Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Prioritizing novel wastewater-to-hydrogen production technologies based on different decision-making approaches

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With the increasing population, the amount of wastewater that needs to be managed is also increasing. Population growth also increases energy demand. While treating wastewater containing organic matter and water, hydrogen energy can be produced at the same time. In this study, microbial fuel cells, dark fermentation, supercritical water gasification, and photobioreactors that produce hydrogen from wastewater have been evaluated and prioritized for the first time in terms of benefit, opportunity, cost, and risk criteria. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique and benefit, opportunity, cost, and risk (BOCR) model have been used to achieve this aim. In addition, a sensitivity analysis was performed to determine critical criteria for prioritizing technologies. With the analytic hierarchy process technique, it was determined that the criterion with the highest priority was benefit (53%), while the sub-criterion with the highest priority was technological development (33%) followed by operating cost (15%) and compliance with sustainability (12%). Supercritical water gasification technology was found to be the top priority with the AHP technique. In the BOCR model, dark fermentation was determined to be the highest priority technology. In the sensitivity analysis, changes in the weights of the opportunity and cost criteria showed that these criteria were critical. The results obtained show that dark fermentation, which is a technology close to the development, is preferred in the first rank because it has less risk and can produce a high rate of hydrogen. This study could spur more R&D work for researchers to industrialize this technology. It can also give an idea for different studies to researchers.

Graphic abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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. Eng Appl Artif Intell 82:207–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adar E, Karatop B, Ince M, Bilgili MS (2016) Comparison of methods for sustainable energy management with sewage sludge in Turkey based on SWOT-FAHP analysis. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 62:429–440

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Adar T, Ok Y, Delice EK (2017) Selection of on-site energy generation technology with a new MCDM approach using MABAC&AHP. In: International conference on industrial engineering and technology management, Dallas, Texas

  • Adar E (2018) Supercritical gasification of wastewater treatment plant sludge for energy production. Dissertation, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

  • Afif E, Azadi P, Farnood R (2011) Catalytic hydrothermal gasification of activated sludge. Appl Catal B 105:136–143

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Anggraini RCPK, Sasongko NA, Kuntjoro YD (2018) Preliminary study on the location selection of microalgae cultivation in Nusa Tenggara region as a potential feedstock for bioavtur. E3S Web Cof 31:02013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Babazadeh R, Khalili M, Toloo M (2020) A data envelopment analysis method for location optimization of microalgae cultivation: a case study. Waste Biomass Valoriz 11(1):173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barca C, Soric A, Ranava D, Giudici-Orticoni MT, Ferrasse JH (2015) Anaerobic biofilm reactors for dark fermentative hydrogen production from wastewater: a review. Biores Technol 185:386–398

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cetinkaya A (2017) Treatment of industrial wastewaters by low-cost and high-efficiency microbial fuel cell and electricity energy production. Dissertation, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

  • Chakinala AG (2013) Supercritical water gasification of biomass: An experimental study of model compounds and potential biomass feeds. Dissertation, Twente University, Netherlands

  • Chang PL, Hsu CW, Chang PC (2011) Fuzzy Delphi method for evaluating hydrogen production technologies. Int J Hydrog Energy 36(21):14172–14179

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Chung Y, Hong S, Kim J (2014) Which of the technologies for producing hydrogen is the most prospective in Korea? Evaluating the competitive priority of those in near-, mid-, and long-term. Energy Policy 65:115–125

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dagdeviren M, Yavuz S, Kilinc N (2009) Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment. Exp Syst Appl 36(4):8143–8151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delice EK, Gungor Z (2009) The usability analysis with heuristic evaluation and analytic hierarchy process. Int J Ind Ergon 39(6):934–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong J, Chi Y, Zou D, Fu C, Huang Q, Ni M (2014) Energy–environment–economy assessment of waste management systems from a life cycle perspective: model development and case study. Appl Energy 114:400–408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.09.037

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elcik H (2016) Application of membrane processes in microalgae harvesting and optimisation of operational conditions. Dissertation, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

  • Erginel N, Senturk S, Binici Y (2014) The use of ANP method based on BOCR criteria for 3PL provider selection. Anadolu Univ J Sci Technol B Theor Sci 3(1):33–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Goulart-Coelho LM, Lange LC, Coelho HM (2017) Multi-criteria decision making to support waste management: a critical review of current practices and methods. Waste Manag Res 35(1):3–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • He YJ, Ma ZF (2013) Robust optimal operation of two-chamber microbial fuel cell system under uncertainty: a stochastic simulation based multi-objective genetic algorithm approach. Fuel Cells 13(3):321–335

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hou D, Lu L, Ren ZJ (2016) Microbial fuel cells and osmotic membrane bioreactors have mutual benefits for wastewater treatment and energy production. Water Res 98:183–189

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kabak M, Dagdeviren M (2014) Prioritization of renewable energy sources for Turkey by using a hybrid MCDM methodology. Energy Convers Manag 79:25–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koroglu E (2019) Hydrogen production and evaluation using biological processes from food industry wastewater. Dissertation, Yildiz Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey

  • Kruse A, Henningsen T, Sinag A, Pfeiffer J (2003) Biomass gasification in supercritical water: influence of the dry matter content and the formation of phenols. Ind Eng Chem Res 42:3711–3717

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Liu Y, Ren J, Man Y, Lin R, Lee CK, Ji P (2020) Prioritization of sludge-to-energy technologies under multi-data condition based on multi-criteria decision-making analysis. J Clean Prod 273:123082

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Maroušek J, Myšková K, Žák J (2015) Managing environmental innovation: case study on biorefinery concept. Revista Técnica De La Facultad De Ingeniería Universidad Del Zulia 38:216–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Maroušek J, Kolář L, Strunecký O, Kopecký M, Bartoš P, Maroušková A, Vrbka J (2020) Modified biochars present an economic challenge to phosphate management in wastewater treatment plants. J Clean Prod 272:123015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maroušek J, Bartoš P, Filip M, Kolář L, Konvalina P, Maroušková A, Zoubek T (2020b) Advances in the agrochemical utilization of fermentation residues reduce the cost of purpose-grown phytomass for biogas production. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util Environ Effects 1–11

  • Maroušek J, Strunecký O, Kolář L, Vochozka M, Kopecký M, Maroušková A, Cera E (2020) Advances in nutrient management make it possible to accelerate biogas production and thus improve the economy of food waste processing. Energy Sources Part A Recovery Util Environ Effects. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567036.2020.1776796

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mistage O, Bilotta P (2018) Decision support method for GHG emission management in industries. Int J Environ Sci Technol 15(6):1331–1342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohseni S, Pishvaee MS, Sahebi H (2016) Robust design and planning of microalgae biomass-to-biodiesel supply chain: a case study in Iran. Energy 111:736–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen HT, Safder U, Nguyen XN, Yoo C (2020) Multi-objective decision-making and optimal sizing of a hybrid renewable energy system to meet the dynamic energy demands of a wastewater treatment plant. Energy 191:116570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Onaran G (2016) Hydrogen production from waste paper towel by dark fermantation. Dissertation, Pamukkale University, Denizli, Turkey.

  • Oncel SS (2009) Biohydrogen production and usage in fuel cells. Dissertation, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.

  • Padrón-Páez JI, Almaraz SDL, Román-Martínez A (2020) Sustainable wastewater treatment plants design through multiobjective optimization. Comput Chem Eng 140:106850

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qazi WA, Abushammala MF (2020) Multi-criteria decision analysis of waste-to-energy technologies. Academic Press, In Waste-to-Energy, pp 265–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajak M, Shaw K (2019) Evaluation and selection of mobile health (mHealth) applications using AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Technol Soc 59:101186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2019.101186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren J, Ren X (2020) Sustainability prioritization of sludge-to-energy technologies based on an improved DS/AHP method. Academic Press, In Waste-to-Energy, pp 317–343

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren J, Fedele A, Mason M, Manzardo A, Scipioni A (2013) Fuzzy multi-actor multi-criteria decision making for sustainability assessment of biomass-based technologies for hydrogen production. Int J Hydrog Energy 38(22):9111–9120

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (2001) The analytic network process, fundamentals of decision making and priority theory, 2nd edn. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabankay M (2012) Scale-up for biohydrogen production in photobioreactors. Dissertation, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey

  • Slate AJ, Whitehead KA, Brownson DA, Banks CE (2019) Microbial fuel cells: an overview of current technology. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 101:60–81

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tan J, Low KY, Sulaiman NMN, Tan RR, Promentilla MAB (2016) Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) for multi-criteria selection of microalgae harvesting and drying processes. Clean Technol Environ Policy 18(7):2049–2063

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trapero JR, Horcajada L, Linares JJ, Lobato J (2017) Is microbial fuel cell technology ready? An economic answer towards industrial commercialization. Appl Energy 185:698–707

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng ML (2011) Using a hybrid MCDM model to evaluate firm environmental knowledge management in uncertainty. Appl Soft Comput 11(1):1340–1352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uctug FG, Fahrioglu M (2018) Multi-criteria decision making-based comparison of fuel cell types for distributed generation applications. In: 16th International conference on clean energy (ICCE-2018), Famagusta, N. Cyprus, https://icce2018.emu.edu.tr/

  • Wang JJ, Yang DL (2007) Using a hybrid multi-criteria decision aid method for information systems outsourcing. Comput Oper Res 34(12):3691–3700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Xu L, Solangi YA (2020) Strategic renewable energy resources selection for Pakistan: based on SWOT-Fuzzy AHP approach. Sustain Cities Soc 52:101861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101861

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wijnmalen DJ (2007) Analysis of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks (BOCR) with the AHP–ANP: a critical validation. Math Comput Model 46(7–8):892–905

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu D, Wang S, Huang C, Tang X, Guo Y (2014) Transpiring wall reactor in supercritical water oxidation. Chem Eng Res Des 92:2626–2639

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Xu L, Wang Y, Shah SAA, Zameer H, Solangi YA, Walasai GD, Siyal ZA (2019) Economic viability and environmental efficiency analysis of hydrogen production processes for the decarbonization of energy systems. Processes 7(8):494

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yoshida Y, Dowaki K, Matsumura Y, Matsuhashi R, Li D, Ishitani H, Komiyama H (2003) Comprehensive comparison of efficiency and CO2 emissions between biomass energy conversion technologies: position of supercritical water gasification in biomass technologies. Biomass Bioenerg 25:257–272

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas EK, Kaklauskas A, Kalibatas D, Turskis Z, Krutinis M, Bartkienė L (2018) Applying the TOPSIS-F method to assess air pollution in vilnius. Environ Eng Manag J 17(9):2041

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the experts for their support in filling out the binary comparison matrices. The comments and recommendations of the anonymous reviewers and the editors are greatly acknowledged.

Funding

No funding was used in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Artvin Coruh University, Seyitler Campus, 08100, Artvin, Turkey

    Elanur Adar

Authors
  1. Elanur Adar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

This study was designed, investigated, and written by EA.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elanur Adar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Adar, E. Prioritizing novel wastewater-to-hydrogen production technologies based on different decision-making approaches. Clean Techn Environ Policy 23, 2615–2626 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02176-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-021-02176-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation