silicon has a negligible end-of-life
recycling rate (EC, 2020) and its production routes generate toxic
compounds emission (Braga et al., 2008), which reinforces the need for
developing end-of-life solutions for silicon.
2. Composition of c-Si photovoltaic modules
Crystalline silicon PV modules (c-Si PV) are made of different layers
arranged in a sandwich structure, which is then protected by an
aluminum frame. The sandwich structure has a glass superstrate, fol­
lowed by an encapsulant, metallic tabbing, photovoltaic cells, metallic
tabbing/plating, encapsulant, and polymeric backsheet. The backsheet
is normally made of a polymeric thin layered structure (PVF - polyvinyl
fluoride - is typically used) (Dias et al., 2016b), the encapsulant
commonly of EVA (ethylene vinyl acetate), the tabbing of lead-tin
coated copper, and the superstrate of soda-lime low-iron tempered
glass (Dias et al., 2016b). The PV cell is mainly made of doped silicon
(commonly doped with phosphorus and boron) and has an antireflective
layer (AR layer) on its surface (Pinho and Galdino, 2014). In addition,
there are metal contacts: usually screen printed silver lines (on top) and
a full area aluminum coating (on the bottom) (Green, 1982). The silicon
in the wafer form has a greater economic value than the solar-grade
silicon, which in turn has greater value than the metallurgical grade
(lower purity) silicon (Deng et al., 2019; Dias and Veit, 2018). Currently,
the PV industry is moving away from using lead (to solder the metallic
tabbing) in PV modules (VDMA, 2019), but, while in small quantity
(Table 1), its presence is significant as it may leach from incorrectly
disposed modules (Dias and Veit, 2018). Finally, a junction box is placed
on the rear of the module for electrical connection to deliver the har­
nessed energy to the desired output. A general distribution of materials
found in c-Si PV modules is presented in Table 1. It shows that silicon,
glass, copper, silver, aluminum and the junction box are of interest to
recycling; aluminum is certain to be of significant value even in the low
end of the range, while silicon, glass, copper and silver have similar
values on the low end and potential to be of significant value depending
on market conditions.
Values should be taken only as reference as opposed to accurate values, since
they change significantly according to supply and demand principles b Value for
junction box is given in USD per each junction box unit, all others are in USD/kg
c
Metallurgical grade silicon.
3. Recycling silicon photovoltaics
Various recycling methods for PV modules are currently being
studied. Removing the glass from the solar cells is usually the first step,
and the encapsulating material can be removed by thermal, chemical or
mechanical delamination (Deng et al., 2019). The most popular method
has been the use of thermal procedures followed by chemical etching,
such as the work of Klugmann-Radziemska and Ostrowski (2010), which
involved the EVA removal followed by a series of etching treatments.
The European Full Recovery End of Life Photovoltaic project (FRELP)
consists of an automated system that dismantles the aluminum frame
and detaches the cables from EoL modules, followed by a process of
heating and cutting using a high-frequency knife to separate the glass
and the PV laminate (or sandwich). The laminate is then reduced in size
by cutting and placed in a furnace for incineration, which outputs a rich
ash containing silicon and other metals. The ash is sieved to recover
aluminum and then leached to recover silicon, silver and copper (the
first through filtering and the latter two by electrolysis) (Latunussa et al.,
2016). The process was envisioned to process 1 t of waste PV per hour,
and the latest reports show that it has to process 7,000 t/year in a
continuous 24h shift for it to be economically profitable (SASIL, 2018).
However, the baseline PV recycling process found to be average practice
in Western European e-waste facilities consists of the manual disman­
tling of the panel’s frames and cables, followed by the grinding of the
remainder using simple techniques (e.g. hammered or ground to
partially separate the glass) or directly shredded with other electronic
waste. The overall recycling rate achieved was reported to be around
24%. The observations were obtained visiting two recycling plants that
were not specialized in recycling waste PV (Ardente et al., 2019).
Among alternative methods for PV recycling, Nevala et al. (2019)
studied electro-hydraulic fragmentation in which uses shockwave im­
pulse to fragment the module followed by mechanical sieving. The au­
thors noticed a distinct difference in the distribution of metals in relation
to traditional shredding, and the method was able to concentrate 99wt%
of Cu, 60wt% of Ag, 80wt% of Pb, Sn and Al in one fraction, in addition
to high purity silicon (>99%) in another. Other alternative methods
include the use of blade rotors crushing followed by followed by thermal
treatment (or followed by hammer crushing) (Granata et al., 2014) and
shredding followed by electrostatic separation of materials (Dias et al.,
2018).
Waste PV recycling processes can have negative environmental im­
pacts. Xu et al. (2018) mention the possible release of solvent emissions
during certain recycling processes. In addition, the thermal and

2
P. Dias et al.
chemical treatments in the recycling processes generate environmental
impacts, but these are still lower than those of landfill disposal (Huang
et al., 2017). The major environmental impacts arise from polymer
incineration and metals recovery processes (Latunussa et al., 2016). An
alternative to thermal processing of the whole module is to have a
pre-treatment step that separates the waste PV macro components, thus
decreasing the mass input to the thermal process. This pre-treatment can
be achieved by using organic solvents, as shown by Doi et al. (2001),
who proposed a method for recovering undamaged silicon cells by using
organic solvents to remove the (EVA) encapsulant layers. They noticed
that the non-crossed-linked portion of the EVA dissolves while immersed
in certain solvents and the crossed-linked portion swells. Their experi­
ments were performed for a range of solvents at laboratory scale using
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram illustrating the experimental procedures used in this study at laboratory scale.
3
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241
one-cell mini-modules and succeeded in recovering undamaged cells.
Later, Kang et al. (2012) expanded on the idea of using organic solvents
to separate and recover components from waste PV. They were able to
recover high purity silicon (99.999%) and undamaged glass superstrate
from a commercial full-sized (975 × 1455 mm2, 20 kg, 200 W)
poly-crystalline silicon module. They found that trichlorethylene,
toluene and o-dichlorobenzene were each capable of dissolving and
swelling the EVA layer under certain conditions (swelling occurs in the
cross linked fraction of the EVA while the remainder is dissolved (Dias
and Veit, 2018)). For their experiment, they used toluene at 90 ◦ C and
allowed the waste PV to be immersed in the solvent for two days. The
process was followed by furnace incineration (to remove the remaining
EVA) and chemical etching with several acid solutions. While the work
P. Dias et al.
of both Doi et al. (2001) and Kang et al. (2012) showed promising re­
sults, with effective recovery of important material, the costs and im­
pacts associated with such process were not assessed. Given the search
for alternative PV recycling processes, with higher efficiency and lower
environmental impacts, investigating the feasibility of the organic sol­
vent process at industry scale proposed by these researcher is fitting: it
works in commercial samples, it requires little thermal energy input and
it yields high rates of recovery with high quality materials.
The present study is intended to replicate the method proposed by
Doi et al. (2001) and performed by Kang et al. (2012) to evaluate the
component separation, impacts and the costs associated with such a
method. This will allow an evaluation of the organic solvent separation
process in terms of its economic feasibility (using life cycle costing
analysis - LCCA) and its environmental impact (using life cycle analysis -
LCA). Nain and Kumar (2020b) claim that PV recycling (especially of
silicon-based PVs) is not economically profitable from a recycler’s
point-of-view, so this study will mainly address the question “is this the
recycling of waste PV using organic solvents followed by downstream
processes technically, economically and environmentally sustainable?”
by collecting experimental laboratory data and then scaling up the re­
sults to industrial scale processing.
4. Methodology
This study was initially carried out in the laboratory, where the waste
PV recycling process using organic solvents was undertaken, and data
from the process was recorded. Subsequently, the recovered materials
were evaluated for their quantity and quality. The collected data were
then analyzed from both the economic cost and environmental impact
perspectives. Extrapolating from the laboratory scale results, an opti­
mized industrial version of the process was designed and evaluated
using the same methods. Finally, the LCCA and LCA for the laboratory
scale and industrial scale were compared against each other, as well as
against the possibility of sending the original PV module to landfill. The
methodology used in all these steps is explained in detail hereafter.
4.1. Experimental: immersion in toluene
The laboratory procedures performed in this study are outlined in the
schematic diagram (Fig. 1). Preliminary data on such procedures have
been previously published (Dias et al., 2019b; Lunardi et al., 2019). All
procedures were performed in triplicate, with three equal samples.
The experiments were performed with multi crystalline silicon
modules (mc-Si modules). To simulate real world PV waste, three
commercial, undamaged, 5 W, modules without any prior modification
were used in this study (as opposed to laboratory prepared samples).
They each weighed 654 g and had the following dimensions: 220 × 250
× 18 mm. The first procedure was the manual removal of the junction
box and the aluminum frame using tools such as screwdrivers and pliers.
The dimensions of the laminate (i.e., module without the frames and
junction box) were 215 × 245 × 3.5 mm.
Among the possible organic solvents (trichlorethylene, toluene and
o-dichlorobenzene (Kang et al., 2012)), toluene was chosen because of
its price and accessibility. However, toluene is volatile (NCBI, 2020) and
the construction of a proper apparatus was required to avoid excessive
toluene loss during delamination. The laboratory apparatus consisted of
i) a steel container, with round edges, ii) a glass lid cover, to which a
reflux condenser system was fitted and iii) the interface between the lid
and the container. The interface had a silicone covering placed on the
edges of the steel container and acetic silicone sealant placed between
the covering and the glass lid. Additionally, binder clips were placed
around the chamber pressing against the steel container and the glass lid
to apply compression stress at the interface and further assist the seal.
This setup was chosen after several design attempts, in which the loss of
toluene was empirically evaluated by measuring the weight of the
apparatus before and after a fixed amount of time.
4
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241
Steel was chosen for the container because of its resistance to organic
solvents and to allow for heat conduction from an underlying heating
plate with adjustable temperature. A thermocouple was placed inside
the container (in contact only with the fluid) to continuously measure
the temperature of the solvent.
Compressive stress was also placed in the frameless module. Ac­
cording to Doi et al. (2001), this suppresses the swelling of the encap­
sulant and can assist in recovering unbroken components from the
modules (See Fig. 2 in Doi et al. (2001)). The module under stress was
placed inside the apparatus, toluene 99.5% was poured into the steel
container until the module was fully immersed. The whole system was
weighed to monitor toluene loss. The solvent was heated and kept at 90
◦
C. Every 24 h, the whole system was weighed, the apparatus was
opened, the module was removed and visually inspected, and toluene
was topped up to ensure full immersion.
After the immersion process, some laminate layers (i.e., PV macro
components) were completely separated, but some required additional
mechanical assistance via tools such as file, knife and tweezers. The
separated macro components were weighed. Records were kept of the
total immersion (idle) time; active time, electrical energy used, and
consumable usage. Energy consumption was measured using a DDS238-
2 single phase electricity meter (Hiking, Yueqing, China). The residues
of the immersion were filtered, the sludge was separated to be discarded
and the toluene (liquid phase from the filtration) was recovered to be
used again.
4.2. Experimental: downstream processes
The macro components, with remnant encapsulant (EVA) adhering,
were placed in an alumina crucible, which was placed in a furnace at
500 ◦ C for 5 h to remove all polymeric matter (more time than the
optimal minimum was used to ensure complete removal, as per results
shown Dias et al. (2016a). The subsequent step was the manual removal
of the loose tabbing followed by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis using
a Thermo Niton XL3t (Thermo Scientific, Massachusetts, USA) instru­
ment. The remainder of the sample (i.e., the fraction that remained after
the manual separation of the tabbing) was digested using nitric acid 65%
at room temperature for 2 h under magnetic agitation with a solid-liquid
ratio of 1:10. The solution was then filtered, the solid was weighed and
reserved; the liquid was diluted and analyzed by inductively coupled
plasma optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) using Agilent model
5110 (Agilent Technologies, California, USA). Electrical energy, time
and consumables were also recorded for both thermal decomposition
and digestion. Following the digestion, visual inspection revealed
remnant silver-colored regions on the surface of the cells (where the
gridlines had been deposited). Thus, two digested and
thermally-decomposed cells were analyzed under a scanning electron
microscope (SEM) by energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS) in an
equipment model Phenom ProX (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Massachu­
setts, USA) to confirm complete silver removal.
4.3. Life cycle cost analysis (LCCA)
Once all the data related to the experimental process were compiled
(costs, inputs, outputs), a cost simulation was run considering the in­
dividual process steps (manual deframing, toluene immersion, thermal
decomposition and leaching). In the initial assessment, with an assumed
24/7 operation, annual throughput of 100,000 small modules/year, the
cost of implementing each laboratory recycling step was calculated
including labor (deframing, operation, handling, scraping), equipment
depreciation (immersion apparatus, furnace, tank, fume cupboard),
consumables (toluene, nitric acid, electricity), landfill (ash from thermal
decomposition and sludge from hydro processes) and the revenue ob­
tained from potential sales (silver, glass, copper, aluminum, etc.). The
values for revenue considered the compilation used previously by Deng
et al. (2019) and assumes an additional 20% markup on the high end of
P. Dias et al.
Fig. 2. Apparatus used in organic solvent immersion process. A) Schematic of apparatus and magnification of interface. B) Actual interface highlighting silicone
covering and binder clips. C) Actual apparatus prior to the placement of the binder clips.
sales to account for a possible premium that consumers are willing to
pay for recycled materials (due to sustainability or traceability concerns)
(Anderson and Hansen, 2004; Calvo Dopico et al., 2016; Higgins et al.,
2020; Saphores et al., 2007). Because the values of the input parameters
are not certain (for example, estimating operator time for a high
