Análise prévia de frações de placas de circuito impresso de celulares para reciclagem
O lixo eletrônico gerado por telefones celulares tornou-se um grande problema. O consumo destes é crescente, o ciclo de vida deles é curto e os aparelhos, se não recebem destino adequado, acabam poluindo água e solos com metais nocivos ao homem e demais seres vivos. As placas de circuito impresso são os componentes dos celulares que contém maior quantidade de metais, e, portanto, de maior valor agregado, e sua reciclagem é feita no Brasil através de processos hidrometalúrgicos, que envolvem a cominuição das placas, a digestão das mesmas com ácidos e sua posterior recuperação através de técnicas eletrolíticas. O presente trabalho teve como objetivo analisar a composição das frações das placas após a cominuição, a fim de determinar quais são as reais concentrações dos metais ferro, chumbo, níquel, zinco e cobre, nas diferentes frações, através do uso da técnica de absorção atômica e com base nas análises determinar se e quais frações poderiam ser desprezadas ou consideradas pouco significativas.
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), (2004). The Life Cycle of a Mobile Phone, Solid
Waste and Emergency Response.
WU, et al. (2008). Assessment of toxicity potencial of metallic elements in discarded eletronics: A case
study of mobile phones in China. Journal of Environmental Science, 20, 1403-1408.
HAYES, P.C. Process Principles in Minerals and Materials Production. Hayes Publishing CO. p 29.
Brisbane, Australia, 1993.
FISHBEIN, B.K. Waste in wireless world, the challenge of cell phones. New York: INFORM Inc; 2002.
ZHANG, H-C. (2004) Printed Circuit Board Recycling: A State-of-the-Art-Survey. IEEE Transactions on Eletronics Packaging. Vol 27, n. 1, Janeiro de 2004.
Ethical guidelines for journal publication
The REMOA is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.