Developing an approach for the sustainability assessment of groundwater remediation technologies based on multi criteria decision making

Abstract

Groundwater is regarded as an important supply of drinking water, as well as for agricultural and industrial purposes. Groundwater pollution worsens as a result of several contaminants such as industrial, urban, and agricultural activities, and the difficulty is to select appropriate groundwater remediation methods. This research develops a technique for assessing the sustainability of groundwater remediation methods by integrating the Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method with a Fuzzy Inference Engine. A standard approach for assessing the sustainability of groundwater remediation systems has been developed, consisting of four major criteria: economic, technical, environmental, and social. Following the calculations and determining the priority of all the criteria and techniques based on the weights, the results show the sequence of technologies in which Pump and Treat is the best with 7.83, followed by air stripping with 7.04, and monitored natural attenuation and permeable reactive barrier were the last with 3.70 and 3.19, respectively. The criteria that give P&T the most weight is both the technical and social criterion, with a weight of 8.18, while the criterion with the lowest weight was the economic criterion, with a weight of 4.22. The technical, environmental, and social aspects of P&T were all high, making it the optimum technology where the decision-maker or stakeholder can deal with the decline in the economic component, which is also proof of P&T's preferability and the most sustainable one, and It was also feasible to examine all options to determine which factors are reducing their sustainability and which should be addressed in order to enhance sustainability.

Keywords

• Analytical hierarchy process
• fuzzy numbers
• groundwater remediation
• sustainability assessment
• multi criteria decision making

References

1. [1] Brands, E., Rajagopal, R., Eleswarapu, U., & Li, P. (2016). Groundwater. International Encyclopedia of Geography: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology: People, the Earth, Environment and Technology, 1-17.
2. [2] Chapman, D. V. (Ed.). (1996). Water quality assessments: a guide to the use of biota, sediments, and water in environmental monitoring. / edited by Deborah Chapman, 2nd ed. London : E & FN Spon
3. [3] Talabi, A. O., & Kayode, T. J. (2019). Groundwater Pollution and Remediation. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 11(1), 1-19.
4. [4]Zhang, X. H. (2009). Remediation techniques for soil and groundwater. Point sources of pollution: local effects and their control, Volume:2, Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, EOLSS, ISBN: 978-1-84826-168-6.
5. [5] An, D., Xi, B., Wang, Y., Xu, D., Tang, J., Dong, L., ... & Pang, C. (2016). A sustainability assessment methodology for prioritizing the technologies of groundwater contamination remediation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 112, 4647-4656.
6. [6] An, D., Xi, B., Ren, J., Wang, Y., Jia, X., He, C., & Li, Z. (2017). Sustainability assessment of groundwater remediation technologies based on multi-criteria decision making method. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 119, 36-46.
7. [7] Brinkhoff, P. (2011). Multi-criteria analysis for assessing sustainability of remedial actions-applications in contaminated land development. A Literature Review, Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden.
8. [8] Lu, H., Ren, L., Chen, Y., Tian, P., & Liu, J. (2017). A cloud model based multi-attribute decision making approach for selection and evaluation of groundwater management schemes. Journal of Hydrology, 555, 881-893.

