4.7 Article

Construction of a technique plan repository and evaluation system based on AHP group decision-making for emergency treatment and disposal in chemical pollution accidents

Journal

JOURNAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Volume 276, Issue -, Pages 200-206

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.05.034

Keywords

Chemical pollution accident; Emergency treatment and disposal; Technique plan repository; Evaluation system; Group decision-improved AHP

Funding

  1. Special Fund for Environmental Protection Research in the Public Interest [20120948, 20110941]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The environmental pollution resulting from chemical accidents has caused increasingly serious concerns. Therefore, it is very important to be able to determine in advance the appropriate emergency treatment and disposal technology for different types of chemical accidents. However, the formulation of an emergency plan for chemical pollution accidents is considerably difficult due to the substantial uncertainty and complexity of such accidents. This paper explains how the event tree method was used to create 54 different scenarios for chemical pollution accidents, based on the polluted medium, dangerous characteristics and properties of chemicals involved. For each type of chemical accident, feasible emergency treatment and disposal technology schemes were established, considering the areas of pollution source control, pollutant non-proliferation, contaminant elimination and waste disposal. Meanwhile, in order to obtain the optimum emergency disposal technology schemes as soon as the chemical pollution accident occurs from the plan repository, the technique evaluation index system was developed based on group decision-improved analytical hierarchy process (AHP), and has been tested by using a sudden aniline pollution accident that occurred in a river in December 2012. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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