Selection of optimum biological treatment for coking wastewater using analytic hierarchy process
Selection of optimum biological treatment for coking wastewater using analytic hierarchy process
复制标题
层次分析法优选焦化废水生物处理工艺
DOI：
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140400
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
9.8
通讯作者：
Wei Chaohai
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wei Cong;Wei Jingyue;Kong Qiaoping;Fan Dan;Qiu Guanglei;Feng Chunhua;Li Fusheng;Preis Sergei;Wei Chaohai
由于废水处理需求逐渐增加，缺乏系统的效率评估策略和明智的选择，焦化废水（CW）生物处理工艺的设计变得复杂。因此，本研究通过层次分析法 (AHP) 开发了一种整体方法，该方法使用数字表示法对每个参与替代方案的偏好进行排序，以评估 CW 治疗中的先进生物技术。根据调查结果，选择了六种类型的反应器组合作为替代方案，并根据COD负荷进一步分为两组。 AHP 方法包括考虑技术、经济、环境和管理因素（定义为标准层）的加权和排名程序。选择十八个指标作为子标准层。根据层次分析法的实施，对包容性有益且可持续的生物过程进行了评估和排名。结果显示，技术指标在标准层中的权重由大到小排列为“技术指标>经济指标>环境指标>行政指标”，而子标准层指标权重在0.005~0.151之间。综合标准和子标准层的所有权重指数的包容性优先计算导致厌氧-缺氧-好氧（A/A/O）组合在低负荷组的层次中上升，而好氧-水解-好氧（O/H/O）过程在高负荷组中优先。 AHP 应用的准确性和客观性也得到了敏感性和变异性分析的支持，该分析检查权重值的范围以及与替代方案相对应的情况。
The design of biological treatment process for the coking wastewater (CW) is complicated since wastewater treatment demand is gradually increasing lacking the systematic strategy in efficiency evaluation and advisable selection. Therefore, this study develops a holistic approach by means of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) that uses numerical representation to rank the preferences of each participating alternatives for evaluation of the advanced biological technologies in CW treatment. Based on survey results, six types reactor combinations were selected as the alternatives, which were further classified as two group according to COD load. The AHP methodology consists of weighting and ranking procedures considering technical, economic, environmental and administration factors defined as criteria layers. Eighteen indicators were chosen as sub-criteria layers. Inclusively beneficial and sustainable biological processes were assessed and ranked along the AHP implementation. The results placed technical indicators to the top position among the criteria layers in the weighting descending order ‘technical indicators > economic indicators > environmental indicators > administrative indicators’, whereas the weight of indicators in sub-criteria layers fitted in the range of 0.005 to 0.151. The inclusive priority calculation integrating all weight indices of criteria and sub-criteria layers resulted in the anaerobic-anoxic-oxic (A/A/O) combination rising in the hierarchy of the low load group, whereas the oxic-hydrolytic-oxic (O/H/O) process was prioritized in the high load group. The accuracy and objectivity of AHP application was also supported by sensitivity and variability analyses that examines a range for the weights' values and corresponding to alternative scenarios.