Mezofilik ve Termofilik Anaerobik Çürütmenin Çok Kriterli Karar Verme Yöntemleri ile Fayda, Maliyet ve Risk Açısından Karşılaştırılması

Yıl 2020, , 1306 - 1314, 26.09.2020

Elanur Adar

https://doi.org/10.17798/bitlisfen.631643

Öz

Anaerobik çürütme atıkların stabilizasyonunu,
kütle/hacim azaltımını ve aynı zamanda yenilebilir enerjisi üretimini
sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı çevresel uygulama olan ve yaygın şekilde de
atık/atıkların arıtımı için tam ölçekli olarak kullanılan anaerobik çürütmenin
mezofilik mi yoksa termofilik şartlarda işletimi mi daha öncelikli olduğunu
fayda, maliyet ve risk açısından belirlemektir. Bu yöntemlerden en etkin
yöntemin seçilmesinde ele alınacak fayda, maliyet ve risk ana kriterleri için
alt kriterler de belirlenerek, AHP ve TOPSİS yöntemleri ile karar verilmeye
çalışılmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda her bir ana kriter açısından alternatifler
değerlendirildiğinde fayda kriteri için T-AÇ, maliyet kriteri için M-AÇ ve risk
kriteri için T-AÇ’ye karar verilmiştir. Tüm kriterler beraber ele alındığında
ise fayda, maliyet ve risk açısından en iyi yöntemin termofilik anaerobik
çürütme olduğu söylenebilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Anaerobik Çürütme, Mezofilik, Termofilik, AHP, TOPSİS

