A Hybrid Entropy TOPSIS-based Reaction Engineering Framework for Multi-Criteria Decision-Making in Chemical and Process Systems
Keywords:
Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), Chemical process optimization, Entropy weighting method, TOPSIS, Reaction engineering decision systemsAbstract
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is becoming necessary in chemical and process engineering because of the ingrained trade-offs among economic, environmental conditions, and objectives of performance. This article proposes a novel hybrid approach combining a weighting entropy, conceptual reaction engineering, and the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) ranking approach for improving the accuracy of decisions in system-based complex chemical. Different from traditional frameworks, the proposed framework is used to embed physicochemical restrictions straight into the decision matrix, corroborating genuine and process-harmonious evaluation conditions. The proposed model is used to be validated utilizing a simulated reactor selection issue, including transformation efficiency, selectivity, consumption of energy, and emissions. The key results illustrate that combining the equations of thermodynamics and the kinetic with MCDM importantly enhances ranking strength and stability-based sensitivity. It confirms that the hybrid approach minimizes the variance of ranking by 18% compared to the conventional entropy-TOPSIS approaches. In addition, the modeled algorithm allows adaptive weighting over dynamic process environments, specifying higher-ranking flexibility for commercial applications. The contributions of this work involve a structured decision framework that spans optimization, reaction engineering, and theory-based decision-making. It offers a scalable solution for applications like reactor models, selection of energy systems, and potential process optimization.
References
[1] Z. Wang, S. R. Nabavi, and G. P. Rangaiah, “Multi-criteria decision making in chemical and process engineering: Methods, progress, and potential,” Processes, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 2532, 2024.
[2] S. K. Sahoo and S. S. Goswami, “A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: Advancements, applications, and future directions,” Decision Making Advances, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 25–48, 2023.
[3] Y. Chen, W. H. Chan, E. L. M. Su, and Q. Diao, “Multi-objective optimization for smart cities: A systematic review of algorithms, challenges, and future directions,” PeerJ Computer Science, vol. 11, p. e3042, 2025.
[4] S. K. Sahoo and S. S. Goswami, “A comprehensive review of multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods: Advancements, applications, and future directions,” Decision Making Advances, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 25–48, 2023.
[5] T. Avramova, T. Peneva, and A. Ivanov, “Overview of existing multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods used in industrial environments,” Technologies, vol. 13, no. 10, p. 444, 2025.
[6] Z. Wang, J. Li, G. P. Rangaiah, and Z. Wu, “Machine learning aided multi-objective optimization and multi-criteria decision making: Framework and two applications in chemical engineering,” Computers & Chemical Engineering, vol. 165, p. 107945, 2022.
[7] Z. Wang, S. R. Nabavi, and G. P. Rangaiah, “Multi-criteria decision making in chemical and process engineering: Methods, progress, and potential,” Processes, vol. 12, no. 11, p. 2532, 2024.
[8] I. T. Chu, H. H. Lin, and J. J. Wei, “Application of multi-criteria decision-making in STEAM teaching in design innovation at the university,” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, vol. 20, no. 12, p. em2539, 2024.
[9] Y. Luo, H. Yuan, Z. Hu, D. Yang, and H. Zhang, “Optimal scheduling of micro-energy grid based on Pareto frontier under uncertainty and pollutant emissions,” IEEE Transactions on Smart Grid, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 368–380, 2023.
[10] K. Deb, “Nonlinear goal programming using multi-objective genetic algorithms,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 291–302, 2001.
[11] Q. Zhang et al., “Navigating the trade-offs and synergies of economic and environmental sustainability using process systems engineering,” in Proc. American Control Conf. (ACC), 2025, pp. 1725–1742.
[12] F. Pallasdies, P. Norton, J. H. Schleimer, and S. Schreiber, “Neural optimization: Understanding trade-offs with Pareto theory,” Current Opinion in Neurobiology, vol. 71, pp. 84–91, 2021.
[13] I. Ioannou, Á. Galán-Martín, J. Pérez-Ramírez, and G. Guillén-Gosálbez, “Trade-offs between sustainable development goals in carbon capture and utilisation,” Energy & Environmental Science, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 113–124, 2023.
[14] D. W. Lin, S. Khattar, and S. Chandrasekaran, “Metabolic objectives and trade-offs: Inference and applications,” Metabolites, vol. 15, no. 2, p. 101, 2025.
[15] S. Giannelos, X. Zhang, T. Zhang, and G. Strbac, “Multi-objective optimization for Pareto frontier sensitivity analysis in power systems,” Sustainability, vol. 16, no. 14, p. 5854, 2024.
[16] B. P. MacLeod et al., “Advancing the Pareto front for thin-film materials using a self-driving laboratory,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08899, 2021.
[17] Z. Wang and G. P. Rangaiah, “Multi-criteria decision-making: Aggregation-type methods,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.06388, 2025.
[18] D. E. Seborg, T. F. Edgar, D. A. Mellichamp, and F. J. Doyle III, Process Dynamics and Control. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, 2016.
[19] N. Petrović et al., “Comparative investigation of normalization techniques and their influence on MCDM ranking: A case study,” Spectrum of Mechanical Engineering and Operational Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 172–190, 2025.
[20] N. Ersoy, T. Van Dua, and H. X. Thinh, “A comparative evaluation of data normalization techniques using different metrics,” Manufacturing Review, vol. 12, p. 19, 2025.
[21] C. S. Dhanalakshmi et al., “A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS and EDAS,” Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery, pp. 1–16, 2022.
[22] D. Li et al., “Holistically green and sustainable pathway prioritisation via a FAHP–TOPSIS framework,” Processes, vol. 13, no. 7, p. 2068, 2025.
[23] M. M. Tekeli et al., “Application of IT2Fs-AHP and TOPSIS modeling for performance analysis of tank coatings,” Proc. IMechE Part M, vol. 238, no. 3, pp. 622–632, 2024.
[24] A. Azari et al., “Integrated fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS for selecting color removal process,” International Journal of Environmental Analytical Chemistry, vol. 102, no. 18, pp. 7329–7344, 2022.
[25] Y. E. Feriyanto, S. P. Zulfikar, and Dedy, “Optimization of sedimentation system using AHP-TOPSIS,” in IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 1096, no. 1, p. 012102, 2021.
[26] M. Mahmoud et al., “MCDM for selecting renewable gasoline biofuel additives using AHP-TOPSIS,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Technology, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 1, 2025.
[27] H. Howari et al., “Multi-objective optimization for ranking waste biomass materials using AHP–TOPSIS,” Sustainability, vol. 15, no. 4, p. 3690, 2023.
[28] R. Nabizadeh et al., “Bottled water quality ranking using fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research, vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 20437–20448, 2022.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Tamarah Abdul Rahman Yaseen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
