Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

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

Experimental, economic and life cycle assessments of recycling end-of-life

monocrystalline silicon photovoltaic modules
Mitchell Shyan Wei Lim a, Dong He a, Jasmine Sie Ming Tiong a, Svenja Hanson b,
Thomas Chung-Kuang Yang c, Timm Joyce Tiong a, Guan-Ting Pan c, **, Siewhui Chong a, *
a
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Nottingham, Broga Road, 43500, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Nottingham, 199, Taikang East Road, Yinzhou, Zhejiang,
Ningbo, 315042, PR China
c
Department of Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, National Taipei University of Technology, No. 1, Section 3, Zhongxiao East Road, Da’an District, Taipei City,
106, Taiwan, ROC

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

Handling Editor: Mingzhou Jin The utilization of solar technology for clean energy generation has seen a dramatic increase over the past decade.
Eyeing the ever-growing solar capacity and the subsequent inevitable deluge of solar panel wastes, the ideal
Keywords: approach to handle End-of-Life (EoL) solar photovoltaic (PV) panels is to recycle their materials for reuse. This
Life cycle assessment (LCA) present study explores an optimal recycling process with a high resource recovery efficiency on a laboratory
Renewable energy
scale, which comprises of three main steps: module delamination, acid etching and sequential electrodeposition.
Solar energy
High recoveries of 86, 95 and 97% were achieved for silver, lead and aluminum, respectively. The acquired
Recycling
Economic analysis results are further applied in a life cycle assessment. The process was scaled up to simulate an industrial process
Silicon photovoltaic (PV) and its human and environmental impacts were compared to those of the landfilling disposal method, with six
main impact categories analyzed and described: global warming potential, human toxicity potential, freshwater
ecotoxicity potential, acidification potential, eutrophication potential and ozone depletion potential. Mitigation
strategies are also proposed. Lastly, economic analysis demonstrated that at a treatment capacity of 892.5 kg/h,
the process is feasible with an internal revenue rate of 28.2% and a payback time of less than a year, provided the
waste collection is subsidized.

1. Introduction GW of newly commissioned solar capacity introduced in 2021 (IRENA,

In the modern energy industry, solar photovoltaic (PV) technologies
are already one of the main renewable energy technologies used in the
generation of electrical power via a renewable source. In fact, solar PV
alone accounts for more than half of all renewable power expansion in
2020, followed by wind and hydropower, and is projected to have an
installed capacity greater than the latter two combined by 2026 (IRENA,
2021a). On the other hand, while the use of fossil fuels for energy
generation is still prevalent in today’s economy, it is anticipated that
circumstances will evolve rapidly especially in the next three decades. It
is predicted that solar energy radiated from the sun, harnessed by a mass
deployment of solar PV panels, will be the main source of electricity for
power grids in the near future (Majewski et al., 2021). In 2020, the total
capacity of solar PV in cumulation was 713 GW, with an estimated 150
2021b). Therefore, it is apparent that the related installation of elec­
tronics in association with solar PV, such as solar PV panels, is currently
moving forward at a very rapid pace.
Nevertheless, accompanying the rapid boom in solar PV installation
is also the steady increase of solar PV panels reaching their End-of-Life
(EoL) phase. If not handled aptly and efficiently within this crucial
timeframe, a staggering waste legacy will occur within the next one to
three decades, considering the typical lifespan of 25–30 years for solar
PV panels. In addition, the occurrence of severe weather events, con­
struction work surrounding solar PV panels and upcoming solar panel
innovations that will render current technologies obsolete are bound to
exacerbate the increase in solar panel waste in the near future. In
particular, if no major progress is made to ramp up efforts to deal with
the ever-increasing volume of solar PV panels, it is projected that ca. 60

* Corresponding author.
** Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gtpan@ntut.edu.tw (G.-T. Pan), faye1004@gmail.com (S. Chong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130796
Received 9 September 2021; Received in revised form 28 December 2021; Accepted 30 January 2022
Available online 2 February 2022
0959-6526/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.S.W. Lim et al.
million tonnes (Fig. 1) of EoL solar PV panels (equal to approximately
630 GW) will be accumulated by 2050, which might even be an un­
derestimation given that most nation’s contribution towards the volume
will only go one-way up. This figure is highly likely to match the global
waste produced from electronics (Deng et al., 2019).
In particular, the recovery or disposal techniques of solar PV panels
must be meticulously considered and managed as the panels will evolve
to become hazardous waste, posing severe environmental issues
(Chowdhury et al., 2020). Solar PV panels are composed of hazardous
substances e.g. Pb, Cd, Cr, Bi and Ni (Tammaro et al., 2016). If incin­
erated, these toxic components will pollute the atmosphere; in the
presence of liquids such as rain, leaching of the toxic components will
occur in an instance when the protective layer of the EoL panels are
stripped (Ansanelli et al., 2021; Nover et al., 2017). Furthermore, since
they are hardly biodegradable, wastes from the panels will also occupy
enormous areas for landfill or disposal (Azeumo et al., 2019), which is
currently how a large majority of EoL PV panels are treated (Deng et al.,
2019). But as the volume of wastes increase rapidly, this method of
treatment will be deemed unsustainable. Therefore, alternative
cost-efficient waste management techniques must be introduced quickly
and broadly.
To avert this catastrophic waste legacy, explicit and stringent legis­
lation must be discussed and enacted to direct the management of EoL
solar PV panels. These initiatives could effectively boost product stew­
ardship and incentivize the industry to incorporate recycling strategies
when designing solar PV panels, as well as establish sustainable and
environmentally benign processes to recycle the panels (Aryan et al.,
2018; B.B. Huang et al., 2017B. Huang et al., 2017; Latunussa et al.,
2016; Park et al., 2016; Park andPark, 2014).
Of the worldwide solar PV market share, 90% of it constitutes
monocrystalline or polycrystalline silicon cells, while the remaining
10% of the market share is made up of thin-film technologies e.g.
amorphous silicon cells, cadmium telluride (CdTe) and copper indium
gallium selenide (CIGS) (Ansanelli et al., 2021; Azeumo et al., 2019).
Hence, treating and recycling EoL crystalline silicon PV are typically
given a higher priority due to their sheer volume. Monocrystalline
silicon-based PV panels, which possess the highest conversion efficiency
among the different types of solar cells (maximum of 25.5 ± 0.5% under
condition of global AM 1.5 of 1000 W m− 2 at 25 ◦ C) (Bagnall and­
Boreland, 2008), comprise the semiconducting monocrystalline silicon
cell typically containing Ag and Cu, sandwiched between two encap­
sulating layers of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA). A sheet of glass covers
the front of the panel, while a sheet of polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) and
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) covers the back of the panel, also
known as the backsheet. An aluminum frame holds all the layers
together, constituting the solar panel equipped with a junction box
housing all the electrical components as a protection from the elements,
as shown in Fig. 2. In terms of weight, the constituents of mono­
crystalline silicon PV panels are commonly: 76% glass (surface of panel),
10% polymer (encapsulant and backsheet), 8% Al (for the frame), 5% Si
Fig. 1. Estimation of cumulative global waste (million tonnes) from End-of-Life solar PV panels (IRENA andIEA-PVPS, 2016).
2
Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796
Fig. 2. Illustration of a monocrystalline photovoltaic solar panel (Farrell
et al., 2019).
(solar cells), 1% Cu (connectors), <0.1% Ag (contact lines) and other
metals (such as Pb and Sn) (Ansanelli et al., 2021).
These components (i.e. glass, aluminum frame, semiconductors and
trace materials) of the EoL PV solar module are mostly recyclable, which
should be a main priority of the industry and PV manufacturers. In
common practice, mechanical, thermal, chemical processes, or a com­
bination of any of them, are used to treat and recycle EoL PV solar
modules. Particularly, various recovery and recycling techniques are
currently being explored by many researchers to maximize the usage of
waste PV solar panels (Chowdhury et al., 2020; Lunardi et al., 2018). For
instance, Huang and colleagues (W.-H.W.-H. Huang et al., 2017) pro­
posed a technically, environmentally, and financially sustainable recy­
cling process for wafer-Si solar modules, which recovered practically the
whole waste PV module, leaving little to landfill. Their first technique
investigated an acid leaching and sequential electrowinning technique
that recovered multiple target metals from the Si modules, namely Ag,
Pb, Cu and Sn. Recovery rates of Ag and Cu were 74% and 83%,
respectively. The second technique was sheet resistance monitoring,
which allowed the recovery of solar-grade Si from the waste solar
modules. On the other hand, Azeumo and colleagues (Azeumo et al.,
2019) explored physical and chemical routes to recycle EoL PV modules.
In the physical route, the authors separated the glass, metals and poly­
vinyl fluoride film of the waste module via heavy medium separation, a
technique that differentiates materials based on their densities. For the
chemical method, the authors studied the most efficient way for the
dissolution of EVA by manipulating various process parameters, such as
solvents used, process temperature and the presence of ultrasonic
irradiation.
Deng et al. (2021) proposed a reverse electroplating technique to
M.S.W. Lim et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796

recover Ag and Si from EoL solar PV cells. In their study, over 99% purity
of both elements can be achieved. On the other hand, Luo et al. (2021)
performed a hydrometallurgical study to recover Al, Ag and Si from EoL
solar PV cells, with recovery efficiencies of 99.89, 96.13 and 96.03%. In
most recent studies (Ansanelli et al., 2021; Chen et al., 2020; Chung
et al., 2021; Daljit Singh et al., 2021; Dias et al., 2021; Mulazzani et al.,
2021; Riech et al., 2021; Wongnaree et al., 2020), economic analysis and
life cycle assessment were not included, limiting the environmental,
technical, economical and scalability prospects of the technique. It is
also noted that environmentally hazardous chemicals such as hydro­
fluoric acid were used in the study, which presents a disadvantage from
an environmental point-of-view. Such cost analysis and environmental
evaluation results are significant drivers to facilitate the implementation
of effective and efficient recovery and recycling processes to avert
environmental disasters as a result of massive EoL solar panel wastes.
The huge market share of crystalline silicon based solar panels de­ Fig. 3. The research elements.
mands the invention and innovation of more diverse recovery and
recycling technologies in order to curb with the associated wastes,
2.1. Experimental
which are increasing at an alarming pace and henceforth serves as the
principal motive of this present study, as well as to connect with the cost
2.1.1. Disassembly and characterizations
and environmental studies as mentioned in the previous paragraph. This
A piece of EoL monocrystalline silicon solar PV panel with the di­
study attempts to explore an efficient recycling process of EoL solar PV
mensions: 400 mm (length) × 200 mm (width) was provided by an
panels using HNO3, H2SO4 and H2O2 as the etching solvent to leach out
electronic waste recycling company. The solar panel was thoroughly
target resources such as Ag, Pb and Al, followed by electrodeposition to
cleaned with deionized water and weighed before manual disassembly.
recover the aforementioned resources, as well as the monocrystalline
Table 1 shows the components after the cleaning and before thermal
solar-grade silicon wafer. It is highlighted that electrodeposition has the
treatments. The solar cell piece was then thermally treated in an oven at
potential to be a more cost-efficient approach than other techniques
600 ◦ C for 1 h to remove the EVA layer.
such as precipitation in recovering the leached metals as it enables the
X-ray diffraction (XRD, PANalytical X’Pert PRO, Almelo, the
simultaneous recovery of multiple metals in their pure metallic forms
Netherlands) was used to verify the type of waste panel sample via its
from the leaching solution. Furthermore, a life cycle assessment is also
crystalline structure, with Cu K–alpha radiation (λ = 0.15418 nm)
performed on the recycling process and compared the landfill disposal
scanning from 20 to 90◦ . Field-emission scanning electron microscopy
method to determine their corresponding environmental impacts, with
(FE-SEM) with energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) (JEOL JSM-
categories such as global warming potential (GWP), freshwater eco­
6700F, USA) was used to obtain high-resolution images of the surface
toxicity potential (FEP), ozone depletion potential (ODP), human
morphology at an accelerating voltage of 10–12 kV and a working dis­
toxicity potential (HTP), eutrophication potential (EP) and acidification
tance of 10–12 mm, with a magnification of 100–1000✕ in an envi­
potential (AP). The analysis is carried out based on scaling up the pilot
ronmental mode. The characterization test was also used to carry out
scale process to a simulated industrial scale, in which appropriate
both elemental identification and to acquire quantitative compositional
treatment/disposal methods are proposed to minimize environmental
information of the samples.
impacts.
Furthermore, SuperPro Designer is used to simulate the recycling
2.1.2. Acid etching
process in this current study to enable the quantification of the economic
An acid etching method was used to leach out the target metals from
and environmental benefits obtained from the recovery and recycling of
the EoL solar cell. A mixed solution consisting of 10 mL nitric acid (69%
EoL solar panels as secondary raw materials for further usage. The
HNO3, Sigma-Aldrich) or 10 mL sulfuric acid (diluted to 50% from 98%
technical and economic feasibility of this recycling process including the
H2SO4, Sigma-Aldrich), 20 mL hydrogen peroxide (30% H2O2, ChemAR)
recovery of useful resources was simulated based on preliminary data
and 1 L deionized water was used as the etching solvent. H2O2 was
obtained from laboratory-scale research presented in this paper. The
added as a catalyst to speed up the leaching process. An ultrasonic
process simulations are described and analyzed to present an economic
shaker, placed in a fume hood, was filled with the etching solvent and
assessment of the recovery process.
the EoL solar cell was placed into the ultrasonic shaker for 10 min. In
In this paper, the characterization of the EoL solar PV cells is first
order to neutralize the leaching solution produced, 15.751 g of solid
described to determine and confirm their properties. Next, results from
sodium hydroxide (NaOH, 97%, Sigma-Aldrich) was added to the
the acid etching treatment of the EoL cells are described and analyzed.
leaching solution until a pH value close to 6 was attained. During this
Following, the recovery efficiencies of the useful resources from the PV
wastes are determined through constant-voltage electrodeposition and
precipitation. Lastly, LCA and economic feasibility analyses are per­ Table 1
formed to assess and ascertain the overall environmental, technical and Disassembled components of the EoL monocrystalline silicon solar PV panel
economic viability of this EoL solar PV recycling initiative. sample.
Components Mass (g)
2. Methodology 1 Junction box 12.329
2 Aluminum frame 172.230
Fig. 3 outlines the methodology of this study, starting with the 3 Glass layer 589.130
experimental evaluation – manual disassembly and characterizations, 4 Solar cell 31.212
5 EVA material 22.900
acid etching, and electrodeposition, followed by life cycle and economic 6 Plastic back sheet 23.450
assessments to evaluate the environmental impacts and economic 7 Copper cable 2.945
analysis of the process, respectively. 8 Screws 32.142
9 Others 6.162
Total weight: 886.338

