Journal of Computational Innovations and Engineering Applications 3(2) 2019: 1–10
Prioritization of Sludge Treatment Technologies
Using Analytical Hierarchy Process
Roy Alvin J. Malenab, Aileen Orbecido, Arnel Beltran and Michael Angelo Promentilla
Abstract—Prioritization of suitable sludge treatment
and management methods is a complex task that
requires the assessment of alternatives across usually
conflicting criteria. In this paper, four possible methods
(compositing, anaerobic digestion, incineration, and
alkaline stabilization) applicable in sludge treatment
and management in Metro Manila, Philippines, were
evaluated. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
was then used in ranking the alternatives in terms of
technical, environmental, and economic considerations.
Results illustrated that compositing is the most
preferred alternative, followed by alkaline stabilization,
anaerobic digestion, and incineration. To explore the
robustness of the decision modeling results, a sensitivity
analysis was performed.
Index Terms—Analytical hierarchy process,
sensitivity analysis, sludge treatment.
I. Introduction
In the past decade, there is an increasing number
of sewage treatment plants (STP) being constructed in
developing countries like the Philippines, Vietnam, and
Indonesia to treat domestic wastewater discharges prior
to their ultimate disposal to bodies of water. The increase
in the number of STPs corresponds to an increase in the
sewage sludge generated. The aerobic system is the typical
type of STP being used by local water utility provider.
In Metro Manila, the population is expected to increase
from 11.5 million in 2010 to 13.8 million by 2040 [1]. This
corresponds to an increase in sludge from 375 metric tons
of dry matter per day in 2010 to 690 metric tons of dry
Roy Alvin J. Malenab, Aileen Orbecido, Arnel Beltran and
Michael Angelo Promentilla, Chemical Engineering Department,
Gokongwei College of Engineering, De La Salle University,
Manila, Philippines (e-mail: sroy.malenab@dlsu.edu.ph, aileen.
orbecido@dlsu.edu.ph, arnel.beltran@dlsu.edu.ph, michael.
promentilla@dlsu.edu.ph)
Copyright © 2018 by De La Salle University
matter per day in 2040 [2]. The existing means of treating
sludge may not be able to accommodate the ultimate
sludge being generated. Therefore, it is necessary to
explore alternative options of managing sewage sludge. A
range of sludge treatment and management options have
been explored in western countries (European countries
and U.S.A.), which can be used as a benchmark for local
application.
In evaluating potential sludge treatment options,
technical aspect along with environmental consequences,
associated costs, and possible savings/revenues should
be considered. This means a treatment process that meets
regulatory standards and makes sludge waste materials
into a high-value resource is a better option [2], [3].
These multiple criteria and a high number of available
technologies increase the complexity of the selection of
the most appropriate process treatment and management
of sewage sludge [4].
This paper aims to present and rank several sludge
treatment and management options to aid local government
units, water utility providers, international funding
agencies, and regulators. Specifically, the analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) was used as a decision support
tool to rank alternative technologies. This tool allows the
decision makers to structure the problem by integrating the
technical, environmental, and economic dimensions while
evaluating their trade-offs and selecting the best sludge
treatment and management alternative.
II. Methodology
In this study, a traditional AHP method was used
to evaluate the most preferred sludge treatment and
management option based on expert judgment due to its
simplicity. Although there are more complex techniques
used for similar problems, it was shown that the solution
is consistent with regards to the most preferred alternative,
no matter which MCDA method is used [5]. Sensitivity
analysis was performed after the traditional AHP to
2 Journal of Computational Innovations and Engineering Applications
explore the robustness of the final solution with respect to
the changes in priority weights per criterion.
A. Analytic Hierarchy Process
In 1980, Saaty [6] devised AHP to provide a framework
for solving different types of multi-criterion decision
problems based on the relative priorities assigned to each
criterion’s role in achieving the stated objective. AHP is
a benefit measurement or scoring model that relies on
subjective expert’s inputs on multiple criteria. These inputs
are converted into scores that are used to evaluate each of
the possible alternatives. This is done by decomposing the
decision into the following steps:
1. Define the problem and determine the kind of
knowledge required.
2. Structure the decision hierarchy from goal, to
criteria, and to the alternatives.
3. Construct a set of pairwise comparison matrices.
Each element in an upper level is used to compare
the elements in the level immediately below with
respect to it.
4. Synthesize expert’s inputs to yield a set of overall
priorities for the hierarchy.
Details of each step are discussed in the next
sections.
1) Alternatives
Four treatment and management alternatives are
considered in this study. Each alternative consists of the
following components: (a) pre-treatment which includes
thickening and dewatering; (b) the main treatment processes;
and (c) the final disposal method or target market.
Pre-treatment processes are typically employed to
achieve target characteristics of the sludge, particularly on
the water content. For this study, thickening technologies are
considered the same for all options. Thickening is defined
as the capacity of sludge to increase its concentration
of solids (normally by 2–3 times) by filtration and
gravitational/centrifugal acceleration [7]. This is typically
followed by dewatering wherein the thickened sludge is
further processed to increase the concentration of solids.
Mechanical dewatering results in a solids content of
20%–30%.
The main treatment processes included in this study has
considered a wide array of anaerobic digestion, incineration,
and alkaline stabilization processes from biological,
chemical, and thermal processes. The main process aims
to stabilize and treat the sludge for it to be suitable for its
final application.
Vol. 3 No. 2 (2019)
The final disposal method or target market is dependent
on the type of main treatment process being considered. It
was reported that composted and alkaline-stabilized sludge
could be applied to agricultural activities; digestion biogases
can be used as heating/electricity source; and incineration
produces heat and ash that can be used for the internal
requirement and concrete aggregate, respectively [8], [9].
The main treatment processes and their corresponding
final applications of all four sludge treatment and
management alternatives are discussed in more detail below.
OPTION 1:
Thickening → dewatering → composting → agriculture
Composting is the aerobic decomposition of the organic
matter in the sludge to a relatively humus-like material
similar to fertilizer [10]. Both raw and anaerobically
digested sludge can be composted but this paper focuses on
composting of raw sludge. There are a number of factors that
need to be considered to achieve successful composting: (a)
maintaining the moisture content between 40% and 60%;
(b) maintaining the composting temperature between 50°C
and 60°C; (c) keeping the pH of the sludge to be composted
between 6 and 9; (d) maintaining the carbon-nitrogen ratio
at 20~30:1 by weight; (e) providing adequate aeration; and
(f) having sufficient and correct amendments and bulking
material [11]. There are three common composting methods
typically used in sludge treatment— windrows, aerated static
pile, and in-vessel enclosed system.
Compost from sludge contains organic substances and
nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) that make this a valuable
soil improver to farmers for agricultural applications. Based
on European experience (wherein 53% of produced sludge
in EU-15 is composted), the presence of heavy metals
on the final compost product is critical for its application
to agriculture [12]. However, for Metro Manila, water
utilities normally do not accept industrial discharges in their
sewerage systems. Thus, the presence of toxic heavy metals
is assumed to be not an issue.
OPTION 2:
Thickening → anaerobic digestion → dewatering
and drying → agriculture
Anaerobic digestion is the biological degradation of
complex organic substances in the absence of free oxygen,
and the process mainly produces methane, carbon dioxide,
and water [13]. Anaerobic digesters are operated under
mesophilic (30°C–38°C) or thermophilic (50°C–60°C)
condition. A popular system is a temperature phased
Prioritization of Sludge Treatment Technologies Using Analytical Hierarchy Process Malenab et al. 3

anaerobic digestion (TPAD), a two-stage digestion process
wherein the first stage involves thermophilic digestion at
around 55°C for 2–5 days then the second stage involves
mesophilic digestions at around 35°C for 10–15 days.
The whole process yields a solid residue which can
be applied as a conditioner for agriculture application. It
typically contains nutrients and organic matter that can
improve the condition of agricultural soils [13]. In addition
to that, the main byproduct of anaerobic digestion is biogas
comprised mainly of about 60% to 70% methane. This can
be burned in a waste gas flare or processed through co-
generation using a combined heat and power (CHP) system
consisting of a gas engine driving an electrical generator or
used to fire sludge heater.
OPTION 3:
Thickening → dewatering → incineration →
concrete or other ash application
Combustion or incineration is the complete thermal
destruction of materials to their inert constituents in the
presence of oxygen [14]. The main gaseous product is
carbon dioxide.
Ash from sludge incinerators has been widely used as a
component for compacted sub-bases in road construction and
also as an ingredient in concrete-mixes (fine-aggregate). It is
also suitable to use as a fine ingredient in concrete products
such as bricks and blocks.
OPTION 4:
Thickening → dewatering →
Alkaline Stabilization → Agriculture
Alkaline stabilization uses hydrated lime, quicklime
(calcium oxide), fly ash, lime and cement kiln dust, and
carbide lime to stabilize dewatered sludge wherein quicklime
is typically used because of its high heat of hydrolysis [15].
The pathogens in the sludge die off due to the high pH
from the addition of lime. The pH is usually maintained
above 12 for 30 minutes to 72 hours, depending on the
target classification of the stabilized product, that is, no
detectable pathogens or reduced level of pathogens. For no

TABLE I
Relative Advantages and Disadvantages of the Main Technology of Different Sludge Treatment
and Management Schemes [11], [13], [14], [15]

Alternatives Advantages Disadvantages

Option 1 Simple technology, i.e., minimal skills for reliable High cost associated in hauling of dewatered
(a) Thickening operation and easy to construct. sludge offsite.
(b) Dewatering Flexible operation, i.e., easily started and stopped. Large land area requirement.
Recycling of nutrients during agriculture/land Product needs to compete with other soil
(c) Composting applications. conditioners.

Option 2 Produces methane which is a usable source of energy The microbial community in the digester is
(a) Thickening that can be used to supply the requirement of the sensitive to small changes in the operating
(b) Anaerobic digestion plant and its neighboring community. condition.
Recycling of nutrients during agriculture/land An effluent byproduct requires further
(c) Dewatering applications. treatment.
(d) Drying

Option 3 High sludge mass reduction. Potential release of harmful emissions (e.g.,
(a) Thickening Availability of various product applications or dioxins) when not properly controlled.
(b) Dewatering markets. Complex technology, i.e., high level skills for
Compact and requires a small footprint. reliable operation and most systems are
(c) Incineration Waste heat from the combustor is available to produce proprietary
steam or electricity.

Option 4 Availability of various product applications or markets. Increase in volume to be transferred to

(a) Thickening Simple technology, i.e., minimal skills for reliable
(b) Dewatering operation and easy to construct,
Flexible operation, i.e., easily started and stopped.
(c) Alkaline Stabilization Smaller land area requirement onsite compared to
composting (the latter requires land area offsite).
Recycling of nutrients but nitrogen content is lower
compared to composting.
markets due to the addition of lime.
Potential odor generation due to the release of
ammonia during processing and storage.
Potential for pathogen regrowth if the pH
drops below 9.5.
4 Journal of Computational Innovations and Engineering Applications
detectable pathogen level, the sludge/lime mixture should
be maintained at pH above 12 for 72 hours or 12 hours at
52 oC or 30 minutes at 70 oC [15]. Additionally, processed
sludge contains nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus.
The alkaline stabilized product is suitable for several
applications, including landscaping, agriculture, daily
landfill cover, and mine reclamation [15]. For agriculture
applications, the product can improve soil properties such
as pH to maximize crop yields, and could be a source of
specialty fertilizer since it contains nitrogen and phosphorus
[15], [16]. On the other hand, there are ample number of
abandoned and operational mines around Metro Manila in
which conditions can be improved by applying the alkaline
stabilized product. The acidity of the land potentially
caused by acid mine drainage or tailings can be remedied,
and the presence of alkaline stabilized product could further
improve the condition making it favorable for vegetation
growth.
2) Criteria
Alternatives are evaluated against a set of criteria.
Spatial, technological, environmental, social-political, and
economic aspects were used in evaluating options in the
management of treated municipal wastewater and sludge
reuse in agriculture [17]. From another study, environmental,
economic, and social criteria were only used in evaluating
options for sewage sludge disposal. This paper adopted
technical aspect, environmental and social aspects, and
economic aspect as criteria in evaluating options [18].
a) Technical Aspect
This criterion has taken into account the process
complexity, international experience, process reliability,
process safety, and management complexity. This further
includes the final product application or market viability.
Process complexity. This pertains to the complexity
of operating the unit processes involved in each identified
technology.
International experience. Technologies which are
already employed around the world can be used as a basis
in selecting local applicability.
Process reliability. Unreliable processes may require
products to undergo additional treatment, thus increasing
maintenance and operational costs.
Process safety. The operational health and safety
(OH&S) issues of all options can be managed effectively
with adequate technical and operational systems in place
but the inherent safety of the process is considered for this
criterion.
Management complexity. This considers the training
required to ensure that the entire plant operates efficiently
and consistently.
Vol. 3 No. 2 (2019)
Market variability of the final product. Some treatment
processes produce a final product that can have several
applications. Ash from incineration, for example, can be
landfilled or used as raw material for concrete manufacture.
b) Environmental and Social Aspects
This set of criterion considers the impacts to the local
community at processing sites/off-site transportation and
potential byproducts released to the environment during the
processing or application of final products.
Odor issues. This refers to the unwanted smells
associated with each management option.
Traffic impact. Some management options may
require hauling of dewatered sludge from the Metro to the
neighboring towns (e.g., for composting) where big land
areas are available, which could cause traffic. However, the
onsite treatment (e.g., for incineration) could greatly reduce
the amount of final product to be transported from the Metro
to the neighboring town where a landfill is available.
Nutrient recovery and reuse. Nutrients like nitrogen
and phosphorus can be recycled if composting is considered
since this can be utilized for agricultural use. Moreover,
phosphorus has been identified as a limiting resource;
therefore, its reuse is essential in the future.
c) Economic Aspect
This aspect refers to the costs associated with putting up
the technology as well as running the plant. The availability
of this information is yet to be established in this region;
thus, qualitative estimates of the relative costs of each option
were used in this study.
Capital expenses (CAPEX). This sub-criterion refers to
the cost of building the sludge treatment plant.
Operational expenses (OPEX). This includes costs in
operating and maintaining the sludge treatment plant as
well as in transporting/hauling the sludge from the sewage
treatment plant to sludge treatment plant or from the sludge
treatment plant to final disposal.
Energy saving. This considers the inherent characteristics
of the sludge treatment plant to reuse part of the energy
generated from its unit processes, thus reducing the total
energy costs.
Land area requirement and cost. The land area
requirement is considered separately under this aspect.
3) Problem structure
As shown in Figure 1, a hierarchical model at four
sequence levels was developed for the selection of the
most preferred among the presented sludge treatment and
management options in Metro Manila. In this case, the
topmost level is the goal statement representing the overall
objective, which is to select the best treatment. Going down,
Prioritization of Sludge Treatment Technologies Using Analytical Hierarchy Process
the decision problem was decomposed into the succeeding
levels based on their similarities in reaching the goal. The
second and the third levels correspond to the main criteria
and sub-criteria, as discussed in section 2.1.2, respectively,
while the last level is for the four treatment alternatives.
4) Data gathering and synthesis
AHP determines the preferences among the set of
alternatives by employing pairwise comparisons of the
hierarchy elements at all levels. To establish the relative
importance, an expert’s judgment was solicited using a
designed questionnaire in the context of the present problem.
The comparisons were made using Saaty’s fundamental
scale, as summarized in Table 2. Using the gathered data,
weights, in the form of priority vectors, were individually
computed for the importance levels of each criterion and
sub-criteria by eigenvalue calculations. Consistency indexes
were determined to guarantee the reliability of results. By
multiplying priority vectors at each level with the priority
vectors of the upper level, a normalized eigenvector of
the corresponding level was determined until reaching
the overall weights for the goals. Final synthesized values
or the AHP solutions were used in the ranking of the four
alternatives. For this study, all calculations were done in
Super Decisions software.
B. Sensitivity Analysis
To examine how the variations in the weight of the three
criteria affect the ranking of the treatment technologies,
numerical incremental sensitivity analyses per criterion were
performed. In this method, new solutions are calculated by
incrementally changing the weight values of one parameter
at a time, then graphically presenting how the global ranking
of alternatives changes [19]. For this section, calculations
were also performed in Super Decisions software, while
graphs were generated using MS Excel.
TABLE II
Saaty’s Importance Scale [20]
Assigned Values Definition
9 Extremely more important
7 Very strongly more important
5 Strongly more important
3 Moderately more important
1 Equally important
2,4,6,8 Intermediate values
Malenab et al. 5
III. Results and Discussion
Related studies are essential in the development of
this paper in terms of identifying criteria and sub-criteria
and in studying the four proposed alternatives. Wastewater
treatment expert was invited to evaluate and rank these
alternatives according to technical, environmental, and
economic criteria using a designed questionnaire. The first
part of the questionnaire is for the pairwise comparison of
the criteria. As summarized in Table 3, the expert favored
the economic factors. To quantify the weights, eigenvector
method suggested by Saaty [21] [x] gave 0.6370 for
economic factors as the most important, followed by
technical factors with a weight of 0.2583 and 0.1047 for
environmental and social factors as the least important. For
this pairwise comparison, the calculated inconsistency is
0.037, which is lower than the tolerant level of 0.10. The
same trend on weights with respect to four criteria considered
in evaluating suitable wastewater treatment facilities was
reported [22]. Economic criterion has the highest weight of
0.560, followed by technical criterion with 0.240, and the
last two criteria (i.e., environmental and ease-to-upgrade)
have both 0.100.
After computing the criteria weights, the sub-criteria
per criterion were compared, one set of comparison at a
time. Three new matrices were created (6x6 for technical,
3x3 for environmental and social, and 4x4 for economic
aspect). Comparison matrix of environmental and social
sub-criteria is shown in Table 4. Then, priority weights were
calculated similarly to the previous step. The demonstrated
inconsistency level is 0.0 for the three comparison steps.
TABLE III
Comparison Matrix of Criteria Versus Goal
Criteria Technical Environmental Economic
Technical 1 3 1/3
Environmental 1 1/5
Economic 1
Local and global weights are summarized in
Table 5. Under the technical criterion, international
experience ranked first while the rest received the same
ratings. Nutrient recovery gained the highest weight among
the sub-criteria of environmental aspect. Lastly, capital and
operational expenses dominate the highest weight under the
economic aspect. These two economic sub-criteria have the
highest global weights.
6 Journal of Computational Innovations and Engineering Applications Vol. 3 No. 2 (2019)

Fig. 1. Hierarchical structure for the analysis of the four sludge treatment and management options in the AHP model.

TABLE IV During the evaluation of criteria, the expert demonstrated

Comparison Matrix of Environmental and Social Aspect satisfactory consistency level. All indexes are lower than
Sub-criteria 0.10, except for process reliability comparison (0.18).
Traffic Nutrient Finally, all weights are synthesized to obtain the final
Sub-Criteria Odor issue
impact recovery alternative’s priority weights, as summarized in Table 7.
Composting ranked first among all four alternatives
Odor issue 1 1 1/3
considered. Kelessidis and Stasinakis [12] reported that EU-
Traffic impact 1 1/3 15 countries would prefer agricultural recycling (direct or
Nutrient 1 after composting) to be one of the two major practices that
recovery will be adopted in the future. This is mainly dictated by the
global financial recession and the low cost of the technology.
The last portion of the questionnaire is for the The other main technology considered in European countries
comparison of the four alternatives across each sub- and predominantly used by developed EU countries is
criterion. In this step, 13 new matrices of size 4x4 were incineration. These countries have the capacity to maintain
created. such technology, thus the reason for its prevalent use. In this
study, however, incineration ranked fourth.
Prioritization of Sludge Treatment Technologies Using Analytical Hierarchy Process Malenab et al. 7

TABLE V
Relative Weights of Criteria and Sub-criteria

Criteria Local weights Sub-criteria Local weights Global weights

Process complexity1 0.1250 0.0323
International experience2 0.3750 0.0969
Process reliability3 0.1250 0.0323
Technical 0.2583
Process safety4 0.1250 0.0323
Management complexity5 0.1250 0.0323
Final product application6 0.1250 0.0323
Odor issue1 0.2000 0.0209
Environmental and social 0.1047 Traffic impact2 0.2000 0.0209
Nutrient recovery and Reuse3 0.6000 0.0628
Capital expenses1 0.3750 0.2389
Operational expenses2 0.3750 0.2389
Economic 0.6370
Energy savings3 0.1250 0.0796
Land area requirement and cost4 0.1250 0.0796

TABLE VI
Priorities of Alternatives Versus Sub-criteria

Technical Environmental Economic

Alternatives
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 2 3 4
Compositing 0.39 0.31 0.31 0.37 0.43 0.09 0.13 0.06 0.31 0.40 0.27 0.06 0.25
Anaerobic 0.15 0.19 0.19 0.17 0.22 0.12 0.13 0.28 0.33 0.17 0.39 0.44 0.25
Incineration 0.07 0.24 0.14 0.10 0.05 0.40 0.63 0.58 0.06 0.05 0.08 0.44 0.25
Alkaline 0.39 0.26 0.37 0.37 0.29 0.40 0.13 0.08 0.29 0.38 0.25 0.06 0.25

It should be noted, however, that the priority weights To examine how the variations in the weight of
of first, second, and third are close to one another. Thus, technical, environmental, and environmental criteria affect
sensitivity analysis has been conducted to determine the the ranking of the four treatment technologies, numerical
impact of varying the weights of other criteria. The results incremental sensitivity analyses per criterion were performed
are presented in the next section. as shown in Figures 2–4 and summarized in Tables 8–10.
Calculations were performed in Super Decisions software,
TABLE VII while graphs were generated using MS Excel.
Final Priorities and Ranks of Alternatives When the technical aspect is not considered, anaerobic
digestion is the dominant alternative, followed by
Alternatives Priority Rank composting. With a small increase in technical criterion
Compositing 0.2883 1 weight to about 0.9, a rank reversal was observed between
the first and the second dominant alternatives. Detailed
Anaerobic Digestion 0.2656 3
transition of rankings of the alternatives with respect to
Incineration 0.1672 4 the changes in technical criterion weight is summarized in
Alkaline Stabilization 0.2788 2 Table 8. Finally, when the technical criterion is solely
considered, the rankings of alternatives are as follows:
(1 st) Alkaline stabilization-agriculture or AS-A, (2 nd)
8 Journal of Computational Innovations and Engineering Applications Vol. 3 No. 2 (2019)

Compositing-agriculture or C-A, (3rd) Incineration-concrete

or I-C, and (4th) Anaerobic digestion-agriculture or AD-A.

TABLE VIII
Sensitivity Analysis with Respect
to Technical Criterion

Area Technical weight Ranking

A 0 to 0.09 AD-A > C-A > AS-A > I-C
B 0.09 to 0.18 C-A > AD-A > AS-A > I-C
C* 0.18 to 0.60 C-A > AS-A > AD-A > I-C
D 0.60 to 0.92 AS-A > C-A > AD-A > I-C
E 0.92 to 1 AS-A > C-A > I-C > AD-A
* AHP solution
Fig. 3. Sensitivity analysis plots with respect to
environmental criteria.
In contrast, when environmental is not considered,
the most preferred alternative is composting, followed by
alkaline stabilization, then anaerobic digestion, and lastly
incineration. This ranking is consistent with that of the AHP
solution. Change in the overall ranking was first observed
when the weight of environmental criterion reached 0.27
for the second and third positions. When environmental
weight is between 0.37 and 0.72, first and second desired
alternatives were anaerobic digestion and composting,
respectively. At 0.72, a rank reversal for the second and
third positions was observed.
As for the sensitivity of ranking on the economic
criterion, it can be observed that compositing was either
in the first or second rank when economic weight varies
from 0 to 1. From 0 to 0.23, the most preferred alternative
was alkaline stabilization, while composting is the second Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis plots with respect
preferred. From 0.23 to 0.78, a rank reversal for the first to economic criteria.
and second positions was observed. Lastly, from 0.95 to
1, the most preferred alternative was anaerobic digestion,
followed by composting. TABLE IX
Sensitivity Analysis with Respect to
Environmental Criterion

Area Environmental Ranking

weight
A* 0 to 0.27
B 0.27 to 0.37
C 0.37 to 0.68
D 0.68 to 0.72
E 0.72 to 1
C-A > AS-A > AD-A > I-C
C-A > AD-A > AS-A > I-C
AD-A > C-A > AS-A > I-C
AD-A > C-A > I-C > AS-A
AD-A > I-C > C-A > AS-A

Fig. 2. Sensitivity analysis plots with respect to technical criteria.

Prioritization of Sludge Treatment Technologies Using Analytical Hierarchy Process
TABLE X
Sensitivity Analysis with Respect to Economic Criterion
Area Economic weight Ranking
A 0 to 0.05 AS-A > C-A > I-C > AD-A
B 0.05 to 0.23 AS-A > C-A > AD-A > I-C
C* 0.23 to 0.78 C-A > AS-A > AD-A > I-C
D 0.78 to 0.95 C-A > AD-A > AS-A > I-C
E 0.95 to 1 AD-A > C-A > AS-A > I-C
IV. Conclusion
In this paper, an example of the AHP application in
determining the best sludge treatment and management
among four alternatives is presented. The alternatives
were ranked across three criteria, namely technical,
environmental, and economic. Among the three mentioned
criteria, the most important is the economic factor. Based
on the results from an expert evaluation, compositing is the
most preferred alternative followed by alkaline stabilization,
anaerobic digestion, and incineration in the second, third,
and last positions, respectively. Since the priority weights of
top three alternatives are close to one another, a sensitivity
analysis was conducted and revealed that the solution is
quite robust since the lowest change in priority weight to
reverse the positions of the first and second rank is 0.27 for
the environmental criterion while the highest is 0.55 for
the economic criterion. To improve further the reliability
of the solution, a group decision-making process based on
shared knowledge and different perspectives from experts
is recommended.
References
[1] “Population projection statistics.” Philippine Statistics
Authority, July, 28, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://www.
census.gov.ph/sites/default/files/attachments/hsd/article/
Table%204.pdf. [Accessed April 16, 2016].
[2] M. Otero, F. Rozada, L. F. Calvo, A. I. Garcia, and A. Moran
A., “Kinetic and equilibrium modelling of the methylene blue
removal from solution by adsorbent materials produced from
sewage sludges,” Biochemical Engineering Journal, vol. 15,
no. 1, pp. 59–68, 2003.
[3] J. A. Caballero, R. Front, A. Marcilla and J. A. Conesa,
“Characterization of sewage sludges by primary and
secondary pyrolysis,” J. Anal. Appl. Pyroly., vol. 40-41,
pp. 433–450, 1997.
[4] M. Bottero, E. Comino and V. Riggio, “Application of the
analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process
or the assessment of different wastewater treatment systems,”
Environmental Modelling & Software , vol. 26, no. 10,
pp. 1211–1224, 2011.
Malenab et al. 9
[5] C. Aydiner, U. Sen, D. Y. Koseoglu-Imer, and E. C. Dogan,
“Hierarchical prioritization of innovative treatment systems
for sustainable dairy wastewater management,” Journal of
Cleaner Production, vol. 112, pp. 4605-4617, 2016.
[6] Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-
Hill, Inc., New York, USA.
[7] A. R. Bresters et al., Sludge Treatment and Disposal:
Management Approaches and Experiences. Copenhagen,
Denmark: European Environment Agency, 1997.
[8] D. Fytili and A. Zabaniotou, “Utilization of sewage sludge
in EU application of old and new methods – A review,”
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol.12, no. 1,
pp. 116–140, 2008.
[9] J. Hong, J. Hong, M. Otaki, and O. Jolliet, O., “Environmental
and economic life cycle assessment for sewage sludge
treatment processes in Japan,” Waste Management, vol. 29,
no. 2, pp. 696–703, 2009.
[10] Department of Health, Operations Manual on the Rules and
Regulations Governing Domestic Sludge and Septage, 2008.
[Online]. Available: http://www.dpwh.gov.ph/NSSMP/pdf/
Program%20Operations%20Manual.pdf. [April 17, 2016].
[11] US Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Wastewater
Sludge Combustion Technology, 1985. [Online]. Available:
https://nepis.epa.gov. [April 17, 2016].
[12] A. Kelessidis and A. Stasinakis, A. “Comparative study of
the methods used for treatment and final disposal of sewage
sludge in European countries,” Waste Management, vol. 32,
no. 6, pp. 1186–1195, 2012.
[13] US Environmental Protection Agency, Process Design Manual
for Sludge Treatment and Disposal, US EPA 625/ 1-79-011,
September 1979. [Online]. Available: https://nepis.epa.gov/
Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/20007TN9.PDF?Dockey=20007TN9.PDF.
[April 18, 2016]
[14] C. R. Brunner, C.R., Handbook of Incineration Systems.
McGraw Hill Publishers, 1991.
[15] US Environmental Protection Agency, Biosolids Technology
Fact Sheet Alkaline Stabilization of Biosolids. Office of
Washington, D.C.: EPA, September 2000.
[16] H. Odegaard, B. Paulsrud, and I. Karlsson, “Wastewater
sludge as a resource: Sludge disposal strategies and
corresponding treatment technologies aimed at sustainable
handling of wastewater sludge. Water Sci Technol., vol. 46,
no. 10, pp. 295–303, 2002.
[17] I. L. Kalavrouziotis, A. T. Filintas, P. H. Koukoulakis, and J.
N. Hatzopoulos, J. N., “Application of multicriteria nalysis
in the management and Planning of Treated Municipal
Wastewater and Sludge Reuse in agriculture and land
development: The case of Sparti’s wastewater treatment
plant, Greece,” Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, vol. 20,
no. 2, pp. 287-295, 2011.
[18] F. Rolf, B. Sybille, B. Michèle, and S. Reto, “Comparison
of different options for sewage sludge disposal using
multicriteria analysis and life cycle assessment,” presented at
the 6th Internationml Conference on Life Cycle Management,
Gothenburg, France, 2013.
[19] Z. Srdjevic, M. Samardzic, and B. Srdjevic, “Robustness
of AHP in selecting wastewater treatment method for
the coloured metal industry: Serbian case study,” Civil
Engineering and Environmental Systems, vol. 29, no. 2,
pp. 147–161, 2012.
10 Journal of Computational Innovations and Engineering Applications Vol. 3 No. 2 (2019)

[20] T. L. Saaty, “Decision making with the analytic hierarchy

process,” Int. J. Services Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 83–98,
2002.
[21] Saaty, T.L., “A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical
structures,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 15,
no. 3, pp. 234-281, 1977.
[22] R. R. Tan, K. B. Aviso, M. A. B. Promentilla, and A. P.
Huelgas, “Fuzzy AHP approach to selection problems in
process engineering involving quantitative and qualitative
aspects,” Process Safety and Environmental Protection, vol.
92, no. x, pp. 467–475, 2014.