Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An integrated methodology for establishing industrial effluent limits in developing countries: Iran as a case study

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Environmental policies should be developed in a contextual decision-making process regarding local environmental concerns emphasizing the economic, technical, social and institutional considerations. Establishing emission limit levels, especially in the industrial sector, is one of the most problematic environmental issues in developing countries, for which it is essential to include several criteria that reflect their country-specific constraints and capacities. Since Best Available Technology (BAT) is acknowledged to be the reference element for sustainable development and a basis for Emissions Limit Values (ELVs), the objective of this study is to present a reliable methodology for establishing ELVs thresholds with an emphasis on the BAT concept for national regulation at the sector level.

Methods

A hybrid fuzzy multiple-criteria decision-making (FMCDM) process, consisting of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (fuzzy TOPSIS) method, is structured to aggregate the different criteria and rank different ELV alternatives in this complicated evaluation. In order to use the most profound knowledge and judgment of a professional expert team, this qualitative assessment highlights the importance of supportive information.

Results

The results obtained indicate that experts have considered the country-specific information as a reliable reference in their decisions. Among different key evaluation criteria in effluent standard setting, the highest experts’ priority is “Environmental protection”. For both the conventional and toxic pollutants, the influence of all other criteria namely “Economic feasibility”, “Technology viability” and “Institutional capacity”, as constraining criteria in developing countries, have not reduced the responsibility towards the environmental objectives. In ELVs ranking, experts have made their decisions with respect to the specific characteristics of each pollutant and the existing capacities and constraints of the country, without emphasizing on any specific reference.

Conclusions

This systematic and transparent approach has resulted in defensible country-specific ELVs for the Iron and Steel industry, which can be developed for other sectors. As the main conclusion, this paper demonstrates that FMCDM is a robust tool for this comprehensive assessment especially regarding the data availability limitations in developing countries.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BAT:

Best Available Technology

ELVs:

Emissions Limit Values

FMCDM:

Fuzzy Multiple-Criteria Decision-Making

AHP:

Analytic Hierarchy Process

Fuzzy TOPSIS:

Fuzzy Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution

DOE:

Department of Environment

ISESs:

Industry-Specific Effluent Standards

EPA:

Environmental Protection Agency

BPT:

Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT)

CVI:

Content Validity Index

EU:

European Union

IPPC:

Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive

BAT-AEL:

BAT associated emission level

BPT-AEL:

BPT associated emission level

BREFs:

BAT reference documents

DMs:

Decision-Makers

WTTs:

Wastewater Treatment Technologies

DL:

Detection Limit

TFNs:

Triangular Fuzzy Numbers

FPIS:

Fuzzy Positive Ideal Solution

FNIS:

Fuzzy Negative Ideal Solution

RC:

Relative Closeness.

References

  1. Gumus AT. Evaluation of hazardous waste transportation firms by using a two step fuzzy-AHP and TOPSIS methodology. Expert Syst Appl. 2009;36:4067–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. EuropeanCommission: Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (Integrated Pollution Prev Control). pp. 103: Off J Eur Union; 2010:103.

  3. Giner-Santonja G, Aragonés-Beltrán P, Niclós-Ferragut J. The application of the analytic network process to the assessment of best available techniques. J Clean Prod. 2012;25:86–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Mavrotas G, Georgopoulou E, Mirasgedis S, Sarafidis Y, Lalas D, Hontou V, et al. An integrated approach for the selection of best available techniques (BAT) for the industries in the greater Athens area using multi-objective combinatorial optimization. Energy Econ. 2007;29:953–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chakrabarti S, Mitra N. Economic and environmental impacts of pollution control regulation on small industries: a case study. Ecol Econ. 2005;54:53–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bugallo PB, Andrade LC, Iglesias AM, López RT. Integrated environmental permit through best available techniques: evaluation of the fish and seafood canning industry. J Clean Prod. 2013;47:253–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Camisón C. Effects of coercive regulation versus voluntary and cooperative auto-regulation on environmental adaptation and performance: empirical evidence in Spain. Eur Manag J. 2010;28:346–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Testa F, Daddi T, De Giacomo MR, Iraldo F, Frey M. The effect of integrated pollution prevention and control regulation on facility performance. J Clean Prod. 2014;64:91–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Konterman I, Scheren P, Leuven R, Ragas A, Lubberding H, Niebeek G, et al. Environmental quality objective approach to effluent standards definition. A useful approach within the Developing Countries context. 2003;

  10. Ragas A, Scheren P, Konterman H, Leuven R, Vugteveen P, Lubberding H, et al. Effluent standards for developing countries: combining the technology-and water quality-based approach. Water Sci Technol. 2005;52:133–44.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Kunz N, Moran C, Kastelle T. Conceptualising “coupling” for sustainability implementation in the industrial sector: a review of the field and projection of future research opportunities. J Clean Prod. 2013;53:69–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tseng M-L, Tan RR, Siriban-Manalang AB. Sustainable consumption and production for Asia: sustainability through green design and practice. J Clean Prod. 2013;40:1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim J, Kim HW, Shin J-S, Lee C-G, Chung M, Huh IA, et al. Implementation of the effluent limitations based on the best practicable control technology for the petroleum refining industry in Korea. Desalin Water Treat. 2013;52:145–55.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Frost R: EU practice in setting wastewater emission limit values. 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Dijkmans R. Methodology for selection of best available techniques (BAT) at the sector level. J Clean Prod. 2000;8:11–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Polders C, Van den Abeele L, Derden A, Huybrechts D. Methodology for determining emission levels associated with the best available techniques for industrial waste water. J Clean Prod. 2012;29-30:113–21.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Derden A, Vercaemst P, Dijkmans R. Best available techniques (BAT) for the fruit and vegetable processing industry. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2002;34:261–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Geldermann J, Rentz O. The reference installation approach for the techno-economic assessment of emission abatement options and the determination of BAT according to the IPPC-directive. J Clean Prod. 2004;12:389–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schollenberger H, Treitz M, Geldermann J. Adapting the European approach of best available techniques: case studies from Chile and China. J Clean Prod. 2008;16:1856–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Brechet T, Tulkens H. Beyond BAT: selecting optimal combinations of available techniques, with an example from the limestone industry. J Environ Manag. 2009;90:1790–801.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Samarakoon SMK, Gudmestad OT. The IPPC directive and technique qualification at offshore oil and gas installations. J Clean Prod. 2011;19:13–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cikankowitz A, Laforest V. Using BAT performance as an evaluation method of techniques. J Clean Prod. 2013;42:141–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. López-Gamero MD, Claver-Cortés E, Molina-Azorín JF. Evaluating environmental regulation in Spain using process control and preventive techniques. Eur J Oper Res. 2009;195:497–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chung J, Kim J, Kim Y, Hwang Y. Assessment and selection of best available technology (BAT) for wastewater facilities in the leather tanning and finishing industry. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2013;70:32–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Behzadian M, Khanmohammadi Otaghsara S, Yazdani M, Ignatius J. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Syst Appl. 2012;39:13051–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kalbar PP, Karmakar S, Asolekar SR. The influence of expert opinions on the selection of wastewater treatment alternatives: a group decision-making approach. J Environ Manag. 2013;128:844–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Aragones-Beltran P, Mendoza-Roca JA, Bes-Pia A, Garcia-Melon M, Parra-Ruiz E. Application of multicriteria decision analysis to jar-test results for chemicals selection in the physical-chemical treatment of textile wastewater. J Hazard Mater. 2009;164:288–95.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Tan RR, Aviso KB, Huelgas AP, Promentilla MAB. Fuzzy AHP approach to selection problems in process engineering involving quantitative and qualitative aspects. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2014;92:467–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Huang IB, Keisler J, Linkov I. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ. 2011;409:3578–94.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Hwang C-L, Yoon K. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1981.

  32. Sadi-Nezhad S, Khalili Damghani K. Application of a fuzzy TOPSIS method base on modified preference ratio and fuzzy distance measurement in assessment of traffic police centers performance. Appl Soft Comput. 2010;10:1028–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Mardani A, Jusoh A, Zavadskas EK. Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications – two decades review from 1994 to 2014. Expert Syst Appl. 2015;42:4126–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Chung ES, Kim Y. Development of fuzzy multi-criteria approach to prioritize locations of treated wastewater use considering climate change scenarios. J Environ Manag. 2014;146:505–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kim Y, Chung E-S, Jun S-M, Kim SU. Prioritizing the best sites for treated wastewater instream use in an urban watershed using fuzzy TOPSIS. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2013;73:23–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Minatour Y, Bonakdari H, Zarghami M, Bakhshi MA. Water supply management using an extended group fuzzy decision-making method: a case study in North-Eastern Iran. Appl Water Sci. 2015;5:291–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Qu J, Meng X, Yu H, You H. A triangular fuzzy TOPSIS-based approach for the application of water technologies in different emergency water supply scenarios. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2016;23:17277–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Onu UP, Xie Q, Xu L. A fuzzy TOPSIS model framework for ranking sustainable water supply alternatives. Water Resour Manag. 2017:1–15.

  39. Ouyang X, Guo F, Shan D, Yu H, Wang J. Development of the integrated fuzzy analytical hierarchy process with multidimensional scaling in selection of natural wastewater treatment alternatives. Ecol Eng. 2015;74:438–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hu W, Liu G, Tu Y. Wastewater treatment evaluation for enterprises based on fuzzy-AHP comprehensive evaluation: a case study in industrial park in Taihu Basin, China. Springer Plus. 2016;5:907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhang X, Gao L, Barrett D, Chen Y. Evaluating water management practice for sustainable mining. Water. 2014;6:414–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zyoud SH, Kaufmann LG, Shaheen H, Samhan S, Fuchs-Hanusch D. A framework for water loss management in developing countries under fuzzy environment: integration of fuzzy AHP with fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Syst Appl. 2016;61:86–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. World steel in figures 2017 [https://www.worldsteel.org/].

  44. Bottero M, Comino E, Riggio V. Application of the analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process for the assessment of different wastewater treatment systems. Environ Model Softw. 2011;26:1211–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Mahjouri M, Ishak MB, Torabian A, Manaf LA, Halimoon N, Ghoddusi J. Optimal selection of Iron and steel wastewater treatment technology using integrated multi-criteria decision-making techniques and fuzzy logic. Process Saf Environ Prot. 2017;107:54–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Mahjouri M, Ishak MB, Torabian A, Manaf LA, Halimoon N. Determining the best practicable control technology and its associated emission levels for Iron and steel industry in Iran. Resour Conserv Recycl. 2017;127:114–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. EuropeanCommission: Commission Implementing Decision of 28 February 2012 establishing the best available techniques (BAT) conclusions under Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions for iron and steel production. vol. 55. pp. 36: Off J Eur Union; 2012:36.

  48. Environmental, Health, and Safety Guidelines for Integrated Steel Mills [http://www.ifc.org/wps/wcm/connect/topics_ext_content/ifc_external_corporate_site/ifc+sustainability/our+approach/risk+management/ehsguidelines].

  49. Saaty TL, Shang JS. Group decision-making: head-count versus intensity of preference. Socio Econ Plan Sci. 2007;41:22–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Garcia-Cascales MS, Lamata MT. Multi-criteria analysis for a maintenance management problem in an engine factory: rational choice. J Intell Manuf. 2009;22:779–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Cochran JK, Chen H-N. Fuzzy multi-criteria selection of object-oriented simulation software for production system analysis. Comput Oper Res. 2005;32:153–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Karsak EE, Tolga E. Fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making procedure for evaluating advanced manufacturing system investments. Int J Prod Econ. 2001;69:49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lin H-Y, Hsu P-Y, Sheen G-J. A fuzzy-based decision-making procedure for data warehouse system selection. Expert Syst Appl. 2007;32:939–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Meixner O: Fuzzy AHP group Decis Anal and its application for the evaluation of energy sources. Institute of Marketing and Innovation Vienna, Austria 2009.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their special thanks to all the experts who were involved in the survey for this research. Without their outstanding knowledge and experience along with their passionate participation and input, the survey could not have been successfully conducted. Also, the cooperation of Iran’s Department of Environment is highly appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Planning and Management, Faculty of Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia

    Maryam Mahjouri, Mohd Bakri Ishak & Latifah Abd Manaf

  2. Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Environment, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

    Ali Torabian

  3. Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Environmental Studies, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, Malaysia

    Normala Halimoon

Authors
  1. Maryam Mahjouri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohd Bakri Ishak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ali Torabian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Latifah Abd Manaf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Normala Halimoon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

MM: prepared the initial proposal, inquired the data, conducted the statistical analysis, and wrote the draft. MB and AT: suggested the topic, commented on the proposal and methods, provided scientific support, edited and commented on the final draft. LA and NH: commented on the proposal and methods, supervised the research, edited and commented on the final draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maryam Mahjouri.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mahjouri, M., Ishak, M.B., Torabian, A. et al. An integrated methodology for establishing industrial effluent limits in developing countries: Iran as a case study. J Environ Health Sci Engineer 16, 181–192 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40201-018-0306-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40201-018-0306-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation