IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i2p1264-d1030239.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Study on the Relationship between Different Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Effluent Standards in Jilin Liaohe River Basin Based on the Coupled Model of AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Method

Author

Listed:
  • Yao Yang

    (Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment, Jilin University, China’s Ministry of Education, Changchun 130021, China
    Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130021, China
    College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

  • Jie Tang

    (Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment, Jilin University, China’s Ministry of Education, Changchun 130021, China
    Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130021, China
    College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

  • Yucong Duan

    (Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment, Jilin University, China’s Ministry of Education, Changchun 130021, China
    Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130021, China
    College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

  • Yunke Qu

    (School of Chemical Engineering, Changchun University of Technology, Changchun 130012, China)

  • Feihu Sun

    (Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment, Jilin University, China’s Ministry of Education, Changchun 130021, China
    Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130021, China
    College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

  • Zhaoyang Li

    (Key Laboratory of Groundwater Resources and Environment, Jilin University, China’s Ministry of Education, Changchun 130021, China
    Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Water Resources and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130021, China
    College of New Energy and Environment, Jilin University, Changchun 130012, China)

Abstract

Wastewater treatment plants play a critical role in reducing point source pollution in watersheds; however, in taking on the task of reducing pollutants such as COD and NH 3 -N, they also consume energy intensively, which can result in additional greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and operating (OAM) costs. Therefore, appropriate effluent targets should be implemented to achieve a balance between pollution load reduction, greenhouse gas emissions and operating costs, depending on the field conditions of the wastewater plant. In this study, four different wastewater treatment technologies, namely, A 2 /O, CASS, MBR and A/O-MBR, which are mainly operated in the Liaohe River Basin of Jilin Province, were selected using the coupled AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS models, and the appropriate effluent standards were preferred according to the characteristics of these technologies. Firstly, the AHP model is used to determine the criteria layer (environmental, economic and social benefits) of the four treatment technologies and the weights of each indicator, and then the fuzzy TOPSIS model is used to determine the indicator values of the different alternatives (effluent standards) of the four treatment technologies, and finally the optimal value of the effluent standard is determined, in terms of COD, 30 mg/L for A 2 /O and CASS process and 50 mg/L for MBR and A/O-MBR.

Suggested Citation

  • Yao Yang & Jie Tang & Yucong Duan & Yunke Qu & Feihu Sun & Zhaoyang Li, 2023. "Study on the Relationship between Different Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Effluent Standards in Jilin Liaohe River Basin Based on the Coupled Model of AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-20, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:2:p:1264-:d:1030239
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1264/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/2/1264/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhou, P. & Ang, B.W. & Poh, K.L., 2006. "Decision analysis in energy and environmental modeling: An update," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 31(14), pages 2604-2622.
    2. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    3. Baoling Duan & Wuping Zhang & Haixia Zheng & Chunyan Wu & Qiang Zhang & Yushan Bu, 2017. "Disposal Situation of Sewage Sludge from Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants (WWTPs) and Assessment of the Ecological Risk of Heavy Metals for Its Land Use in Shanxi, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-12, July.
    4. Ferenc Bognár & Balázs Szentes & Petra Benedek, 2022. "Development of the PRISM Risk Assessment Method Based on a Multiple AHP-TOPSIS Approach," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-16, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Domenech, B. & Ferrer-Martí, L. & Pastor, R., 2015. "Hierarchical methodology to optimize the design of stand-alone electrification systems for rural communities considering technical and social criteria," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 182-196.
    2. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    3. Karatas, Mumtaz & Sulukan, Egemen & Karacan, Ilknur, 2018. "Assessment of Turkey's energy management performance via a hybrid multi-criteria decision-making methodology," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 890-912.
    4. Mallikarjun, Sreekanth & Lewis, Herbert F., 2014. "Energy technology allocation for distributed energy resources: A strategic technology-policy framework," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 783-799.
    5. Bruno Domenech & Laia Ferrer‐Martí & Rafael Pastor, 2019. "Comparison of various approaches to design wind‐PV rural electrification projects in remote areas of developing countries," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 8(3), May.
    6. Çelikbilek, Yakup & Tüysüz, Fatih, 2016. "An integrated grey based multi-criteria decision making approach for the evaluation of renewable energy sources," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 115(P1), pages 1246-1258.
    7. Busola D. Akintayo & Oluwafemi E. Ige & Olubayo M. Babatunde & Oludolapo A. Olanrewaju, 2023. "Evaluation and Prioritization of Power-Generating Systems Using a Life Cycle Assessment and a Multicriteria Decision-Making Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-18, September.
    8. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    9. Fatih Yiğit & Şakir Esnaf, 2021. "A new Fuzzy C-Means and AHP-based three-phased approach for multiple criteria ABC inventory classification," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1517-1528, August.
    10. Rachele Corticelli & Margherita Pazzini & Cecilia Mazzoli & Claudio Lantieri & Annarita Ferrante & Valeria Vignali, 2022. "Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: The Case Study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.
    11. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    12. Pishchulov, Grigory & Trautrims, Alexander & Chesney, Thomas & Gold, Stefan & Schwab, Leila, 2019. "The Voting Analytic Hierarchy Process revisited: A revised method with application to sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 166-179.
    13. Seung-Jin Han & Won-Jae Lee & So-Hee Kim & Sang-Hoon Yoon & Hyunwoong Pyun, 2022. "Assessing Expected Long-term Benefits for the Olympic Games: Delphi-AHP Approach from Korean Olympic Experts," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(4), pages 21582440221, December.
    14. Denys Yemshanov & Frank H. Koch & Yakov Ben‐Haim & Marla Downing & Frank Sapio & Marty Siltanen, 2013. "A New Multicriteria Risk Mapping Approach Based on a Multiattribute Frontier Concept," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1694-1709, September.
    15. Seyed Rakhshan & Ali Kamyad & Sohrab Effati, 2015. "Ranking decision-making units by using combination of analytical hierarchical process method and Tchebycheff model in data envelopment analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 226(1), pages 505-525, March.
    16. V. Srinivasan & G. Shainesh & Anand K. Sharma, 2015. "An approach to prioritize customer-based, cost-effective service enhancements," The Service Industries Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(14), pages 747-762, October.
    17. Mónica García-Melón & Blanca Pérez-Gladish & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Paz Mendez-Rodriguez, 2016. "Assessing mutual funds’ corporate social responsibility: a multistakeholder-AHP based methodology," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 244(2), pages 475-503, September.
    18. Jitendar Kumar Khatri & Bhimaraya Metri, 2016. "SWOT-AHP Approach for Sustainable Manufacturing Strategy Selection: A Case of Indian SME," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 17(5), pages 1211-1226, October.
    19. Vlachokostas, Ch. & Michailidou, A.V. & Achillas, Ch., 2021. "Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis towards promoting Waste-to-Energy Management Strategies: A critical review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Cui, Ye & E, Hanyu & Pedrycz, Witold & Fayek, Aminah Robinson, 2022. "A granular multicriteria group decision making for renewable energy planning problems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 1047-1059.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:2:p:1264-:d:1030239. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.