SELECTION OF WASTEWATER

TREATMENT PROCESS FOR

SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS
BASED ON AHP IN INDIA
By Shireen Khan
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
LITERATURE RESEARCH
01 REVIEW 02 STAGES

03 METHODOLOGY 04 FUTURE WORK

INTRODUCTIO
N
Appropriate treatment process selection is an
important issue before designing and
implementing each wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP). According to quantity diversity of
industrial wastewater and local condition of
effluent sources, it is impossible to use general
criteria in treatment process selection.
 01
LITERATUR
E REVIEW
 LITERATURE REVIEW
S.No. Title of the Publication Name of the Authors Year of Main
Journal Publication Findings/Summary/Abstract

1 Using of the fuzzy TOPSIS and fuzzy AHP Spring A. R. Karimi & 2011 The ranking order of the
methods for wastewater treatment process 1N. Mehrdadi alternatives with the fuzzy AHP
selection. ario Licata method is as follows: IFAS >
Extended Aeration > SBR >
Aerated Lagoon > A/B.

2 Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process Elsevier Marta Bottero & 2011 The results obtained from the
and the Analytic Network Process for the Elena development of the three models
assessment of different wastewater treatment Comino, show that the Phytoremediation
systems Vincenzo Riggio technology in the most
sustainable
solution for the wastewater
treatment, in the case of small
cheese factories.

3 Wastewater treatment plant site selection using JGeope Zeinab 2013 In order to locate the site with the
AHP and GIS: a case study in Falavarjan, Mansouri, minimum effect on the
Esfahan Naser Hafezi environment, the Leopold Matrix
Moghaddas & was used. Finally, area 1 was
Behnaz selected, by both TOPSIS and
Dahrazma EIA, as the most preferable
option for the construction of the
 LITERATURE REVIEW
S.No. Title of the Publication Name of the Authors Year of Main
Journal Publication Findings/Summary/Abstract

4 Robustness of AHP in selecting wastewater Civil Zorica Srdjevic 2012 Biological treatment is the
treatment method for the coloured metal Engineering & Milica optimal alternative regarding
industry: Serbian case study and Samardzic energy criteria and second
Environment optimal for small changes in the
al Systems weight of ecology.

5 Research of AHP/DEA evaluation model for E3S Web of Zhang Xiaoxin, 2018 AHP/DEA comprehensive
operation performance of municipal Conferences Huang Jin, Lin evaluation
wastewater treatment plants Ling, Wang model fully considers the
Yueping, Zhang subjective and objective factors
Xinheng with effectiveness and scientific
nature.

6 Synthesis of wastewater treatment process
(WWTP) and supplier selection
via Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP)
Elsevier Jo Yee Ho a, 2021 By implementing FAHP, the
Jecksin Ooi b, synthesized final WWTP traded
Yoke Kin Wan off at a maximum degree of
a,c, Viknesh satisfaction of 67.5% had
Andiappan reduce 244.44 USD/day of total
investment cost, 134.43 kg
CO2-eq/day of carbon footprint
and 2 m2 of area footprint.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
S.No. Title of the Publication Name of Authors Year of Main
the Journal Publication Findings/Summary/Abstract

7 The Selection of Wastewater Treatment Units Springer Atul and Nekram 2021 The AHP analysis on three options
Based on Analytical Hierarchical Rawal revealed that
Process thewaste stabilization pond
technology is an appropriate
technology with the highest
priority value of 40% among the
other options.

8 Selection of Sewage Treatment Technology Elsevier Megha Chaisar 2022 Among all alternatives, namely
using Analytic Hierarchy Process & S.K. Garg ASP, MBR, SBR, and UASB In this
study MRB with priority score
(0.30) found to be most
sustainable sewage treatment
technology.
 RESEARCH GAP
Environmental & Compared to technical aspects environmental and social
Social aspects factors are ignored in previous studies.

The negligence to take account of criteria such as Fecal

Unreliable results Coliforms and other hazardous microorganisms.

Limited
Failure of models to take into account multiple alternatives
alternatives
from all categories, aerobic, anaerobic etc.
consideration

Sustainable Sewage treatment options that are employed to reduce water

treatment as pollution and developed as sustainable ecosystems should be
priority considered.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
Selection of most suitable method
Creative, cost effective and
environmental friendly
method is to be selected for a
metropolitan city where land
and environment is major
constraint.
Ranking of criteria and
Alternatives
To prioritize the different
alternatives by means of the
application of the AHP and to
discuss the ranking thus
obtained.
02 RESEARCH STAGES
Project Stages
Literature Methodology Result and Analysis
Review

Current Stage
 METHODOLOG
03
Y
 Analytical Hierarchical Process
The AHP method is suitable for dealing with
complex systems related to make a choice from
several alternatives and which provides a
comparison of the considered options. The AHP
enables the DM to structure a complex problem
in the form of a simple hierarchy and to evaluate
a large number of quantitative and qualitative
factors in a systematic manner with conflicting
multiple criteria (Badri, 1999).
 WHY AHP?
Ease in decision making
01 Quantitative and qualitative criteria can be included in the decision
making.

Criteria consideration
02 A large quantity of criteria can be considered.

