Skip to Main Content

In overall comparison (i.e., considering the criteria of TRC, AB, and CS), option 1 obtained the highest SI (see Table 13). Option 1 (TSF) was the best management option, on the basis of removal of parameters, for treating GW compared to the other three options in the present study. Option 3 (PAC treatment), option 4 (FeCl3 treatment), and option 2 (alum treatment) were ranked 2, 3, and 4, respectively. Finally, the selection string was option 1–3–4–2. Considering only criterion CS the selection string was the same as the overall comparison (i.e., option 1–3–4–2).

Table 13

Selection index and ranking of the option on the basis of removal of parameters

 Criteria (TRC + AB + CS)
Criteria (CS)
OptionSIRankSIRank
Option 1 (TSF) 0.806 0.889 
Option 2 (alum treatment, alum dose 416 ± 44 mg/L) 0.522 0.617 
Option 3 (PAC treatment, PAC dose 279 ± 40 mg/L) 0.652 0.783 
Option 4 (FeCl3 treatment, FeCl3 dose 141 ± 12 mg/L) 0.623 0.702 
 Criteria (TRC + AB + CS)
Criteria (CS)
OptionSIRankSIRank
Option 1 (TSF) 0.806 0.889 
Option 2 (alum treatment, alum dose 416 ± 44 mg/L) 0.522 0.617 
Option 3 (PAC treatment, PAC dose 279 ± 40 mg/L) 0.652 0.783 
Option 4 (FeCl3 treatment, FeCl3 dose 141 ± 12 mg/L) 0.623 0.702 

Close Modal

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal