Advertisement

Springer Nature is making Coronavirus research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

A triangular fuzzy TOPSIS-based approach for the application of water technologies in different emergency water supply scenarios

  • 334 Accesses

  • 7 Citations

Abstract

Because of the increasing frequency and intensity of unexpected natural disasters, providing safe drinking water for the affected population following a disaster has become a global challenge of growing concern. An onsite water supply technology that is portable, mobile, or modular is a more suitable and sustainable solution for the victims than transporting bottled water. In recent years, various water techniques, such as membrane-assisted technologies, have been proposed and successfully implemented in many places. Given the diversity of techniques available, the current challenge is how to scientifically identify the optimum options for different disaster scenarios. Hence, a fuzzy triangular-based multi-criteria, group decision-making tool was developed in this research. The approach was then applied to the selection of the most appropriate water technologies corresponding to the different emergency water supply scenarios. The results show this tool capable of facilitating scientific analysis in the evaluation and selection of emergency water technologies for enduring security drinking water supply in disaster relief.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

References

  1. Ali B, Raja B, Amor H, Salah ATB (2014) Fluoride removal from aqueous solution by direct contact membrane distillation: theoretical and experimental studies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:10493–10501

  2. Amir F, Farzin ZA, Bahram D, Hamid R, Bardiya V (2015) Response surface methodology for the modeling and optimization of oil-in-water emulsion separation using gas sparging assisted microfiltration. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:2311–2327

  3. Anagnostopoulos K, Doukas H, Psarras J (2008) A linguistic multicriteria analysis system combining fuzzy sets theory, ideal and anti-ideal points for location site selection. Expert Syst Appl 35(4):2041–2048

  4. Barbot E, Carretier E, Wyart Y, Marrot B, Moulin P (2009) Transportable membrane process to produce drinking water. Desalination 248:58–63

  5. Berg PA (2010) A new water treatment product for the urban poor in the developing world. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2010: Challenges of Change ASCE: 2010–2025

  6. Brown J, Sobsey MD (2010) Microbiological effectiveness of locally produced ceramic filter for drinking water treatment in Cambodia. J Water Health 8:1–10

  7. Bulut E, Duru O, Kececi T, Yoshida S (2012) Use of consistency index, expert prioritization and direct numerical inputs for generic Fuzzy-AHP modeling: a process model for shipping asset management. Expert Syst Appl 39:1911–1923

  8. Chen C (2000) Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst 114:1–9

  9. Chen C (2001) A fuzzy approach to select the location of the distribution center. Fuzzy Sets Syst 118(1):65–73

  10. Dany R, Mohamed R, Pascale P, Viviane Y (2016) Forward osmosis for the concentration and reuse of process saline wastewater. Chem Eng J 287:277–284

  11. Dehghan B, Mahmudi H, Abedian A, Mahmudi R (2007) A novel method for materials selection in mechanical design: combination of non-linear normalization and a modified digital logic method. Mater Des 28:8–15

  12. Dogruel S, Cokgor EU, Ince O, Sozen S, Orhon D (2013) Potential of ultrafiltration for organic matter removal in the polymer industry effluent based on particle size distribution analysis. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:340–350

  13. Duru O, Bulut E, Yoshida S (2012) Regime switching AHP model for choice varying priorities problem and expert consistency prioritization: a cubic fuzzy-priority matrix design. Expert Syst Appl 39:4954–4964

  14. Elena A, Elena RP (2016) Environmental disasters, migration and displacement. Insights and developments from L’Aquila’s case. Environ Sci Pol 56:80–88

  15. Elfil H, Hamed A, Hannachi A (2007) Technical evaluation of a small-scale reverse osmosis desalination unit for domestic water. Desalination 203:319–326

  16. Fan XC, Su YL, Zhao XT, Li YF, Zhang RN, Ma TY, Liu YN, Jiang ZY (2016) Manipulating the segregation behavior of polyethylene glycol by hydrogen bonding interaction to endow ultrafiltration membranes with enhanced antifouling performance. J Membr Sci 499:55–64

  17. Fath HES, Elsherbiny SM, Hassan AA, Rommel M, Wieghaus M, Koschikowski J, Vatansever M (2008) PV and thermally driven small-scale, stand-alone solar desalination systems with very low maintenance needs. Desalination 225:58–69

  18. Garima J (2015) The role of private sector for reducing disaster risk in large scale infrastructure and real estate development: case of Delhi. Int J Disaster Risk Reduct 14:238–255

  19. Garrido-Baserba M, Hospido A, Reif R, Molinos-Senante M, Comas J, Poch M (2014) Including the environmental criteria when selecting a wastewater treatment plant. Environ Model Softw 56:74–82

  20. Garsadi R, Salim HT, Soekarno I, Doppenberg AFJ, Verberk JQJC (2009) Operational experience with a micro hydraulic mobile water treatment plant in Indonesia after the “Tsunami of 2004”. Desalination 248:91–98

  21. Harris C (2000) Modular desalting for specialized applications. Desalination 132:269–274

  22. Herold D, Neskakis A (2001) A small PV-driven reverse osmosis desalination plant on the island of Gran Canaria. Desalination 137:285–292

  23. HTI (2010) Available at http://www.htiwater.com/hydropack.html?Vl¼6&Tp¼2. Accessed Jan 31 2016

  24. Kalbar PP, Karmakar S, Asolekar SR (2013) The influence of expert opinions on the selection of wastewater treatment alternatives: a group decision-making approach. J Environ Manag 128:844–851

  25. Kang G, Roy S, Balraj V (2006) Appropriate technology for rural India e solar decontamination of water for emergency settings and small communities. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg 100:863–866

