S-1: Experts’ information · Web viewEvaluation and determination of soil remediation schemes...

Supplementary information

Evaluation and determination of soil remediation schemes using

a modified AHP model and its application in a contaminated

coking plant

Xingang Lia,b,c, Jia Lia,c, Hong Suia,b,c, Lin Hea,b*, Xingtao Cao d, Yonghong Lia,b

a School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, 300072, China.

b National Engineering Research Center of Distillation Technology, Tianjin, 300072, China.

c Collaborative Innovation Center of Chemical Science and Engineering (Tianjin), 300072, China.

d CNOOC EnerTech- Beijing Safety& Environmental Protection Engineering Technology Research

Institute, Tianjin, 300457.

*Corresponding author:

E-mail: [email protected] (L.H.)

mailto:[email protected]

S-1: Experts’ information

Questionnaire Ⅰ

1.What is your Academic degree?

□ Doctor □ Master □ Bachelor □ Other

2.What is your professional title?

□ Senior title □ Vice-senior title □ Intermediate title □ Primary title

3.How many years have you worked on the soil remediation field?

□ >15 years □ 10-15 years □ 5-10 years □ <5 years

4.What is the level of site remediation projects or site evaluation projects have you

presided or participated in?

□ National level □ National level □ Municipal level □ Others

5. How many site remediation projects or site evaluation projects have you presided or

participated in?

□ >10 projects □ 6-10 projects □ 3-6 projects □ <3 projects

S-2. Remediation consultation

Questionnaire ⅡSite location

The contaminated site was the benzene workshop in a closed coking plant located at

Chaoyang district, Beijing, China. This site covered an area of 750×320 m2 (Fig. S-1). It

should be noted that there were several housing estates quite near the contaminated site.

The distance to the nearest one is less than 500m. It poses a great risk of exposure to

humans.

Fig. S-1. Satellite imagery of contaminated site

Contamination information

Detailed site investigation indicated that the contamination was caused by the leakage

of pipeline embedded underground. The main contaminants in the soil are PAHs (polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbons) and BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene). The

drilling logs shows that the dispersion of contaminations (BTEX and PAH) is limited in

unsaturated zone, and not beyond the area of the benzene workshop. The maximum average

concentrations of PAHs and BTEX in soil even reached 2547.5 mg/kg and 5404.4 mg/kg,

respectively in unsaturated zone. The average contaminants concentration in the hotspot

and soil type distribution corresponding to underground depth were illustrated as Fig. S-2.

Fig. S-2. Profiles of average contaminants concentration distribution and soil type

Site usage

According to the municipal planning of Beijing city, this contaminated site would be

remediated for commercial use. The developers argued strongly for quick remediation of

this contaminated site.

Clean-up goal

The concentration of the contaminants (PAHs and BTEX) in soil should meet to residential

land standard.

Technologies recommendation (aimed at unsaturated zone)

Based on the information of contaminated site above, please choose suitable

alternatives from soil remediation technologies library (Table S1-1) or give other

remediation schemes you recommend aimed at soil in unsaturated zone.

Table S1-1 Soil remediation technologies library for expert choice

In situ Ex situ

□ Bioventing□ Enhanced Bioremediation □ Chemical Reduction

□ Phytoremediation □ Chemical Oxidation □ Solidification/Stabilization□ Soil Flushing □ Chemical Reduction □ Solvent Extraction□ Soil Vapor Extraction □ Thermal Desorption □ Chemical Oxidation□ Solidification/Stabilization □ Thermal Desorption□ Electrokinetic Separation □ IncinerationOther recommend technologies:

S-3. experts’ evaluation

Questionnaire ⅢPlease answer the following question by choosing a number to rate the importance of

criteria or alternative the questionnaire provided.

Instruction:

Fig. S-3 Meanings of numbers for rating

: Criteria importance degree or alternatives ⸿ advantage

The lowest rating by choosing 2 which indicates a low importance of the criteria on

the side you choose number for.

The highest rating by choosing 9 which indicates a high importance of the criteria on

the side you choose number for.

When two criteria in comparison with each other are equal important, you can choose

number 1.

●Rating the main criteria:

A1: Economic effect: economic performance of soil remediation technologies.

A2: Environmental effect: environmental impact of soil remediation technologies.

A3: Technological effect: contaminant removal ability of soil remediation

technologies.

Please processed with choosing the values as follows:A1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A2

A1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A3A2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 A3

●Rating the sub criteria with respect to the economic effect:

B1: Capital cost: expense for establishing the plants and facilities in soil remediation.

B2: Operation cost: expense relative to the operation and maintenance of facilities.

B3: Detection and analysis cost: expense referring to detection and analysis of the

contaminant concentration during the remediation process.

Please processed with choosing the values as follows:B1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B2B1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B3B2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B3

●Rating the sub criteria in respect of the environmental effect:

B4: Possibility of secondary contamination: new contaminants may be introduced

during the soil remediation.

B5: Risk of human security: injury or death happened during the soil remediation.

B6: Accept of public: support and approval for the remediation schemes from public.

Please processed with choosing the values as follows:B4 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B5B4 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B6B5 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B6

●Rating the sub criteria referring to technological effect:

B7: Remediation efficiency: removal effectiveness of contaminants from contaminated

soil.

B8: Remediation time: duration of the remediation process when the contaminants

concentration was reduced to an expected degree.

B9: Technology maturity: reliability and availability of soil remediation technologies.

Please processed with choosing the values as follows:

B7 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B8B7 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B9B8 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 B9

●Rating remediation alternatives advantage referring to capital cost:

C1: Thermal desorption

C2: Soil vapor extraction

C3: Chemical oxidation

C4: Enhanced bioremediation

Please processed with choosing the values as follows:C1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C2C1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C3C1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C4C2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C3C2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C4C3 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C4

●Rating remediation alternatives advantage referring to operation cost:






●Rating remediation alternatives advantage referring to detection and analysis cost:






●Rating remediation alternatives advantage referring to possibility of secondary

contamination:






●Rating remediation alternatives advantage referring to risk of human security:






●Rating remediation alternatives advantage referring to acceptance of public:






●Rating remediation alternatives advantage referring to remediation efficiency:






●Rating remediation alternatives advantage referring to remediation time:





Please processed with choosing the values as follows:

C1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C2C1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C3C1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C4C2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C3C2 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C4C3 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 C4

●Rating remediation alternatives advantage referring to technology maturity:






S-4. Result of questionnaires and data processing

4-1. The 1st expert

4-1-1. Expert information

Item scoreAcademic degree 4Professional title 2Working years 2Project level 1

Project quantity 14-1-2. Technologies recommendation

Enhanced bioremediationSoil vapor extractionThermal desorption4-1-3. Judgement matrix

4-1-3-1. Importance degree of criteria

Main criteria　 Economic effect Environmental effect Technological effect

Economic effect 1 1 3 Environmental effect 1 1 3 Technological effect 1/3 1/3 1

Sub criteria: economic effect

　 Equipment cost Operation cost Detection and analysis cost Equipment cost 1 2 4 Operation cost 1/2 1 3

Detection and analysis cost 1/4 1/3 1 Sub criteria: environmental effect

　 Possibility of secondary contamination

Risk of human security

Acceptance of public

Possibility of secondary contamination

1 5 4

Risk of human security 1/5 1 1/2Acceptance of public 1/4 2 1

Sub criteria: technological effect

　 Remediation efficiency Remediation time Technology maturityRemediation efficiency 1 2 3

Remediation time 1/2 1 2 Technology maturity 1/3 1/2 1

4-1-3-1. Advantage degree of alternatives:

Equipment cost aspect

　 Thermal desorption

Soil vapor extraction

Chemical oxidation

Enhanced bioremediation

Thermal desorption 1 1/4 1/2 1/5Soil vapor extraction

4 1 3 1/2

Chemical oxidation 2 1/3 1 1/4Enhanced

bioremediation 5 2 4 1

Operation cost aspect



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption 1 6 2 4 Soil vapor extraction

