Prediction of Thermogravimetric Data in the Thermal Recycling of e-waste Using Machine Learning Techniques: A Data-driven Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide The release of bromine-free hydrocarbons and gases is a major challenge faced in the thermal recycling of e-waste due to the corrosive effects of produced HBr. Metal oxides such as Fe 2 O 3 (hematite) are excellent debrominating agents, and they are copyrolyzed along with tetrabromophenol (TBP), a lesser used brominated flame retardant that is a constituent of printed circuit boards in electronic equipment. The pyrolytic (N 2 ) and oxidative (O 2 ) decomposition of TBP with Fe 2 O 3 has been previously investigated with thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) at four different heating rates of 5, 10, 15, and 20 °C/min, and the mass loss data between room temperature and 800 °C were reported. The objective of our paper is to study the effectiveness of machine learning (ML) techniques to reproduce these TGA data so that the use of the instrument can be eliminated to enhance the potential of online monitoring of copyrolysis in e-waste treatment. This will reduce experimental and human errors as well as improve process time significantly. TGA data are both nonlinear and multidimensional, and hence, nonlinear regression techniques such as random forest (RF) and gradient boosting regression (GBR) showed the highest prediction accuracies of 0.999 and lowest prediction errors among all the ML models employed in this work. The large data sets allowed us to explore three different scenarios of model training and validation, where the number of training samples were varied from 10,000 to 40,000 for both TBP and TBP + hematite samples under N 2 (pyrolysis) and O 2 (combustion) environments. The novelty of our study is that ML techniques have not been employed for the copyrolysis of these compounds, while the significance is the excellent potential of enhanced online monitoring of e-waste treatment and extension to other characterization techniques such as spectroscopy and chromatography. Lastly, e-waste recycling could greatly benefit from ML applications since it has the potential to reduce total and operational costs and improve overall process time and efficiency, thereby encouraging more treatment plants to adopt these techniques, resulting in reducing the increasing environmental footprint of e-waste.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".