Minerals Engineering 173 (2021) 107186

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Minerals Engineering
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/mineng

Selection of process for aluminium separation from waste cables by TOPSIS

and WASPAS methods
Jovica Sokolović *, Dragiša Stanujkić , Zoran Štirbanović
University of Belgrade, Technical Faculty in Bor, V.J. 12, 19210 Bor, Serbia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The separation process, particularly gravity and electrostatic separation, is very important in the recycling
Recycling processing industry. Some characteristics of waste cable, as well as separation have a significant impact on the
Waste cable results and effects of aluminium recycling. At the same time, this process requires a significant amount of energy
Aluminum
which significantly affects the overall recycling costs. This paper focuses on the recycling of waste aluminum
MCDM
TOPSIS
cable by gravity and electrostatic separation. Experimental tests were performed on three different separators.
WASPAS Therefore, this paper presents the application of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods, combining
TOPSIS and AHP methods, as well as WASPAS and AHP methods, which should enable an efficient selection of
the separation process. Also, the impact of the criteria weights to the ranking order of alternatives was performed
in order to verify the obtained results. Results of all the studies presented in this paper show that a corona-
electrostatic separation process is the most acceptable process for waste aluminium cable recycling.

1. Introduction recycling of aluminium saves approximately 95% of the energy required

Aluminum is one of the most important metals used by modern so­
cieties with significant growth rates of global production and demands
experienced during last years. Based on International Aluminium Insti­
tute (IAI) data referring to 2017, the annual world production of
aluminium was 131.1 million tonnes (Mt). It was reported that 63.3 Mt
was primary aluminium produced by processing bauxite to alumina and
67.8 Mt was secondary aluminium. About 43% of the secondary
aluminium, i.e. 29.4 Mt was recovered from new and old scrap gener­
ated in the aluminium production process (IAI, 2017). Total recycled
aluminium worldwide is shown on Fig. 1 (Soo et al., 2019).
Recycling and waste prevention play a key role in aluminium in­
dustry and results in many economic and environmental benefits
(Gaustad et al., 2012).
Aluminium is one of the most recycled metal with high recycling
potential rate due to the energy savings and greenhouse gases (GHG)
emission savings (Norgate et al., 2007), the high economic value
(Blomberg and Söderholm, 2009), and the large-scale of scrap produced
(Logožar et al., 2006).
The recycling rate of aluminium has grown from 45% in 1980 to 69%
in 2019 (IAI, 2018). It is estimated that about 50% of aluminium will be
recycled by the year 2030 (Shamsudin et al., 2016). It is estimated that
for primary aluminium production and 97% of the greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions generated in the primary production process (IAI,
2009; Menzie et al., 2010). Based on the Bureau of International Recy­
cling (BIR), it has been reported that the production of one tonne of
aluminium from scrap requires only 12% of the energy required for
primary production (BIR, 2016).
The increasing demand of aluminium has led to the significant
growth of aluminium scrap (Soo et al., 2019). According to the Inter­
national Aluminium Institute (IAI), currently around 986.7 Mt of
aluminium products are in use and nearly 17 Mt of old aluminium scrap
is generated worldwide (IAI, 2018). It has been reported that by 2020
metal demand will increase to around 97 Mt (with around 31 Mt recy­
cled from scrap) (IAI, 2018).
The amount of aluminium produced from old scrap has grown from 1
Mt in 1980 to 20 Mt in 2019 (RWA, 2020). The International Aluminium
Institute (IAI, 2009) estimates that 612 Mt of the 800 Mt that has been
produced since the late 1800s remains in use today (OECD, 2015).
Currently, 33% of recycled aluminium produced from old scrap origi­
nates from transport, 26% from packaging, 13% from engineering and
cables, and 16% from building applications, due to their long lifetimes
(RWA, 2020).
Recycling of waste cables is widely utilized in the world. The amount

