Analyzing Global Research Trends in Technology and E-Waste Management: A Bibliometric Perspective

Abstract

The utilisation of technology is of paramount importance in the progression of electronic-waste (e-waste) management, as it offers inventive resolutions for the gathering, reprocessing, and elimination of outdated electronic apparatus. Through the utilisation of state-of-the-art technologies, it is possible to alleviate the environmental and health hazards linked to electronic waste, while concurrently fostering a more sustainable and circular paradigm for the consumption of electronic devices. The global research trend on technology and e-waste management has been steadily growing as societies worldwide recognize the importance of sustainable e-waste management. Researchers are focusing on developing cutting-edge technologies to optimize recycling processes, reduce environmental impacts, and promote a circular economy, fostering a more sustainable future for our planet. This study conducts a comprehensive bibliometric analysis of 45 publications indexed in Scopus, aiming to elucidate trends in technology and e-waste management research. The findings reveal a lack of discernible trends concerning the convergence of technology and e-waste management. Notably, the paper titled “Electronic waste recycling: A review of U.S. infrastructure and technology options” holds the distinction of being the most highly cited documents of 428 citations within the study’s subject area. Additionally, the Resources, Conservation and Recycling stands out as the most widely referenced source. These results underscore the significance and importance of pivotal research contributions in the technology and e-waste management research domain. Among the plethora of keywords analyzed, “electronic waste” “e-waste” and “metal recovery” emerge as the most commonly used themes, further emphasizing their centrality in the field. Interestingly, most publication (27%) are co-written by 4 authors, only 1 document co-authored by 10 authors (2%) and only 1 document authored by 1 author (18%).