3
M.S.W. Lim et al.
process, the presence of precipitation indicates that the aluminum ions
were reacting with the hydroxide ions to form aluminum hydroxide,
which was then collected by filtration and dried at 105 ◦ C overnight to
recover the aluminum leached.
2.1.3. Cyclic voltammetry (CV) and electrodeposition
A ZIVE electrochemical workstation (ZIVE SP1, Wuhan Corrtest In­
struments Corp., Ltd., Wuhan, China) was used to conduct the cyclic
voltammetry (CV) test and to carry out electrodeposition for the
neutralized leaching solution. In the CV test, the reduction potentials
required for the recovery of different metal elements were obtained by
observing the redox peaks under the potential-dynamic condition from
− 2.5 to 2.5 V.
For the electrodeposition of target metals, carbon fiber was used as
the working and counter electrodes with silver chloride (AgCl) as the
reference electrode. The constant voltage value was set using the cell
potential obtained, with a scan rate of 10 mV/s. The electrodeposition
process was carried out for 20,000 s for each target metal sequentially,
with the working electrode replaced after each round. After the elec­
trodeposition process, the working electrode was dried at 105 ◦ C over­
night and weighed. The quantity of metals recovered from the EoL solar
cell was then calculated by subtracting the final weight of the dried
working electrode with its initial weight.
Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometry (ICP-AES,
PerkinElmer Optima 8000, Waltham, Massachusetts, USA) was used to
determine and quantify the elements in the leaching solution before and
after the electrodeposition process. The recovery efficiency of aluminum
from the precipitation process was calculated using Equation (1), while
the recovery efficiency of the electrodeposited metals was calculated
using Equation (2). The overall recovery efficiency was then calculated
via Equation (3).
Ci, 0 − Ci, 0
Recovery efficiency for Al, RAl (%) = × 100%
Ci, 0
Fig. 4. The system boundary of the recycling process used in the life cycle assessment, with 1000 EoL monocrystalline silica solar panels of size 400 mm ✕ 200 mm
and a treatment capacity of 892.5 kg/h as the basis.
Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796
Ci, 0 − Ci, Vi
Recovery efficiency for other metals, Rm,i (%) = × 100% (2)
Ci, 0
∑
RAl Ci, 0 + Rm,i Ci, 0
Overall recovery efficiency, R (%) = × 100% (3)
CT, 0
where:
Ci,0 = Concentration of element i in leaching solution;
Ci,0 = Concentration of element i in neutralized leaching solution;
Ci,Vi = Concentration of element i in leaching solution after electro­
deposition at the cell potential Vi obtained from CV;
CT,0 = Total concentration of all recoverable metal elements in
leaching solution.
All the experimental work were conducted twice, with the average of
the two values calculated and reported in the results and discussion.
2.2. Life cycle assessment
GaBi Professional 9.0 (Sphera Solutions GmbH) was used to conduct
the life cycle assessment of the solar cell recycling process. To ensure the
accuracy of this research, a scenario was used with the experimental
study scaled up 1000 times to simulate the industrial scale, using 1000
waste panels, each with 400 mm ✕ 200 mm in size as the functional unit
(a treatment capacity of 892.5 kg/h). The simulation was based on the
GaBi database sourced from European regions, combined with results
acquired from this study. The system boundary used is shown in Fig. 4.
The end-treatments for different components of the EoL solar PV panels
involved in the recycling process are listed in Table 2. Environmental
impacts were assessed in accordance with the ISO 14040 and 14044
(1) standards. The Centrum voor Milieukunde Leiden (CML) 2000 method
was used for impact categorizations.
4
M.S.W. Lim et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796

Table 2 applied costs of raw materials and waste treatment, as well as the rev­
The assumed end-treatments for different components of the EoL solar panels enue from the recycled products can be found in the Supplementary
involved in the recycling process. Information (Tables S15–S16), with the example calculations made
Waste components Assumed disposal method Data source available.
Steel screws Recovery and reuse GaBi 9.0 professional database
Silver Recovery and reuse 3. Results and discussion
Aluminum Recovery and reuse
Silicon wafers Recovery and reuse 3.1. Characterization of the EoL solar PV cells
Lead Recovery and reuse
Plastic Recovery and reuse
Glass Landfilling Fig. 6 illustrates the XRD diffractogram obtained for the EoL solar PV
Copper cable Recovery and reuse cell sample. As seen in the figure, peaks at 37, 44, 64 and 77◦ correspond
EVA Incineration to the crystalline peaks of monocrystalline silicon (JCPDS No. 01-089-
905), indicating and verifying that the treated sample originated from
a monocrystalline silicon solar PV panel.
In the LCA, two scenarios were evaluated, i.e. the landfilling of the
The untreated and treated EoL solar cells were examined with
EoL solar panels and the recycling of the EoL solar panels. Six impact
scanning electron microscopy, with the SEM images of the front and rear
categories were selected: global warming potential (GWP), human
side of the cells shown in Fig. 7. In Fig. 7(a), the Ag electrode can be
toxicity potential (HTP), acidification potential (AP), ozone depletion
observed on the scan of the untreated cell, represented by the white
potential (ODP), eutrophication potential (EP) and freshwater ecotox­
visible strip, which contains Ag to be recovered.
icity potential (FEP). The distance of goods transportation was assumed
Fig. 7(c) shows the captured scan of the front view of the treated
to be 100 km and light duty vehicles of a Euro 5 standard with a
maximum of 1.5 t payload capacity were used in the LCA simulation.

2.3. SuperPRO simulation

The recycling process was simulated in a continuous mode using

SuperPro Designer v11 (Intelligen, Inc., USA). As shown in Fig. 5, the
software analyses a physicochemical process for recycling EoL PV
panels. The process simulated in this study was carried out with inputs
as per Fig. 4, which includes dry physical pre-treatment, thermal
treatment, hydrometallurgical treatment and electrolytic treatment.
Similar to the LCA, the simulation performed for the economic analysis
of the recycling process using SuperPro Designer was carried out on a
basis of 1000-times of the experimental values (i.e. 1000 waste panels of
size 400 mm ✕ 200 mm) for a treatment capacity of 892.5 kg/h. The
material composition for the waste PV module is shown in Table S1
(Supplementary information). It was assumed that the raw materials
(EoL PV panels) are collected at no cost, as producers pay for the waste
to be treated, or offset by governmental recycling incentives.
The plant was assumed to operate at 8000 h annually, with a lifespan
of 20 years. With the aid of the ‘Economic Evaluation’ function in the
SuperPro Designer, the cash flow analysis was carried out assuming an Fig. 6. XRD result of the solar cell sample.
inflation rate of 4%, and an income tax of 40%. More details on the

Fig. 5. Process flow diagram for the simulated industrial-scale EoL solar PV recycling process.

5
M.S.W. Lim et al.
Fig. 7. SEM images of the (a) front side, and (b) rear side of the untreated solar cell; (c) front side, and (d) rear side of the acid-etched solar cell.
panel, with the Ag electrode strip visible, which indicates that area of
analysis taken into account by the EDX elemental analysis.
The EDX analyses of the untreated and treated EoL solar cells are
shown in Fig. 8. From Fig. 8(a), the front end of the untreated EoL
monocrystalline silicon solar PV cell contains Pb and Ag in trace
amounts, which was a result of the welding and conductor materials. On
the other hand, from Fig. 8(b), it can be seen that the rear end of the
panel contains only Al from the coating material. No other metallic in­
clusions were observed. The presence of oxygen was due to the exposure
of Al to the air, subsequently resulting in aluminum oxide.
After treatment, as shown in Fig. 8(c) and (d), the composition of the
elements – Pb, Ag and Al, were significantly decreased from the silicon
wafer as they were leached out to the leaching solution.
3.2. Treatment of the EoL solar PV cell
The acid etching of Ag, Pb and Al using the leaching solution con­
sisting of nitric acid and sulfuric acid are represented by the chemical
equations:
3H2 SO4 + 2Al ​ → ​ Al2 (SO4 )3 + 3H2
2HNO3 + Ag ​ → ​ AgNO3 + ​ NO2 + ​ H2 O
8HNO3 + 3Pb ​ →3Pb(NO3 )2 + 2NO + 4H2 O
While the subsequent neutralization of Al with NaOH represented by
the chemical equation:
Al2 (SO4 )3 + 3Ca(OH)3 →2Al(OH)3 + 3CaSO4
Table 3 summarizes the results of metal recovery, with the recovery
efficiencies calculated via Equation (1) – (3) using the concentrations of
the leaching solutions obtained from the ICP-AES analysis. As shown in
the table, the recovery efficiencies of Ag, Pb and Al were calculated to be
82%, 91% and 86% respectively, with an overall metal recovery effi­
ciency of 86%. Following acid etching, the leaching solution was further
treated to recover the target elements.
The target elements (Pb and Ag) were recovered via constant-voltage
Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796
electrodeposition. On the other hand, Al was recovered via precipitation
and subsequent filtration of the neutralized leaching solution. Prior to
electrodeposition, the cell potentials (E0) of Pb and Ag were obtained
through the CV test, with the voltammetry of the leaching solution
shown in Fig. 9. A bump in the figure indicates an increased cathodic
current, showing the reduction process of the particular element is
taking place. Through the test, it was determined that the cell potentials
for the reduction of Ag and Pb were +0.41 V and - 0.13 V respectively.
The equations involved for the recovery of Ag are:
Cathode : Ag+ + e− →Ag E0 ​ = ​ + ​ 0.41 ​ V (8)
Anode : 2H2 O → O2 + 4H+ + 4e− (9)
Overall equation : 4AgNO3 + 2H2 O→4Ag + 4HNO3 + O2 (10)
While the equations involved for the recovery of Pb are:
Cathode : Pb2+ + 2e− →Pb E0 = − 0.13 V (11)
Anode : 2H2 O → O2 + 4H+ + 4e− (12)
(4)
Overall ​ equation : 2Pb(NO3 )2 + 2H2 O→2Pb + 4HNO3 + O2 (13)
(5) Therefore, Ag was first recovered, followed by Pb. EDX analysis was
also carried out on the working electrodes before and after electrode­
(6) position to validate the recovery of the target metals, with results pre­
sented in Fig. 10. From the elemental analysis, it can be seen that the
composition of Ag and Pb on the working electrodes was significantly
increased, signifying a successful recovery of Ag and Pb through elec­
(7) trodeposition using sequential constant voltages of +0.41 V and – 0.13
V, respectively. On the other hand, Table 4 presents the quantity of the
metals recovered on a weight basis. The recovered Ag, Pb and Al were
13.3, 6.7 and 157.6 g/kgEoL solar cell, respectively, totaling 177.7 g of
metals recovered per kg of waste solar cell.
In this study, the chemicals used are HNO3, H2SO4, H2O2 and NaOH,
which present an advantage for industrial operations as these chemicals
are widely available and cost-effective. While some studies presented in
the literature utilizing solvent extraction method have higher recovery
6
M.S.W. Lim et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796

Fig. 8. EDX results of the (a) front side, and (b) rear side of the untreated solar cell; (c) front side, and (d) rear side of the acid-etched solar cell.

Table 3
Concentrations of Ag, Pb and Al in the leaching solution and their calculated recovery efficiencies.
Element, i Concentration (mg/L) Recovery efficiency (%) calculated using
Equations (1)–(3)
Leaching Neutralized leaching After electrolyzed at +0.41 V After electrolyzed at − 0.13 V
solution, Ci,0 solution, Ci,0 for Ag, Ci,V1 for Pb, Ci,V2

Ag 129.0 123.7 18.4 18.2 82

Pb 87.2 83.6 57.8 4.0 91
Al 228.3 32.0 9.1 6.2 86
Total 444.5 239.3 85.3 28.4 86

rates, such as those performed by Jung et al. (2016) with a Ag recovery chemicals. However, to increase the purities of the recovered metals,
rate of 90%, complex reactants such as 2-hydroxy-5-nonylacetopheno­ optimizing acid etching or solvent extraction method, and the sequential
neoxime (LIX 84-I) were used. Similarly, in Chen et al. (2021, 2020), electrodeposition/electrowinning, and conducting feasibility and
complex chemical agents such as Na-Cyanex 272 in kerosene and viability studies would be a promising direction (Mahmoudi et al., 2020;
2-hydroxy-5-nonylacetophenone oxime (LIX984N) were employed to Sun et al., 2015; Tao andHuang, 2018).
separate components such as Ag and Al, and to extract copper respec­
tively, which add to the complexity and hence the applicability of the
3.3. Life cycle assessment (LCA)
recycling process.
In a separate study, while Chung et al. (2021) utilized an environ­
The results of the LCA are shown in Figs. 11 and 12. The global
mentally friendly iodine-iodide system to extract Ag and Al, both Ag and
warming potentials (GWP) of both the recycling and landfilling pro­
AI are inherently difficult to separate as both components are coexisting,
cesses of the EoL solar PV panels are shown and compared in Fig. 11, in
thus requiring special treatment for separation. Furthermore, while
which the credits observed as negative values represent the avoided
some studies present a simple process for Ag recycling, the leaching rates
impacts. The GWP is an important indicator developed to represent the
was low and the reaction time taken was rather long, i.e. 24 h (Dias
relative climate impact of different greenhouse gases or processes.
et al., 2016; Wongnaree et al., 2020). This study presents an adequate
Specifically, it is a measure of how much energy the emission of 1 tonne
leaching rate with a fast reaction time with the use of common
of a greenhouse gas will absorb over a given period of time – typically

7
M.S.W. Lim et al.
Fig. 9. CV result for the neutralized leaching solution (V vs. Ag/AgCl).
100 years – relative to the emissions of 1 tonne of CO2. Comparing the
GWP between recycling and landfilling EoL solar PV panels, we found
that the total CO2 emissions of the recycling process is 25 kg CO2-eq,
which is five times lower than of that of landfilling (121 kg CO2-eq),
largely due to the positive influence of plastic and aluminum recovery.
In the EoL solar PV recycling processes, the main GWP contributors
are emissions originating from transportation and electricity consump­
tion, which are 56.5 and 35.3 kg CO2-eq, respectively. On the other
hand, in the landfilling processes, the GWP impact of plastic incineration
(46 kg CO2-eq) is the highest among the rest, accounting for 38% of the
total GWP impacts. In the case of incineration, the release of toxic ma­
terials is harmful to the environment.
As shown in Fig. 12, while results show that the recycling process of
EoL solar PV panels has a lower GWP value at 25 kg CO2-eq compared to
that of landfilling at 121 kg CO2-eq, higher human toxicity potential and
freshwater ecotoxicity potential values are noted due to the wastewater
produced and the chemicals used in the recycling processes. In order to
mitigate these, environmentally friendly and sustainable water treat­
ment strategies, as well as considerations of the use of other chemicals or
optimization of their dosages may be further investigated.
3.4. Economic analysis
In process simulation, for the leaching unit operation, it is assumed
that the three reactions governing Equations (4)–(6) proceed with a full
extent of reaction. The recovery of silicon from the unit is also assumed
to be 99%.
For the electrolysis of Ag and Pb, the extents of reaction for the
metals are acquired from the aforementioned experimental results,
which were determined to be 86 and 95%, respectively. The carbon
electrode which is functioned as a component splitter is assumed to have
a recovery efficiency of 99%. At the neutralizer, the neutralization re­
action was assumed to proceed at a full extent, while the recovery effi­
ciency of aluminum hydroxide at the filtration unit is assumed to be
99%. Table 5 shows the flow rate for the output streams in the simulated
process (Fig. 5), while the overall mass and energy balances for the
process flow are attached in the Supplementary Information
(Tables S2–S14).
The total capital investment required for the process plant is $
891,000, as seen in Table 6. It is also noted that the gross margin is
23.5%, signifying that for every $ 100 invested, the company can retain
$ 23.5. The return of investment (ROI) is an extremely useful indicator
to gauge the economic feasibility of the commercial-scale waste solar PV
panel recycling process. This analysis showed that the ROI is 102.05%,
8
Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796
which is a highly attractive return rate from this investment. Further­
more, it was also shown that the payback period, also known as the
breakeven period, is relatively short – only 1 year is required for the total
earnings from the plant to meet the initial production costs for the 1000
EoL solar panels of size 400 mm ✕ 200 mm, provided that the collection
of these waste panels is subsidized. Therefore, the initial funds invested
could be recovered in a relatively short time frame, which can be
attributed to the production scale considered in this study that is rela­
tively smaller, and that it is important to have financial support for the
collection of the waste panels as this would add up the cost of recycling
significantly (Tao et al., 2020).
On the other hand, the simulated process recorded an internal return
rate (IRR) of 28.20%, noting that a high IRR attracts more investors for
the project. Lastly, the net present value (NPV), calculated at a 7.0%
interest rate, is crucial in determining the profitability and feasibility for
investing in the commercial recycling plant. With a positive NPV of $
5,212,000, the project can be deemed worth investing in.
According to Fig. 13(a), the recovery of Ag accounts for the highest
proportion of the revenue generated due to its scarcity, despite its
relatively small amounts. Next, aluminum frames are the components
generating the second highest revenue at 43% of the total revenue,
which is a total of $ 6,092,000 obtained from all the recovered materials
as tabulated in Table 6. The recovery of plastic, silicon, and copper ac­
counts for a marginal revenue of approximately 2–6%, while the re­
covery of lead, steel and aluminum are comparatively negligible at less
than 3% each.
Meanwhile, Fig. 13(b) shows the breakdown of the expenditure
required for the recycling plant, which is calculated to be $ 4,662,000
per annum, as shown in Table 6. Almost a third of the costs come from
the labor required to operate the process plant, which could be ascribed
to the fact that the disassembly of the EoL solar PV modules necessitate
heavy manual work, particularly at a process rate of 892.5 kg per hour.
Expenses for transportation and laboratory/quality control/quality
assurance work both take up roughly 10% of the total operating costs
required for the plant. Costs needed for raw materials, facilities, utilities,
and waste treatment/disposal are marginal at less than 3% each.
A sensitivity analysis for the recycling process is also conducted, with
the results shown in Fig. 14. The analysis is based on how the revenue
generated, cost of raw materials and the interest rate influence the net
present value, with the three parameters investigated at a range of
variation of ±20%, - 10% to +30% and ±2% respectively. In particular,
this analysis provides an overview of the parameters that have a sig­
nificant impact on the NPV. A positive slope on the graph indicates
earnings from the recycling plant, whereas a negative slope indicates
expenses of the recycling plant. It is also worth noting that once the NPV
drops to a negative value, the recycling plant will then no longer be
worth investing in.
As shown in Fig. 14, the gradients for the revenue generated, cost of
raw materials and interest rate are 309150, - 3950 and - 660250. The
increase in the steepness of the gradient signifies that the parameter is
increasingly influential on the NPV. Therefore, as observed, the
parameter that is the most influential towards the NPV is the interest
rate, in which high interest rates would greatly impact the NPV nega­
tively, vice versa. Meanwhile, a higher revenue would positively impact
the NPV, while the reverse is also true. On the other hand, the costs of
raw materials seemed to have a relatively negligible impact on the NPV
as its gradient is almost a horizontal line. It should be noted that the EoL
solar PV panels were not considered as a raw material that requires
purchasing as according to the European and Japan legislations, waste
recycling plants are to receive the wastes from the solar panel producers
for free, or even at a fee, which sustains the economy of the recycling
process. For example, some solar panel producers charge the consumers
an overprice of about $ 10 per solar PV panel purchase and installation.
Noting that the average weight of a solar PV panel is about 20 kg, the
fees charged ultimately translate into a gross income contribution to the
EoL solar PV panel recyclers of about $ 0.5 per kg of solar PV panel
M.S.W. Lim et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796

Fig. 10. EDX results of the working electrode (a) before electrodeposition; (b) after electrodeposition at +0.41 V; and (c) after electrodeposition at − 0.13 V.

9
M.S.W. Lim et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796

Table 4 panels, lack of framework and incentives to establish and operate a

Quantity of metals recovered after acid etching and electrodeposition. recycling plant, considerations on providing incentives to set up inte­
Mass recovered Mass recovered (g/kg EoL solar
grated and cost-effective recycling systems, policies and regulations on
(g) cell) establishing a recycling standard/guideline, and that mandate PV
Ag via electrodeposition 0.416 13.3 manufacturers to pay to waste recyclers, should be taken into account.
Pb via electrodeposition 0.209 6.7 For instance, Europe and Japan have included EoL solar panel recycling
Al via precipitation 4.920 157.6 into their policies, enforcing PV producers or installers to finance the
Total metal recovery: 5.545 177.7 recycling of EoL solar panels, or to include payment into a decom­
Wafer 25.272 809.7
Other components/losses 0.395 12.7
missioning fund (Wesoff andBeetz, 2021). European Waste Electrical
Total weight of solar cell: 31.212 - and Electronic Equipment Directive was extended to solar products in
2012, allowing up to 80–95% recycling of the material used in PV panels
(PV Cycle, n.d.; Rollet andBeetz, 2020). In Japan, under the support of
(Rubino et al., 2020). Japan’s Ministry of the Environment, solar PV manufacturer Next En­
While current research in solar cell technology is heavily focused on ergy and Marubeni company collaborate to work on the reuse and
improving the conversion efficiency of crystalline silicon PV solar cells, recycling of EoL panels with the use of blockchain, providing trace­
investigations into enhancing and perfecting recycling strategies for EoL ability of the solar cells from first removal to final recycling (Jones,
solar PV panels should also be carried out at an equal intensity if we 2021).
were to move forward in our vision to create a truly carbon-free future.
While expecting the unavoidable surge in EoL solar PV waste in the 4. Conclusion
coming decade, more effort should be poured into researching and
optimizing recycling processes for current recyclers as well as develop With the wastes originating from solar technology anticipated to
new technologies for future implementation. The implementation of increase exponentially over the next few years and decades, this study is
recycling strategies for waste solar PV panels, particularly for the widely devoted to extending the sustainability of the green energy generation
used crystalline solar PV panels, should be an urgent task in the coming technique. We investigated a highly efficient method to recover valuable
years in order to deal with the surge of solar panel wastes. While solar resources from EoL solar PV panels using a series of recovery steps, i.e.
panel producers should focus on the design of the panels to extend their module delamination, acid etching and sequential electrodeposition.
lifetime, further emphasis should also be placed in policy making for This innovative and facile method enabled an efficient recovery of 86,
sustainable development and management of solar panels. Due to 95 and 97% of Ag, Pb and Al, respectively, accounting for a combined
challenges such as the need of hazardous waste permit to process the EoL resource recovery of 86%. We then scaled up the laboratory results to

Fig. 11. The global warming potential results of the (a) recycling process and (b) landfilling process.

10
M.S.W. Lim et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796

Fig. 12. The comparative potentials of each impact category for the recycling and landfilling method.

Table 5
Flowrate outputs for different streams on the process flow dia­
gram of Fig. 5.
Component Flow rate (kg/h)

Steel 32.15
Aluminum frame 172.26
Copper 2.95
Plastic (1 and 2) 41.81
Silicon 25.20
Silver 0.41
Lead 0.21
Aluminum hydroxide 6.95
Waste solution 243.70

Table 6
Economic outputs of the simulated recycling process, at a treatment capacity of
892.5 kg/h and collection fee subsidized.
Aspect Value Unit

Total Capital Investment 891,000 $

Capital Investment Charged to This Project 891,000 $
Operating Cost 4,662,000 $/yr
Main Revenue 2,624,000 $/yr
Other Revenues 3,468,205 $/yr
Total Revenues 6,092,000 $/yr
Cost Basis Annual Rate 1,378,050 kg MP/yr
Unit Production Cost 3.38 $/kg MP
Net Unit Production Cost 3.38 $/kg MP
Unit Production Revenue 4.42 $/kg MP
Gross Margin 23.48 %
Return On Investment 102.05 %
Payback Time 0.98 years
Internal return rate (IRR) 28.2 %
Net present value (at 7.0% Interest) 5,212,000 $
MP = Total Flow of Stream ‘Aluminium frame’

apply them to a life cycle assessment and compared the recycling pro­
cess to a typical landfilling method to dispose waste solar panels. Among
the six impact categories studied, the global warming potential was
significantly reduced by approximately 393% when the recycling
method was applied to treat the panels. While the human toxicity po­
tential is high for the recycling process due to the waste materials
emitted during the process, the impact can be mitigated by imple­
Fig. 13. Breakdown of (a) revenue and (b) expenditure for the EoL solar PV
menting more efficient processing techniques to reduce and prevent the panel recycling plant.
release of toxic materials to the environment. Finally, an economic

11
M.S.W. Lim et al.
Fig. 14. Sensitivity analysis of different parameters on the net present
value (NPV).
analysis was carried out to ascertain the feasibility of implementing the
recycling process on an industrial scale. SuperPro Design simulations
showed a high internal return rate of 28.2%, with a payback period of 1
year and a net present value of $ 5,212,000 (7.0% interest) for a treat­
ment capacity of 892.5 kg/h, which demonstrates that the simulated
recycling plant brings revenue and is justifiable for investment.
Overall, this work has successfully demonstrated the efficient re­
covery of EoL solar PV resources via the chemical acid etching and
electrodeposition route. Moreover, the gap in knowledge present in the
literature is filled with the combination of the LCA and economic
feasibility studies, where this recycling technique has shown to be viable
from environmental, economic, technical and scalability standpoints.
This study could serve as a reference for the cleaner cradle-to-cradle
production of solar panels in the near future, in which an effective
and efficient recycling system such as that in this research can be
incorporated into industrial solar panel manufacturing and recovery
processes.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Mitchell Shyan Wei Lim: Data curation, Writing – original draft.
Dong He: Investigation, Writing – original draft. Jasmine Sie Ming
Tiong: Investigation. Svenja Hanson: Supervision, Validation. Thomas
Chung-Kuang Yang: Funding acquisition, Resources. Timm Joyce
Tiong: Validation, Project administration. Guan-Ting Pan: Conceptu­
alization, Methodology, Formal analysis. Siewhui Chong: Methodol­
ogy, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank Ministry of Science and Technology
(MOST), Taiwan for providing funding for this research under the grant
110-2637-E-027 -007.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130796.
References
Ansanelli, G., Fiorentino, G., Tammaro, M., Zucaro, A., 2021. A life cycle assessment of a
recovery process from end-of-life photovoltaic panels. Appl. Energy 290, 116727.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116727.
12
Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796
Aryan, V., Font-Brucart, M., Maga, D., 2018. A comparative life cycle assessment of end-
of-life treatment pathways for photovoltaic backsheets. Prog. Photovoltaics Res.
Appl. 26, 443–459. https://doi.org/10.1002/pip.3003.
Azeumo, M.F., Germana, C., Ippolito, N.M., Franco, M., Luigi, P., Settimio, S., 2019.
Photovoltaic module recycling, a physical and a chemical recovery process. Sol.
Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 193, 314–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solmat.2019.01.035.
Bagnall, D.M., Boreland, M., 2008. Photovoltaic technologies. Energy Pol. 36,
4390–4396.
Chen, W.-S., Chen, Y.-J., Lee, C.-H., Cheng, Y.-J., Chen, Y.-A., Liu, F.-W., Wang, Y.-C.,
Chueh, Y.-L., 2021. Recovery of valuable materials from the waste crystalline-silicon
photovoltaic cell and ribbon. Processes 9, 712. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9040712.
Chen, W.-S., Chen, Y.-J., Yueh, K.-C., Cheng, C.-P., Chang, T.-C., 2020. Recovery of
valuable metal from Photovoltaic solar cells through extraction. IOP Conf. Ser.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 720, 012007 https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/720/1/012007.
Chowdhury, M.S., Rahman, K.S., Chowdhury, T., Nuthammachot, N., Techato, K.,
Akhtaruzzaman, M., Tiong, S.K., Sopian, K., Amin, N., 2020. An overview of solar
photovoltaic panels’ end-of-life material recycling. Energy Strateg. Rev. 27, 100431
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2019.100431.
Chung, J., Seo, B., Lee, J., Kim, J.Y., 2021. Comparative analysis of I2-KI and HNO3
leaching in a life cycle perspective: towards sustainable recycling of end-of-life c-Si
PV panel. J. Hazard Mater. 404, 123989 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2020.123989.
Daljit Singh, J.K., Molinari, G., Bui, J., Soltani, B., Rajarathnam, G.P., Abbas, A., 2021.
Life cycle assessment of disposed and recycled end-of-life photovoltaic panels in
Australia. Sustainability 13, 11025. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131911025.
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.
Deng, R., Dias, P.R., Lunardi, M.M., Ji, J., 2021. A sustainable chemical process to recycle
end-of-life silicon solar cells. Green Chem. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1GC02263F.
Dias, P., Javimczik, S., Benevit, M., Veit, H., Bernardes, A.M., 2016. Recycling WEEE:
extraction and concentration of silver from waste crystalline silicon photovoltaic
modules. Waste Manag. 57, 220–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
WASMAN.2016.03.016.
Dias, P., Schmidt, L., Monteiro Lunardi, M., Chang, N.L., Spier, G., Corkish, R., Veit, H.,
2021. Comprehensive recycling of silicon photovoltaic modules incorporating
organic solvent delamination – technical, environmental and economic analyses.
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 165, 105241 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2020.105241.
Farrell, C., Osman, A.I., Zhang, X., Murphy, A., Doherty, R., Morgan, K., Rooney, D.W.,
Harrison, J., Coulter, R., Shen, D., 2019. Assessment of the energy recovery potential
of waste Photovoltaic (PV) modules. Sci. Rep. 9, 5267. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41598-019-41762-5.
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.
Huang, W.-H., Shin, W.J., Wang, L., Sun, W.-C., Tao, M., 2017. Strategy and technology
to recycle wafer-silicon solar modules. Sol. Energy 144, 22–31. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.SOLENER.2017.01.001.
IRENA, 2021a. Renewables 2021: Analysis and Forecast to 2026 [WWW Document].
URL. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=we
b&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjivsyJ8YX1AhWwr1YBHZEnCf4QFnoECAIQAQ&url=https
%3A%2F%2Fiea.blob.core.windows.net%2Fassets%2F5ae32253-7409-4f9a
-a91d-1493ffb9777a%2FRenewables2021-Analysisandforecastto2026.pdf&usg=A.
IRENA, 2021b. Renewable Capacity Statistics 2021 [WWW Document]. URL. http
s://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&u
act=8&ved=2ahUKEwjbjoeh8YX1AhXTslYBHQXeBRwQFnoECAMQAQ&url=https
%3A%2F%2Fwww.irena.org%2Fpublications%2F2021%2FMarch%2FRenewabl
e-Capacity-Statistics-2021&usg=AOvVaw0mxblaYMEmJxsjdnQU58. (Accessed 25
August 2021).
IRENA, IEA-PVPS, 2016. End-Of-Life Management: Solar Photovoltaic Panels [WWW
Document]. URL. https://www.irena.org/publications/2016/Jun/End-of-life-mana
gement-Solar-Photovoltaic-Panels. (Accessed 25 August 2021).
Jones, J.S., 2021. Blockchain For Solar Panel Recycling In Japan [WWW Document].
Smart Energy Int. URL. https://www.smart-energy.com/industry-sectors/new-tech
nology/blockchain-for-solar-panel-recycling-in-japan/. (Accessed 21 December
2021).
Jung, B., Park, J., Seo, D., Park, N., 2016. Sustainable system for raw-metal recovery
from crystalline silicon solar panels: from noble-metal extraction to lead removal.
ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 4, 4079–4083. https://doi.org/10.1021/
acssuschemeng.6b00894.
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.
Lunardi, M.M., Alvarez-Gaitan, J.P., Bilbao, J.I., Corkish, R., 2018. A review of recycling
processes for photovoltaic modules. In: Solar Panels and Photovoltaic Materials.
InTech. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.74390.
Luo, M., Liu, F., Zhou, Z., Jiang, L., Jia, M., Lai, Y., Li, J., Zhang, Z., 2021.
A comprehensive hydrometallurgical recycling approach for the environmental
impact mitigation of EoL solar cells. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 9, 106830 https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jece.2021.106830.
Mahmoudi, S., Huda, N., Behnia, M., 2020. Environmental impacts and economic
feasibility of end of life photovoltaic panels in Australia: a comprehensive
M.S.W. Lim et al.
assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 260, 120996 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JCLEPRO.2020.120996.
Majewski, P., Al-shammari, W., Dudley, M., Jit, J., Lee, S.-H., Myoung-Kug, K., Sung-
Jim, K., 2021. Recycling of solar PV panels- product stewardship and regulatory
approaches. Energy Pol. 149, 112062 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2020.112062.
Mulazzani, A., Eleftheriadis, P., Leva, S., 2021. Recycling of c-Si PV modules: an energy
analysis and further improvements. In: 2021 IEEE International Conference on
Environment and Electrical Engineering and 2021 IEEE Industrial and Commercial
Power Systems Europe (EEEIC/I&CPS Europe). IEEE, pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/
10.1109/EEEIC/ICPSEurope51590.2021.9584572.
Nover, J., Zapf-Gottwick, R., Feifel, C., Koch, M., Metzger, J.W., Werner, J.H., 2017.
Long-term leaching of photovoltaic modules. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 56, 08MD02
https://doi.org/10.7567/JJAP.56.08MD02.
Park, J., Kim, W., Cho, N., Lee, H., Park, N., 2016. An eco-friendly method for reclaimed
silicon wafers from a photovoltaic module: from separation to cell fabrication. Green
Chem. 18, 1706–1714.
Park, J., Park, N., 2014. Wet etching processes for recycling crystalline silicon solar cells
from end-of-life photovoltaic modules. RSC Adv. 4, 34823–34829. https://doi.org/
10.1039/C4RA03895A.
PV Cycle, n.d. Home - Solar Waste/European WEEE Directive [WWW Document]. PV
Cycle. URL http://www.solarwaste.eu/(accessed 12.27.2021).
Riech, I., Castro-Montalvo, C., Wittersheim, L., Giácoman-Vallejos, G., González-
Sánchez, A., Gamboa-Loira, C., Acosta, M., Méndez-Gamboa, J., 2021. Experimental
methodology for the separation materials in the recycling process of silicon
photovoltaic panels. Materials 14, 581. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14030581.
Rollet, C., Beetz, B., 2020. Recycling PV Panels: Why Can’t We Hit 100%? – Pv Magazine
International [WWW Document]. PV Mag. USA. URL. https://www.pv-magazine.
13
Journal of Cleaner Production 340 (2022) 130796
com/2020/08/26/recycling-pv-panels-why-cant-we-hit-100/. (Accessed 27
December 2021).
Rubino, A., Granata, G., Moscardini, E., Baldassari, L., Altimari, P., Toro, L.,
Pagnanelli, F., 2020. Development and techno-economic analysis of an advanced
recycling process for photovoltaic panels enabling polymer separation and recovery
of Ag and Si. Energies 13, 6690. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13246690.
Sun, Z., Xiao, Y., Sietsma, J., Agterhuis, H., Yang, Y., 2015. A cleaner process for selective
recovery of valuable metals from electronic waste of complex mixtures of end-of-life
electronic products. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 7981–7988. https://doi.org/
10.1021/acs.est.5b01023.
Tammaro, M., Salluzzo, A., Rimauro, J., Schiavo, S., Manzo, S., 2016. Experimental
investigation to evaluate the potential environmental hazards of photovoltaic panels.
J. Hazard Mater. 306, 395–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2015.12.018.
Tao, M., Fthenakis, V., Ebin, B., Steenari, B.M., Butler, E., Sinha, P., Corkish, R.,
Wambach, K., Simon, E.S., 2020. Major challenges and opportunities in silicon solar
module recycling. Prog. Photovoltaics Res. Appl. 28, 1077–1088. https://doi.org/
10.1002/PIP.3316.
Tao, M., Huang, W.-H., 2018. WO2017100443A1 - Recovery of Valuable or Toxic Metals
from Silicon Solar Cells - Google Patents.
Wesoff, E., Beetz, B., 2021. Solar Panel Recycling in the US — a Looming Issue that Could
Harm Industry Growth and Reputation – Pv Magazine USA [WWW Document]. PV
Mag. USA. URL. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2020/12/03/solar-panel-recycl
ing-in-the-us-a-looming-issue-that-could-harm-growth-and-reputation/. (Accessed
21 December 2021).
Wongnaree, N., Kritsarikun, W., Ma-ud, N., Kansomket, C., Udomphol, T., Khumkoa, S.,
2020. Recovery of silver from solar panel waste: an experimental study. Mater. Sci.
Forum 1009, 137–142. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/MSF.1009.137.