Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23

https://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-021-00085-2

REVIEW

Circular Materials and Circular Design—Review

Ludovic F. Dumée 1,2,3

Received: 30 March 2021 / Accepted: 16 June 2021 / Published online: 26 June 2021
# The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Abstract
The selection and engineering of materials is a critical component towards the develop-
ment of a circular economy model. The redesign of both consumer commodity goods and
advanced products may not only require engineering feats in terms of advanced structures
but also the implementation of safer and more facile to recycle materials. Although such
endeavours include the engineering of goods generated from clever components assem-
blies, easier to dismantle and separate, new avenues to move beyond planned obsoles-
cence towards triggered obsolescence, whereby materials may degrade on command, is
required. Circular Materials must be designed to enable complete recycling of materials
and novel synthesis strategies free from toxic precursors or by-products to regenerate raw
materials. Circular materials shall therefore be processed first at the local level for local
needs. Key supply-chain challenges arising from the COVID-19 lockdowns have further
stressed the relevance of this issue and the need to have develop well dispatched
geographically manufacturing hubs. Changes towards Circular Materials considerations
will depend on the development of repurposing and recycling platforms as well as from
the rebirth of delocalized manufacturing capabilities. This chapter will present current
solutions to develop sustainable materials engineering strategies and focus on greener
fabrication and recycling routes. Focus on smarter designs and life-cycle analysis will
reflect on how Circular Design of materials may contribute to the Circular Economy.

Keywords Circular design . Materials reengineering . Rresource recovery . Recycling .

* Ludovic F. Dumée
[email protected]

1
Khalifa University, Department of Chemical Engineering, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
2
Research and Innovation Centre on CO2 and Hydrogen, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
3
Center for Membrane and Advanced Water Technology, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates
10 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23

Introduction

Consumer awareness with regards to the need to develop new manufacturing and repurposing
strategies for commodity materials, have risen extensively over the past 10 years [1, 2]. The
concept of Circular Economy, initially considered as a utopia, is emerging as the only
manageable strategy to reduce pressure on increasingly scarce resources and to limit the
generation of waste products. Circular Economy strategies, focused on Circular Materials
and design, must however be implemented in rationale phases to shift from traditional
production strategies [3].
Product life cycle strategies utilised over the course of a Linear Economy (LE) product
development rely on a set of identified stages across the lifespan of the commodity [4]. Such
stages within a LE strategy including the following (1) development, (2) introduction, (3)
growth, (4) maturity, (5) decline, and (6) disposal of the materials [5, 6]. Tools available to
companies to develop new products include market research and competitor analysis within
the development stage, which are performed to crystallise the potential growth for the product
and to build relevant business cases to validate the products acceptability by the consumers.
During the introduction phase, the product is promoted to develop public awareness about the
upcoming product and this marketing exercise spans across a range of media and diffusion
mechanisms to promote the key criteria of interest to the customer, often early adopters, the
performance of the product. The growth stage occurs when the market share of the product
becomes visible above the noise of its competitors and if a product completes the introduction
and growth stages successfully, it will progressively reach the maturity stage. During this
maturity stage, typically and hopefully the longest over the lifetime of a product, dissemination
of the product grows at a very fast rate, prior to gradually plateauing. The need for any
commercialised product to overcome the risks of market obsolescence and decline are
achieved through differentiation of the product from its competitors or by upgrading further
the product to account for customer feedbacks. At the end of its lifetime the product may be
recycled, if considered cost-effective, or disposed and sent to landfill or for incineration. The
innovation in term of performance of the product will dictate the time at which the product will
enter the decline stage, leading to a reduced share market and ultimately an end of production.
This LE model has thrived for over 100 years since the inception of mass production as the
leading model of our economies. The LE model therefore encompasses several design and
redesign steps allowing for market penetration, adaptation to competitors and needs or demand
from customers about performance [7]. Circular Design is just one extra performance criteria
demanded by customers to ensure that the end of life of their products is not only predicted and
controlled but sustainable. This demand, driven by customers towards more environmental
fairness and concerns of sustainable growth represents a renewed awareness of mankind
responsibility in the abuse of natural resource and their management. This paradigm shift in
behaviour will lead markets over the decades to come and force manufacturers to develop
innovative solutions to loop their materials manufacturing to recycling or repurposing strate-
gies [5, 8].
Although often considered as a brake to competitively from a profit point of view,
redesigning materials for a CE does not necessarily require extensive alteration to initial
designs [9]. Examples of competitor products on the market allowing for facile disassembly
leading to the recovery of parts, which can be readily recycled or else repurposed are
nowadays common. In parallel, the application of various materials grades allowing for
cost-competitive recycling strategies has often hindered the development of circular recycling
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23 11

pathways from the mismatch of the various grades of materials recovered within recycling
stations [7]. The economy of scale achieved by reducing or altering the quality of raw products
used may indeed affect the ability to recover materials and render recycling efforts vain or
inefficient [8].
The origin of the barriers preventing strategies towards the development of the circular
design of materials will be discussed in this review [10]. A strong focus will be put on
discussing the rationalisation of materials and on present arguments towards awareness of the
finite nature of resources used for any product manufacturing, as well as to the design of the
system to facilitate recovery of components and individual materials [11]. It is globally
acknowledged that shifting the view on materials, at the corporate, governmental and con-
sumer levels, from waste perception to a resource valorisation would support industrial
prosperity, environmental sustainability as well as personal and societal fulfilment. Currently,
the value and potential of these materials is immediately diminished leading regulatory bodies
to handle them as nonvaluable materials [12]. A paradigm both from a societal and industrial
point of view will be reached when such products, representing resources are redefined to be
intelligible to the various stakeholders in terms of the design, manufacturing, and recycling
chains. The objectives of any CE approach are to enhance the lifetime of products, facilitate
repurposing of items and divert waste materials from landfill back to production lines [13]. On
the long term, such approaches will lead to further rationale design of products, which may be
easily dismantled into core parts for repurposing or recycling. However, on the short term,
redefining wastes as resources to optimise their recovery shall be a priority.
This paper aims at acting both as a high level critical review and a piece of opinion to
support circular design and circular materials strategies, and will first present the barrier and
enablers of circular design to identify recurring challenges preventing its implementation. The
discussion will then be focused on the various classes of materials resources available and
requiring circular redesign or recycling. A critical discussion with examples on flaws in their
designs preventing their facile repurposing or recycling will be presented prior to assessing
strategic routes to favour a circular design approach of circular materials.

Enablers and Barriers to Circular Designs and Engineering

Altering the visibility of the end-of-life of products end is critical to overcome the complex
economic, environmental, and social challenges faced by the development of a CE strategy
[11, 14]. A rapid transition from the current status quo of linear business models to circular
approaches is required towards global sustainability and to reduce pressure on natural
resources. The implementation of innovative circular design and production strategies will
not only benefit society but also offer opportunities for companies by positively affect
economic growth, reducing negative impact on the environment, renewing the job market
through innovation and helping improve the image and recognition linked to their core values
and missions. A number of fundamental enablers and barriers to both innovation and imple-
mentation of innovation must be considered to enable this shift.
On the one hand, at the company level, enablers may support business changes and
reorientations [5, 8]. High-level commitments, with long-term business engagement over
10–30 years, and visionary perspectives are critical to such model alterations. The transfor-
mative implementation of top-down strategies, as opposed to conventional bottom-up
manufacturing approaches is favouring long-term planning and investment, which may
12 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23

facilitate decision making for top management to transition to circular approaches [15].
Simultaneously, personal drive and attitudes of personnel to become involved with circular
philosophies must be encouraged through proper communication on the renewed vision of the
enterprise and internal marketing. Such empowerment of staff, at the societal and engineering
level through soft-skills teaching and towards targeted actions developments will support long-
term acceptance and engagement [16]. This approach shall provide a sense of purpose,
motivating employees who may realise better the competitiveness of their areas, thus ulti-
mately facilitating attraction and retainment of talents [17]. Such engagement strategies will
profit the companies through productivity increase across more vibrant and stimulating
environments led and committed by their associates and employees. Additionally, the promise
of enhanced competitiveness will help maintain market shares and revenues in an ever more
competitive environment. The perception of the company, shown to care and being considerate
to its customers, will be benefited leading to competitive advantages over linear or conven-
tional businesses. This approach will be further enabled across innovative ecosystems,
favouring partnerships, and collaboration of both stakeholders and competitors [8, 17]. In
addition, the standardisation of requirements across the value chain, through more stringent
product certifications and calculations, such as life cycle assessments will allow to track
efficiently sustainability. The development of clear standards and behavioural charts will
support rapid assessements of the products manufacturing pathways and subsequent recycling
or repurposing solutions. Such stewardship will become the norm to facilitate the identification
of socially responsible suppliers or service providers and offer versatile trains of solutions to
the redesign and remanufacturing in favour of circular models.
On the other hand, from a financial level point of view, several barriers must be overcome
to enable a CE strategy. First, the financing of new business models coupled with taxation
systems must be supported. Business transformations come at costs and would require
appropriate transition periods to adjust to the various required or adopted models. Upfront,
sensible, and progressive, cash investments required for business innovation will contribute to
the high cost of implementing circular models. These costs include the research of usage of
secondary products and raw materials, as opposed to the often higher grade virgin resources at
lower cost as well as current global taxation and pricing systems, which rewards linear models
rather than circular ones. Altering subsidies to fossil fuels, revising policies on long-range
transport of materials and goods and manufacturing development or redevelopment in a
sustainable economy must be supported [18–21]. The development of schemes towards lower
energy costs but also more stringent environmental responsibilities for manufacturers to care
for wastes shall be implemented [22, 23]. Particularly, alternative routes to valorise the
recycling of materials and resources must also be sought to standardise the quality and
potential of these regenerated resources based on key performance criteria [24]. Economy of
scale may only be achieved if quality controls of these resources produced are indeed certified
by regulatory bodies and benchmarked by raw materials producers themselves [12]. A
secondary raw material market will emerge and progressively integrate the main virgin
material market to avoid questionable qualities to be circulated across markets and to facilitate
the transformation [11]. Such endeavours will be achieved through a mix of favourable
taxation or rebate schemes, whereby local sourcing of products, from recycling or mixed
recycling materials are encouraged or rendered mandatory. In addition, the perceived lack of
consumer demand may often limit push for innovation and the emergence of eco-designs
supporting the semiautomated or automated dismantling of products may be supported by
popular demand from the market base.
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23 13

A key challenge however stands with the common lack of infrastructures to adequately
support this transition towards circularity. This lack of capabilities, at the research, recycling
and engineering levels, to develop cost-effective and yet low energy foot-print recovery
solutions are often, and very unfortunately, coupled to lack of local manufacturing capabilities
[11]. The decades long approach consisting in locally burying waste or shipping them to
processing platforms oversea, where these materials were often either burnt or buried, is
however over [20]. Key barriers to the development of circular strategies is progressively
lifting from public, academic and industry realisation of the risks associated with single or
centralised global supply chains. Supply challenges observed during the COVID-19 pandemic
situation, and global lockdowns of entire countries, has clearly exacerbated this challenge and
it is likely that protective national policies will secure alternative supply chains in the very near
future [25] or shift, from public pressure, to locally sourced and produced strategic products.
Large manufacturing goods net-importers, such as developed countries, must rethink their
goods import, and wastes export strategies to ensure that the volumes of secondary raw
resources generated are manageable by their local manufacturing and recycling networks.
Risks of overheating local materials markets with offer whilst overcooling new manufacturing
hubs with demand will lead to unsustainable materials and commodity prices volatility. The
redeployment of specialty manufacturing of goods is therefore a prerequisite and must be
supported by local, national, and supranational authorities [26, 27].

Challenges With Circular Raw Materials Generation

The recycling of products is the most necessary solution to the development of focused raw
material markets [24, 28]. Recycled materials may be categorised across a range of areas
including liquid, gaseous, and solid resources, which resources may be directly generated from
the goods as a whole or a component, or indirectly if extracted from a mix or composite
materials. Some resources may also be indirectly related to the recycling and repurposing upon
cleaning, scrubbing or extraction procedures generating waste streams for further processing.

Gaseous Materials

Gaseous wastes represent a largely untapped resource and may be directly produced during
repurposing or generated from the thermal or biological decomposition of materials [22]. The
capture of toxic gases must be a priority within this overall resource treatment process, which
may be generated from the decomposition of materials during recovery or storage such as in
landfills, but also from specific processes required to extract other valuable materials and to
increase their value. Although valuable gases such as methane or ammonia may be generated
for energy production [29] during such processes, toxic gases including greenhouse and
fluorinated gases may also be formed. The valorisation of methane or ammonia as new fuels
has great potential and shall be evaluated fully in such approach, in line with current biogas
generation strategies [30]. The production of biogas is economically viable and has been
implemented across a range of waste-to-energy operation units as well as for specific reme-
diation of biocontaminants. The risks arising from biogas utilisation, in terms of greenhouse
gas emissions, must however be considered carefully in the LCA of the process and materials
[31, 32]. The conversion of gases otherwise typically considered finite waste materials, such as
carbon dioxide, to small molecular weight chemicals, and fuels also represents a valuable route
14 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23

to the circular design of the economy [33]. Such strategies shall be sustained with renewable
energies inputs and across a range of manufacturing scales [34]. The potential of such waste
gases to represent a feedstock for other applications, including their direct atmosphere
extraction, will be a key milestone in the achievement of circular materials fluxes. The
development of circular materials will be enabled by the development of holistic technologies
ensuring safe disposal and recovery of such gases.

Liquid Materials

Liquid resources generated from manufacturing or recycling activities include water and
organic solvents. Resource recovery from dismantling or decomposing products may also
generate brines or solutes of high value requiring further purification treatments [35]. The
toxicity and fate of such fluids, liquids or slurries, shall be considered to limit environmental
impact on ecosystems as well as a complexification of the recycling and circular strategy
implementation. The development of nonorganic solvent alternatives or the regeneration of
these and solvent should be prioritised to reduce the footprint and cost of the recycling process
and enable circular manufacturing pathways [36, 37]. Enhancing the water recovery and
alternative water reuse strategies is also an integral aspect of Circular Material strategies.
Although such recoveries may be achieved with novel and more specific waste water
treatment plant operations, involving bioreactors, membrane systems, adsorbents, as well as
sedimentation and distillation facilities, treating waste at the source of production is by far a
much more advantageous and long-term solution. Strategies involving zero-liquid discharge
for instance are evolving quickly and offer routes to reduce the final volumes of waste
materials by several folds, generating resource streams for direct reuse within manufacturing
processes or with real monetary value. The recycling of liquid waste from spent batteries is one
of such examples and represents an extremely relevant industrial challenge [38]. The scarcity
of many rare earth, alkali, and heavy metals constituents of batteries are typically processed
through hydrometallurgical solutions. The recovery of such valuable resources shall be
performed not only of economic value but represents a turning point from an environmental
aspect given the extreme fast rate of usage and production of battery materials. The volumes of
e-waste materials and batteries particularly generated yearly and the forecast expansion of
battery technologies, for transport or storage of energy, will require solutions to facilitate their
processing [39, 40]. Although this point is significant, it will not be elaborated further since out
of scope. The development of sustainable extraction technologies, enabling speciation, and
product generation, such as specific salts or solvent mixtures for direct reuse, offering lower
carbon footprint and requiring lower operating and capital costs are required.

Solid Materials

Solid materials represent more valuable commodities for the manufacturing industries and
include metals, polymers, ceramics, composite structures, and organics.
Organic materials, generated from biodegradable materials including food scraps or
biosourced waste materials, can be efficiently composted and valorised [41]. Such materials,
unless contaminated with nonbiodegradable waste, such as metals or plastics, do not represent
a great difficulty in terms of repurposing. Compost may be used for agriculture or landscaping
as soil regeneration strategies making such products attractive and low-cost to produce.
Contamination with other materials, mixed during initial material design or recycling
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23 15

represents however a challenge and components such as labels or coatings shall be redesigned
to be equally biodegradable. An example includes basic food packaging or coffee cups and
take-away utensils, which can produced from premium recycled and recyclable materials.
Such packaging materials however often include insulating layers made of oil-sourced poly-
meric materials and sometimes inorganic materials used as part of dyes or pigments for their
finishing [42]. Such contamination will affect bacteria bed used during bioreactor operations
detrimentally. The breakoff of plastic layers into microplastics will also represent a major
challenge and these microplastics shall remain present in the soil materials generated being
mixed with fresh soil and thus spreading microplastics contamination [43, 44]. Such contam-
inations are not well studied to date and evaluated to date but represent a challenge to
overcome. Routes to tackle these issues are therefore to redesign at the source packaging
materials by banning nonbiodegradable materials. A main challenge also comes from the lack
of generalised definition of biodegradability, which is often abused from a marketing point of
view. The lack of legal status and standards for most biodegradable labels and regarding the
true meaning of biodegradability of materials allows manufacturers to develop their own, often
irreproducible tests and data-sets. A number of inappropriately performed advertisement
campaigns suggested that series of plastic bags made from mixed materials, biosourced and
synthetic polymers, where biodegradable since the materials disappeared if buried into certain
types of soils when exposed to proper acidity conditions and in presence of specific bacteria,
generating the right enzymes to degrade one of the components of the materials. The typical
example of plastic bags is clear and it was shown that plastic bags labelled biodegradable
would fragment, leaving microplastics of synthetic polymers. Other examples of biodegrad-
able plastics bags, if tested in different soil compositions and conditions, were found to not
degrade after over 10 times the duration claimed by the manufacturer. Such examples are
multiple and this concept of waste to compost must be carefully considered to prevent
pollution of arable soils and transfer of plastic pollution to pristine lands.
Ceramics, such as glass fines, porcelain or stone-sourced products are not a major challenge
if not mixed with metals or coated with polymeric materials [45]. Most ceramics may be
crushed down to particulate levels and reprocessed as additives for civil engineering, technical
ceramics, or second grade glassware manufacturing [46]. Current technologies used across
sorting facilities are able to discriminate based on composition or colour at levels around 70–
90 %, making the recovery of single strain of materials and their valorisation relatively simple
and cost-competitive [47]. The sorting of the remaining 10–30 % represents however a key
technical challenge since various mixed materials such as paper, biological items including
bones, plastics or metals are present in the form of adhesive, labels, tags, decoration layers or
caps, to name a few. The removal of these contaminants is extremely difficult since either
strongly bonded to the surface of the ceramics or very well mixed with these glass fines. The
colour of glass is typically achieved upon addition of metal dopants within the silica matrix
and mixing crushed glass powders of different colours for repurposing will alter the ultimate
colour of the material, whilst extracting the metal from the silica powder hardly manageable at
industrial scale. Similarly, paints used on ceramics are also often metal-based dyes [45] and
their removal is rendered difficult due to extra surface finishes or coatings, which may be
polymeric or ceramic to protect the patterns. Chemical or thermal etching may be required to
remove these additives, which will generate liquid or gaseous waste streams, again containing
valuable resources [46, 47]. The design of better sorting technologies allowing for higher
recovery of consistent materials is therefore a priority whilst the redesigning of surface finishes
16 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23

and bulk additives to render colour or texture more sustainable should be rethought to prevent
the generation of undesirable mixed waste materials, typically ending up in landfill.
Metal materials found in bulk parts are typically easier to recover and valorise. The
processing steps required at high temperatures facilitate elimination of organic or polymeric
contamination [48] but the presence of ceramics as anticorrosion coatings or as friction
controllers may again affect the final mix purity. The very large bulk of produced metal parts
will be made of stainless steel, copper and its alloys, as well as aluminium and titanium. Metal
are typically much easier to recycle compared to polymeric or ceramic materials due to the
broad range of metal grades used and available in engineering and manufacturing. The
recycling of aluminium or stainless steel are examples of this ability to recycle metals despite
the need for chemical treatments to reduce or remove oxides and the energy penalty arising
from heat treatments required for melting and ingots generation. The recyclability of metals is
also not has much as a challenge as polymeric materials, which can only be recycled so many
times without degrading the molecular structure of the polymer (depolymerizing or over-
polymerising for instance) and most metals, unless again oxidised or contaminated during their
operation as a product or recycling may be recast nearly indefinitely. Separating metals from
alloys is rarely done since the composition of the materials developed may be adjusted based
on elemental analysis of the recovered materials. The recovery of solid metal from composite
materials however represents a key challenge to be solved since energy-demanding, whilst the
sorting of metals at the source is equally difficult, with the exception to ferromagnetic materials
extraction from non-ferromagnetic materials, which is well mastered [49]. The sorting of
metals such as aluminium or copper from titanium, becoming increasingly used in high value
structural materials are very challenging and must involve selective separative steps and such
metallurgical, electrochemical or physical approaches have been well developed and work at
scale [50]. Metals do not therefore represent a key challenge and valorisation is nonetheless
dependant on energy inputs required to deconstruct alloys into single metallic species.
Polymeric materials and commodity plastics however represent a challenge due to the wider
types of polymers generated [51]. Changes in polymer contents or molecular weights may
greatly affect the quality of the recycled products as well as the reproducibility of the recycling
process. Polymers hold together through specific covalent bonds and most commercial
polymers are either silicone or carbon based, thus requiring specific polymerisation to generate
long range order products. The polymerisation conditions of the monomers, building blocks
towards any polymeric materials, will dictate the properties of the final polymers formed [52].
Polymers are extremely sensitive to weathering including potentially humidity uptake and sun-
light irradiation and such stress may shorten the polymeric chains, reducing the molecular
weight of the materials and thus the polymer mechanical properties or permeance to gases or
liquids. Slight chemical alterations may also affect the adsorption of contaminants, including
organic or inorganic, which further increases the complexity of the recycling process. Poly-
meric materials separation may be achieved by density or chemical identification, leading to
relatively large volumes of mixed waste materials. The main commodity polymeric materials
available in volume include high density poly(ethylene) and poly(propylene), as well as
poly(ethylene terephthalate) and poly(styrene). Although these polymeric materials may be
melted and pelletised to generate new raw materials [52], the thermal reprocessing affects the
polymer properties detrimentally, reducing molecular weights and therefore thermo-
mechanical properties. Fresh polymeric material can typically be recycled 8 to 10 times prior
to becoming unfit for further reprocessing. Such aspects are critical to the circular economy
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23 17

scheme and redesigning polymeric materials to either make them more resilient to reprocessing
or else facilitate their depolymerisation to regenerate monomers.
Composite materials represent a broad class of architectures combining various phases to
benefits from the properties of each individual constituents [53]. Typically, composite mate-
rials are made of either a main matrix to which a low volume fraction of fillers are added, or
through sandwich layering whereby materials are hierarchically laid and bounded on top of
each other [54]. Composite materials may be homogeneous, if made of a single class of
materials or heterogeneous if consisting of various materials of different nature mixed together.
The complex nature of such materials make them extremely difficult to dismantle and recycle
in a cost-effective manner. Examples of homogeneous composite materials in our daily lives
include most packaging materials where the mechanical strength of the packaging are provided
by a specific layer, whilst air barrier properties from another. Such materials are typically
processed through thermal treatments and binding steps to ensure strong adhesion and
cohesion of the different materials. This durability criterion renders composite materials
excellent for technical applications and examples of heterogeneous composites include liners
used to print labels or generate specific surface finishes applied onto most electronics devices
to protect and insulate whilst remaining light and handy [55]. Electronic components and
boards, phone touch screens, shop e-tags and hundreds of thousands more products also
include one or several layers of metals or ceramics mixed or sandwiched within a polymer
matrix [40, 49]. Such materials are virtually impossible to recycle and only valuable metals,
potentially composing the circuits or electronic parts welded / glued onto the devices can be
recovered. Textile products are also great examples of apparently simple but in reality complex
materials and most textile materials incorporate different types of fibres, often natural mixed
with synthetic [56]. Both composite fibres, made of different polymeric materials or a polymer
and additives, as well as composite textile products, whereby several types of fibres or
materials are integrated together either in the form of fibre / coating or mixed matrix product
may be available [57]. The remediation of these composite materials is challenging due to the
significant differences in reactivity, solubility in solvents, and thermal properties [58]. The
separation of such fibres, mixed to reduce the cost and improve the stability or the comfort of
the garment is challenging and the focus of extensive research efforts [59]. Textile materials,
including natural polymers such as cellulosic materials and synthetic materials, can however
be pelletised and used as fillers into lower grade applications, such as civil engineering based
materials [54]. Else they can be burnt or sent to landfill, which remains unfortunately often the
only viable solution. Strategies to downscale the materials into recycled products and finding
new niche or bulk applications was demonstrated for pure wool or Cashmere products in Prato,
a historical textile industry township in Italy [60]. Downgrading materials however implies
that the valuable resources present across their matrixes are ultimately lost. Routes to chem-
ically etch ceramics and metals from polymers are available but are costly and tend to generate
large volumes of waste liquid effluent streams requiring further processing.
The next section will discuss routes to account for such design flaws and ensure new
generations of products are designed for sustainability. Manufacturers nowadays have a moral
obligation, generated from customers’ pressure, to develop longer lasting solutions and to
ensure that products conceptualization considers the cost of manufacturing but also the
repurposing, dismantling, and recycling of commodities.
18 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23

Redesigning for Dismantling and Recycling

This section provides a review of overarching strategies towards the redesign of materials to fit
a circular philosophy. Technical and societal challenges to overcome will be discussed whilst
case study examples, whereby day-to-day products were replaced or altered to generate
circular materials, will be presented. The purpose of this section is to engage on the relevance
of redesigning products in a sustainable way and a driving point for most of these case studies
lies with innovation driven by market needs. The input from customers is critical and solutions
must emerge from increasing environmental awareness by a bottom-up hierarchy.
Massed produced goods are not designed by considering the entire product lifetime and
particularly their disposal phase. Since nowadays neither the manufacturer nor the customer
are directly liable for the disposal of the products, design typically stops at the functionality
level and it is critical to account for disposal strategies. Key criterion to consider should
include dismantling to facilitate the recovery of most parts or pristine materials. Looking at the
example of electronic touch pads, the differences between brands in terms of design are
striking. Although Apple’s I-pad, one of the most single brand sold touch pad, are slim and
aimed at being robust and un-alterable by common customers, this design does not readily
support dismantling operations. This aspect is probably well-thought to prevent intellectual
property theft and avoid device hacking, which would reduce the brand value of the products
rapidly over time. For this reason, I-pads are “black boxes”, which are extremely difficult to
recycle. Not only are all electronic pads made of composite materials formed across a range of
metal/polymer/ceramic structures, but these structures are so compact that the only way to
dismantle them is to nearly crush them. Some electronic touch pads manufacturers have opted
for more relaxed structures, which can be opened, altered and hacked by their users or repair-
shops. The design phase of such items must therefore be strongly supported to have the end of
life of the products in mind and to facilitate the recovery of valuable materials upon recycling
or repurposing. At present, very few solutions exist to properly and sustainably recycle
electronic products. The separation of the batteries, sometimes welded onto other parts, and
the recovery of various boards and functionalities made of valuable metals is being explored
through a number of routes including chemical and thermal treatments, which are not
environmentally friendly, and routes to therefore assemble differently the materials must be
considered. Most resins used for boards manufacturing are made from chemically cross-linked
chemicals and are therefore close to impossible to reprocess. The major cost during recovery is
however not the extraction and the separation processes, but the manpower required for
extraction and sorting.
Batteries are another class of complex multi-material composite systems, which waste
volumes are increasing exponentially. The performance of battery materials has improved
dramatically over the past 15 years and upcoming energy storage strategies will support further
performance increase in terms of lifespan, power densities and capacity. The great majority of
battery technologies are composed of multiple compartments and materials arranged into tight
and sealed systems to ensure optimum performance as well as leak-free and safe operation.
The brines used for charge transfers within the batteries are often complex and toxic, and their
varied compositions, depending on the type of battery system, make some of them prone to
reactions with oxygen in air or water moisture. Novel strategies must be developed to ensure
safe operation whilst facilitating the recovery of all valuable resources from the spent batteries.
Such strategies are under the scrutiny of various technical and legal governmental and
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23 19

scientific bodies globally, particularly in Europe amongst the priorities of the Strategic Energy
Technologies Information System (SETIS).
Another type of mass-consumed products used on a daily basis i is related to take-away
cutlery and materials. The take-out way of life generates very large volumes of wastes going in
the best of scenarios straight to landfill. Disposable coffee cups are an example where
cardboard materials are protected with a hydrophobic polymer coating to limit hot drinks
diffusion within the cellulosic material. This coating is applied upon polymer melt deposition
to secure a tight and strong bond with the cardboard, rendering a robust design for the lifetime
of the hot drink. The polymer layer may not however be forcibly removed once the cup is used
and various chemical or heat treatments have been tried, largely unsuccessfully or through un-
scalable operating conditions. Designing cups without protective layers or where the layer is
made of an easy to remove material represents one avenue forward and crafting disposable
cups from materials which are either recyclable or compostable would be sustainable, even if
requiring a product cost increase. Some products have emerged with such strategies whereby
the liner is made from biodegradable materials whereby a cross-linked naturally sourced
polymer is used. Recently marketed sustainable cups were shown to be processed from fruit
peels, which are generated during juice processing. The peels may be dried and pelletised, with
the same apparatus which produces the juice, and the pelletised materials are used for 3D
printing to generate the cup in which the juice will be poured into. These peel-based cups are
aimed to last for 4 h, which is sufficient for on-the-go applications and are fully compostable.
Disposable materials are also common practise in the biomedical are for obvious health and
safety aspects, leading to large volumes of generated, and contaminated single use materials.
The materials are destroyed since representing a biological threat typically through pyrolysis at
high temperature. The design of these consumables is typically performed to ensure maximum
safety and resilience and the capacity of the products to be reused shall therefore not be a
challenge provided that appropriate cleaning procedures to remove biological contaminants are
put in place. Such strategies are sensitive since the presence of remaining biological contam-
inants would represent a great liability for practitioners or medical utensils providers. Histor-
ically however, medical equipment were primarily glass and stainless steel based which
allowed for strong disinfectants to be used as well as autoclaving steps to destroy any potential
pathogens. Since current disposable utensils are burnt to prevent pathogen transfers and health
risks, the argument related to the cost of such treatments would therefore appear deterrent. The
design of multiple usage, convenient, and resilient materials able to sustain appropriate
chemical or thermal cleanings is therefore possible but the choice of materials must be
carefully performed to select polymers or components able to sustain a number of cycle.
Appropriate life cycle analysis may allow for the design or potentially costly to produce with
yet longer lasting capabilities.
The development of global recycling and valorization strategies has been supported by
several actors since the early 2000’s, including companies such as WRAP and Terracycle,
have been developing technical and socio-economical reports to support governmental agen-
cies and companies in waste valorization stewardship. The mission of such not-for-profit or
charitable companies is to empower customers and service providers by offering either waste
to resource solutions key-in-hand or support the dismantling and recycling of complex waste
materials [61, 62].
Although a greater number of specific examples may be provided to illustrate the need to
redesign materials and structures, the market reality shall face both moral and technical
20 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23

obligations in a resource scarce future, where Circular Economy and materials engineering will
dominate as a drive to reduce footprint and landfill disposal.

Conclusions and Prospects

The development of circular materials will be achieved following two parallel but yet
complementary strategies. Recycling and repurposing of goods, their components and mate-
rials must be encouraged, facilitated and engineered. Advanced separation techniques
supporting increasingly stringent speciation capabilities and requirements are being developed
to render resource recovery cost-competitive compared to pristine resources extraction and
processing. Redesigning materials with the entire life cycle of the product in mind must be
carried out by manufacturers at a global scale. This aspect is as much marketing as educational
since designers and engineers shall work with more drastic and complex specifications to
enable this circular design. Markets and consumers are demanding such changes both from a
morale perspective and a long term vision point of view. The excessive use and extraction of
resources is leading to their rarefaction which will lead to increased commodities prices,
detrimental to the customer and the environment. Such circular material design considerations
will affect manufacturing globally and companies as well as governments must envision new
policies to ensure that circular economy and approaches are considered at all stage of
productions.
The development of a global strategic roadmap inclusive of current applications of circular
economy strategies and policies from an industrial, governmental and societal point of view
may support future perspectives and the development of such circular design and engineering
strategies particularly for developing economies. Such statistics would support LCA and
predictions about the usage and applicability of Circular Economy strategy to specific cases
and help with stewardship development across the board for all materials recycling,
repurposing, and redesigning approaches.

Acknowledgements A/Prof Dumée acknowledges the Australian Research Council for his Discovery Early
Career Research 2018 Award (DECRA DE180100130) and support from Khalifa University of Science and
Technology under project RC2-2019-007.

Authors' Contributions LFD: data curation and manuscript writing

Funding Not applicable.

Availability of Data and Material Not applicable.

Code Availability Not applicable.

Declarations

Additional Declarations for Articles in Life Science Journals that Report the Results of Studies Involving
Humans and/or Animals Not applicable.
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23 21

Ethics Approval Not applicable.

Consent to Participate Not applicable.

Consent for Publication LFD as sole author agrees to the submission and publication of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest The author declare no conflict of interest or competing interests.

References

1. Calvo-Porral C, Lévy-Mangin J-P (2020) The Circular Economy Business Model: Examining Consumers’
Acceptance of Recycled Goods. 10(2):28
2. LE Europe, et al., Behavioural Study on Consumers’ Engagement in the Circular Economy, in
Implementing Framework Contract – CHAFEA/2015/CP/01/LE, E. Comission, Editor. 2018.
3. Shahbazi, S. and A.K. Jönbrink, Design Guidelines to Develop Circular Products: Action Research on
Nordic Industry. 2020. 12(9): p. 3679.
4. Rink DR, Swan JE (1979) Product life cycle research: a literature review. Journal of Business Research
7(3):219–242
5. Jørgensen S, Pedersen LJT (2018) The Circular Rather than the Linear Economy, in RESTART Sustainable
Business Model Innovation. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 103–120
6. Blythe J (2009) Key Concepts in Marketing, in Key Concepts in Marketing, SAGE, Editor. SAGE
Publications Ltd, London
7. Sariatli F (2017) Linear Economy Versus Circular Economy: A Comparative and Analyzer Study for
Optimization of Economy for Sustainability. 6(1): p. 31
8. Garcés-Ayerbe C, Rivera-Torres P, Suárez-Perales I, Leyva-de la Hiz D (2019) Is it possible to change from
a linear to a circular economy? An overview of opportunities and barriers for European small and medium-
sized enterprise companies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16(5):851
9. Moreno M, de los Rios C, Rowe Z, Charnley F (2016) A Conceptual Framework for Circular Design.
Sustainability 8(9):937
10. Kirchherr J, Reike D, Hekkert M (2017) Conceptualizing the circular economy: an analysis of 114
definitions. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 127:221–232
11. Savini F (2019) The economy that runs on waste: accumulation in the circular city. Journal of
Environmental Policy & Planning 21(6):675–691
12. Group, T., et al. Regulatory barriers for the Circular Economy: lessons from ten case studies. 2016 [cited
2020 09/05/2020]; Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/growth/content/regulatory-barriers-circular-
economy-lessons-ten-case-studies_en.
13. group, E.M. Building blocks. 2020 [cited 2020 09/05/2020]; Available from: https://www.
ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/concept/building-blocks.
14. Houston, J., et al., Enablers and Barriers to a Circular Economy. 2019.
15. Ritchie, M. Actions for a circular economy in Australia from the EU model. 2019 [cited 2020 09/05/2020];
Available from: https://www.insidewaste.com.au/index.php/2019/09/16/actions-for-a-circular-economy-in-
australia-from-eu-model/.
16. Gianmarco B, Marco P, Nicola S (2019) Assessing the impacts of circular economy: a framework and an
application to the washing machine industry. International Journal of Management and Decision Making
18(3):282–308
17. Hobson, K., ‘Small stories of closing loops’: social circularity and the everyday circular economy. Climatic
Change, 2019.
18. Ellsmoor, J. United States Spend Ten Times More On Fossil Fuel Subsidies Than Education. 2019 [cited
2020 09/05/2020]; Available from: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-states-
spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-education/#7325713f4473.
19. Mazengarb, M. Global fossil fuel subsidies reach $5.2 trillion, and $29 billion in Australia. 2019 [cited 2020
09/05/2020]; Available from: https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-5-2-trillion-
and-29-billion-in-australia-91592/.
20. Lee PT-W, Kwon OK, Ruan X (2019) Sustainability Challenges in Maritime Transport and Logistics
Industry and Its Way Ahead. Sustainability 11(5):1331
21. Wu X, Zhang L, Luo M (2020) Current strategic planning for sustainability in international shipping.
Environment, Development and Sustainability 22(3):1729–1747
22 Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23

22. Kabongo JD (2013) Waste Valorization. In: Idowu SO et al (eds) Encyclopedia of Corporate Social
Responsibility. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, pp 2701–2706
23. Loizidou M (2016) Waste Valorization and Management. Waste and Biomass Valorization 7(4):645–648
24. Gaustad G, Krystofik M, Bustamante M, Badami K (2018) Circular economy strategies for mitigating
critical material supply issues. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 135:24–33
25. PWC. Now and next: supply chain resilience measures for coronavirus. 2020 [cited 2020 09/05/2020];
Available from: https://www.digitalpulse.pwc.com.au/supply-chain-coronavirus-covid-19/.
26. Lieder M, Rashid A (2016) Towards circular economy implementation: a comprehensive review in context
of manufacturing industry. Journal of Cleaner Production 115:36–51
27. Parida V, Burström T, Visnjic I, Wincent J (2019) Orchestrating industrial ecosystem in circular economy: a
two-stage transformation model for large manufacturing companies. Journal of Business Research 101:715–
725
28. Virtanen, M., K. Manskinen, and S. Eerola (2017) Circular Material Library. An Innovative Tool to Design
Circular Economy. Design J. 20
29. Valera-Medina A, Xiao H, Owen-Jones M, David WIF, Bowen PJ (2018) Ammonia for power. Progress in
Energy and Combustion Science 69:63–102
30. Ng KS, Yang A, Yakovleva N (2019) Sustainable waste management through synergistic utilisation of
commercial and domestic organic waste for efficient resource recovery and valorisation in the UK. Journal
of Cleaner Production 227:248–262
31. Ghosh, P., et al., Chapter 7 - Biogas production from waste: technical overview, progress, and challenges, in
Bioreactors, L. Singh, A. Yousuf, and D.M. Mahapatra, Editors. 2020, Elsevier. p. 89-104.
32. Issa, K., Recent Advances of Biogas Production and Future Perspective. 2021: p. - Ch. 1.
33. Maina JW, Pozo-Gonzalo C, Kong L, Schütz J, Hill M, Dumée LF (2017) Metal organic framework based
catalysts for CO2 conversion. Materials Horizons 4(3):345–361
34. Vasudevan S et al (2019) Technoenergetic and Economic Analysis of CO2 Conversion. In: Aresta M,
Karimi I, Kawi S (eds) An Economy Based on Carbon Dioxide and Water: Potential of Large Scale Carbon
Dioxide Utilization. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 413–430
35. Mavukkandy MO, Chabib CM, Mustafa I, al Ghaferi A, AlMarzooqi F (2019) Brine management in
desalination industry: from waste to resources generation. Desalination 472:114187
36. Pramanik BK, Shu L, Jegatheesan V (2017) A review of the management and treatment of brine solutions.
Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology 3(4):625–658
37. Perlmutter BA (1997) New techniques for solvent recovery and elimination of wastewater emissions during
vacuum process operations. Environmental Progress 16(2):132–136
38. Liu C, Lin J, Cao H, Zhang Y, Sun Z (2019) Recycling of spent lithium-ion batteries in view of lithium
recovery: a critical review. Journal of Cleaner Production 228:801–813
39. Markets, R.a. Analysis of the World's $45.78Bn E-waste Management Market, 2019-2025. 2019 [cited
2020 09/05/2020]; Available from: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/analysis-of-the-worlds-45-
78bn-e-waste-management-market-2019-2025%2D%2D300974594.html.
40. Ilankoon IMSK, Ghorbani Y, Chong MN, Herath G, Moyo T, Petersen J (2018) E-waste in the international
context–a review of trade flows, regulations, hazards, waste management strategies and technologies for
value recovery. Waste Management 82:258–275
41. Abdel-Shafy HI, Mansour MSM (2018) Solid waste issue: sources, composition, disposal, recycling, and
valorization. Egyptian Journal of Petroleum 27(4):1275–1290
42. Calleja, D. Why the “New Plastics Economy” must be a circular economy. 2019 [cited 2020 09/05/2020];
Available from: https://journals.openedition.org/factsreports/5123.
43. Enfrin M, Dumée LF, Lee J (2019) Nano/microplastics in water and wastewater treatment processes—
origin, impact and potential solutions. Water Research 161:621–638
44. Enfrin M, Lee J, Gibert Y, Basheer F, Kong L, Dumée LF (2020) Release of hazardous nanoplastic
contaminants due to microplastics fragmentation under shear stress forces. Journal of Hazardous Materials
384:121393
45. Kashani A, Ngo TD, Hajimohammadi A (2019) Effect of recycled glass fines on mechanical and durability
properties of concrete foam in comparison with traditional cementitious fines. Cement and Concrete
Composites 99:120–129
46. Imteaz MA, Ali MY, Arulrajah A (2012) Possible environmental impacts of recycled glass used as a
pavement base material. Waste Management & Research 30(9):917–921
47. Demiss BA, Oyawa WO, Shitote SM (2018) Mechanical and microstructural properties of recycled reactive
powder concrete containing waste glass powder and fly ash at standard curing. Cogent Engineering 5(1):
1464877
48. Veasey TJ (1997) An overview of metals recycling by physical separation methods. Proceedings of the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering 211(1):61–64
Circular Economy and Sustainability (2022) 2:9–23 23

49. Zhan L, Xu Z (2009) Separating and Recycling Metals from Mixed Metallic Particles of Crushed Electronic
Wastes by Vacuum Metallurgy. Environmental Science & Technology 43(18):7074–7078
50. Ali UM (2018) Electrochemical Separation and Purification of Metals from WEEE. LAP Lambert
Academic Publishing
51. Hopewell J, Dvorak R, Kosior E (2009) Plastics recycling: challenges and opportunities. Philosophical
transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological Sciences 364(1526):2115–2126
52. Vilaplana F, Karlsson S (2008) Quality Concepts for the Improved Use of Recycled Polymeric Materials: A
Review. Macromolecular Materials and Engineering 293(4):274–297
53. Mativenga PT, Sultan AAM, Agwa-Ejon J, Mbohwa C (2017) Composites in a Circular Economy: A Study
of United Kingdom and South Africa. Procedia CIRP 61:691–696
54. Koumoulos EP, Trompeta AF, Santos RM, Martins M, Santos CM, Iglesias V, Böhm R, Gong G,
Chiminelli A, Verpoest I, Kiekens P, Charitidis CA (2019) Research and Development in Carbon Fibers
and Advanced High-Performance Composites Supply Chain in Europe: A Roadmap for Challenges and the
Industrial Uptake. Journal of Composites Science 3(3):86
55. Gustafsson AMK et al (2015) Investigation of an Electrochemical Method for Separation of Copper,
Indium, and Gallium from Pretreated CIGS Solar Cell Waste Materials. The Scientific World Journal
2015:494015
56. Earley, R. and K. Goldsworthy. Designing for Fast and Slow Circular Fashion Systems: Exploring
Strategies for Multiple and Extended Product Cycles. 2015 [cited 2020 09/05/2020]; Available from:
https://core.ac.uk/display/30316652
57. Todor MP, Bulei C, Kiss I, Cioată VG (2019) Recycling of textile wastes into textile composites based on
natural fibres: the reinforcement type and the architecture. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering 477:012055
58. Yang Y, Boom R, Irion B, van Heerden DJ, Kuiper P, de Wit H (2012) Recycling of composite materials.
Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 51:53–68
59. Goldsworthy K, Earley R, Politowicz K (2018) Circular Speeds: A Review of Fast & Slow Sustainable
Design Approaches for Fashion & Textile Applications. Journal of Textile Design Research and Practice 6:
42–65
60. Hall C (2018) MIXING IT UP IN PRATO: identifying innovation hotspots within mechanical textile
recycling
61. WRAP. Reinvent, rethink and redefine what is possible. 2021 [cited 2021 19/05/2021]; Available from:
https://wrap.org.uk/what-we-do/our-services.
62. Terracycle. Recycle Everything with Terracycle. 2021 [cited 2021 19/05/2021]; Available from: https://
www.terracycle.com/en-US/.