4.7 Article

Evaluation and determination of soil remediation schemes using a modified AHP model and its application in a contaminated coking plant

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 353, Issue -, Pages 300-311

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.04.010

Keywords

Soil remediation; Multi-criteria decision making; Competence model; Grubbs criteria; MAHP method

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41471258, 21506155, 21656001]
  2. Science and Technology Program of Tianjin, China [16YFXTSF00500]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Soil remediation has been considered as one of the most difficult pollution treatment tasks due to its high complexity in contaminants, geological conditions, usage, urgency, etc. The diversity in remediation technologies further makes quick selection of suitable remediation schemes much tougher even the site investigation has been done. Herein, a sustainable decision support hierarchical model has been developed to select, evaluate and determine preferred soil remediation schemes comprehensively based on modified analytic hierarchy process (MAHP). This MAHP method combines competence model and the Grubbs criteria with the conventional AHP. It not only considers the competence differences among experts in group decision, but also adjusts the big deviation caused by different experts' preference through sample analysis. This conversion allows the final re mediation decision more reasonable. In this model, different evaluation criteria, including economic effect, environmental effect and technological effect, are employed to evaluate the integrated performance of re mediation schemes followed by a strict computation using above MAHP. To confirm the feasibility of this developed model, it has been tested by a benzene workshop contaminated site in Beijing coking plant. Beyond soil remediation, this MAHP model would also be applied in other fields referring to multi-criteria group decision making.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available