Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Selection of the Most Feasible Wastewater Treatment Technology in Pakistan Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM)

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Water Conservation Science and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Industrialization plays an important role in the economic growth and development of a country. Pakistan is a developing country that heavily relies on its industrial sector to aid in its sustainable economic growth but the increase in the number of industries has also resulted in a rapid increase in pollution due to poor management of industrial effluents. Many technological solutions are available for wastewater treatment, ranging from conventional treatment methods to advanced technologies. However, the selection of an optimal wastewater treatment technology (WWTT) is a difficult task owing to several alternatives available and multiple criteria involved in the selection process. To resolve this issue, the purpose of this paper is to evaluate different WWTT based on certain pre-defined criteria, and selecting the most suitable technology using multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) approach. In this research, five WWTT used in Pakistan were evaluated based on ten criteria using fuzzy VIKOR method. The results of the study show that activated sludge is the most suitable technology for industrial wastewater treatment in Pakistan being ranked first, followed by membrane filtration and sequential batch reactor ranked second and third respectively. The study provides an evaluation framework for decision-makers in Pakistan to select the most appropriate technology for wastewater treatment. The selected alternative can further be implemented in the existing and upcoming industrial estates to reduce the ever-increasing water pollution in Pakistan.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Plecher, H., 2020. Distribution of gross domestic product (GDP) across economic sectors from 2008 to 2018. [Online] Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/383256/pakistan-gdp-distribution-across-economic-sectors/#:~:text=Distribution%20of%20gross%20domestic%20product%20(GDP)%20across%20economic%20sectors%20Pakistan%202018&text=In%202018%2C%20agriculture%20contributed%20ar

  2. Bolong N, Ismail A, Salim M, Matsuura T (2009) A review of the effects of emerging contaminants in wastewater and options for their removal. Desalination 239(1–3):229–246

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Ahmad S, Khan AA (2018) The impact of sugar mills’ effluents on soil quality. J Animal Plant Sci 28(1):215–221

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Nasrullah R, Bibi H, Iqbal M, Durrani M (2006) Pollution load in industrial effluent and ground water of Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate (GAIE) Swabi, NWFP. J Agric Biol Sci 1(3):18–24

    Google Scholar 

  5. Sial R, Chaudhary MF, Abbas ST, Latif MI, Khan AG (2006) Quality of effluents from Hattar Industrial Estate. Journal of Zhejiang University. Sci B 7(12):974–980

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hanif M, Nadeem R, Rashid U, Zafar M (2005) Assessing pollution levels in effluents of industries in city zone of Faisalabad, Pakistan. J Appl Sci 5(10):1713–1717

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Khan Z, Haq F, Ullah R, Ullah M (2012) The analysis of water samples in different industrialization units of District Buner, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Int J Biosci 2(10):82–85

    Google Scholar 

  8. Sadiq Butt M, Sharif K, Ehsan Bajwa B, Aziz A (2005) Hazardous effects of sewage water on the environment: focus on heavy metals and chemical composition of soil and vegetables. Manag Environ Qual 16(4):338–346

    Google Scholar 

  9. Singh P, Deshbhratar P, Ramteke D (2012) Effects of sewage wastewater irrigation on soil properties, crop yield and environment. Agricult Water Manag 103:100–104

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kumar, P. & Joshiba, G., 2018. Environmental and health effects due to the usage of wastewater. In: Life cycle assessment of wastewater treatment. s.l.:CRC Press, pp. 1-21

  11. Robert K, Parris T, Leiserowitz A (2005) What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 47(3):8–21

    Google Scholar 

  12. Global Water Forum, 2012. 21 Disturbing truths about Asia’s water pollution problem. [Online] Available at: https://all-about-water-filters.com/truths-about-asias-water-pollution-problem/

  13. Tong L (2015) CPEC industrial zones and China-Pakistan capacity cooperation. Strateg Stud J 35(1):174–184

    Google Scholar 

  14. Varis O, Vakkilainen P (2001) China’s 8 challenges to water resources management in the first quarter of the 21st century. Geomorphology 41(2–3):93–104

    Google Scholar 

  15. Karimi A et al (2011) Selection of wastewater treatment process based on the analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process methods. Int J Environ Sci Technol 8(2):267–280

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Waterbiotech, 2013. Waterbiotech. [Online] Available at: http://waterbiotech.eu/downloads/Public_Downloads/d4_11_-_final.pdf [Accessed 28 10 2018]

