انتخاب فرایند بهینه تصفیه فاضلاب با استفاده از روش AHP

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای مهندسی محیط زیست، دانشکده محیط زیست، دانشگاه تهران

2 دانشیار گروه عمران محیط زیست، دانشکده محیط زیست، دانشگاه تهران

3 دانشیار مهندسی محیط زیست، انستیتو آب و انرژی، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف، تهران

4 استاد، دانشکده محیط زیست، دانشگاه تهران

5 استاد گروه مهندسی صنایع، دانشگاه تهران

چکیده

در این مقاله، روش فرایند تحلیل سلسله مراتبی (AHP) که مبتنی بر دانش کارشناسی است، برای انتخاب بهترین فرایند تصفیه بی‌هوازی فاضلاب در شهرکهای صنعتی مورد استفاده قرار گرفت. این روش برای تصمیم‌گیری‌های چند معیاره پیچیده، به‌منظور دستیابی به نتایج علمی و قابل قبول استفاده می‌شود. فرایندهای تصفیه بی‌هوازی، شامل بستر لجن بی‌هوازی با جریان رو به بالا (UASB)، راکتور بی‌هوازی بستر ثابت با جریان رو به بالا (UAFB)، راکتور بافلدار بی‌هوازی (ABR)، فرایند تماس بی‌هوازی و لاگون بی‌هوازی است. این گزینه‌ها، بر اساس معیارهای فنی، اقتصادی، زیست‌محیطی و مدیریتی و زیر معیارهای مربوطه وزن‌دهی شد و نتایج با استفاده از نرم افزار Expert Choice مورد بررسی و ارزیابی قرار گرفت. بر این اساس فرایندهای UAFB، ABR، UASB، لاگون بی‌هوازی و فرایند تماس بی‌هوازی به‌ترتیب در اولویتهای اول تا پنجم قرار گرفتند. در نهایت، تحلیل حساسیت که اثر تغییرات پارامترهای ورودی روی نتایج را نشان می‌دهد، برای معیارهای اصلی فنی، اقتصادی، زیست‌محیطی و مدیریتی انجام گرفت.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Using AHP for Selecting the Best Wastewater Treatment Process

نویسندگان [English]

  • AbdolReza Karimi 1
  • Naser Mehrdadi 2
  • Seyed Jamaladin Hashemian 3
  • Gholam Reza Nabi Bidhendi 4
  • Reza Tavakkoli-Moghaddam 5
1 Ph.D. Student of Environmental Eng., Dept. of Environmental Eng., University of Tehran
2 Assoc. Prof. of Environmental Eng., Dept. of Environmental Eng., University of Tehran
3 Assoc. Prof. of Environmental Eng., Institute of Water and Energy, Sharif University of Tech., Tehran
4 Prof., Dept. of Environmental Eng., University of Tehran
5 Prof., Dept. of Industrial Eng., University of Tehran
چکیده [English]

In this paper, Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method that is based on expert knowledge is used for the selection of the optimal anaerobic wastewater treatment process in industrial estates. This method can be applied for complicated multi-criteria decision making to obtain reasonable results. The different anaerobic processes employed in Iranian industrial estates consist of UASB, UAFB, ABR, Contact process, and Anaerobic Lagoons. Based on the general conditions in wastewater treatment plants in industrial estates and on expert judgments and using technical, economic, environmental, and administrative criteria, the processes are weighted and the results obtained are assessed using the Expert Choice Software. Finally, the five processes investigated are ranked as 1 to 5 in a descending order of UAFB, ABR, UASB, Anaerobic Lagoon, and Contact Process. Sensitivity analysis showing the effects of input parameters on changes in the results was applied for technical, economic, environmental, and administrative criteria.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • MCDM
  • Analytical Hierarchy Process
  • Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment Process
1- Guangming, Z., Ru, J., Guohe, H., Min, X., and Jianbing, L., (2007). “Optimization of wastewater treatment alternative selection by hierarchy grey relational analysis.” J. of Environmental Management, 82, 250-259.

2- Handfield, R., Steven, V., Walton, R. S., and Steven, A. M. (2002). “Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the analytical hierarchy process.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 141 (1), 70-87.

3- Rossman, L. A. (1980). “Synthesis of waste treatment systems by implicit enumeration.” J. Water Pollut. Control F., 52 (1), 147-160.

4- USEPA. (2002). Development document for the proposed effluent limitation guidelines and standards, EPA, Office of Water, EPA, 821-B-01-007.

5- Tsagarakis, K. P., Mara, D.D., and Angelakis, A. N. (2003). “Application of cost criteria for selection of municipal wastewater treatment systems.” Water Air Soil Pollut., 142 (1-4), 187- 210.

6- Keeny, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1993). Decision making with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs, 1st  Ed., Cambridge University Press,Cambridge,UK.

7- Peniwati, K. (2007). “Criteria for evaluating group decision making methods.” Math. Comput. Model, 46
(7-8) 935-947.

8- Ellis, K.V., and Tang, S.L. (1991). “Wastewater treatment optimization model for developing world. I: Model development.” J. of Environmental Engineering Division, 117, 501-581.

9- Ellis, K.V., and Tang, S.L. (1994). “Wastewater treatment optimization model for development world. II: Model testing.” J. of Environmental Engineering Division, 120, 610-624.

10- Saaty, T. L. (1977). “A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures.” J. Math. Psychol., 15 (3), 234-281.

11- Tsiporkova, E., and Boeva, V. (2006). “Multi-step ranking of alternatives in a multi-criteria and multi-expert decision making environment.” Inform. Science, 176 (12), 2673-2697.

12- Che-Wei, C., Cheng-Ru, W., Chin-Tsai, L., and Huang-Chu, C. (2007). “An application of AHP and sensitivity analysis for selecting the best slicing machine.” Comput. Ind. Eng., 52 (2), 296-307.

13- Dabaghian, M. R., Hashemi, S. H., Ebadi, T., and Maknoon, R. (2008). “The best available technology for small electroplating plants applying analytical hierarchy process.” Int. J. Environ. Sci. Tech., 5 (4), 479-484.

14- Mianabadi, H., and Afshar, A. (2008). “Multi-attribute decision- marking to rank urban water supply schemes.” J. of Water and Wastewater, 66, 34-45. (In Persian)

15- Perez, M., Rodriguez-Cano, R., Romero, L.I., and Sales D. (2007). “Performance of anaerobic thermophilic fluidized bed in the treatment of cutting-oil wastewater.” Bioresource Technology, 98 (18), 3456-3463.

16- Hajkowicz, S., Young, M., Wheeler, S., MacDonald, D., and Young, D. (2000). “Supporting decisions: Understanding natural resource management assessment techniques.”CSIROLandand Water, <http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/consultancy/2000/sup port decisions. pdf>, (Apr. 5, 2004).

17- Tchobanoglous, G., and Burton, F. (2003). Wastewater engineering: Treatment, disposal, reuse, 4th Ed., Tata McGraw-Hill, Metcalf and Eddy,New Delhi.

18- Washington State Department of Ecology. (1988). “Water quality program, criteria for sewage works design.” <www.wa.gov/ecology/wq/orange> (March 12, 2009).

19- Larichev, O. I., and Moshkovich, H. M. (1995). “ZAPROS-LM-a method and system for ordering multi attribute alternatives.” European J. of Operational Research, 82, 503-521.

20- Saaty, T.L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory,  2nd Ed., PA: RWS Pub.,Pittsburgh.

21- Boroushaki, S., and Malczewski, J. (2008). “Implementing an extension of the analytical hierarchy process using ordered weighted averaging operators with fuzzy quantifiers in ArcGIS.” Computers and Geosciences, 34, 399-410.

22- Linkov, I., Satterstrom, F.K., Steevens, J., Ferguson, E., and Pleus, R.C. (2007). “Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials.” J. of Nanoparticle Research, 9, 543-554.

23- Partovi, F. Y. (1994). “Determining what to benchmark: An analytic hierarchy process approach.” Int. J. of Operations and Production Management, 14 (6), 25-39.

24- Mahmoodzadeh, S., Shahrabi, J., Pariazar M., and Zaeri, M. S. (2007). “Project selection by using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS technique.” International J. of Human and Social Sciences, 30, 333-338.

25- Saaty, T.L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation, 1st Ed.,McGraw-Hill,New York.

26- Lee, A.H.I., Chen, W.C., and Chang, C.J. (2008). “A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan.” Expert Systems with Applications, 34, 96-107.

27- Hosseinali, F., and Alesheikh, A.A. (2008). “Weighting spatial information in GIS for copper mining exploration.” American J. of Applied Sciences, 5, 1187-1198.

28- Ghodsi-pour, S. H. (2007). Analytical hierarchy process (AHP), 5th Ed., Amirkabir University of Tech. Pub.,Tehran. (In Persian)

29- Expert Choice. (2000). Quick start guide & tutorials: User’s manual, PA: Expert Choice Inc.,Pittsburgh.

30- Aragones-Beltran, P., Mendoza-Roca, J.A., Bes-Pia, A., Garcia-Melon, M., and Parra-Ruiz, E., (2009). “Application of multicriteria decision analysis to jar-test results for chemicals selection in the physical–chemical treatment of textile wastewater.” J. of Hazardous Materials, 164, 288-295.