Identifying optimal groundwater remediation strategies through a simulation-based PROMETHEE-TOPSIS approach: An application to a naphthalene-contaminated site

References

• An D, Xi B, Ren J. et al. 2016. Sustainability assessment of groundwater remediation technologies based on multi-criteria decision making method. Resour Conserv Recy 119:36–46
   Google Scholar
• Ananda J, and Herath G. 2009. A critical review of multi-attributes decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning. Ecol Econ 68:2535–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borden RC, and Bedient PB. 1986. Transport of dissolved hydrocarbons influenced by oxygen-limited biodegradation: 1. Theoretical development. Water Resour Res 22:1973–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bozdağ CE, Kahraman C, and Ruan D. 2003. Fuzzy group decision making for selection among computer integrated manufacturing systems. Comput Ind 51:13–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brans JP, and Vincke P. 1985. A preference ranking organization method. Manage Sci 6:647–56.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brans JP, Vincke P, and Mareschal B. 1986. How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method. Eur J Oper Res 24:228–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dresel PE, Wellman DM, Cantrell KJ, and Truex MJ. 2011. Review: Technical and policy challenges in deep vadose zone remediation of metals and radionuclides. Environ Sci Technol 45:4207–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fan X, He L, Lu HW, et al. 2014. Environmental-and health-risk-induced remediation design for benzene-contaminated groundwater under parameter uncertainty: a case study in Western Canada. Chemosphere 111:604–612.
   Google Scholar
• Fan X, He L, Lu H-W, and Li J. 2015. Design of optimal groundwater remediation systems under flexible environmental-standard constraints. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 22:1008–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fonkwe MLD, and Trapp S. 2016. Analyzing tree cores to detect petroleum hydrocarbon-contaminated groundwater at a former landfill site in the community of Happy Valley-Goose Bay, eastern Canadian subarctic. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:16137–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamby DM. 1996. Site remediation techniques supporting environmental restoration activities – A review. Sci Total Environ 191:203–24.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatefi SM, and Tamošaitienė J. 2018. Construction projects assessment based on the sustainable development criteria by an integrated fuzzy AHP and improved GRA model. Sustainability 10:991.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herath G. 2004. Incorporating community objectives in improved wetland management: the use of the analytic hierarchy process. J Environ Manage 70:263–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hwang CL, and Yoon K. 1981. Multiple attribute decision making, methods and applications .
   Google Scholar
• Huang IB, Keisler J, and Linkov I. 2011. Multi-criteria decision analysis in environmental sciences: Ten years of applications and trends. Sci Total Environ 409:3578–94.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ishizaka A, and Labib A. 2011. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl 38:14336–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iqbal J, and Shah MH. 2013. Health risk assessment of metals in surface water from freshwater source lakes, Pakistan. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 19:1530–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• James CA, Xin G, Doty SL, et al. 2009. A mass balance study of the phytoremediation of perchloroethylene-contaminated groundwater. Environ Pollut 157:2564–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kangas J, Kangas A, Leskinen P, et al. 2001. MCDM methods in strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in Finland: Applications and experiences. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal 10:257–71.
   Google Scholar
• Khelifi O, Lodolo A, Vranes S, et al. 2006. A web-based decision support tool for groundwater remediation technologies selection. J Hydroinform 8:91–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, He L., Chen YZ, et al. 2017. A bilevel groundwater management model with minimization of stochastic health risks at the leader level and remediation cost at the follower level. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 31:2547–2571.
   Google Scholar
• Li J, He L, Lu HW, et al. 2014. Stochastic goal programming based groundwater remediation management under human-health-risk uncertainty. J Hazard Mater 279:257–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Lu HW, Fan X, et al. 2017. Human health risk constrained naphthalene contaminated groundwater remediation management through an improved credibility method. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:16120–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li JB, Rahman MH, and Thring RW. 2010. A fuzzy multi-attributes decision analysis approach for the management of petroleum-contaminated sites. IJEP 42:220–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu L, Cheng SY, and Guo HC. 2004. A simulation-assessment modeling approach for analyzing environmental risks of groundwater contamination at waste landfill sites. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 10:373–88.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu HW, Feng M, He L, et al. 2015. Optimization-based multiattributes decision analysis for identification of desired petroleum-contaminated groundwater remediation strategies. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:9505–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu HW, Li J, Chen YZ, et al. 2019. A multi-level method for groundwater remediation management accommodating non-competitive objectives. J Hydrol 570:531–543.
   Google Scholar
• Lu HW, Ren LX, Chen YZ, et al. 2017. A cloud model based multiattribute decision making approach for selection and evaluation of groundwater management schemes. J Hydrol 555:881–893.
   Google Scholar
• Macharis C, Springael J, De Brucker K, et al. 2004. PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multiattributes analysis. Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP. Eur J Oper Res 153:307–17.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manamsa K, Crane E, Stuart M, et al. 2016. A national-scale assessment of micro-organic contaminants in groundwater of England and Wales. Sci Total Environ 568:712–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MEP (Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China). 2009. Technical guidelines for risk assessment of contaminated sites (draft for comment). Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People's Republic of China, Beijing.
   Google Scholar
• Nam K, Jho EH, and Lee JY. 2013. Risk assessment of environmental pollutants in Korea for soil and groundwater remediation. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 19:723.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nambi IM, Rajasekhar B, Loganathan V, et al. 2017. An assessment of subsurface contamination of an urban coastal aquifer due to oil spill. Environ Monit Assess 189:148.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orloff KG, Mistry K, Charp P, et al. 2004. Human exposure to uranium in groundwater. Environ Res 94:319–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pena-Haro S, Pulido-Velazquez M, and Llopis-Albert C. 2011. Stochastic hydro-economic modeling for optimal management of agricultural groundwater nitrate pollution under hydraulic conductivity uncertainty. Environ Model Softw 26:999–1008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penadés-Plà V, García-Segura T, Martí JV, et al. 2016. A review of multi-criteria decision-making methods applied to the sustainable bridge design. Sustainability 8:1295.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rasool A, Farooqi A, Masood S, et al. 2016. Arsenic in groundwater and its health risk assessment in drinking water of Mailsi, Punjab, Pakistan. Hum Ecol Risk Asses 22:187–202. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2015.1056295
   Google Scholar
• Reddy KR, and Cameselle C. 2009. Electrochemical Remediation Technologies for Polluted Soils, Sediments and Groundwater. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, NJ.
   Google Scholar
• Ren LX, Lu HW, Zhao HH, et al. 2018. An interval-valued triangular fuzzy modified multi-attribute preference model for prioritization of groundwater resources management. J Hydrol 562:335–345.
   Google Scholar
• Sadeghfam S, Hassanzadeh Y, Khatibi R, et al. 2019. Groundwater remediation through pump-treat-inject technology using optimum control by artificial intelligence (OCAI). Water Resour Manage 33:1123–45. doi.10.1007/s11269-018-2171-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sener E, and Davraz A. 2013. Assessment of groundwater vulnerability based on a modified DRASTIC model, GIS and an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method: The case of Egirdir Lake basin (Isparta, Turkey). Hydrogeol J 21:701–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang AL, Huang GH, Qin XS, et al. 2012. Evaluation of remedial options for a benzene-contaminated site through a simulation-based fuzzy-MCDA approach. J Hazard Mater 213-214:421–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang K, Kluck C, and Achari G. 2009. A comparative approach for ranking contaminated sites based on the risk assessment paradigm using fuzzy PROMETHEE. Environ Manage 44:952–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao R, Su H, Chen X, et al. 2016. Commercially available materials selection in sustainable design: An integrated multi-attribute decision making approach. Sustainability 8:79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar