Recycling Disassembled Automotive Plastic Components for New Vehicle Components: Enabling the Automotive Circular Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the automotive industry increasingly relies on plastic components to meet fuel efficiency and emissions targets, the challenge of managing end-of-life vehicle (ELV) plastics continues to grow. Currently, more than 80% of ELV plastics in the U.S. are landfilled due to limited economic incentives and technical barriers to recycling. This study examines a mechanical recycling pathway for thermoplastic components disassembled from ELVs and assesses their usability for reintegration into new vehicle parts. Four representative materials were chosen based on material labels embedded in recovered parts and aligned with their virgin industrial equivalents: polypropylene (PP), 10% talc-filled PP (PP-T10), 20% talc-filled PP (PP-T20), and a 20% glass-/mineral-filled polyamide (PA6 + GF7 + MF13). The materials underwent shredding, drying, and injection molding before being characterized by particle size analysis, density measurement, thermal analysis (TGA, DSC), mechanical testing, and heat deflection temperature (HDT) evaluation. The results in this work indicated that minor differences in crystallinity were observed and small differences between model materials and ELV materials could have contributed to these changes. Mechanical testing revealed that neat polypropylene suffered a 15–20% reduction in stiffness and tensile strength, but talc-filled polypropylene and glass/mineral-filled nylon retained >90% of their modulus, strength, and heat deflection temperature values relative to virgin controls. Differences between virgin and ELV materials could have been attributed to use life degradation, contamination during use life, or even chemical/processing differences in model materials and ELV materials. However, these findings suggest that mechanically recycled, disassembled ELV plastics can retain sufficient structural performance to support circularity efforts in the automotive sector.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".