sustainability

Article
Multi-Objective Disassembly Depth Optimization for
End-of-Life Smartphones Considering the Overall Safety
of the Disassembly Process
Zepeng Chen, Lin Li * , Xiaojing Chu, Fengfu Yin and Huaqing Li

College of Electromechanical Engineering, Qingdao University of Science and Technology, Qingdao 266061,
China; [email protected] (Z.C.); [email protected] (X.C.); [email protected] (F.Y.);
[email protected] (H.L.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: The disassembly of end-of-life (EoL) products is of high concern in sustainability research.
It is important to obtain reasonable disassembly depth during the disassembly process. However, the
overall safety of the disassembly process is not considered during the disassembly depth optimization
process, which leads to an inability to accurately obtain a reasonable disassembly depth. Considering
this, a multi-objective disassembly depth optimization method for EoL smartphones considering the
overall safety of the disassembly process is proposed to accurately determine a reasonable disassembly
depth in this study. The feasible disassembly depth for EoL smartphones is first determined. The
reasonable disassembly process for EoL smartphones is then established. A multi-objective function
for disassembly depth optimization for EoL smartphones is established based on the disassembly
profit per unit time, the disassembly energy consumption per unit time and the overall safety rate
of the disassembly process. In order to increase solution accuracy and avoid local optimization, an
improved teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm (ITLBO) is proposed. The overall safety of
the disassembly process, disassembly time, disassembly energy consumption and disassembly profit
are used as the criteria for the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to evaluate the disassembly
depth solution. A case of the ‘Xiaomi 4’ smartphone is used to verify the applicability of the proposed
Citation: Chen, Z.; Li, L.; Chu, X.; Yin,
method. The results show that the searchability of the non-inferior solution and the optimal solution
F.; Li, H. Multi-Objective Disassembly of the proposed method are improved. The convergence speeds of the ITLBO algorithm are 50.00%,
Depth Optimization for End-of-Life 33.33% and 30.43% higher than those of the TLBO algorithm, and the optimal solution values of
Smartphones Considering the Overall the ITLBO algorithm are 3.91%, 5.10% and 3.45% higher than those of the TLBO algorithm in three
Safety of the Disassembly Process. experiments of single objective optimization.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114. https://
doi.org/10.3390/su16031114 Keywords: disassembly depth; overall safety of disassembly process; ITLBO algorithm; Fuzzy AHP
Academic Editor: Khamphe
Phoungthong

Received: 22 December 2023 1. Introduction

Revised: 23 January 2024
The rapid development of science and technology has accelerated the speed of product
Accepted: 26 January 2024
updates and shortened the service life of products, resulting in a large number of end-of-life
Published: 28 January 2024
(EoL) products such as televisions and personal computers [1]. According to statistics,
China produces nearly 10 million EoL smartphones every year [2] and the recycling rate for
EoL smartphones in China is less than 1% [3]. Because these EoL products have not been
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. properly treated, the accumulation of waste products results. The accumulation of waste
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. products threatens the natural environment and wastes a lot of resources [4]. Recycling,
This article is an open access article reusing and remanufacturing EoL products not only allows the recycling of resources but
distributed under the terms and also reduces environmental pollution and increases economic benefits [5]. Disassembly
conditions of the Creative Commons is a crucial step in the recycling and remanufacturing process and plays an irreplaceable
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// role in sustainable development [6]. By analyzing the existing research, it can be seen that
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ the partial disassembly mode is more practical than the complete disassembly mode [7].
4.0/).

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16031114 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 2 of 23

Therefore, the partial disassembly mode has been widely accepted and adopted by dis-
assembly enterprises [8]. However, how to reasonably secure a satisfactory disassembly
depth to improve efficiency and reduce costs has always been a concern for enterprises and
researchers.
As one of the prevalent and short-life (the average lifespan of a mobile phone is only
3.17 years) electrical and electronic equipment [9,10], the disassembly depth optimization
problem of EoL smartphones has attracted increasing attention. At present, there are multi-
ple studies focusing on electrical and electronic equipment wastes in terms of economic
benefits and environmental impact [11,12]. In the actual disassembly process, disassembly
safety is particularly important. In terms of disassembly safety, the traditional disassembly
mode only focuses on the disassembly safety of some parts with high disassembly risk. To
the best of our knowledge, the overall disassembly safety process that is more in line with
actual production is not considered during the disassembly depth optimization process,
which leads to an inability to accurately obtain a reasonable disassembly depth. Therefore,
research on the disassembly depth optimization problem of EoL smartphones, consider-
ing the overall disassembly safety process, makes sense in both theoretical and practical
aspects.
Given this background, a multi-objective disassembly depth optimization method
for EoL smartphones considering the overall safety of the disassembly process is pro-
posed in this work. In comparison with existing studies, this paper makes the following
contributions:
(1) A multi-objective function for disassembly depth optimization of EoL smartphones is
established based on disassembly profit per unit time, disassembly energy consump-
tion per unit time and overall safety rate of the disassembly process.
(2) An improved teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm (ITLBO) is proposed
with an improved teacher phase for increasing the solution accuracy and increasing
the singer chaotic map to avoid local optimization.
(3) The overall safety of the disassembly process, disassembly time, disassembly en-
ergy consumption and disassembly profit are selected as the criteria for the fuzzy
analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to obtain the optimal disassembly depth for EoL
smartphones.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the relevant literature.
In Section 3, a multi-objective disassembly depth optimization method for EoL smartphones
considering the overall disassembly safety process is introduced. Section 4 analyzes EoL
smartphone disassembly as an illustrative example. Section 5 concludes this paper and
indicates future research issues.

2. Literature Review
During the disassembly optimization process, the objective function is established
considering the different disassembly factors. The disassembly model is an intuitionistic
method for expressing the disassembly factors. Ren et al. [13] used disassembly profit as the
objective function for the partial disassembly line balancing problem. Mandolini et al. [14]
assessed the best disassembly time for target components using the disassembly time
model. Yang et al. [15] proposed the objective function of the disassembly line balancing
problem based on the disassembly time model, the carbon dioxide emissions model and
the recycling cost model. Time efficiency, energy efficiency and value efficiency are newly
defined by Cao et al. [16] as optimization objectives. Lu et al. [17] proposed that profit and
energy consumption should be considered as important criteria. Xu et al. [18] adopted
disassembly time, disassembly cost and disassembly difficulty to evaluate the generated
disassembly solution. Xing et al. [19] used the disassembly time model to consider execu-
tion time and preparation time to solve the asynchronous parallel disassembly sequence
planning problem. Liu et al. [20] formulated a profit model to plan the disassembly se-
quence. Liang et al. [21] proposed the energy consumption model for disassembly activities
for a two-sided disassembly line balance. In order to choose the best and most feasible
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 3 of 23

disassembly plan, Aicha et al. [22] proposed a mathematical formulation that combines
the index of quality and the index of processing time. Zeng et al. [23] established the
energy consumption and profit-oriented multi-product disassembly line balancing model.
Wang et al. [24] constructed the comprehensive optimization objectives model that includes
minimizing the number of stations and smoothness index, maximizing disassembly profit
and minimizing disassembly energy consumption. The above researchers took disassem-
bly profit, disassembly time and environmental impacts as the disassembly optimization
objectives. However, the overall safety of the disassembly process is not reasonably con-
sidered in the existing research; therefore, a multi-objective function that quantifies the
overall safety of the disassembly process should be established to provide guidance for
disassembly depth optimization for EoL smartphones.
In the existing literature, research on the disassembly optimization problem for EoL
products mainly focuses on the solution methods. During the process of handling EoL
products, Yeh et al. [25] proposed the use of the modified simplified swarm optimization
algorithm to seek the optimal disassembly sequence. Xia et al. [26] presented a simpli-
fied teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm for solving disassembly sequence
planning problems effectively. As the complexity of products increases, Tseng et al. [27]
presented a block-based genetic algorithm for disassembly sequence planning to improve
the solution quality. As the size of components increases, Xie et al. [28] proposed a modified
grey wolf optimizer to obtain the optimal disassembly sequence. Tseng et al. [29,30] used a
Flatworm algorithm and an improved particle swarm optimization algorithm to optimize
the disassembly sequence. Lou et al. [31] proposed an improved multi-objective hybrid
grey wolf optimization algorithm to obtain Pareto optimal disassembly plans. Kalayci
et al. [32] proposed a hybrid genetic algorithm for the sequence-dependent disassem-
bly line balancing problem. Considering the disassembly precedence relationships and
sequence-dependent parts removal time increments, Liu et al. [33] presented an improved
discrete artificial bee colony algorithm for solving the sequence-dependent disassembly
line balancing problem. Liu et al. [34] designed an improved multi-objective discrete bee
algorithm to solve the problem of robot disassembly line balancing. Xia et al. [35] proposed
an improved adaptive simulated annealing genetic algorithm to balance the disassembly
line. Xu et al. [36] proposed the improved discrete bee algorithm to obtain the optimal
solution for the human–robot collaborative disassembly line balancing problem. Liang
et al. [37] devised a multi-objective group teaching optimization algorithm to solve the
disassembly line balancing problem. In order to improve the ease of disassembly, Giu-
dice et al. [38] introduced a structured method for the analysis and reconfiguration of the
disassembly depth. Achillas et al. [39] presented a mathematical formulation based on
the cost–benefit analysis concept to determine the optimal disassembly depth for a given
product. Smith et al. [40] used life cycle impact assessment tools (Simapro Eco-indicator
99) to perform cost–benefit analyses to find an optimized disassembly depth. At present,
heuristic optimization algorithms with excellent performance are used for disassembly
optimization by a majority of researchers. However, heuristic optimization algorithms
are almost not used in the study of the disassembly depth optimization problem. This
leads to difficulties in obtaining an accurate optimal disassembly depth for EoL products.
Therefore, heuristic optimization algorithms with excellent performance are important for
the disassembly depth optimization process.
The selection of the optimal scheme from many non-inferior schemes is difficult. As
a method with reliable performance, the fuzzy AHP was used in a related study [41].
Because different products have different features, the criteria for the fuzzy AHP are also
different [42]. Heo et al. [43] proposed five criteria (technological, market-related, economic,
environmental and policy-related) for evaluating the renewable energy dissemination
program. In order to evaluate the disassembly line balancing schemes, the task time, part
demand, revenue generated, part hazardous, state of material and fragility were taken into
consideration by Avikal et al. [44]. Yang et al. [15] proposed five criteria for the disassembly
line balance problem as follows: workstation number, smoothness index, disassembly time,
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 24

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 4 of 23

disassembly time, CO2 saving rate and recycling cost. Considering the selection of the fast
charging
CO station for the electric vehicle, ten related criteria (population density, shopping
2 saving rate and recycling cost. Considering the selection of the fast charging station for
malls,
the roads,
electric incometen
vehicle, rates, transportation
related stations, density,
criteria (population petrol stations,
shopping park areas,
malls, greenincome
roads, areas,
slope and land values) were proposed by Guler et al. [45]. In order to
rates, transportation stations, petrol stations, park areas, green areas, slope and land values) determine the opti-
mal copper removal process, Zhou et al. [46] proposed four criteria
were proposed by Guler et al. [45]. In order to determine the optimal copper removal (the total cost, stability,
reaction rate
process, Zhou and reliability)
et al. for evaluating
[46] proposed copper
four criteria (theremoval schemes.
total cost, Economic,
stability, reactiontechnical,
rate and
environmental
reliability) and social factors
for evaluating copper were
removalusedschemes.
by SherifEconomic,
et al. [47] for the selection
technical, of battery
environmental
recycling
and socialplant
factorslocations
were usedin sustainable
by Sherif etenvironments.
al. [47] for theTuo et al. [48]
selection used AHP
of battery to evaluate
recycling plant
locations in sustainable environments. Tuo et al. [48] used AHP to evaluate thehigh-value
the retention attributes of tasks based on the problem characteristics and the retention
attributes of
attributes of the
taskstask (appearance
based and mechanical
on the problem and electrical
characteristics and the components).
high-value Disassem-
attributes
of the task (appearance and mechanical and electrical components).were
bly time, disassembly energy consumption and disassembly profit used by many
Disassembly time,
researchers energy
disassembly as theconsumption
criteria for and selecting
disassemblythe optimal
profit were disassembly
used by many depth for EoL
researchers as
smartphones.
the criteria for However,
selecting thetheoptimal
overall disassembly
safety of the depth
disassembly
for EoLprocess of EoL However,
smartphones. smartphones the
has been
overall neglected.
safety Therefore, the
of the disassembly overall
process safety
of EoL of the disassembly
smartphones process should
has been neglected. also
Therefore,
be used as an important criterion for selecting the optimal disassembly
the overall safety of the disassembly process should also be used as an important criterion depth for EoL
smartphones.
for selecting the optimal disassembly depth for EoL smartphones.
aboveresearch
The above researchresults
results have
have laidlaid
the the foundation
foundation for research
for research on disassembly
on disassembly depth
depth optimization
optimization for EoLfor EoL smartphones.
smartphones. However, However,
the overallthe safety
overallofsafety of the disassembly
the disassembly process
process
for each for each disassembly
disassembly depth was depth
seldomwas mentioned
seldom mentioned in the
in the above above literature,
literature, which leads whichto
leads
an to an inability
inability to accurately
to accurately obtain a obtain
reasonablea reasonable
disassembly disassembly
depth during depththe during the dis-
disassembly
assembly
depth depth optimization
optimization process. Therefore,
process. Therefore, a multi-objective
a multi-objective disassembly disassembly depth op-
depth optimization
method for EoL smartphones, considering the overall safety of the
timization method for EoL smartphones, considering the overall safety of the disassembly disassembly process, is
proposed
process, isin this paper.
proposed We introduce
in this paper. Wethis proposed
introduce thismethod
proposed in method
the nextin section.
the next section.

3. The Proposed
3. The Proposed Method
Method
In
In this
this section,
section, aa multi-objective
multi-objective disassembly
disassembly depth
depth optimization method for
optimization method for EoL
EoL
smartphones
smartphones considering the overall safety of the disassembly process is proposed. The
considering the overall safety of the disassembly process is proposed. The
flow
flow chart
chart of
of the
the proposed
proposed method
method isis shown
shown in
in Figure
Figure 1.
1.

Figure 1. The flow chart of the proposed method.

Figure 1. The flow chart of the proposed method.
 Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 24
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 5 of 23

Inthe
In thefirst
first step,
step, the
the feasible
feasible disassembly
disassemblydepthdepthofofthe
the EoL
EoL smartphones
smartphonesis is determined
determined
based on the precedence graph and disassembly rules. The second step
based on the precedence graph and disassembly rules. The second step is to establish is to establish aa
reasonable disassembly process. In the third step, a multi-objective function
reasonable disassembly process. In the third step, a multi-objective function is established is established
based on
based onthe
thedisassembly
disassembly profit
profit per
perunit
unittime,
time,thethedisassembly
disassemblyenergy
energyconsumption
consumption per per
unit time
unit time and
and the
theoverall
overall safety
safety rate
rateof
ofthe
thedisassembly
disassemblyprocess.
process. In
In the
the fourth
fourth step,
step, the
the
ITLBO algorithm
ITLBO algorithm is is proposed
proposed to tooptimize
optimizethethedisassembly
disassemblydepth.
depth. The
The fifth
fifthstep
stepassesses
assesses
thedisassembly
the disassemblydepth depthininthe
thepareto
paretosolution
solutionsetsetusing
usingfuzzy
fuzzyAHP.
AHP.

3.1.
3.1. Determination
Determination of
of the
theFeasible
FeasibleDisassembly
DisassemblyDepth
Depth
AAprecedence
precedencediagram
diagram is commonly
is commonly used to represent
used the relationships
to represent between
the relationships parts
between
of the of
parts EoLtheproduct. For example,
EoL product. FigureFigure
For example, 2 shows the precedence
2 shows relationship
the precedence between
relationship be-
EoL smartphone parts. The precedence constraint between two parts
tween EoL smartphone parts. The precedence constraint between two parts is connected is connected by a
unidirectional edge. The precedence matrix is obtained based on the precedence
by a unidirectional edge. The precedence matrix is obtained based on the precedence graph. For
instance,
graph. For part 1 is thepart
instance, predecessor of part 2; thus,
1 is the predecessor part2;1 thus,
of part is disassembled before part 2,
part 1 is disassembled and
before
Dpart
12 =2,
1.and
PartD412is= not the 4predecessor
1. Part of part 1; thus,
is not the predecessor part1;4 thus,
of part is notpart
disassembled before part
4 is not disassembled
and Dpart
1,before 41 = 1,
0. and D41 = 0.

Figure2.2.Precedence
Figure Precedencegraph
graphand
andprecedence
precedencematrix.
matrix.

The
The disassembly
disassembly rules rules are
are used
usedto toobtain
obtainsome
someoptimized
optimizeddisassembly
disassemblyplans.
plans. The
The
decision order of disassembly rules is rotated during disassembly sequence
decision order of disassembly rules is rotated during disassembly sequence planning. The planning. The
specific
specificcontent
contentof ofdisassembly
disassemblyrules rulesisisas
asfollows:
follows:(1)(1)remove
removethe thepartpartthat
thathas
hasthe
thehighest
highest
economic
economic benefit
benefit first;
first; (2)
(2) remove
remove the
the parts
parts that
thatcan
canbeberemoved
removedin inthe
thesame
samedisassembly
disassembly
direction
direction first;
first; (3)
(3) remove
remove the the parts
parts that
that use
use the
the same
same tool
tool first;
first; (4)
(4)remove
remove the
theparts
partsthat
that
change
changethe
thesmall
smalldisassembly
disassemblydirections
directionsfirst.
first.
The
Thedisassembly
disassembly sequences
sequences are are generated
generated based
based onon the
the precedence
precedence graph,
graph, the
the prece-
prece-
dence
dence matrix and the disassembly rules. Then, the feasible disassembly depth isobtained
matrix and the disassembly rules. Then, the feasible disassembly depth is obtained
by
by dividing
dividing the
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW thedisassembly
disassembly stopping
stopping points
pointsof ofthe
theabove
abovedisassembly
disassemblysequences.
6 of 24
sequences. The
The
specific
specificprocess
processfor fordetermining
determiningthe thefeasible
feasibledisassembly
disassemblydepth
depthisisshownshownininFigure
Figure3.3.

Figure 3.
Figure 3. The
Theprocess
processgraph forfor
graph determining the feasible
determining disassembly
the feasible depth. depth.
disassembly

3.2. Establishment of the Disassembly Process

A reasonable disassembly process can improve the accuracy of the optimization
model. Thus, it is important to establish a reasonable disassembly process. In this section,
the disassembly process is built by analyzing the actual disassembly experiment for EoL
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 6 of 23
Figure 3. The process graph for determining the feasible disassembly depth.

