Recovery of indium from LCD screens of discarded cell phones.

Advances in technological development have resulted in high consumption of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE), amongst which are cell phones, which have LCD (liquid crystal display) screens as one of their main components. These multilayer screens are composed of different materials, some with high added value, as in the case of the indium present in the form of indium tin oxide (ITO, or tin-doped indium oxide). Indium is a precious metal with relatively limited natural reserves (Dodbida et al., 2012), so it can be profitable to recover it from discarded LCD screens. The objective of this study was to develop a complete process for recovering indium from LCD screens. Firstly, the screens were manually removed from cell phones. In the next step, a pretreatment was developed for removal of the polarizing film from the glass of the LCD panels, because the adherence of this film to the glass complicated the comminution process. The choice of mill was based on tests using different equipment (knife mill, hammer mill, and ball mill) to disintegrate the LCD screens, either before or after removal of the polarizing film. In the leaching process, it was possible to extract 96.4 wt.% of the indium under the following conditions: 1.0M H2SO4, 1:50 solid/liquid ratio, 90°C, 1h, and stirring at 500 rpm. The results showed that the best experimental conditions enabled extraction of 613 mg of indium/kg of LCD powder. Finally, precipitation of the indium with NH4OH was tested at different pH values, and 99.8 wt.% precipitation was achieved at pH 7.4.

Regulation of the antibody response to sheep erythrocytes by monoclonal IgG antibodies.

Monoclonal antibodies directed against sheep erythrocytes of the isotypes IgG1, IgG2b and IgG2a were used to analyze the specificity of antibody-induced suppression of the immune response. It was first shown that all monoclonals reacted against different antigenic determinants and they all suppressed the immune response to sheep erythrocytes when given shortly after the antigen to more than 50% as compared to 90-96% inhibition obtained with a polyclonal antiserum. Increasing the doses of monoclonals did not increase suppression. However, two different monoclonals administered together caused an additive, but not a synergistic inhibitory effect. No enhancement of the immune response was observed with any of the Ig classes tested. These findings show that four different antigenic determinants on sheep erythrocytes induced the synthesis of corresponding antibodies, with little or no signs of a dominant determinant. Passively administered monoclonal antibodies, even at supraoptimal doses, never suppressed the immune response to the same extent as a polyclonal antiserum, suggesting that each monoclonal only suppressed the synthesis of the corresponding antibody and did not affect antibody synthesis to other determinants.