Full text
6,533 characters
· extracted from
preprint-html
· click to expand
Comparative Assessment of 2-MIB and Geosmin Removal Techniques Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis | Authorea try { document.documentElement.classList.add('js'); } catch (e) { } var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'G-8VDV14Y67G']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })(); Skip to main content Preprints Collections Wiley Open Research IET Open Research Ecological Society of Japan All Collections About About Authorea FAQs Contact Us Quick Search anywhere Search for preprint articles, keywords, etc. Search Search ADVANCED SEARCH SCROLL This is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 6 June 2025 V1 Latest version Share on Comparative Assessment of 2-MIB and Geosmin Removal Techniques Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Authors : Betul Aykut-Senel , Nuray Ates , Sehnaz Sule Kaplan-Bekaroglu , and CIHAN OZGUR 0000-0001-6085-1585 [email protected] Authors Info & Affiliations https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174922205.50652872/v1 193 views 133 downloads Contents Abstract Supplementary Material Information & Authors Metrics & Citations View Options References Figures Tables Media Share Abstract The removal of 2-methylisoborneol and geosmin from drinking water is a persistent challenge due to their resistance to treatment methods. This study employs a multi-criteria decision-making approach, integrating the AHP, TOPSIS, and VIKOR, to evaluate five treatment alternatives: activated carbon adsorption (A1), modified activated carbon adsorption (A2), peroxone oxidation (A3), integrated original activated carbon and peroxone process (A4), and integrated modified activated carbon and peroxone process (A5). The assessment was conducted across seven criteria, including technical performance, environmental sustainability, economic feasibility, operational feasibility, usability & monitoring, safety & health risks, and adaptability & suitability. Results indicate that A2 exhibits the highest removal efficiency, while A3 offers the fastest degradation but has high chemical demands and safety risks. AHP and TOPSIS ranked A2 as the most favorable, suggesting that it provides a balanced performance across multiple criteria. Future studies should explore the integration of machine learning techniques to enhance decision-making reliability. Supplementary Material File (manuscript.docx) Download 239.47 KB Information & Authors Information Version history V1 Version 1 06 June 2025 Copyright This work is licensed under a Non Exclusive No Reuse License. Keywords 2-mib ahp geosmin topsis vikor water treatment Authors Affiliations Betul Aykut-Senel Suleyman Demirel Universitesi Muhendislik Fakultesi View all articles by this author Nuray Ates Erciyes Universitesi Muhendislik Fakultesi View all articles by this author Sehnaz Sule Kaplan-Bekaroglu Suleyman Demirel Universitesi Muhendislik Fakultesi View all articles by this author CIHAN OZGUR 0000-0001-6085-1585 [email protected] Isparta Uygulamali Bilimler Universitesi View all articles by this author Metrics & Citations Metrics Article Usage 193 views 133 downloads .FvxKWukQNSOunydq8rnd { width: 100px; } Citations Download citation Betul Aykut-Senel, Nuray Ates, Sehnaz Sule Kaplan-Bekaroglu, et al. Comparative Assessment of 2-MIB and Geosmin Removal Techniques Using Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Authorea . 06 June 2025. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22541/au.174922205.50652872/v1 If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download. For more information or tips please see 'Downloading to a citation manager' in the Help menu . Format Please select one from the list RIS (ProCite, Reference Manager) EndNote BibTex Medlars RefWorks Direct import Tips for downloading citations document.getElementById('citMgrHelpLink').addEventListener('click', function() { popupHelp(this.href); return false; }); $(".js__slcInclude").on("change", function(e){ if ($(this).val() == 'refworks') $('#direct').prop("checked", false); $('#direct').prop("disabled", ($(this).val() == 'refworks')); }); View Options View options PDF View PDF Figures Tables Media Share Share Share article link Copy Link Copied! Copying failed. Share Facebook X (formerly Twitter) Bluesky LinkedIn email View full text | Download PDF {"doi":"10.22541/au.174922205.50652872/v1","type":"Article"} Now Reading: Share Figures Tables Close figure viewer Back to article Figure title goes here Change zoom level Go to figure location within the article Download figure Toggle share panel Toggle share panel Share Toggle information panel Toggle information panel Go to previous graphic Go to next graphic Go to previous table Go to next table All figures All tables View all material View all material xrefBack.goTo xrefBack.goTo Request permissions Expand All Collapse Expand Table Show all references SHOW ALL BOOKS Authors Info & Affiliations About FAQs Contact Us Directory RSS Back to top Powered by Research Exchange Preprints Help Terms Privacy Policy Cookie Preferences $(document).ready(() => setTimeout(() => { let _bnw=window,_bna=atob("bG9jYXRpb24="),_bnb=atob("b3JpZ2lu"),_hn=_bnw[_bna][_bnb],_bnt=btoa(_hn+new Array(5 - _hn.length % 4).join(" ")); $.get("/resource/lodash?t="+_bnt); },4000)); (function(){function c(){var b=a.contentDocument||a.contentWindow.document;if(b){var d=b.createElement('script');d.innerHTML="window.__CF$cv$params={r:'9ffbe7072e6506e7',t:'MTc3OTQ1Mzc2Mw=='};var a=document.createElement('script');a.src='/cdn-cgi/challenge-platform/scripts/jsd/main.js';document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(a);";b.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(d)}}if(document.body){var a=document.createElement('iframe');a.height=1;a.width=1;a.style.position='absolute';a.style.top=0;a.style.left=0;a.style.border='none';a.style.visibility='hidden';document.body.appendChild(a);if('loading'!==document.readyState)c();else if(window.addEventListener)document.addEventListener('DOMContentLoaded',c);else{var e=document.onreadystatechange||function(){};document.onreadystatechange=function(b){e(b);'loading'!==document.readyState&&(document.onreadystatechange=e,c())}}}})();
Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below.
Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure
cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can
have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy
(via DOI)
is the canonical version.