3.2. Establishment of the Disassembly Process

3.2. Establishment of the Disassembly Process
A reasonable disassembly process can improve the accuracy of the optimization
model.A reasonable disassembly
Thus, it is important to process can
establish improve thedisassembly
a reasonable accuracy of process.
the optimization model.
In this section,
Thus, it is important to establish a reasonable disassembly process. In this section,
the disassembly process is built by analyzing the actual disassembly experiment for EoL the
disassembly process is built by analyzing the actual disassembly experiment
smartphones. The specific disassembly process for EoL smartphones is shown in Figure for EoL
smartphones.
4. The specific disassembly process for EoL smartphones is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. The disassembly process for EoL smartphones.

Figure 4. The disassembly process for EoL smartphones.

The EoL smartphone is divided into recyclable materials, recyclable parts and remain-
ing parts. Recyclable materials are divided into plastic materials, metal materials and
mixing materials. The recyclable parts are divided into damaged parts and qualified parts.
The damaged parts are treated as mixing materials. When the current disassembly depth
is not the optimal disassembly depth, the remaining parts are disassembled continuously.
When the current disassembly depth is the optimal disassembly depth, the remaining parts
are not disassembled. The remaining parts of the optimal disassembly depth are treated as
mixing materials.

3.3. Establishment of Objective Function

The main factors influencing the disassembly depth are environmental impact and
economic benefits. As one of the most prevalent electronic devices, the overall disassembly
safety process is also a key factor in EoL smartphones. Therefore, the disassembly profit
per unit time, the disassembly energy consumption per unit time and the overall safety
rate of the disassembly process are selected as the objectives for evaluating the disassembly
depth of EoL smartphones. For the convenience of the research, the disassembly process
should meet the following assumptions: (1) The research object is an EoL smartphone (the
representative of the EoL equipment) in the disassembly table. (2) Only one main part
can be disassembled at each time. (3) The disassembly is in an ideal state; the parts are
not damaged during the disassembly process. (4) All parts of the EoL smartphone can be
recycled.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 7 of 23

The disassembly time model for EoL smartphones mainly considers five factors as
follows: the basic disassembly time (the time of the necessary disassembly action), the tool
changing time, the tool positioning time, the detection time and the tidying time.
The tool changing time for disassembling part i (ui ) is determined as follows:

ui = Ni v (1)

where v is the time required to change the disassembly tool once and Ni is the number of
changing tools when part i is disassembled.
The tool positioning time for disassembling part i (hi ) is determined as follows:

hi = zi m (2)

where zi is the constraint number for part I and m is the tool positioning time for removing
a constraint.
The total disassembly time for disassembling an EoL smartphone (T) is determined as
follows:
n
T= ∑ ( fi + Ni v + zi m + C + J ) (3)
i =1

where fi is the basic disassembly time for part i, C is the tidying time for disassembling a
part, J is the detection time for a part and n is the number of EoL smartphone parts.
The disassembly profit is affected by the disassembly benefit and the disassembly cost.
The disassembly benefit mainly considers the benefits of recyclable materials and recyclable
parts. The disassembly cost mainly considers the following factors: the procurement cost,
the employee cost, the workshop rental cost, the electricity cost and the tool damaging cost.
The disassembly benefit of the recyclable parts of an EoL smartphone (B1 ) is deter-
mined as follows:
n
B1 = ∑ (ri × p ) (4)
i =1

where ri is the price of recyclable part i and p is the quality rate of recyclable parts.
The disassembly benefit of recyclable materials in an EoL smartphone (B2 ) is deter-
mined as follows:
B2 = Z1 D1 + Z2 D2 + Z3 D3 (5)
where Z1 is the weight of the plastic materials, Z2 is the weight of the metal materials, Z3 is
the weight of the mixing materials, D1 is the unit price for the plastic materials, D2 is the
unit price for the metal materials and D3 is the unit price for the mixing materials.
The employee cost of disassembling an EoL smartphone (C2 ) is determined as follows:

k1
C2 = T × (6)
3600
where k1 is the employee cost for an hour.
The workshop rental cost for disassembling an EoL smartphone (C3 ) is determined as
follows:
k2 T
C3 = × (7)
d × h × 3600 a
where k2 is the workshop rental cost for a month, a is the number of disassembly tables in a
workshop, d is the number of working days in a month and h is the daily working time.
The electricity cost of disassembling an EoL smartphone (C4 ) is determined as follows:

( P1 × t1 + P2 × t2 + P3 × t3 + P4 × t4 )
C4 = ×c (8)
3.6 × 106
where P1 is the power of the hot air gun, P2 is the power of the electric screwdriver, P3 is
the power of the detector, P4 is the power of the lamp, t1 is the working time of the hot air
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 8 of 23

gun, t2 is the working time of the electric screwdriver, t3 is the working time of the detector,
t4 is the working time of the lamp and c is the price per kilowatt-hour of electricity. The
units for P1 , P2 , P3 and P4 is watt.
The tool damaging cost of disassembling an EoL smartphone (C5 ) is determined as
follows:
q
C5 = ∑ ( u l × gl ) (9)
l =1

where q is the number of tools, ul is the time spent using the tool l and gl is the tool damage
cost of using tool l once.
The total profit of disassembling an EoL smartphone (L) is determined as follows:

L = B1 + B2 − C1 − C2 − C3 − C4 − C5 (10)

where C1 is the procurement cost.

The disassembly profit per unit time of disassembling an EoL smartphone (L1 ) is
determined as follow:
L
L1 = (11)
T
Through the actual disassembly experiment and by analyzing the disassembly of
EoL smartphones, we think that disassembly energy consumption mainly comes from the
following five aspects: using the suction cups, moving tools and parts, disassembling the
board to board (BTB) connectors, disassembling the buckle and using the electric equip-
ment. Therefore, the disassembly energy consumption model is constructed based on the
following aspects: energy consumption when using the suction cups, energy consumption
by moving tools and parts, energy consumption when disassembling the BTB connectors,
energy consumption for disassembling the buckle, and energy consumption when using
the electric equipment.
The suction cup is only used to remove the back cover. The energy consumed when
using the suction cups (M1 ) is determined as follows:

M1 = F1 × H1 (12)

where F1 is the traction generated using the suction cup and H1 is the distance of moving
the suction cup. The unit of measurement of F1 is Newton.
The energy consumed by moving tools and parts (M2 ) is determined as follows:
m2
M2 = ∑ F2k × H2k (13)
k =1

where F2k is the force of moving tools and parts k, H2k is the distance of moving tools and
parts k, m2 is the number of tools and parts and m2 is the sum of the number of tools (q)
and the number of parts (n). The unit of measurement of F2k is Newton.
The energy consumption during disassembling of the BTB connectors (M3 ) is deter-
mined as follows:
m3
Ec H3e t1e 3 H4e
2
M3 = ∑ 3
(14)
e =1 8H5e
where m3 is the number of BTB connectors, Ec is the elastic modulus, H3e is the connection
position width of the BTB connector e, t1e is the connection position thickness of the BTB
connector e, H4e is the height of the BTB connector e and H5e is the length of the connector e.
The energy consumption during disassembling of the buckle (M4 ) is determined as
follows:
m4
M4 = ∑ F6 f × H6 f (15)
f =1
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 9 of 23

where m4 is the number of buckle f, F6f is the force of disassembling buckle f and H6f is the
distance of disassembling buckle f. The unit of measurement of F6f is Newton.
The energy consumption when using the electric equipment (M5 ) is determined as
follows:
M5 = P1 × t1 + P2 × t2 + P3 × t3 + P4 × t4 (16)
The total disassembly energy consumption when disassembling an EoL smartphone
(M) is determined as follows:

M = M1 + M2 + M3 + M4 + M5 (17)

The disassembly energy consumption per unit time of disassembling an EoL smart-
phone (M6 ) is determined as follows:

M
M6 = (18)
T
By analyzing the disassembly process of EoL smartphones, we found that the tem-
perature of the disassembly environment, the accuracy of the tool positioning, the heat
dissipation performance of the disassembly tool and the risky degree of parts are the main
factors influencing the disassembly safety of each part. Therefore, the model for the overall
safety of the disassembly process for disassembling an EoL smartphone is constructed
considering the above four factors. Four factors influencing disassembly are defined as
follows: (1) The disassembly process is considered risky when the temperature of the disas-
sembly environment is higher than 60 ◦ C. (2) The disassembly process is considered risky
when the positioning of the tool is biased. (3) The disassembly process is considered risky
when the temperature of the disassembly tool is higher than 55 ◦ C. (4) The disassembly
process is considered risky when the operator is injured by the parts. The rate of risk of
disassembling each part is determined using the disassembly experiment. Three operators
with a similar disassembly experience are divided into three groups. The operator of
every group disassembles the same part and repeats this W times. The number of risky
disassembly experiments in every group is recorded.
The rate of risk of disassembling part i (Ai ) is determined as follows:
w1i w2i w3i

W + W + W
Ai = × 100% (19)
3
where w1i is the risky number of disassembling part i in the first disassembly experiment
group, w2i is the risky number of disassembling part i in the second disassembly experi-
ment group and w3i is the risky number of disassembling part i in the third disassembly
experiment group.
The overall safety rate of the disassembly process when disassembling an EoL smart-
phone (O) is determined as follows:
m5
O= ∏(1 − Ai ) × 100% (20)
i =1

where m5 is the number of disassembling parts at each disassembly depth.

The disassembly profit per unit time, the disassembly energy consumption per unit
time and the overall safety rate of the disassembly process are selected as the optimization
objectives. The objective function (f (x)) is constructed as follows:
 
1 1
min f ( x ) = min , , M6 (21)
O L1
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 10 of 23

3.4. Optimization of Disassembly Depth

The TLBO algorithm is proposed based on inspiration from the teaching and learning
process. Teacher and learners are the two vital components of the algorithm and describe
the two basic modes of learning through the teacher phase and the learner phase. Because
the TLBO algorithm is only needed to set the initial parameters and the solution process of
the TLBO algorithm is simple, the TLBO algorithm is widely used. Therefore, the ITLBO
algorithm is proposed for solving the multi-objective disassembly depth optimization
problem of EoL smartphones in this section. In order to avoid falling into the local optimum,
the Singer chaotic map is used in the population initialization of the ITLBO algorithm.
In the teacher phase of the ITLBO algorithm, the nonlinear convergence factor is used to
increase the searchability and solution accuracy. The pareto solution set is used to obtain
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW
the disassembly depth that can consider multiple objectives of the EoL smartphones. 11 of
The24
flow chart of the ITLBO algorithm is shown in Figure 5.

Figure5.
Figure 5. The
The flow
flow chart
chart of
of the
the ITLBO
ITLBOalgorithm.
algorithm.

Thecontent
The contentof ofthe
theITLBO
ITLBOalgorithm
algorithmisisspecifically
specifically explained
explained based
based ononthethe disassem-
disassembly
depth optimization
bly depth problem
optimization of theofEoL
problem thesmartphones.
EoL smartphones.The best
Thesolution (the optimal
best solution disas-
(the optimal
sembly depth) is considered the teacher. All feasible disassembly depths
disassembly depth) is considered the teacher. All feasible disassembly depths are consid- are considered
as theaslearners.
ered The decision
the learners. variables
The decision are the
variables are three factors
the three in the
factors objective
in the objectivefunction in
function
Section 3.3.3.3.
in Section The search
The searchspace
spaceis is
the value
the range
value rangeofofthe
theabove
abovethree
threefactors.
factors.By Byanalyzing
analyzing
the
the actual
actual disassembly
disassembly requirements
requirements of of EoL
EoL smartphones,
smartphones, the the range
range of
of the
the search
search space
space
for
for disassembly
disassembly profit
profit per
per unit
unit time
time should
should be
be greater
greater than
than 00 and
and the
the range
range of of the
the search
search
space
space for the overall
overall disassembly
disassemblysafety
safetyprocess
processrate
rateshould
should bebe greater
greater than
than 70%.
70%. TheThe
im-
implementation steps of the ITLBO are summarized
plementation steps of the ITLBO are summarized as follows. as follows.
(1)
(1) The parameter initialization. In order to avoid avoid falling
falling into
into local
local optimum,
optimum, the the singer
singer
chaotic map is used. The equation for the singer singer chaotic
chaotic map
map [49] [49] is
is determined
determined as as
follows:

= uu( 77.86x
xxkk++11 = .8 6 x k − 3.31 x k 22 +
- 223.31x + 28 3 .3 02 87 5 x4k 4 ,) u
.7 5 x k33−- 113.302875x , u∈∈((0.9,
0 .9,1 .0)8 )
 
k k 28.75x k k 1.08 (22)
(22)
where xk is the value of the kth singer chaotic map and u is the coefficient of the singer
where
chaotic xk is the value of the kth singer chaotic map and u is the coefficient of the singer
map.
chaotic map.
(2) The teacher phase. In this phase, learners learn through a teacher. In order to increase
searchability and solution accuracy, the nonlinear convergence factor is used. The
equation for the nonlinear convergence factor is determined as follows:
i i
Xnew = Xold + K( Xteacher − TF ⋅ Mean) (23)

2   t  
2

TF = × lg  2 −    (24)
lg 2   tmax  

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 11 of 23

(2) The teacher phase. In this phase, learners learn through a teacher. In order to increase
searchability and solution accuracy, the nonlinear convergence factor is used. The
equation for the nonlinear convergence factor is determined as follows:
i i
Xnew = Xold + K ( Xteacher − TF · Mean) (23)
 2 !
2 t
TF = × lg 2 − (24)
lg2 tmax

where Xi new is the result of the ith learner after learning, Xi old is the result of the ith
student before learning, Xteacher is the result of the teacher, Mean is the mean of all
learners, TF is the teaching factor, K is the random number in the range [0, 1], t is the
current number of iterations and tmax is the maximum number of iterations.
(3) The learner phase. The learners increase their knowledge by interacting with each
other. A learner interacts randomly with others to enhance their knowledge. The
principle [50] is determined as follows:

X i + K ( X i − X j ), T ( X j ) < T ( X i )

i
XN = (25)
X i + K ( X j − X i ), T ( X i ) < T ( X j )

where Xi is the result for learner i, Xj is the result for learner j, Xi N is the new result
for learner i after the learner phase, T(Xi ) is the fitness value of Xi and T(Xj ) is the
fitness value of Xj .
(4) The pareto solution set. All non-inferior solutions of the disassembly depth are output.
The pareto solution set can provide solutions for the multi-objective disassembly
depth optimization problem of EoL smartphones.

3.5. The Assessment of Disassembly Depth

It is difficult to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the pareto solution in the
solution set. For the disassembly problem, we should select the optimal disassembly depth.
Fuzzy AHP is widely applied to address the uncertainty of decision-making and has been
applied in many fields. Fuzzy AHP has obvious advantages in computational time, simplicity
and stability. Therefore, fuzzy AHP is selected for assessment of the disassembly depth.
During the actual disassembling process, the disassembly time and the disassembly
profit are considered to be the most important factors. The disassembly energy consumption
is concerned with environmental protection issues. Moreover, the overall disassembly
safety process should also be taken seriously. Therefore, disassembly time, disassembly
energy consumption, disassembly profit and the overall safety of the disassembly process
are selected as the criteria. The structural hierarchy of multi-objective disassembly depth
decisions for EoL smartphones is shown in Figure 6. The fuzzy judgment matrix Q of the
standard layers can be obtained as shown in Equation (26).
 
q11 q12 q13 q14
q21 q22 q23 q24 
Q=
q31
 (26)
q32 q33 q34 
q41 q42 q43 q44

The elements of the fuzzy judgment matrix Q are determined based on the scale of the
fuzzy AHP value. The 0.1–0.9 nine-level scale method is the maximum number of grades
that people can accept. Thus, the 0.1–0.9 nine-level scale method is applied to the scale
of the fuzzy AHP value. The weights of the criteria are determined based on the fuzzy
judgment matrix Q and the specific steps are as follows.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 12 of 23

Firstly, the fuzzy judgment matrix Q is summed by rows; the formula for its calculation
is:
m6
Qy = ∑ qyk (27)
k =1

where Qy is the sum of row y of the fuzzy judgment matrix Q and m6 is the number of the
criterion.
Then, the weight coefficient is calculated based on the following equation:

Q y − 2 − m6
Xy = (28)
m6 ( m6 − 1)

where Xy is the weight coefficient of row y.

Finally, the determinant of the weight coefficient ri is determined as follows:
 
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW ri = X1 , X2 , · · · Xm6 13 of(29)
24

In order to verify whether the obtained weight is reliable, the fuzzy consistent matrix
G is obtained. The specific treatment method is determined as follows:
( m6 − 1) ( X y − X k )

= 6 − 1) Xy − Xk + 0.5
Gyk(m (30)
Gyk = 2 + 0.5 (30)
2
CI is calculated using the following equation. When CI < 0.1, it means that the data
meetsCIthe
is calculated
requirementsusing
for the following
fuzzy equation.
consistency. When CI
The average < 0.1,
index forit randomly
means that the data
generated
meets the requirements for
weights R is set to 0.9 [15]. fuzzy consistency. The average index for randomly generated
weights R is set to 0.9 [15]. m m
m6 6m6 6
∑
∑ GGykyk−− qqykyk
y=1y =k1=k1=1 (31)
= =
CI CI 22
(31)
mm
6 6 RR

Figure 6.
Figure 6. The
The structural hierarchy of
structural hierarchy of multi-objective
multi-objective disassembly
disassembly depth
depth decisions.
decisions.

4. Experiment and
4. Experiment and Discussion
Discussion
4.1. Fundamental Data
4.1. Fundamental Data
The EoL smartphone, namely ‘Xiaomi 4’, was selected as an example to verify the
The EoL smartphone, namely ‘Xiaomi 4’, was selected as an example to verify the
applicability of the proposed method. The relevant information for ‘Xiaomi 4’ was obtained
applicability of the proposed method. The relevant information for ‘Xiaomi 4’ was ob-
using the disassembly experiment. The disassembly parts graph for ‘Xiaomi 4’ is shown in
tained using the disassembly experiment. The disassembly parts graph for ‘Xiaomi 4’ is
Figure 7, and contains 11 main parts of ‘Xiaomi 4’ and their numbers. The precedence graph
shown in Figure 7, and contains 11 main parts of ‘Xiaomi 4’ and their numbers. The prec-
of ‘Xiaomi 4’, which shows the precedence constraint relationship between the 11 main
edence graph of ‘Xiaomi 4’, which shows the precedence constraint relationship between
parts of ‘Xiaomi 4’, is shown in Figure 8. In addition, the basic information for ‘Xiaomi
the 11 main parts of ‘Xiaomi 4’, is shown in Figure 8. In addition, the basic information for
4’ is shown in Table 1. The disassembly tool information is shown in Table 2. In Table 1,
‘Xiaomi 4’ is shown in Table 1. The disassembly tool information is shown in Table 2. In
the weight of the parts is measured using the electronic scale, and the recycling price for
Table 1, the weight of the parts is measured using the electronic scale, and the recycling
price for parts is obtained through market research; the price of the parts may fluctuate.
Because relative comparison is used in this study, the results of the study will not be af-
fected by the recycling price of parts. In Table 2, the weight of the disassembly tool is
measured using the electronic scale and the tool damage cost is estimated using the whole-
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 13 of 23

parts is obtained through market research; the price of the parts may fluctuate. Because
relative comparison is used in this study, the results of the study will not be affected by the
recycling price of parts. In Table 2, the weight of the disassembly tool is measured using
the electronic scale and the tool damage cost is estimated using the wholesale purchase
prices and service life statistics. The wholesale purchase price and service life statistics
are obtained through market research. The feasible disassembly depth of ‘Xiaomi 4’ is
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 24
determined based on the precedence graph for ‘Xiaomi 4’, the basic information for ‘Xiaomi
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 24
4’ and the disassembly rules.

Figure 7. The disassembly parts graph for ‘Xiaomi 4’.

Figure 7. The disassembly parts graph for ‘Xiaomi 4’.

Figure 8. The precedence graph for ‘Xiaomi 4’.

Figure8.8.The
Figure Theprecedence
precedencegraph
graphfor
for‘Xiaomi
‘Xiaomi4’.
4’.
Table 1. The basic information for ‘Xiaomi 4’.
Table 1. The basic information for ‘Xiaomi 4’.
Con-
Part The Disassembly Con- The Disassembly Weight The Basic Disas- The Price
Part Part Name The Disassembly straint/Quan- The Disassembly Weight The Basic Disas- The Price
No. Part Name Direction straint/Quan- Tool (g) sembly Time (s) (¥)
No. Direction tity Tool (g) sembly Time (s) (¥)
tity
1 SIM card tray +X Buckle/1 Retrieve card pin 0.9 2.00 0.01
1 SIM card tray +X Buckle/1 Retrieve card pin 0.9 2.00 0.01
2 Back cover +Z Buckle/1 Stick–suction cups 11.2 15.50 0.80
2 Back cover +Z Buckle/1 Stick–suction cups 11.2 15.50 0.80
Electric screw-
Screws/10, Electric screw-
3 Middle frame +Z Screws/10, driver–stick– 10.6 45.00 0.20
3 Middle frame +Z buckle/1 driver–stick– 10.6 45.00 0.20
buckle/1 tweezer
tweezer
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 14 of 23

Table 1. The basic information for ‘Xiaomi 4’.

The The Basic

Part Constraint/ The Disassembly
Part Name Disassembly Weight (g) Disassembly The Price (¥)
No. Quantity Tool
Direction Time (s)
1 SIM card tray +X Buckle/1 Retrieve card pin 0.9 2.00 0.01
2 Back cover +Z Buckle/1 Stick–suction cups 11.2 15.50 0.80
Screws/10, Electric screwdriver–
3 Middle frame +Z 10.6 45.00 0.20
buckle/1 stick–tweezer
Electric screwdriver–
4 Flashlight −Z Screws/3 0.7 12.50 3.50
tweezer
Front-facing
5 +Z BTB/1 Stick–tweezer 0.3 6.00 15.00
camera
BTB/1, Heating
6 Battery +Z 46.0 65.00 11.50
sealant/1 gun–stick–tweezer
7 Motherboard +Z Buckle/2 Stick–tweezer 14.1 16.00 45.00
8 Back camera −Z BTB/1 Stick–tweezer 0.7 8.00 22.00
9 Receiver +Z Buckle/1 Stick–tweezer 0.7 6.40 1.20
Electric screwdriver–
Sealant/1,
10 Tail plate +Z Heating 2.8 35.70 25.00
screws/3
gun–tweezer
Heating
11 Screen −Z Sealant/1 62.6 80.00 1.30
gun–tweezer–stick

Table 2. Disassembly tool information.

The Tool Damage Cost for

Tool Name Weight (g) Power (W)
Each Use (¥)
Retrieve card pin 0.2 — 0.005
Electric screwdriver 248.1 50 0.01
Heating gun 210.6 300 0.01
Stick 18.6 — 0.01
Tweezer 12.8 — 0.002
Suction cups 2.1 — 0.005
Detector — 5 —
Lamp — 15 —

The disassembly time, the disassembly energy consumption, the disassembly profit
and the overall safety of the disassembly process for each disassembly depth are calculated
based on the established model. In order to improve the accuracy of the calculation, the
quantitative parameters for ‘Xiaomi 4’ are shown in Table 3. The quantitative parameters
for ‘Xiaomi 4’ are determined using the disassembly experiments and market research.
Three operators with similar disassembly experiences are divided into groups A, B and C.
The operator of every group disassembles the same part and repeats this 20 times (there
are 20 experiments in each group). The number of risky disassembly experiments in every
group is recorded. The risky disassembly probability for each part of ‘Xiaomi 4’ is shown
in Table 4.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 15 of 23

Table 3. The quantitative parameters of ‘Xiaomi 4’.

The Quantitative Parameters Value Unit Data Source

The disassembly time for disassembling a screw 2.00 (s)
The time required to change the disassembly tool once 3.00 (s)
The tool positioning time 1.50 (s)
The detection time for a part 7.00 (s)
Disassembly
The tidying time for disassembling a part 4.50 (s)
experiments
The heating time for disassembling the tail plate 15.00 (s)
The heating time for disassembling the battery 45.00 (s)
The heating time for disassembling the screen 55.00 (s)
The weight of a screw 0.15 (g)
The quality rate of recyclable parts 95.00% —
The recycling price of metal materials 4500.00 (¥·t−1 )
The recycling price of mixing materials 4000.00 (¥·t−1 )
The recycling price of plastic materials 2200.00 (¥·t−1 )
The purchase cost of EoL ‘Xiaomi 4’ 35.00 (¥)
Market research
The employee cost 32.00 (¥·h−1 )
The employee’s working time 8.00, 22.00 (h·d−1 , d·m−1 )
The workshop rental cost 4000.00 (¥·m−1 )
The number of disassembly tables 10 —
The price per kilowatt-hour of electricity 1.00 (¥·(kw·h) −1 )
The disassembly energy consumption for disassembling a screw 0.01 (J)
The disassembly energy consumption for disassembling a BTB 0.03 (J)
The disassembly energy consumption for disassembling a back cover 0.42 (J)
Disassembly
Energy consumption for moving a part 11.50 (J)
experiments
Energy consumption for moving a tool 15.00 (J)
The disassembly energy consumption for disassembling a SIM card tray 0.03 (J)
The disassembly energy consumption for disassembling a buckle 0.20 (J)

Table 4. The risky disassembly probability of each part of ‘Xiaomi 4’.

Group A Group B Group C

The Number The Number The Number The Number The Number The Number The Risky
Part
of Risky of of Risky of of Risky of Disassembly
No.
Disassembly Disassembly Disassembly Disassembly Disassembly Disassembly Probability
Experiments Experiments Experiments Experiments Experiments Experiments
1 1 20 0 20 1 20 3.33%
2 0 20 1 20 1 20 3.33%
3 1 20 1 20 1 20 5.00%
4 0 20 1 20 0 20 1.67%
5 0 20 0 20 1 20 1.67%
6 1 20 2 20 1 20 6.67%
7 1 20 0 20 1 20 3.33%
8 0 20 1 20 0 20 1.67%
9 1 20 1 20 0 20 3.33%
10 1 20 1 20 1 20 5.00%
11 2 20 2 20 1 20 8.33%

4.2. Results
The program is developed using Matlab2019b and its running environment is Intel®
[email protected], RAM16.00Gn, win7 system. Based on the practicability of disassembly,
the population size is set to 15 and the iteration number is set to 100. The disassembly
depth non-inferior solution set for ‘Xiaomi 4’ is obtained as shown in Table 5. In order to
show the results in Table 5 intuitively, the spatial distribution of the non-inferior solution
is shown in Figure 9. The number in Figure 9 corresponds to the number of disassembly
depths in Table 5.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 16 of 23

Table 5. The disassembly depth non-inferior solution set for ‘Xiaomi 4’.

Disassembly Energy The Overall

Disassembly Depth Disassembly Profit per
Disassembly Depth Consumption per Unit Disassembly Safety
No. unit Time (¥·t−1 )
Time (J·t−1 ) Process Rate
1 1-2-3-5-6-10-4-7-8 0.1854 63.3579 72.3439%
2 1-2-3-5-4-7 0.1024 22.3968 82.9795%
3 1-2-3-5-4-7-8 0.1688 21.8929 81.5937%
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 24
4 1-2-3-5-4-7-8-9 0.1565 21.5224 78.8767%
5 1-2-3-5-4-7-9-8 0.1565 21.5224 78.8767%
6 1-2-3-4-5-7 0.1024 22.3968 82.9795%
7 1-2-3-4-5-7-8 0.1688 21.8929 81.5937%
Motherboard–Back camera) and disassembly depth 7 (SIM card tray–Back cover–Middle
8 1-2-3-4-5-7-8-9 0.1565 21.5224 78.8767%
frame–Flashlight– Front-facing camera–Motherboard–Back camera).

Figure 9.
Figure 9. The
The spatial
spatial distribution
distribution of
of the
the non-inferior
non-inferior solution.
solution.

TableBased
5. Theon
disassembly depth non-inferior
the four criteria, the fuzzy solution
judgment setmatrix
for ‘Xiaomi
Q of4’.
the standard layers can be
obtained as shown in Table 6. The method used to obtain the values in Table 6 is as follows:
Disassembly Energy Con-
Disassembly three researchers with disassembly
Disassembly Profit per experience compared the importanceThe Overallof all evaluation
Disassembly
Disassemblyindexes sumption
Depthat the same level and−1got consistent per Unit
results. The
Time in Table 6 were then assigned
values
Depth No. unit Time (¥·t ) Safety Process Rate
(J·t−1)nine-level scale method. The results of
according to the assignment criteria of the 0.1–0.9
1 1-2-3-5-6-10-4-7-8 0.1854
the weight coefficients and the CI are shown 63.3579
in Table 7. Due to the degree 72.3439%
of inconsistency
2 1-2-3-5-4-7 0.1024 22.3968 82.9795%
within the allowable range (CI = 0.09805 < 0.1), the result of this decision is credible. The
3 1-2-3-5-4-7-8 0.1688
weights of the impact 21.8929
of each criterion on each scheme are synthesized81.5937%
and the relevant
4 information on data
1-2-3-5-4-7-8-9 processing is shown in
0.1565 Table 8. By analyzing the
21.5224 comprehensive
78.8767%
5 sort of Table 8, the0.1565
1-2-3-5-4-7-9-8 optimal disassembly depth for ‘Xiaomi 4’ is disassembly
21.5224 depth 3 (SIM
78.8767%
6 card
1-2-3-4-5-7 tray–Back cover–Middle
0.1024 frame–Front-facing
22.3968 camera–Flashlight–Motherboard–Back
82.9795%
7 camera) and disassembly
1-2-3-4-5-7-8 0.1688 depth 7 (SIM card21.8929tray–Back cover–Middle frame–Flashlight–
81.5937%
8 Front-facing camera–Motherboard–Back
1-2-3-4-5-7-8-9 0.1565 camera).
21.5224 78.8767%

Table 6. The fuzzy judgment matrix Q of the standard layers.

Criteria E1 E2 E3 E4
E1 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.3
E2 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6
E3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4
E4 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5

Table 7. The results of the weight coefficient and the CI.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 17 of 23

Table 6. The fuzzy judgment matrix Q of the standard layers.

Criteria E1 E2 E3 E4
E1 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.3
E2 0.8 0.5 0.7 0.6
E3 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.4
E4 0.7 0.4 0.6 0.5

Table 7. The results of the weight coefficient and the CI.

Criteria Weights
E1 0.2167
E2 0.3
CI = 0.09805
E3 0.2167
E4 0.2667

Table 8. The weighted decision data.

Criteria E1 E2 E3 E4 Comprehensive
Weight 0.2167 0.3 0.2167 0.2667 Sort
Disassembly depth 1 0.1018 0.0929 0.15 0.1018 0.1095
Disassembly depth 2 0.15 0.1125 0.1071 0.1446 0.1280
Disassembly depth 3 0.1304 0.1268 0.1357 0.1304 0.1305
Pareto Disassembly depth 4 0.1125 0.1429 0.1214 0.1161 0.1245
solution Disassembly depth 5 0.1125 0.1429 0.1214 0.1161 0.1245
Disassembly depth 6 0.15 0.1125 0.1071 0.1446 0.1280
Disassembly depth 7 0.1304 0.1268 0.1357 0.1304 0.1305
Disassembly depth 8 0.1089 0.1429 0.1214 0.1161 0.1237

4.3. Analysis of Results and Discussion

In order to verify the applicability of the method proposed in this paper, the existing
disassembly depth optimization methods in [39,40] were selected for comparison. In the
experiment, the disassembly depth optimization method in [39] (select the disassembly
depth with the maximum total disassembly profit in all disassembly depths) is set as group
A. The disassembly depth optimization method in [40] (select the disassembly depth with
a maximum total disassembly profit of more than 85% and maximum total disassembly
energy consumption of less than 70% in all disassembly depths) is set as group B. The
disassembly depth optimization method proposed in this paper is set as group C. The
disassembly depth optimization results of ‘Xiaomi 4’ are shown in Table 9.
The number of non-inferior solutions is increased by eight in group C compared with
the results in group A. The number of optimal solutions is increased by two in group C
compared with the results in group A. The results of the comparison demonstrate that the
searchability of the non-inferior solution and the optimal solution is improved in group C
compared with the results in group A. Compared with the results in group B, the number
of non-inferior solutions is increased by seven in group C. Compared with the results in
group B, the number of optimal solutions is increased by two in group C. The results of
the comparison show that group C is better than group B at improving the searchability
of the non-inferior solution and the optimal solution. In summary, the searchability of the
non-inferior solution and the optimal solution of the method proposed in this paper is
superior to the methods in [39,40].
In order to verify the applicability of the ITLBO algorithm in this paper, the existing
TLBO algorithm is selected for comparison. The EoL smartphone ‘Xiaomi 4’ is selected as
the case. The parameters of the ITLBO algorithm and the TLBO algorithm are set to the
same value (the population size is set to 15 and the iteration number is set to 100). The
disassembly profit per unit time, the disassembly energy consumption per unit time and the
overall safety rate of the disassembly process are selected as optimization objectives. Each
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 18 of 23

algorithm
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW is iterated 10 times. Figure 10 shows the relationship between the average
19value
of 24
of the minimum disassembly energy consumption per unit time and the iteration number of
the program. Figure 11 shows the relationship between the average value of the maximum
disassembly profit per unit of time and the iteration number of the program. Figure 12
1-2-3-4-5-7-8 √ √ 0.1688 21.8929 81.5937%
shows the relationship between the average value of the maximum overall disassembly
1-2-3-4-5-7-8-9 √ × 0.1565 21.5224 78.8767%
safety rate and the iteration number of the program.

TableIn
9. order to verify the
The disassembly applicability
depth optimization ofresults
the ITLBO algorithm
for ‘Xiaomi 4’. in this paper, the existing
TLBO algorithm is selected for comparison. The EoL smartphone ‘Xiaomi 4’ is selected as
the case. The parameters of the ITLBO algorithm and theDisassembly TLBO algorithm are set to the
The overall
The Disassembly
same value (the
The population size
The Optimal
is set to 15 and
Disassembly the iteration number is set
Energy to 100). The
Disassembly
Group non-Inferior
disassembly profit per unit time, the Profit per Unit
disassembly energy Consumption
consumption per
Depth Solution −1 ) Safety time
unit and
Process
Solution Time (¥ · t per unit
the overall safety rate of the disassembly process are selected as−1optimization Rate Time objectives.
(J·t )
Each algorithm is iterated 10 times. Figure 10 shows the relationship between the average
A value of the ×minimum disassembly
1-2-3-5-6-10-4-7-8-9 × energy 0.1764
consumption per60.6200 unit time and the69.94%
iteration
√
number of the program. Figure
1-2-3-5-6-10-4-7-8 × 11 shows the relationship between
0.1854 63.3579 the average value of
72.3439%
1-2-3-5-6-10-4-7-8-9
the maximum × disassembly profit × per unit of 0.1764
time and the iteration60.6200 number 69.94%
of the pro-
B gram. Figure×12 shows the relationship
1-2-3-5-6-10-4-7-9-8 × between0.1764
the average value 60.6200 69.94%
of the maximum overall
1-2-3-5-4-7-8-9-6-10 × × 0.1764 60.6200 69.94%
disassembly safety rate and the iteration number of the program.
1-2-3-5-4-7-9-8-6-10 × × 0.1764 60.6200 69.94%
1-2-3-4-5-7-8-9-6-10 During × the process of searching
× for the optimal
0.1764 disassembly energy consumption
60.6200 69.94% per
unit time, it √
can be seen from Figure 10 that the ITLBO algorithm tends to converge in the
1-2-3-5-6-10-4-7-8 √ while the TLBO × 0.1854 63.3579 72.3439%
1-2-3-5-4-7 35th generation,
√ ×
√
algorithm tends 0.1024 to converge 22.3968
in the 70th generation.
82.9795% Com-
1-2-3-5-4-7-8 pared with √ the TLBO algorithm, the convergence 0.1688 speed of21.8929 the ITLBO algorithm
81.5937% is in-
1-2-3-5-4-7-8-9creased by 50.00%.
√
Moreover,×it can be seen from 0.1565 Figure 10 that the minimum 78.8767%
21.5224 disassembly
C
1-2-3-5-4-7-9-8energy consumption
√ per unit×time obtained 0.1565 by the TLBO algorithm 21.5224 is 22.396878.8767%
J·t−1, while
1-2-3-4-5-7 the minimum √ disassembly energy ×
√ consumption 0.1024per unit time 22.3968
obtained by the82.9795%
ITLBO al-
1-2-3-4-5-7-8 √
gorithm is 21.5224 J·t−1. Compared with the 0.1688 TLBO algorithm,21.8929 the minimum 81.5937%
disassembly
1-2-3-4-5-7-8-9 × 0.1565 21.5224 78.8767%
energy consumption per unit time by the ITLBO algorithm is reduced by 3.91%.

Figure
Figure 10.
10. The
The average
average value
value of
of the
the minimum
minimum disassembly
disassembly energy
energy consumption
consumption per
per unit
unit of
of time
time
versus
versus the
the number of iterations.
Sustainability 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 24
Sustainability2024,
Sustainability 2024,16,
16,1114
x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 23
19 of 24

Figure 11. The average value of the maximum disassembly profit per unit time versus the number
Figure 11.
ofFigure 11.The
iterations.Theaverage
averagevalue
valueofofthe
themaximum
maximumdisassembly profit
disassembly perper
profit unit time
unit versus
time thethe
versus number of
number
iterations.
of iterations.

Figure12.
Figure Theaverage
12.The averagevalue
valueof
ofthe
themaximum
maximumoverall
overallsafety
safetyrate
rateof
ofthe
thedisassembly
disassemblyprocess
processversus
versus
Figure
the
the 12. The
number
number average value of the maximum overall safety rate of the disassembly process versus
of iterations.
of iterations.
the number of iterations.
During
In the process
the process of searching
of searching foroptimal
for the the optimal disassembly
disassembly profitenergy
per unitconsumption
time, it can per
be
seen from Figure 11 that the ITLBO algorithm tends to converge in the 40thtime,
unit In the
time, itprocess
can be of searching
seen from for
Figurethe10optimal
that thedisassembly
ITLBO profit
algorithm per unit
tends to it can in
converge
generation, be
seen
the from
35th Figure 11while
generation, that the
the ITLBO
TLBO algorithm tends to converge in the 70th
the 40th generation.
generation,
while the TLBO algorithm tends to converge in the 60th generation. Compared with the
while the TLBO
Compared algorithm
with the tends to converge in the 60th generation. Compared with the
TLBO algorithm, theTLBO algorithm,
convergence speedtheof
convergence
the ITLBO speed of the
algorithm ITLBO
increased algorithm
by 33.33%. is
TLBO algorithm,
increased by 50.00%. the convergence
Moreover, it canspeed
be seenoffrom
the Figure
ITLBO10algorithm increaseddisassembly
that the minimum by 33.33%.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 20 of 23

energy consumption per unit time obtained by the TLBO algorithm is 22.3968 J·t−1 , while
the minimum disassembly energy consumption per unit time obtained by the ITLBO
algorithm is 21.5224 J·t−1 . Compared with the TLBO algorithm, the minimum disassembly
energy consumption per unit time by the ITLBO algorithm is reduced by 3.91%.
In the process of searching for the optimal disassembly profit per unit time, it can be
seen from Figure 11 that the ITLBO algorithm tends to converge in the 40th generation,
while the TLBO algorithm tends to converge in the 60th generation. Compared with the
TLBO algorithm, the convergence speed of the ITLBO algorithm increased by 33.33%.
Moreover, it can be seen from Figure 11 that the maximum disassembly profit per unit
time obtained by the TLBO algorithm is 0.1764 ¥·t−1 , while the maximum disassembly
profit per unit time obtained by the ITLBO algorithm is 0.1854 ¥·t−1 . Compared with the
TLBO algorithm, the maximum disassembly profit per unit of time obtained by the ITLBO
algorithm increased by 5.10%.
In the process of searching for the optimal overall safety rate of the disassembly
process, it can be seen from Figure 12 that the ITLBO algorithm tends to converge in
the 32nd generation, while the TLBO algorithm tends to converge in the 46th generation.
Compared with the TLBO algorithm, the convergence speed of the ITLBO algorithm
increased by 30.43%. Moreover, it can be seen from Figure 12 that the maximum overall
disassembly safety rate obtained by the TLBO algorithm is 93.45%, while the maximum
overall disassembly safety rate obtained by the ITLBO algorithm is 96.67%. Compared with
the TLBO algorithm, the maximum overall disassembly safety rate of the ITLBO algorithm
increased by 3.45%. In summary, the convergence speed and solution accuracy of the
ITLBO algorithm are superior to those of the TLBO algorithm.
From the case study and the above analysis, the proposed method can effectively
determine the optimal disassembly depth of EoL smartphones. Although we have suc-
cessfully applied the proposed method to EoL smartphones, there are some limitations to
this proposed method. Firstly, we assume that the disassembly is in an ideal state and the
parts are not damaged during the disassembly process. In order to obtain more accurate
results, it is important to reasonably consider the damage rate during the disassembly
process. Then, it is important to choose a more reasonable criterion for fuzzy AHP for
the EoL smartphones. Moreover, an EoL smartphone, namely ‘Xiaomi 4’, was selected
as an example of multiple waste electronic products in this paper. In order to prove the
effectiveness and high utilization rate of the method, it is important to study other old
equipment to determine the application range for the proposed method.

5. Conclusions
With the explosion in the number of waste electrical and electronic equipment, it is
particularly important to reduce the influence of electrical and electronic equipment waste
via disassembly planning. One of the most crucial domains within disassembly research
is the intricate challenge of securing a satisfactory disassembly depth. Unfortunately, the
overall disassembly safety process is not considered in the disassembly depth optimization
process, which leads to an inability to accurately obtain a reasonable disassembly depth.
Therefore, a multi-objective disassembly depth optimization method for EoL smartphones,
considering the overall safety of the disassembly process, is proposed. In this study, a multi-
objective function for disassembly depth optimization of EoL smartphones is established
based on disassembly profit per unit time, disassembly energy consumption per unit time
and overall disassembly safety process rate. In order to increase the solution accuracy and
avoid local optimization, an improved teaching–learning-based optimization algorithm is
proposed. The overall disassembly safety process, disassembly time, disassembly energy
consumption and disassembly profit are selected as the criteria for fuzzy AHP to obtain
the optimal disassembly depth for EoL smartphones. A case of the ‘Xiaomi 4’ is studied to
verify the applicability of the proposed method. The key observations obtained from the
results of the experiments can be summarized as follows.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 21 of 23

(a) The numbers of non-inferior solutions and optimal solutions obtained using the
method proposed in this paper are superior to the methods in [39,40]. The searchability
of the non-inferior solution and the optimal solution of the method proposed in this
paper is significant.
(b) In the process of searching for the optimal objective, the convergence speeds for the
ITLBO algorithm were 50.00%, 33.33% and 30.43% higher than for the TLBO algorithm.
This shows that the ITLBO algorithm is more effective than the TLBO algorithm at
improving the convergence speed when searching for the optimal objective.
(c) In the process of searching for the optimal objective, the optimal solution values of the
ITLBO algorithm were 3.91%, 5.10% and 3.45% higher than for the TLBO algorithm.
This shows that the ITLBO algorithm is more effective than the TLBO algorithm at
improving the solution accuracy of searching for the optimal objective.
This paper is only a preliminary exploration of multi-objective disassembly depth
optimization problems for EoL smartphones, considering the overall safety of the disassem-
bly process. Further research is needed on carbon dioxide emissions and the disassembly
damage rate of the disassembly process. Optimizing the disassembly depth based on the
disassembly workshop is a future research direction.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, Z.C., L.L. and X.C.; methodology, Z.C. and L.L.; software,
Z.C.; validation, Z.C.; formal analysis, L.L., F.Y. and H.L.; investigation, L.L., X.C., F.Y. and H.L.;
resources, X.C. and F.Y.; data curation, L.L., X.C., F.Y. and H.L.; writing—original draft preparation,
Z.C.; writing—review and editing, L.L. and F.Y.; supervision, L.L. and F.Y.; project administration,
L.L. and F.Y.; funding acquisition, L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of
China (grant number 2020YFB1713001).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Data will be made available on request.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the anonymous
reviewers for their many valuable comments and suggestions.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.

References
1. Zeng, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Yin, T.; Zheng, H. Robotic disassembly line balancing and sequencing problem considering energy-saving
and high-profit for waste household appliances. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 381, 135209. [CrossRef]
2. He, P.; Wang, C.; Zuo, L. The present and future availability of high-tech minerals in waste mobile phones: Evidence from China.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 192, 940–949. [CrossRef]
3. Li, J.; Ge, Z.; Liang, C.; An, N. Present status of recycling waste mobile phones in China: A review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017,
24, 16578–16591. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
4. Ren, Y.; Jin, H.; Zhao, F.; Qu, T.; Meng, L.; Zhang, C.; Zhang, B.; Wang, G.; Sutherland, J.W. A multi-objective disassembly
planning for value recovery and energy conservation from end-of-life products. IEEE Trans. Autom. Sci. Eng. 2021, 18, 791–803.
[CrossRef]
5. Nowakowski, P. A novel, cost efficient identification method for disassembly planning of waste electrical and electronic equipment.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 2695–2707. [CrossRef]
6. Paterson, D.A.P.; Ijomah, W.L.; Windmill, J.F.C. End-of-life decision tool with emphasis on remanufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2017,
148, 653–664. [CrossRef]
7. Wang, K.; Li, X.; Gao, L. Modeling and optimization of multi-objective partial disassembly line balancing problem considering
hazard and profit. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 211, 115–133. [CrossRef]
8. Bentaha, M.L.; Dolgui, A.; Battaia, O.; Riggs, R.J.; Hu, J. Profit-oriented partial disassembly line design: Dealing with hazardous
parts and task processing times uncertainty. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2018, 56, 7220–7242. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 22 of 23

