sustainability
Article
Selection of Best Suitable Eco-Friendly Refrigerants for HVAC
Sector and Renewable Energy Devices
Basma Souayeh 1,2,3, * , Suvanjan Bhattacharyya 4 , Najib Hdhiri 3
Citation: Souayeh, B.; Bhattacharyya,
S.; Hdhiri, N.; Alam, M.W. Selection
of Best Suitable Eco-Friendly
Refrigerants for HVAC Sector and
Renewable Energy Devices.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
su141811663
Academic Editor: Enrique
Rosales-Asensio
Received: 12 August 2022
Accepted: 14 September 2022
Published: 16 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811663
and Mir Waqas Alam 1,2
1 Al Bilad Bank Scholarly Chair for Food Security in Saudi Arabia, The Deanship of Scientific Research,
The Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University,
Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Physics, College of Science, King Faisal University, P.O. Box 400, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
3 Laboratory of Fluid Mechanics, Department of Physics, Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, University of Tunis El
Manar, Tunis 2092, Tunisia
4 Department of Mechanical Engineering, BITS Pilani, Pilani Campus, Vidya Vihar 333031, Rajasthan, India
* Correspondence: bsouayeh@kfu.edu.sa or basma.souayeh@gmail.com
Abstract: This paper investigates the selection of the best suitable eco-friendly organic and in-organic
refrigerants for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) and renewable energy devices.
Inorganic and organic refrigerants are used to cool renewable energy devices, such as solar cells,
photovoltaics, and electronic devices. Owing to the renewable energy community’s importance,
development in this area has rapidly improved over the past few years. R134a, R404, and R717
have become the most used refrigerants in the HVAC sector and supermarkets across the globe
for both cooling and frozen food refrigeration. R134a and R404A have two significant drawbacks:
(a) they do not attain optimal energy efficiency in many applications, and (b) they have a large
global warming potential (GWP). Hence, optimization experiments were performed to select low
global potential refrigerants for replacing R134a and R404A from the HVAC sector and supermarkets
using multi-criteria making (MCDN) tools. The techniques used for investigation involved (i) the
technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS), (ii) evaluation based
on distance from average solution (EDAS), and (iii) multi-objective optimization based on ratio
analysis (MOORA). The assessment criteria of optimization involved (i) thermo–physical properties
of refrigerants, (ii) environmental aspects of refrigerants, and (iii) economic status of refrigerants. Out
of 27 refrigerants chosen for the study, R290 (PROPANE) aced the selection by all the three techniques,
i.e., TOPSIS, EDAS, and MOORA, with assessment scores of 0.6056, 0.6761, and 0.466, respectively.
R41 (FLUOROMETHANE) is the least preferred refrigerant by EDAS (assessment score—0.3967) and
MOORA, while R407C is the least preferred by TOPSIS (assessment value—0.5123). The likelihood of
making a bad refrigerant decision may be reduced by the effective evaluation of the MCDM analysis.
In conclusion, the suggested MCDM technique provides a practical tool and systematic way for
reducing the number of options and may be utilized to identify the ideal refrigerant.
Keywords: flexible cold storage; refrigeration; cooling; heating; renewable energy; nanofluid
1. Introduction
R404A is the most widely used refrigerant in supermarkets across the globe. It was
first used as a substitute for ozone-depleting refrigerants such as CFCs (such as R12 and
R502) in the mid-1990s, and more recently as a replacement for HCFCs (such as R22). It has
become the most used refrigerant in supermarkets across the globe for both chilled and
frozen food refrigeration. R404A has two major drawbacks: (a) it does not attain optimal
energy efficiency in many applications, and (b) it has a large global warming potential
(GWP). R404A has the highest GWP of all the regularly used refrigerants, at 3922. Switching
away from R404A can assist the environment while also lowering operating expenses.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 2 of 16

The highest permitted GWP is 150 degrees Celsius, according to European Union
rules. Hence, appropriate refrigerant selection is an important task and plays a vital role
in maintaining the performance of refrigeration units while maintaining a low GWP. To
achieve a maximum coefficient of performance, a good refrigerant candidate must have
the right thermodynamic characteristics, such as increased latent heat of fusion, thermal
conductivity, specific heat, and reduced dynamic viscosity. Due to the aforementioned
limits, selecting a refrigerant is more difficult and required for exact usage. Currently,
refrigerants are classified using theoretical modelling and experimental approaches, a
process that takes a long time and costs a lot of money. Modern developments in multi-
criteria decision-making methodology (MCDM) techniques that offer optimal answers even
in the presence of thermodynamic, environmental, and economic considerations should be
used to solve these difficulties [1–5].
This section of the present article reviews and presents studies on the optimization
of various thermal, photovoltaic, and industrial applications utilizing various MCDM
methods [5–15]. Sivalingam et al. [16] evaluated and optimized automobile radiator perfor-
mance by changing temperature, volume concentration and mass flow rate of MWCNT
nanofluid for highest Nusselt number and lowest friction factor using the additive ratio
assessment technique of MCDM methodology. Poongavanam et al. [17] employed TOPSIS,
EDAS and MOORA techniques of optimization for replacing the R134a refrigerant with
low GWP refrigerant and reported that R430A is the best refrigerant for automobile air
conditioning. Vats et al. [18] optimize the process parameters and quantity of lubricat-
ing oil for maximum machining performance for turning operation of AISI 1040 steel.
Junankar et al. [19] also carried out similar investigation for optimizing the quantity of
nanofluid as the lubrication and the machining parameter for turning operation. Subasi
and Erdem [20] combines multi-objective and MCDM techniques of optimization for heat
transfer enhancement using nanofluids in tubes fitted with inserts. It was revealed that
wire coils and hybrid nanofluids could be used for higher heat transfer performance with a
penalty of the friction factor. Yang et al. [21] ranked the PCMs using the TOPSIS technique
and reported that Ba(OH)2 ·8H2 O was the best alternative for a given operating condition.
Deepa et al. [22] carried out an optimization analysis for the best material selection for
micro-fins in electronic components for higher heat transfer performance. The optimum
materials for micro-fin fabrication were determined to be aluminum with a paint finish
and aluminum. Jajimoggala et al. [23] employed MCDM for optimizing the hot extrusion
parameters for AA6061 using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and TOPSIS tech-
niques. Vishwakarma et al. [24] optimized the parameters of Al6082 for thermal properties
and generated mathematical models for predicting the thermal conductivity and thermal
expansion coefficient. Ilangkumaran et al. [25] employed MCDM for risk analysis and
health warnings for the foundry industry. Simsek et al. [26] reviewed the various articles
related to solar power and classified them based on aim, motivation, and contribution by
using MCDM methodology. Mukhametzyanov [27] compared the various techniques of
MCDM to find out the weight of criteria and reveals that all MCDM tools are not able
to give the results correctly. On the basis of this analysis, they proposed an EWM-Corr
method which help in relocate the weight for each criterion. Kizielewicz et al. [28] also
employed MCDM methods to determine the weight for the criteria and compared the
results obtained by COMET, TOPSIS, and SPOTIS methods. El-Araby et al. [29] employed
MCDM for facility location problems and compared the results obtained by four different
methods of MCDM.
The decision-makers can use the versatile tools provided by MCDM techniques to
help them map out the issue. Moreover, these tools can handle a variety of factors that are
evaluated in various ways. Based on the aforesaid analysis, the current research provides an
integrated MCDM technique to evaluate the optimal refrigerant for retail food refrigeration
applications. The following are the main objectives of the present investigation:
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 3 of 16

I. To identify the best refrigerant with low GWP and high performance out of the
27 refrigerants for retail food refrigeration in supermarkets based on their thermal
properties using TOPSIS, EDAS, and MOORA techniques of MCDM methodology.
II. To integrate technical, economic, social, environmental, and resource aspects in the assess-
ment index method to select novel refrigerants in the retail food refrigeration industry.
Various methods of MCDM techniques exist in the literature. However, the authors
of the present investigation opted for TOPSIS, EDAS, and MOORA techniques as they
are simple, intuitive, and have a comprehensible concept. The approaches used here
can quantify the relative performance for each option in a straightforward mathematical
manner and disclose a scalar number that accounts for both the best and worst alternative
capabilities. Furthermore, these approaches are simple, require relatively few mathematical
computations, and have exceptional stability.
The present research work employed MCDM techniques for selecting the best refrig-
erant for refrigeration techniques in the food market. Previously, several articles were
published where authors used MCDM for decision making. However, to the best of the
authors’ knowledge, no articles are present in the open literature which employed MCDM
for the selection of refrigerant for food market techniques.
The rest of this article is organized as follows. Sections 2 and 3 presents research and
optimization methodology, which describes the properties of selected refrigerants and
explains our proposed methods of MCDM. Section 4 reports our results and discussion.
Finally, Section 5 summarizes the paper in the conclusion and identifies future work.

2. Research Methodology
2.1. Features of Refrigerants
The thermophysical properties of new refrigerants played an important part in
retrofitting/selection processes, as they determined the performance parameters of individ-
ual components and whole systems, such as cooling capacity, COP, power consumption,
and heat transfer rates. The performance of a commercial refrigeration system is influenced
by critical thermophysical parameters such as vapor pressure, vapor density, liquid density,
liquid viscosity, vapor viscosity, and enthalpy of evaporation and condensation. When it
comes to picking an alternative refrigerant, the safe working environment for humans is
far more crucial than system performance. The key issues that must be addressed in the
refrigerant selection are flammability, toxicity, asphyxiation, and physical risks. Finally,
the new refrigerant’s cost will encourage system manufacturers and the general public to
use it. In general, the thermodynamic characteristics, environmental circumstances (GWP,
flammability, and toxicity), and economic factors all play a role in selecting the optimal
refrigerant. Table 1 summarizes the various properties of refrigerants.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 4 of 16

Table 1. Properties of refrigerants.

Thermal
Critical Liquid Density, Vapor Density, Pressure at
s. No Critical Saturated Conductivity of Viscosity of ODP GWP Toxicity and Cost Per kg,
Refrigerants Pressure,
Temperature, ◦ C Pressure, Bar kg/m3 kg/m3 Refrigerant, Liquid, µPa.s 60 Deg C Flammability USD
Bar
W/m-K
1 R134a 102 41 3.49 1278.J 17.1 0.089 250 16.8 0 1430 I 5
2 R152a 113.4 45.1 3.14 947.7 9.89 0.106 206 15 0 124 2 5.5
3 R1234yf 95 34 3.73 1160.4 20.7 0.074 196 16.4 1 1 1 12.33
4 R1234ze (E) 109.4 36.3 2.59 1111.5 40.6 0.078 269 12.7 1 1 1 53
5 R1233zd (E) 166.6 36.2 0.59 1319.8 35.6 0.081 470 38.7 1 1 1 39.5
6 R290 96.74 42.5 5.51 521.75 11.9 0.103 119 21.2 0 3 4 5.98
7 R600a 134.6 36.3 1.87 574.8 5.01 0.097 187 8.69 0 4 4 10
8 R744 30.98 73.8 39.7 896.03 114 0.104 90.8 0 1 1 10.91
9 R1270 91.06 45.5 6.76 538.6 14.2 0.093 115 25.2 0 1 4 4.5
10 R744 + R290 57 67.9 29.9 644.9 78.3 0.083 87.7 8.69 0 3 4 9
11 R430A 106.9 40.8 3.5 802.l 10.7 0.984 180 15.7 2 2208 4 7
12 R436A 115.9 42.7 3.85 548.01 8.66 0.1 146 15.1 2 1805 4 8
13 R444A 101.2 42.3 4.47 1199.l 28.5 0.9 225 19.8 1 2506 1 50
14 R445A 104.7 44.9 4.67 1190 29.4 0.95 220 19.4 1 2472 1 46
15 R22 96.3 49.9 5.8 1030.5 5.6 0.092 206.3 2.42 0.06 1810 1 7.97
16 R41 44.28 59 9.4 1038.5 9.4 0.142 147.3 39.3 0 2 1 12
17 R124 22.43 36.2 1.9 1424.2 16.4 0.0743 328.1 9.96 1 609 1 25.33
18 R245fa 154.2 36.5 0.69 1390.9 10.7 0.094 540.8 4.63 1 1370 1 10.67
19 R717 (Ammonia) 132.4 113.3 4.9 633.1 0.7 0.547 162.9 26.1 0 0 2 3
20 R718 (Water) 373.99 220.6 0.0087 999.7 0.068 0.57 1518.3 0.1995 1 0 1 0.01
21 R170 (Ethane) 32.18 48.7 26.88 387.7 0.7 0.086 54.3 0 6 4 5.8
22 R290 (Propane) 96.68 42.5 5.35 523.1 15.1 0.103 120.5 21.1 0 3 4 13.4
23 R600 (Butane) 151.98 38 1.19 596.8 9.2 0.113 194.4 6.34 0 4 4 12.3
24 R601 (Pentane) 196.55 337 1.84 576 8.4 0.097 189.1 8.69 0 4 4 15.6
25 R404A 72.05 37.29 7.1 1132.9 16.3 0.075 167.2 29.1 0 180 1 23.1
26 R410A 71.36 49.03 9.5 1147.6 15.7 0.111 158.7 38.5 0 120 1 22.5
27 R407C 86.03 46.3 6.75 1215.7 14.8 0.102 197.2 28.1 0 230 1 17.8
Objective High Low Low Low High High Low Low Low Low Low Low
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 5 of 16

Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 5 of 16

2.2. Decision
2.2. Decision Tree
Tree Model
Model
Figure 11 shows
Figure showsthe thedecision-making
decision-makingcriteria criteriafor
forselecting
selectingsuitable
suitablerefrigerants.
refrigerants. Figure
Figure 2
2 presents the four-level ladder method used to determine an appropriate
presents the four-level ladder method used to determine an appropriate refrigerant in refrigerant in
the present work.
work. Level
Level11contains
containsthe theaim
aim ofof
thethe
study
study(to(to
choose thethe
choose bestbest
refrigerant out
refrigerant
of 27ofrefrigerants),
out levellevel
27 refrigerants), 2 contains the sub-criteria
2 contains the sub-criteria(thermodynamic
(thermodynamic properties, environ-
properties, en-
ment affability,
vironment and economic
affability, and economic status) followed
status) by level
followed 3 which
by level contains
3 which the nine
contains sub-
the nine
criteria (refer
sub-criteria Figure
(refer 2) and
Figure at level
2) and 4 contains
at level 27 refrigerants
4 contains 27 refrigerantsinvolved in the
involved in investigation.
the investiga-
The main
tion. objective
The main of this
objective research
of this is to
research obtain
is to obtainthethebest
bestrefrigerant
refrigerantoutoutof of 27
27 refrigerants
refrigerants
based onon nine
nine sub-criteria.
sub-criteria. The selected refrigerants are sub-categorized on the basis of of
their thermos-physical properties, environmental impact, economic impact on
their on the
the society.
society.
Th–physical
Th–physical properties include latent heat of vaporization,vaporization, thermal
thermal conductivity,
conductivity, density,
density,
specific heat,
heat, viscosity,
viscosity, and
and vapor
vapor pressure,
pressure, while
while environmental
environmental factors
factors include
include ozone
ozone
depletion
depletion potential,
potential,global
globalwarming
warmingpotential,
potential,flammability,
flammability, andandtoxicity
toxicity of of
thethe
refrigerant.
refriger-
Last is theiscost
ant. Last of the
the cost of refrigerant
the refrigerantin USD.
in USD.TheThe
above mentioned
above mentioned factors
factorswerewereselected to
selected
include all the possible scenarios which affect the selection of refrigerant.
to include all the possible scenarios which affect the selection of refrigerant. Each of these Each of these
factors
factors helps
helps toto determine
determine the the best
best possible
possible solution
solution forfor best
best refrigerant
refrigerantin inour
ourproblem.
problem.

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Decision-making
Decision-making criteria
criteria to
to select
select suitable
suitable refrigerants.
refrigerants.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 6 of 16
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 6 of 16

Figure 2. Flowchart
Figure 2. Flowchart representing
representing the
the details
details of
of the
the used
used method
method to
to obtain
obtain the
the suitable
suitablerefrigerator.
refrigerator.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 7 of 16

3. Optimization Methodology
3.1. Entropy Technique
In 1948, Shannon created entropy as an objective weighting method. The entropy ap-
proach is used when decision-makers have competing viewpoints on the value of criterion
weightiness. The following is a step-by-step technique for using the entropy weight method.
STEP I: Obtain a project outcome by normalizing the arrays of a decision matrix [30].
xij
Pij = m (1)
∑i=1 xij

STEP II: Compute the entropy measure of project outcomes [30].

m
Ej = −k ∑ Pij × ln Pij (2)
i =1

1
k= (3)
ln(m)
STEP III: Define the objective weight based on the entropy concept; w j —weighted
values [30].
1 − Ej
Wj = n (4)
∑ j =1 1 − E j

i = 1, 2, 3, . . . .., 9; j = 1, 2, 3, . . . , 5

3.2. Multi-Criteria Decision Making

Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) is an operations research sub-discipline that
assesses multiple competing criteria in decision making. MCDM is involved with con-
structing and addressing multi-criteria decision and planning issues. The goal is to assist
decision-makers who are dealing with such issues. In most cases, there is no one best an-
swer to such challenges. Hence, decision-makers’ preferences must be used to distinguish
between options.
The decision space or the criteria space can be used to depict the MCDM problem. It
is also feasible to describe the problem in the weight space if a weighted linear function
merges several criteria.

3.3. TOPSIS Technique

TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) is a multi-
criteria decision-making process that was developed in the 1980s. TOPSIS opts for the
smallest Euclidean distance to the ideal solution and the largest distance to the negative
ideal solution. TOPSIS is a method for allocating rankings based on the weights and impact
of the various elements.
X The term “weights” refers to how much a certain aspect should be considered.
X The term “impact” refers to whether a particular item has a positive or negative effect.
Procedure:
STEP I: Normalized Matrix and Weighted Normalize Matrix Calculation [30].
xij
rij = q (5)
∑im=1 xij2

i = 1, 2, . . . ., m; j = 1, 2 . . . , n
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 8 of 16

STEP II: Calculate the ideal best and worst values, as well as the Euclidean distance
between them, for each row [30].
v
um
diw = t ∑ tij − twj
u  2
(6)
j =1

STEP III: TOPSIS Score and Ranking Calculation [30].

diw
TOPSIS SCROE = (7)
dib + diw

Now, rank according to the TOPSIS score, with a higher score equaling a higher rank.

3.4. EDAS Technique

The EDAS approach (evaluation based on distance from average answer) plays an
important part in decision-making difficulties, especially when there are several competing
criteria in multi-criteria decision making (MCDM).
STEP I: Create the preliminary decision matrix (xij )m×n
STEP II: Average solution [31].

∑in=1 xij
AVj = (8)
n
STEP III: Positive distance from average PDA [31].
 
m (0,( xij − AVj ))
AV if j ∈ Beneficial
PDAij =  m 0, AVj − x (9)
 
( ( j ij )) 
AV if j ∈ NonBeneficial
j

Step IV: Negative distance from average NDA [31].

 
m (0,( AVj − xij ))
AV if j ∈ Beneficial
NDAij =  m 0, x −j AV (10)
 
( ( ij j ))

AV if j ∈ NonBeneficial
j

Step V: Normalized values of SP and SN [31].

m
SPi
NSPi =  ∑ w∗j PDAij (11)
max(SPi j =1
i

m
SNi
NSNi = 1 −
max (SNi ) ∑ w∗j PDAij (12)
i j =1

Step VI: Appraisal score ( ASi ) [31].

 
NSPi + NSNi
ASi = (13)
2

3.5. MOORA Technique

Brauers (2004) initially proposed the MOORA approach, a multi-objective optimization
strategy that may be used to tackle various complicated decision-making situations.
The MOORA method’s steps to completion are as follow:
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 9 of 16

STEP I: Create a decision matrix to help make decisions [32].

· x1n
 
x11 x12
 x21 x22 · x2n 
x=
 ·
 (14)
· · · 
xm1 xm2 · xmn

STEP II: Normalize the decision matrix [32].

v" #
u m
xij∗ = xij /t ∑ xij2 ( j = 1, 2, . . . , n)
u
(15)
i =1

STEP III: Optimize attributes [32].

g n
yi = ∑ xij∗ − ∑ xij∗ (16)
j =1 j = g +1

g n
yi = ∑ w j xij∗ − ∑ w j xij∗ ( j = 1, 2, . . . , n) (17)
j =1 j = g +1

STEP IV: Depending on the maximal and minimal values in the decision matrix, the
value of yi might be positive or negative.
The greatest option has the highest Yi value, while the poorest option has the lowest.

4. Results and Discussion

In this work, multi-objective decision-making systems such as TOPSIS, EDAS, and
MOORA were used to choose an ideal refrigerant among the 27 refrigerants mentioned in
Table 1 for retail food cooling and refrigeration applications. Equations discussed in the
above section (optimization methodology) were used to produce the normalized matrix
values for various refrigerants for TOPSIS and EDAS investigations. Table 2 provides the
assessment score and ranking for different refrigerants obtained using the EDAS technique,
while Table 3 provides the assessment based on TOPSIS technique. Table 4 provides the
assessment score and ranking based on the MOORA technique. Table 5 compares the
ranking of various refrigerants on the basis of TOPSIS, EDAS, and MOORA technique of
MCDM methodology. It is revealed from the investigation that R290 (Propane) is the best
refrigerant with a GWP of 3 by all the techniques utilized in the study. R 41 is the worst
refrigerant per the EDAS and MOORA technique, while R407C is the worst refrigerant per
the TOPSIS MCDM methodology technique. The GWP of refrigerant R404A is the highest
at 3922 of all refrigerants. Other potential refrigerants which hold the highest ranking as
per the analysis are R245fa with GWP of 1, and R600a with GWP of 4.

Table 2. Assessment score of refrigerants by EDAS technique.

Refrigerants Assessment Score Ranking

R134a 0.661595 5
R152a 0.560129 10
R1234yf 0.503422 14
R1234ze (E) 0.443894 20
R1233zd (E) 0.632693 6
R290 0.676133 4
R600a 0.701347 3
R744 0.614293 9
R1270 0.630613 7
R744 + R290 0.398386 23
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 10 of 16

Table 2. Cont.

Refrigerants Assessment Score Ranking

R430A 0.236577 26
R436A 0.384311 25
R444A 0.416013 21
R445A 0.487884 18
R22 0.526079 13
R41 0.396785 27
R124 0.408803 22
R245fa 0.705378 2
R717 (Ammonia) 0.48903 17
R718 (Water) 0.491104 16
R170 (Ethane) 0.61595 8
R290 (Propane) 0.718788 1
R600 (Butane) 0.457986 19
R601 (Pentane) 0.543101 12
R404A 0.502021 15
R410A 0.547391 11
R407C 0.51489 24

Table 3. Assessment score of refrigerants by TOPSIS technique.

Refrigerants Assessment Score Ranking

R134a 0.605788 5
R152a 0.588928 10
R1234yf 0.574792 13
R1234ze (E) 0.56048 18
R1233zd (E) 0.598414 7
R290 0.605625 4
R600a 0.600674 3
R744 0.594666 9
R1270 0.603746 6
R744 + R290 0.557436 19
R430A 0.526175 25
R436A 0.553233 21
R444A 0.561435 17
R445A 0.568823 14
R22 0.564821 16
R41 0.546647 23
R124 0.554006 20
R245fa 0.609451 2
R717 (Ammonia) 0.516533 26
R718 (Water) 0.549363 22
R170 (Ethane) 0.597454 8
R290 (Propane) 0.614269 1
R600 (Butane) 0.539931 24
R601 (Pentane) 0.577198 12
R404A 0.565808 15
R410A 0.580136 11
R407C 0.512399 27

Table 4. Assessment score of refrigerants by MOORA technique.

Refrigerants Assessment Score Ranking

R134a 0.56482 5
R152a 0.54665 10
R1234yf 0.60067 16
R1234ze (E) 0.60563 23
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 11 of 16

Table 4. Cont.

Refrigerants Assessment Score Ranking

R1233zd (E) 0.60679 6
R290 0.59467 4
R600a 0.59941 3
R744 0.54936 9
R1270 0.51853 7
R744 + R290 0.52618 22
R430A 0.54973 26
R436A 0.58014 25
R444A 0.56581 21
R445A 0.5144 11
R22 0.55744 15
R41 0.61945 27
R124 0.56882 19
R245fa 0.56144 2
R717 (Ammonia) 0.59845 14
R718 (Water) 0.62427 17
R170 (Ethane) 0.55501 8
R290 (Propane) 0.57479 1
R600 (Butane) 0.56048 20
R601 (Pentane) 0.5772 13
R404A 0.53993 18
R410A 0.52109 12
R407C 0.52074 24

Table 5. Ranking of refrigerants.

Refrigerants EDAS TOPSIS MOORA

R134a 5 5 5
R152a 10 10 10
R1234yf 14 13 16
R1234ze (E) 20 18 23
R1233zd (E) 6 7 6
R290 4 4 4
R600a 3 3 3
R744 9 9 9
R1270 7 6 7
R744 + R290 23 19 22
R430A 26 25 26
R436A 25 21 25
R444A 21 17 21
R445A 18 14 11
R22 13 16 15
R41 27 23 27
R124 22 20 19
R245fa 2 2 2
R717 (Ammonia) 17 26 14
R718 (Water) 16 22 17
R170 (Ethane) 8 8 8
R290 (Propane) 1 1 1
R600 (Butane) 19 24 20
R601 (Pentane) 12 12 13
R404A 15 15 18
R410A 11 11 12
R407C 24 27 24
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 12 of 16

