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. 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.
    3. Wu, Zhangsheng & Li, Yue & Wang, Rong & Xu, Xu & Ren, Dongyang & Huang, Quanzhong & Xiong, Yunwu & Huang, Guanhua, 2023. "Evaluation of irrigation water saving and salinity control practices of maize and sunflower in the upper Yellow River basin with an agro-hydrological model based method," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    4. 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).
    5. Zhang, Tianyu & Dong, Peiwu & Zeng, Yongchao & Ju, Yanbing, 2022. "Analyzing the diffusion of competitive smart wearable devices: An agent-based multi-dimensional relative agreement model," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 90-105.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. 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.
    9. Muhammad Riaz & Wojciech Sałabun & Hafiz Muhammad Athar Farid & Nawazish Ali & Jarosław Wątróbski, 2020. "A Robust q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Information Aggregation Using Einstein Operations with Application to Sustainable Energy Planning Decision Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-39, May.
    10. 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.
    11. Julio Berbel & M. Mesa-Jurado & Juan Pistón, 2011. "Value of Irrigation Water in Guadalquivir Basin (Spain) by Residual Value Method," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 25(6), pages 1565-1579, April.
    12. 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).
    13. Saeed Nosratabadi & Gergo Pinter & Amir Mosavi & Sandor Semperger, 2020. "Sustainable Banking; Evaluation of the European Business Models," Papers 2003.13423, arXiv.org.
    14. Ali, Shahid & Taweekun, Juntakan & Techato, Kuaanan & Waewsak, Jompob & Gyawali, Saroj, 2019. "GIS based site suitability assessment for wind and solar farms in Songkhla, Thailand," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 1360-1372.
    15. Sellak, Hamza & Ouhbi, Brahim & Frikh, Bouchra & Palomares, Iván, 2017. "Towards next-generation energy planning decision-making: An expert-based framework for intelligent decision support," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 1544-1577.
    16. 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.
    17. Yasir Ahmed Solangi & Qingmei Tan & Muhammad Waris Ali Khan & Nayyar Hussain Mirjat & Ifzal Ahmed, 2018. "The Selection of Wind Power Project Location in the Southeastern Corridor of Pakistan: A Factor Analysis, AHP, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS Application," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-26, July.
    18. 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.
    19. Maarten Wolsink, 2020. "Framing in Renewable Energy Policies: A Glossary," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-31, June.
    20. Garcia Marrero, Luis Enrique & Arzola Ruíz, José, 2021. "Web-based tool for the decision making in photovoltaic/wind farms planning with multiple objectives," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 2224-2234.

    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.