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: jsokolovic@tfbor.bg.ac.rs (J. Sokolović).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2021.107186
Received 16 June 2021; Received in revised form 31 August 2021; Accepted 2 September 2021
Available online 17 September 2021
0892-6875/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
J. Sokolović et al.
Fig. 1. Total recycled aluminium worldwide (Soo et al., 2019).
of aluminium waste cable has increased steadily in recent years. Ac­
cording to Bureau of International Recycling (BIR), in 1997 worldwide,
cables generated over one million tonnes of scrap metal (BIR, 2016). In
Germany, about 150.000 t of waste cable is generated annually (Celik
et al., 2019).
In recent years, various methods have been used for recycling of
waste cable to separate metals and non-metal. These methods include
the application of physical separation, such as gravity separation,
magnetic separation, corona-electrostatic separation, and Eddy current
separation (Veasey, 1993; Koyanaka et al., 1997; Svoboda, 2004; Gill,
2012; Gaustad et al., 2012; Kaya, 2016; Jordão et al, 2016; Pita and
Castilho, 2018). These methods are based on the differences of the
physical characteristics of materials such as density and electric
conductivity.
Gravity separation is a physical process based on the difference of
density of materials. Shaking table is one of separation device which is
used in wet or dry gravity separation. The principle of separation is the
motion of particles according to density and particle size moving in a
fluid. Particle separation occurs by the action of backwards and for­
wards motion (stroke) of the shaking table. Vertical stratification takes
place behind the riffles, with the finest and denser particles being at the
bottom, whereas the coarsest and least dense particles remain at the top.
Heavy particles are concentrated behind the riffles and move at the
upper part of the table, while light particles move downwards the incline
of the table (Pita and Castilho, 2018).
Air separation or air classification is a process of separating mixtures
of materials into two or more products on the basis of the velocity with
which the particles fall through the air as fluid medium. The centrifugal
force developed accelerates the settling rate of the particles, thereby
separating particles according to size and specific gravity (and shape)
(Gill, 2012).
Electrostatic separation is a dry separation process based on differ­
ences in the electrical conductivity of materials in an electric field. The
feed material flows to a grounded rotor, where the particles pass through
an electric field generated by the electrodes. Depending on the type of
electric field and charge, electric forces act on the charged particles.
Also, the centrifugal force of the rotor, together with the gravitational
and frictional forces, produce a differential motion that leads to the
separation of the conductive and non-conductive particles (Wills and
Finch, 2016). The efficiency of electrostatic separation is influenced by
many factors, such as: material properties, the particle size, the level of
high voltage, the electrode configuration, the feed rate, the roll speed,
and operation conditions (Li et al., 2007).
Electrostatic separation has been widely used for the separation of
primary as well as secondary materials such as printed circuit boards
(PCBs), cables, and plastics (Iuga et al., 1989; Haga et al., 1995; Saeki
et al., 2007; Veit et al, 2005; Li et al., 2007; Li et al., 2008; Stanojlović
et al., 2011; Dascalescu et al., 2016; Kaya, 2016; Salama et al, 2018).
2
Minerals Engineering 173 (2021) 107186
The recycling of aluminium waste cables has as main objective the
recovery of aluminium by different separation process. This paper fo­
cuses on the recycling of waste aluminium cable by gravity and elec­
trostatic separation. Experimental tests were performed on three
different separators. This study uses the Multiple Criteria Decision
Making (MCDM) method for the selection of best available separation
process for recycling of the waste aluminium cables.
Selection of appropriate separation process, as well as separation
device, is always difficult because there are a lot of aspects that need to
be taken into consideration such as technical, technological, economic
and ecological. The proposed model provides decision maker’s efficient
support in decision making process, since it takes all of influential pa­
rameters into consideration and on the basis of all of them selects the
best available separation process/ separation device.
2. Theory
2.1. MCDM method
Multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) can be defined as the
process of selecting one alternative, which most effectively meets the set
objectives, from a set of possible alternatives (Zeleny, 1982). It is a very
popular and commonly used method for selecting the most acceptable
alternative based on conditions that are stated using the criteria among
the sets of available alternatives (Stanujkic et al., 2014). A number of
MCDM methods have been proposed, such as SAW (MacCrimmon,
1968), TOPSIS (Hwang and Yoon, 1981), PROMETHEE (Brans and
Vincke,1985), ELECTRE (Roy, 1991), OCRA (Parkan, 1994), VIKOR
(Opricovic, 1998), COPRAS (Zavadskas et al., 1994), ARAS (Zavadskas
and Turskis, 2010), MULTIMOORA (Brauers and Zavadskas, 2010),
WASPAS (Zavadsak et al., 2012), KEMIRA (Krylovas et al., 2014), EDAS
(Keshavarz Ghorabaee et al., 2015), CoCoSo (Yazdani et al. 2018),
MACONT (Wen et al., 2020), MULTIMOOSTRAL (Ulutaş et al., 2021),
WISP (Stanujkic et al., 2021), and HEBIN method (Zavadskas et al.,
2021). All these methods have been used to solve various problems in
many different areas.
Over the last two decades considerable attention has been focused on
the development of MCDM methods and their application in the field of
mining and mineral processing (Alpay and Iphar, 2018; Baral et al.,
2014; Kostovic and Gligoric, 2015; Rahimdel and Ataei, 2014; Stanujkic
et al., 2014; Stirbanovic et al., 2013; Stirbanovic et al., 2019; Yavuz,
2016; Zavadskas et al., 2016; Popovic et al., 2020; Sitorus and Brito-
Parada, 2020). A comprehensive overview of MCDM methods widely
used in mining and mineral processing was presented by Sitorus et al.
2019. In recent years a number of MCDM methods have been extensively
used in the field of waste management and recycling (Antmann et al.,
2013; Gomes et al., 2008; Hanan et al., 2013; Hatami-Marbini et al.,
2013; Hung et al., 2007; Kim et al., 2013; Spengler et al., 1998; Vinodh
J. Sokolović et al. Minerals Engineering 173 (2021) 107186

et al., 2014; Wibowo and Deng, 2015; Yeh and Xu, 2013). where wj denotes weight of criterion j.
According to literature, all these examples show that MCDM methods Step 4: Calculate the closeness coefficient of each alternative to the
are very applicable for solving various problems in recycling. ideal and anti-ideal solution as follows:
Aluminium recycling has a number of key environmental and economic
benefits. Therefore, this paper presents the application of multiple d-
Ci = - i + , (6)
criteria decision making (MCDM) methods, combining TOPSIS and AHP d +d i i
methods, as well as WASPAS and AHP methods, which should enable an
efficient selection of the adequate waste aluminium cables separation where: and di- denotes separation measures of alternative i from the
di+
process. ideal and anti-ideal solution, respectively; Ci is the closeness coefficient
of alternative i to the ideal solution, and Ci ∊[0, 1].
2.2. TOPSIS method Step 5. Rank the alternatives and select the best one, which means
that the alternative with the higher value of the closeness coefficient is
TOPSIS method (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to more preferable.
Ideal Solution) was developed by Hwang Ching-Lai and Yoon in 1981
(Hwang and Yoon, 1981). TOPSIS method is used as an alternative to the 2.3. WASPAS method
ELECTRE method. TOPSIS is a practical and useful method for ranking
and selecting a number of available alternatives by measuring Euclidean The Weighted Aggregates Sum Product Assessment (WASPAS)
distances (Sianaki, 2015). This method analyzes the distances from the method, proposed by Zavadskas et al. (2012), is based on the integration
ideal and anti-ideal solution. The ideal solution maximizes the beneficial of weighted sum method and weighted product method.
criteria and minimizes the non-beneficial criteria, whereas a negative The procedure for solving multi-criteria decision-making problem
anti-ideal solution maximizes the non-beneficial criteria and minimizes that contain m alternatives and n criteria using WASPAS method can be
the beneficial criteria or attributes. “Ideal” is an alternative that has the concisely presented using the following steps:
minimum distance in relation to the ideal solution and the greatest Step 1. Determine the optimal performance rating for each criterion
distance in relation to anti-ideal solution. x0j, as follows:
The first condition is that the chosen alternative has the smallest {
maxi xij ; j ∈ Ωmax
Euclidean distance from the ideal solution, in the geometric sense, and x0j = , (7)
mini xij ; j ∈ Ωmin
the second is that at the same time it has the largest distance from the
anti-ideal solution. Sometimes an alternative, which has a minimum Step 2. Calculate the normalized ratings, as follows:
Euclidean distance from the ideal solution, could have a shorter distance ⎧x
ij
⎪
to the anti-ideal solution than other alternatives. ⎨ x0j ; j ∈ Ωmax
⎪
The first step in solving a decision-making problem using multi- rij = , (8)
⎪
⎪ x0j
criteria analysis is the identification of evaluation criteria, as well as ⎩ ; j ∈ Ωmin
xij
the determination of their significance. Determining the weights of the
criteria is one of the key problems that arises in the multi-criteria Step 3. Calculate the relative importance Qi(1), based on weighted
analysis. Based on the study of available literature, it can be sum method, as follows:
concluded that there is no single division of methods for determining the ∑
n
criteria weights. Qi =
(1)
rij wj , (9)
According to Hwang and Yoon (1981), the procedure for solving j=1