  26. Khalifa A, Lawal D, Antar M, Khayet M (2015) Experimental and theoretical investigation on water desalination using air gap membrane distillation. Desalination 376:94–108

  27. Krohling RA, Campanharo VC (2011) Fuzzy TOPSIS for group decision making: a case study for accidents with oil spill in the sea. Expert Syst Appl 38:4190–4197

  28. Lee SK, Mogi G, Li Z, Hui KS, Lee SK, Hui KN, Park SY, Ha YJ, Kim JW (2011) Measuring the relative efficiency of hydrogen energy technologies for implementing the hydrogen economy: an integrated fuzzy AHP/DEA approach. Int J Hydrog Energy 36:12655–12663

  29. Li XH, Chen XH (2014) Extension of the TOPSIS method based on prospect theory and trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy numbers for group decision making. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 23:231–247

  30. Liu J, Guo L, Jiang JP, Hao LL, Liu RT, Wang P (2015) Evaluation and selection of emergency treatment technology based on dynamic fuzzy GRA method for chemical contingency spills. J Hazard Mater 299:306–315

  31. Loo SL, Fane AG, Krantz WB, Lim TT (2012) Emergency water supply: a review of potential technologies and selection criteria. Water Res 46:3125–3151

  32. Lougheed T (2006) A clear solution for dirty water. Environ Health Perspect 114:A424–A427

  33. Mahapatra NK, Maiti M (2004) Inventory model for deteriorating items with uncertain setup time. Tamsui Oxf J Manag Sci 20:83–102

  34. McBean EA (2009) Evaluation of a bicycle-powered filtration system for removing ‘clumped’ coliform bacteria as a low-tech option for water treatment. Desalination 248:138–143

  35. Mendez-Hermida F, Castro-Hermida JA, Ares-Mazas E, Kehoe SC, McGuigan KG (2005) Effect of batch-process solar disinfection on survival of Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts in drinking water. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:1653–1654

  36. Peter-Varbanets M, Zurbrugg C, Swartz C, Pronk W (2009) Decentralized systems for potable water and the potential of membrane technology. Water Res 43:245–265

  37. Phoenix Net (2010) Available at http://news.ifeng.com/world/special/zhilidizhen. Accessed Jan 31 2016

  38. Psutka R, Peletz R, Michelo S, Kelly P, Clasen T (2011) Assessing the microbiological performance and potential cost of boiling drinking water in urban Zambia. Environ Sci Technol 45:6095–6101

  39. Qu JH, Meng XL, Hu Q, You H (2016) A novel two-stage evaluation system based on a Group-G1 approach to identify appropriate emergency treatment technology schemes in sudden water source pollution accidents. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:2789–2801

  40. Robinson R, Ho G, Mathew K (1992) Development of a reliable low-cost reverse osmosis desalination unit for remote communities. Desalination 86:9–26

  41. Rosa G, Miller L, Clasen T (2010) Microbiological effectiveness of disinfecting water by boiling in rural Guatemala. AmJTrop Med Hyg 83:473–477

  42. She QH, Wang R, Fane AG, Tang CY (2016) Membrane fouling in osmotically driven membrane processes: a review. J Membr Sci 499:201–233

  43. Shi SG, Cao JC, Feng L, Liang WY, Zhang LQ (2014) Construction of a technique plan repository and evaluation system based on AHP group decision-making for emergency treatment and disposal in chemical pollution accidents. J Hazard Mater 276:200–206

  44. Shyam S, Alain D, Laurent B (2015) Characterization of protein, peptide and amino acid fouling on ion-exchange and filtration membranes: review of current and recently developed methods. J Membr Sci 496:267–283

  45. Sobsey MD, Stauber CE, Casanova LM, Brown JM, Elliott MA (2008) Point of use household drinking water filtration: a practical, effective solution for providing sustained access to safe drinking water in the developing world. Environ Sci Technol 42:4261–4267

  46. Van HD, Heijman SGJ, Soppe AIA, van Dijk JC, Amy GL (2007) Ceramic silver-impregnated pot filters for household drinking water treatment in developing countries: materials characterization and performance study. Water Sci Technol: Water Suppl 7:9–17

  47. Wallace M, Cui Z, Hankins NP (2008) A thermodynamic benchmark for assessing an emergency drinking water device based on forward osmosis. Desalination 227:34–45

  48. Wang J, Ding D, Liu Q, Li M (2016) A synthetic method for knowledge management performance evaluation based on triangular fuzzy number and group support systems. Appl Soft Comput 39:11–20

  49. Xinhua Net (2008) Available at http://www.sc.xinhuanet.com/topic/2008dz/index.htm. Accessed Jan 31 2016

  50. Xinhua Net (2011) Available at http://news.xinhuanet.com/photo/2011-02/22/c_121109003_2.htm. Accessed Jan 31 2016

  51. Xu K, Ren HQ, Ding LL (2013) A review of membrane fouling in municipal secondary effluent reclamation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:771–777

  52. Yoon KP, Hwang CL (1995) Multiple attribute decision making: an introduction. Sage Publications

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by the Special Fund for Environmental Protection Research in the Public Interest (20120948).

Author information

Correspondence to Xianlin Meng.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Marcus Schulz

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 236 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qu, J., Meng, X., Yu, H. et al. A triangular fuzzy TOPSIS-based approach for the application of water technologies in different emergency water supply scenarios. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23, 17277–17286 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6911-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Emergency water supply
  • Disaster
  • Technique evaluation
  • Multi-criteria group decision making
  • Membrane technologies