4.1. TOPSIS Technique

TOPSIS selects the option with the largest distance from the negative ideal solution and
the lowest Euclidean distance from the ideal solution. TOPSIS is a method for allocating
rankings based on the importance and weights of the supplied elements. The ranking of
the chosen 27 refrigerant on the basis of TOPSIS analysis is as follows: R290 (Propane) >
R245fa > R600a > R290 > R134a > R1270 > R1233zd > R170 > R744 > R152a > R410A > R601
> R1234yf > R445A > R404A > R22 > R444A > R1234ze > R744 + R290 > R124 > R436A >
R718 > R41 > R600 > R430A > R717 > R407C. Refrigerant R290 with assessment score of
0.614269 is the best performer based on TOPSIS, while R407C with assessment score of
0.512399 is the worst among all the refrigerants considered for the investigation. Other
refrigerants such as R245fa, R600a, and R290 with ranks 2, 3, and 4 can also be considered.
R290 has a GWP of 3 and toxicity and flammability level of 4, while its cost is 13.4 USD
per kg.

4.2. EDAS Technique

To choose the optimal option, this method should simply take the distance from the
average answer into account. The computations are congruent with the findings, which
are significantly simplified. As per the EDAS technique, the ranks of refrigerants are as
follow: R290 (Propane) > R245fa > R600a > R290 > R134a > R1233zd > R1270 > R170 > R744
> R152a > R410A > R601 > R22 > R1234yf > R404A > R718 > R445A > R600 > R1234ze >
R444A > R124 > R744 + R290 > R407C > R436A > R430A > R41. As per the EDAS, R290 is
the best refrigerant with assessment score of 0.718788 while R41 is the worst refrigerant
with assessment score of 0.396785.

4.3. MOORA Technique

This approach may be used in various complicated and conflictual supply chain envi-
ronments. A decision matrix serves as the method’s foundation. The decision matrix shows
how well options are performed according to specific criteria. The ranks of refrigerants is
as follow: R290 (Propane) > R245fa > R600a > R290 > R134a > R1233zd > R1270 > R170 >
R744 > R152a > R445A > R410A > R601 > R717 > R22 > R1234yf > R718 > R404A > R124 >
R600 > R444A > R744 + R290 > R1234ze > R407C > R436A > R430A > R41. Once again, as
per the EDAS, R290 is the best refrigerant while R41 is the worst.
Figures 3 and 4 show the graphical comparison of various MCDM techniques used
in the present investigation. After the suggested comparison research is successfully
completed, the following conclusions can be made:
1. R290 i.e., Propane, R245fa, R600a, R290, and R134a were observed to have the same
rank (Rank 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively) with all the proposed MCDM techniques.
2. R290 followed by R245fa can be considered the best choice of refrigerant for the
supermarket application.
3. A strong correlation was observed between EDAS, TOPSIS and MOORA, owing to
the fact that, they exhibited identical results in ranking the selected alternatives.
4. All of the above procedures are effective illustrations of quantitative methods. Each
technique; however, has advantages and disadvantages.
Sustainability 14, 11663
2022, 2022,
Sustainability 14, 11663 13 of 16 13 of 16

Figure 3. Comparison of results obtained by EDAS, TOPSIS, and MOORA technique of MCDM.
Figure
Figure 3. 3.Comparison
Comparison of
of results
resultsobtained
obtainedbyby
EDAS, TOPSIS,
EDAS, andand
TOPSIS, MOORA technique
MOORA of MCDM.
technique of MCDM.

Figure 4. Comparison of assessment score obtained by EDAS, TOPSIS, and MOORA techniques.

Figure
Figure4.4.Comparison of assessment
Comparison of assessmentscore
score obtained
obtained by EDAS,
by EDAS, TOPSIS,
TOPSIS, and MOORA
and MOORA techniques.
techniques.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 14 of 16

5. Conclusions
The article optimization studies were performed for selecting low global warming
potential refrigerants for replacing R-404A from supermarkets by using multi-criteria
making (MCDM) tools. The technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution
(TOPSIS), evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS), and multi-objective
optimization based on ratio analysis (MOORA) techniques of MCDM methodology are
used to estimate the best refrigerant for replacing the R404A for low GWP. Nine criteria,
namely, latent heat of vaporization, thermal conductivity, vapor pressure, saturated fluid
density, the heat capacity of the liquid, dynamic viscosity, GWP, flammability and toxicity,
ozone depletion potential, and refrigerant cost, were used for the evaluation of refrigerants.
The following conclusions can be made from the investigation:
1. EDAS, TOPSIS, and MOORA techniques can be successfully employed for the selec-
tion of the best refrigerant out of 27 chosen refrigerants.
2. R290, i.e., propane aces the ranking by all the three techniques of evaluation, followed
by R245fa and R600a.
3. R41 is not the promising refrigerant per the EDAS and MOORA technique while R407C
is not the favorable refrigerant per the TOPSIS technique of MCDM methodology.
4. A strong correlation was observed between EDAS, TOPSIS, and MOORA, owing to
the fact that they exhibited identical results in ranking the selected alternatives.
5. All of the above procedures are effective illustrations of quantitative methods. Each
technique, however, has advantages and disadvantages.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, B.S. and S.B.; methodology, S.B.; software, S.B.; validation,
B.S., S.B. and N.H.; formal analysis, B.S.; investigation, N.H.; resources, B.S.; data curation, S.B.;
writing—original draft preparation, B.S.; writing—review and editing, M.W.A.; visualization, N.H.;
supervision, B.S.; project administration, B.S.; funding acquisition, B.S. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by Al Bilad Bank Scholarly Chair for Food Security in Saudi
Arabia, the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific
Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (Project No. CHAIR49) and (Grant No.1404).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: This work was supported by Al Bilad Bank Scholarly Chair for Food Security in
Saudi Arabia, the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific
Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia (Project No. CHAIR49) and (Grant No.1404).
Conflicts of Interest: All authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest.

Nomenclature

Symbol
Pij Standardized value of the i th index in the j th sample
xij Measured value of the i th indicator in the j th sample
Ej Entropy value Ei of the i th index
wj Weight value
rij Element of normalized matrix R
AVj Average solution
PDAij Positive distance from average
NDAij Negative distance from average
NSPi Normalized values of SP
NSNi Normalized values of SN
ASi Appraisal score
yi Assessment value
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 15 of 16

References
1. Effatpanah, S.K.; Ahmadi, M.H.; Aungkulanon, P.; Maleki, A.; Sadeghzadeh, M.; Sharifpur, M.; Chen, L. Comparative Analysis of
Five Widely-Used Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods to Evaluate Clean Energy Technologies: A Case Study. Sustainability
2022, 14, 1403. [CrossRef]
2. Ahmadi, M.H.; Kumar, R.; Assad, M.E.H.; Ngo, P.T.T. Applications of Machine Learning Methods in Modeling Various Types of
Heat Pipes: A Review. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2021, 146, 2333–2341. [CrossRef]
3. Jagtap, H.P.; Bewoor, A.K.; Kumar, R.; Ahmadi, M.H.; El Haj Assad, M.; Sharifpur, M. RAM Analysis and Availability Optimization
of Thermal Power Plant Water Circulation System Using PSO. Energy Reports 2021, 7, 1133–1153. [CrossRef]
4. Sabbagh, O.; Fanaei, M.A.; Arjomand, A.; Hossein Ahmadi, M. Multi-Objective Optimization Assessment of a New Integrated
Scheme for Co-Production of Natural Gas Liquids and Liquefied Natural Gas. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2021, 47, 101493.
[CrossRef]
5. Zolghadri, A.; Maddah, H.; Ahmadi, M.H.; Sharifpur, M. Predicting Parameters of Heat Transfer in a Shell and Tube Heat Ex-
changer Using Aluminum Oxide Nanofluid with Artificial Neural Network (Ann) and Self-Organizing Map (Som). Sustainability
2021, 13, 8824. [CrossRef]
6. Lohakare, P.; Bewoor, A.; Kumar, R.; Said, N.M.; Sharifpur, M. Benchmark Using Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)
Technique to Optimally Select Piston Material. Eng. Anal. Bound. Elem. 2022, 142, 52–60. [CrossRef]
7. Ahmadi, M.H.; Ahmadi, M.A.; Bayat, R.; Ashouri, M.; Feidt, M. Thermo-Economic Optimization of Stirling Heat Pump by Using
Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm. Energy Convers. Manag. 2015, 91, 315–322. [CrossRef]
8. Kumar, R.; Nadda, R.; Kumar, S.; Razak, A.; Sharifpur, M.; Aybar, H.S.; Ahamed Saleel, C.; Afzal, A. Influence of Artificial
Roughness Parametric Variation on Thermal Performance of Solar Thermal Collector: An Experimental Study, Response Surface
Analysis and ANN Modelling. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2022, 52, 102047. [CrossRef]
9. Sharma, J.; Soni, S.; Paliwal, P.; Saboor, S.; Chaurasiya, P.K.; Sharifpur, M.; Khalilpoor, N.; Afzal, A. A Novel Long Term Solar
Photovoltaic Power Forecasting Approach Using LSTM with Nadam Optimizer: A Case Study of India. Energy Sci. Eng. 2022.
[CrossRef]
10. Melaibari, A.A.; Khetib, Y.; Alanazi, A.K.; Sajadi, S.M.; Sharifpur, M.; Cheraghian, G. Applying Artificial Neural Network and
Response Surface Method to Forecast the Rheological Behavior of Hybrid Nano-antifreeze Containing Graphene Oxide and
Copper Oxide Nanomaterials. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11505. [CrossRef]
11. Mehrabi, M.; Sharifpur, M.; Meyer, J.P. Application of the FCM-Based Neuro-Fuzzy Inference System and Genetic Algorithm-
Polynomial Neural Network Approaches to Modelling the Thermal Conductivity of Alumina-Water Nanofluids. Int. Commun.
Heat Mass Transf. 2012, 39, 971–977. [CrossRef]
12. Sharifpur, M.; Adio, S.A.; Meyer, J.P. Experimental Investigation and Model Development for Effective Viscosity of Al2 O3 -
Glycerol Nanofluids by Using Dimensional Analysis and GMDH-NN Methods. Int. Commun. Heat Mass Transf. 2015, 68, 208–219.
[CrossRef]
13. Jokar, M.A.; Ahmadi, M.H.; Sharifpur, M.; Meyer, J.P.; Pourfayaz, F.; Ming, T. Thermodynamic Evaluation and Multi-Objective
Optimization of Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell-Supercritical CO2 Brayton Cycle Hybrid System. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017, 153,
538–556. [CrossRef]
14. Daneshfar, R.; Bemani, A.; Hadipoor, M.; Sharifpur, M.; Muhammad, H.; Mahariq, I.; Abdeljawad, T. Estimating the Heat Capacity
of Non-Newtonian Ionanofluid Systems Using ANN, ANFIS, and SGB Tree Algorithms. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 6432. [CrossRef]
15. Toghyani, S.; Kasaeian, A.; Ahmadi, M.H. Multi-Objective Optimization of Stirling Engine Using Non-Ideal Adiabatic Method.
Energy Convers. Manag. 2014, 80, 54–62. [CrossRef]
16. Sivalingam, V.; Ganesh Kumar, P.; Prabakaran, R.; Sun, J.; Velraj, R.; Kim, S.C. An Automotive Radiator with Multi-Walled
Carbon-Based Nanofluids: A Study on Heat Transfer Optimization Using MCDM Techniques. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2022,
29, 101724. [CrossRef]
17. Poongavanam, G.; Sivalingam, V.; Prabakaran, R.; Salman, M.; Kim, S.C. Selection of the Best Refrigerant for Replacing R134a
in Automobile Air Conditioning System Using Different MCDM Methods: A Comparative Study. Case Stud. Therm. Eng. 2021,
27, 101344. [CrossRef]
18. Vats, P.; Singh, T.; Dubey, V.; Kumar Sharma, A. Optimization of Machining Parameters in Turning of AISI 1040 Steel Using
Hybrid MCDM Technique. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 50, 1758–1765. [CrossRef]
19. Junankar, A.A.; Parate, S.R.; Dethe, P.K.; Dhote, N.R.; Gadkar, D.G.; Gadkar, D.D.; Gajbhiye, S.A. Optimization of Bearing
Steel Turning Parameters under CuO and ZnO Nanofluid-MQL Using MCDM Hybrid Approach. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 47,
4292–4297. [CrossRef]
20. Subasi, A.; Erdem, K. An Integrated Optimization Methodology for Heat Transfer Enhancement: A Case Study on Nanofluid
Flow in a Pipe Equipped with Inserts. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2021, 172, 121187. [CrossRef]
21. Yang, K.; Zhu, N.; Chang, C.; Wang, D.; Yang, S.; Ma, S. A Methodological Concept for Phase Change Material Selection Based on
Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM): A Case Study. Energy 2018, 165, 1085–1096. [CrossRef]
22. Deepa, D.; Thanigaivelan, R.; Venkateshwaran, M. Identifying a Suitable Micro-Fin Material for Natural Convective Heat Transfer
Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 45, 1655–1659. [CrossRef]
23. Jajimoggala, S.; Murali Krishna, N.; Syed, K. Selection of Optimal Hot Extrusion Process Parameters for AA6061using Hybrid
MCDM Technique. Mater. Today Proc. 2019, 18, 278–290. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 11663 16 of 16

