Volume 17, Issue 1 (5-2020)                   ioh 2020, 17(1): 1-11 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Moridi A, Yarahmadi R, Abedi Z. Prioritization of modern air pollution control technologies (gases and vapors) based on the CBA method. ioh. 2020; 17 (1) :1-11
URL: http://ioh.iums.ac.ir/article-1-2435-en.html
Department of Occupational Health , yarahmadi.r@iums.ac.ir
Abstract:   (489 Views)
Background: Sustainable development requires economic, social and environmental stability. Considering the economic aspects of air pollution solutions, encompassing some advantages that should not be overlooked against costly and restrictive rules. Filtration system has a great importance among other air pollution control systems. In addition to the non-refundable costs and high costs of design, installation, operation & maintenance of pollution control systems make the selection process more complicated for managers as well as decision-makers. The Effective decision-making strategies are the key to addressing environmental challenges in managing and controlling air pollution. This study aimed to assess the air pollution issue based on the selection of appropriate control equipment considering economic, social and environmental criteria.
Methodology: The aim of this investigation is to assess the new technologies on the basis of economical by using cost-benefit analysis. In this study profits, losses, important technical and engineering factors such as profit and cost of raw materials, design, consulting, human resources, and maintenance were considered in the design, installation and operation. This method helps the project managers in decision-making by choosing the best and most desirable options with a view to economic-executive considerations. Firstly, a primary list of modern control equipment for air pollution (gases and vapors) was prepared and evaluated by a team of experts. To find key technologies, should be assessed based on the cost-benefit criteria and the constituent elements of each option. The score of 1-3 to the elements related to the cost-benefit criteria of the selected technologies was assigned by linguistic variables. The economic value of new and common air pollution control equipment was determined by using relevant checklists based on linguistic variables. The profit-to-cost ratio and key technology ranking were derived and calculated from the cost-benefit criteria. High score will be top priorities.
Results: The results of cost-benefit analysis in terms of new technologies ranking for gases and vapors showed that the selective catalytic reduction with a cost-benefit ratio of 1.39 was the most appropriate for the gas and vapor purification technology based on economic considerations.
Conclusion: Cost-benefit analysis is a useful tool for evaluating the environmental policy decision-making process. Economic evaluation of pollution treatment systems is necessary for the reduction of cost, social and health consequences. The results of new technologies ranking, for gases and vapors have priority selective catalytic reduction (chemical reactor), plasma chemistry, cold plasma, and carbon nano-filters consequently.
Keywords: Air Pollution Control; New Technologies; Cost-Benefit; Prioritization
The current economic system is unstable economically and environmentally. A new and sustainable economic model must be developed to achieve sustainable development. This economy should be based on new technologies for efficient pollution control using renewable energy sources, recycling and diversification of the transportation system with distance from fossil fuels, interactions and cooperation between the parent industry and contractors.
In the present study, simple cost-benefit analysis tool (SCBAT) was used. The steps to perform the procedure are as follows:
1. A primary list of modern control equipment for air pollution (gases and vapors) was provided.
2. Evaluation of the initial list was done by the expert group and identification of key technologies.
3. Cost-benefit criteria and the constituent elements of each option related to key technologies were identified and determined.
4. Score of 3-1 was assigned to the cost-benefit elements of the technologies selected for the research by using linguistic variables (high = 3, medium = 2, low = 1, cost equivalent to control equipment).
5. The economic value of new and common air purification control equipment was determined, using relevant checklists based on linguistic variables. The profit-to-cost ratio and key technology ranking derived from the profit-to-cost criteria were then calculated.
6. Prioritization calculation: If the calculated number was greater than one, the benefit would be more than the cost, so it was considered as a high priority. If the calculated number was equal to one, the cost would be equal to the cost, so the prioritization was attentively determined. If the ratio was less than 1, the profit would be less than cost and it meant the cost-benefit field was currently in vain and this option was not prioritized. Air pollution control technology was classified and prioritized based on the obtained ranking.
7. Priorities with higher scores will be top priorities.
8. Accuracy and reliability of the Cost-Benefit Analysis Method refer to the experts’ accurate estimation of the costs and benefits of a project.
According to the procedure, a list of modern control equipment for air pollutants (gases and vapors) was prepared by experts. The initial list was available for the panel of experts, including four technologies related to gases including plasma, plasma-chemical, selective catalytic reduction and carbon Nano filter. It was evaluated by experts. In the final checklist, selected key technologies were provided to the experts to determine profit and expenditure metrics, ratings and data collection. Then, the cost-benefit criteria and the elements of each option, considered by qualified and experienced companies’ designers and developers of the air purification technologies, were determined as well as ratings, and profit-to-cost ratios according to the proposed method.
The results of new technologies of air pollutants treatment ranking after initial analysis were presented in table1.
Table 1: Central indices, dispersion, and coefficient of variation related to the average cost-benefit index of gas and vapors treatment technologies.
Control Technologies Benefit Rank Average Cost Rank Average coefficient of variation Benefit coefficient of variation Cost Cost-benefit ratio Degree
Cold Plasma 0.4 ± 2.23 0.5 ± 1.85 17% 27% 1.21 3
Chemistry Plasma 0.46 ± 2.23 0.53 ± 1.76 20% 30% 1.26 2
Selective Catalytic Reduction 0.42 ± 2.19 0.32 ± 1.57 19% 20% 1.39 1
Carbon Nano Filter 0.46 ± 2.24 0.47 ± 1.21 20% 38% 1.21 3
Cost-benefit analysis is a useful tool for assessing the beneficial effects of environmental policies. The benefits and costs of technical and engineering indicators of pollution control systems indicate the need of policies to reduce health and environmental consequences and increase economic benefits. The results of comparing the cost benefits of gas and vapor treatment technologies in the present study indicated the preference of selective catalytic reduction technology. The low cost in design, maintenance, training as well as environmental costs of the selective catalytic reduction process, have made it a top priority (coefficient of variation below 20%). The high coefficient of variation of the cost-benefit criterion in carbon Nano filter technology indicated the low use and lack of familiarity with the cost-benefit components of these technologies in design and manufacturing companies. Cold plasma technology seems to be a good alternative for the treatment of gases and chemical vapors in the future decade, instead of being only in the laboratory research and studies.
Full-Text [PDF 1191 kb]   (195 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Full Text | Subject: New air purification technologies (nano and plasma)
Received: 2018/05/16 | Accepted: 2018/12/23 | Published: 2020/07/6

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

© 2020 All Rights Reserved | Iran Occupational Health

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb