Performance and Sustainability Assessment of Full-Scale Sewage Treatment Plants in Northern India Using Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Methods

被引:4
作者
D'Silva, Tinku Casper [1 ]
Ahmad, Mahmood [1 ]
Nazim, Mohmad [1 ]
Mirza, Mohd Waqqas [1 ]
Arafat, Tariq [2 ]
Ashraf, Mohammad Ammar [1 ]
Hasan, Mohd Najibul [1 ]
Gaur, Rubia Zahid [3 ]
Tyagi, Vinay Kumar [4 ]
Mutiyar, Pravin Kumar [5 ]
Lew, Rinat Gilead [6 ]
Lew, Beni [6 ]
Khan, Abid Ali [1 ]
机构
[1] Jamia Millia Islamia, Dept Civil Engn, New Delhi 110025, India
[2] Tech Bulls Res & Engn Consultants, Greater Kailash Part 1,R Block, New Delhi 110048, India
[3] Newe Yaar Res Ctr, Inst Soil Water & Environm Sci, Agr Res Org, IL-30092 Ramat Yishai, Israel
[4] Indian Inst Technol, Dept Civil Engn, Environm Biotechnol Grp EBiTG, Roorkee 247667, Uttarakhand, India
[5] Govt India, Minist Jal Shakti, New Delhi 110001, India
[6] Ariel Univ, Dept Civil Engn, IL-40700 Ariel, Israel
关键词
Multiple-criteria decision making; Performance evaluation; Pollutant removal; Sustainability assessment; Wastewater treatment; UASB REACTOR; FUZZY; OPTIMIZATION; PROMETHEE; SELECTION; SURFACE;
D O I
10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0001941
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
In this study, an intensive performance assessment of 36 sewage treatment plants (STPs) is carried out. The STPs were based on the process technologies: moving-bed bioreactor (MBBR), sequencing batch reactor (SBR), waste stabilization pond (WSP), and upflow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor (UASB) with posttreatment technologies of extended aeration (EA), surface aeration, and polishing ponds, with treatment capacities of 3 to 40 million L per day. The pollutant removal performance of the STPs was ranked using the gray relational analysis method, which revealed that the SBR systems ranked higher, followed by UASB with EA, whereas MBBRs, UASB with other posttreatment options, and WSP performed satisfactorily to poor. Further, the preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation (PROMETHEE) multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach using the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process followed by preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation method evaluated the major wastewater treatment technologies using three sustainability criteria: environmental, economic, and technical aspects. The MCDM method evaluation revealed that the UASB + EA method, with its lower greenhouse gas emissions, energy requirement, sludge generation, and energy and resource recovery characteristics, outranked other treatment technologies, followed by SBR. The MCDM results were later confirmed using geometrical analysis for the interactive aid method. Hence, this study summarizes that the anaerobic process followed by microaerobic technologies still possesses the capability to achieve stringent disposal standards almost equivalent to intensive aerobic technologies.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Assessment of the effectiveness of a full-scale trickling filter for the treatment of municipal sewage in an arid environment: Multiple linear regression model prediction of fecal coliform removal
    Osmane, Ahmed
    Zidan, Khadija
    Benaddi, Rabia
    Sbahi, Sofyan
    Ouazzani, Naaila
    Belmouden, Moustapha
    Mandi, Laila
    JOURNAL OF WATER PROCESS ENGINEERING, 2024, 64
  • [42] Assessment of thermal and mechanical properties of fly ash based geopolymer blocks with a sustainability perspective using multi-criteria decision-making approach
    Janga, Supriya
    Raut, Ashwin Narendra
    Murmu, Anant Lal
    JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING, 2024, 88
  • [43] Using wearable technological devices to improve workplace health and safety: An assessment on a sector base with multi-criteria decision-making methods
    Aksuet, Guler
    Eren, Tamer
    Alakas, Haci Mehmet
    AIN SHAMS ENGINEERING JOURNAL, 2024, 15 (02)
  • [44] Analysis of Innovation Drivers of New and Old Kinetic Energy Conversion Using a Hybrid Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making Model in the Post-COVID-19 Era: A Chinese Case
    Tseng, Chun-Chieh
    Zeng, Jun-Yi
    Hsieh, Min-Liang
    Hsu, Chih-Hung
    MATHEMATICS, 2022, 10 (20)
  • [45] Assessment actions for improving railway sector performance using intuitionistic fuzzy-rough multi-criteria decision-making model
    Bouraima, Mouhamed Bayane
    Saha, Abhijit
    Stevic, Zeljko
    Antucheviciene, Jurgita
    Qiu, Yanjun
    Marton, Peter
    APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING, 2023, 148
  • [46] Development of a Generic Decision Tree for the Integration of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) and Multi-Objective Optimization (MOO) Methods under Uncertainty to Facilitate Sustainability Assessment: A Methodical Review
    Ferdous, Jannatul
    Bensebaa, Farid
    Milani, Abbas S.
    Hewage, Kasun
    Bhowmik, Pankaj
    Pelletier, Nathan
    SUSTAINABILITY, 2024, 16 (07)
  • [47] Evaluating the Performance of Emergency Centers during Coronavirus Epidemic Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods (Case Study: Sari City)
    Hosseini, SeyedAmir
    Ahmadi Choukolaei, Hassan
    Ghasemi, Peiman
    Dardaei-beiragh, Helia
    Sherafatianfini, Soheil
    Pourghader Chobar, Adel
    DISCRETE DYNAMICS IN NATURE AND SOCIETY, 2022, 2022
  • [48] A machine learning driven multiple criteria decision analysis using LS-SVM feature elimination: Sustainability performance assessment with incomplete data
    Maghsoodi, Abtin Ijadi
    Torkayesh, Ali Ebadi
    Wood, Lincoln C.
    Herrera-Viedma, Enrique
    Govindan, Kannan
    ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, 2023, 119
  • [49] Life cycle sustainability assessment of waste-to-electricity plants for 2030 power generation development scenarios in western Lombok, Indonesia under multi-criteria decision-making approach
    Hemmati, Mohammad
    Bayati, Navid
    Ebel, Thomas
    JOURNAL OF BUILDING ENGINEERING, 2024, 95
  • [50] Sustainability performance assessment of freight transportation modes using an integrated decision-making framework based on m-generalized q-neutrosophic sets
    Gorcun, Omer Faruk
    Tirkolaee, Erfan Babaee
    Aytekin, Ahmet
    Korucuk, Selcuk
    ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE REVIEW, 2024, 57 (05)