9. [9] Ren, L., Lu, H., Zhao, H., & Xia, J. (2018). An interval-valued triangular fuzzy modified multi-attribute preference model for prioritization of groundwater resources management. Journal of Hydrology, 562, 335-345.
10. [10] Litter, M. I., Ingallinella, A. M., Olmos, V., Savio, M., Difeo, G., Botto, L., ... & Schalamuk, I. (2019). Arsenic in Argentina: Technologies for arsenic removal from groundwater sources, investment costs and waste management practices. Science of the Total Environment, 690, 778-789.
11. [11] Al-Weshah, R. A., & Yihdego, Y. (2018). Multi-criteria decision approach for evaluation, ranking, and selection of remediation options: case of polluted groundwater, Kuwait. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 25(36), 36039-36045.
12. [12] Ridsdale, D. R., & Noble, B. F. (2016). Assessing sustainable remediation frameworks using sustainability principles. Journal of environmental management, 184, 36-44.
13. [13] Mukherjee, S., & Nelliyat, P. (2006). Groundwater pollution and emerging environmental challenges of industrial effluent irrigation in Mettupalayam Taluk, Tamil Nadu. IWMI.
14. [14] Lipczynska-Kochany, E. (2018). Effect of climate change on humic substances and associated impacts on the quality of surface water and groundwater: A review. Science of the total environment, 640, 1548-1565.
15. [15] Labroue, L., Delmas, R., Serca, D., & Dagnac, J. (1991). Nitrate contamination of groundwater as a factor of atmospheric pollution. Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Sciences. Serie 3, 313(2), 119-124.
16. [16] Baba, A., & Tayfur, G. (2011). Groundwater contamination and its effect on health in Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 183(1-4), 77-94.
17. [17] Ongley, E. D. (1996). Control of water pollution from agriculture (Vol. 55). Food & Agriculture Org.
18. [18] Pawari, M. J., & Gawande, S. A. G. A. R. (2015). Ground water pollution & its consequence. International journal of engineering research and general science, 3(4), 773-776.
19. [19] Kløve, B., Ala-Aho, P., Bertrand, G., Gurdak, J. J., Kupfersberger, H., Kværner, J., ... & Uvo, C. B. (2014). Climate change impacts on groundwater and dependent ecosystems. Journal of Hydrology, 518, 250-266.
20. [20] Da Conceição Cunha, M. (2002). Groundwater cleanup: The optimization perspective (a literature review). Engineering Optimization, 34(6), 689-702.
21. [21] Avogadro, A., & Ragaini, R. C. (Eds.). (1993). Technologies for environmental cleanup: soil and groundwater (Vol. 1). Springer Science & Business Media.
22. [22] National Research Council. (1997). Valuing ground water: economic concepts and approaches. National Academies Press.
23. [23] Nystén T. (1991) Groundwater Pollution by Industry. In: Wrobel L.C., Brebbia C.A. (eds) Water Pollution: Modelling, Measuring and Prediction. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3694-5_30
24. [24] Tian, J., Huo, Z., Ma, F., Gao, X., & Wu, Y. (2019). Application and Selection of Remediation Technology for OCPs-Contaminated Sites by Decision-Making Methods. International journal of environmental research and public health, 16(11), 1888.
25. [25] Bardos, R. P., Thomas, H. F., Smith, J. W., Harries, N. D., Evans, F., Boyle, R., ... & Haslam, A. (2018). The development and use of sustainability criteria in SuRF-UK’s Sustainable Remediation Framework. Sustainability, 10(6), 1781.
26. [26] Khelifi, O., Lodolo, A., Vranes, S., Centi, G., & Miertus, S. (2006). A web-based decision support tool for groundwater remediation technologies selection. Journal of Hydroinformatics, 8(2), 91-100.
27. [27] Bertoni, M. (2019). Multi-criteria decision making for sustainability and value assessment in early PSS design. Sustainability, 11(7), 1952.
28. [28] Pons, O., De la Fuente, A., & Aguado, A. (2016). The use of MIVES as a sustainability assessment MCDM method for architecture and civil engineering applications. Sustainability, 8(5), 460.
29. [29] Zolfani, S. H., & Saparauskas, J. (2013). New application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system. Engineering Economics, 24(5), 408-414.
30. [30] Plakas, K. V., Georgiadis, A. A., & Karabelas, A. J. (2016). Sustainability assessment of tertiary wastewater treatment technologies: a multi-criteria analysis. Water Science and Technology, 73(7), 1532-1540.
31. [31] Balkema, A. J., Preisig, H. A., Otterpohl, R., & Lambert, F. J. (2002). Indicators for the sustainability assessment of wastewater treatment systems. Urban water, 4(2), 153-161.
32. [32] Basurko, O. C., & Mesbahi, E. (2014). Methodology for the sustainability assessment of marine technologies. Journal of cleaner production, 68, 155-164.
33. [33] Aruldoss, M., Lakshmi, T. M., & Venkatesan, V. P. (2013). A survey on multi criteria decision making methods and its applications. American Journal of Information Systems, 1(1), 31-4.
34. [34] Işik, Z., & Aladağ, H. (2017). A fuzzy AHP model to assess sustainable performance of the construction industry from urban regeneration perspective. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 23(4), 499-509.
35. [35] Jayawickrama, H. M. M. M., Kulatunga, A. K., & Mathavan, S. (2017). Fuzzy AHP based plant sustainability evaluation method. Procedia Manufacturing, 8(Supplement C), 571-578.
36. [36] Topuz, E., Talinli, I., & Aydin, E. (2011). Integration of environmental and human health risk assessment for industries using hazardous materials: a quantitative multi criteria approach for environmental decision makers. Environment International, 37(2), 393-403.
37. [37] Epa, O.U. (2014). How to Evaluate Alternative Cleanup Technologies for Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for Corrective Action Plan Review.
38. [38] Voudrias, E. A. (2001). Pump-and-treat remediation of groundwater contaminated by hazardous waste: can it really be achieved. Global Network for Environmental Science and Technology, 3(1), 1-10.
39. [39] Snow, D. H. (1999). Overview of Permeable Reactive Barriers. Civil Engineering Dept., BYU.
40. [40] Wang, H., Cai, Y., Tan, Q., & Zeng, Y. (2017). Evaluation of groundwater remediation technologies based on fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis approaches. Water, 9(6), 443.