  17. Zeng G, Jiang R, Huang G, Xu M, Li J (2007) Optimization of wastewater treatment alternative selection by hierarchy grey relational analysis. J Environ Manag 82(2):250–259

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kumar A, Sah B, Singh AR, Deng Y, He X, Kumar P, Bansal RC (2017) A review of multi criteria decision making (MCDM) towards sustainable renewable energy development. Renew Sust Energ Rev 69(C):596–609

    Google Scholar 

  19. Önüt S, Kara S, Işik E (2009) Long term supplier selection using a combined fuzzy MCDM approach: a case study for a telecommunication company. Expert Syst Appl 36(2):3887–3895

    Google Scholar 

  20. Tseng M, Chiu A (2013) Evaluating firm’s green supply chain management in linguistic preferences. J Clean Prod 22(31):22–31

    Google Scholar 

  21. Levy J (2005) Multiple criteria decision making and decision support systems for flood risk management. Stoch Env Res Risk A 19(6):438–447

    Google Scholar 

  22. Chu T (2002) Facility location selection using fuzzy TOPSIS under group decisions. Int J Uncertainty Fuzziness Knowledge Based Syst 10(06):687–701

    Google Scholar 

  23. Girubha R, Vinodh S (2012) Application of fuzzy VIKOR and environmental impact analysis for material selection of an automotive component. Mater Des 37:478–486

    Google Scholar 

  24. Chiou H, Tzeng G, Cheng D (2005) Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach. Omega 33(3):223–234

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ilangkumaran M, Sasirekha V, Anojkumar L, Sakthivel G, Boopathi Raja M, Ruban Sundara Raj T, Siddhartha CNS, Nizamuddin P, Praveen Kumar S (2013) Optimization of wastewater treatment technology selection using hybrid MCDM. Manag Environ Qual 24(5):619–641

    Google Scholar 

  26. Molinos-Senante M, Gómez T, Caballero R, Hernández-Sancho F, Sala-Garrido R (2015) Assessment of wastewater treatment alternatives for small communities: an analytic network process approach. Sci Total Environ 532:676–687

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Griggs D, Stafford-Smith M, Gaffney O, Rockström J, Öhman MC, Shyamsundar P, Steffen W, Glaser G, Kanie N, Noble I (2013) Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495(7441):305–307

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Farooq S, Hashmi I, Qazi IA, Qaiser S, Rasheed S (2008) Monitoring of Coliforms and chlorine residual in water distribution network of Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Environ Monit Assess 140(1–3):339–347

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosemann, N., 2005. Drinking water crisis in Pakistan and the issue of bottled water. The case of Nestlé’s ‘Pure Life’. [Online] Available at: https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/Rosemann-2006-Drinking.pdf

  30. Azizullah A, Khattak MNK, Richter P, Hader DP (2011) Water pollution in Pakistan and its impact on public health—a review. Environ Int 37(2):479–497

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Shuval H (2003) Estimating the global burden of thalassogenic diseases: human infectious diseases caused by wastewater pollution of the marine environment. J Water Health 1(2):53–64

    Google Scholar 

  32. Ullah Z, Khan H, Waseem A, Mahmood Q, Farooq U (2013) Water quality assessment of the River Kabul at Peshawar, Pakistan: industrial and urban wastewater impacts. J Water Chem Technol 35(4):170–176

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ullah R, Malik RN, Qadir A (2009) Assessment of groundwater contamination in an industrial city, Sialkot, Pakistan. Afr J Environ Sci Technol 3(12):429–446

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Mahmood Q et al (2019) Chemical pollutants from an industrial estate in Pakistan: a threat to environmental sustainability. Appl Water Sci 9(3):47

    Google Scholar 

  35. Fuhs GW, Chen M (1975) Microbiological basis of phosphate removal in the activated sludge process for the treatment of wastewater. Microb Ecol 2(2):119–138

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Nakada N, Tanishima T, Shinohara H, Kiri K, Takada H (2006) Pharmaceutical chemicals and endocrine disrupters in municipal wastewater in Tokyo and their removal during activated sludge treatment. Water Res 40(17):3297–3303

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Altaf MS, Ali TA (2010) Waste water treatment using sequential batch reactor and development of microbiological method for the analysis of relative toxicity. Pak J Nutr 9(6):574–576

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Zagklis D, Vavouraki A, Kornaros M, Paraskeva C (2015) Purification of olive mill wastewater phenols through membrane filtration and resin adsorption/desorption. J Hazard Mater 285(1):69–76

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Ganiyu S et al (2015) Coupling of membrane filtration and advanced oxidation processes for removal of pharmaceutical residues: a critical review. Sep Purif Technol 156(1):891–914

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Rezakazemi M, Khajeh A, Mesbah M (2018) Membrane filtration of wastewater from gas and oil production. Environ Chem Lett 16(2):367–388

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Vymazal J, Březinová T (2015) The use of constructed wetlands for removal of pesticides from agricultural runoff and drainage: a review. Environ Int 75(1):11–20

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Wang M, Zhang D, Dong J, Tan S (2017) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in cold climate—a review. J Environ Sci 57(1):293–311

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kalbar P, Karmakar S, Asolekar S (2012) Selection of an appropriate wastewater treatment technology: a scenario-based multiple-attribute decision-making approach. J Environ Manag 113(1):158–169

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kalbar P, Karmakar S, Asolekar S (2013) The influence of expert opinions on the selection of wastewater treatment alternatives: a group decision-making approach. J Environ Manag 128(1):844–851

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mahjouri M, Ishak MB, Torabian A, Abd Manaf L, Halimoon N, Ghoddusi J (2017) Optimal selection of Iron and steel wastewater treatment technology using integrated multi-criteria decision-making techniques and fuzzy logic. Process Saf Environ Prot 107(1):54–68

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Ren J, Liang H (2017) Multi-criteria group decision-making based sustainability measurement of wastewater treatment processes. Environ Impact Assess Rev 65(1):91–99

    Google Scholar 

  47. Molinos-Senante M et al (2014) Assessing the sustainability of small wastewater treatment systems: a composite indicator approach. Sci Total Environ 497(1):607–617

    Google Scholar 

  48. Yücenur G, Demirel N (2012) Group decision making process for insurance company selection problem with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Expert Syst Appl 39(3):3702–3707

    Google Scholar 

  49. Safari H, Faraji Z, Majidian S (2016) Identifying and evaluating enterprise architecture risks using FMEA and fuzzy VIKOR. J Intell Manuf 27(2):475–486

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kaya T, Kahraman C (2010) Multicriteria renewable energy planning using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: the case of Istanbul. Energy 35(6):2517–2527

    Google Scholar 

  51. Kaya T, Kahraman C (2011) Fuzzy multiple criteria forestry decision making based on an integrated VIKOR and AHP approach. Expert Syst Appl 38(6):7326–7333

    Google Scholar 

  52. Afful-Dadzie E, Nabareseh S, Oplatková Z, Klímek P (2016) Model for assessing quality of online health information: a fuzzy VIKOR based method. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 23(1–2):49–62

    Google Scholar 

  53. Emeç Ş, Akkaya G (2018) Stochastic AHP and fuzzy VIKOR approach for warehouse location selection problem. J Enterp Inf Manag 31(6):950–962

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bu Y, Guo M, Cheng P (2018) Optimization of enhanced geothermal system power generation investment scheme based on fuzzy VIKOR model. Salamanca, Spain, EDP Sciences, p 01001

    Google Scholar 

  55. Dong J, Li R, Huang H (2018) Performance evaluation of residential demand response based on a modified fuzzy VIKOR and scalable computing method. Energies 11(5):1097–1123

    Google Scholar 

  56. Jing S, Tang Y, Yan J (2018) The application of fuzzy VIKOR for the design scheme selection in lean management. Math Probl Eng 2018:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ugurlu S, Kahraman C (2011) Fuzzy multicriteria risk assessment for hazardous waste management: the case of Istanbul. J Risk Anal Crisis Resp 1(1):29–41

    Google Scholar 

  58. Liu H, You J, Chen Y, Fan X (2014) Site selection in municipal solid waste management with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. Environ Earth Sci 72(10):4179–4189

    Google Scholar 

  59. Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353

    Google Scholar 

  60. Opricovic S (2011) Fuzzy VIKOR with an application to water resources planning. Expert Syst Appl 30(10):12983–12990

    Google Scholar 

  61. Yu P (1973) A class of solutions for group decision problems. Manag Sci 19(8):936–946

    Google Scholar 

  62. Liu HC, Liu L, Liu N, Mao LX (2012) Risk evaluation in failure mode and effects analysis with extended VIKOR method under fuzzy environment. In: Expert Systems with Applications, pp 12926–12934

