Journals / Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3

Comparison of Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion with Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods in terms of Benefit, Cost and Risk

Mezofilik ve Termofilik Anaerobik Çürütmenin Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Fayda, Maliyet ve Risk Açısından Karşılaştırılması

Pages
1306–1314
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

When all the criteria are considered together, it can be said that the best method in terms of benefit, cost, and risk is thermophilic anaerobic digestion.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Anaerobic digestion ensures the stabilization of waste/wastewaters, mass/volume reduction and at the same time producing renewable energy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The aim of this study is to determine whether anaerobic digestion, which is an environmental application and commonly used for the full-scale treatment of waste/wastewaters, has priority over mesophilic or thermophilic temperatures in terms of benefit, cost, and risk.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When all the criteria are considered together, it can be said that the best method in terms of benefit, cost, and risk is thermophilic anaerobic digestion.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Anaerobic digestion ensures the stabilization of waste/wastewaters, mass/volume reduction and at the same time producing renewable energy. The aim of this study is to determine whether anaerobic digestion, which is an environmental application and commonly used for the full-scale treatment of waste/wastewaters, has priority over mesophilic or thermophilic temperatures in terms of benefit, cost, and risk. Sub-criteria were also determined for the main criteria of benefit, cost, and risk to be considered in the selection of the most effective method and the decision was made with AHP and TOPSIS methods. At the end of the study, when the alternatives were evaluated in terms of each main criterion, it was decided to use T-AD for benefit criterion, M-AD for cost criterion and TAD for risk criterion. When all the criteria are considered together, it can be said that the best method in terms of benefit, cost, and risk is thermophilic anaerobic digestion.

Özet

Anaerobik çürütme atıkların stabilizasyonunu, kütle/hacim azaltımını ve aynı zamanda yenilebilir enerji üretiminisağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı çevresel uygulama olan ve yaygın şekilde de atık/atıkların arıtımı için tamölçekli olarak kullanılan anaerobik çürütmenin mezofilik mi yoksa termofilik şartlarda işletimi mi daha öncelikliolduğunu fayda, maliyet ve risk açısından belirlemektir. Bu yöntemlerden en etkin yöntemin seçilmesinde elealınacak fayda, maliyet ve risk ana kriterleri için alt kriterler de belirlenerek, AHP ve TOPSİS yöntemleri ile kararverilmeye çalışılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda her bir ana kriter açısından alternatifler değerlendirildiğinde faydakriteri için T-AÇ, maliyet kriteri için M-AÇ ve risk kriteri için T-AÇ’ye karar verilmiştir. Tüm kriterler beraberele alındığında ise fayda, maliyet ve risk açısından en iyi yöntemin termofilik anaerobik çürütme olduğusöylenebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ADAR, E. (2022). Comparison of Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion with Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods in terms of Benefit, Cost and Risk. Bitlis Eren Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 3, 1306–1314. https://ajindex.com/articles/466847

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Çetinkaya A.Y. 2018. Investigation of Biomethane Potential of Dairy Industry Wastewater. Journal of Polytechnic, 21 (2): 457-460
  2. Çakır F.Y., Stenstrom M.K. 2005. Greenhouse Gas Production: A Comparison Between Aerobic and Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment Technology. Water Research, 39 (17): 4197-4203
  3. Vindis P., Mursec B., Janzekovic M., Cus F. 2009. The Impact of Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion on Biogas Production. Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, 36 (2): 192-198
  4. Cavinato C., Fatone F., Bolzonella D., Pavan P. 2010. Thermophilic Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Cattle Manure With Agro-Wastes and Energy Crops: Comparison of Pilot and Full Scale Experiences. Bioresource Technology, 101 (2): 545-550
  5. Turskis Z., Zavadskas E.K., Antucheviciene J., Kosareva N. 2015. A Hybrid Model Based on Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy WASPAS For Construction Site Selection, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 10 (6): 113-128
  6. Yapici Pehlivan N., Şahin A., Zavadskas E., Turskis Z. 2018. A Comparative Study of Integrated FMCDM Methods For Evaluation of Organizational Strategy Development. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 19 (2): 360-381
  7. Toklu M.C., Uygun Ö. 2018. Location Selection For Wind Plant Using AHP and Axiomatic Design in Fuzzy Environment. Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences (PEN), 6 (2): 120-128
  8. Zavadskas E.K., Kaklauskas A., Kalibatas D., Turskis Z., Krutinis M., Bartkienė L. 2018. Applying the TOPSIS-F Method to Assess Air Pollution in Vilnius. Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ), 17 (9)
  9. Abdullah L., Zulkifli N., Liao H., Herrera-Viedma E., Al-Barakati A. 2019. An Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy DEMATEL Method Combined with Choquet Integral For Sustainable Solid Waste Management. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 82: 207-215
  10. Tseng M.L. 2011. Using a Hybrid MCDM Model To Evaluate Firm Environmental Knowledge Management in Uncertainty. Applied Soft Computing, 11 (1): 1340-1352
  11. Vego G., Kučar-Dragičević S., Koprivanac N. 2008. Application of Multi-Criteria DecisionMaking on Strategic Municipal Solid Waste Management in Dalmatia. Croatia, Waste Management, 28 (11): 2192-2201
  12. Tseng M.L. 2009. Application of ANP and DEMATEL to Evaluate The Decision-Making of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Metro Manila. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 156 (181): 1-4
  13. Dursun M., Karsak E.E.