Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This study performs a computationally reproducible multicriteria reanalysis of a four-criterion, UASB-oriented source matrix reported in a 2015 MSc dissertation. Two author-generated numerical scenarios, each containing six WWTP alternatives, are treated as constructed cases rather than verified operating-plant data. The retained criteria are UASB presence, a source-defined flow variable with an unresolved physical unit, CH4 concentration, and H2S concentration. Source-rule coding was rechecked, continuous values were ranked with TOPSIS and a weighted sum model (WSM), and sensitivity was examined through threshold perturbation, criterion-weight variation, and an explicit flow-variable test. Four coding inconsistencies were corrected. Under equal weights, WWTP6 ranked first in Case 1 and WWTP1 in Case 2, with 93.3% TOPSIS–WSM pairwise agreement in both cases. Multiplying or dividing the complete flow column by 24 left TOPSIS and WSM scores and ranks unchanged to numerical precision; removing flow preserved the first-ranked alternative in both scenarios but changed some intermediate positions. The results characterize only the documented four-criterion, UASB-oriented matrix and do not estimate absolute gas production, energy output, or economic feasibility.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silva et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: