IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i4p3690-d1071323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Objective Optimization for Ranking Waste Biomass Materials Based on Performance and Emission Parameters in a Pyrolysis Process—An AHP–TOPSIS Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Haidar Howari

    (Department of Physics, Deanship of Educational Services, Qassim University, Buraidah 51452, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia)

  • Mohd Parvez

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Al-Falah University, Faridabad 121004, India)

  • Osama Khan

    (Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi 110025, India)

  • Aiyeshah Alhodaib

    (Department of Physics, College of Science, Qassim University, Buraidah 51452, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia)

  • Abdulrahman Mallah

    (Department of Chemistry, College of Science, Qassim University, Buraidah 51452, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia)

  • Zeinebou Yahya

    (Department of Physics, College of Science, Qassim University, Buraidah 51452, Al-Qassim, Saudi Arabia)

Abstract

The current era of energy production from agricultural by-products comprises numerous criteria such as societal, economical, and environmental concerns, which is thought to be difficult, considering the complexities involved. Making the optimum choice among the various classes of organic waste substances with different physio-chemical characteristics based on their appropriateness for pyrolysis is made possible by a ranking system. By using a feasible model, which combines several attributes of decision-making processes, it is possible to select the ideal biomass feedstock from a small number of possibilities based on relevant traits that have an impact on the pyrolysis. In this study, a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) technique model based on the weight calculated from the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) tool has been applied to obtain a ranking of different types of agro-waste-derived biomass feedstock. The technique of order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) is used to examine the possibilities of using/utilizing locally available biomass. From this point of view, multi-criteria are explained to obtain yield maximum energy. The suggested approaches are supported by the experimental findings and exhibit a good correlation with one another. Six biomass alternatives and eight evaluation criteria are included in this study. Sawdust is the highest-ranking agricultural waste product with a closeness coefficient score of 0.9 out of the six biomass components that were chosen, followed by apple bagasse with 0.8. The hybrid approach model that has been built can be evaluated and validated for the ranking method using the Euclidian distance-based approximation. This study offers a unique perspective on decision-making, particularly concerning thermo-chemical conversion.

Suggested Citation

  • Haidar Howari & Mohd Parvez & Osama Khan & Aiyeshah Alhodaib & Abdulrahman Mallah & Zeinebou Yahya, 2023. "Multi-Objective Optimization for Ranking Waste Biomass Materials Based on Performance and Emission Parameters in a Pyrolysis Process—An AHP–TOPSIS Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-17, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:4:p:3690-:d:1071323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3690/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/4/3690/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kumar, Abhishek & Sah, Bikash & Singh, Arvind R. & Deng, Yan & He, Xiangning & Kumar, Praveen & Bansal, R.C., 2017. "A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 596-609.
    2. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 2000. "Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: A critical survey and future perspectives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 486-500, April.
    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. María Carmen Carnero & Andrés Gómez, 2019. "Optimization of Decision Making in the Supply of Medicinal Gases Used in Health Care," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-31, May.
    2. Tan, R.R. & Aviso, K.B. & Ng, D.K.S., 2019. "Optimization models for financing innovations in green energy technologies," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Behroozeh, Samira & Hayati, Dariush & Karami, Ezatollah, 2022. "Determining and validating criteria to measure energy consumption sustainability in agricultural greenhouses," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    4. Majid Ebrahimi & Hamid Nejadsoleymani & Mohammad Reza Mansouri Daneshvar, 2019. "Land suitability map and ecological carrying capacity for the recognition of touristic zones in the Kalat region, Iran: a multi-criteria analysis based on AHP and GIS," Asia-Pacific Journal of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 3(3), pages 697-718, October.
    5. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    6. Dorokhov, V.V. & Kuznetsov, G.V. & Vershinina, K.Yu. & Strizhak, P.A., 2021. "Relative energy efficiency indicators calculated for high-moisture waste-based fuel blends using multiple-criteria decision-making," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    7. Jack Mathebula & Nhlanhla Mbuli, 2025. "Application of TOPSIS for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Power Systems: A Systematic Literature Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-28, July.
    8. Leanda C. Garvie & David J. Lee & Biljana Kulišić, 2024. "Towards a Bioeconomy: Supplying Forest Residues for the Australian Market," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-19, January.
    9. Rohmer, S.U.K. & Gerdessen, J.C. & Claassen, G.D.H., 2019. "Sustainable supply chain design in the food system with dietary considerations: A multi-objective analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(3), pages 1149-1164.
    10. Rafael Lizarralde & Jaione Ganzarain & Mikel Zubizarreta, 2020. "Assessment and Selection of Technologies for the Sustainable Development of an R&D Center," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-23, December.
    11. Huibing Cheng & Shanshui Zheng & Jianghong Feng, 2022. "A Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Method for Sustainable Ferry Operator Selection: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-22, May.
    12. Lo, Huai-Wei & Liou, James J.H. & Huang, Chun-Nen & Chuang, Yen-Ching & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2020. "A new soft computing approach for analyzing the influential relationships of critical infrastructures," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 28(C).
    13. Alaa Khadra & Mårten Hugosson & Jan Akander & Jonn Are Myhren, 2020. "Development of a Weight Factor Method for Sustainability Decisions in Building Renovation. Case Study Using Renobuild," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-15, September.
    14. Osseweijer, Floor J.W. & van den Hurk, Linda B.P. & Teunissen, Erik J.H.M. & van Sark, Wilfried G.J.H.M., 2018. "A comparative review of building integrated photovoltaics ecosystems in selected European countries," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 1027-1040.
    15. Paweł Ziemba, 2022. "Application Framework of Multi-Criteria Methods in Sustainability Assessment," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(23), pages 1-18, December.
    16. Minviel, Jean Joseph & De Witte, Kristof, 2017. "The influence of public subsidies on farm technical efficiency: A robust conditional nonparametric approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 1112-1120.
    17. Ifaei, Pouya & Tayerani Charmchi, Amir Saman & Loy-Benitez, Jorge & Yang, Rebecca Jing & Yoo, ChangKyoo, 2022. "A data-driven analytical roadmap to a sustainable 2030 in South Korea based on optimal renewable microgrids," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    18. Fang, Hong & Wang, Xu & Song, Wenyan, 2020. "Technology selection for photovoltaic cell from sustainability perspective: An integrated approach," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 1029-1041.
    19. Tim H¨ofer & Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Reinhard Madlener, 2020. "Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multicriteria Decision Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 330-355, December.
    20. José Carlos Romero & Pedro Linares, 2021. "Multiple Criteria Decision-Making as an Operational Conceptualization of Energy Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:4:p:3690-:d:1071323. 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.