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ali Y et al (2019) Risk assessment of China-Pakistan fiber optic project (CPFOP) in the light of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM). In: Advanced Engineering Informatics, pp 36–45

    Google Scholar 

  64. Samantra CDS a MS (2012) Application of fuzzy based VIKOR approach for multi-attribute group decision making (MAGDM): a case study in supplier selection. In: Decision Making in Manufacturing and Services, pp 25–39

    Google Scholar 

  65. Arroyo P, Molinos-Senante M (2018) Selecting appropriate wastewater treatment technologies using a choosing-by-advantages approach. Sci Total Environ 625(1):819–827

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. Yuan C, Weng C (2003) Sludge dewatering by electrokinetic technique: effect of processing time and potential gradient. Adv Environ Res 7(3):727–732

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Samer M (2015) Biological and chemical wastewater treatment processes. In: Samer M (ed) Wastewater treatment engineering. IntechOpen, New York, pp 1–40

    Google Scholar 

  68. Li W, Li L, Qiu G (2017) Energy consumption and economic cost of typical wastewater treatment systems in Shenzhen, China. J Clean Prod 163(1):S374–S378

    Google Scholar 

  69. Mizuta K, Shimada M (2010) Benchmarking energy consumption in municipal wastewater treatment plants in Japan. Water Sci Technol 62(10):2256–2262

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Venkatesh G, Brattebø H (2011) Environmental impact analysis of chemicals and energy consumption in wastewater treatment plants: case study of Oslo, Norway. Water Sci Technol 63(5):1018–1031

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  71. Hashimoto N, Sumino T (1998) Wastewater treatment using activated sludge entrapped in polyethylene glycol prepolymer. J Ferment Bioeng 86(4):424–426

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Gernaey K et al (2004) Activated sludge wastewater treatment plant modelling and simulation: state of the art. Environ Model Softw 19(9):763–783

    Google Scholar 

  73. Maranon E et al (2008) Treatment of coke wastewater in a sequential batch reactor (SBR) at pilot plant scale. Bioresour Technol 99(10):4192–4198

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Chang H et al (2000) Simulation of sequential batch reactor (SBR) operation for simultaneous removal of nitrogen and phosphorus. Bioprocess Eng 23(5):513–521

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  75. Vymazal J (2010) Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment. Water 2(3):530–549

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  76. Lahav O, Schwartz Y, Nativ P, Gendel Y (2013) Sustainable removal of ammonia from anaerobic-lagoon swine waste effluents using an electrochemically-regenerated ion exchange process. Chem Eng J 218(1):214–222

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  77. Picot B, Paing J, Toffoletto L, Sambuco JP, Costa RHR (2001) Odor control of an anaerobic lagoon with a biological cover: floating peat beds. Water Sci Technol 44(9):309–316

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  78. Galambos I, Mora Molina J, Járay P, Vatai G, Bekássy-Molnár E (2004) High organic content industrial wastewater treatment by membrane filtration. Desalination 162(1):117–120

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  79. Kamble S, Singh A, Kharat M (2017) A hybrid life cycle assessment based fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach for evaluation and selection of an appropriate municipal wastewater treatment technology. Euro-Mediterranean J Environ Integrat 2(1):9–25

    Google Scholar 

  80. Hsu A, Zomer A (2014) Environmental performance index. In: Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online. John Wiley & Sons, ltd, New York, pp 1–5

    Google Scholar 

  81. Manda B, Worrell E, Patel M (2014) Innovative membrane filtration system for micropollutant removal from drinking water–prospective environmental LCA and its integration in business decisions. J Clean Prod 72:153–166

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  82. Lin Y, Jing S, Lee D, Wang T (2002) Nutrient removal from aquaculture wastewater using a constructed wetlands system. Aquaculture 209(1–4):169–184

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  83. Jafarinejad S (2017) Cost estimation and economical evaluation of three configurations of activated sludge process for a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) using simulation. Appl Water Sci 7(5):2513–2521

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management Science, Ghulam Ishaq Khan Institute (GIKI) of Engineering science and Technology, Topi, Pakistan

    Yousaf Ali, Hamza Pervez & Jehangir Khan

Authors
  1. Yousaf Ali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hamza Pervez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jehangir Khan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yousaf Ali.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Crisp values for fuzzy weight and rating
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ali, Y., Pervez, H. & Khan, J. Selection of the Most Feasible Wastewater Treatment Technology in Pakistan Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM). Water Conserv Sci Eng 5, 199–213 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41101-020-00094-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41101-020-00094-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation