ecoEDA: Recycling E-waste During Electronics Design
Jasmine Lu

Beza Desta

K. D. Wu

University of Chicago
jasminelu@uchicago.edu

University of Chicago
bezad@uchicago.edu

University of Chicago
wuhua@uchicago.edu

Romain Nith

Joyce PassanantiPedro Lopes

University of Chicagornith@uchicago.edu

University of Chicago
joycep@uchicago.edu

University of Chicago
pedrolopes@uchicago.edu

Figure 1: We propose ecoEDA, an interactive electronics design tool that enables electronic components to be reused in new
projects rather than simply ending up as e-waste. Our tool enables various pathways for electronics designers to prioritize
recycling during the design process such as exploring reusable components via suggestions or importing printed circuit board
projects into a library of recyclable components. Through use of our tool, components in typical e-waste can be given a second
life in new project designs.

ABSTRACTThe amount of e-waste generated by discarding devices is enormous but options for recycling remain limited. However, inside a
discarded device (from consumer devices to one’s own prototypes),
an electronics designer could fnd dozens to thousands of reusable
components, including microcontrollers, sensors, voltage regulators, etc. Despite this, existing electronic design tools assume users
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal orclassroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributedfor proft or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citationon the frst page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than theauthor(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or
republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specifc permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from permissions@acm.org.
UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA© 2023 Copyright held by the owner/author(s). Publication rights licensed to ACM.
ACM ISBN 979-8-4007-0132-0/23/10. . . $15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3586183.3606745

will buy all components anew. To tackle this, we propose ecoEDA,
an interactive tool that enables electronics designers to explore
recycling electronic components during the design process. We
accomplish this via (1) creating suggestions to assist users in identifying and designing with recycled components; and (2) maintaining
a library of useful data relevant to reuse (e.g., allowing users to
fnd which devices contain which components). Through example
use-cases, we demonstrate how our tool can enable various pathways to recycling e-waste. To evaluate it, we conducted a user study
where participants used our tool to create an electronic schematicwith components from torn-down e-waste devices. We found thatparticipants’ designs made with ecoEDA featured an average of
66% of recycled components. Last, we refect on challenges andopportunities for building software that promotes e-waste reuse.

UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA

Jasmine Lu et al.

CCS CONCEPTS• Human-centered computing; • Human computer interaction (HCI); • Interactive system and tools;

KEYWORDS
Sustainability, recycling, reuse, electronic design automation (EDA)ACM Reference Format:
Jasmine Lu, Beza Desta, K. D. Wu, Romain Nith, Joyce Passananti, and Pedro
Lopes. 2023. ecoEDA: Recycling E-waste During Electronics Design. In The
36th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology(UIST ’23), October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA. ACM,
New York, NY, USA, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3586183.3606745

1

INTRODUCTION

As the number of new electronic devices on the market grows, so do
the piles of waste from broken or outdated devices. In fact, e-wasteor electronic waste is the fastest-growing waste stream in the world[12, 19]. While most users may see their broken or outdated devices
as trash, an electronics designer can fnd dozens to thousands ofelectronic components in any typical device. Many of these will
be well-preserved components, such as sensors, microcontrollers,
voltage-regulators, and more; all with the potential to be reused on
new prototypes.
Take as an example the popular Roomba, an electronic vacuum
cleaner. Our research team found one of these devices in the trash
and deconstructed it to illustrate how many electronic components
can be found in a common electronic device. Figure 2 depicts how
this singular Roomba contains 500+ components, such as capacitors, transistors, diodes, integrated circuits (ICs) including voltage
regulators, connectors, buttons, crystal resonators, a Wi-Fi module,
and a CPU—most of these in pristine quality (we tested and reused
many in new electronic designs for this paper).
Not only is e-waste a major ecological issue but recent chipshortages made sourcing components extremely difcult. The chipshortage driven by the COVID-19 pandemic has signifcantly stalled
electronic designs worldwide [5]. Electronics engineers, makers,
and researchers experienced lead times on popular chips increasing
so much that they were impractical for use in designs [21]. During
this time, some companies and engineers were dumpster-diving forchips in e-waste out of desperation [9]. However, these instanceswere either centered around a singular component or ad-hoc cases.
The process of reusing components from e-waste involves many
non-trivial steps, including: (1) teardown of the e-waste device; (2)component identifcation, removal & testing; (3) investigating thecompatibility of a recycled component as an alternative in the user’s
design; and (4) altering a circuit’s design to integrate the re-usedcomponent. Currently, users lack appropriate tools to support theseprocesses of reusing electronic components. Moreover, many ofthese non-trivial challenges occur during the circuit design phase(e.g., steps 3-4). These remain a challenge because electronics design
automation (EDA) software assumes users will buy all components
anew from suppliers.
To begin tackling this issue, we propose ecoEDA, an interactive
tool that: (1) creates suggestions during design to assist users insourcing alternative components from discarded devices; and (2)maintains a library of useful data relevant to reusing components

Figure 2: This Roomba was found in the trash but contains
hundreds of reusable components on its PCB.
(e.g., allowing users to fnd which devices contain which components), which users can edit, expand, or even share. We demonstrate
the potential of our tool through several use-cases of engineeringwith recycled components and through a user study evaluating thetool in recycling e-waste during schematic design.
Importantly, all examples in this paper were made with reused
electronics. Our sources included devices authors found in trashbins, discarded devices donated from friends or “free/giveaway”
forums, and broken devices sold for parts on eBay. We did this to:(1) immerse ourselves in the challenges of recycling electronics;(2) illustrate the potential of our tool in a wide range of sources
for scavenging reusable parts, and (3) responsibly engage with this
topic by reusing electronics, even during the prototype phase, andnot generating unnecessary carbon footprint.
Finally, we note that as a tool that supports component reuse
during electronics circuit design, ecoEDA is designed for users withelectronics design & engineering knowledge, such as engineers,makers, hobbyists, researchers, and others.

2

RELATED WORK

Our work builds on electronic design automation (EDA) tools, electronics prototyping toolkits, and other explorations in recycling
electronics. Moreover, our tool’s approach is inspired by in-editor
recommender. Last, we draw from past work in Sustainable HCI inmotivating the goals of this work.

2.1

Electronic Design Automation (EDA) tools

Electronic Design Automation (EDA) tools allow users to interactively design their circuit schematic (using linked symbols torepresent components and their connections); and translate thisschematic into a physical board design (printed circuit board, PCB).
EDAs also typically generate a bill of materials (BOM) with all components the user added to their circuit—this list is used to buy thesecomponents. This process is so common that the generated BOMs
can often even be automatically ordered from component suppliers
within the EDA software. Inherently, most EDAs are structured
with the assumption that components will be bought anew rather
than sourced from alternative sources.

ecoEDA: Recycling E-waste During Electronics Design

These tools vary in complexity depending on the target user,from industry-level (to implement most mainstream devices) to
novice-friendly (for learning/teaching). For example, fritzing [20]and Tinkercad circuits [35] are tools for smaller productions,breadboard-prototyping, and classrooms, whereas Eagle [14], Altium [1], and KiCad [31] are used by both professionals and hobbyists alike. We chose to develop with KiCad due to its popularity
as an EDA among many professionals and as open source and free
software for designing electronic circuits. While we chose to implement our work with KiCad, our work can also be adapted/extended
by other researchers (or users) for other EDA tools.

2.2

In-editor recommender systems

Apart from electronic design automation tools, our work is also inspired by prior work on recommender systems. While most researchon recommender systems personalizes recommendations for users
based on consumer patterns or health interventions [7, 55], ourapproach is more related to recommender systems inside domainspecifc tools. In recent years, with the proliferation of personal
fabrication, 3D editors have been embedded with functionality thatrecommends operations to users while 3D modeling. For instance,
ShapeStructuralizer [9] suggests alternative shape designs while
TrussFab [34] assists with structurally-sound forms. Similarly, we
created ecoEDA to provide users with eco-alternatives while they
are designing electronic circuits.

2.3

Electronics Prototyping

While personal fabrication has much research on assisting users
directly inside their editor, electronics has been diferent. The emphasis on interactive tools and toolkits has been in supporting theearlier phases of the design (breadboards, modular toolkits, etc.).
For instance, to assist users in building simple circuits, AutoFritz
creates suggestions for extending or completing a circuit as users
add components to a virtual breadboard [40]. Similarly, to makephysical electronics prototyping more accessible, .NET gadgeteer
developed a system for rapidly building devices with modules andstandardized connectors [59]. To reduce the need to manufacture
PCBs during early prototyping, Circuit Stickers presents a fabrication method of adhering electronic components to connective
substrates [25]. While these works assist users with rapid prototyping in the early phases, they do not support the engineering of
circuit schematics to be printed as circuit boards (PCB), which iswhere users engage with EDA software to crystalize their designs in
a PCB. Recent work by Lin et al. has explored how EDA tools could
be reimagined to explore design processes based on abstraction,interactive coding, and hardware descriptive languages [37–39].
These showcase how EDAs emphasize and obfuscate aspects ofelectronics design and introducing new tools can allow for moreaccessibility. We are similarly inspired by these works in exploring
how EDAs could prioritize reuse.

2.4

Practices in reusing, remixing, and repairing
electronics

Engineers have previously reused components for various reasons,
including minimizing their device’s ecological impact, their own
curiosity, technical explorations, and even component shortages.

UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA

Our work is similarly inspired by existing processes and aims tobetter support them.
Previous work in waste management has also explored whattypes of components can be reused among common e-waste andhow to test for a part’s reusability [12]. Other work has exploredbuilding open-source hardware tools to test and reprogram common
chips, enabling them for reuse in new designs [49].
Technical curiosity has also led many to build electronic devices
from repurposed parts, create teardown videos, or reverse engineer
devices [11, 15, 17, 63, 65]—often shared on communities such as
Hackaday [23] or Instructables [64]. In fact, recent work has documented various ‘folk strategies’ of experts engaged with unmaking
e-waste [29]. Additionally, component shortages forced individuals
and companies to consider reusing components while creating their
PCBs [10]. In communities where parts are hard to come by andlack local or domestic supply chains, reuse and remixing are key
parts of electronics design and repair [36].
Last, a signifcant driving force behind component reuse is device
repairability [26, 27, 53]. Recently, individuals and many governments recognized the importance of repairing devices to minimize
e-waste. In fact, some governments have taken steps in this direction by requiring the standardization of components [16] orrequiring companies to make repair parts accessible [47]. Moreover,
several organizations like iFixIt provide guides to empower users to
repair [47]. While reusing, remixing, and repair of electronics has
been accomplished in the past by individual users, to the best of ourknowledge, there has not been any research building interactive
tools to support this process.

2.5

Towards more sustainable HCIThe principles behind our work are infuenced by Sustainable Interaction Design, in which Blevis highlighted two goals: linking
invention and disposal and promoting renewal and reuse [6]. These
are central to our work, and we explore them in electronics design—
a domain central to HCI and computing but often overlooked forsustainability.
In previous work on difculties of electronics reuse, Maestri
and Wakkary surveyed how people approached repairing everyday
objects and found that “[T]he simple nature of mechanical objects
enable repair, though the presence of electronics and computational
mechanisms in digital objects add further complexity that makeadaptations and resourcefulness difcult” [41]. This is echoed inPractices in the creative reuse of e-waste, where authors determinedthat a majority of reuse focuses “solely on the exterior properties of
e-waste”, or in other words, the mechanical enclosures of devices[33]. Other researchers have tried to mitigate this; for instance,by facilitating workshops that provide a space for tearing down
devices and learning about their inner workings [3, 45, 46, 61].
Recent work also looked at approximating the environmental
costs of prototyping in the HCI community and even discusses
reuse of electronic components as a strategy for more sustainable
prototyping [57]. In Making with limits: Towards salvage fabrication, authors highlight how making with salvaged materials allows
for unique engagements with resource scarcity, sustainability, andUIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA

Jasmine Lu et al.

disposal [13]. Other research has focused on developing more sustainable processes during the prototyping process such as repurposing existing materials [24, 43, 62], using biodegradable materials[2, 58], and integrating unmaking in their designs [8, 54, 56]. With
ecoEDA, we strive to contribute to these approaches by building
tool support for remixing and reuse of electronics components thatwould otherwise become e-waste.

3

ECOEDA: RECYCLING COMPONENTS
DURING DESIGN

ecoEDA is an interactive tool that assists users in reusing electronic components from discarded devices. While there are many
processes involved in reusing e-waste components (teardown ofdevices, identifying components, testing components, and adapting
designs for reuse), we focus in on building with the tools commonly involved during the design process (i.e., while using EDAs),
enabling support in information management and circuit design
iterations. As such, ecoEDA integrates with KiCad to facilitate
reusing electronic components during schematic design or even
PCB design.
To assist users in recycling components, our tool revolves around
two main elements: (1) ecoEDA suggestions, which provides suggestions to the user during their schematic design, recommending
alternative yet compatible reusable electronic components rather
than purchasing components anew and (2) ecoEDA library, a library management system designed specifcally to organize anddistribute information that is critical for reuse but typically missing from electronic design software (especially, compatibility of
a component with other components, source device, PCB labels,etc.). Within our tool, these elements ofer support for diferent
design strategies such as a design frst, recycle second approach(starting from an existing design and fnding potential recycled
components that could be swapped in) or a recycled-component
inspired design approach (designing around found components). As
such, our features were designed to emphasize checking compatibility of components, evaluating trade-ofs, and discovering uniqueor relevant components in the library.

4

WALKTHROUGH

To showcase our tool, we describe a walkthrough of a user creating an electronic conference badge that includes a microcontroller,
screen, speaker, and vibromotor. In this walkthrough and throughout the paper, our tools gather information from our ecoEDA library,a list of components found inside discarded devices. To make thiswalkthrough succinct, this user has already torn down the discarded
devices for the components in their ecoEDA-library; thus, in thiswalkthrough, we focus on use of the tool with an existing library(see Implementation on how users add parts to the library or sharelibraries with other users). This walkthrough also focuses on auser developing a design from scratch rather than iterating on an
existing schematic design (also supported by our tool).
Our user starts creating the schematic using KiCad. First, they
add the central piece of their electronic badge—the PCD8544 display,
a popular LCD display due to its low-cost and existing libraries formany microcontrollers.

Figure 3: (a) In KiCad, ecoEDA can fnd (b) exact matches forcomponents; (c) reused components have a leaf symbol.
Replacing a component with an exact match. Figure 3 illustrates how our tool detects a component in the library that is anexact match to the PCD8544 display. In response, our tool triggers
a pop-up notifcation inside KiCad to inform the user that their
desired component exists within the ecoEDA library. Our user accepts the replacement and instead of ordering a new PCD8544, they
can now source it from a broken Nokia 5110 phone. As such, thePCD8544 component is now shown on KiCad’s schematic view
annotated with a(leaf) symbol that denotes a recycled part.
Reusing via a drop-in replacement. Now, the user adds thesecond most important component—an ATMEGA328P-A microcontroller (a widely known chip that made the Arduino popular). In
response, as depicted in Figure 4 (a), our tool announces an available
drop-in replacement. Drop-in replacements are trusted componentsthat can be swapped for the original and maintain the same functionality, footprint (physical size on the PCB), and pinout (layoutof physical pins). These components may have diferent specifcations but functionally are similar. Often this exists for popular
chips with variants (ATMEGA328 and 48 have diferent memory
specs as seen in descriptions in Figure 4). ecoEDA suggests theATMEGA48PA from the user’s broken FG05 signal generator. The
user compares the two components via the tool, decides the swap
is also appropriate for their design, and accepts this recommendation. Then, ecoEDA automatically edits the schematic to replace
the ATMEGA328P-A with the recycled ATMEGA48PA.
Suggesting reusing a part with a diferent footprint. Now
that a microcontroller is chosen, the user creates a voltage supply
for the ATMEGA48PA which requires 5V. They choose the popular
7805 voltage regulator. Our tool informs the user of an exact matchwith diferent footprint. As shown in Figure 4(b), the user clicks“review” and ecoEDA displays a GUI that allows the user to compare
the original footprint (TO-220) side by side with recycled one (TO92) from their broken Febreze Scent Stories (a fragrance difuser).
The user reviews, accepts, and ecoEDA swaps in the recycled part.

ecoEDA: Recycling E-waste During Electronics Design

UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA

Figure 5: (a) Ranked suggestions based on name, keywords,
and descriptions. (b) Filtering suggestions by footprint orvalue.

Figure 4: ecoEDA suggests (a) drop-in replacements (uses thesame footprint) and (b) exact matches with diferent footprints.
Ranked suggestions with ecoEDA. Now, our user needs aresonator for their microcontroller, which they achieve by adding
a 20 MHz Crystal. As depicted in Figure 5 (a), our tool notifes theuser that ranked suggestions are available. The user chooses toreview, and our tool displays a list. We use our ranking system
to ofer the most likely matches (using string distance, weighted
keywords, and component type heuristics - described in detail in
Implementation).
Moreover, as shown in Figure 5 (b), our tool allows the user
to flter suggestions by value or footprint. In this case, a 16MHz
crystal was ranked frst, followed by other crystals that scoredlower in similarity. Using our tool, the user compares parameters,
pinouts, footprints, and even device sources and quantities side byside. Finally, the user chooses to replace the 20MHz crystal withthe recycled 16MHz crystal from their broken Roomba (as it falls
within the required value range for their microcontroller). The
user continues to add the required passive components around themicrocontroller as well as a vibration motor and a buzzer—notethat they can continue to replace these via ecoEDA.
Smarter replacements using subcircuits. Now, to interface the ATMEGA48PA with the LCD display, the user adds a
74AHCT125 (a quad-level shifter that converts 5V signals to 3V3).
As depicted in Figure 6, our tool informs the user that a subcircuit
replacement is available. The user reviews and fnds an alternative
way to realize the 74AHCT125’s functionality by reusing four NPN

Figure 6: (a) User adds a 7AHCT125 level shifter and our tool
suggests replacing it with (b) a subcircuit of reused parts.
transistors and eight 10K resistors from their broken Roomba. The
user accepts this, and our tool alters their schematic in response.
Bill of teardowns to assist with assembly. A common feature of EDAs is a bill of materials (list of components to order). As
shown in Figure 7, our tool outputs a bill of teardowns. The user canclick through this guide to see components in their project groupedby their sources (the discarded devices where the components canbe found). It contains helpful information for retrieving these components from their source device such as their PCB designators(label on PCB next to component) and URLs to teardowns.

UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA

Jasmine Lu et al.

Figure 7: (a) ecoEDA groups reused components by source
and organizes information (e.g., teardown links.). (b) A user
viewing a teardown guide for the Roomba (linked from ourUI) and desoldering a needed component.
Circular reuse by importing old projects. Later, if the user
decides to scrap this electronic conference badge, they can reuse its
components on new projects. ecoEDA allows users to reimport theirschematics into its library, providing a new life for components thatwould have become e-waste. This enables any previously designed
electronics schematic to be imported into our ecoEDA library even
if it was not designed with our tool (e.g., Eagle or Altium designs
can be converted to KiCad via a feature already present in KiCad).
In addition to recycling old projects, this also enables the import ofopen-source hardware schematics into the library in case the user
has old/unwanted open-source devices around.
Engaging with statistics of reuse over time. Last, as shownin Figure 8, we want to facilitate a long-term engagement withreuse. To do so, we show statistics about project reuse, the numberof components available for reuse, and how much of each projectreused components. In addition to encouraging users to continue
practicing reuse, we also see this as helping facilitate a more creative
engagement with a user’s process in designing with electronics—
allowing them to consider how they can better incorporate reuse
into their practice.

5

CONTRIBUTION, BENEFITS, AND
LIMITATIONS

Our key contribution is that we propose and implement an interactive tool designed to support the process of reusing components
from discarded devices during design. In addition, we demonstrated
the use of our tool through examples and evaluated it through auser study. Our approach provides three key benefts: (1) Component recall and management: one of the difculties in reusing
components from discarded devices is recalling all of the components that can be found in each device—our tool assists with this byrecalling components automatically—e.g., in a Roomba, one might
immediately recall it has motors and sensors, as these are directly

Figure 8: In (a) statistics of user’s reuse; (b) the fnal conference badge and all the devices that components were sourced
from.
tied to its functionality, but it would be unthinkable to recall values
for 300+ resistors, 150+ capacitors, 40+ transistors, and 20+ ICs.
(2) Component level reuse: our tool enables remixes originatingfrom the component-level rather than the device-level. In doing
so we dramatically multiply the number of ways a device could be
used in new projects beyond its intended functionality (e.g., a signal
generator provides the microcontroller for an electronic conference
badge). (3) Sharing across users: ultimately, the library that eachuser maintains when they tear down discarded devices and map
what can be found inside is the key piece of knowledge that canaccelerate other users’ designs—our tool enables users to share andexchange libraries of the components.
While we see our approach as the frst step towards building tools
for component reuse, it is not without limitations: (1) it depends onusers’ ability to identify and test components from devices (while
eforts exist to use computer vision to automatically extract components, these are emergent systems [42, 52]); (2) some devices might
be designed to discourage being taken apart; (3) not all components
are equally straightforward to reuse and test, as some age diferently and expire faster (e.g., capacitors and batteries); and fnally, (4)recycling is always more time consuming than not-recycling (thisapplies to recycling non-electronic materials too); however, this is
only a short-term perspective, since recycling trades of time withecological savings, which is a principle our system hopes to inspire
in users. Notably, our work focuses on assisting reuse during theecoEDA: Recycling E-waste During Electronics Design

design process (via the editor) but much work remains to support alarger ecosystem of electronics reuse.

6

IMPLEMENTATION

ecoEDA is implemented in Python, a modifed KiCad C++ build, andHTML/Javascript. All code, libraries and installation instructions
will be made open-source1 . We show our tool’s architecture in
Figure 9.

Figure 9: An overview of ecoEDA’s core architecture.

6.1

ecoEDA in KiCad editor

We modifed KiCad to enable a more seamless integration of ecoEDA
in the editor by allowing a single button click to enable suggestions
during design. However, our tool can also be used with standard,
unmodifed distributions of KiCad via additional installation/setup(we used this version in our user study for distribution simplicity).
In-editor assistance. Our in-editor support is implemented in
Python and makes use of KiCad’s Pyshell. While a user is editing
their schematic in KiCad, our scripts monitor their fle for new component additions and search through the ecoEDA library to identify
suggestions. Notifcations of these suggestions appear within the
KiCad editor and users can review these suggestions in a moredetailed view or accept them immediately. If accepted, our backend
scripts remove the original and replace it with the accepted ecoEDA
component at the original component’s location (so that users do
not lose state in design), writing to the schematic fle and updating
the editor. Users are now fully able to build upon and manipulate
the newly added ecoEDA component.
Suggestions. ecoEDA uses its library’s information to ofer appropriate suggestions either as specifc typed suggestions (exact
match, drop-in, footprint, subcircuit) or, by default, as a ranked
list of alternatives. We rank components by scoring the similarity of text felds (name, keywords, and description) and assigningweights corresponding to feld importance. We score component
names based on Levenshtein edit distance and longest common
subsequence to create matches. While both are common algorithms,
they are especially relevant to naming conventions of electronic
components. For example, the linear regulator in our Walkthrough(7805) can be found as WS7805, L7805, 78L05, depending on variations in manufacturer, footprint, packaging, etc. For components
where values have high relevance (i.e., passive types), values arealso factored into their ranking score. Additionally, ranked suggestions can be further fltered by value or if surface-mounted or
1 https://lab.plopes.org/#ecoEDA

UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA

through-hole. Value-based fltering is especially useful for reusing
passive components as designers may need components within arange or can combine components for a specifc value. Last, suggestions prioritize exact match, then drop-in, exact match diferent
footprint, subcircuit, and ranked suggestion in that order. Users
always have the option to get ranked suggestions if the original
suggestion doesn’t ft.

6.2

ecoEDA library

We designed our ecoEDA library to be initially created as a Comma
Separated Values (CSV) fle to allow for interoperability so that
others can extend it and share it. A component is defned via its
name, component type, footprint, value, source device, quantity,
keywords, description, and optionally, PCB designator, URL to teardown, datasheet, and drop-in or subcircuit equivalency.
KiCad library support. To allow users to make use of the library during design, our tool converts the CSV to KiCad’s internal
representation (.kicad_sym) that can be used as a standard component library. Modifcations can be made within KiCad like otherlibraries or can be made to the CSV. Additionally, when creating
an ecoEDA KiCad library, additional information is used from theoriginal KiCad symbol, drawing from their default libraries (likewhen components extend from other components) to create tags
like drop in or diferent footprint type suggestions.
Sharing knowledge across users. Our tools enable multiple
users to collaborate on inventorying components from devices.The
CSV format allows the library to be hosted in cloud-based services(i.e., Google Sheets), enabling collaborative editing and sharing, pooling information on devices to scavenge from. Hosting the libraryalso allows the latest changes to be pulled when the user accessesit.
Importing, writing to, and parsing schematics. Our tool can
import existing schematics to their ecoEDA library (to encouragereuse of the user’s own projects or open-source hardware) and parsethrough KiCad schematics (to generate suggestions and statistics).
These build on KiCad’s kicad-library-utils [30] and communitymade scripts [32].

7

REUSE CASES WITH ECOEDA

While our walkthrough depicted a step-by-step example of ecoEDA
used during the design of a new electronic device, we now present
additional example use cases of ecoEDA.

7.1

PCB rapid prototyping with reusedcomponents

In this example, we showcase how our tool enables rapid prototyping with PCBs. This might sound paradoxical to an electronics
engineer since making a PCB typically involves two waiting periods: (1) manufacturing the PCBs and (2) acquiring components froma supplier. With the emergence of low-cost CNCs, the frst step’s
wait has been reduced, as personal fabrication machines now include PCB printing (e.g., the Voltera is a printer that fabricates PCBs
using a low-resistance conductive trace in a matter of minutes).
However, the second step often involves signifcant time waiting
for a supplier to fll out an order. We show an alternative workfow
in Figure 10.

UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA

Jasmine Lu et al.

Figure 10: In (a) users use a Voltera and to (b) rapidly prototype PCBs with (c) recycled components.
With ecoEDA, users rapidly populate PCBs with reused components. Figure 10 depicts an Arduino-shield with LEDs to indicate
their watering system status. These parts were all sourced froma Roomba and Ellume Digital COVID Test. This PCB was createdin 41 minutes (32 minutes to print via Voltera, 6 minutes to desolder components, and 3 minutes to solder)—faster than a trip toan electronics store and much faster than waiting for parts to be
shipped.

7.2

Reuse with popular frameworks (e.g.,
Arduino)Our tool can also integrate well when designing with popular toolkits. We illustrate this through an input device created using ecoEDA.
These projects became widespread among makers due to the popularity of toolkits such as Arduino. Figure 11 depicts a Photoshop
controller that allows users to toggle quickly between fll/brushes
using button presses and choose brush-size using a rotary encoder.
The complete project, except the Arduino, is recycled: buttons andencoder sourced from a mouse and resistors from a fragrance diffuser.

Figure 11: (a) Circuit schematic for (b) input controller; (c)the device and component sources.

7.3

Component reuse without PCB
manufacturing

While our previous examples depict devices created on PCBs,
ecoEDA is not limited to PCBs. We show an example of an energyharvesting charger soldered on a protoboard. This device allows theuser to generate energy by rolling the wheel of the motor. In turn,the power generated is rectifed and fltered through capacitors,
then regulated down to 5V, which then can be used to charge aphone through USB. This entire project is recycled—voltage regulating circuit with USB-A connector from a car charger, DC wheel
motor from a Roomba, and capacitors and diodes from a power
supply PCB as shown in Figure 12.

8

USER STUDY: ECOEDA DURINGSCHEMATIC DESIGN

To evaluate the design of our tool and explore user needs for electronic component reuse during schematic design, we conducted auser study where participants tore down e-waste devices, cataloged
components into a shared library, and then, used our tool to construct electronic schematic designs. Whereas our walkthrough anduse-cases demonstrate fully implemented prototypes, here we focus
on specifc needs during schematic design (rather than implementation). As our tool is a prototype and introduces new workfows
to traditional KiCad schematic design, our study focuses on participants’ feedback on the challenges and opportunities of designingwith recycled components in-editor rather than quantitative metrics (task completion time, accuracy, etc.). This study was considered exempt of ethical concerns by our Institutional Review Board(IRB21-1200).

ecoEDA: Recycling E-waste During Electronics Design

UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA

and footprint. These inventories were merged in a shared library of
192 unique components that was distributed to participants. After
this, participants completed a questionnaire about their teardown
experience and inventorying process.
2. ecoEDA use. Participants were shown how to install the toolon their own KiCad (version 7). Then, participants were asked tocreate a new schematic design using the tool where they could
engage with reusing components. They were also asked to submit
a copy of their ecoEDA dashboard and Bill of Teardowns alongside
their fnal design. After completing the activity, participants wereinterviewed about their design, workfow, challenges encounteredand how our tool altered their thinking about e-waste reuse. For thesake of time, our study focused on use of the tool during schematic
design and did not ask participants to implement their fnal designs.

8.3

Figure 12: (a) Circuit for energy harvesting; (b) device in action, charging an iPhone; (c) overview of device and sources.

8.1

Participants

We recruited 12 participants from an electronics engineering course
at our institution. The course consisted of a mixture of graduate andsenior undergraduate students, mostly from computer science andengineering backgrounds. The course covered PCB manufacturing,
electronics design, and KiCad.
Our participants included 6 women (one identifying as transgender), 4 men, 1 non-binary individual, and 1 chose not to disclose
their gender identity. Participants were an average age of 23.45(SD=2.81). Participants were compensated with a $50 gift certifcate
for their time.

8.2

Structure

Our study was conducted over the course of a week and followed
up with individual interviews. The study consisted of two sessions:(1) an e-waste device teardown session and (2) ecoEDA installationand tool walkthrough.
1. Teardown session. Participants were given one of the following discarded devices: vacuum cleaner, video-conferencing camera,
PC motherboard, laptop, Xbox Kinect, Bluetooth speaker, AM/FM
radio, USB car-charger, toy drone, gamepad, remote-controlled toy,
and cable modem. We aimed to supply a variety of device types thatallowed participants to explore diferent issues in recycling e-waste.
After the teardown session, participants were given three days tocomplete a component inventory of their torn-down device. They
submitted a CSV inventory with information such as component
name, component type, SMD vs. THT, keywords, description, quantity, PCB designator, source device, and KiCad equivalent symbol

Results

Overall participants fnal designs included an average of 66.37%
recycled components (SD=17.01%)—their designs averaged 28.5
components (SD=12.64) total with 18.8 recycled components (SD=9.39). Resistors and capacitors were the most recycled components
with buttons and LEDs closely following. Other recycled components included microcontrollers, crystals, sensors, USB connectors,
transistors, and op-amps. Components in designs originated froman average of 6.67 source devices (SD=2.71). The participants’ designed projects included a programmable keypad, a dimmable nightlight, a wearable featuring an accelerometer, and ATTINY85-based
miniature violin.
Questionnaires and interviews were analyzed via open coding
by the frst author. One participant (P12) was not able to complete
the interview on their tool use. We produced 162 codes in total andanalyzed how often participants converged on these codes. Basedon this we developed themes that we felt encompassed sentiments
and experiences expressed by participants. We organized our fndings into four themes: (1) design workfows, (2) reuse tradeofs, (3)desired features, and (4) refections on e-waste reuse.
Theme 1: design workfows. Participants had diverse approaches to creating a schematic with reused components. Whileseven participants started from an idea/design and used the tool to
fnd swaps, four participants drew inspiration from the components
in the library to develop their design. Similarly, diverse workfows
were used alongside the tool. P1, P2, P3, P8, P5, P10, P11 started
from an idea and built from the ground up. P7, P9, P4, P6 used theecoEDA on their own previously engineered designs and explored
swapping in recycled components. P1, P2 used a combination of
the suggestion feature or directly accessing the ecoEDA librarythrough KiCad’s component browser. P4, P5, P9, P10 sometimes
used the suggestion feature but mostly relied on manual use of thelibrary. P3, P7, P8 only added components manually via the library.
P6, P11 only used the suggestion feature (never directly accessing
the library).
Six participants noted the KiCad integrated ecoEDA library as
the most helpful component of the tool. This was usually because
it allowed participants to access components in a familiar way.
Participants also described the automated suggestions as useful forbuilding a mental map of components in the library (P1), accessing
the most relevant components (P2, P6, P11), a “design frst, recycle

UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA

second” approach (P3), comparing diferences across suggested
components (P2), reducing the need of scanning through a fullinventory list every time (P6), and allowing an alternative pathway
to fnding recyclable components (P5). Other participants also noted
the recycling-specifc information within the library (P10, P11) andBill of Teardowns and the dashboard (P6, P9) as helpful.
Theme 2: reuse tradeofs. Participants described various approaches they used when trying to reuse components. These included incorporating similar but diferent parts they would not use
by default (P4, P7), using components of a slightly diferent value ifsome tolerance was allowed (P1, P10, P11), or connecting reused
resistors/capacitors in series/parallel to achieve a target value (P3,
P7). On the other hand, participants also discussed various reasons for opting not to recycle components. For example, P1 wasdesigning an analog synthesizer where the resistors needed precise
values to generate certain pitches. Similarly, P7 expressed that they
preferred to design with their go-to voltage regulator component.
P1, P5, P8 also expressed interest in reusing certain components but
found them too complex to use. However, P1 also noted that they
appreciated the fact that in reusing components from manufactured
devices, they were selecting from a “curated” list of components
used by professionals rather than looking through the hundreds ofthousands on supplier websites (i.e., Mouser, DigiKey). Last, P1, P6,
and P10 also stated aspects that might make them more hesitant
to reuse. P1 stated how normally, they would take stock quantity
into consideration in case they needed to order replacements. With
reuse, it may not be possible to reorder these components so backup
options are limited. P6 noticed how this process was diferent from
how they usually approach designing as they might need to adapt
the circuit to the components on hand, requiring additional work.
Finally, P10 added that their comfort with reuse might depend on
the state of the source device or how it was damaged.
Participants also noted several challenges during the teardown
and inventorying process that might prevent them from pursuingreuse. Challenges during teardown included difcult to open enclosures, proprietary or hidden screws (P1, P2, P10), desoldering
challenges (P2, P3, P4, P9, P11), and damaging components during
teardown (P6). Notably, this was very device dependent as some participants described each others challenges as the easiest part of theteardown and P7 even described the whole teardown as easy. Challenges during inventorying included locating relevant datasheetsor symbol/footprint libraries (P1, P3, P6, P12), the amount of timerequired to inventory all components of a device (P2, P11), sheer
amount of components (P7), measuring component values (P5, P11),
identifying components based of limited identifers (P4, P5, P8, P11,
P12), and the process being tedious (P8, P9).
Theme 3: desired features. We asked participants what additional features they wanted in future tools for reuse. Five participants expressed wanting more direct control of suggestions (i.e.,
selecting components and right-clicking to see suggestions). P1, P8
wanted more diverse component confgurations in suggestions (i.e,including modular break-out boards). Participants also suggested
alternative fows for accessing ecoEDA library information suchas grouping components of similar type together (P5, P9), pullinginformation from datasheets and presenting in-editor (P5), notifcations when exceeding component quantity (P4, P10), and reviewing

Jasmine Lu et al.

all suggestions together at the end of design (P6, P10). Five participants speculated on what tools could reduce challenges of theteardown and inventorying processes including computer-vision
aided inventorying (P1), open-sourced schematics (P6, P7), and automated teardown machines (P4, P7). Importantly, nine participants
stated they could envision using ecoEDA in their own practice.
Of the other three, P1, P8 stated they would use it depending on
how streamlined inventorying could become (e.g., manual entry vs.
getting libraries from others), while P10 stated they would use itwith a “review all suggestions at the end” feature.
Theme 4: refections on e-waste reuse. All but one participant (P5) said that they see themselves reusing electronics in the
future, and P5 explained that it was primarily because they do not
usually design electronic devices but this process made them more
confdent they could reuse electronics (also expressed by P2, P3, P6,
P11). Notably, P6, P10 shared that between completion of the design
activity and interview, they had already recycled components (outside of our study). When asked how our tool afected their thoughts
on sustainability in electronics, most participants expressed that it
made recycling electronics feel more possible. P1, P3, P11 refectedon how broken devices were often thought of as broken in their
entirety but components could be salvaged. Participants also expressed frustration over wastefulness in electronics prototyping(P1, P2, P9), lack of repairability in devices (P2, P8, P10), desire forchanges in electronics workfows or designs (P6, P7), and needing
more investment in this area (P4, P11).
When asked what they learned about electronics design by using
this tool, participants noted many outcomes. First, six participants
described it helpful to see electronics design in context and tosee how other professionals designed their PCBs. Similarly, sevenparticipants described the process as “demystifying” devices. Many
noted that they learned of interesting design patterns from boththe teardown and the design process. In three cases (P1, P6, P7),
participants were inspired to adopt specifc approaches to increase
reusability of their future electronics projects. Last, participants
primarily commented on how the process inspired creativity in two
ways: (1) by introducing the constraint of working with components
already on hand (P2, P4, P6, P9, P10), and (2) by broadening thehorizons of what could be made by seeing existing designs (P3, P5,
P8, P11).

8.4

Discussion of study fndings

We highlight critical fndings of our study and address some limitations. We summarize our critical fndings as (1) reusing electronics
made possible, (2) reframing e-waste, and (3) using diferent workfows for reuse.
Reusing electronics made possible. Overall, we believe thestrongest takeaway from our study is that providing tools that
support reuse during design allowed users to feel that reusing
electronics is possible. As shown by the two participants that immediately began participating in component reuse after teardown anddesign activities, participants felt empowered to incorporate reusein their electronics prototyping practices and even discussed how
to change their practices to make their prototypes more reusable
in the future.

ecoEDA: Recycling E-waste During Electronics Design

Reframing e-waste. Undergoing this exercise in tearing devices
apart, logging components, and designing with components frome-waste enabled participants to engage with common electronics ina diferent way. As such, participants connected their experienceswith the broader electronics industries, refecting on how consumer
electronics manufacturing was more wasteful than it needed to beor how electronics manufacturing could be more sustainable. Additionally, sustainability concerns became a central concern during
electronics design with the tool.
Using diferent workfows for reuse. In terms of tool design,
participants seemed to prefer workfows with the tool that mirrored
traditional KiCad electronic design workfows (which likely felt
more familiar to use) but valued the ecoEDA suggestions UI for
discovery, comparison, and curation purposes. As our tool was a
prototype, it was less polished and contained bugs that might havemade features more difcult to use; however, we believe user’s feedback and desire to use a tool like this in their practice ofers insights
into how to better design such tools to support electronic component reuse during design. For instance, participants often noted
how component reuse required additional constraints and considerations that induced a less linear design process, likely requiring
multiple iterations and adjustments particular to reuse. Additionally,
participants approached the design process with diverse strategies,
signaling how tools for reuse require fexibility.
Study limitations. As with any study, our design included intentional tradeofs between participants’ time (this study took oneweek) and diversity of electronic designs. As such, we recommendthat results are interpreted with these limitations in mind. We opted
for a more open-ended design rather than a predefned task to see
how participants respond to the frictions of freely designing withreused components. As such, each participant’s experience wasdiferent since they constructed diferent schematics. Doing so allowed participants to design with components they had seen in theirteardowns, grounding the study in the process of reusing actual
components. Moreover, we did not have participants go throughthe step of actualizing their designs by soldering, as we focusedon our tool’s assistance during the design process. Similarly, actualizing their schematic via PCB design was not a requirement, so
considerations of component footprint were less important for participants. Also, testing components prior to reuse was not the focusof the study and remains an open challenge, which we discuss later.
Last, our participants were all recruited from an engineering course,
and many were relatively new to PCB design. More experienced
engineers would likely have diferent insights and considerations
for reusing components. Despite these limitations, we believe thisstudy provides a frst step into understanding that an EDA thatassists with reuse can promote recycling and engage users with theecological footprint of electronics design.

9

REFLECTIONS ON SUPPORTING
ELECTRONICS REUSEAs the frst work to explore how electronic design tools can be
designed to facilitate reuse, we build of our own explorations andour user study to discuss our refections and learnings on supporting
e-waste reuse. We present three refections: (1) considerations for

UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USAreusability in electronics, (2) supporting component recycling indesign, and (3) moving towards an electronics recycling paradigm.

9.1

Refection 1: considerations for reusability
in electronics

While the reuse of electronic components (as with recycling any
material) tends to present more difculty than buying anew, we
also found that component reuse is more accessible than one mightrealize. To give a better sense of this, we synthesized some considerations to ground our work in how practically components can bereused.
Reuse by source device. As shown in Figure 13, diferent devices require diferent considerations for reuse. If a source device isfunctional, it presents fewer challenges to reuse. Its functional state
allows users to test components without desoldering. Conversely,
a broken device presents one further challenge: avoiding damaged
components. Identifying causes for a damaged device depends on
one’s skill. The type of source device can also afect its components’reusability. Mainstream devices from the last decade might haveobfuscated components to prevent reuse; however, these have often
been already torn down by others and have guides online. Recent
devices are excellent sources for popular microcontrollers, wirelessmodules, and USB connectors. Another common but controversial
type is single-use or disposable devices such as emergency USB
phone chargers, disposable vapes, and more recently, single-use
digital health tests (pregnancy tests or digital COVID19 tests). Even
antiquated devices (e.g., engineered last century) are viable sources
for components, though they will often have more THT components than SMD components.
If an engineer has a device schematic on hand (in the case ofopen-source devices or their own prototypes), devices become mucheasier to recycle. As of this date, the Open Source Hardware Foundation has certifed 1800+ devices with this status [50], while there arearguably many more. This reduces the difculty in inventorying
components and allows for the benefts of circular reuse during prototyping. We see these types of devices as the strongest candidate
for component reuse.
Reuse by component type. Common components (resistors,
capacitors, diodes, voltage regulators, LEDs, buttons, switches, etc.)
are usually somewhat standardized across devices. Resistors are
essential to nearly any type of circuit, which leads to signifcant
quantities of them found (e.g., 300+ on the Roomba) and are often well-labeled with codes. Components that tend to be used in
power-regulating circuits (diodes, regulators, capacitors), may require additional tests and can be riskier to reuse. Capacitors andbatteries are also ubiquitous in electronic devices but require carefulconsiderations in reuse [44]. Electrolytic capacitors and batteries(e.g., LiPos) have a limited lifespan (e.g., 500-800 charge/discharge
cycles depending on the use conditions [51]). While engineers haveseveral ways to test capacitors and batteries for leaks or test theirdischarge curves [7], these are riskier for reuse. Conversely, we
found ceramic capacitors to be easier to reuse, especially those usedin low-voltage settings. Sensors, actuators, and microcontrollers
are often the most rewarding components to reuse but can present
some additional steps (e.g., reprogramming or protocols). Analog
sensors (bump sensor, light sensor, etc.) can often be tested simply

UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA

Figure 13: Exemplary source devices and some components
inside them: (a) hot glue gun, (b) Amazon Dash button, (c)HP Computer Motherboard, (d) Leapfrog Toy Laptop, (e) Ellume Digital COVID test, (f) vacuum-tube TV, (g) Creality 3DPrinter Driver, and (h) Furby interactive toy.
with a multimeter or simple test circuits. Digital sensors, on theother hand, need to communicate through a microcontroller (via
I2C or SPI), requiring additional skill. Actuators (e.g., motors) can befound in many devices; while a DC motor can be tested in devices
easily, more advanced actuators (e.g., LRAs) require specialized
driving circuitry. Finally, microcontrollers are embedded in mostall modern electronic devices and are often the most sought-out
components, but they can also present unique reuse challenges.
For one, companies often intentionally obfuscate markings or chipnames to discourage this (often for security reasons) [48]. However,many also contain programming pins that can be used to test anddetermine if they are reprogrammable. In other cases, manufacturers might have security locks, so that users need to erase priormemory to upload frmware. Reusing a microcontroller requires
the highest level of skill among the components we reused.

Jasmine Lu et al.

Reuse by footprint. In terms of component footprint, SMD vs.
THT components require additional considerations. We found thata hot-air gun and tweezers removed most SMD components in amatter of seconds. However, certain packages like QFN or BGA will
be more difcult to desolder as they do not present exposed leads.
Techniques like using a hotplate to heat up the PCB can be usedin these cases. However, sometimes these components might also
require additional processes before reuse (like reballing for BGAs).
Through-hole components are also possible to desolder but require
one extra consideration: the legs on a THT component are typicallyclipped after soldering, which means that their leg length cannot
be adjusted. This creates less fexibility but can be circumvented byusing a stricter (less tolerant) footprint size in the user’s new PCB.
Ecological impact of component reuse. The simple choice toreuse over purchasing anew means at least one less component ina landfll. However, component reuse is not all equal in terms of
ecological footprint. Many factors afect the environmental cost of
manufacturing components (mining of raw materials, supply chain
logistics, emissions in manufacturing, etc.) and much research has
been done to quantify the ecological footprint of this [18, 22, 60].
As this research suggests, the more complex the manufacturing
process of a component, the more ecological footprint it carries.
For example, microcontrollers tend to be the ideal candidates for
ecological-inspired reuse. Other ICs, such as logic gates or levelshifters also have complex processes, and in many cases, these canbe replicated with other components (e.g., resistors, transistors)—
as demonstrated in our “subcircuit” feature in the Walkthrough.
One of the biggest potential benefts of prioritizing component
reuse over buying anew is that there are signifcant savings on the
shipping and transportation costs of individual components. Evenfor passive components like resistors and capacitors that are lesscostly to manufacture and purchase due to their ubiquity, users
can remove the environmental costs of shipping and packaging by
not buying them anew for new projects and instead, looking todevices around them (which likely already have these components
in similar values).

9.2

Refection 2: supporting component
recycling in design

Current tools in electronic design are refective of common practices in electronics design and manufacturing across industries andhobbyists alike. For the most part, they assume components canbe sourced and bought anew and don’t incorporate additional constraints for practices in reuse. In our work, we explored how EDAs
could be designed with an alternative workfow to facilitate recycling components and built features around common reuse swap
types. Our design revolved around three main ideas: (1) component
recall and management, (2) component-level reuse, and (3) sharing knowledge across users. Additionally, our approach intervenes
during the design process depending on the user’s choices and ultimately relies on the user’s expertise to make critical decisions about
their design. However, tools that support a variety of workfows
for electronic recycling are needed to allow diverse audiences tofeel confdent in incorporating recycling during design.
We also see our tool as primarily benefcial for the prototyping
process, where engineers can take on some risk of failure and areecoEDA: Recycling E-waste During Electronics Design

open to exploration. Again, there are many tradeofs to reusing
components and engineers that are bound by time constraints orneed polished designs are not ideal candidates for recycling. Additionally, buying new components (often for very cheap) remains amuch more straightforward process than recycling. However, we
also believe that more investment in tools to support this process
would make others feel more comfortable with integrating reusein their practice (even in small ways). Many participants in ourstudy explained that they had never really considered recycling
components from electronics before. We believe this speaks to thelack of tools and engagement in this area and want to emphasizethat creating tools with a focus on recycling components allows
engineers to consider reuse as a possibility.

9.3

Refection 3: towards an electronics
recycling paradigm

Our work focuses on supporting electronics reuse during the design process in an EDA, but there are many other opportunities forfacilitating other e-waste recycling processes. Other opportunities
include building out systems that improve taking apart and identifying components in devices, testing components for reusability,and enabling pathways for novices outside the EDA. These opportunities are non-trivial as it involves synthesizing of large amounts
of information (common electronics design patterns, millions ofdiferent IC types, millions of consumer devices, etc.). However,there are also clear gains from an investment in developing anelectronics component recycling paradigm. The primary beneft
is sustainability and reducing the carbon footprint of electronics
design, but we also see benefts in engineering education and promoting values of right-to-repair/open-source hardware (as shownby study participant refections). Our approach of creative component reuse generally exists in much smaller scales compared to
the volume of electronics industry production. Often, recyclingby raw material extraction is ofered as a means of managing themassive amounts of generated e-waste, but these processes havebeen shown to also produce mass quantities of waste and pollutants[4, 28]. Thus, scholars have often emphasized the importance ofreuse practices over recycling via material extraction [36]. Additionally, electronics recycling must contend with the ever-changing
consumer market landscape, further complicated by new standards,
gray markets, trends, and more. While our approach defnitely will
not solve the issue of e-waste alone, we hope that our work canfoster the building of new tools and systems across varying scales
to support reframing e-waste as potentially useful material andmove us toward a more sustainable electronics recycling paradigm.

10 CONCLUSION
We implemented the frst interactive EDA tool that enables users toreuse the electronic components sourced from their discarded devices. Rather than allow these devices to end up as a pile of e-waste,
our tool gives some components a second life in new projects. Users
interact with our tool directly via KiCad during their schematic
design process and receive real-time suggestions of alternative components. In a user study, we found that participants were able to
fnd recycled alternatives for most of the components in their designs. Our participants also revealed that the process enabled them

UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA

to approach prototyping with sustainability in mind. Finally, we
synthesized our refections on designing this tool and building devices from reused components in hopes that others can build on ourwork to imagine new pathways for creative e-waste reuse and newtools to support this process. We see ecoEDA as a starting point tosupport reusing e-waste. This closer engagement with the “insides”
of our devices also makes us more responsible and knowledgeable
about our e-waste—shifting us from just users or consumers to recyclers. We hope our research can inspire discussions about designinginteractions with our devices even after they become broken or
obsolete.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful for the feedback from our reviewers, engagementfrom our participants, and support from our colleagues at the Human Computer Integration Lab with special thanks to Shanyuan
Teng for assistance in facilitating the user study and Jhamari
Dougherty for exploring designs of a mobile phone app complement to our work. Additionally, we are grateful to the University of
Chicago Computer Science IT Department and others who suppliede-waste for our research.

REFERENCES[1] Altium Designer - PCB Design Software: https://www.altium.com/altiumdesigner. Accessed: 2022-08-30.
[2] Arroyos, V. et al. 2022. A Tale of Two Mice: Sustainable Electronics Design andPrototyping. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended
Abstracts (New Orleans LA USA, Apr. 2022), 1–10.
[3] Art Social: Take It Apart(y): https://www.aspenartmuseum.org/calendar/2793art-social-br-take-it-apart-y. Accessed: 2022-08-30.
[4] Balasch, A. et al. 2022. Exposure of e-waste dismantlers from a formal recycling
facility in Spain to inhalable organophosphate and halogenated fame retardants.
Chemosphere. 294, (2022), 133775.
[5] Baraniuk, C. 2021. Why is there a chip shortage? BBC News.
[6] Blevis, E. 2007. Sustainable interaction design: invention & disposal, renewal& reuse. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (San Jose California USA, Apr. 2007), 503–512.
[7] Calero Valdez, A. et al. 2016. HCI for Recommender Systems: the Past, the Present
and the Future. Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems(Boston Massachusetts USA, Sep. 2016), 123–126.
[8] Cheng, T. et al. 2023. Functional Destruction: Utilizing Sustainable Materials’
Physical Transiency for Electronics Applications. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York, NY, USA, 2023).
[9] Chidambaram, S. et al. 2019. Shape Structuralizer: Design, Fabrication, and Userdriven Iterative Refnement of 3D Mesh Models. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow Scotland Uk, May2019), 1–12.
[10] Companies Are Hacking Their Way Around the Chip Shortage | WIRED: https://www.wired.com/story/chip-shortage-hacks/. Accessed: 2022-08-22.
[11] Dash Hacking: Bare-Metal STM32 Programming: https://learn.adafruit.com/dashhacking-bare-metal-stm32-programming/overview. Accessed: 2022-09-09.
[12] Debnath, Biswajit et al. 2016. Electronic Components (EC) reuse and recycling–a
new approach towards WEEE management. Procedia Environmental Sciences. 35,(2016), 656–668. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.060.
[13] Dew, K.N. et al. 2018. Making within limits: towards salvage fabrication. Proceedings of the 2018 Workshop on Computing within Limits (Toronto Ontario Canada,
May 2018), 1–11.
[14] EAGLE | PCB Design And Electrical Schematic Software | Autodesk: https://www.
autodesk.com/products/eagle/overview. Accessed: 2022-08-30.
[15] Emily’s Electric Oddities - YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/. Accessed: 202208-30.
[16] E.U. Rule Requires New Devices to Have USB-C Charging Ports by 2026 - The
New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/technology/eu-tabletsphones-usbc-chargers.html. Accessed: 2022-09-08.
[17] Foone Wiki: https://foppy.foone.org/w/Main_Page. Accessed: 2022-08-30.
[18] Footprint of a Microcontroller - STMicroelectronics: https://www.st.com/content/
st_com/en/about/st_approach_to_sustainability/sustainability-priorities/
sustainable-technology/eco-design/footprint-of-a-microcontroller.html.
Accessed: 2022-01-25.

UIST ’23, October 29–November 01, 2023, San Francisco, CA, USA[19] Forti, V. et al. The Global E-waste Monitor 2020: Quantities, fows and the circular
economy potential.
[20] Fritzing: http://fritzing.org/. Accessed: 2022-08-30.
[21] Greg [@GregDavill] 2022. 104 week lead time https://t.co/bp9fbNfJD3. Twitter.
[22] Gupta, U. et al. 2021. Chasing Carbon: 27th Annual IEEE International Symposium
on High Performance Computer Architecture, HPCA 2021. Proceeding - 27th IEEE
International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture, HPCA 2021.
(Feb. 2021), 854–867. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCA51647.2021.00076.
[23] Hackaday.io: https://hackaday.io/. Accessed: 2022-08-30.
[24] Hanton, O. et al. 2022. FabricatINK: Personal Fabrication of Bespoke Displays
Using Electronic Ink from Upcycled E Readers. CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (New Orleans LA USA, Apr. 2022), 1–15.
[25] Hodges, S. et al. 2014. Circuit stickers: peel-and-stick construction of interactive
electronic prototypes. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (Toronto Ontario Canada, Apr. 2014), 1743–1746.
[26] Houston, L. et al. 2016. Values in Repair. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conferenceon Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose California USA, May 2016),
1403–1414.
[27] Jackson, S.J. 2014. 11 rethinking repair. Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society. (2014), 221–39.
[28] Julander, A. et al. 2014. Formal recycling of e-waste leads to increased exposure
to toxic metals: an occupational exposure study from Sweden. Environment
international. 73, (2014), 243–251.
[29] Khan, A.H. et al. 2023. The Pragmatics of Sustainable Unmaking: Informing
Technology Design through e-Waste Folk Strategies. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM
Designing Interactive Systems Conference (New York, NY, USA, 2023), 1531–1547.
[30] KiCad / KiCad Libraries / KiCad Library utilities · GitLab: https://gitlab.com/
kicad/libraries/kicad-library-utils. Accessed: 2022-09-13.
[31] KiCad EDA - Schematic Capture & PCB Design Software: https://www.kicad.org/.
Accessed: 2022-07-22.
[32] KiCad-RW: Python library to read/write KiCad Sexpr fle format: 2022. https://github.com/PySpice-org/kicad-rw. Accessed: 2022-09-13.
[33] Kim, S. and Paulos, E. 2011. Practices in the creative reuse of e-waste. Proceedingsof the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (New York,NY, USA, May 2011), 2395–2404.
[34] Kovacs, R. et al. 2017. TrussFab: Fabricating Sturdy Large-Scale Structures on
Desktop 3D Printers. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (Denver Colorado USA, May 2017), 2606–2616.
[35] Learn Circuits: https://www.tinkercad.com/learn/circuits. Accessed: 2022-08-30.
[36] Lepawsky, J. 2018. Reassembling rubbish: worlding electronic waste. The MIT Press.
[37] Lin, R. et al. 2019. Beyond Schematic Capture: Meaningful Abstractions for Better
Electronics Design Tools. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (Glasgow Scotland Uk, May 2019), 1–13.
[38] Lin, R. et al. 2021. Weaving Schematics and Code: Interactive Visual Editing for
Hardware Description Languages. The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User
Interface Software and Technology (Virtual Event USA, Oct. 2021), 1039–1049.
[39] Lin, R.C. Human-Centered Circuit Board Design With Flexible Levels of Abstraction and Ambiguity.
[40] Lo, J.-Y. et al. 2019. AutoFritz: Autocomplete for Prototyping Virtual Breadboard
Circuits. Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (Glasgow Scotland Uk, May 2019), 1–13.
[41] Maestri, L. and Wakkary, R. 2011. Understanding repair as a creative processof everyday design. Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Creativity andcognition - C&C ’11 (Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 2011), 81.
[42] Mahalingam, G. et al. 2019. PCB-METAL: A PCB Image Dataset for Advanced
Computer Vision Machine Learning Component Analysis. 2019 16th International
Conference on Machine Vision Applications (MVA) (May 2019), 1–5.
[43] Mandel, I. and Ju, W. 2023. Recapturing Product as Material Supply: Hoverboards
as Garbatrage. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Designing Interactive Systems Conference (New York, NY, USA, 2023), 564–579.

Jasmine Lu et al.

[44] Mrozik, W. et al. 2021. Environmental impacts, pollution sources and pathwaysof spent lithium-ion batteries. Energy & Environmental Science. 14, 12 (2021),
6099–6121. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EE00691F.
[45] Murer, M. et al. 2014. Taking things apart: reaching common ground and sharedmaterial understanding. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors
in Computing Systems (Toronto Ontario Canada, Apr. 2014), 469–472.
[46] Murer, M. et al. 2015. Un-Crafting: Exploring Tangible Practices for Deconstruction in Interactive System Design. Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (Stanford California USA,
Jan. 2015), 469–472.
[47] New York Passes World’s First Electronics Right to Repair Law | iFixit
News: 2022. https://www.ifxit.com/News/60893/new-york-passes-worlds-frstelectronics-right-to-repair-law. Accessed: 2022-09-08.
[48] O’Flynn, C. 2021. AirTag Teardown and Security Analysis. https://circuitcellar.com/research-design-hub/design-solutions/airtag-teardownand-security-analysis/. Accessed: 2022-09-09.
[49] OI!STER - Unbinare: https://unbinare.be/index.php?title$=$OI!STER. Accessed:
2023-02-24.
[50] Open Source Hardware Association: https://www.oshwa.org/. Accessed: 202209-09.
[51] POWER, D. 2019. Complete Guide for Lithium Polymer(Lipo) Battery: History, Charging,Safety, Storage and Care. https://www.dnkpower.com/lithiumpolymer-battery-guide/.
[52] Pramerdorfer, C. and Kampel, M. 2015. A dataset for computer-vision-based PCB
analysis. 2015 14th IAPR International Conference on Machine Vision Applications(MVA) (May 2015), 378–381.
[53] Richter, J.L. et al. Taking stock for repair and refurbishing: A review of harvestingof spare parts from electrical and electronic products. Journal of Industrial Ecology.
DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.13315.
[54] Sabie, S. et al. 2022. Unmaking@CHI: Concretizing the Material and Epistemological Practices of Unmaking in HCI. CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems Extended Abstracts (New Orleans LA USA, Apr. 2022), 1–6.
[55] Sinha, S. et al. 2001. Beyond Algorithms: An HCI Perspective on Recommender
Systems. ACM SIGIR 2001 workshop on recommender systems (2001), 1–11.
[56] Song, K.W. and Paulos, E. 2021. Unmaking: Enabling and Celebrating the Creative
Material of Failure, Destruction, Decay, and Deformation. Proceedings of the 2021
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama Japan, May2021), 1–12.
[57] Vasquez, E.S.L. et al. 2020. The Environmental Impact of Physical Prototyping: aFive-Year CHI Review. Self-Sustainable CHI Workshop. (2020).
[58] Vasquez, E.S.L. and Vega, K. 2019. Myco-accessories: sustainable wearables withbiodegradable materials. Proceedings of the 23rd International Symposium on
Wearable Computers (New York, NY, USA, Sep. 2019), 306–311.
[59] Villar, N. et al. 2012. .NET Gadgeteer: A Platform for Custom Devices. Pervasive
Computing. J. Kay et al., eds. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 216–233.
[60] [60]Villard, A. et al. 2015. Drawing a chip environmental profle: environmental
indicators for the semiconductor industry. Journal of Cleaner Production. 86, (Jan.
2015), 98–109. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.061.
[61] [61]Vyas, D. et al. 2023. Democratizing Making: Scafolding Participation Using
e-Waste to Engage Under-Resourced Communities in Technology Design. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (NewYork, NY, USA, 2023).
[62] Wall, L.W. et al. 2021. Scrappy: Using Scrap Material as Infll to Make Fabrication
More Sustainable. Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (Yokohama Japan, May 2021), 1–12.
[63] What’s inside a BLE COVID test? 2022. https://routevegetable.com/ble-covidtest/. Accessed: 2022-09-09.
[64] Yours for the making: https://www.instructables.com/. Accessed: 2022-08-30.
[65] Ken Shirrif’s blog. http://www.righto.com/. Accessed: 2022-08-30.