Kaynakça

• Referans1 Çetinkaya A.Y. 2018. Investigation of Biomethane Potential of Dairy Industry Wastewater, Journal of Polytechnic, 21(2): 457-460.
• Referans2 Çakır F.Y., Stenstrom M.K. 2005. Greenhouse Gas Production: A Comparison Between Aerobic and Anaerobic Wastewater Treatment Technology, Water Research, 39(17): 4197-4203.
• Referans3 Vindis P., Mursec B., Janzekovic M., Cus F. 2009. The Impact of Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion on Biogas Production, Journal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering, 36(2): 192-198.
• Referans4 Cavinato C., Fatone F., Bolzonella D., Pavan P. 2010. Thermophilic Anaerobic Co-Digestion of Cattle Manure With Agro-Wastes and Energy Crops: Comparison of Pilot and Full Scale Experiences, Bioresource Technology, 101(2): 545-550.
• Referans5 Turskis Z., Zavadskas E.K., Antucheviciene J., Kosareva N. 2015. A Hybrid Model Based on Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy WASPAS For Construction Site Selection, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 10 (6): 113-128.
• Referans6 Yapici Pehlivan N., Şahin A., Zavadskas E., Turskis Z. 2018. A Comparative Study of Integrated FMCDM Methods For Evaluation of Organizational Strategy Development, Journal of Business Economics and Management, 19 (2): 360-381. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2018.5683.
• Referans7 Toklu M.C., Uygun Ö. 2018. Location Selection For Wind Plant Using AHP and Axiomatic Design in Fuzzy Environment, Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences (PEN), 6 (2): 120-128.
• Referans8 Zavadskas E.K., Kaklauskas A., Kalibatas D., Turskis Z., Krutinis M., Bartkienė L. 2018. Applying the TOPSIS-F Method to Assess Air Pollution in Vilnius, Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ), 17 (9).
• Referans9 Abdullah L., Zulkifli N., Liao H., Herrera-Viedma E., Al-Barakati A. 2019. An Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy DEMATEL Method Combined with Choquet Integral For Sustainable Solid Waste Management, Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 82: 207-215.
• Referans10 Tseng M.L. 2011. Using a Hybrid MCDM Model To Evaluate Firm Environmental Knowledge Management in Uncertainty, Applied Soft Computing, 11 (1): 1340-1352.
• Referans11 Vego G., Kučar-Dragičević S., Koprivanac N. 2008. Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making on Strategic Municipal Solid Waste Management in Dalmatia, Croatia, Waste Management, 28 (11): 2192-2201.
• Referans12 Tseng M.L. 2009. Application of ANP and DEMATEL to Evaluate The Decision-Making of Municipal Solid Waste Management in Metro Manila, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 156 (181): 1-4.
• Referans13 Dursun M., Karsak E.E. Karadayi M.A. 2011. A Fuzzy MCDM Approach For Health-Care Waste Management, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, 5(1).
• Referans14 Büyüközkan G., Çifçi G. 2012. A Novel Hybrid MCDM Approach Based on Fuzzy DEMATEL, Fuzzy ANP and Fuzzy TOPSIS to Evaluate Green Suppliers, Expert Systems with Applications, 39 (3): 3000-3011.
• Referans15 Nixon J.D., Dey P.K., Ghosh S.K., Davies P.A. 2013. Evaluation of Options For Energy Recovery From Municipal Solid Waste in India Using The Hierarchical Analytical Network Process, Energy, 59: 215-223.
• Referans16 Liu H.C., You J.X., Fan X.J., Chen Y.Z. 2014. Site Selection in Waste Management By The VIKOR Method Using Linguistic Assessment, Applied Soft Computing, 21: 453-461.
• Referans17 Mir M.A., Ghazvinei P.T., Sulaiman,N.M.N., Basri N.E.A., Saheri S., Mahmood N. Z., ... & Aghamohammadi N. 2016. Application of TOPSIS and VIKOR Improved Versions in A Multi Criteria Decision Analysis to Develop An Optimized Municipal Solid Waste Management Model, Journal of Environmental Management, 166: 109-115.
• Referans18 Arıkan E., Şimşit-Kalender Z.T. Vayvay Ö. 2017. Solid Waste Disposal Methodology Selection Using Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods and An Application in Turkey, Journal of Cleaner Production, 142: 403-412.
• Referans19 Goulart Coelho L.M., Lange L.C., Coelho H.M. 2017. Multi-Criteria Decision Making To Support Waste Management: A Critical Review of Current Practices and Methods. Waste Management & Research, 35(1): 3-28.
• Referans20 Coban A., Ertis I.F., Cavdaroglu N.A. 2018. Municipal Solid Waste Management via Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Case Study in Istanbul, Turkey, Journal of Cleaner Production, 180: 159-167.
• Referans21 Saaty T.L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York, USA: McGraw-Hill.
• Referans22 Hwang C.L., Yoon K. 1981. Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Application, Springer, Berlin.
• Referans23 Cheng S., Hwang C. 1992. Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer.
• Referans24 Alp S., Engin T. 2011. Analysis and Evaluation of The Relation Between The Reasons and Consequences of The Traffic Accidents By Using TOPSIS and AHP Methods, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 10 (19): 65-87.
• Referans25 Nges I.A., Liu J. 2010. Effects of Solid Retention Time on Anaerobic Digestion of Dewatered-Sewage Sludge in Mesophilic and Thermophilic Conditions, Renewable Energy, 35(10): 2200-2206.
• Referans26 Aich A., Ghosh S.K. 2016. Application of SWOT Analysis for the Selection of Technology for Processing and Disposal of MSW, Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35: 209-228.
• Referans27 Coşkun T., Manav N., Debik E., Binici M.S., Tosun C., Mehmetli E., Baban A. 2011. Anaerobic Digestion of Cattle Manure, Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 3: 1-9.
• Referans28 Kardos L., Juhasz A., Palko G., Olah J., Barkacs K., Zaray G. 2011. Comparing of Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Fermented Sewage Sludge Based on Chemical and Biochemical Tests, Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 9(3): 293-302.
• Referans29 Şentürk E. 2010. Investigation on The Treatability and Modelling of Potato-Processing Wastewaters in A Completely Mixed Anaerobic Contact Reactor Under Mesophilic and Thermophilic Conditions, Gebze Technical University, Environmental Engineering, PhD Thesis, Kocaeli.
• Referans30 Öztürk M. 2017. Hayvan Gübresinden Biyogaz Üretimi. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı, Ankara, 1-71, http://www.cevresehirkutuphanesi.com/assets/files/slider_pdf/UWDntXjXQmfS.pdf. (Erişim Tarihi: 05.09.2019).
• Referans31 Bi S., Qiao W., Xiong L., Ricci M., Adani F., Dong R. 2019. Effects of Organic Loading Rate on Anaerobic Digestion of Chicken Manure Under Mesophilic and Thermophilic Conditions, Renewable Energy, 139: 242-250.
• Referans32 Sassi H.P., Ikner L.A., Abd-Elmaksoud S., Gerba C.P., Pepper I.L. 2018. Comparative Survival of Viruses During Thermophilic and Mesophilic Anaerobic Digestion, The Science of The Total Environment, 615: 15-19.
• Referans33 Kim M., Ahn Y.H., Speece R. 2002. Comparative Process Stability and Efficiency of Anaerobic Digestion; Mesophilic vs. Thermophilic, Water Research, 36(17): 4369-4385.
• Referans34 Labatut R.A., Angenent L.T., Scott N.R. 2014. Conventional Mesophilic vs. Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion: A Trade-Off Between Performance and Stability? Water Research, 53: 249-258.
• Referans35 Qi G., Pan Z., Sugawa Y., Andriamanohiarisoamanana F.J., Yamashiro T., Iwasaki M., Kawamoto K., Ihara I., Umetsu K. 2018. Comparative Fertilizer Properties of Digestates From Mesophilic and Thermophilic Anaerobic Digestion of Dairy Manure: Focusing on Plant Growth Promoting Bacteria (PGPB) and Environmental Risk, Journal of Material Cycles and Waste Management, 20(3): 1448-1457.
• Referans36 Tufaner F., Avsar Y., 2019. Economic Analysis of Biogas Production From Small Scale Anaerobic Digestion Systems For Cattle Manure. Environmental Research and Technology, 2(1): 6-12.
• Referans37 Yakut H.U. 2012. Investigation of The Effect of Mixer Speed on Biogas Production, Kocaeli University, Department of Machine Engineering, MSc Thesis, Kocaeli.
• Referans38 Pires A., Chang N.B., Martinho G. 2011. An AHP-Based Fuzzy Interval TOPSIS Assessment For Sustainable Expansion of The Solid Waste Management System in Setúbal Peninsula, Portugal. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 56(1): 7-21.
• Referans39 Martowibowo S.Y., Riyanto H. 2011. Suitable Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Tool For Selecting Municipal Solid Waste Treatment in The City of Bandung, Journal of KONES Powertrain and Transport, 18 (4).
• Referans40 Antonopoulos I.S., Perkoulidis G., Logothetis D., Karkanias C. 2014. Ranking Municipal Solid Waste Treatment Alternatives Considering Sustainability Criteria Using The Analytical Hierarchical Process Tool. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 86: 149-159.