9. Cordella, M.; Alfieri, F.; Clemm, C.; Berwald, A. Durability of smartphones: A technical analysis of reliability and repairability
aspects. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 125388. [CrossRef]
10. Islam, M.T.; Dias, P.R.; Huda, N. Waste mobile phones: A survey and analysis of the awareness, consumption and disposal
behavior of consumers in Australia. J. Environ. Manage. 2020, 275, 111111. [CrossRef]
11. Ren, Y.; Zhang, C.; Zhao, F.; Tian, G.; Lin, W.; Meng, L.; Li, H. Disassembly line balancing problem using interdependent
weights-based multi-criteria decision making and 2-Optimal algorithm. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 1475–1486. [CrossRef]
12. Liu, J.; Zhou, Z.; Pham, D.T.; Xu, W.; Ji, C.; Liu, Q. Collaborative optimization of robotic disassembly sequence planning and
robotic disassembly line balancing problem using improved discrete Bees algorithm in remanufacturing. Robot. Comput. Integr.
Manuf. 2020, 61, 101829. [CrossRef]
13. Ren, Y.; Yu, D.; Zhang, C.; Tian, G.; Meng, L.; Zhou, X. An improved gravitational search algorithm for profit-oriented partial
disassembly line balancing problem. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2017, 55, 7302–7316. [CrossRef]
14. Mandolini, M.; Favi, C.; Germani, M.; Marconi, M. Time-based disassembly method: How to assess the best disassembly sequence
and time of target components in complex products. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2018, 95, 409–430. [CrossRef]
15. Yang, Y.; Yuan, G.; Zhuang, Q.; Tian, G. Multi-objective low-carbon disassembly line balancing for agricultural machinery using
MDFOA and fuzzy AHP. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 233, 1465–1474. [CrossRef]
16. Cao, J.; Xia, X.; Wang, L.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, X. A Novel Multi-Efficiency Optimization Method for Disassembly Line Balancing
Problem. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6969. [CrossRef]
17. Lu, Q.; Ren, Y.; Jin, H.; Meng, L.; Li, L.; Zhang, C.; Sutherland, J.W. A hybrid metaheuristic algorithm for a profit-oriented and
energy-efficient disassembly sequencing problem. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2020, 61, 101828. [CrossRef]
18. Xu, W.; Tang, Q.; Liu, J.; Liu, Z.; Zhou, Z.; Pham, D.T. Disassembly sequence planning using discrete Bees algorithm for
human-robot collaboration in remanufacturing. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2020, 62, 101860. [CrossRef]
19. Xing, Y.; Wu, D.; Qu, L. Parallel disassembly sequence planning using improved ant colony algorithm. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol.
2021, 113, 2327–2342. [CrossRef]
20. Liu, H.; Zhang, L. Optimizing a disassembly sequence planning with success rates of disassembly operations via a variable
neighborhood search algorithm. IEEE Access 2021, 9, 157540–157549. [CrossRef]
21. Liang, J.; Guo, S.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, W.; Zhou, S. Energy-efficient optimization of two-sided disassembly line balance considering
parallel operation and uncertain using multiobjective flatworm algorithm. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3358. [CrossRef]
22. Aicha, M.; Belhadj, I.; Hammadi, M.; Aifaoui, N. A mathematical formulation for processing time computing in disassembly lines
and its optimization. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2022, 165, 107933. [CrossRef]
23. Zeng, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Liang, W.; Zhang, Y. Balancing optimization for disassembly line of mixed homogeneous products with
hybrid disassembly mode. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023, 185, 109646. [CrossRef]
24. Wang, K.; Guo, J.; Du, B.; Li, Y.; Tang, H.; Li, X.; Gao, L. A novel MILP model and an improved genetic algorithm for disassembly
line balancing and sequence planning with partial destructive mode. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2023, 186, 109704. [CrossRef]
25. Yeh, W.C. Optimization of the disassembly sequencing problem on the basis of self-adaptive simplified swarm optimization.
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man. Cybern.-Part. A Syst. Hum. 2011, 42, 250–261. [CrossRef]
26. Xia, K.; Gao, L.; Li, W.; Chao, K. Disassembly sequence planning using a simplified teaching-learning-based optimization
algorithm. Adv. Eng. Inform. 2014, 28, 518–527. [CrossRef]
27. Tseng, H.E.; Chang, C.C.; Lee, S.C.; Huang, Y.M. A block-based genetic algorithm for disassembly sequence planning. Expert.
Syst. Appl. 2018, 96, 492–505. [CrossRef]
28. Xie, J.; Li, X.; Gao, L. Disassembly sequence planning based on a modified grey wolf optimizer. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 2021,
116, 3731–3750. [CrossRef]
29. Tseng, H.E.; Huang, Y.M.; Chang, C.C.; Lee, S.C. Disassembly sequence planning using a Flatworm algorithm. J. Manuf. Syst.
2020, 57, 416–428. [CrossRef]
30. Tseng, H.E.; Chang, C.C.; Chung, T.W. Applying improved particle swarm optimization to asynchronous parallel disassembly
planning. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 80555–80564. [CrossRef]
31. Lou, S.; Zhang, Y.; Tan, R.; Lv, C. A human-cyber-physical system enabled sequential disassembly planning approach for a
human-robot collaboration cell in Industry 5.0. Robot. Comput. Integr. Manuf. 2024, 87, 102706. [CrossRef]
32. Kalayci, C.B.; Polat, O.; Gupta, S.M. A hybrid genetic algorithm for sequence-dependent disassembly line balancing problem.
Ann. Oper. Res. 2016, 242, 321–354. [CrossRef]
33. Liu, J.; Wang, S. Balancing disassembly line in product recovery to promote the coordinated development of economy and
environment. Sustainability 2017, 9, 309. [CrossRef]
34. Liu, J.; Sang, H.; Han, Y.; Wang, C.; Gao, K. Efficient multi-objective optimization algorithm for hybrid flow shop scheduling
problems with setup energy consumptions. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 181, 584–598. [CrossRef]
35. Xia, X.; Liu, W.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, L.; Cao, J.; Liu, X. A Balancing Method of Mixed-model Disassembly Line in Random Working
Environment. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2304. [CrossRef]
36. Xu, W.; Cui, J.; Liu, B.; Liu, J.; Yao, B.; Zhou, Z. Human-robot collaborative disassembly line balancing considering the safe
strategy in remanufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 324, 129158. [CrossRef]
37. Liang, P.; Fu, Y.; Gao, K. Multi-product disassembly line balancing optimization method for high disassembly profit and low
energy consumption with noise pollution constraints. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2024, 130, 107721. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 1114 23 of 23

38. Giudice, F.; Kassem, M. End-of-life impact reduction through analysis and redistribution of disassembly depth: A case study in
electronic device redesign. Comput. Ind. Eng. 2009, 57, 677–690. [CrossRef]
39. Achillas, C.; Aidonis, D.; Vlachokostas, C.; Karagiannidis, A.; Moussiopoulos, N.; Loulos, V. Depth of manual dismantling
analysis: A cost–benefit approach. Waste Manag. 2013, 33, 948–956. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Smith, S.; Hsu, L.; Smith, G.C. Partial disassembly sequence planning based on cost-benefit analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 139,
729–739. [CrossRef]
41. Kubler, S.; Robert, J.; Derigent, W.; Voisin, A.; Traon, Y.L. A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications.
Expert. Syst. Appl. 2016, 65, 398–422.
42. Liu, Y.; Eckert, C.M.; Earl, C. A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements. Expert. Syst. Appl.
2020, 161, 113738. [CrossRef]
43. Heo, E.; Kim, J.; Boo, K.J. Analysis of the assessment factors for renewable energy dissemination program evaluation using fuzzy
AHP. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 2010, 14, 2214–2220. [CrossRef]
44. Avikal, S.; Jain, R.; Mishra, P.K. A Kano model, AHP and M-TOPSIS method-based technique for disassembly line balancing
under fuzzy environment. Appl. Soft Comput. 2014, 25, 519–529. [CrossRef]
45. Guler, D.; Yomralioglu, T. Suitable location selection for the electric vehicle fast charging station with AHP and fuzzy AHP
methods using GIS. Ann. GIS 2020, 26, 169–189. [CrossRef]
46. Zhou, X.; Sun, Y.; Huang, Z.; Yang, C.; Yen, G.G. Dynamic multi-objective optimization and fuzzy AHP for copper removal
process of zinc hydrometallurgy. Appl. Soft Comput. 2022, 129, 109613. [CrossRef]
47. Sherif, S.U.; Asokan, P.; Sasikumar, P.; Mathiyazhagan, K.; Jerald, J. An integrated decision making approach for the selection of
battery recycling plant location under sustainable environment. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 330, 129784. [CrossRef]
48. Tuo, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, T.; Zeng, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Junqi, L. Multimanned disassembly line balancing optimization considering
walking workers and task evaluation indicators. J. Manuf. Syst. 2024, 72, 263–286. [CrossRef]
49. Oliva, D.; Abd El Aziz, M.; Hassanien, A.E. Parameter estimation of photovoltaic cells using an improved chaotic whale
optimization algorithm. Appl. Energy 2017, 200, 141–154. [CrossRef]
50. Baykasoğlu, A.; Hamzadayi, A.; Köse, S.Y. Testing the performance of teaching–learning based optimization (TLBO) algorithm on
combinatorial problems: Flow shop and job shop scheduling cases. Inf. Sci. 2014, 276, 204–218. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.