throughput factory), uncertainty ranges were used. A Monte Carlo
analysis with 50,000 iterations was used to calculate an uncertainty
range for the process costs and revenues for different groupings of
processes, as outlined in Supplementary Table ST4 (in the appendix).
The results of the initial assessment highlighted the main costs of the
recycling process, which guided the conception of a cost optimized
process. In this optimized process, which was assumed to have a higher
annual throughput of 1,000,000 small modules/year (equivalent to 650
t/year) working 24/7. Automated equipment reduced labor costs and
larger batch sizes made more efficient use of equipment, electricity and
chemicals. It assumed, for instance, automatic removal of the frame and
improved use of the toluene by having a single tank that would fit 100
modules. Economies of scale were applied to the use of toluene and of
nitric acid. Details of the optimized process and the complete listing of
variables is shown in the appendix (ST1, ST2, ST3 and ST4). For the
purpose of comparison, the Italian FRELP project envisioned to recycle
3500 t/year with a 24/7 operation (SASIL, 2018)). The analysis of the
experimental and optimized recycling processes were then compared
with the baseline alternative of sending the waste PV directly to landfill
to show the potential and the cost barriers of running such an organic
solvent recycling process at high volume.
4.4. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
The same data collected for the LCCA was used for the environmental
assessment of the experimental recycling process, although some data
(labor and production equipment capital costs) were not included in the
LCA calculations, consistent with the standard LCA methodology
(Parent et al., 2013). The impacts of each process step, as described in
the LCCA section, were estimated using the OpenLCA software (Hil­
denbrand et al., 2020) and the ReCiPe methodology (Goedkoop et al.,
2009). The ReCiPe method was chosen since it compiles several life
cycle inventory results into a limited number of indicator scores that
5
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241
represent the main impacts from processes and materials, which are
effects on human health, ecosystems and resource depletion.
The same three scenarios for the LCCA (namely experimental pro­
cess, optimized process, and direct landfilling) were assessed and the
results were compared. Landfilling, in particular, is currently the reality
for several countries when dealing with waste PV (Weckend et al.,
2016). The LCA assumed an electricity mix containing hydropower,
wind, nuclear, oil and others (complete mix shown in appendix, table
ST7). Despite the mix, the primarily electricity source is fossil-fuel-based
(e.g. coal) for both experimental and optimized scenarios. This was
chosen since it is the reality of most countries, estimations show that
more than 60% of the electricity mix worldwide was based in fossil fuels
in 2019 (IEA, 2019). After the comparison of the three scenarios, a sit­
uation in which 100% of the of the electricity comes from renewable
sources was analyzed to see the impact this would have in the overall
LCA of the recycling process.
The basis for any LCA calculation is the functional unit, which relates
to the functions of the product or the process. In a comparative study,
the functional unit must be the same for all the compared product sys­
tems. The functional unit chosen for this LCA was one 5W c-Si module.
The gate-to-gate approach was chosen, which means that the analysis
starts at the beginning of the experimental (or optimized) recycling
process and finishes at the end of the process (Fig. 1). More specifically,
the system boundaries include the initial separation (manual and auto­
matic), the toluene immersion (electricity, toluene usage and toluene
sludge to landfill), thermal decomposition (electricity and ash) and
HNO3 leaching (electricity, HNO3 usage and disposal). Filtering of the
toluene for re-use is neglected in the LCA, since it is not expected to have
significant impacts to the environment. However, the impacts of ash,
toluene sludge and nitric acid sludge going to landfill are included in our
model. Since the process stops with the separation of all the materials,
the analysis did not include the process of extraction of the Ag from the
nitric acid mix, nor the final treatment and disposal of the nitric acid
after the metals have been removed.. In addition, this LCA does not
consider the production of the module, the transportation to the recy­
cling plant, and the possible further treatments that all materials
recovered would need to be reused or reprocessed. The inventory data
collected is based on the four main steps of the recycling process
P. Dias et al.
considering their input and output flows and on data from the Ecoinvent
database (EcoInvent, 2020). Some processes, such as landfill, are a
combination of separate known processes (e.g. ‘silicon to landfill’, ‘silver
to landfill’, ‘plastics to landfill’, etc.). The complete LCA inventories for
both experimental process and optimized process are shown in the ap­
pendix (Tables ST8 and ST9).
5. Results
5.1. Manual deframing
The deframing of the module and removal of the junction box
(Fig. 3), took 1 h and 13 min on average (± 12.5 min) per module.
Deframing rendered the laminates vulnerable to the organic solvent,
since the edges of the encapsulant were now exposed. The activity was
assumed to have consumed no material or energy, given that only
manual procedures were used. The remaining laminate weighed 492 g
on average (± 3.5 g) after the removal of these macro components,
about 75% of its original weight.
5.2. Immersion in toluene
The toluene immersion allowed the reaction of the solvent with the
encapsulant (EVA) layer, which partially dissolved and partially
swelled, as reported by Kang et al. (2012). Fig. 4 shows the separation of
the different layers of the sandwich structure as more time was given to
the solvent to penetrate further into the module, towards its center.
Notice these modules had an additional white rectangular-shaped
insulating sheet where the junction box used to lie.
The immersion in solvent caused the EVA to swell, but because of the
compressive stress on the laminate, the swelling caused the encapsulant
Fig. 3. Manual removal of the aluminum frame and junction box. Main structure is shown before the removal (left) and after the removal (right).
6
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241
to squeeze out sideways (Fig. 5A). The backsheet slowly detached from
the remainder of the module structure to the point where it could be
manually removed. The total immersion time was 99 h on average (±
3.9 h). After immersion, most of the backsheet had been separated and
most of the cells were still attached to the glass (Fig. 5B), which con­
forms to the results described by Kang et al. (2012).
5.3. Manual separation of macro components
At this point, several layers of the PV structure have been separated:
aluminum frame, junction box, rear encapsulant and most of the tabbing
and backsheet. The glass and cells, however, remained stuck together on
all three tested samples. These were scraped off using a chisel (manually
separated) – Fig. 6H. This process took about 1 h and 47 min per module
(± 23 min) and was able to successfully separate all macro components
from the PV module. The macro components and their description are
presented in Fig. 6.
The process so far (i.e., manual activities plus organic solvent im­
mersion) was capable of separating the PV modules into its main macro
components: backsheet, aluminum frame, junction box, front glass and a
mixture of encapsulant, silicon cells and tabbing (metallic ribbons). The
final weight distribution is presented in Table 2, showing that total
losses were about 2% of the original mass. As shown in previous studies,
the main mass composition was from the superstrate (front glass) and
the aluminum frame, which accounted for 63% and 22% of the total
mass, respectively.
5.4. Downstream processes: thermal decomposition and leaching
Once the main macro components were separated, thermal decom­
position was used to separate the EVA from the cell and tabbing mixture
P. Dias et al.
Fig. 4. Time-lapse from left to right showing the separation of the layers of the PV module after immersion in toluene.
Fig. 5. Effect of toluene in the c-si module. A) Front of laminate: Encapsulant (EVA) leaving through the edges of the module due partial dissolution. B) Rear of
laminate: End state of module after 99 h of immersion..
(Fig. 6). The mass loss in the three repetitions was 25.33g (±3.56) on
average and the visual inspection result after the procedure is displayed
in Fig. 7A, which highlights the PV cell and tabbing that remained post
thermal decomposition. The tabbing were manually separated (Fig. 7B)
and the XRF performed on it confirmed the presence of copper, lead, tin,
silver and trace metals (<1 wt.%). The digestion procedure performed
on the other fraction of the thermal decomposed sample (silicon cells,
Fig. 7A) removed the remaining metals attached to the cells, leaching
2.44 g (±1.03 g) of metals on average. ICP-OES results show 1.9 g
(±0.28g) of copper and 395.8 mg (±122.9 mg) of silver. EDS results for
the gridline regions confirmed only residual silver remained (0.82 wt.%
±1.09), indicating the silver removal from the silicon cell was
successful.
5.5. Process analysis: time, energy and consumables
The costs associated with toluene immersion and the downstream
processes (namely the thermal decomposition and digestion) are dis­
played in Tables 3 and 4. The main drawback of the process in terms of
7
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241
cost was the time taken to separate the layers, as shown in Table 3. The
time taken by the manual activities can certainly be decreased by
training the operators or by using automated systems (such as deframers
that are already available in the market). The time taken for the toluene
to react with the encapsulant to allow the backsheet to be peeled off was
about 100 h per module. Total process time (summing up all steps) was
roughly 115 h.
5.6. Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA)
The main cost associated with the laboratory scale recycling was the
cost of labor, which was significantly greater than any of the other ex­
penditures (Fig. 8 and Table ST5). Labor also has the highest variability
among the expenditures, according to the minimum wage spectrum
across the globe (based on previous work (Dias et al., 2019a)). Labor
cost was mainly due to the toluene immersion step (median around 14
USD/module), followed by manual deframing (median 2.8 USD/mod­
ule) and then thermal and leaching steps (both around 0.6 USD /mod­
ule). Materials and electricity were also significant, dominated by nitric
P. Dias et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241

Fig. 6. Results of separation of macro components from PV module. A) Junction box removed during module deframing B) Aluminum frame obtained during module
deframing C) Backsheet detached due to toluene immersion D) Module label detached due to toluene immersion E) Cell, EVA and tabbing mixture detached due to
toluene immersion F) Backsheet manually removed post toluene immersion G) Superstrate (tempered glass) obtained after immersion and manual removal of the
remaining cell (labelled as “H” in this figure) H) PV Cell, EVA and tabbing mixture scraped manually post toluene immersion.

acid (high consumption at laboratory scale) and electricity during

Table 2
toluene immersion, each of which is around 2.6 USD per recycled
Mass distribution after macro component separation by toluene immersion.
module. The toluene was less expensive (0.5 USD/module). For equip­
Original mass of all three modules was 654 grams.
ment costs, only the toluene immersion equipment (median 2.3 USD/­
Component Average Mass SD (±σ) Percentage of total
module) was significant.
Backsheet 22.17g 1.55 3.39% All other costs were relatively small. When viewed by process, the
Frame (aluminum) 146.03g 1.91 22.33% main cost is the toluene immersion, followed by manual frame removal
Superstrate (glass) 417.60g 11.11 63.50%
and lastly the downstream processes (Fig. 8). The net median cost of the
EVA, tabbing & PV Cell 41.65g 3.07 6.37%
Junction box 14.69g 0.19 2.25% laboratory process (i.e., summing all median costs and subtracting all
Losses 12.0g 16.24 1.83% median revenues) was 29 USD/module.
Total 639.85g 97.84% In the optimized-high-throughput process, the cost of labor was
greatly reduced due to the introduction of automation, which conversely

Fig. 7. A) Thermal decomposition residue: solar silicon cells and tabbing. B) Tabbing (metallic ribbons) manually separated after thermal decomposition.

8
P. Dias et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241

Table 3
Energy and time costs per module associated with the macro component sepa­
ration using toluene immersion, and downstream thermal decomposition and
digestion processes.
Cost type Average use per SD Unit Process
module (±σ)

Electric Energy 15.11 1.01 kWh Toluene

Idle time 99.05 3.91 Hours Toluene
Labor (Active 8.48 1.03 Hours Toluene
time)
Electric Energy 2.05 0.42 kWh Thermal
decomposition
Idle time 5.44 0.42 Hours Thermal
decomposition
Labor (Active 0.17 Nil Hours Thermal
time) decomposition
Electric Energy 0.10 Nil kWh Digestion
Idle time 2.00 Nil Hours Digestion
Labor (Active 0.20 0.05 Hours Digestion Fig. 9. Comparison of costs associated with the four main steps in the
time) optimized-high-throughput organic recycling process (industrial scale). For
each cost component, the error bar shows the 10th and 90th percentile values of
that cost component in the Monte Carlo analysis, indicating its uncertainty. A1:
Automated deframing; B1: Semi-automated organic solvent immersion and post
Table 4
immersion macro component separation; C1: High throughput thermal
Material and reactants consumption associated with the macro component
decomposition; D1: Optimized metal leaching.
separation using toluene immersion.
Materials Average use per Unit Reusable? Regeneration/
module Recovery
revenues is presented in the appendix (Figures S1, S2, S3, S4 and
Table ST5)
Steel 1 Unit Yes 100%
Turning to revenue and avoided landfill (Fig. 12 and Tables ST5 and
container
Clip 46 Unit Yes 100% ST6), one can consider which processes can be profitably completed.
Silicone 160 cm Yes 100%a The median net cost of the optimized process was 3.30 USD/module.
covering When linearly converted, this translated into roughly 5200 USD/tonne.
Silicone 50 g No Nil Among the four analyzed steps, the one most likely to render a profit is
sealant
Toluene 1.535 kg Yes 97.31% (±0.02)
the automated frame removal (A1). The thermal degradation (C1) can,
Heating plate 1 Unit Yes 100% in some instances of the Monte Carlo simulation, render a small profit
a due to recovery of copper from tabbing. This process, however, cannot
While the silicone covering lasted throughout all the experiments shown in
be done unless the previous expensive toluene immersion (B1) is also
this manuscript, its actual deterioration rate is unknown, i.e. at this stage, it is
impossible to ascertain how many runs such a covering would last.
completed, which would make the overall cost greater than the revenue,
even in those specific instances.