multi-criteria decision-making problem that contain m alternatives and Step 4. Calculate the relative importance Qi(2), based on weighted
n criteria can be concisely presented using the following steps: product method, as follows:
Step 1. Calculate the normalized decision matrix. The normalized ∏n ( )wj
rating rij is calculated as follows: (2)
Qi = rij , (10)
j=1
xij
rij = ( ∑n ) (1) Step 5. Calculate the total relative importance Qi, for each alterna­
2 1/2
i=1 xij tive, as follows:

where xij denotes a rating of alternative i to the criterion j. Qi = 0.5Q(1) (2)

i + 0.5Qi , (11)
Step 2. Determine the ideal A+ and negative ideal A- solution as
Step 5. Rank the alternatives and select the best one, which means
follows:
that the alternative with the higher value of the total relative importance
{ } {( ) ( )}
A+ = r1+ , r2+ , ⋯, rn+ = maxi rij |j ∈Ωmax , mini rij |j ∈Ωmin , (2) is more preferable.
{ } {( ) ( )}
A− = r1− , r2− , ⋯, rn− = mini rij |j ∈Ωmax , maxi rij |j ∈Ωmin , (3) 2.4. AHP method

where: rj+ denotes coordinate j of ideal point, rj- denotes coordinate j of The selection of criteria, relative criteria weights, and performance
anti-ideal point, Ωmax and Ωmin denote sets of beneficial and non- ratings are very important in MCDM models. Evaluation criteria have
beneficial criteria, respectively. great significance in MCDM models.
Step 3: Calculate the separation measures using the n-dimensional Several methods can be used to determine the criteria weights, such
Euclidean distance. The separation measures of each alternative from as: the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method (Saaty, 1980), the
the positive ideal solution and the negative-ideal solution, respectively, Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) method (Ker­
are determined as follows: šuliene et al., 2010), the Best Worst Method (BWM) (Rezai, 2015), the
{ [ ( )2 ] }1/2
∑n Pivot Pairwise Relative Criteria Importance Assessment (PIPRECIA)
d+i = j=1 wj rij − rj
+
, and (4) method (Stanujkic et al., 2017), and the FUll COnsistency Method
{ } (FUCOM) (Pamucar et al., 2018).
n [ (
∑ )2 ] 1/2 The AHP method is one of the most frequently used methods for
di− = wj rij − rj− , (5) calculating criteria weights, which is why it was used in this study. The
j=1
procedure for determining the criteria weights using the AHP method

3
J. Sokolović et al. Minerals Engineering 173 (2021) 107186

Table 1
Scale of relative importance for pairwise comparison (Saaty, 1980).
Importance Definition

1 Equal importance Table 4

3 Moderate importance Normalized decision matrix.
5 Strong importance Alternatives Criteria
7 Very strong importance
9 Extreme importance C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
2, 4, 6, 8 For interpolation between the above values max max max min max min min

A1 0.35 0.35 0.58 0.99 0.21 0.01 0.04

A2 0.68 0.68 0.58 0.01 0.64 0.09 0.20
A3 0.65 0.64 0.57 0.15 0.74 1.00 0.98

Table 2
Initial decision matrix.
Criteria for selection of Mass Metal (aluminium) The content of aluminium in The content of Capacity Specified Price of
separation process recovery (C1) recovery (C2) the final concentrate (C3) aluminium in the tailings (C5) power (C6) device (C7)
(C4)

Unit % % % % kg/h KW €
Shaking table 27.25 50.86 99.79 34.73 100 0.25 11,650
Electrostatic separator 52.38 99.78 99.99 0.41 300 1.9 60,000
Air separator 50.02 94.33 98.74 5.34 350 22 300,000

Defining the MCDM problem

Identification of applicable
separation procedures

Selection of evaluation criteria

AHP
Formation of the initial decision Determining the criteria weights

TOPSIS
Evaluation and ranking WASPAS
Secondary evaluation and ranking

Sensitivity analysis of
the proposed model

Analysis of result and final selection

of the separation procedure

Fig. 2. Evaluation of separation procedures.

Table 3
The pairwise comparison matrix and weights of the criteria.
Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 Sum Weighting coefficients wj

C1 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 0.202

C2 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 0.202
C3 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 5.00 0.084
C4 0.33 0.33 1.00 1.00 0.33 0.33 0.33 5.00 0.084
C5 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 0.202
C6 1.00 1.00 3.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 0.190
C7 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.33 0.20 1.00 0.036
Total 29.00 1.000

4
J. Sokolović et al. Minerals Engineering 173 (2021) 107186

Table 5 Table 9
Ideal A+ and anti-ideal A- solution. Weighted normalized decision matrix.
Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 Criteria
max max max min max min min
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7
A+ 0.135 0.136 0.046 0.001 0.148 0.002 0.002
Weights 0.202 0.202 0.084 0.084 0.202 0.190 0.036
A- 0.070 0.069 0.046 0.079 0.042 0.189 0.039
Alternatives
A1 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.00
A2 0.14 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.13 0.02 0.01
A3 0.13 0.13 0.05 0.01 0.15 0.19 0.04
Table 6 ∑m
0.34 0.34 0.15 0.10 0.32 0.21 0.04
i=1 wj ∙rij
Distances di+ and di-, relative closeness to the ideal solution Ci, and ranking
order.
Alternatives di+ di- Ci Rank for any i > j.
A1 0.16 0.19 0.54 2
Table 1 shows the nine point pairwise comparison scale (Saaty, 1980,
A2 0.03 0.23 0.90 1 2008), used for pairwise comparisons and translation from linguistic
A3 0.19 0.15 0.44 3 terms into corresponding numerical values.
Step 2. Calculate the criteria weights. The criteria weights can be
calculated as follows:
Table 7 1∑n a
wi = ∑ ij , (13)
Normalized decision matrix using WASPAS method. n j=0 ni=1 aij
Alternatives Criteria

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 3. Material and methods

A1 0.52 0.51 1.00 0.01 0.29 1.00 1.00
A2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.86 0.13 0.19 3.1. Material
A3 0.95 0.95 0.99 0.08 1.00 0.01 0.04
Sampling of waste cables from the landfill was carried out at TF
Kable - Cable factory Zajecar. Waste aluminium cables insulated and
Table 8 sheathed with polyvinylchloride (PVC) and rubber infill, type PPOO-A-
Relative importance Qi(1), Qi(2), Qi and ranking order obtained using WASPAS Y-4x16, were used for laboratory and industrial testing. The maximum
method. size of the particles in the sample was 4 mm. The average content of
Relative importance Total relative importance
metals (aluminium) was 52.50%.

Alternatives Qi(1) Qi(2) Qi Rank

A1 0.57 3.42 0.50 2 3.2. Methods

A2 0.76 0.62 0.69 1
A3 0.67 0.30 0.48 3 This paper focuses on the recycling of waste aluminium cable by
gravity and electrostatic separation.
Experimental tests were performed on three different separators such
1.0 as: shaking table, corona-electrostatic separator, and air separator.
0.9 A laboratory shaking table model 13A was used for gravity separa­
tion tests. It was used for treatment of raw material up to 6 mm. Water
0.8
consumption was 0–15 l/min. Power el. engine was 0.26 kW.
0.7
Table dimensions were the following: width 1350 / 1480 mm and length
0.6 1778 mm. Capacity was 50 kg per hour.
Importance

0.5 The “ERIEZ” laboratory high-voltage electrostatic separator model

0.4 ESP-14/01S was used for electrostatic separation tests. The separator is
0.3 equipped with a 355 mm diameter roll. The roll speed (from 0 to 300
TOPSIS rpm) can be controlled via a VFC motor controller. The separator in­
0.2
cludes many design features to facilitate laboratory test setup as well as
0.1 WASPAS
easy maintenance. The separator utilizes brush system for mechanical
0.0 removal of nonconductive material that adheres to the roll surface. The
A1 A2 A3
tension of the brush against the roll can be adjusted by positioning of the
Alternatives sample hopper. The overall dimensions of the device are: 1219 × 1372
Fig. 3. The ranking order of alternatives achieved by applying the TOPSIS and × 1219 mm. Capacity is 300 kg per hour (Eriez Magnetics, 2009).
WASPAS methods. A Guidetti Sincro 530 shredder wire and cable processing systems
was used to process waste aluminium cables in the recycling company
“Jugoimpex Nis”. The main parts were: shredder, vibrating dry sepa­
can be presented as follows:
rating table, pneumatic conveyor to transport granulated material to the
Step 1. Construct a pairwise comparison matrix. For a decision
separator, and suction plant with de-dusting filter with closed circuit (no
making problem that contains n criteria, the process of determining the
emissions into the atmosphere). Technical data were following: Lenght
criteria weights begins by forming a reciprocal square matrix:
[ ] 2300 mm, Width 1500 mm, and Height 3400 mm; Weight of the ma­
A = aij nxn , (12) chine: 1.864 kg; Capacity: 300–400 kg/h (input material - with standard
cable as per Guidetti sample); Total installed power: 22 kW; Feeding
where aij denotes a relative importance of criterion i in relation to
tension: 400 V − 50 Hz; Granulator with 3 rotating and 2 fix counter-
criterion j. In the matrix A, aij = 1 when i = j and aji = 1/ aij.
blades (total length 500 mm). The Sincro granulator can be fed manu­
The values of aij are chosen from nine point scale, shown in Table 1,
ally or automatically with the addition of a conveyor belt according to

5
J. Sokolović et al. Minerals Engineering 173 (2021) 107186

Table 10
Ranking results achieved by varying criteria weights and TOPSIS method.
Weights

0.7 wj 0.8 wj 0.9 wj wj 1.1 wj 1.2 wj 1.3 wj

Ci Rank Ci Rank Ci Rank Ci Rank Ci Rank Ci Rank Ci Rank

A1 0.54 2 0.54 2 0.53 2 0.52 2 0.55 2 0.55 2 0.55 2

A2 0.90 1 0.90 1 0.90 1 0.90 1 0.90 1 0.90 1 0.90 1
A3 0.44 3 0.45 3 0.45 3 0.46 3 0.43 3 0.43 3 0.44 3

as follows: mass recovery (C1), metal (aluminium) recovery (C2), the

1.0 content of aluminium in the concentrate (quality) (C3), the content of
0.9 aluminium in the tailings (C4), capacity (C5), specified power (C6) and
0.8 price of device (C7).
0.7
4. Results and discussion
0.6
Importance

0.5 Mass and metal recovery, as well as the contents of aluminium in the
0.4 final product of separation (concentrate and tailings) were obtained
experimentally on the electrostatic separator (Stojanović, 2014), as well
0.3
as shaking table and industrial plant with air separator.
0.2 The total data for all three separators are shown in the initial
0.1
A1 A2 A3 decision-matrix given in Table 2.
0.0 The values of criteria C1 ÷ C4, shown in Table 2, were obtained on
0.7 w 0.8 w 0.9 w w 1.1 w 1.2 w 1.3 w the basis of a number of conducted experiments.
Weights of criteria The remaining part of the procedure for selecting the separation
procedure is shown on Fig. 2.
Fig. 4. The ranking order of alternatives obtained by applying the TOPSIS This selection procedure can be summarized by applying the
method and different criteria weights. following steps:

end user’s requirements. Available in 3 different models with a pro­ - Step 1. Determining the criteria weights
duction capacity range from 150 to 1100 kg/h, input. The SINCRO series - Step 2. Evaluation using the TOPSIS method
offers the best performances ever, in terms of energetic consumption and - Step 3. Additional evaluation using the WASPAS method
maintaining costs per kg of metal recovered. - Step 4. Sensitivity analysis of the proposed model
In laboratory tests, product quality (aluminium content in %) was - Step 5. Analysis and selection of the most suitable separation
determined by float-sink analysis, while mass and metal (aluminium) procedure
recovery in separation products were calculated using the following
forms:
K 4.00
Im = ⋅100\% (14)
U 3.90
3.80
K⋅k
IAI = ⋅100\% (15) 3.70
U⋅u
3.60
Importance

where: 3.50
Im - mass recovery (%); 3.40
IAl - metal (aluminium) recovery (%);
3.30
K - mass of concentrate (kg);
3.20
U - total mass of sample (kg);
k - content of metal (aluminium) in the concentrate (%); 3.10
A1 A2 A3
u - average content of metal (aluminium) in the sample (%); 3.00
0.7 w 0.8 w 0.9 w w 1.1 w 1.2 w 1.3 w
Weights of criteria
3.3. Criteria for selection
Fig. 5. The ranking order of alternatives obtained by applying the WASPAS
method and different criteria weights.
The main criteria used in the separation process of waste cable were

Table 11
Ranking results achieved by varying criteria weights and WASPAS method.
Weights

0.7 wj 0.8 wj 0.9 wj wj 1.1 wj 1.2 wj 1.3 wj

Ci Rank Ci Rank Ci Rank Ci Rank Ci Rank Ci Rank Ci Rank

A1 3.39 2 3.40 2 3.40 2 3.40 2 3.40 3 3.40 3 3.40 3

A2 3.67 1 3.67 1 3.68 1 3.68 1 3.73 1 3.73 1 3.74 1
A3 3.37 3 3.38 3 3.38 3 3.39 3 3.44 2 3.44 2 3.45 2

6
J. Sokolović et al. Minerals Engineering 173 (2021) 107186

Table 12
Modified decision matrix.
Separator C1 C2 C3 Criteria C4 C5 C6 C7

Shaking table 27.25 50.86 99.79 34.73 100 0.25 11,650

Electrostatic separator (the worst values) 46.04 88.36 99.52 23.98 300 1.9 60,000
Air separator 50.02 94.33 98.74 5.34 350 22 300,000

It should be noted that the difference between the second and third
Table 13 placed alternatives is very small in the case of ranking based on the
Ranking orders obtained using TOPSIS and WASPAS method. TOPSIS method, i.e. A1 = 0.54 versus A3 = 0.44. According to experts’
Alternatives Ci Rank Qi Rank opinions who were involved in selection of the most appropriate sepa­
ration process, the obtained ranking order realistically reflects their
A1 0.56 2 0.56 2
A2 0.82 1 0.60 1
applicability.
A3 0.44 3 0.57 3 These results are completely justified by the application of an elec­
trostatic separation process in the recycling of aluminium cables and
they agree with the results of the authors who have studied this problem
(Tilmatine et al., 2009; Richard et al., 2017; Salama et al., 2018;
1.0
Bedeković and Trbović, 2020).
0.9
Step 3. Evaluation using the WASPAS method. In the next step, an
0.8 additional evaluation was done using the WASPAS method, detailed in
0.7 subsection 2.3. The calculation details, obtained using the WASPAS
0.6 method, are summarized in Tables 7 and 8.
Importance

The normalized decision matrix, shown in Table 7, was also formed

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
A1 A2
Alternatives
Fig. 6. Ranking results obtained on the basis of modified data.
Step 1. Determining the criteria weights. The criteria weights was
determined using the AHP method, described in subsection 2.4. The
pairwise comparison matrix and weights of the criteria, obtained using
Eq. (13), are shown in Table 3.
Step 2. Evaluation using the TOPSIS method. In the next step, an
evaluation was performed using the TOPSIS method, detailed in sub­
section 2.2. The calculation procedure is summarized in Tables 4, 5 and
6.
The normalized decision matrix, shown in Table 4, was formed based
on the data from Table 2, by using Eq. (1).
After that, the ideal and anti-ideal solution were determined by using
Eq. (2) and Eq. (3). The ideal and anti-ideal solution are shown in
Table 5.
Table 6 shows the distances di+ and di- and relative closeness of al­
ternatives to the ideal solution, Ci, which were calculated using Eqs. (4),
(5), and (6). Table 6 also shows the ranking order of alternatives.
For a moderate decision makers’ attitude, the considered separation
processes had the following ranking order A2 > A1 > A3.
As shown in Table 7, the alternative A2, i.e. a corona-electrostatic
separation process is probably the most acceptable solution for the
waste cable processing. For a moderate and optimistic decision maker
altitude this alternative has the highest rank.
based on the data from Table 2. However, in this case, Eq. (8) was used
for normalization, instead of Eq. (1) applied by the TOPSIS method. The
remaining calculation details obtained using Eqs. (9), (10) and (11) are
TOPSIS summarized in Table 8.
WASPAS The ranking order of alternatives achieved by applying the TOPSIS
and WASPAS methods are also shown in Fig. 3.
A3 The dominance of alternatives A2 in relation to the other two alter­
natives can be clearly observed from Fig. 3, where the dominance is
especially pronounced in the case of using the TOPSIS method.
5. Sensitivity analysis of the proposed MCDM model
In this section, three analyses were performed in order to verify the
obtained results. In the first analysis a variation of the weights of the
criteria was performed in order to check the stability of the proposed
MCDM model. In the second analysis a recalculation was performed
using the worst performance of alternative A2 obtained during the ex­
periments, while the performance of alternatives A1 and A3 remained
unchanged. Finally, in the third analysis, a comparison of the obtained
results with the results obtained using several characteristic MCDM
methods was performed.
5.1. Influence of weight on model stability
In order to verify the obtained results, the impact of the criteria
weights to the ranking order of alternatives was investigated in this sub-
section and the results are presented below.
From Tables 4 and 9, it can be concluded that criteria C1, C2, and C5
are the most significant, followed by criterion C6. From the weighted
normalized decision matrix, shown in Table 9, it can be seen that criteria
C1 and C2 are the most influential on the selection of the most acceptable
alternative because they have the largest sums of weighted normalized
ratings.

Table 14
Ranking results obtained using SAW, VIKOR and CoCoSo methods.
TOPSIS WASPAS SAW VIKOR CoCoSo

Alternatives Ci Rank Qi Rank Ci Rank Ci Rank Ci Rank

A1 0.54 2 0.49 2 0.58 3 1.00 3 1.44 3

A2 0.90 1 0.70 1 0.78 1 0.00 1 3.64 1
A3 0.45 3 0.49 3 0.68 2 0.70 2 2.25 2

7
J. Sokolović et al.
Therefore, the weights of criterion C1 were chosen for analysis, and
its weight was varied from − 30% to + 30%, with a step of 10%,
whereby the weights of the other criteria were scaled to satisfy the
condition that the sum of these weights should be 1. The results obtained
by using the modified weights are shown in Table 10 and on Fig. 4.
As can be seen from the above mentioned table and figure the vari­
ation of criteria weights did not affect the ranking order of alternatives.
Identical analysis was performed using the WASPAS method. Ob­
tained results are shown in Table 11 and on Fig. 5.
From Tables 10 and 11, as well as Figs. 2 and 3, it can be concluded
that the variation of criteria weight did not have a significant impact on
the evaluation of alternatives and that the variation slightly affected the
ranking order of alternatives in the case of using WASPAS method.
5.2. Influence of worst ratings on model stability
In order to further consider the level of dominance of the alternative
A2 a recalculation was performed in which the worst values achieved
during the experiments were assigned to the criteria C1 ÷ C4 of alter­
native A2. The modified decision matrix is shown in Table 12.
The results obtained using the TOPSIS and WASPAS methods are
summarized in Table 13 and Fig. 6.
The repeated calculation also confirmed the dominance of the
alternative denoted as A2, i.e. corona-electrostatic separation process, in
relation to other alternatives, with the dominance being significantly
more pronounced in the case of applying the TOPSIS method.
5.3. Comparison of the results with the results obtained using selected
MCDM methods
In order to confirm the results obtained by using TOPSIS and WAS­
PAS methods, they were compared with the results obtained by using
some selected MCDM methods: SAW, VIKOR, and CoCoSo. These
methods were chosen because they have different calculation proced­
ures and use different normalization procedures. The obtained results
are shown in Table 14.
This comparison also showed that alternatives A1 is the most
appropriate alternative, and that differences occur in the second and
third-ranked alternatives.
The discrepancy in the rankings of the lower-ranked alternatives, i.e.
alternatives A1 and A3 in this case, arises due to different calculation and
normalization procedures used in applied MCDM methods, as well as a
certain ratio of criteria weights. A certain change in the weight of the
criteria could give the same ranking order using all MCDM methods,
which was previously proven in subsection 5.1. Influence of weight on
model stability.
6. Conclusion
Recycling of aluminium waste cable will be among the most
important activities of aluminium industry in the future. The selection of
a separation process is very important and it is also a very complex
problem.
This article focuses on the recycling of waste aluminium cable from
TF Kable - Cable factory Zajecar, Serbia by gravity and electrostatic
separation. Experimental tests were performed on three different sepa­
rators: air separator, shaking table, and corona-electrostatic separator.
This paper compares different separators for the separation of waste
aluminium cables using MCDM methods.
The study is based on the application of two well-known and
frequently used MCDM methods, TOPSIS and AHP, and a more recent
method, but also a significant and frequently used, WASPAS method. In
the proposed approach, the AHP method was used to determine the
significance of the criteria, while the TOPSIS and WASPAS methods
were used to evaluate the alternatives. In addition to significant differ­
ences in calculation procedures using TOPSIS and WASPAS methods,
8
Minerals Engineering 173 (2021) 107186
these methods gave similar ranking results.
Results of the study given in this article, show that MCDM methods,
combining TOPSIS and AHP methods, as well as WASPAS and AHP
methods, can be successfully used for selection of separation process for
waste cable recycling. It should be noted that the criteria weights have a
significant influence on the selection of the most acceptable solutions.
Therefore, as shown in Table 7, the alternative A2, i.e. a corona-
electrostatic separation process is the most acceptable process solution
for the aluminium recycling of waste cable.
The proposed approach is based on the application of crisp numbers,
and this can be considered as a limitation of the proposed approach.
Therefore, the extension of the proposed approach in terms of the
application of fuzzy, Pythagorean fuzzy, or neutrosophic sets is imposed
as one of the directions of future development of the proposed model.
Also, an extension of the proposed model with several MCDM methods,
for ranking alternatives, and comparison of obtained results can be
mentioned as another directions of future development of the proposed
approach.
Uncited references
Bureau of International Recycling (BIR) (2016), International
Aluminium Institute (2009), International Aluminium Institute (2018a),
International Aluminium Institute (2018b), Kostović and Gligorić
(2015), Popović et al. (2020), Rezaei (2015), Saeki and Masumoto
(2007), Zackrisson (2013).
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Jovica Sokolović: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation,
Resources, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Super­
vision, Project administration. Dragiša Stanujkić: Methodology, Soft­
ware, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Zoran Štirbanović: Visualization, Writing – original draft,
Writing – review & editing, Supervision.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The research presented in this paper was done with the financial
support of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological
Development of the Republic of Serbia, within the funding of the sci­
entific research work at the University of Belgrade, Technical Faculty in
Bor, according to the contract with registration number 451-03-68/
2020-14/ 200131.
References
Alpay, S., Iphar, M., 2018. Equipment selection based on two different fuzzy multi
criteria decision making methods: Fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy VIKOR. Open Geosci. 10,
661–677. https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2018-0053.
Antmann, E.D., Shi, X., Celik, N., Dai, Y., 2013. Continuous-discrete simulation-based
decision making framework for solid waste management and recycling programs.
Comput. Ind. Eng. 65, 438–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie. 2013.03.010.
Baral, S.S., Shekar, K.R., Sharma, M., Rao, P.V., 2014. Optimization of leaching
parameters for the extraction of rare earth metal using decision making method.
Hydrometallurgy 143, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hydromet.2014.01.006.
Bedeković, G., Trbović, R., 2020. Electrostatic separation of aluminium from residue of
electric cables recycling process. Waste Manage. 108, 21–27. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2020.04.033.
Blomberg, J., Söderholm, P., 2009. The economics of secondary aluminium supply: An
econometric analysis based on European data. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 53,
455–463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.03.001.
Brans, J.P., Vincke, P.A., 1985. Preference ranking organization method: The
PROMETHEE method for MCDM. Manage. Sci. 31 (6), 647–656.
J. Sokolović et al.
Brauers, W.K.M., Zavadskas, E.K., 2010. Project management by MULTIMOORA as an
instrument for transition economies. Technol. Econ. Dev. Eco. 16 (1), 5–24. https://
doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.01.
Bureau of International Recycling (BIR), Report on the Environmental Benefits of
Recycling, 2016 edition, Available at: https://www.bir.org/publications/facts-
figures/ download/ 172/ 174/ 36? method=view.
Celik, C., Arslan, C., Arslan, F., 2019. Recycling of waste electrical cables. Material Sci &
Eng. 3 (4), 107-111. 10.15406/mseij.2019.03.00099.
Dascalescu, L., Zeghloul, T., Iuga, A., 2016. Electrostatic separation of metals and plastics
from waste electrical and electronic equipment. In WEEE Recycling (pp. 75-106).
Elsevier. 10.1016/j.procir.2016.01.117.
Eriez Magnetics, 2009. Laboratory electrosatic separator, Model ES-14-01S, Instalation,
operation and maintance instructions.
Gaustad, G., Olivetti, E., Kirchain, R., 2012. Improving aluminum recycling: A survey of
sorting and impurity removal technologies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 58, 79–87.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2011.10.010.
Gill, C.B., 2012. Materials beneficiation. Springer Science & Business Media.
Gomes, C.F.S., Nunes, K.R.A., Helena Xavier, L., Cardoso, R., Valle, R., 2008.
Multicriteria decision making applied to waste recycling in Brazil. Omega 36,
395–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2006.07.009.
Haga, K., Chang, J.S., Kelly, A.J., Crowley, J.M., 1995. Applications of the electrostatic
separation technique. In: Handbook of Electrostatic Processes. Marcel Dekker, New
York, pp. 365–386.
Hanan, D., Burnley, S., Cooke, D., 2013. A multi-criteria decision analysis assessment of
waste paper management options. Waste Manage. 33, 566–573. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2012.06.007.
Hatami-Marbini, A., Tavana, M., Moradi, M., Kangi, F., 2013. A fuzzy group Electre
method for safety and health assessment in hazardous waste recycling facilities.
Safety Science 51, 414–426. 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.08.015 http://recycling.world-
aluminium.org/review/global-metal-flow/.
Hung, M.L., Ma, H. wen, Yang, W.F., 2007. A novel sustainable decision making model
for municipal solid waste management. Waste Manage. 27, 209–219. 10.1016/j.
wasman.2006.01.008.
Hwang, C.L., Yoon, K., 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and
Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-
48318-9.
International Aluminium Institute, 2009. Global Aluminium recycling: A Cornerstone of
sustainable Development, 2009. Available at: http://www.world-aluminium.org/
cache/fl0000181.pdf.
International Aluminium Institute, 2018. Global Aluminium Flow Model – 2017,
Available at: http://www.world-aluminium.org/publications/tagged/mass%
20flow/.
International Aluminium Institute, 2018. Global metal flow. Available at:.
Iuga, A., Dǎscǎlescu, L., Morar, R., Csorvassy, I., Neamiu, V., 1989. Corona-electrostatic
separators for recovery of waste non-ferrous metals. J. Electrostat. 23, 235–243.
Jordão, H., Sousa, A.J., Carvalho, M.T., 2016. Optimization of wet shaking table process
using response surface methodology applied to the separation of copper and
aluminum from the fine fraction of shredder ELVs. Waste Manage. 48, 366–373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.10.006.
Kaya, M., 2016. Recovery of metals and nonmetals from electronic waste by physical and
chemical recycling processes. Waste Manage. 57, 64–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2016.08.004.
Keršuliene, V., Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., 2010. Selection of rational dispute resolution
method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA).
J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 11 (2), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12.
Keshavarz Ghorabaee, M., Zavadskas, E.K., Olfat, L., Turskis, Z., 2015. Multi-criteria
inventory classification using a new method of evaluation based on distance from
average solution (EDAS). Informatica, 26(3), 435-451. 10.15388/
Informatica.2015.57.
Kim, M., Jang, Y.C., Lee, S., 2013. Application of Delphi-AHP methods to select the
priorities of WEEE for recycling in a waste management decision-making tool.
J. Environ. Manage. 128, 941–948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2013.06.049.
Kostović, M., Gligorić, Z., 2015. Multi-criteria decision making for collector selection in
the flotation of lead–zinc sulfide ore. Miner. Eng. 74, 142–149. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mineng.2014.07.019.
Koyanaka, S., Ohya, H., Endoh, S., Iwata, H., Ditl, P., 1997. Recovering copper from
electric cable wastes using a particle shape separation technique. Adv. Powder
Technol. 8 (2), 103–111.
Krylovas, A., Zavadskas, E.K., Kosareva, N., Dadelo, S., 2014. New KEMIRA method for
determining criteria priority and weights in solving MCDM problem. Int. J. Inf.
Technol. Decis. Mak. 13 (06), 1119–1133. https://doi.org/10.1142/
S0219622014500825.
Li, J., Lu, H., Xu, Z., Zhou, Y., 2008. A model for computing the trajectories of the
conducting particles from waste printed circuit boards in corona electrostatic
separators. J. Hazard. Mater. 151 (1), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhazmat.2007.05.045.
Li, J., Xu, Z., Zhou, Y., 2007. Application of corona discharge and electrostatic force to
separate metals and nonmetals from crushed particles of waste printed circuit
boards. J. Electrostat. 65 (4), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
elstat.2006.08.004.
Logožar, K., Radonjič, G., Bastič, M., 2006. Incorporation of reverse logistics model into
in-plant recycling process: A case of aluminium industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
49 (1), 49–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2006.03.008.
9
Minerals Engineering 173 (2021) 107186
MacCrimmon, K.R., 1968. Decision making among multiple-attribute alternatives: a
survey and consolidated approach, No. RM-4823-ARPA. RAND Corporation, Santa
Monica.
Menzie, W.D., Barry, J.J., Bleiwas, D.I., Bray, E.L., Goonan, T.G., Matos, G., 2010. The
global flow of aluminum from 2006 through 2025. US Department of the Interior, US
Geological Survey. Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1256/pdf/ofr2010-
1256old.pdf.
Norgate, T.E., Jahanshahi, S., Rankin, W.J., 2007. Assessing the environmental impact of
metal production processes. J. Clean. Prod. 15 (8–9), 838–848. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2006.06.018.
OECD, 2015. Organization for Economic and Developmennt (OECD), Material resources,
productivity and the environment, OECD Green Growth Studies, OECD Publishing,
Paris, Available online at: 10.1787/9789264190504-en.
Opricovic, S., 1998. Multicriteria Optimization of Civil Engineering Systems. Faculty of
Civil Engineering, Belgrade (In Serbian).
Pamucar, D., Stevic, Z., Sremac, S., 2018. A new model for determining weight
coefficients of criteria in MCDM models: Full consistency method (FUCOM).
Symmetry 10 (9), 393. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym10090393.
Parkan, C., 1994. Operational competitiveness ratings of production units. Manag. Decis.
Econ. 15 (3), 201–221. https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.4090150303.
Pita, F., Castilho, A., 2018. Separation of copper from electric cable waste based on
mineral processing methods: A case study. Minerals 8 (11), 517. https://doi.org/
10.3390/min8110517.
Popović, G., Stanujkić, D., Karabašević, D., Štirbanović, Z., 2020. Model for ore deposits
selection by using the fuzzy topsis method. J. Min. Metall. A 56 (1), 59–71. https://
doi.org/10.5937/JMMA2001059P.
Rahimdel, M.J., Ataei, M., 2014. Application of analytical hierarchy process to selection
of primary crusher. Int. J. Mining Sci. Technol. 24 (4), 519–523. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijmst.2014.05.016.
Rezaei, J., 2015. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53, 49–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009.
Richard, G., Touhami, S., Zeghloul, T., Dascalescu, L., 2017. Optimization of metals and
plastics recovery from electric cable wastes using a plate-type electrostatic separator.
Waste Manage. 60, 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.06.036.
Roy, B., 1991. The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods.
Theor. Decis. 31 (1), 49–73.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource
Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saeki, M., Masumoto, A., 2007. Electrostatic separation of chopped waste electric cables.
J. Environ. Eng. 2 (2), 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1299/jee.2.227.
Salama, A., Richard, G., Medles, K., Zeghloul, T., Dascalescu, L., 2018. Distinct recovery
of copper and aluminum from waste electric wires using a roll-type electrostatic
separator. Waste Manage. 76, 207–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2018.03.036.
Shamsudin, S., Lajis, M.A., Zhong, Z.W., 2016. Evolutionary in solid state recycling
techniques of aluminium: a review. Procedia CIRP 40, 256–261.
Sianaki, O.A., 2015. Intelligent Decision Support System for Energy Management in
Demand Response Programs and Residential and Industrial Sectors of the Smart
Grid. (PhD). Curtin University, Curtin University Library.
Sitorus, F., Cilliers, J.J., Brito-Parada, P.R., 2019. Multi-criteria decision making for the
choice problem in mining and mineral processing: Applications and trends. Expert
Syst. Appl. 121, 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.001.
Sitorus, F., Brito-Parada, P.R., 2020. Equipment selection in mineral processing-A
sensitivity analysis approach for a fuzzy multiple criteria decision making model.
Miner. Eng. 150, 106261 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2020.106261.
Soo, V.K., Peeters, J.R., Compston, P., Doolan, M., Duflou, J.R., 2019. Economic and
environmental evaluation of aluminium recycling based on a Belgian case study.
Procedia Manuf. 33, 639–646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2019.04.080.
Spengler, T., Geldermann, J., Hähre, S., Sieverdingbeck, A., Rentz, O., 1998.
Development of a multiple criteria based decision support system for environmental
assessment of recycling measures in the iron and steel making industry. J. Clean.
Prod. 6 (1), 37–52.
Stanojlović, R., Sokolović, J., Stojanović, S., 2011. Control of electrostatic separation
efficiency of waste copper cable by float-sink analysis. Rec. Sustain. Dev. 4 (1),
29–36.
Stanujkic, D., Magdalinovic, N., Milanovic, D., Magdalinovic, S., Popovic, G., 2014. An
efficient and simple multiple criteria model for a grinding circuit selection based on
MOORA method. Informatica 25 (1), 73–93. https://doi.org/10.15388/Informatic
a.2014.05.
Stanujkic, D., Popovic, G., Karabasevic, D., Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I., Ulutas, A., 2021.
An integrated simple weighted sum product method - WISP. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag.
2021, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2021.3075783.
Stanujkic, D., Zavadskas, E.K., Karabasevic, D., Smarandache, F., Turskis, Z., 2017. The
use of pivot pair-wise relative criteria importance assessment method for
determining weights of criteria. Romanian J. Econ. Forecast. 20, 116–133.
Stirbanovic, Z., Miljanovic, I., Markovic, Z., 2013. Application of rough set theory for
choosing optimal location for flotation tailings dump. Arch. Min. Sci. 58 (3),
893–900. https://doi.org/10.2478/amsc-2013-0062.
Stirbanovic, Z., Stanujkic, D., Miljanovic, I., Milanovic, D., 2019. Application of MCDM
methods for flotation machine selection. Miner. Eng. 137, 140–146. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.mineng.2019.04.014.
Stojanović, A., 2014. Recycling of waste aluminum cables using corona electrostatic
separation, Graduated thesis, Technical Faculty in Bor. Mentor PhD, Jovica
Sokolović.
Svoboda, J., 2004. Magnetic techniques for the treatment of materials. Springer Science
& Business Media.
J. Sokolović et al.
Tilmatine, A., Medles, K., Bendimerad, S.E., Boukholda, F., Dascalescu, L., 2009.
Electrostatic separators of particles: Application to plastic/metal, metal/metal and
plastic/plastic mixtures. Waste Manage. 29 (1), 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2008.06.008.
Ulutaş, A., Stanujkic, D., Karabasevic, D., Popovic, G., Zavadskas, E.K., Smarandache, F.,
Brauers, W.K., 2021. Developing of a novel integrated MCDM MULTIMOOSRAL
approach for supplier selection. Informatica. 32 (1), 145–161. https://doi.org/
10.15388/21-INFOR445.
Veasey, A., 1993. The physical separation and recovery of metals from waste, Vol. 1. CRC
Press.
Veit, H.M., Diehl, T.R., Salami, A.P., Rodrigues, J.D.S., Bernardes, A.M., Tenório, J.A.S.,
2005. Utilization of magnetic and electrostatic separation in the recycling of printed
circuit boards scrap. Waste Manage. 25 (1), 67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2004.09.009.
Vinodh, S., Prasanna, M., Prakash, N.H., 2014. Integrated Fuzzy AHP–TOPSIS for
selecting the best plastic recycling method: A case study. Appl. Math. Model. 38
(19–20), 4662–4672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2014.03.007.
Wen, Z., Liao, H., Zavadskas, E.K., 2020. MACONT: Mixed Aggregation by
Comprehensive Normalization Technique for Multi-Criteria Analysis. Informatica 31
(4), 857–880. https://doi.org/10.15388/20-INFOR417.
Wibowo, S., Deng, H., 2015. Multi-criteria group decision making for evaluating the
performance of e-waste recycling programs under uncertainty. Waste Manage. 40,
127–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.02.035.
Wills, B., Finch, J., 2016. Wills’ Mineral Processing Technology: An Introduction to the
Practical Aspects of Ore Treatment and Mineral Recovery, Eighth ed. Elsevier
Science, New York.
10
Minerals Engineering 173 (2021) 107186
Yavuz, M., 2016. Equipment selection by using fuzzy TOPSIS method. IOP Conference
Series: Earth and Environmental Science 44, 042040.
Yazdani, M., Zarate, P., Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., 2018. A Combined Compromise
Solution (CoCoSo) method for multi-criteria decision-making problems. Manag.
Decis. 57 (9), 2501–2519. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-05-2017-0458.
Yeh, C.H., Xu, Y., 2013. Sustainable planning of e-waste recycling activities using fuzzy
multicriteria decision making. J. Clean. Prod. 52, 194–204. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.03.003.
Zackrisson, M., 2013. Recycling Production Cable Waste - Environmental and Economic
Aspects. Swerea IVF Report 13003, Mölndal.
Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., Antucheviciene, J., Zakarevicius, A., 2012. Optimization of
weighted aggregated sum product assessment. Electronics and Electrical Engineering
= Elektronika ir. Elektrotechnika 122 (6), 3–6.
Zavadskas, E.K., Bausys, R., Lescauskiene, I., Usovaite, A., 2021. MULTIMOORA under
interval-valued neutrosophic sets as the basis for the quantitative heuristic
evaluation methodology HEBIN. Mathematics 9 (1), 66. https://doi.org/10.3390/
math9010066.
Zavadskas, E.K., Baušys, R., Stanujkic, D., 2016. Selection of lead-zinc flotation circuit
design by applying WASPAS method with single-valued neutrosophic set. Acta
Montan. Slovaca 21 (2), 85–92.
Zavadskas, E.K., Kaklauskas, A., Sarka, V., 1994. The new method of multicriteria
complex proportional assessment of projects. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 1 (3),
131–139.
Zavadskas, E.K., Turskis, Z., 2010. A new additive ratio assessment (ARAS) method in
multicriteria decision-making. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ. 16 (2), 159–172. https://
doi.org/10.3846/tede.2010.10.
Zeleny, M., 1982. Multiple Criteria Decision Making. McGraw-Hill, Company.