i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/he

Hydrogen production facility location selection for

Black Sea using entropy based TOPSIS under IVPF
environment

Sukran Seker*, Nezir Aydin

Yildiz Technical University, Department of Industrial Engineering, 34349, Besiktas, Istanbul, Turkey

highlights

A novel two-stage Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method is proposed.

Entropy and TOPSIS methods are integrated under Interval Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy (IVPF) sets.

The proposed method is employed to select the most appropriate site location for hydrogen production plant.

The computational procedure is implemented for the cities of Black Sea in Turkey.

article info abstract

Article history: Parallel with the globally increment in energy demand, governments and responsible au-
Received 9 September 2019 thorities’ environmental awareness increases and they have been taking several pre-
Received in revised form ventions not to harm environment while energy demand is satisfied. For this purpose
14 December 2019 decision makers turn their faces to satisfy energy demand via renewable energy sources
Accepted 26 December 2019 such as wind, wave, solar, hydro, biomass, hydrogen etc. Before this awareness human
Available online 17 January 2020 was satisfying energy demand via nonrenewable energy sources such as natural gas, coal
etc. Even though not being one of these energy sources, hydrogen energy is a primary
Keywords: energy carrying form which is known one of the energy carrier [1]. This study aims to select
Black sea the most appropriate site in the northern of Turkey for establishing a hydrogen energy
H2S hydrogen-sulphide (H2S) decomposition plant. Based on the researches, Black Sea is
Uncertainty determined as one of the richest water to get H2S from. Since selecting the facility location
TOPSIS for hydrogen energy production plant requires strategical decisions, Multi Criteria Decision
Interval valued pythagorean fuzzy Making (MCDM), as a powerful and efficient tool, is preferred in this study. Accordingly,
sets Entropy and Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS)
Facility location methodologies are integrated and applied under Interval Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy (IVPF)
environment to deal with uncertain information better. The developed method is shown to
be useful and effective in terms of applicability and ease of usage. As a result, the best
suitable location is determined and sensitivity analysis is conducted to analyze the dy-
namics of the developed methodology.
© 2020 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: sseker@yildiz.edu.tr (S. Seker).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2019.12.183
0360-3199/© 2020 Hydrogen Energy Publications LLC. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
15856 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8
Introduction
Energy demand of the world has a rising trend lately. There-
fore governments and decision makers (DMs) are in search of
alternative sources. These sources are mainly categorized
under two main sections, which are renewable and nonre-
newable. Some examples of renewable energy sources are
wind, solar, bio-energy, bio-mass and hydro, and nonrenew-
able energy sources are natural gas, coal, and nuclear [1].
Nonrenewable energy sources are limited and are going to
come to an end one day. Thus, generating or transforming
renewable energy sources to useable energy types is an
essential goal for DMs. For this reason new renewable energy
plants are constructed worldwide.
Besides generating energy from renewable or nonrenew-
able sources, the transformation or carrying this energy are
other important issues. The usage of hydrogen energy is only
one type of energy carrying methods. Hydrogen is considered
as a favorable alternate fuel type for forthcoming decades and
is an opening for power generation [2].
Several researchers consider hydrogen as one of the main
sustainable systems for the future. As noted in Dunn [3],
many researchers pointed out this opportunity and con-
ducted searches on the origination of the hydrogen energy.
Countries like Turkey, whose energy consumption depend on
importing energy, should reserve an important part in their
energy policy on developing hydrogen plants for trans-
forming and carrying both renewable and non-renewable
energy types. They should lead and even subsidize com-
panies, which conduct researches on hydrogen energy pro-
duction, for a sustainable energy system because transition
from conventional energy production systems to hydrogen
based systems is very difficult in terms of residents’ envi-
ronmental perspective and technological obstacles [2]. This
will not only terminate or reduce energy importing de-
pendency but also will help using the energy resources of the
country more efficiently.
Hydrogen energy can be produced from several sources
and is used in almost all sectors that need energy. Therefore,
researchers mention hydrogen as the top candidate, in future,
as fuel cells. The fundamental goal of hydrogen as an energy
carrier is demonstrated by Edwards et al. [4] as in Fig. 1.
Decision on producing hydrogen energy brings the ques-
tion of “which source should be used?” The answer would be
different and more than one for each country. One of the
answers for Turkey would be hydrogen-sulphide (H2S) in the
Black Sea. Black Sea is an inland sea among five countries and
it is isolated from oceans. Besides its low concentration of
oxygen and H2S, which causes from its suboxic zone, it is 50 m
thick and takes part between oxygenated surface and anoxic
depth up to 200 m. Considering its isolated structure and that
the oxygen collapse to the deep because of decayable biolog-
ical materials dipping from upper euphotic zone to the sea
ground makes Black Sea a rich H2S source. Moreover, H2S
within the Back Sea is considered as one of the world’s most
toxic, which is the results of anaerobic decomposition of
biological materials by the sulfate-reducing bacteria, and a
potential source to produce energy, by researchers [5]. Gov-
ernment and researchers of Turkey are conducting studies on
the potential of transforming the H2S in the Black Sea to
energy.
In this study, we aim to select the best location for H2S
decomposition facility location in the northern coast of
Turkey. Since selecting the facility location for hydrogen
production requires decision making process, in this study,
Entropy and TOPSIS methods are integrated using Interval
Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy (IVPF) sets, and the integration is
applied as a systematic and useful MCDM method. IVPF set is
adjusted in the decision making process because the selection
process consists of several subjective opinions and vague in-
formation, and the IVPF has the ability to overcome uncer-
tainty better than other fuzzy extension approaches such as
fuzzy sets, Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy (IVIF) sets etc.
The remainder of the study is organized as follows: In
Section Literature Review, literature review on applications
and theoretical studies that consider hydrogen energy and
especially relating to Turkey is presented. Section
Pythagorean Fuzzy Sets and Interval-Valued Pythagorean
Fuzzy Sets describes some basic concepts and operational
laws related to Pythagorean fuzzy sets and TOPSIS methods.
Entropy based TOPSIS method under IVPF environment is
proposed in Section Proposed Method: Entropy based TOPSIS
method under IVPF environment to select the best facility
location for H2S decomposition. The conclusions and results
are discussed in Section Results and Conclusions.
Literature review
In the first subsection of the “literature review” both applica-
tions and theoretical studies on hydrogen energy are sum-
marized, and in the second subsection hydrogen based
studies related to Turkey especially for the northern coast are
analyzed.
Literature on hydrogen energy
Increasing energy demand is mentioned as one of the main
challenges of the 21st century for humanity, and the energy
demand is expected to double from 15 TW to 30 TW from 2011
to 2050 [6]. Today, most of the energy demand is satisfied via
fossil fuels. However, accessing fossil fuels becomes more
difficult every day because the easily accessed fuels are
already used and the amount of reserved fossil fuels in world
reduces with an exponential rate. Since this statistics awaken
governments and authorities, a while ago, they decided to
supply renewable energy sources. This decision not only re-
duces fossil oil dependency but also prevents harming the
environment and climate.
For a sustainable energy supply policy sustainable energy
sources should be preferred and hydrogen, which is known as
one of the best energy carriers, is one of them with several
advantages. Some of these advantages are listed by Dincer
and Acar [6] as follows: efficiency in great energy transition,
zero emission capability, richness, several storage options,
transformation easily to other types of energies, and it can be
transported for longer distances. Beside these advantages,
hydrogen provides several production options. Some are
electrolysis, plasma arc decomposition, water thermolysis,
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8
Fig. 1 e The fundamental goal of hydrogen as an energy carrier [4].
thermochemical water splitting, dark fermentation, high
temperature electrolysis, coal gasification, etc [6].
Hydrogen energy is classified in “clean energy’ group and
pointed out as one of the most important one by Chen et al. [7].
They believe that technology forecasting on hydrogen energy
have not reach the maturity level. Therefore, they forecasted
technological s-curves related to fuel cell and hydrogen en-
ergy via an integration of bibliometric and patent analysis.
They concluded that studies on hydrogen energy have not
done adequately. Opposite to that fuel cell based studies
