Using sieving and pretreatment to separate plastics during end-of-life vehicle recycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plastics continue to be a challenge for recovering materials at the end-of-life for vehicles. However, it may be possible to improve the recovery of plastics by exploiting material characteristics, such as shape, or by altering their behavior, such as through temperature changes, in relation to recovery processes and handling. Samples of a 2009 Dodge Challenger front fascia were shredded in a laboratory-scale hammer mill shredder. A 2 × 2 factorial design study was performed to determine the effect of sample shape (flat versus curved) and sample temperature (room temperature versus cryogenic temperature) on the size of the particles exiting from the shredder. It was determined that sample shape does not affect the particle size; however, sample temperature does affect the particle size. At cryogenic temperatures, the distribution of particle sizes is much narrower than at room temperature. Having a more uniform particle size could make recovery of plastic particles, such as these more efficient during the recycling of end-of-life vehicles. Samples of Chrysler minivan headlights were also shredded at room temperature and at cryogenic temperatures. The size of the particles of the two different plastics in the headlights is statistically different both at room temperature and at cryogenic temperature, and the particles are distributed narrowly. The research suggests that incremental changes in end-of-life vehicle processing could be effective in aiding materials recovery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".