1/6 1 1/5 1/3

Chemical oxidation 1/2 5 1 3 Enhanced

bioremediation 1/4 3 1/3 1

Detection and analysis cost aspect



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption 1 1/2 3 2 Soil vapor extraction

2 1 4 3

Chemical oxidation 1/3 1/4 1 1/2Enhanced

bioremediation 1/2 1/3 2 1

Possibility of secondary contamination aspect



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption 1 1/2 2 1/4Soil vapor extraction

2 1 3 1/3

Chemical oxidation 1/2 1/3 1 1/5Enhanced

bioremediation4 3 5 1

Risk of human security aspect



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption 1 1/3 1/2 1/4Soil vapor extraction

3 1 2 1/2

Chemical oxidation 2 1/2 1 1/3Enhanced

bioremediation4 2 3 1

Acceptance of public aspect



Chemical oxidation



1/6 1 1/3 1/4

Chemical oxidation 1/4 3 1 1/2Enhanced

bioremediation 1/3 4 2 1

Remediation efficiency aspect



Chemical oxidation



1/8 1 1/3 1

Chemical oxidation 1/6 3 1 3 Enhanced

bioremediation 1/8 1 1/3 1

Remediation time aspect



Chemical oxidation



1/8 1 1/5 1

Chemical oxidation 1/4 5 1 5


1/8 1 1/5 1

Technology maturity aspectThermal

desorptionSoil vapor extraction

Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption 1 1 1/3 1Soil vapor extraction

1 1 1/3 1

Chemical oxidation 3 3 1 3Enhanced

bioremediation1 1 1/3 1

4-2. The 2st expert


Item scoreAcademic degree 4 Professional title 2 Working years 2 Project level 1

Project quantity 2 4-2-2. Technologies recommendation

Thermal desorptionSoil vapor extraction

4-2-3. Judgement matrix


Main criteria　 Economic effect Environmental effect Technological effectEconomic effect 1 1 1 Environmental

effect1 1 1

Technological effect 1 1 1

Sub criteria: economic effect　 Equipment cost

Operation cost

Detection and analysis cost

Equipment cost 1 2 3 Operation cost 1/2 1 2


1/3 1/2 1

Sub criteria: environmental effect　 Possibility of secondary contamination




1 1 4

Risk of human security 1 1 4 Acceptance of public 1/4 1/4 1

Sub criteria: technological effect　 Remediation efficiency

Remediation time

Technology maturity

Remediation 1 4 1

efficiencyRemediation time 1/4 1 1/4

Technology maturity 1 4 1 4-2-3-2. Advantage degree of alternatives

Equipment cost aspect　 Thermal desorption


Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 4 4 6


1/4 1 1 3

Chemical oxidation

1/4 1 1 3


1/6 1/3 1/3 1

Operation cost aspect　 Thermal desorption


Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 4 7


1 1 4 7

Chemical oxidation

1/4 1/4 1 4


1/7 1/7 1/4 1

Detection and analysis cost aspect　 Thermal desorption


Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/3 1/4 1/5


3 1 1/2 1/3

Chemical oxidation

4 2 1 1/2


5 3 2 1

Possibility of secondary contamination aspect　 Thermal Soil vapor Chemical Enhanced

desorption extraction oxidation bioremediationThermal

desorption1 1 1 2


1 1 1 2

Chemical oxidation

1 1 1 2


1/2 1/2 1/2 1

Risk of human security aspect 　 Thermal desorption


Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 1 1/4


1 1 1 1/4

Chemical oxidation

1 1 1 1/4


4 4 4 1

Acceptance of public aspect　 Thermal desorption


Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/3 1 2


3 1 3 4

Chemical oxidation

1 1/3 1 2


1/2 1/4 1/2 1

Remediation efficiency aspect　 Thermal desorption


Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 3 6


1 1 3 6

Chemical oxidation

1/3 1/3 1 4


1/6 1/6 1/4 1

Remediation time aspect　 Thermal desorption


Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 3 3 7


1/3 1 1 5

Chemical oxidation

1/3 1 1 5


1/7 1/5 1/5 1

Technology maturity aspect　 Thermal desorption


Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 2 3 6


1/2 1 2 5

Chemical oxidation

1/3 1/2 1 4


1/6 1/5 1/4 1

4-3. The 3st expert




Thermal desorptionSoil vapor extractionChemical oxidationEnhanced bioremediation



Main criteria　 Economic effect Environmental effect Technological effectEconomic effect 1 1 2 Environmental

effect1 1 2

Technological effect 1/2 1/2 1


Operation cost


Equipment cost 1 2 1 Operation cost 1/2 1 1/2


1 2 1





1 1 1

Risk of human security 1 1 1 Acceptance of public 1 1 1

Sub criteria: technological effect　 Remediation Remediation Technology

efficiency time maturityRemediation

efficiency1 1/2 1

Remediation time 2 1 2 Technology maturity 1 1/2 1

4-3-3-2. Advantage degree of alternatives



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/2 1 1/2


2 1 2 1

Chemical oxidation

1 1/2 1 1/2


2 1 2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

Chemical oxidation

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

Chemical oxidation

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

Possibility of secondary contamination aspect　 Thermal desorption


Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

Chemical oxidation

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

Risk of human security aspect　 Thermal desorption


Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

Chemical oxidation

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 2 1


1 1 2 1

Chemical oxidation

1/2 1/2 1 1/2


1 1 2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 2 1


1 1 2 1

Chemical oxidation

1/2 1/2 1 1/2


1 1 2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 1 2


1 1 1 2

Chemical oxidation

1 1 1 2


1/2 1/2 1/2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

Chemical oxidation

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

4-4. The 4st expert




Thermal desorptionChemical oxidation



Main criteria　 Economic effect Environmental effect Technological effectEconomic effect 1 1/2 2 Environmental

effect2 1 3



Operation cost




1/5 1/3 1





1 1/2 1/4

Risk of human security 2 1 1/3Acceptance of public 4 3 1


Remediation time

Technology maturity

Remediation 1 3 1

efficiencyRemediation time 1/3 1 1/3




Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 6 3 5


1/6 1 1/4 1/2

Chemical oxidation

1/3 4 1 3


1/5 2 1/3 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 5 3 5


1/5 1 1/3 1

Chemical oxidation

1/3 3 1 3


1/5 1 1/3 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 3 5 4


1/3 1 3 2

Chemical oxidation

1/5 1/3 1 1/2


1/4 1/2 2 1



desorption1 3 4 4


1/3 1 2 2

Chemical oxidation

1/4 1/2 1 1


1/4 1/2 1 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 3 3 4


1/3 1 1 2

Chemical oxidation

1/3 1 1 2


1/4 1/2 1/2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 4 2 3


1/4 1 1/3 1/2

Chemical oxidation

1/2 3 1 2


1/3 2 1/2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 4 3 4


1/4 1 1/2 1

Chemical oxidation

1/3 2 1 2


1/4 1 1/2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 3 3 4


1/3 1 1 2

Chemical oxidation

1/3 1 1 2


1/4 1/2 1/2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 4 2 5


1/4 1 1/3 2

Chemical oxidation

1/2 3 1 4


1/5 1/2 1/4 1

4-5. The 5st expert




Enhanced bioremediationThermal desorption




effect4 1 5



Operation cost


Equipment cost 1 1 1 Operation cost 1 1 1


1 1 1





1 3 4

Risk of human security 1/3 1 2 Acceptance of public 1/4 1/2 1


Remediation time

Technology maturity

Remediation 1 1 2

efficiencyRemediation time 1 1 2

Technology maturity 1/2 1/2 1 4-5-3-2. Advantage degree of alternatives



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 3 1/3


1 1 3 1/3

Chemical oxidation

1/3 1/3 1 1/5


3 3 5 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 2 2 2


1/2 1 1 1

Chemical oxidation

1/2 1 1 1


1/2 1 1 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 1 1/2


1 1 1 1/2

Chemical oxidation

1 1 1 1/2


2 2 2 1



desorption1 1 3 1/2


1 1 3 1/2

Chemical oxidation

1/3 1/3 1 1/4


2 2 4 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 3 1


1 1 3 1

Chemical oxidation

1/3 1/3 1 1/3


1 1 3 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 2 1/2


1 1 2 1/2

Chemical oxidation

1/2 1/2 1 1/3


2 2 3 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 2 1


1 1 2 1

Chemical oxidation

1/2 1/2 1 1/2


1 1 2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 2 1/2


1 1 2 1/2

Chemical oxidation

1/2 1/2 1 1/3


2 2 3 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 3 1/2


1 1 3 1/2

Chemical oxidation

1/3 1/3 1 1/4


2 2 4 1

4-6. The 6st expert




Thermal desorptionSoil vapor extractionChemical oxidation




effect3 1 3

Technological effect 1 1/3 1


Operation cost


Equipment cost 1 1/2 1/3Operation cost 2 1 1/2


3 2 1





1 1 1



Remediation time

Technology maturity

Remediation efficiency

1 1/2 2

Remediation time 2 1 3 Technology maturity 1/2 1/3 1




Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 3 2 4


1/3 1 1/2 2

Chemical oxidation

1/2 2 1 3


1/4 1/2 1/3 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/3 1/2 1/3


3 1 2 1

Chemical oxidation

2 1/2 1 1/2


3 1 2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 2 1 2


1/2 1 1/2 1

Chemical oxidation

1 2 1 2


1/2 1 1/2 1

Possibility of secondary contamination aspect



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 2 1


1 1 2 1

Chemical oxidation

1/2 1/2 1 1/2


1 1 2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

Chemical oxidation

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 3 2 4


1/3 1 1/2 2

Chemical oxidation

1/2 2 1 3


1/4 1/2 1/3 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 4 2 5


1/4 1 1/3 2

Chemical 1/2 3 1 4

oxidationEnhanced

bioremediation 1/5 1/2 1/4 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 4 1 5


1/4 1 1/4 2

Chemical oxidation

1 4 1 5


1/5 1/2 1/5 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

Chemical oxidation

1 1 1 1


1 1 1 1

4-7. The 7st expert




Thermal desorptionSoil vapor extraction



Main criteria　 Economic effect Environmental effect Technological effectEconomic effect 1 1/5 1/3Environmental

effect5 1 3

Technological effect 3 1/3 1


Operation cost




1/5 1/4 1





1 1/3 1/2

Risk of human security 3 1 2 Acceptance of public 2 1/2 1


Remediation time

Technology maturity

Remediation 1 3 3

efficiencyRemediation time 1/3 1 1

Technology maturity 1/3 1 1 4-7-3-2. Advantage degree of alternatives



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/6 1 2


6 1 6 7

Chemical oxidation

1 1/6 1 2


1/2 1/7 1/2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/5 2 2


5 1 6 6

Chemical oxidation

1/2 1/6 1 1


1/2 1/6 1 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/4 1/7 1/7


4 1 1/4 1/4

Chemical oxidation

7 4 1 1


7 4 1 1



desorption1 3 1 4


1/3 1 1/3 2

Chemical oxidation

1 3 1 4


1/4 1/2 1/4 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 3 3 5


1/3 1 1 3

Chemical oxidation

1/3 1 1 3


1/5 1/3 1/3 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 2 1


1 1 2 1

Chemical oxidation

1/2 1/2 1 1/2


1 1 2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/2 4 4


2 1 5 5

Chemical oxidation

1/4 1/5 1 1


1/4 1/5 1 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 2 3 9


1/2 1 2 8

Chemical oxidation

1/3 1/2 1 7


1/9 1/8 1/7 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 5 9


1 1 5 9

Chemical oxidation

1/5 1/5 1 5


1/9 1/9 1/5 1

4-8. The 8st expert




Enhanced bioremediationSoil vapor extraction



Main criteria　 Economic effect Environmental effect Technological effectEconomic effect 1 1/4 1/4Environmental

effect4 1 1



Operation cost


Equipment cost 1 1/3 1/2Operation cost 3 1 2


2 1/2 1





1 1 1



Remediation time

Technology maturity

Remediation 1 1 1/3

efficiencyRemediation time 1 1 1/3




Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/7 1/2 1/7


7 1 6 1

Chemical oxidation

2 1/6 1 1/6


7 1 6 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/5 1/3 1/7


5 1 3 1/3

Chemical oxidation

3 1/3 1 1/5


7 3 5 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/6 1/4 1/7


6 1 3 1/2

Chemical oxidation

4 1/3 1 1/4


7 2 4 1



desorption1 1/5 1 1/7


5 1 5 1/3

Chemical oxidation

1 1/5 1 1/7


7 3 7 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/6 1/3 1/8


6 1 4 1/3

Chemical oxidation

3 1/4 1 1/6


8 3 6 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/5 1/3 1/7


5 1 3 1/3

Chemical oxidation

3 1/3 1 1/5


7 3 5 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 4 2 5


1/4 1 1/3 2

Chemical oxidation

1/2 3 1 4


1/5 1/2 1/4 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 5 2 7


1/5 1 1/4 3

Chemical oxidation

1/2 4 1 6


1/7 1/3 1/6 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 2 2


1 1 2 2

Chemical oxidation

1/2 1/2 1 1


1/2 1/2 1 1

4-9. The 9st expert




Thermal desorptionSoil vapor extractionChemical oxidationEnhanced bioremediation



Main criteria　 Economic effect Environmental effect Technological effectEconomic effect 1 2 1/3Environmental

effect 1/2 1 1/4



Operation cost


Equipment cost 1 1 3 Operation cost 1 1 3


1/3 1/3 1





1 1 2

Risk of human security 1 1 2 Acceptance of public 1/2 1/2 1

Sub criteria: technological effect　 Remediation Remediation Technology

efficiency time maturityRemediation

efficiency1 2 1/2

Remediation time 1/2 1 1/3Technology maturity 2 3 1




Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/3 1 1/3


3 1 3 1

Chemical oxidation

1 1/3 1 1/3


3 1 3 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 2 3 2


1/2 1 2 1

Chemical oxidation

1/3 1/2 1 1/2


1/2 1 2 1

Detection and analysis cost aspectThermal

desorptionSoil vapor extraction

Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 2 1


1 1 2 1

Chemical oxidation

1/2 1/2 1 1/2


1 1 2 1

Possibility of secondary contamination aspect　 Thermal desorption


Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 3 1 5


1/3 1 1/3 3

Chemical oxidation

1 3 1 5


1/5 1/3 1/5 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1 1 3


1 1 1 3

Chemical oxidation

1 1 1 3


1/3 1/3 1/3 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/3 1/2 1/4


3 1 2 1/2

Chemical oxidation

2 1/2 1 1/3


4 2 3 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 2 2 3


1/2 1 1 2

Chemical oxidation

1/2 1 1 2


1/3 1/2 1/2 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 3 2 4


1/3 1 1/2 2

Chemical oxidation

1/2 2 1 3


1/4 1/2 1/3 1



Chemical oxidation


Thermal desorption

1 1/2 1 1/2


2 1 2 1

Chemical oxidation

1 1/2 1 1/2


2 1 2 1

S-5. The example for calculation process

The clean-up goals and environmental site investigation of this contaminated site are send

to experts to collect feasible remediation schemes. Then, all suggested schemes are

arranged and fed back to experts to evaluate the performance of schemes based on clean-up

goals, urgency analysis and site analysis. The data used in MAHP is given by experts

through questionnaires.

When finish data collection, the calculation processes relative to soil remediation

schemes evaluation are illustrated as follow (take the 9th expert’s questionnaires as an

example):

5-1 determination of experts’ weight

The weights of experts in group decision is determined based on competence model in the

manuscript. the information of expert is collected by questionnaires (Table S5-2).

Table S5-1 Criteria scores of invited experts

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9Academic degree 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4Professional title 2 2 3 4 4 3 2 4 4Working years 2 2 3 4 3 2 1 3 2Project level 1 1 2 4 2 4 4 4 4

Project quantity 1 2 2 4 2 4 1 3 2

Then, experts’ weights can be obtained based on equation (1) ~ (3).

5-2 Computation of local weight vectors

5-2-1 Establish judgement matrix

Take main criteria (B1, B2, B3) as an example. The judgement made by the 9th expert is:

E9:

B1: economic effect, B2: environmental effect, B3: technological effect

5-1-2 Detect outlier

In this step, the matrixes based on other expert’s questionnaires are:

E1: E2:

E3: E4:

E5: E6:

E7: E8:

Then, the modified quasi semi vectorization of these matrixes can be obtained by

equation (5) ~ (6). Here, we take matrix E9 as an example.

~E 9

Therefore, all modified quasi semi vectorization of these matrixes are shown in Table

S5-2.

Table S5-2. Modified quasi semi vectors of main criteria

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9a12 1 1 1 -2 -4 -3 -5 -4 2 a13 3 1 2 2 2 1 -3 -4 -3 a23 3 1 2 3 5 3 3 1 -4

Thus, the Grubbs method is applied to detect the abnormal value based on equation (7)

~ (9) in manuscript. The Grubbs test criterion of element in quasi semi vectors were

obtained (Table S5-3)

Table S5-3. Grubbs test criterion values of element in quasi semi vectors

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9a12 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.21 0.95 0.58 1.32 0.95 1.28 a13 1.08 0.33 0.71 0.71 0.71 0.33 1.17 1.54 1.17 a23 0.44 0.35 0.04 0.44 1.23 0.44 0.44 0.35 2.33 Setting the significant level of datasets as 5%, the critical values of Grubbs test

criterion is determined as 2.11(Table 5 in manuscript). Therefore, the matrix based on the

9st expert in incompatible with other experts (G>G*) and should be corrected based on

equation (10). The modified matrix is:

~E9

:

5-2-3 Normalize judgement

To check for consistency, the judgement matrix ~E9 should be converted to a normalized

matrix E9' based on equation (11) in manuscript.

E9'

:

5-2-4 Calculate eigen value and eigen vector

The eigen vector W and the maximum eigen value λmax of judgement matrix E9 can be

calculated based on equation (12) ~ (14) in the manuscript.

λmax = 3.0092

5-2-5 Check consistency

The order n of the judgement matrix E9 is 3, therefore, the random consistency R.I. of the

judgement matrix is 0.58 based on Table 6 in manuscript. The consistency index C.I. and

consistency ratio C.R. can be calculated based on equation (15) ~ (16).

The consistency of judgement matrix is acceptable. Therefore, the weight distribution

of economic effect (B1), environmental effect (B2) and technological effect (B3) on the 2 st

level of the model considered by the 9st expert in the coking plant remediation action is:

Similarly, the local weight distribution of sub criteria (C1-C9) on the 3st level of the model

referring to main criteria (B1-B3) considered by the 9st expert in the coking plant

remediation action can be obtained by the same step. Show it as follow.

C1: capital cost, C2: operation cost, C3: detection and analysis cost, C4: possibility of

secondary contamination, C5: risk of human security, C6: acceptance of public, C7:

remediation efficiency, C8: remediation time, C9: technology maturity.

In the same way, the local weight distribution of alternatives(D1-D4) on the 4st level of

the model referring to sub criteria (C1-C9) considered by the 9st expert in the coking plant

remediation action can be obtained. Show it as follow.

D1: thermal desorption, D2: soil vapor extraction, D3: chemical oxidation, D4: enhanced

bioremediation

5-3 Compute global weight vectors

The global weight distribution of remediation alternatives with respect to the clean-up goal

evaluated by 9st expert can be calculated based on equation (17) ~ (22).

The global weight distributions of remediation alternatives with respect to the clean-up

goal evaluated by other experts can be obtained the same way. Then, the final

comprehensive weigh (GW ) of alternative is shown as equation (23) in the manuscript.

GW=∑k=1

q

r kGW k

S-1: Experts’ information · Web viewEvaluation and determination of soil remediation schemes...

Documents

Transcript of S-1: Experts’ information · Web viewEvaluation and determination of soil remediation schemes...