reached to an important level. Parallel to Chen et al. [7], Uyar
and Besikci [8] conducted a study on hydrogen and electricity
as the two important clean energy carriers. They discussed
the role of hydrogen fuel cells in this concept and provided
real investments that achieved successfully starting at 2013
and ending in 2015. In their concluding remark they
mentioned that investment done in renewable energy will
turn to hydrogen production and the role of hydrogen energy
will be very important in the goal of reaching 100% renewable
energy objective. Furthermore, Marchenko and Solomin [9]
compared hydrogen and electricity, as the two green energy
types, by their production processes, transformations and
storages considering their economic expenditure. They
proved that even though electricity surpass hydrogen in
shorter time period, in longer time periods hydrogen outper-
form electricity. In their concluding statement they pointed
out that both hydrogen and electricity will find their own
application sectors in the future as two energy carriers.
The richness and easiness of accessibility of hydrogen
production areas caught several researchers’ attention lately.
One of these studies is done by Eapi et al. [10] on Barnett Shale
FortWorth Basin in Texas-USA. In their research they aimed to
determine fence line concentration for methane and H2S at
gas production areas. They concluded that 32 lease areas had
H2S concentrations greater than 4.7 parts per billion (ppb) and
just past the fence line. Since hydrogen started to be consid-
ered and used as clean energy provider and energy carrier
15857
several optimization studies are conducted. Using energy
sources effectively and efficiently should be a duty for DMs
worldwide. With this perspective, Woo et al. [11] developed a
mixed integer linear programming (MILP) based optimization
model to design and activate hydrogen system, which is
gathered from several different types of biomass. By their
model Woo et al. [11] designated the best transportation and
inventory decisions, and optimized costs related to produc-
tion of hydrogen from biomass. They were also able make
strategic decisions on production, investment and importing
plans under uncertain amount of biomass accessibility.
Further, they applied the model they developed to a supply of
hydrogen production from biomass system in Jeju Island,
Korea. Besides optimization of hydrogen production systems,
location selection is another important issue, which is a part
of optimization of hydrogen production systems. Ingason
et al. [2] developed a mixed integer programming (MIP) model
to determine the best location for hydrogen production site
among 23 potential sites. Their application region is selected
from southwest of Iceland. They analyzed costs considering
lower and higher energy demand situations.
Besides optimization techniques, MCDM is another
important tool to determine the best site selection especially
when criteria that need to be considered are not quantitative.
Messaoudi et al. [12] developed an organizational process to
decide on the most reasonable location for wind-powered
hydrogen production. Their method is constructed in two
stages. First they evaluated criteria weights by using Analyt-
ical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Geographical Information
System (GIS), and later they applied different constraints to
determine right gasoline stations to refuel hydrogen. Further
they prioritize sites based on their suitability using LSI
method. As conclusion, they reported four wind-powered
hydrogen refueling system locations in Adrar, Algeria. Wang
et al. [13] determined the weight of criteria by Fuzzy Analytical
Hierarchy Process (FAHP), and then evaluated the potential
sites to set up hydrogen power plants in Vietnam by TOPSIS as
15858 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8
a MCDM techniques. Lee et al. [14] applied FAHP method as
well, and used fuzzy interval values to overcome vagueness of
human decisions to evaluate Korea’s effectiveness in
hydrogen technology sector. They reported Korea as the 6th
developed country in the hydrogen technology sector. In
another study, Lee et al. [15] applied FAHP to rank the weights
of hydrogen energy technologies in the hydrogen market.
Similar to study done in Lee et al. [14], Lee et al. [16] assessed
national hydrogen energy technology development in Korea
by FAHP and the data envelopment analysis (DEA). They
provided productivity score for the research and development
in hydrogen production planning for DMs. Rezaei-Shouroki
et al. [17] ranked 13 regions of Iran considering their suit-
ability to setup wind farms. They used DEA, AHP and Fuzzy
TOPSIS in their analysis. Rezaei-Shouroki et al. [17] selected
Izadkhast as the best region to setup wind farm for operating a
wind-hydrogen energy conversion system. Moreover, MCDM
based applications in hydrogen energy production studies are
summarized as follows: Afgan et al. [18] assessed hydrogen
fuel cell systems options, which are natural gas, photovoltaic
and wind systems, by using MCDM techniques. Pilavachi et al.
[19] assessed 9 electrical production options via AHP with re-
gard to CO2 emissions, NOX emissions, efficiency, capital cost,
operation and maintenance costs, service life and produced
electricity cost, and ranked hydrogen turbine as the first in 15
scenarios out of 19 scenarios. McDowall and Eames [20]
applied multi criteria mapping to inspect hydrogen economy
to select the best hydrogen energy system among 6 potential
systems in UK. Chang et al. [21] used MCDM to determine the
measures and the favored hydrogen fuel cell products
considering a survey conducted to experts. Used measures
consist of 14 gauges (efficiency, CO2 emissions etc.). Their
study aimed to select hydrogen-related applications for policy
makers. Ren et al. [22] aimed to create a technique to rank and
cluster the sustainability of hydrogen supply chains. Their
technique consists of the combination of extension theory
and AHP. Winebrake and Creswick [23] combined AHP and
scenario analysis to discover the commercialization hydrogen
energy processing technologies. They pointed out the chances
and obstacles for the commercialization of technologies in
hydrogen processing technologies. Wang et al. [24] proposed a
MCDM model with the combination of FAHP, DEA and TOPSIS
to determine the most suitable site to build a solar power plant
considering both quantitative and qualitative attributes. Their
application is done for Viet Nam. Afgan and Carvalho [25]
provided and overviewed the potentials of MCDM applications
in hydrogen systems.
For detail information on renewable energy and hydrogen
energy systems readers are referred to McDowall and Eames
[26], who highlighted the HES sites’ growth in research and
finance. Banos et al. [27] and Iqbal et al. [28] mentioned that
renewable energy sources have some drawbacks because of
high dependency on climate changes. To overcome this issue
optimization techniques are required and are lately applied in
several studies. They reviewed computational techniques
applied to this field and drew a clear vision for researchers and
readers. Likewise Iqbal et al. [28] reviewed optimization
methods that are applied to renewable energy systems
without limiting their selves providing studies from a specific
region. Schitea et al. [29] and and Iordache et al. [30] taken into
account site selection problem for Hydrogen energy using
MCDM techniques. Besides providing dissimilar types of
linear and non-linear optimization techniques applied to
renewable energy sources, they claimed that the methods for
different types of end users are also reviewed.
Hydrogen energy in Turkey
Several informative and application based studies are con-
ducted for the northern coast of turkey (Black Sea). Based on
the information gathered from the Turkish Ministry of Energy
and Natural Resources, Turkey uses coal, wind, oil, solar,
biofuel, hydro, natural gas, and geothermal energies to satisfy
the energy demand of the country. Turkish Ministry of Energy
and Natural Resources funded a project (ICHET) that organizes
activities to demonstrate the benefits of “hydrogen and fuel
cell” [31]. They aim to increase the awareness of public in
order to change their perception on hydrogen energy.
Government and researchers of Turkey are conducting
studies on the potential of transforming the H2S in the Black
Sea to energy. Based on the analyses, if 100% of H2S in the
Black Sea is decomposed 268823 million-ton hydrogen will be
gathered and this amount worth of 715 billion US dollars [32].
The map of Black Sea is shown in Fig. 2.
Apak et al. [34] analyzed the potential of hydrogen amount
[35,36] and its storage in Turkey, and concluded that hydrogen
may be deposited using boron mixtures, and if this happen
world will reach a very big amount of hydrogen. Since H2S is
anoxic (Petrov et al. [37]) and harmful for the environment, if
H2S in the world is decomposed and transformed to hydrogen
energy not only energy will be produced but also the envi-
ronment will be saved. Based on Demirbas [36] research, the
total amount of sulfide within the Black Sea is forecasted to be
about 4.6  109 tons. Also, Petrov et al. [37] searched for the
possibility of producing hydrogen and sulfur from H2S in the
northern coast of Turkey. A multi-step procedure is proposed,
which consists of “extraction of seawater, adsorption of H2S,
electrochemical production of hydrogen and polysulfides;
fresh water production by desalination of seawater and
further hydrogen production from the resulting salty solution
through chlorineealkaline electrolysis”. Ciocanea et al. [38]
conducted studies on the potential of hydrogen in Black Sea
and provided figures on the depth and temperature correla-
tion of the Black Sea.
As stated in the first part of the literature, MCDM meth-
odologies are one of the most preferred techniques for
Fig. 2 e The map of Black Sea [33].
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8 15859

determining the best location for renewable energy plants as

mentioned in Erol et al. [39], Toklu and Uygun [40], Aktas and qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
l
P~ ¼ PðmP Þl ;
l
1  ð1  v2P Þ ; l > 0 (6)
Kabak [41] and Deveci [42].
The main goal of this study is to propose a fuzzy MCDM Definition 2: Assume P~ ¼ fx; PðmP ðxÞ; vp ðxÞÞjx 2Xg is a fixed set,
technique for hydrogen production facility location selection then an IVPFS is represented as follows:
in the northern coast of Turkey (Black Sea) under uncertain where mP ðxÞ ¼ ½mLP ðxÞ;vUp ðxÞ3½0; 1and vp ðxÞ ¼ ½vLp ðxÞ; vUp ðxÞ3½0; 1
environment. Criteria that effect the location selection are for ~
a must have the condition which satisfy
obtained by experts and literature reviews. Then, weight of 2 2
0(0  ðmUP ðxÞÞ þ ðvUp ðxÞÞ  1 then the degree of
criteria are determined using IVPF sets based entropy method. indeterminacy pa ðxÞ ¼ ½pLa ðxÞ; pUa ðxÞ is computed by employing
In the last stage TOPSIS methodology is applied to determine the following equations:
the most appropriate and rank facility locations for hydrogen
production plant. qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pLP ðxÞ ¼ 1  mUP ðxÞ2  vUp ðxÞ2 (7)

Pythagorean fuzzy sets and interval-valued qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

pythagorean fuzzy sets pUP ðxÞ ¼ 1  mLP ðxÞ2  vLp ðxÞ2 (8)

If mUP ðxÞ ¼ mLP ðxÞ and vUP ðxÞ ¼ vLP ðxÞ then IVPFS is expressed as
In this section, we will present the methods that we proposed
PFS.
for determining the best and most suitable facility location for
P ðxÞ þ vP ðxÞ  1 then an IVPFS transforms into IVIFS. For
If mU U
extraction of H2S to obtain Hydrogen energy. The details are
suitability, it is defined an Interval Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy
shown as follows:
Number (IVPFN) by P~ ¼ ½mLP ; mU P ; ½vp ; vp  and. p
L U ~ a ðxÞ ¼ ½pLa ðxÞ;
pa ðxÞ ¼ ½pðxÞ; JðxÞ
U
Preliminaries
Definition 3: Suppose P~1 ¼ ½mLP1 ; mU
P1 ; ½vp1 ; vp1 ;
L U

~
P2 ¼ ½mP2 ; mP2 ; ½vp2 ; vp2  be two IVPFNs l > 0, then the following
L U L U
In this sub-section Pythagorean fuzzy Set (PFS) and Interval
mathematical operations are shown as:
Valued Pythagorean Fuzzy Set (IVPFS) concepts will be pre-
sented [43,44]. 2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 3
 L 2  L 2  L 2  L 2
Definition 1: Pythagorean fuzzy P~ set is identified as below: 6 mP1 þ mP2  mP1 mP2 ; 7 h    
~ ~
P1 4 P2 ¼ 4 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 5; vLp1 vLp2 ; vUp1
~
P ¼ fx; PðmP ðxÞ; vp ðxÞÞjx 2Xg, where mp : X/½0; 1; is the mem-  U 2  U 2  U 2  U 2
mP1 þ mP2  mP1 mP2
bership function and vp : X/½0; 1 is the non-membership  i
function, the condition below should be provided:  vUp2
(9)
0  ðmP ðxÞÞ2 þ ðvP ðxÞÞ2  1 (1)
2 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 3
Hesitancy degree is expressed as below:  L 2  L 2  L 2  L 2
L L U U

6 vP1 þ vP2  vP1 vP2 ; 7

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi P~1 5 P~2 ¼ mP1 mP2 ; mP1 mP2 ; 4 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 5
 U 2  U 2  U 2  U 2
pP ðxÞ ¼ 1  ðmP ðxÞÞ2  ðvP ðxÞÞ2 (2) vP1 þ vP2  vP1 vP2

Some mathematical operations are defined for any two (10)

PFSs as follows:
   2 l
ffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi   2 l
P~1 ¼ fx; P1 ðmP1 ðxÞ; vp1 ðxÞÞjx 2Xg and P~2 ¼ fx; P2 ðmP2 ðxÞ; l  L l  U l

P~ ¼ mP ; mP ; 1  1  vLp ; 1  1  vUp
vp2 ðxÞÞjx 2Xg
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi (11)
P~1 4 P~2 ¼ P m2P1 þ m2P2  m2P1 m2P2 ; vp1 vp2 (3)
 l ffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  lffi  h l  l i
 lP~ ¼ L 2
1  1  ðmP Þ ; 1  1  ðmP Þ U 2
; vLp ; vUp
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
P~1 5 P~2 ¼ P mP1 mP2 ; v2P1 þ v2P2  v2P1 v2P2 (4) (12)

 qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi  Peng and Yang [43] suggested the score and accuracy
l  l values, then they presented a method to compare two IVPFNs
lP~ ¼ P 1  ð1  m2P Þ vp ; l  0 and l 2 R (5)
as below:

h i
h i
Let P~1 ¼ mLP1 ; mUP1 ; vLp1 ; vUp1 ; P~2 ¼ mLP2 ; mUP2 ; vLp2 ; vUp2 be two IVPFNs then sðP
~1 Þ
. h 2  2  2  2 i . h  2  2  2  2 i (13)
¼ 1 2 mLP1  vLP1 þ mUP1  vUP1 and sðP~2 Þ ¼ 1 2 mLP2  vLP2 þ mUP2  vUP2 ~ 1 and p
be the scores of p ~2 :
15860 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8

and

. h 2  2  2  2 i . hh 2  2  2  2 ii
~ ¼1
hðPÞ 2 mLP1 þ vLP1 þ mUP1 þ mUP1 and hðP~2 Þ ¼ 1 2 mLP2 þ vLP2 þ mUP2 þ mUP2 (14)
1

where Ai shows the alternative i (i ¼ 1,2, … m), Cj represents

be the accuracy values p ~1 and p ~2 , then. the criterion j (j ¼ 1,2, …,n). Accordingly, pij denotes perfor-
If s ðP~1 Þ< sðP~2 Þ then. P~1 < P~2 mance of alternative Ai in terms of criterionCj . The criteria
If sðP~1 Þ ¼ sðP~2 Þ then the following three conditions are weights are shown in the form of weight vector w ¼ ðw1 ; w2 ; …
P
n
provided. ::; wn Þ where. wj ¼ 1:
~ ¼ hðP~2 Þ then P~1 ¼ P~2
If hðPÞ j¼1
1
If h ðP~1 Þ< hðP~2 Þ then P~1 < P~2 Step 3. Aggregate decision matrices. The individual deci-
If hðP~1 Þ> hðP~2 Þ then P~1 > P~2 sion matrices are collected in one decision matrix using
Definition 4: Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy geometric IVPFWG as given in Equation (15). The collective decision
operator (IVPFWG): An IVPFWG of component nnis a drawing matrix is shown as. P~ ¼ ððp~ij ÞA Þ
P nxm
IVPFWG: Un/ U, which has a condition vector wi ¼ 1; Step 4. Determine the weight of main criteria and sub
T i¼1
where wi ¼ ðw1 w2 ; …:; wn Þ , be the weight value of criteria. The criteria and sub criteria weights are calculated

rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
  hYn  L wi Yn  U wi i Yn   2 wi Yn   2 wi
IVPFWGw p~1; p
~ 2 ::::p
~n ¼ mPi ; i¼1 mPi ; 1  i¼1 1  vLpi ; 1  i¼1 1  vUpi (15)
i¼1

P
n
~i ðj ¼ 1; 2; …; nÞ and wi  0;
p wi ¼ 1 [43,45]. based on Entropy method presented in the following. The
i¼1
entropy Ej ðj ¼ 1; 2; 3…:; nÞ of criterion j is calculated per-
forming Equations (16) and (17):
Proposed method: entropy based TOPSIS method
under IVPF environment Ej ¼ 1
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u1 X n  2  2
In this section a new approach of MCDM to select an appro-
t þ 2
jðm M ðx i Þ  v 
M ðx i ÞÞ 2
j þ jðm M ðx i Þ  vþ M ðxi ÞÞ j
priate facility location for the decomposition of H2S in Black 2n i¼1
Sea has been proposed. The developed method is constructed (16)
based on Entropy of IVPFs introduced by Peng and Lee [46], and
IVPF based TOPSIS presented by Garg [47]. The application 1  Ej
wj ¼ P (17)
procedure is demonstrated with performing the following n  nj¼1 Ej
steps:

Step 1. Invite a group of DMs and determine criteria and

current alternatives. We invited decision makers (DMs)
Table 1 e Linguistic terms and IVPFNs for ratings of
represented with DM1, DM2 … DMk from public and
alternatives and criteria.
academia to make the judgements, and give their opinions
Linguistic Term Interval valued Pythagorean fuzzy
on alternative facilities (A1, A2 … Am) in terms of criteria
number (IVPFN)
(C1, C2 … Cn) through a linguistic term expressed by
IVPFNs. The linguistic terms and their corresponding mL mU mL vU
IVPFNs used for the evaluation of alternatives and criteria Absolutely Bad (AB) 0.03 0.16 0.74 0.87
weights are shown in Table 1, which are generated Very Bad (VB) 0.12 0.25 0.65 0.78
applying the rule provided in Definition 2. Bad (B) 0.21 0.34 0.56 0.69
Medium Bad (MB) 0.30 0.43 0.47 0.60
Step 2. Construct the IVPF evaluation matrix. Each DM
Exactly (EE) 0.38 0.51 0.38 0.51
gives her/his opinions or preference using IVPF linguistic Medium Good (MG) 0.47 0.60 0.30 0.43
scale to evaluate the alternatives in terms of each criterion. Good (G) 0.56 0.69 0.21 0.34
Thus, the decision matrix Very Good (VG) 0.65 0.78 0.12 0.25
ðP~ ¼ ðððp ~ij ¼ ð½m
~ij Þnxm Þ in which p ij ; m þ
ij
; ½v  þ
ij ; v ij
Þ is con- Absolutely Good (AG) 0.74 0.87 0.03 0.16
structed as follows (see Table 2):
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8 15861

Step 5. Normalize decision matrix. The decision matrix is rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

Xn   2 2
normalized by transforming different types of criteria to dðAi ; A þ Þ j¼1
wj SðAþ Þ  S rij ; for ði ¼ 1; 2; :::mÞ:
the same type of criteria as follows: (22)

(
 p~ij j2B
P~ ¼ ~rij ¼ (18) rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
~cij
p j2C Xn    2 2
dðAi ; A  Þ ¼ j¼1
wj S rij  SðA Þ ; for ði ¼ 1; 2; :::mÞ
where p ~ij ¼ ½m þ  þ ~c  þ 
ij ; mij ; ½vij ; vij  is complement of pij ¼ ½vij ; vij ; ½mij ;
þ
(23)
mij , B; C shows the benefit (B) and cost (C) criteria, respectively.

Step 6. Built the score matrix for normalized matrix. Score

matrix is obtained by performing Equation (19) based on Step 9. Calculate the closeness coefficient (CCi ) of alterna-
normalized decision matrix. tives. Using Equations (22) and (23) the relative-closeness

0 1
Sðr11Þ Sðr12Þ 1 Sðr1nÞ
B C
B Sðr21Þ Sðr22Þ 1 Sðr2nÞ C
B C
R¼B
B
C
C
B « « …: « C
@ A
Sðrm1Þ Sðrm2Þ …: SðrmnÞ (19)
2  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2  2   2  2  rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2  2 
  2  
S ~rij m
ij  vij 1þ 1  m ij  v 
ij þ m þ
ij  vþ
ij 1 þ 1  mþ ij  vþ ij

2
 
S ~rij 2½1; 1

Step 7. Define the positive-ideal point and negative-ideal coefficient of the alternative Ai in terms of Aþ and A-is
point, and obtain the score value for positive-ideal solu- shown as follows:
tion and negative-ideal point. The membership and non-
membership degrees of the interval-valued Pythagorean

positive-ideal point ðAþ Þ of ðP~ Þ as the membership and di ðAi ; AÞ
CCi ¼ ; i ¼ 1; 2; :::m: (24)
non-membership degrees of the interval-valued Pythago- di ðAi ; AþÞ þ di ðAi ; AÞ

rean negative-ideal point ðA Þ of ðP~ Þ are determined as
given in Equations (20) and (21), and the score values are It has been seen that 0  dðAi ; A-) dðAi ; A Þþ dðAi ; Aþ)
calculated for Aþ and A as: and 0. CCi  1:

    
max  max  min  min 
Aþ mij ðP~ Þ; mij ðP~ Þ ; vij ðP~ Þ; vij ðP~ Þ i ¼ 1; 2; ::::m (20)
i i i i 1xn

     
min  min  max  max 
A ¼ ; mij ðP~ Þ; mij ðP~ Þ ; vij ðP~ Þ; vij ðP~ Þ i ¼ 1; 2; ::::m (21)
i i i i 1xn

Step 8. Compute distance of each alternative according to

Step 10. Rank the alternatives. We rated the alternatives
positive-ideal and negative-ideal points. Distance between
and selected the best alternative(s) on the basis of the
each alternative, and positive-ideal and negative-ideal so-
descending order of the values of CCi :
lutions are calculated based on Euclidian distance taking
into account the weight of criteria as:
15862 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8

Table 2 e The decision matrix based on IVPF set.

Criteria Alternatives
A1 A2 …. Am
þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ þ
C1 ð½m 
11 ; m11 ; ½v11 ; v11 Þ ð½m 
12 ; m12 ; ½v12 ; v12 Þ ð½m 
22 ; m22 ; ½v22 ; v22 Þ ð½m   
1m ; m1m ; ½v1m ; v1m Þð½m2m ; m2m ; ½v2n ; v2n Þ
þ þ
C2 ð½m
21 ; m 21 ; ½v 
21 21 Þ
; v /
. « «
. 1 «
þ þ þ þ
Cn ð½m 
n1 ; mn1 ; ½vn1 ; vn1 Þ ð½m 
n2 ; mn2 ; ½vn2 ; vn2 Þ ð½m þ  þ
nm ; mnm ; ½vnm ; vnm Þ

Problem definition
As mentioned previously, Black Sea is an inland sea among
five countries and an isolated from oceans. H2S is formed as a
result of excessive contamination in the Black Sea bottom
waters. However, the existence of H2S in the Black Sea can be
used as a future energy source besides its destructive effects,
i.e., human health and environmental problems that result
from air and water pollution. Hydrogen derived from the
decomposition of H2S is used as a source of energy, while
sulfur can be used in industrial applications. As a result of
obtaining hydrogen from the Black Sea, the needs of both the
Black Sea coastal countries could be met and the surplus en-
ergy could be exported to Europe to improve the economy of
the relating countries.
The aim of the present research is to choose a feasible fa-
cility location for the extraction of H2S contained in Black Sea
waters, in the coastal of Turkey, based on expert opinions and
literature review. The main contribution of this study include
modeling the facility location selection decision process under
fuzzy environment conditions.
The facility location selection problem to extract H2S is a
strategic problem and has many quantitative and qualitative
factors. In the first stage of this study, the main criteria and
sub-criteria that effect the location selection are identified by
experts and literature reviews. The general hierarchy struc-
ture of the proposed model is shown in Fig. 3.
While the entropy method is applied to identify the weight
of all criteria, TOPSIS is used to rank alternative facilities in
the second stage.
Taking into account the literature review and interviews
with DMs both from industry and academia, 12 different
criteria with respect to these locations were determined to
construct the decision making matrix. All criteria are classi-
fied under four major categories, which are economical, socio-
economic, technical and environmental.
Economical factor: In the facility location problem for H2S
decomposition, the main aim is to minimize the cost over an
extended time period. This criterion is divided into three
criteria as investment cost, resource cost and operational
costs.
Investment costs (C1)
This cost includes infrastructure cost, facility arrangement
costs and environmental planning costs [13,24].
Resource potential (C2)
The capacity of facility to extract H2S and obtain annual en-
ergy generation.

Fig. 3 e Hierarchical structure of decision making process.

 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8
Operational cost (C3)
This sub-criterion is related to energy generation cost, labor
cost and maintenance cost for H2S extraction process in the
facilities [13,24].
Socio-Political impact: This type of criteria refers to both
benefits and negative impacts on society. Socio-Political fac-
tors include policy and legal support, public acceptance, and
community benefit factors.
Policy and legal support (C4)
This sub-criterion consists of legal and regulatory compliance,
government support degree, subsidies, electricity prices, land
concessions and tax incentives provided by the government
[13,24].
Public acceptance (C5)
The facility should provide infrastructure and industrial
development, improvement of life, and preserve historical-
cultural area for the related area [13].
Community benefit (C6)
This sub-criterion presents number of jobs to be created,
availability of labor (unemployment rate), population density
and visual impact for urban area.
Technical factors: These criteria are related with technical
issues such as storage, distribution and having ability to
develop and improve for expansion and the integration of
transport.
Geography and climate (C7)
Geographical distribution of resource, the effects of temper-
ature of location are important critical inputs for decomposi-
tion of H2S.
Resource distribution (C8)
It includes a point of view about distribution of resource of H2S
from the sea water due to unpredictable ecological concerns
and low energy efficiency because of low concentration of
hydrogen sulfide.
Fig. 4 e Candidate locations [49].
15863
Resource quality (C9)
Percentage of highly qualified people, and quality of H2S for
energy production effect the production.
Environmental factors: Beyond the consideration of factors
related to the decomposition of H2S other environmental is-
sues are resources depletion, human health, ecosystems and
ecological aspects [13,24].
Impact on environment (C10)
Since H2S is very poisonous, corrosive, and flammable acid gas
the decomposition process can negatively influence environ-
ment as well as public health [13].
Work safety (C11)
Protecting infrastructure, human and equipment from haz-
ards has become necessary to examine suitability of locations
for a H2S decomposition plant [48].
Protection of human health (C12)
The facility should provide public security, less contamina-
tion, and should be remote to the settlements, including
public utilities for power and water, fire protection etc.
Further, based on literature reviews and expert opinions
the most suitable alternatives for locating hydrogen produc-
tion plant is determined as follows and illustrated in Fig. 4:
Zonguldak, Samsun, Sinop and Giresun. The computational
procedure is explained in detail as follows.
The computational procedure
In this sub-section the proposed method is employed to obtain
the best facility location for H2S decomposition. In the first
stage, five DMs are interviewed to determine criteria and
alternative location for the decomposition of H2S. Accordingly
four alternative locations in Black sea region are determined,
and to evaluate these alternatives, four main criteria and
twelve sub-criteria are determined. Then, DMs assessed four
alternative locations in terms of four main and 12 sub-criteria
based on IVPF linguistic scale given in Table 1. These linguistic
evaluations are represented in Table 3. Linguistic variables are
15864 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8

Table 3 e Alternative evaluations based on criteria.

DM Altenatives C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8 C9 C10 C11 C12
DM1 Zonguldak B EE MB VG EE EE MB MB EE MB MG MB
Sinop MB VG B EE G MG EE MB G MG G MG
Giresun B VB MB VG MG EE G EE MG EE MG EE
Samsun B EE EE VG MB MB MB MB MB MB EE B
DM2 Zonguldak MB EE EE MG EE MG EE MB B EE MG MB
Sinop EE MG MB MG EE EE MG EE MG B EE EE
Giresun EE G B MG MG MG EE MG EE MB MB MB
Samsun MB EE MG MG MB MB EE MB MB MG MB MB
DM3 Zonguldak EE MB EE EE MG EE EE MG G MB MB MG
Sinop MB MG MB MG MB MG EE EE EE MG EE EE
Giresun EE EE EE EE EE MG MG VG G EE EE MG
Samsun MB MB MG MG MB MB EE MG MG MB MB MB
DM4 Zonguldak EE EE EE MG MG G MG EE EE MB EE MB
Sinop MG EE MB MG EE MG EE G MG B MG G
Giresun MG MG EE EE EE MG EE MG MG EE EE G
Samsun EE EE MG EE MG MB MG EE EE MG MB EE
DM5 Zonguldak EE MG EE EE EE EE MG MG EE MB EE EE
Sinop MB MG MB MG EE MG EE MG MG B G MG
Giresun EE EE EE MG MG EE MB MG MG B MG EE
Samsun EE EE MB EE EE EE MB EE EE MG MB EE

Table 4 e Aggregated decision matrix.

Crit. Zonguldak Sinop Giresun Samsun
m- mþ v vþ m- mþ v vþ m- mþ v vþ m- mþ v vþ
C1 0.322 0.454 0.443 0.574 0.344 0.476 0.426 0.555 0.352 0.486 0.414 0.544 0.307 0.439 0.460 0.590
C2 0.378 0.509 0.387 0.517 0.481 0.612 0.294 0.422 0.340 0.485 0.426 0.558 0.362 0.493 0.400 0.530
C3 0.362 0.493 0.400 0.530 0.279 0.410 0.490 0.621 0.322 0.454 0.443 0.574 0.412 0.543 0.359 0.488
C4 0.461 0.593 0.313 0.440 0.450 0.581 0.318 0.448 0.461 0.593 0.313 0.440 0.461 0.593 0.313 0.440
C5 0.414 0.544 0.351 0.481 0.392 0.524 0.376 0.505 0.432 0.562 0.335 0.465 0.344 0.476 0.426 0.555
C6 0.428 0.560 0.338 0.467 0.450 0.581 0.318 0.448 0.432 0.562 0.335 0.465 0.315 0.445 0.454 0.584
C7 0.395 0.526 0.373 0.503 0.397 0.527 0.366 0.496 0.409 0.541 0.362 0.490 0.361 0.492 0.407 0.537
C8 0.376 0.508 0.394 0.524 0.409 0.541 0.362 0.490 0.481 0.612 0.294 0.422 0.361 0.492 0.407 0.537
C9 0.365 0.500 0.404 0.533 0.467 0.597 0.304 0.433 0.467 0.597 0.304 0.433 0.361 0.492 0.407 0.537
C10 0.315 0.445 0.454 0.584 0.290 0.427 0.481 0.612 0.322 0.454 0.443 0.574 0.393 0.525 0.381 0.510
C11 0.395 0.526 0.373 0.503 0.463 0.595 0.307 0.436 0.395 0.526 0.373 0.503 0.315 0.445 0.454 0.584
C12 0.344 0.476 0.426 0.555 0.447 0.578 0.322 0.451 0.409 0.541 0.362 0.490 0.307 0.439 0.460 0.590

converted to the corresponding IVPFNs based on the scale The weight for each criterion is calculated by using Entropy
given in Table 1. Five individual decision matrices are method for IVPFS presented in above sections and these
collected to obtain the decision matrix using Equation (15). weight values are given in Table 5.
The aggregated decision matrix is shown in Table 4.

Table 5 e Weights and type of main and sub-criteria.

Main criteria Sub-criteria Global weight Type
Benefit Cost
Economical factor (0.234) Capital investment (C1) 0.084 ✓
Resource potential (C2) 0.080 ✓
Operational cost (C3) 0.070 ✓
Socio Economic factor (0.263) Policy and legal support (C4) 0.115 ✓
Social acceptance (C5) 0.078 ✓
Community benefit (C6) 0.071 ✓
Technical factor (0.249) Geography and climate (C7) 0.083 ✓
Resource distribution (C8) 0.088 ✓
Resource Quality (C9) 0.079 ✓
Environmental factor (0.253) Impact on environment (C10) 0.083 ✓
Work safety (C11) 0.073 ✓
Protection of human health (C12) 0.098 ✓
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8 15865

The aggregated decision matrix is normalized using

Sinop _ Giresun _ Zonguldak _ Samsun

Sinop _ Giresun _ Zonguldak _ Samsun

Equation (18) and after the normalization process, score
values for each IVPFNs in the normalized matrix is calculated
using Equation (19). The score decision matrix is represented
in Table 6. With the help of Equations (20) and (21) we

Scenario 11
Scenario 6
Table 6 e Score decision matrix.
Criteria Zonguldak Sinop Giresun Samsun
C1 0.188 0.127 0.094 0.238
C2 0.013 0.296 0.124 0.059
C3 0.059 0.329 0.188 0.086

Weight

Weight
C4 0.236 0.208 0.236 0.236

0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.40

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.60
C5 0.099 0.027 0.153 0.127
C6 0.144 0.208 0.153 0.219

Sinop _ Giresun _ Zonguldak _ Samsun

C7 0.035 0.049 0.077 0.071

Zonguldak _ Samsun
0.026 0.071

Sinop _ Giresun _
C8 0.077 0.296

Scenario 5
C9 0.057 0.257 0.257 0.071
C10 0.219 0.295 0.188 0.022
C11 0.035 0.247 0.035 0.219

Scenario 10
C12 0.127 0.199 0.077 0.238

Weight
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.40
0.15
Table 7 e Fuzzy positive-ideal solutions for alternatives.

Sinop _ Giresun _ Zonguldak

Criteria Alternative m- mþ v vþ

Weight
C1 Samsun 0.460 0.590 0.307 0.439
Scenario 4
C2 Sinop 0.481 0.612 0.294 0.422

0.10
0.10
0.10
0.60
0.10
C3 Sinop 0.490 0.621 0.279 0.410
C4 Znguldak 0.461 0.593 0.313 0.440

Sinop _ Giresun _ Zonguldak _ Samsun

C5 Giresun 0.432 0.562 0.335 0.465

_ Samsun
C6 Sinop 0.450 0.581 0.318 0.448
Weight

C7 Giresun 0.409 0.541 0.362 0.490

0.15
0.15
0.40
0.15
C8 Giresun 0.481 0.612 0.294 0.422 0.15
C9 Sinop 0.467 0.597 0.304 0.433

Scenario 9
C10 Sinop 0.481 0.612 0.290 0.427 Zonguldak _ Samsun
Sinop _ Giresun _

C11 Sinop 0.463 0.595 0.307 0.436

Scenario 3

C12 Sinop 0.447 0.578 0.322 0.451

Table 10 e Rank of alternatives with respect to different DMs weights.

Weight

Table 8 e Fuzzy negative-ideal solutions for alternatives.

0.15
0.40
0.15
0.15
0.15

Weight

Criteria Alternative m- mþ v vþ
0.10
0.10
0.60
0.10
0.10
C1 Giresun 0.414 0.544 0.352 0.486
Giresun _ Zonguldak _

C2 Giresun 0.340 0.485 0.426 0.558 Zonguldak _ Samsun

Sinop _ Giresun _

C3 Samsun 0.359 0.488 0.412 0.543

Scenario 2

Samsun _ Sinop
Scenario 8

C4 Samsun 0.450 0.581 0.318 0.448

C5 Samsun 0.344 0.476 0.426 0.555
C6 Samsun 0.315 0.445 0.454 0.584
Weight

C7 Samsun 0.361 0.492 0.407 0.537

Weight

C8 Samsun 0.361 0.492 0.407 0.537

0.10
0.60
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.40
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15

C9 Samsun 0.361 0.492 0.407 0.537

C10 Samsun 0.381 0.510 0.393 0.525
Giresun _ Zonguldak _
Zonguldak _ Samsun

C11 Samsun 0.315 0.445 0.454 0.584

Sinop _ Giresun _

C12 Samsun 0.307 0.439 0.460 0.590

Scenario 7
Scenario 1

Samsun _ Sinop

Table 9 e Closeness coefficients and ranking order of

Weight

Weight

alternative locations.
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2

0.60
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10

Alternative d(Ai, Aþ) d(Ai, A-) CCi Rank

Scenario

Scenario

Zonguldak 0.019 0.012 0.399 3

Ranking

Ranking

Sinop 0.005 0.035 0.887 1

DM1
DM2
DM3
DM4
DM5

DM1
DM2
DM3
DM4
DM5
DMs

DMs

Giresun 0.015 0.022 0.603 2

Samsun 0.036 0.002 0.047 4
15866 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8
Sensi vity Analysis
Sinop Giresun
Scenario 11
Scenario 10
Scenario 9
Scenario 8
Scenario 7
Fig. 5 e Sensitivity analysis of the results.
determined the positive-ideal and negative-ideal solutions for
alternatives. The distances for each alternative taking into
account the positive-ideal and negative-ideal solutions are
calculated using the Euclidean distance (see Equations (22)
and (23)), and the results are shown in Tables 7 and 8.
Finally by using Equation (24) a closeness coefficient of
each alternative is calculated to obtain the ranking order of
alternatives (see Table 9). The greater value of closeness co-
efficient shows that an alternative has shorter distance to
fuzzy positive-ideal solution and farther from fuzzy negative-
ideal solution simultaneously.
Taking into account closeness coefficients the ranking
order of the four alternatives will be Sinop, Giresun, Zongul-
dak and Samsun respectively. The best alternative facility
location is Sinop due to having a greater closeness coefficient
and the most desirable alternative location for the decompo-
sition of H2S.
Sensitivity analysis
To check the robustness and validation of the results, in this
sub section sensitivity analysis is performed by constructing
11 different scenarios based on varying weights of DMs. Since
the evaluations of the alternatives, with respect to criteria,
made by DMs affects the alternative rankings different sce-
narios are constructed. To observe the effects of the weights of
DMs, first a base case scenario is constructed, in which the
weights of DMs are equal. Accordingly, the rest of the sce-
narios are constructed as keeping weight of four DMs’ weight
constant and changing the last ones’ weight, considering his/
her experience and job responsibility.
When the results are examined, Sinop is determined as the
best and the most suitable facility location for Hydrogen
production, and Samsun is selected as the worst alternative
according to the descending order of alternatives. Results
show that the proposed model generate robust and reliable
results and it is efficient to deal with MCDM problems while
the model is sensitive to the weight of DM1 only (see Table 10
Zonguldak Samsun
Scenario 1
4.5
Scenario 2
3.5
2.5
1.5 Scenario 3
0.5
-0.5
Scenario 4
Scenario 5
Scenario 6
Scenarios 2 and 7), since the ranking order is changed when
DM1’s weight is increased. Fig. 5 indicates the changes of
alternative location rankings according to different scenarios.
Results and conclusions
Hydrogen, which should be deliberated as a part of renew-
able energy sources, is a very efficient alternate to decrease
dependency on fossil fuels in order to ensure a sustainable
development. Therefore demand for hydrogen energy, as a
carrier of fuel and energy, increases. With the developments
in technology the importance of hydrogen energy, as a form
of H2S, stems from Black Sea receives higher attention from
researchers and authorities. H2S in deeper of Black Sea is
occurred based on excessive pollution. To reduce this
contamination, existing H2S should be decomposed, and as a
result sulfide and hydrogen in the gas form will be obtained.
Gathered hydrogen can be used as a future energy power
source. On the other hand obtained sulfide can be used as a
source in related industries. Therefore, decomposing of H2S
is a need for Turkey to reduce environmental pollution and
satisfy future energy demand. The easiest way to access H2S
in Black Sea can be made through Zonguldak, Sinop, Gur-
esun and Samsun coasts. The only reason is not the easiness
in accessibility to this source but also the existing of other
renewable energy types in that regions, and using them in
decomposing H2S. In this study we selected the most
appropriate facility location to locate H2S decomposing
plant. Since the H2S decomposing plant location selection
problem is considered as a complex MCDM problem, Entropy
based TOPSIS methodology by applying IVPF set is applied in
order to overcome uncertainty in decision making process.
For this aim, four main and twelve sub-criteria are deter-
mined, based on the literature review and interviews with
DMs both from industry and academia, for the evaluation.
Further, four alternative locations are determined as Zon-
guldak, Sinop, Guresun and Samsun. Accordingly, the
 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8
entropy method based on IVPF sets were applied to obtain
the weight of all criteria, then the rank of alternative facil-
ities is determined by applying IVPF-TOPSIS. The obtained
results are parallel with the Turkey energy policies and
perspectives. Based on the results the most appropriate
location is Sinop, which is located at the central southern of
the Black Sea coast. Moreover, Sinop is not only one of the
most significant harbor of the Black Sea but also one of the
richest places for wind and solar energies. This provides
another advantage to Sinop to satisfy the needed energy for
decomposing of H2S. As managerial impacts, the results are
helpful for managers and DMs to take strategic decisions in
energy management problems. Sensitivity analysis is also
conducted to prove validity and stability of the results of the
proposed method.
As a limitation of the study, to apply the proposed method
to other regions in the world the considered evaluation
criteria, in this study, may need to be updated since the dy-
namics of each region vary. Furthermore, the number of the
participants could be increased to incorporate perspectives of
different stakeholders. This research can be enrich in several
ways, for instance the proposed methodology can be applied
to other decision making processes, not only to energy facility
location selections but also to any MCDM processes. For future
study, decision on location selection can be combined with
optimization methods, such as Mixed Integer Programming
(MIP).
references
[1] Jacobson LD, Hetchler BP, Johnson VJ. Spatial, diurnal, and
seasonal variations of temperature, ammonia, and hydrogen
sulfide concentrations in two tunnel ventilated sow
gestation buildings in Minnesota. In: Livestock environment
VII, 18-20 may 2005, Beijing, China. American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineers; 2005. p. 198.
[2] Ingason HT, Ingolfsson HP, Jensson P. Optimizing site
selection for hydrogen production in Iceland. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2008;33(14):3632e43.
[3] Dunn S. Hydrogen futures: toward a sustainable energy
system. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2002;27(3):235e64.
[4] Edwards PP, Kuznetsov VL, David WIF. Hydrogen energy.
Philos Trans R Soc A Math Phys Eng Sci
2007;365(1853):1043e56.
[5] Haklidir M, Kapkın S‚. Black sea, A hydrogen source. In:
Proceedings international hydrogen energy congress and
exhibition IHEC 2005 Istanbul, Turkey; 2005. p. 13e5. July
2005.
[6] Dincer I, Acar C. Review and evaluation of hydrogen
production methods for better sustainability. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2015;40(34):11094e111.
[7] Chen YH, Chen CY, Lee SC. Technology forecasting of new
clean energy: the example of hydrogen energy and fuel cell.
Afr J Bus Manag 2010;4(7):1372e80.
[8] Uyar TS, Bes‚ikci D. Integration of hydrogen energy systems
into renewable energy systems for better design of 100%
renewable energy communities. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2017;42(4):2453e6.
[9] Marchenko OV, Solomin SV. The future energy: hydrogen
versus electricity. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2015;40(10):3801e5.
[10] Eapi GR, Sabnis MS, Sattler ML. Mobile measurement of
methane and hydrogen sulfide at natural gas production site
15867
fence lines in the Texas Barnett Shale. J Air Waste Manag
Assoc 2014;64(8):927e44.
[11] Woo YB, Cho S, Kim J, Kim BS. Optimization-based approach
for strategic design and operation of a biomass-to-hydrogen
supply chain. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2016;41(12):5405e18.
[12] Messaoudi D, Settou N, Negrou B, Rahmouni S, Settou B,
Mayou I. Site selection methodology for the wind-powered
hydrogen refueling station based on AHP-GIS in Adrar,
Algeria. Energy Procedia 2019;162:67e76.
[13] Wang C, Hsueh M, Lin D. Hydrogen power plant site selection
under fuzzy multicriteria decision-making (FMCDM)
environment conditions. Symmetry 2019;11:596. 2019.
[14] Lee SK, Mogi G, Kim JW, Gim BJ. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy
process approach for assessing national competitiveness in
the hydrogen technology sector. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2008;33(23):6840e8.
[15] Lee S, Mogi G, Lee S, Kim J. Prioritizing the weights of
hydrogen energy technologies in the sector of the hydrogen
economy by using a fuzzy AHP approach. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2011;36(2):1897e902.
[16] Lee SK, Mogi G, Lee SK, Hui KS, Kim JW. Econometric analysis
of the R&D performance in the national hydrogen energy
technology development for measuring relative efficiency:
the fuzzy AHP/DEA integrated model approach. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2010;35(6):2236e46.
[17] Rezaei-Shouroki M, Mostafaeipour A, Qolipour M. Prioritizing
of wind farm locations for hydrogen production: a case
study. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(15):9500e10.
[18] Afgan NH, Veziroglu A, Carvalho MG. Multi-criteria
evaluation of hydrogen system options. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2007;32(15):3183e93.
[19] Pilavachi PA, Stephanidis SD, Pappas VA, Afgan NH. Multi-
criteria evaluation of hydrogen and natural gas fuelled
power plant technologies. Appl Therm Eng
2009;29(11e12):2228e34.
[20] McDowall W, Eames M. Towards a sustainable hydrogen
economy: a multi-criteria sustainability appraisal of
competing hydrogen futures. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2007;32(18):4611e26.
[21] Chang PL, Hsu CW, Lin CY. Assessment of hydrogen fuel cell
applications using fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making
method. Appl Energy 2012;100:93e9.
[22] Ren J, Manzardo A, Toniolo S, Scipioni A. Sustainability of
hydrogen supply chain. Part II: prioritizing and classifying
the sustainability of hydrogen supply chains based on the
combination of extension theory and AHP. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2013;38(32):13845e55.
[23] Winebrake JJ, Creswick BP. The future of hydrogen fueling
systems for transportation: an application of perspective-
based scenario analysis using the analytic hierarchy process.
Technol Forecast Soc Chang 2003;70(4):359e84.
[24] Wang C, Nguyen V, Thai H, Duong D. Multi-criteria decision
making (MCDM) approaches for solar power plant location
selection in Viet Nam. Energies 2018;11:1504. https://doi.org/
10.3390/en11061504.
[25] Afgan NH, Carvalho MG. Sustainability assessment of
hydrogen energy systems. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2004;29(13):1327e42.
[26] McDowall W, Eames M. Forecasts, scenarios, visions,
backcasts and roadmaps to the hydrogen economy: a review
of the hydrogen futures literature. Energy Policy
2006;34(11):1236e50.
[27] Banos R, Manzano-Agugliaro F, Montoya FG, Gil C, Alcayde A,
Go mez J. Optimization methods applied to renewable and
sustainable energy: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2011;15(4):1753e66.
[28] Iqbal M, Azam M, Naeem M, Khwaja AS, Anpalagan A.
Optimization classification, algorithms and tools for
15868 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f h y d r o g e n e n e r g y 4 5 ( 2 0 2 0 ) 1 5 8 5 5 e1 5 8 6 8
renewable energy: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;39:640e54.
[29] _
Schitea D, Deveci M, Iordache M, Bilgili K, Akyurt IZ,
Iordache I. Hydrogen mobility roll-up site selection using
intuitionistic fuzzy sets based WASPAS, COPRAS and EDAS.
Int J Hydrogen Energy 2019;44(16):8585e600.
[30] Iordache M, Schitea D, Deveci M, Akyurt IZ, _ Iordache I. An
integrated ARAS and interval type-2 hesitant fuzzy sets
method for underground site selection: seasonal hydrogen
storage in salt caverns. J Pet Sci Eng 2019;175:1088e98.
[31] Yazici MS, Hatipoglu M. Hydrogen and fuel cell
demonstrations in Turkey. Energy Procedia 2012;29:683e9.
[32] Vezirog  lu TN. “Karadeniz dip sularının hidrojen enerjisi
_
potansiyeli”, 5. Istanbul: Ulusal Temiz Enerji Sempozyumu;
2004.
[33] https://www.google.com.tr/maps. [Accessed 5 August 2019].
[34] Apak S, Atay E, Tuncer G. Renewable hydrogen energy and
energy efficiency in Turkey in the 21st century. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 2017;42(4):2446e52.
[35] Baykara SZ, Figen EH, Kale A, Veziroglu TN. Hydrogen from
hydrogen sulphide in Black sea. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2007;32(9):1246e50.
[36] Demirbas A. Hydrogen sulfide from the black sea for
hydrogen production. Energy Sources, Part A Recovery, Util
Environ Eff 2009;31(20):1866e72.
[37] Petrov K, Baykara SZ, Ebrasu D, Gulin M, Veziroglu A. An
assessment of electrolytic hydrogen production from H2S in
Black Sea waters. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2011;36(15):8936e42.
[38] Ciocanea A, Budea S, Radulescu G. Solutions for reducing
dissolved hydrogen sulphide in the Black Sea by
electrochemical oxidation. Sci Bull-P olitehnicaUniv Buchar.
Ser C Electr Eng 2007;69(4):15e22.
[39] Erol I, €
_ Sencer S, Ozmen A, Searcy C. Fuzzy MCDM framework
for locating a nuclear power plant in Turkey. Energy Policy
2014;67:186e97.
[40] Toklu MC, Uygun O. € Location selection for wind plant using
AHP and axiomatic design in fuzzy environment. Period Eng
Nat Sci 2018;6(2):120e8.
[41] Aktas A, Kabak M. A hybrid hesitant fuzzy decision-making
approach for evaluating solar power plant location sites.
Arabian J Sci Eng 2019;44(8):7235e47.
[42] Deveci M. Site selection for hydrogen underground storage
using interval type-2 hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 2018;43(19):9353e68.
[43] Peng X, Yang Y. Fundamental properties of interval-valued
Pythagorean fuzzy aggregation operators. Int J Intell Syst
2015;31(5):444e87.
[44] Khan M, Abdullah S. Interval-valued Pythagorean fuzzy GRA
method for multiple-attribute decision making with
incomplete weight information. Int J Intell Syst 2018;33(8).
[45] Garg H. A novel accuracy function under interval-valued
Pythagorean fuzzy environment for solving multicriteria
decision making problem. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 2016;31:529e40.
https://doi.org/10.3233/IFS-162165.
[46] Peng X, Li W. Algorithms for interval-valued pythagorean
fuzzy sets in emergency decision making based on
multiparametric similarity measures and WDBA. Digit Object
Identifier 2018;17. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ACCESS.2018.2890097.
[47] Garg H. A new improved score functıon of an interval-valued
pythagorean fuzzy set based TOPSIS method. Int J Uncertain
Quantification 2017;7(5):463e74. 2017.
[48] Zak J, Weglinski S. SpainThe selection of the logisticscenter
location based on MCDM/A methodology. In: 17 th meeting
of the EURO working group on transportation, EWGT2014;
2014. p. 2e4. July 2014, Spain.
[49] Google maps. https://www.google.com.tr/maps. [Accessed 5
August 2019].