Flexible Hierarchy
03 A flexible hierarchy can be constructed according to the problem
 STEPS FOR APPLYING THE AHP
Structure the hierarchy from the
Define the problem and determine top through the intermediate levels
its goal. 01 02 to the lowest level that usually
contains the list of alternatives.
Construct a set of pair-wise
comparison matrices for lower
Reciprocals are automatically
levels by using the standard
preference scale used for the AHP
03 04 assigned in each pair-wise
comparison.
in a range of 1 to 9 scale

Hierarchical synthesis is now used to Having made all the pair-wise

weight the eigenvectors by the weights comparisons, the consistency is
of the criteria and the sum is taken 05 06 determined by using the eigenvalue,
over all weighted eigenvector entries. max, in order to calculate the
consistency index, CI.
 METHODOLOGY

01 03
02 04
Selection of the AHP
criteria Survey and Ranking of
Sieve the pertinent Analysis Application of AHP on
criteria
performance indicators the criteria based on
from the literature Evaluation of the the expert survey
results. Determine the weight
criteria with the experts
of each criteria for the
ranking the criteria.
HIERARCH
Y FOR
AHP
ANALYSIS
 SURVEY AND ANALYSIS
Profile of the Respondent (n=)
Gender No of respondent Percentage
Male
15 68
Female
7 32
Age
Below 25
2 9
25-35 Intensity of importance Definition
10 45
1 Equal Importance
45-55
8 36
2 Poor Importance
Above 55
2 9 3
Qualification
Moderate Importance
Graduate 4 Strong Importance
4 18
PhD 5 Extreme Importance
10 45
Professionals
8 36
work
experience
<2 years
4 18
2-5 years
8 36
5-10 years
7 32
>10 years
IMPORTANCE SCALE FOR AHP
Definition Preferred row to column Preferred column to row

Equally important 1 1

Equally important to moderately more important 2 1/2

Moderately more important 3 1/3

Moderately more important to strongly more 4 1/4

important

Strongly more important 5 1/5

Strongly to very strongly more important 6 1/6

very strongly more important 7 1/7

very strongly to extremely more important 8 1/8

Extremely more important 9 1/9

 AHP ANALYSIS TABLE
Main Criteria [Technical ] [Cost ] [Environment ]

[Technical ] 1 0.33 0.14

[Cost ] 3 1 0.20
[Environment ] 7 5 1
SUM 11 6.333333 1.342857143

Normalize Matrix
Main Criteria [Technical ] [Cost ] [Environment ] Average

[Technical ] 0.090909091 0.052632 0.106382979 0.083308

[Cost ] 0.272727273 0.157895 0.14893617 0.193186
[Environment ] 0.636363636 0.789474 0.744680851 0.723506
SUM 1
 RANKING OF MAIN CRITERIA

0.8
0.7 0.723506057
0.6 212664
Main Criteria Normalize weights

Weights
0.5
Environment 0.723506057 0.4
0.3
Cost 0.19318606
0.2
Technical 0.083307883 0.193186059
0.1 927381
0.083307882
0
Environment Cost 8599545
Technical

Criterias
 FUTURE WORK

Raking of all Evaluating the

Applying AHP in Applying TOPSIS ranking with the
sub-criteria. in Alternatives criteria based on
weights literature present
or the standard
practices.
 RESEARCH PLAN
YEAR 2022 2023

ACTIVITIES SEPTEMEBER OCTOBER NOVERMBER DECEMBER JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY

PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION / FIELD OF RESEARCH

LITERATURE REVIEW

STUDY OF AHP

IDENTIFYING CRITERIA & ALTERNATIVES

CONSTRUCTION OF QUESTIONNAIRE

SURVEYING AND ANALYSIS

DATA INTERPRETATION

RESULTS

THESIS WRITE-UP

SUBMISSSION OF THESIS

FINAL PRESENTATION
 REFERENCES
1. Temiz I, Calis G (2017) Selection of construction equipment by using multi-criteria decision
making methods. Procedia Eng 196(June):286–293.
2. Zeng G, Jiang R, Huang G, Xu M, Li J (2007) Optimization of wastewater treatment alternative
selection by hierarchy grey relational analysis. J Environ Manage 82(2):250–259
3. Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrogott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys,
vol 78
4. Konidari P, Evaluation method for climate change mitigation instruments. Cgi.Di.Uoa.Gr
5. Khadam IM, Kaluarachchi JJ (2003) Multi-criteria decision analysis with probabilistic risk
assessment for the management of contaminated ground water. Environ Impact Assess Rev 23(6):683–
721
6. Okeola OG, Sule BF (2012) Evaluation of management alternatives for urban water supply system
using multicriteria decision analysis. J King Saud Univ—Eng Sci 24(1):19–24
7. Ishtiaq P,Khan SA, HaqMU(2018)Amulti-criteria decision-making approach to rank supplier
selection criteria for hospital waste management: a case from Pakistan. Waste Manag Res 36(4):386–
394
8. Tramarico CL, Salomon VAP, Marins FAS (2017) Multi-criteria assessment of the benefits of
a supply chain management training considering green issues. J Clean Prod 142:249–256
9. Saaty TL (2006) Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network
processes I, vol 168, pp 557–570
THANK YOU!