5.7. Life cycle assessment (LCA) – environmental impacts

The LCA study assumed electricity sources to be primarily from non-

renewable sources. Based on the assumptions described, the inventory
and data collected, the results are shown in Fig. 13.
The negative and positive ReCiPe points represent the beneficial and
detrimental environmental impacts, respectively. The results for the
experimental process show that the electricity usage during the toluene
immersion generates the main impacts for the whole process. Assessing

Fig. 8. Cost comparison and breakdown of activities associated with the lab­
oratory scale recycling process. For each cost component, the error bar shows
the 10th and 90th percentile values of that cost component in the Monte Carlo
analysis, indicating its uncertainty. A: Manual deframing; B: Organic solvent
immersion and post immersion macro component separation; C: Thermal
decomposition; D: Metal leaching.

increased the cost of equipment and electricity. Despite this reduction,

shown in Fig. 9, labor is still the main contributor to the median cost,
contributing 1.8 USD/module for the toluene immersion. The compar­
ison between the original experimental process and the optimized one is
shown in Fig. 10 and a detailed breakdown of the individual costs and Fig. 10. Comparison between total cost of laboratory scale recycling processed
and modelled industry scale recycling process.

9
P. Dias et al.
the steps individually, the initial manual separation is the most benefi­
cial, where the ecological gains from the recovery of aluminum (from
the frame) are greater than the detrimental impacts, since the latter does
not use any electricity or chemicals. Considering the other steps, the
comparison shows the opposite result: benefits from the recovery of
materials does not compensate for the detrimental impacts arising from
the processes. The results for each process step are detailed in Supple­
mentary Figs. S5, S6, S7 and S8.
Because of the LCA and LCCA results for the experimental process, an
optimized process was envisioned. This scenario assumed an automated
deframing, which involves the addition of electricity in comparison to
the experimental process. On the other hand, the assumed high effi­
ciency of the other processes decreased the use of electricity and
chemicals per module (functional unit). It is noteworthy that the volume
of modules being recycled in the optimized process was much higher
compared to the experimental method, but the results are normalized to
functional unit, i.e., all results are normalized to one module (Fig. 14).
Supplementary Tables ST10 and ST11 (appendix) display the results per
tonne, converted linearly.
The optimized process shows a significant decrease in the overall
environmental impact compared to the experimental process. While the
most significant impact accounted for almost 1.5 ReCiPe points in the
latter, the most critical effect represents less than 0.2 ReCiPe points in
the optimized process (Fig. 14). The main reason for these results was
that each module, which was the LCA functional unit, required much
less energy and materials than the previous recycling method to obtain
the same recovered components. As discussed, the manual separation of
the frame and junction box had the best results for the experimental
process (Fig. 13), since it did not require any energy to be supplied. The
optimized process had the addition of machinery to remove the frames
from the modules. That addition caused small detrimental impacts,
mainly due to the assumption that the electricity used was fossil-fuel
based, but they were not significant. Therefore, the automation bene­
fits from the recovery of aluminum are still greater than the impacts
from the energy consumption. The toluene immersion still had the
biggest impacts from electricity usage but the impact per module
significantly decreased in the optimized process compared to the
experimental method. The same occurred with the subsequent down­
stream steps (i.e., thermal decomposition and leaching), for which the
impacts from electricity are lower (per module) and the positive impacts
from the materials recovery are comparable to the negative impacts
from the use of chemical and electricity. Additional results with the
breakdown of each process step are shown in Supplementary Figs. S9,
S10, S11 and S12.
The finding that electricity usage was responsible for a significant
portion of the environmental impact encouraged the analysis of a hy­
pothetical case in which 100% of the energy arises from PV systems
(renewable energy). The ReCiPe impacts for this case (human health,
ecosystems and resources) were roughly 5-fold more beneficial in the
optimized recycling (complete comparison shown in Supplementary
Fig. S13).
To have a better understanding of how these impacts relate to the
most common route that waste PV takes, Fig. 15 presents a comparison
of the impacts for the two processes analyzed (i.e., experimental and
optimized) and for landfilling the whole module. The detrimental im­
pacts from the use of electricity and chemicals are compiled with the
benefits from the recovery of materials to generate a single ReCiPe
value. The impacts of landfilling the modules are not significant when
compared to the impacts for the experimental method. It then follows
that this route is environmentally worse than landfilling the modules.
However, when comparing the landfill option to the optimized recycling
process, the opposite is true. The combined ReCiPe points per one
module for the optimized method are negative, which implies they are
more beneficial than detrimental to the environment, and that this
process would be, ecologically, more advantageous than landfilling the
modules.
10
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241
6. Discussion
This study aims to assess the technical, economic and environmental
sustainability of using toluene followed by downstream processes to
recycle waste c-Si PV modules. It relies on acquiring experimental data
and using this data to assess the cost and the environmental conse­
quences of the proposed route. Since the LCCA results displayed in
Fig. 11, showing the cost of the individual steps, indicate that the
removal of the frame is a profitable activity and the following processes
are not, it then follows that a cheaper (or more efficient) recycling path
should be developed to allow the recovery of materials other than the
aluminum and the junction box from waste PV. The current organic
solvent recycling route proposed would encourage the industry to
remove the frame and junction box, and then stockpile or landfill
whatever is left of the waste module (roughly 75% of the original mass).
Indeed, the cost of disposing the whole module (i.e., straight from the
end of its useful lifespan to landfill) is a fraction of undertaking the
organic solvent approach (median found was about 0.1 USD/module),
as shown when both are compared against each other (Fig. 12). This is
also backed by the LCA, whose results show that removing the frame and
junction box, and landfilling the rest of the PV module would result in
environmental benefits, while avoiding the negative impacts of the
subsequent steps.
The optimized process incurred in a net median cost of 3.30 USD/
module (or roughly 5200 USD/tonne). A commercial uptake of this
process on purely financial terms, would require significant cost re­
ductions. Fig. 11 and Table ST5 indicate the developments needed to
improve the cost. The toluene process itself is the most expensive, and
labor costs still dominate. Whilst it may be possible to greatly reduce
labor costs through further automation, even eliminating that cost
would not be sufficient to provide a zero-net cost. The key barrier for the
process is the extremely long process time required to delaminate the
components – reducing this time would reduce labor, equipment
depreciation, electricity and material usage costs significantly. For
example, if all these costs are linearly related to process time, and if a
way was found to eliminate labor costs whilst also reducing the process
time ten-fold (from 2 days to 5 h), the net cost for the toluene process
would be approximately zero. After this, the leaching process is the next
most expensive step. Reducing the nitric acid use in the leaching process
5-fold would be the next development needed to achieve zero net cost.
This could be possible through the use of Tributyl phosphate (TBP) to
recover nitric acid, which has been reported to recover 95%+ of the acid
(Lee et al., 2003; Shin et al., 2009) and would imply in a 4- to 5-fold acid
consumption reduction in comparison to this study. The amount of TBP
consumed in the process would need to be assessed, as this is also an
Fig. 11. The median cost of each component including the negative cost of
recovered material and avoided landfill. Z: Landfill A1: Automated deframing;
B1: Semi-automated organic solvent immersion and post immersion macro
component separation; C1: High through
P. Dias et al.
Fig. 12. Comparison between the total cost of the optimized-high-throughput
organic solvent recycling process and cost of sending the whole module un­
processed to landfill. The cost of landfilling never crosses the zero threshold.
expensive chemical. Lastly, the treatment (neutralization) of the nitric
acid was not considered for in the LCCA and LCA, as an additional
electrolysis process would be needed prior to it, hence this limitation
should be considered when evaluating the results presented. Including
the neutralization and electrolysis certainly would increase the cost, but
the tendencies and conclusions of this study should remain unchanged.
Another alternative to motivate this process is to impose landfill bans
(such as the one imposed by the Australian state of Victoria (Victoria
State Government, 2019) and North Carolina in the USA (McCann and
Wittmann, 2015)), or a financial external subsidy (such as the ones
achieved from extended producer responsibility implementation (Dias
et al., 2019a; Schluep, 2014a)). This would mean that a zero net cost is
not necessary. Cucchiella et al. (2015), in their review, mention that the
economic advantage may never overcome the cost of recycling waste
PV, which means such external incentives may be necessary to push for
PV recycling to take place. However, another important factor to
consider is whether this process is more cost effective compared to
alternative recycling methods. Given that there exist other recycling
processes that have been implemented at commercial scale (e.g. thermal
Fig. 13. ReCiPe impacts (in ReCiPe points) for the experimental organic solvent recycling process
11
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241
or mechanical), with none claiming a zero-net cost, this reduces the
target necessary to achieve with this technology.
Without any further changes to the process, the analysis of Fig. 12
shows that there a small possibility of obtaining a cost neutral outcome
by applying the envisioned optimized method. This occurs if, and only if,
the cost of labor is minimal (which was accounted for in the iterations
that consider labor cost from countries such as Indonesia and Thailand).
However, this conclusion might change if the calculations were to ac­
count for the logistic cost of collecting waste PV and transporting it to
processing centers in low-income countries, which would most likely
offset the profit margin that could be obtained. Thus, the process
described in thus study could be economically sustainable in low-wage
countries that have installed PV capacities to recycle their own waste.
There is, however, a correlation between low-wage (“developing”)
countries and lack of environmental legislation (Egeonu and Herat,
2016; Nnorom and Osibanjo, 2008; Schluep, 2014b) that would impose
yet another barrier to the sound recycling of waste PV, either because
the process could be done in a harmful manner (to workers and/or the
environment) or because it could end up not being done at all (BAN,
2016).
A 5W module was used as the basic unit in this study. Two limitations
arise from such choice: (i) the scalability of the process to full-sized
modules may not be linear, which means that longer times would be
necessary under the same conditions to achieve the same result. How­
ever, since the work done by Kang et al. (2012) uses full sized modules
and obtains results of the same order of magnitude, the assumptions
used should remain valid; and (ii) the conversion from the module unit
to the tonnes unit varies when one uses a 20 kg module, such as in Deng
et al. (2019), versus 640 g. For this reason, the analysis of this study
always used one module as the basic unit and refrained from converting
it directly to tonnage until reaching the final costs results; and the values
in respect to tonnage should be taken with caution. Additionally, the
cost of collection has not been accounted for in the presented LCCA. This
is reasonable when comparing three possible outcomes, all of which
would require collection (landfilling, laboratory scale recycling and in­
dustrial scale recycling), but it is by no means negligible when calcu­
lating the whole cost of running a waste management operation (Deng
et al., 2019); especially if great distances are to be overcome (large
countries, hard-to-reach waste or international shipment) (Dias et al.,
P. Dias et al. Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241

Fig. 14. ReCiPe impacts (in ReCiPe points) for the optimized-high-throughput process.

Fig. 15. ReCiPe impacts (in ReCiPe points) comparing experimental and optimized organic solvent process with landfill.

2019a).
The LCA analysis is also limited by the lack of data regarding the
landfill impacts for whole PV modules (the results are based on the
equivalent combination of different materials to landfill, using the
Ecoinvent database (EcoInvent, 2020). Also, no social LCA (SLCA) was
run to evaluate the effect of having recycling processes undertaken in
low wage nations, which by definition disregards important issues such
as modern slavery and other situations determined by national and
regional socio-economic conditions (Jørgensen, 2013). Finally, collec­
tion (transportation) was also not considered in this LCA but other
studies have shown that this might have significant impacts in recycling
processes (Latunussa et al., 2016).
The LCA results show that the use of the optimized method has a
positive environmental impact and is superior to landfilling the whole
module. One of the advantages of the proposed method is that it allows
for the downstream processes to be applied to a fraction (about 7%) of
the original mass (namely EVA, PV cell and tabbing mixture), reducing
costs and input requirements. This is crucial from the environmental
perspective, since previous studies claim that polymer incineration is a
major contributor to the impacts associated with waste PV recycling
(Latunussa et al., 2016). Deng et al. (2019), through their
techno-economic review, propose that essential technology improve­
ments are required to achieve economically viable and environmentally
friendly recycling. The optimized method studied in the present work,
involving the removal of the outer components, followed by immersion
in toluene, thermal decomposition and chemical leaching, addresses the
environmental perspective but falls short from achieving the economic
one.

12
P. Dias et al.
7. Conclusions
The key conclusions from this study are:
• Using toluene immersion to separate the PV laminate structure re­
quires long periods of time. Experimental results show that about
115 h per module were necessary to completely recover the back­
sheet, tabbing material, junction box, aluminum frame, intact
superstrate (glass) and separate the EVA, silicon cells and attached
metals. This includes both active (operating) time and idle time.
• The downstream processes were successful in further separating the
EVA, PV cells, tabbing mix. The thermal decomposition removed the
EVA from the mixture, manual removal separated the tabbing and
digestion separated the metals from the surface of the cell.
• The main advantages of the proposed method are the full separation
of macro components (glass superstrate, aluminum frame, junction
box, backsheet, tabbing), the recovery of intact glass superstrate, and
the material volume reduction after macro component separation.
• Given the experimental data obtained, the LCCA shows that the
recycling route carried out in this study is not economically profit­
able. Even in the envisioned high-throughput-optimized scenario,
the process would require a subsidy to become cost neutral. The
laboratory and high-throughput-optimized processes have a median
net cost of 29.0 and 3.3 USD/module, respectively.
• The main cost components are associated with the labor required in
each of the recycling steps. This is true for both the experimental (lab
scale) process and the high-throughput-optimized scenario.
• The LCA shows that while the experimental process has a net nega­
tive environmental impact, the high-throughput-optimized scenario
envisioned can be beneficial. The analysis also shows that the pro­
posed recycling process is more beneficial than landfilling the PV
waste if done in large scale with the high-throughput assumptions
but, on the other hand, the LCCA shows that it is more expensive.
• At the envisioned industrial scale (optimized process), the organic
solvent recycling method proposed could be viable if there were
landfills bans in place, if there are recycling subsidies or if the further
improvements are achieved.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pablo Dias: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal
analysis, Writing - review & editing. Lucas Schmidt: Data curation,
Writing - review & editing, Investigation. Marina Monteiro Lunardi:
Visualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing - review & editing.
Nathan L Chang: Methodology, Visualization, Investigation, Formal
analysis, Writing - review & editing. Gustavo Spier: Data curation,
Investigation. Richard Corkish: Supervision, Writing - review & edit­
ing. Hugo Veit: Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None
Acknowledgments
This Program has been supported by CAPES, CNPq, FINEP, FAPERGS
(Brazil), and the Australian Government through the Australian
Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA). Responsibility for the views, in­
formation or advice expressed herein is not accepted by the Australian
Government.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.105241.
13
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241
References
Anderson, R.C., Hansen, E.N., 2004. Determining consumer preferences for ecolabeled
forest products: an experimental approach. J. For. 102, 28–32.
Ardente, F., Latunussa, C.E.L., Blengini, G.A., 2019. Resource efficient recovery of critical
and precious metals from waste silicon PV panel recycling. Waste Manag. 91,
156–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.04.059.
BAN, 2016. Scam Recycling: e-Dumping on Asia by US Recyclers. Basel Action Network
(BAN). Retrieved 03 August 2018 from. http://www.ban.org/trash-transparency/.
Braga, A.F.B., Moreira, S.P., Zampieri, P.R., Bacchin, J.M.G., Mei, P.R., 2008. New
processes for the production of solar-grade polycrystalline silicon: a review. Sol.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 92, 418–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solmat.2007.10.003.
Calvo Dopico, D, Mendes, R, Silva, H.A, Verrez-Bagnis, V, Pérez-Martín, R, Sotelo, C.G.,
2016. Evaluation, signalling and willingness to pay for traceability. A cross-national
comparison. Span. J. Mark. - ESIC 20, 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sjme.2016.07.001.
Chantana, J., Kamei, A., Minemoto, T., 2017. Influences of environmental factors on Si-
based photovoltaic modules after longtime outdoor exposure by multiple regression
analysis. Renew. Energy 101, 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2016.08.037.
Chowdhury, Md.S., Rahman, K.S., Chowdhury, T., Nuthammachot, N., Techato, K.,
Akhtaruzzaman, Md., Tiong, S.K., Sopian, K., Amin, N., 2020. An overview of solar
photovoltaic panels’ end-of-life material recycling. Energy Strategy Rev. 27, 100431
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100431.
Cucchiella, F., D’Adamo, I., Lenny Koh, S.C., Rosa, P, 2015. Recycling of WEEEs: an
economic assessment of present and future e-waste streams. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 51, 263–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.06.010.
Deng, R., Chang, N.L., Ouyang, Z., Chong, C.M., 2019. A techno-economic review of
silicon photovoltaic module recycling. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 109, 532–550.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.04.020.
Dias, P., Bernardes, A.M., Huda, N., 2019a. Ensuring best E-waste recycling practices in
developed countries: an Australian example. J. Clean. Prod. 209, 846–854. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.306.
Dias, P., Javimczik, S., Benevit, M., Veit, H., 2016a. Recycling WEEE: Polymer
characterization and pyrolysis study for waste of crystalline silicon photovoltaic
modules. Waste Manag. 60, 716–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2016.08.036.
Dias, P., Schmidt, L., Gomes, L.B., Bettanin, A., Veit, H., Bernardes, A.M., 2018.
Recycling waste crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules by electrostatic separation.
J. Sustain. Metall. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40831-018-0173-5.
Dias, P., Schmidt, L., Spier, G., Lunardi, M., Bilbao, J., Corkish, R., Veit, H., 2019b.
Recycling waste solar modules using organic solvents. In: Proceedings of the 7th
International Conference on Sustainable Solid Waste Management. Heraklion,
Greece.
Dias, P., Veit, H., 2018. Recycling crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules. In: Kurinec, S.
K. (Ed.), Emerging Photovoltaic Materials. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ,
USA, pp. 61–102. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119407690.ch3.
Dias, P.R., Benevit, M.G., Veit, H.M., 2016b. Photovoltaic solar panels of crystalline
silicon: characterization and separation. Waste Manag. Res. 34, 235–245.
Doi, T., Tsuda, I., Unagida, H., Murata, A., Sakuta, K., Kurokawa, K., 2001. Experimental
study on PV module recycling with organic solvent method. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol.
Cells 67, 397–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0927-0248(00)00308-1.
EC, 2020. European Commission (EC). Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and
SMEs. Retrieved 14 of April 2020 from ec.europa.eu/growth/sectors/raw-materials/
specific-interest/critical_en.
EcoInvent, 2020. Ecoinvent database, version 3.2. Available at https://www.ecoinvent.
org/.
Egeonu, N., Herat, S., 2016. E-waste: a problem or an opportunity? Review of issues,
challenges and solutions in African countries. Int. J. Environ. Waste Manag. 17,
318–339. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWM.2016.078602.
G. Masson, I. Kaizuka, 2019. IEA PVPS report - Trends in Photovoltaic Applications 2019.
Retrieved 29 April 2020 from iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/5319-iea-
pvps-report-2019-08-lr.pdf.
Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., Huijbregts, M., Schryver, A.D., Struijs, J., Zelm, R. van,
2009. ReCiPe 2008: a life cycle impact assessment method which comprises
harmonised category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. The Hague,
Ministry of VROM, 1, pp. 1-126.
Granata, G., Pagnanelli, F., Moscardini, E., Havlik, T., Toro, L., 2014. Recycling of
photovoltaic panels by physical operations. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 123,
239–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2014.01.012.
Green, M.A., 1982. Solar Cells: Operating Principles, Technology, and System
Applications. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Higgins, K., Hutchinson, W.G., Longo, A., 2020. Willingness-to-pay for eco-labelled forest
products in Northern Ireland: an experimental auction approach. J. Behav. Exp.
Econ. 87, 101572 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2020.101572.
Hildenbrand, J., Srocka, M., Ciroth, A., 2020. OpenLCA. Avilable at https://openlca.org.
Huang, B., Zhao, J., Chai, J., Xue, B., Zhao, F., Wang, X., 2017. Environmental influence
assessment of China’s multi-crystalline silicon (multi-Si) photovoltaic modules
considering recycling process. Sol. Energy 143, 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2016.12.038.
IEA, 2019. IEA (Internation Energy Agency). Electricity generation by fuel and scenario,
2018-2040, Last updated 21 Nov 2019. Retrieved 29 of April 2020 from htt
ps://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/electricity-generation-by-fuel-and-sce
nario-2018-2040.
P. Dias et al.
Jørgensen, A., 2013. Social LCA—a way ahead. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess 18, 296–299.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0517-5.
Kang, S., Yoo, S., Lee, J., Boo, B., Ryu, H., 2012. Experimental investigations for
recycling of silicon and glass from waste photovoltaic modules. Renew. Energy 47,
152–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.04.030.
Klugmann-Radziemska, E., Ostrowski, P., 2010. Chemical treatment of crystalline silicon
solar cells as a method of recovering pure silicon from photovoltaic modules. Renew.
Energy 35, 1751–1759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.11.031.
Kwak, J.I., Nam, S.-H., Kim, L., An, Y.-J., 2020. Potential environmental risk of solar
cells: current knowledge and future challenges. J. Hazard. Mater. 392, 122297
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2020.122297.
Latunussa, C.E.L., Ardente, F., Blengini, G.A., Mancini, L., 2016. Life Cycle Assessment of
an innovative recycling process for crystalline silicon photovoltaic panels. Sol.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 156, 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solmat.2016.03.020. Life cycle, Environmental, Ecology and Impact Analysis of
Solar Technology.
Lee, M.-S., Ahn, J.-G., Ahn, J.-W., 2003. Recovery of copper, tin and lead from the spent
nitric etching solutions of printed circuit board and regeneration of the etching
solution. Hydrometallurgy 70, 23–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-386X(03)
00045-8.
Li, Y., Li, H., Wang, G., Liu, X., Zhang, Q., 2019. Study on the optimal deployment for
Photovoltaic components recycle in China. Energy Procedia, Innov. Sol. Energy
Trans. 158, 4298–4303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2019.01.794.
Liao, B., Yang, L., Ju, X., Peng, Y., Gao, Y., 2020. Experimental study on burning and
toxicity hazards of a PET laminated photovoltaic panel. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells
206, 110295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2019.110295.
Lunardi, M.M., Zhang, X., Schmidt, L., Dias, P.R., Marcelo, H., Bilbao, J., Corkish, R.,
2019. Life cycle assessment of two experimental recycling processes for c-Si solar
modules. Conf. Proc 10.
Markvart, T., Castañer, L., 2012. Chapter IA-1 - principles of solar cell operation. In:
McEvoy, A, Markvart, T, Castañer, L (Eds.), Practical Handbook of Photovoltaics
(Second Edition). Academic Press, Boston, pp. 7–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-
0-12-385934-1.00001-5.
Mathur, N., Singh, S., Sutherland, J.W., 2020. Promoting a circular economy in the solar
photovoltaic industry using life cycle symbiosis. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 155,
104649 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104649.
McCann, D., Wittmann, A., 2015. E-waste prevention, take-back system design and
policy approaches. Step Green Pap. Ser, p. 92.
Nain, P., Kumar, A., 2020a. Metal dissolution from end-of-life solar photovoltaics in real
landfill leachate versus synthetic solutions: one-year study. Waste Manag. 114,
351–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2020.07.004.
Nain, P., Kumar, A., 2020b. Initial metal contents and leaching rate constants of metals
leached from end-of-life solar photovoltaic waste: an integrative literature review
and analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 119, 109592 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2019.109592.
NCBI, 2020. NCBI - National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Database.,
Toluene. CID=1140. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Toluene
(accessed on Feb. 20, 2020).
Nevala, S.-M., Hamuyuni, J., Junnila, T., Sirviö, T., Eisert, S., Wilson, B.P., Serna-
Guerrero, R., Lundström, M., 2019. Electro-hydraulic fragmentation vs conventional
crushing of photovoltaic panels – Impact on recycling. Waste Manag. 87, 43–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2019.01.039.
14
Resources, Conservation & Recycling 165 (2021) 105241
Nnorom, I.C., Osibanjo, O., 2008. Electronic waste (e-waste): material flows and
management practices in Nigeria. Waste Manag. 28, 1472–1479. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2007.06.012.
Sinha, P., Heath, G., Wade, A., Komoto, K., 2020. Human health risk assessment methods
for PV, Part 3: module disposal risks, International Energy Agency (IEA) PVPS Task
12. Report T12-16:2020. Retrieved 01 June 2020 from. https://iea-pvps.org/wp-co
ntent/uploads/2020/05/PVPS-Task-12_HHRA-PV-Disposal-1.pdf.
Parent, J., Cucuzzella, C., Revéret, J.-P., 2013. Revisiting the role of LCA and SLCA in the
transition towards sustainable production and consumption. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess.
18, 1642–1652. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-012-0485-9.
Philipps, S., Warmuth, W., 2019. Photovoltaics report, Fraunhofer Institute for Solar
Energy Systems. ISE. Retrieved 16 March 2020 from. https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de
/content/dam/ise/de/documents/publications/studies/Photovoltaics-Report.pdf.
Pinho, J.T., Galdino, M.A., 2014. Engineering manual for photovoltaic systems retrieved
from Rio de Janeiro: CEPEL – CRESESB. Manual de engenharia para sistemas
fotovoltaicos.
Saphores, J.-D.M., Nixon, H., Ogunseitan, O.A., Shapiro, A.A., 2007. California
households’ willingness to pay for ‘green’ electronics. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 50,
113–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560601048549.
SASIL, 2018. Progetto LIFE12 ENV/IT/000904. FRELP (Full Recovery End of Life
Photovoltaic). [Document In Italian]. Retrived 13 of August 2020 from htt
ps://www.sasil-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Sasil-SrlFrelp-per-conve
gno-Cosrab-economia-circolare.pdf.
Savvilotidou, V., Antoniou, A., Gidarakos, E., 2017. Toxicity assessment and feasible
recycling process for amorphous silicon and CIS waste photovoltaic panels. Waste
Manag. 59, 394–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.003.
Schluep, M., 2014a. Chapter 25 - waste electrical and electronic equipment management.
Handbook of Recycling. Elsevier, Boston, pp. 397–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-396459-5.00025-8.
Schluep, M., 2014b. Chapter 29 - Informal Waste Recycling in Developing Countries.
Handbook of Recycling. Elsevier, Boston, pp. 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/
B978-0-12-396459-5.00029-5.
Shin, C.-H., Kim, Ju-Yup, Kim, Jun-Young, Kim, H.-S., Lee, H.-S., Mohapatra, D., Ahn, J.-
W., Ahn, J.-G., Bae, W., 2009. Recovery of nitric acid from waste etching solution
using solvent extraction. J. Hazard. Mater. 163, 729–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jhazmat.2008.07.019.
Tao, J., Yu, S., 2015. Review on feasible recycling pathways and technologies of solar
photovoltaic modules. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 141, 108–124. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.solmat.2015.05.005.
VDMA, 2020. 2020 International Technology Roadmap for PV. 2019 Results. Retrieved
19 May 2020 from https://itrpv.vdma.org/.
VDMA, 2019. 2019 International Technology Roadmap for PV. 2018 Results. Retrieved
16 March 2020 from https://itrpv.vdma.org/.
Victoria State Government, 2019. E-waste in Victoria. Environment, Land, Water and
Planning. Retrieved 27 April 2020 from https://www.environment.vic.gov.au/susta
inability/e-waste-in-victoria.
Weckend, S., Wade, A., Heath, G.A., 2016. End of Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic
Panels (No. NREL/TP-6A20-73852, 1561525). NREL (National Renewable Energy
Laboratory (NREL), Golden, COUnited States. https://doi.org/10.2172/1561525.
Xu, Y., Li, J., Tan, Q., Peters, A.L., Yang, C., 2018. Global status of recycling waste solar
panels: a review. Waste Manag. 75, 450–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.01.036.