E3S Web of Conferences 527, 02010 (2024) https://doi.org/10.

1051/e3sconf/202452702010
JOE4

Optimization of micropollutant removal from wastewaters using

the PROMETHEE multicriteria decision method
Yahya El Hammoudani1*, Khadija Haboubi1, Lahcen Benaabidate2, Abdelhak Bourjila1, Iliass Achoukhi1, Mustapha El
Boudammoussi1, Chaimae Benaissa3, Mohamed Moudou1 Hatim Faiz1, Larbi El Omari Alaoui1 Maryam Esskifati1,
Abdelaziz Touzani1 and Fouad Dimane1
1 Engineering Sciences and Applications Laboratory, National School of Applied Sciences of Al-Hoceima, Abdelmalek Essaâdi
University, Tetouan, Morocco
2 Laboratory of Functional Ecology and Environment Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology of Fez, University of Sidi

Mohammed Ben Abdellah, Fez 30500, Morocco

3
Geosciences research team on natural risks, Faculty of Science and Technology of Tangier, Abdelmalek Essaâdi University, Tetouan,
Morocco

Abstract. This article explores the use of multicriteria decision methods (MCDMs) to identify the optimum
treatment for removing micropollutants from wastewater. With the increasing complexity of industrial and
urban wastewater, which contains a wide range of micropollutants, it is becoming crucial to develop
effective and sustainable treatment strategies. MCDMs provide a framework for evaluating a variety of
treatments, considering several criteria, such as efficiency, cost, energy consumption, environmental impact
and technical feasibility. This article examines different processing technologies and compares those using
MCDM methods such as the preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation
(PROMETHEE). Using this approach, this study proposes a systematic and objective method for identifying
the most appropriate treatment options, facilitating more efficient wastewater management and protection
of the aquatic environment.

1 Introduction can lead to reduced biodiversity and the impairment of

the ecological balance and functions of water bodies [4,
The progress of synthetic chemistry in the 20th century 10, 13-19]. The potential impact of micropollutants on
has allowed the development and production of many human health is a growing concern. Through the
organic and inorganic molecules of interest [1, 2]. These consumption of contaminated water and food, humans
molecules have various applications and are used in are exposed to a cocktail of these substances, which
medicine, agriculture, chemistry or formulation [3, 4]. could lead to long-term health effects. The trace levels
Some of these molecules are called micropollutants of pharmaceuticals and endocrine-disrupting chemicals
(MPs) because they present proven or suspected harmful found in drinking water, for instance, are suspected to
effects even at low concentrations (from ng/L to μg/L) contribute to a range of health issues, including
[5, 6]. As a result of human activities, these molecules hormonal imbalances, reduced fertility, and an increased
can be found in wastewater [7, 8]. The three main types risk of certain cancers. Despite the low concentrations,
of sources are domestic, artisanal, industrial activities the chronic exposure and mixture of various
and road traffic: urban surfaces through rainwater runoff micropollutants raise questions about their synergistic
and pavement cleaning: and urban space maintenance effects and the true extent of their impact on human
practices and illicit acts [3, 9-12].The presence of health [20-27]. The sources and impacts of
micropollutants in the environment, particularly in micropollutants highlight the complexity of managing
water bodies, poses significant risks to ecosystems and these pollutants in the environment. Effective strategies
human health. Aquatic organisms are particularly require a comprehensive approach that addresses the
vulnerable to the effects of micropollutants. Even at low variety of sources and pathways through which these
concentrations, these substances can disrupt the pollutants enter the environment, as well as the
endocrine systems of fish and other wildlife, leading to development of advanced treatment technologies to
reproductive and developmental issues, behavior remove them from wastewater and drinking water.
changes, and even mortality. The bioaccumulation of Additionally, public awareness and regulatory measures
these pollutants up the food chain further magnifies their play crucial roles in reducing the release of these
impact, affecting not only aquatic life but also the substances and mitigating their impacts on ecosystems
animals and humans that depend on these water bodies and human health [2, 28-32].
for sustenance. This disruption of aquatic ecosystems

* Corresponding author: elhammoudani5@gmail.com

© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
E3S Web of Conferences 527, 02010 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202452702010
JOE4

Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), which are to choose the most efficient advanced treatment
designed to remove suspended solids, organic carbon, technique for the removal of these compounds from
organic and ammonia nitrogen, and phosphorus, can wastewater.
remove some biodegradable MPs [11,12,33-37]. In To do this, the solution adopted here consists of
contrast, hydrophilic MPs are little affected by applying the multicriteria decision method (MCDM) in
conventional physical-chemical or biological treatments order to rank, from the best to the worst, the chosen
[38-42]. Among these MPs are many pharmaceutical hypotheses. As part of operational research, this method
residues and heavy metals that can reach receiving has been perfected by creating mathematical tools to
aquatic environments and have a negative impact on the facilitate the task of decision-makers [46]. The results of
environment [2,5,43,44]. Faced with these limitations of this analysis aim to discriminate the behaviour of the
conventional systems, several solutions are being hypotheses considered and thus to judge their relative
considered to eliminate these MPs before they reach the performance as a complement to a technical-economic
natural environment: reduction at the source, analysis [45]. The different areas in which of MCDM is
optimization of existing wastewater treatment systems applied include including materials, energy, production,
and use of advanced treatments [45]. These techniques risk management, the environment, IT, and tourism [47-
are less costly and environmentally friendly and have 52]. The percentages of applications and the domains
low energy consumption. Therefore, the question is how are presented in Figure 1.

Fig. 1. Studies regarding MCDM and application areas.

The environment and energy domain had a share of can nevertheless have harmful effects on the
13.49%. This domain contains several specific environment and human health. They are characterized
subdomains in which they applied MCDM. by great diversity, including both organic and inorganic
Among these subdomains are energy resources [53], risk compounds. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products
sustainability [54], energy policies [55], transport (PPCPs) include a wide variety of substances such as
sustainability [56], environmental management [57], drugs (antibiotics, analgesics, and hormones), cosmetics
renewable energy [58], and environmental quality [59]. and hygiene products. Their presence in wastewater is
Only 4% focused on the wastewater treatment subfield. mainly due to human excretion after consumption of
PROMETHEE is proposed in this study because it is medicines, inappropriate discharge of unused
considered one of the most important multicriteria medicines, and washing of cosmetics and hygiene
decision-making techniques for analysing and selecting products applied to the skin. These compounds can
the most appropriate advanced technology for the persist in the environment, posing risks to aquatic fauna
removal of micropollutants from wastewater according and human health.
to the considered criteria. Pesticides and herbicides are widely used in
agriculture and domestic gardening to control
undesirable plant and animal pests. Their infiltration
2 Literature Review into surface and groundwater can occur through
The presence of micropollutants in wastewater agricultural and urban runoff. These substances are of
represents a major environmental and health challenge. particular concern because of their bioaccumulation
These substances, often present in low concentrations, potential and toxicity to nontarget organisms.

2
E3S Web of Conferences 527, 02010 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202452702010
JOE4

This category comprises a wide range of substances, this study will focus on the evaluation of different
including volatile organic compounds (VOCs), treatment technologies using multicriteria decision
phthalates, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and flame methods to identify the optimum options for the
retardants. These chemicals originate from various elimination of these micropollutants. The management
industrial processes, consumer products and industrial of micropollutants in wastewater represents a major
waste. Their release into the environment can occur challenge for current treatment technologies. While
through direct industrial discharges into wastewater, as traditional wastewater treatment methods are effective
well as through the degradation of products containing at removing conventional organic and inorganic
these substances. Their persistence and toxicity pose contaminants, the removal of micropollutants requires
significant risks to aquatic ecosystems and public health. more advanced approaches. These technologies aim to
The micropollutants in wastewater come from a reduce the concentration of these harmful substances to
multitude of sources, including domestic, agricultural levels that minimize their environmental and health
and industrial activities. The diversity of these impacts. Table 1 provides an overview of the
substances and their potentially harmful effects wastewater treatment methods currently used to
underscore the importance of developing effective eliminate micropollutants.
treatment methods to eliminate them. The remainder of
Table 1. Emergent wastewater treatment techniques.

Technology Advantages Disadvantages

Advanced - Highly effective at breaking down complex - High operational costs
Oxidation pollutants. - Potential for toxic by-product
Processes (AOPs) - Can treat a wide range of contaminants formation
- Susceptible to fouling.
Membrane - Efficient removal of various micropollutants.
- High energy and maintenance
Filtration - Chemical-free process
costs
- Need for regular carbon
Activated Carbon - High efficiency for certain pollutants. replacement.
Adsorption - Simple operation - Variable effectiveness across
pollutant types
- Relatively slower process.
- Utilizes natural processes.
Biofiltration - Performance affected by
- Low operational costs
environmental conditions
- Potential environmental and
- High efficiency even at low concentrations.
Nanotechnology health risks of nanomaterials.
- Specificity to pollutants
- High costs
- Effective for targeted pollutants, especially
- Limited application range.
Ion Exchange metals.
- Need for resin regeneration
- Quick process
- Requires specific catalysts, often
- Can degrade a wide range of pollutants. expensive.
Photocatalysis
- Uses light energy, potentially renewable - Efficiency depends on light
availability
- Effective for particulate and some dissolved - Electrode replacement costs.
Electrocoagulation pollutants. - Generation of sludge requiring
- Minimal chemical use disposal
- Effective for disinfection and degradation of - Limited to pollutants sensitive to
Ultraviolet (UV)
some chemicals. UV.
Radiation
- No chemical additives needed - High energy consumption
- Ozone generation is energy-
- Strong oxidizing ability. intensive.
Ozonation
- Effective for a variety of organic pollutants - Can produce harmful by-
products in certain conditions

3 Methodology multicriteria decision support approach designed to

handle situations where several criteria need to be
considered simultaneously to evaluate a set of
3.1 PROMETHEE presentation alternatives. Developed in the 1980s by Brans and
PROMETHEE, which stands for Preference Ranking Vincke, this method enables decision-makers to rank or
Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluations, is a select options by integrating their own preferences [60].

3
E3S Web of Conferences 527, 02010 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202452702010
JOE4

The process begins by clearly defining the evaluation A decision maker could be either an individual or a
criteria, which can vary from qualitative to quantitative. collective of experts (for instance, a board or committee)
Once the criteria have been established, each alternative responsible for making the ultimate selection among the
is evaluated according to these criteria, enabling options. This study's assessments were conducted by
comparison matrices to be constructed. The special three distinct decision-makers: the municipality, the
feature of PROMETHEE lies in its use of preference wastewater treatment plant manager, and the local
functions to transform differences between alternative community.
evaluations into degrees of preference, reflecting the
way in which a decision maker values differences
3.3 Definition and weighting of criteria
between options according to different criteria.
The method is divided into two main versions: The PROMETHEE method adopted similar criteria,
PROMETHEE I for a partial ranking and albeit divided differently into clusters: "environmental,
PROMETHEE II for a complete ranking of alternatives economic and technical". The percentile weights for
[61]. This segmentation offers the flexibility to adapt the each criterion were defined by expert opinions from the
analysis to the nature of the decision to be made. The municipality (Municip), operators of the wastewater
approach is also distinguished by its incorporation of a treatment plant (WWTP) and the local community
visual tool, GAIA (Geometrical Analysis for Interactive (Local C). In the PROMETHEE approach, the criteria
Aid), which helps to visualize the trade-offs between were redistributed between different clusters, with 25%
criteria and to understand the impact of these on the final attributed to disposal efficiency, 20% attributed to
decision [62]. In summary, PROMETHEE provides a operational cost, 15% attributed to environmental
rigorous methodological structure for dealing with the impact, and 10% attributed to ease of implementation,
complexity inherent in multicriteria decision-making, 15% attributed to energy consumption and 15%
facilitating the identification of a preferred solution or attributed to sustainability. After collecting the
ranking of alternatives based on the decision-maker's necessary parameters for evaluating the wastewater
specific preferences [63]. treatment technologies, the Gaussian preference
function was employed for every criterion, as detailed in
3.2 Study Design: Conceptual framework for Table 2. Subsequently, Visual PROMETHEE Decision
comparing treatment methods. Lab software was used to carry out the analysis.

In this research, PROMETHEE multicriteria decision-

making (MCDM) techniques were utilized to evaluate 4 Description of alternatives
and rank various options. The same options and criteria The following section summarizes current treatment
were considered when employing each method to technologies for removing micropollutants from
address the proposed problem. Identifying a decision- wastewater collected from recent studies.
maker is critical within the context of MCDM studies.
Table 2. Visual PROMETHEE to identify the optimal WWT technology for the removal of micropollutants.
Removal Operating Environmental Ease of Energy
Criteria Sustainability
efficiency cost impact implementation consumption
Cluster Environmental Economic Environmental Technical Economic Economic
Weight (%) 25 20 15 10 15 15
Activated
8 5 7 6 5 9
Carbon
Advanced
9 6 8 5 7 7
Oxidation
Membrane
7 4 9 7 3 8
Filtration
Biochar
6 7 10 8 9 10
Adsorption
Electrochemical 7 5 6 4 6 6

4.1 Activated carbon adsorption molecules on its surface, enabling them to be separated
from the medium in which they are found.
Activated carbon adsorption (A1) is a widely used The manufacture of activated carbon generally
treatment technique for the purification and depollution involves the carbonization of carbon-rich materials,
of water and air [28, 64, 65]. This method relies on the such as wood, coconut shells or agricultural residues,
use of activated carbon, a form of carbon treated to followed by activation [33, 66-78]. Activation can be
create a large porous surface capable of capturing achieved by high-temperature heat treatment in the
contaminants. The principle of adsorption is based on presence of oxidizing agents, which increases the
activated carbon's ability to attract and retain pollutant porosity of the material and thus increases its specific
surface area. This high specific surface area makes

4
E3S Web of Conferences 527, 02010 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202452702010
JOE4

activated carbon extremely effective at adsorbing a wide biotechnology industries for applications such as
range of substances, including organic compounds, desalination, purification, product concentration and
certain heavy metals and chlorine residues. contaminant removal. There are different types of
In water treatment applications, activated carbon is membrane filtration methods classified according to
used to eliminate unpleasant tastes and odours, volatile pore size: reverse osmosis (RO), nanofiltration (NF),
organic compounds (VOCs), pesticides and ultrafiltration (UF) and microfiltration (MF). Each of
pharmaceuticals, thereby improving drinking water these technologies has its own specific application,
quality [79-81]. For air treatment, activated carbon depending on separation needs. Reverse osmosis, with
effectively captures gaseous pollutants, organic vapours its finer pores, is used to remove ions and small
and odours, helping to clean indoor air and control molecules, while microfiltration, with its larger pores, is
industrial emissions. The choice of activated carbon and suitable for separating larger particles, such as bacteria
the design of the adsorption system depend on many and sediments. The advantages of membrane filtration
factors, including the nature and concentration of the include high separation efficiency, relatively low energy
pollutants to be eliminated, and the volume of fluid to consumption compared with thermal separation
be treated. The regeneration of activated carbon, which methods, and the ability to operate at ambient
enables it to be reused, is also an important aspect of its temperature, which is particularly important for the
industrial and environmental application, offering a treatment of heat-sensitive substances. However, the
solution that is both effective and sustainable for the challenges associated with this technology include
treatment of polluted water and air. membrane clogging, which can reduce efficiency and
increase operating costs, and the need for periodic
membrane cleaning and replacement. Research
4.2 Advanced oxidation processes
continues to develop more clogging resistant and
Advanced oxidation processes (A2) (AOP) represent a durable membranes to make this technology even more
set of chemical treatment techniques used for water and efficient and economical.
air pollution control, and are characterized by the use of
powerful oxidizing reagents to degrade organic and 4.4 Biochar Adsorption
inorganic pollutants to less harmful or harmless
compounds. These techniques take advantage of Biochar adsorption (A4) is an emerging water and air
chemical reactions involving free radicals, particularly treatment technique that uses biochar as an adsorbent
the hydroxyl radical (-OH), which is known for its high material to remove pollutants. Biochar is a carbon-rich
reactivity and ability to oxidize a wide range of char produced by the pyrolysis of plant biomass, such as
contaminants [82, 83]. agricultural residues, forestry waste or organic waste, in
The principle of AOPs is based on the in situ a low-oxygen environment. This treatment method takes
generation of hydroxyl radicals from various advantage of biochar's porous structure and high
combinations of oxidants and energy. Commonly used specific surface area, which enable it to capture a variety
methods include ozonation, UV photolysis, hydrogen of contaminants, including heavy metals, volatile
peroxide (H2O2), and combined systems such as organic compounds and pesticides [86, 87].
ozone/UV, H2O2/UV, and the Fenton process The biochar adsorption process is considered
(H2O2/iron). These systems can effectively breakdown ecologically sustainable and economically viable
substances that are difficult to treat by traditional because as it valorizes biomass waste and can be
biological or physicochemical methods, such as implemented with low environmental impact. In
persistent organic compounds, dyes, pesticides and addition to its effectiveness in purifying water and air,
endocrine disruptors. biochar also contributes to carbon sequestration, thereby
The application of AOPs in water treatment aims to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Current research
improve drinking water quality, treat industrial and focuses on optimizing the adsorbent properties of
municipal wastewater, and restore contaminated biochar, such as its porosity, specific surface area and
groundwater. The effectiveness of these methods surface functionalities, to improve its effectiveness in
depends on a number of factors, including the type and removing specific pollutants. The adaptation of biochar
concentration of pollutants, the composition of the water for targeted applications, its regeneration and recycling
matrix, and the operating conditions of the process. after saturation and the assessment of its overall
environmental impact are important aspects currently
being studied to maximize the benefits of this promising
4.3 Membrane filtration
technology.
Membrane filtration (A3) is a separation technology that
uses semipermeable barriers to remove or concentrate 4.5 Electrochemical oxidation
particles and dissolved substances from liquids [84, 85].
This method relies on the size of the membrane pores, Electrochemical oxidation (A5) is an advanced
which allow the passage of certain components while wastewater treatment technique that uses redox
retaining others, depending on their size, charge or reactions occurring at the surface of electrodes to
chemical affinity. Membrane filtration is widely used in degrade organic and inorganic pollutants. This method
water and wastewater treatment, drinking water relies on the application of an electric current between
production, and the food, pharmaceutical and electrodes immersed in the wastewater, generating

5
E3S Web of Conferences 527, 02010 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202452702010
JOE4

powerful oxidizing species such as hydroxyl radicals, effective post-treatment strategies are essential for
chlorine or ozone directly in the medium to be treated. mitigating these impacts [82, 83].
These reactive species are capable of breaking the Membrane filtration technologies, such as reverse
chemical bonds of pollutants, leading to their osmosis, ultrafiltration, and nanofiltration, are at the
mineralization or transformation into less harmful forefront of removing various pollutants due to their
compounds [88,89]. high efficiency and selectivity. The sustainability of
One of the main advantages of electrochemical membrane technologies is primarily affected by the
oxidation is its ability to treat water containing energy required for operation and the lifespan of the
recalcitrant or toxic pollutants, which are difficult to membranes themselves. Membrane fouling, a common
remove by conventional biological or physicochemical issue, exacerbates energy consumption and necessitates
methods. In addition, this technique offers the frequent membrane replacement, contributing to waste.
advantages of easy integration into existing treatment Moreover, the disposal of concentrate waste streams
processes, does not require the addition of external poses additional environmental hazards. Advancements
chemical reagents, and can be modulated according to in membrane materials to reduce fouling and energy
the pollutant load and volume to be treated. consumption, alongside effective waste management
However, the success and efficiency of strategies, are critical for enhancing the sustainability of
electrochemical oxidation are highly dependent on the these technologies [85].
type of electrode used, operating conditions such as the Biochar adsorption presents a promising, more
applied current and pH, and the specific nature of the sustainable alternative for water treatment, leveraging
pollutants present in the water. Ongoing research in this the adsorptive properties of biochar derived from
field is aimed at developing more efficient and durable biomass. The use of waste biomass as a feedstock and
electrode materials, optimizing treatment parameters the potential for biochar to be regenerated or repurposed
and assessing the environmental and economic impact as a soil amendment after its adsorptive life highlight its
of this technology for wider and more effective sustainability benefits. However, the ecological impacts
application in wastewater treatment. of biochar depend on its source and production process,
which must be managed to avoid negative outcomes
such as deforestation or the misallocation of agricultural
4.6 Sustainability and ecosystem impacts
resources. Research into the long-term effects of biochar
The sustainability and ecological impact of water on soil health and carbon sequestration is vital for fully
treatment technologies are critical considerations in realizing its environmental benefits [90].
their long-term application and environmental Electrochemical oxidation offers a chemical-free
integration. These considerations span the entire approach to degrading pollutants through the application
lifecycle of the technology, from material sourcing and of electric currents, marking it as an innovative method
energy consumption to waste generation and disposal. with potentially lower direct environmental impacts.
Activated carbon adsorption is a widely employed The method's sustainability largely hinges on the energy
method for removing various contaminants from water, source used and the efficiency of the electrochemical
offering high efficiency and broad applicability. Its process. The use of renewable energy can significantly
sustainability is primarily challenged by the carbon's enhance its sustainability profile. Furthermore, the
lifecycle, from production to disposal. The production technology's reliance on electrode materials, which may
of activated carbon, often from non-renewable sources involve rare or toxic metals, poses sustainability and
like coal, can be energy-intensive and contribute to disposal challenges. Developing more sustainable
greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, the disposal of electrode materials and recycling strategies is crucial for
spent activated carbon, which may be laden with minimizing these impacts [91].
hazardous contaminants, poses significant In summary, the sustainability and ecological
environmental risks if not properly managed. impacts of water treatment technologies are
Innovations in activated carbon regeneration and the multifaceted, encompassing energy use, material
exploration of more sustainable raw material sources, sourcing, and waste generation and management.
like agricultural by-products, are vital for improving its Enhancing the long-term sustainability and reducing the
long-term sustainability and reducing its ecosystem ecological footprint of these technologies require
impacts [13]. ongoing innovation in material science, process
Advanced oxidation processes (AOPs), involving the engineering, and energy management. Through
generation of highly reactive species capable of concerted efforts in these areas, the water treatment
degrading persistent pollutants, are notable for their industry can move toward more sustainable and
effectiveness against a wide range of contaminants. ecologically harmonious practices.
However, the energy intensity of these processes,
especially those requiring UV light or ozone generation, 5 Results and discussion
raises concerns about their long-term sustainability.
Moreover, the potential formation of toxic by-products Table 3 and Fig. 2 present a multicriteria decision
from the incomplete degradation of pollutants analysis ranking different wastewater treatment
necessitates careful consideration of downstream methods using Visual PROMETHEE. Biochar
impacts on aquatic ecosystems. Efforts to enhance the adsorption stands out at the top of the list, demonstrating
energy efficiency of AOPs and to develop more a superior net flux and a strong preference for positive

6
E3S Web of Conferences 527, 02010 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202452702010
JOE4

outflow, indicating that it is largely favoured over other exhibited a strong positive effect on removal efficiency,
methods while rarely being outperformed, as evidenced indicating its effectiveness in eliminating
by its low negative outflow. Advanced oxidation ranks micropollutants.
second, showing a decent balance of being preferred Activated carbon shows a balance with some criteria
over other methods while facing some competition. falling into the positive and others are falling into the
Activated carbon is in the middle of the ranking, with a negative. This might imply that while it performs well
slightly negative net flux, suggesting a balance between in some areas (such as environmental impact), it may not
its advantages and disadvantages. Membrane filtration be as effective or preferred for other criteria (such as
is below the midpoint, less frequently favoured in removal efficiency). Membrane filtration and
comparisons and more commonly outperformed by electrochemical oxidation have criteria that mostly fall
alternatives. Electrochemical treatment is ranked below the neutral line, indicating less preference for
lowest, with the highest negative outflow, indicating these methods compared to others. In particular,
that it is most often outperformed by other methods in electrochemical oxidation has a significant negative
terms of efficiency. This analysis suggested that biochar effect on removal efficiency, suggesting that it is the
adsorption is the leading option for micropollutant least effective method for removing pollutants removal
removal according to the criteria evaluated. among those analysed.
As shown in Fig. 2, biochar adsorption and advanced The overlapping labels in the graph may indicate that
oxidation had predominantly positive values, indicating the criteria share similar weights or scores for the
that they are generally preferred across the evaluated treatment methods or that there could be a visual overlap
criteria, such as removal efficiency, ease of due to the design of the graph. Overall, the graph
implementation, sustainability, and environmental suggests that biochar adsorption is the most preferred
impact. Biochar adsorption shows a notably high method according to the criteria assessed, followed by
preference for sustainability, suggesting that it scores Advanced Oxidation, while Electrochemical Oxidation
exceptionally well in that criterion. Advanced oxidation is the least preferred method.

Table 3. Ranking of the best treatments for removing micropollutants.

Ranking Methods Net flow Positive outflow ranking Negative outflow Ranking
1 Biochar Adsorption 0.6667 0.8333 0.1667
2 Advanced Oxidation 0.1667 0.5833 0.4167
3 Activated Carbon -0.0417 0.4583 0.5
4 Membrane Filtration -0.2083 0.375 0.5833
5 Electrochemical -0.5833 0.1667 0.75

Fig. 2. Evaluation of treatment techniques

7
E3S Web of Conferences 527, 02010 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202452702010
JOE4

consistent power supply is a concern, which could affect

Conclusion the feasibility of certain technologies. A deeper
exploration of the PROMETHEE methodology and its
In conclusion, the application of the fuzzy comparison with other decision-making approaches
PROMETHEE decision-making tool has demonstrated would be advantageous, for assisting decision-makers
its utility as an effective means for selecting the most and organizations—both governmental and
preferred method among various wastewater treatment nongovernmental—in making informed choices, not
technologies based on our analysis. The findings only in engineering but also across diverse fields of
indicate that biochar adsorption has emerged as the study. For future research, incorporating additional
leading method, with advanced oxidation processes criteria is suggested, as the more extensive the criteria
being the second most favoured option for wastewater considered, the more robust the reliability of the
treatment. These results may vary depending on the outcomes, and conversely, the fewer the criteria, the less
context, such as in developing regions where a reliable the outcomes may be.
14. W. Al-Gethami, M. A. Qamar, M. Shariq, A.-N. M.
References Alaghaz, A. Farhan, A. A. Areshi, and M. H. Alnasir
RSC advances. 14, 2804-2834 (2024)
1. R. Mailler, J. Gasperi, V. Rocher, S. Gilbert- 15. Y. El Hammoudani, F. Dimane, K. Haboubi, C.
Pawlik, D. Geara-Matta, R. Moilleron, and G. Benaissa, L. Benaabidate, A. Bourjila, I. Achoukhi,
Chebbo Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 21, 5379-5390 M. El Boudammoussi, H. Faiz, and A. Touzani
(2014) Desalination and Water Treatment. 100190 (2024)
2. R. Guillossou, J. Le Roux, R. Mailler, E. Vulliet, 16. J. Copik, E. Kudlek, and M. Dudziak, Desalination
C. Morlay, F. Nauleau, J. Gasperi, and V. Rocher and Water Treatment. 288, 2-11 (2023)
Chemosphere. 218, 1050-1060 (2019) 17. A. B. Rios-Miguel, T. J. van Bergen, C. Zillien, A.
3. M. Lim, D. Patureau, M. Heran, G. Lesage, and M. Ragas, R. van Zelm, M. S. Jetten, A. J. Hendriks,
J. Kim Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 6, 1230- and C. U. Welte Chemosphere. 138908 (2023)
1243 (2020) 18. Y. Chai, H. Dai, P. Zhan, Z. Liu, Z. Huang, C. Tan,
4. F. Sher, K. Hanif, A. Rafey, U. Khalid, A. Zafar, F. Hu, X. Xu, and X. Peng Journal of Hazardous
M. Ameen, and E. C. Lima J. Environ. Manage. 278, Materials. 452, 131202 (2023)
111302 (2021) 19. X. Y. Ma, K. Dong, L. Tang, Y. Wang, X. C. Wang,
5. D. Patureau, R. Mailler, N. Delgenes, A. Danel, E. H. H. Ngo, R. Chen, and N. Wang J. Environ. Sci.
Vulliet, S. Deshayes, R. Moilleron, V. Rocher, and 94, 119-127 (2020)
J. Gasperi Waste Manage. 125, 122-131 (2021) 20. K. Gurung, M. C. Ncibi, and M. Sillanpää Sci. Total
6. Y. El Hammoudani and F. Dimane Environ. Chall. 5, Environ. 667, 671-680 (2019)
1-8 (2021) 21. J. Rogowska, M. Cieszynska-Semenowicz, W.
7. Y. Fernine, N. Arrousse, R. Haldhar, C. J. Raorane, Ratajczyk, and L. Wolska Ambio. 1-17 (2019)
S.-C. Kim, F. El Hajjaji, M. E. Touhami, M. 22. Z. Baalbaki, E. Torfs, V. Yargeau, and P. A.
Beniken, K. Haboubi, and M. Taleb Journal of the Vanrolleghem Science of the Total Environment.
Taiwan Institute of Chemical Engineers. 140, 601, 874-885 (2017)
104556 (2022)
23. R. Mailler, J. Gasperi, D. Patureau, E. Vulliet, N.
8. A. Ait Mansour, B. El-Haitout, R. J. Adnin, H. Lgaz, Delgenes, A. Danel, S. Deshayes, V. Eudes, S.
R. Salghi, H.-s. Lee, M. R. Alhadeethi, M. Messali, Guerin, and R. Moilleron Waste management. 59,
K. Haboubi, and I. H. Ali Metals. 13, 797 (2023) 379-393 (2017)
9. S. Das, N. M. Ray, J. Wan, A. Khan, T. Chakraborty, 24. D. Antakyali, C. Morgenschweis, T. De Kort, R.
and M. B. Ray, Micropollutants in wastewater: fate Sasse, J. Schulz, and H. Herbst. Micropollutants in
and removal processes. Physico-Chemical the aquatic environment and their removal in
Wastewater Treatment and Resource Recovery. wastewater treatment works. in 9th European Waste
2017. 75-117. Water Management Conference, Manchester UK.
10. M. Dubey, S. Mohapatra, V. K. Tyagi, S. Suthar, 2015.
and A. A. Kazmi Environ. Pollut. 273, 116515 25. P. A. Neale, S. Ait-Aissa, W. Brack, N. Creusot, M.
(2021) S. Denison, B. r. Deutschmann, K. Hilscherová, H.
11. A. E. Abdouni, S. Bouhout, I. Merimi, B. Hollert, M. Krauss, and J. Novak Environmental
Hammouti, and K. Haboubi Caspian Journal of Science & Technology. 49, 14614-14624 (2015)
Environmental Sciences. 19, 423-429 (2021) 26. Y. Luo, W. Guo, H. H. Ngo, L. D. Nghiem, F. I.
12. A. Elabdouni, K. Haboubi, I. Merimi, and M. El Hai, J. Zhang, S. Liang, and X. C. Wang Sci. Total
Youbi Materials Today: Proceedings. 27, 3145-3150 Environ. 473, 619-641 (2014)
(2020) 27. J. Löwenberg, A. Zenker, M. Baggenstos, G. Koch,
13. J. P. Gutkoski, E. E. Schneider, and C. Michels C. Kazner, and T. Wintgens Water Research. 56, 26-
Journal of Environmental Management. 349, 36 (2014)
119434 (2024)

8
E3S Web of Conferences 527, 02010 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202452702010
JOE4

28. M. Bourgin, B. Beck, M. Boehler, E. Borowska, J. Chebbo, and V. Rocher Journal of environmental
Fleiner, E. Salhi, R. Teichler, U. von Gunten, H. chemical engineering. 4, 1102-1109 (2016)
Siegrist, and C. S. McArdell Water research. 129, 44. S. Tighadouini, S. Radi, A. Elidrissi, K. Haboubi,
486-498 (2018) M. Bacquet, S. Degoutin, M. Zaghrioui, and Y.
29. L. Pasquini, J.-F. Munoz, N. Rimlinger, X. Dauchy, Garcia Beilstein Journal of Nanotechnology. 10,
X. France, M.-N. Pons, and T. Görner Chemical 262-273 (2019)
Papers. 67, 601-612 (2013) 45. A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, K. Nor, Z. Khalifah, N.
30. M. Boehler, B. Zwickenpflug, J. Hollender, T. Zakwan, and A. Valipour Economic research-
Ternes, A. Joss, and H. Siegrist Water Science and Ekonomska istraživanja. 28, 516-571 (2015)
Technology. 66, 2115-2121 (2012) 46. Y.-C. Hu and C.-J. Chen Information Sciences. 181,
31. K. Lehnberg, L. Kovalova, C. Kazner, T. Wintgens, 4959-4968 (2011)
T. Schettgen, T. Melin, J. Hollender, and W. Dott, 47. Ü. Şengül, M. Eren, S. E. Shiraz, V. Gezder, and A.
Removal of selected organic micropollutants from B. Şengül Renewable energy. 75, 617-625 (2015)
WWTP effluent with powdered activated carbon and
48. A. Soltani, K. Hewage, B. Reza, and R. Sadiq Waste
retention by nanofiltration, in Atmospheric and
Management. 35, 318-328 (2015)
Biological Environmental Monitoring. 2009,
Springer. p. 161-178. 49. R. Rajesh and V. Ravi Journal of Cleaner
Production. 86, 343-359 (2015)
32. J. O. Nriagu, Human Pharmaceuticals, Hormones
and Fragrances: The Challenge of Micropollutants 50. E. K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, V. Trinkunas, and
in Urban Water Management, Thomas Ternes, E. Trinkuniene Foundations of civil and
Adriano Joss (Eds.), IWA Publishing (2006), 468 environmental engineering. Poznań: Publishing
pp., $180.00 (hardcover), ISBN: 1843390930. 2007, House of Poznan University of Technology. ISSN,
Elsevier. 1642. 9303, (2004)
33. I. Achoukhi, Y. El Hammoudani, F. Dimane, K. 51. M. Ilangkumaran, M. Karthikeyan, T.
Haboubi, A. Bourjila, C. Haboubi, C. Benaissa, A. Ramachandran, M. Boopathiraja, and B.
Elabdouni, and H. Faiz Journal of Ecological Kirubakaran Safety science. 72, 133-143 (2015)
Engineering. 24, 12-31 (2023) 52. O. Jadidi, T. S. Hong, and F. Firouzi International
34. A. Elabdouni, K. Haboubi, N. Bensitel, S. Bouhout, Journal of Management Science and Engineering
K. Aberkani, and M. S. El Youbi Moroccan Journal Management. 4, 217-229 (2009)
of Chemistry. 10, 191-202 (2022) 53. Ö. Erol and B. Kılkış Energy Conversion and
35. K. Haboubi, A. El Abdouni, Y. El Hammoudani, F. management. 63, 245-252 (2012)
Dimane, and C. Haboubi Environmental 54. J. Stankevičienė, T. Sviderskė, and A. Miečinskienė
Engineering and Management Journal. 22, 1813- Business: Theory and Practice. 15, 1-10 (2014)
1820 (2023) 55. F. Abid and S. Bahloul Economic Modelling. 28,
36. O. Saadi, N. Nouayti, A. Nouayti, F. Dimane, and 2197-2207 (2011)
K. Elhairechi Groundwater for Sustainable 56. N. Bojković, I. Anić, and S. Pejčić-Tarle Ecological
Development. 14, 100639 (2021) Economics. 69, 1176-1186 (2010)
37. A. Bourjila, F. Dimane, N. Nouayti, M. Taher, and 57. M. Sambasivan and N. Y. Fei Journal of cleaner
H. El Ouarghi. Use of GIS, Remote Sensing and AHP production. 16, 1424-1433 (2008)
Techniques to Delineate Groundwater Potential
Zones in the Nekor Basin, Central Rif of Morocco. 58. A. Papadopoulos and A. Karagiannidis Omega. 36,
in Proceedings of the 4th Edition of International 766-776 (2008)
Conference on Geo-IT and Water Resources 2020, 59. G.-G. Ying, X.-Y. Yu, and R. S. Kookana
Geo-IT and Water Resources 2020. 2020. Environmental Pollution. 150, 300-305 (2007)
38. M. Elazzouzi, K. Haboubi, M. Elyoubi, and A. El 60. G. Hodosi, E. Sule, and T. Bodis. MULTI-
Kasmi ES Energy & Environment. 5, 66-74 (2019) CRITERIA DECISION MAKING: A
39. M. Elazzouzi, K. Haboubi, M. S. Elyoubi, and A. El COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS. in Economic and
Kasmi Arabian Journal of Chemistry. 14, (2021) Social Development (Book of Proceedings), 103rd
International Scientific Conference on Economic
40. K. Andaloussi, H. Achtak, C. Nakhcha, K. Haboubi, and Social Development. 2023.
and M. Stitou Moroccan Journal of Chemistry. 9, 9-
3 (2021) 513-529 (2021) 61. W. Sałabun, J. Wątróbski, and A. Shekhovtsov
Symmetry. 12, 1549 (2020)
41. M. El bastrioui, K. Haboubi, A. Chetouani, B.
Hammouti, and A. Nandiyanto Moroccan Journal of 62. S. S. Goswami Foundations of Management. 12, 93-
Chemistry. 10, 10-4 (2022) 851-860 (2022) 110 (2020)
42. C. Benaissa, B. Bouhmadi, and A. Rossi Sci. Afr. 63. N. Agrawal Benchmarking: An International
20, e01623 (2023) Journal. 29, 2122-2146 (2022)
43. R. Mailler, J. Gasperi, Y. Coquet, C. Derome, A. 64. B. S. Rathi and P. S. Kumar Environmental
Buleté, E. Vulliet, A. Bressy, G. Varrault, G. Pollution. 280, 116995 (2021)

9
E3S Web of Conferences 527, 02010 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202452702010
JOE4

65. D. Camacho-Muñoz, J. Martín, J. Santos, I. 82. A. R. Bracamontes-Ruelas, L. A. Ordaz-Díaz, A. M.

Aparicio, and E. Alonso Water Air Soil Pollut. 223, Bailón-Salas, J. C. Ríos-Saucedo, Y. Reyes-Vidal,
2611-2621 (2012) and L. Reynoso-Cuevas Processes. 10, 1041 (2022)
66. M. Lewoyehu Journal of Analytical and Applied 83. N. R. Mirza, R. Huang, E. Du, M. Peng, Z. Pan, H.
Pyrolysis. 159, 105279 (2021) Ding, G. Shan, L. Ling, and Z. Xie Desalination
67. A. Abouabdallah, Y. El Hammoudani, F. Dimane, Water Treat. 206, 83-107 (2020)
K. Haboubi, K. Rhayour, and C. Benaissa Ecological 84. P. Pillai, S. Dharaskar, S. Pandian, and H. Panchal
Engineering and Environmental Technology. 24, Environmental Tech. Innov. 21, 101246 (2021)
170-182 (2023) 85. A. E. D. Mahmoud and E. Mostafa Membranes. 13,
68. C. Benaissa, B. Bouhmadi, A. Rossi, and Y. El 789 (2023)
Hammoudani. Hydro-chemical and bacteriological 86. E. Antunes, A. K. Vuppaladadiyam, A. K. Sarmah,
Study of Some Sources of Groundwater in the GHIS- S. Varsha, K. K. Pant, B. Tiwari, and A. Pandey,
NEKOR and the BOKOYA Aquifers (AL HOCEIMA, Application of biochar for emerging contaminant
MOROCCO). in Proc of The 4th Edition of mitigation, in Advances in Chemical Pollution,
International Conference on Geo-IT and Water Environmental Management and Protection. 2021,
Resources. 2020. Elsevier. p. 65-91.
69. C. Benaissa, B. Bouhmadi, A. Rossi, Y. El 87. S. C. Minos-Stensrud, Sorption potential of sludge
Hammoudani, and F. Dimane Ecological biochar for the removal of acetaminophen and
Engineering & Environmental Technology. 23, 31- carbamazepine from water. 2023, Norwegian
44 (2022) University of Life Sciences.
70. S. Bouhout, K. Haboubi, A. El Abdouni, Y. El 88. D. Guo, Y. Guo, Y. Huang, Y. Chen, X. Dong, H.
Hammoudani, C. Haboubi, F. Dimane, I. Hanafi, and Chen, and S. Li Chemosphere. 265, 129126 (2021)
M. S. Elyoubi Journal of Ecological Engineering. 24,
89. N. Yu, J. Wei, Z. Gu, H. Sun, Y. Guo, J. Zong, X.
(2023)
Li, P. Ni, and E. Han Chemosphere. 289, 133014
71. S. Bouhout, K. Haboubi, Y. E. Hammoudani, A. E. (2022)
Abdouni, C. Haboubi, F. Dimane, I. Hanafi, and M.
90. C. Jung, J. Park, K. H. Lim, S. Park, J. Heo, N. Her,
S. Elyoubi Ecological Engineering and
J. Oh, S. Yun, and Y. Yoon Journal of Hazardous
Environmental Technology. 25, 22-45 (2024)
Materials. 263, 702-710 (2013)
72. A. Bourjila, F. Dimane, M. Ghalit, M. Taher, S.
91. M. Cirrincione, B. Zanfrognini, L. Pigani, M. Protti,
Kamari, Y. El Hammoudani, I. Achoukhi, and K.
L. Mercolini, and C. Zanardi Analyst. 146, 612-619
Haboubi Water Cycle. 4, 104-119 (2023)
(2021)
73. A. Bourjila, F. Dimane, H. E. Ouarghi, N. Nouayti,
M. Taher, Y. E. Hammoudani, O. Saadi, and A.
Bensiali Groundw. Sustain. Dev. 15, 100693 (2021)
74. F. Dimane and Y. El Hammoudani Materials Today:
Proceedings. 45, 7742-7746 (2021)
75. Y. El Hammoudani and F. Dimane Environmental
Engineering Research. 26, 200359-0 (2021)
76. Y. El Hammoudani, F. Dimane, and H. El Ouarghi
Environmental Engineering and Management
Journal. 20, 995-1002 (2021)
77. Y. El Hammoudani, F. Dimane, and H. El Ouarghi.
Fate of Selected Heavy Metals in a Biological
Wastewater Treatment System. in Euro-
Mediterranean Conference for Environmental
Integration. 2019. Springer.
78. Y. El Hammoudani, F. Dimane, K. Haboubi, A.
Bourjila, C. Benaissa, I. Achoukhi, and C. Haboubi
Environmental Engineering & Management Journal
(EEMJ). 22, (2023)
79. Q. Aemig, A. Hélias, and D. Patureau Water
Research. 188, 116524 (2021)
80. J. Ahmad, S. Naeem, M. Ahmad, A. R. Usman, and
M. I. Al-Wabel Journal of environmental
management. 246, 214-228 (2019)
81. T. Alvarino, S. Suarez, J. Lema, and F. Omil
Science of the Total Environment. 615, 297-306
(2018)

10