24. Vishwakarma, D.K.; Kumar, N.; Padap, A.K. Modelling and Optimization of Aging Parameters for Thermal Properties of Al 6082
Alloy Using Response Surface Methodology. Mater. Res. Express 2017, 4, 046502. [CrossRef]
25. Ilangkumaran, M.; Karthikeyan, M.; Ramachandran, T.; Boopathiraja, M.; Kirubakaran, B. Risk Analysis and Warning Rate of Hot
Environment for Foundry Industry Using Hybrid MCDM Technique. Saf. Sci. 2014, 72, 133–143. [CrossRef]
26. Simsek, Y.; Watts, D.; Escobar, R. Sustainability Evaluation of Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) Projects under Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM) by Using Multi Criteria Decision Method (MCDM). Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 93, 421–438. [CrossRef]
27. Mukhametzyanov, I.Z. Specific Character of Objective Methods for Determining Weights of Criteria in MCDM Problems: Entropy,
CRITIC, SD. Decis. Mak. Appl. Manag. Eng. 2021, 4, 76–105. [CrossRef]
28. Kizielewicz, B.; Wi˛eckowski, J.; Shekhovtsov, A.; Watróbski,
˛ J.; Depczyński, R.; Sałabun, W. Study towards the Time-Based Mcda
Ranking Analysis—A Supplier Selection Case Study. Facta Univ. Ser. Mech. Eng. 2021, 19, 381–399. [CrossRef]
29. El-Araby, A.; Sabry, I.; El-Assal, A. A Comparative Study of Using Mcdm Methods Integrated with Entropy Weight Method for
Evaluating Facility Location Problem. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl. 2022, 5, 121–138. [CrossRef]
30. Li, X.; Wang, K.; Liuz, L.; Xin, J.; Yang, H.; Gao, C. Application of the Entropy Weight and TOPSIS Method in Safety Evaluation of
Coal Mines. Procedia Eng. 2011, 26, 2085–2091. [CrossRef]
31. Batool, B.; Abosuliman, S.S.; Abdullah, S.; Ashraf, S. EDAS Method for Decision Support Modeling under the Pythagorean
Probabilistic Hesitant Fuzzy Aggregation Information. J. Ambient Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2021. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Pérez-Domínguez, L.; Sánchez Mojica, K.Y.; Ovalles Pabón, L.C.; Cordero Diáz, M.C. Application of the MOORA Method for the
Evaluation of the Industrial Maintenance System. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 1126, 012018. [CrossRef]