The Brazilian economic scenario promotes sustainable development by, among other actions, reducing the pressure on the expansion of electricity capacity. Furthermore, efficiency and reliability may be achieved through regulations and standardised production. From this perspective, there is a steadfast need for continuous improvement in the process of certification of products in the country. This shall apply to the energy sector, in which certifications of LED (light-emitting diode) lamps are part of the Brazilian Labelling Program (PBE), coordinated by Inmetro (Brazilian accreditation body). PBE seeks to provide technical information about the products to support consumers’ choices, stimulating industry competitiveness and improve equipment reliability. From this standpoint, this article presents an analysis of the certification process of LED lamps to propose reviewing requirements into the current label which might help to change the consumers’ energy consumption-related decision-making using the multi-criteria decision-making method (MCDM), TOPSIS. To this end, not only energy efficiency was observed but also other aspects of generated light quality and power quality currently considered as requirements for compulsory LED lighting certification.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HillRLCurtinKM. Solar powered light emitting diode distribution in developing countries: an assessment of potential distribution sites in rural Cambodia using network analyses. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences2011; 45: 48–57. DOI:10.1016/j.seps.2010.08.001.
2.
MurrayATFengX. Public street lighting service standard assessment and achievement. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences2016; 53: 14–22. DOI:10.1016/j.seps.2015.12.001.
3.
DavidovicMDjokicLCabarkapaAKosticM. Warm white versus neutral white LED street lighting: pedestrians’ impressions. Lighting Research and Technology2019; 51: 1237–1248. DOI:10.1177/1477153518804296.
4.
TolmasquimMT. Perspectivas e planejamento do setor energético no Brasil. Estudos Avançados2012; 26: 247–260. DOI:10.1590/S0103-40142012000100017.
5.
WatsonDAcosta FernándezJWittmerDGravgård PedersenO; European Environment Agency. Environmental Pressures from European Consumption and Production: A Study in Integrated Environmental and Economic Analysis.Publication Office of the European Union: 2013. DOI:10.2800/70634.
6.
MoserSKleinhückelkottenS. Good intents, but low impacts: diverging importance of motivational and socioeconomic determinants explaining pro-environmental behavior, energy use, and carbon footprint. Environment and Behavior2018; 50: 626–656. DOI:10.1177/0013916517710685.
7.
TorriniFCSouzaRCCyrino OliveiraFLMoreira PessanhaJF. Long term electricity consumption forecast in Brazil: a fuzzy logic approach. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences2016; 54: 18–27. DOI:10.1016/j.seps.2015.12.002.
8.
MiyashiroMM. Avaliação da eficiência energética de lâmpadas LED. PhD Thesis, Pontifícia Universidade Católica, BR, 2016
9.
PereiraAMETeixeiraVAFortesMZTavaresGMFerreiraVH. Power quality analysis of domestic lamps in the Brazilian market. WSEAS Transactions on Circuits and Systems2015; 14: 388–398.
10.
Portaria no. 144:2015. Requisitos de Avaliação da Conformidade para Lâmpadas LED com Dispositivo Integrado à Base.
11.
Portaria no. 389:2014. Regulamento Técnico da Qualidade para Lâmpadas LED com Dispositivo de Controle Integrado à Base.
12.
PROCEL. Regulamento Para Concessão Do Selo Procel de Economia de Energia Para Edificações. Brasil; 2015.
LercheNWilkensISchmehlMEigner-ThielSGeldermannJ. Using methods of multi-criteria decision making to provide decision support concerning local bioenergy projects. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences2019; 68: 100594. DOI:10.1016/j.seps.2017.08.002.
15.
CuoghiKGLeonetiAB. A group MCDA method for aiding decision-making of complex problems in public sector: the case of Belo Monte Dam. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences2019; 68: 100625. DOI:10.1016/j.seps.2018.04.002.
16.
OcampoLAlinsubJCasulRAEnquigGLuarMPanuncillonN, et al.Public service quality evaluation with SERVQUAL and AHP-TOPSIS: a case of Philippine government agencies. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences2017; 68: 100604. DOI:10.1016/j.seps.2017.12.002.
17.
PROCEL. Critérios Para a Concessão Do Selo PROCEL de Economia de Energia a Lâmpadas LED Com Dispositivo de Controle Integrado à Base. Brasil; 2016.
18.
OnderEDagS. Combining analytical hierarchy process and TOPSIS approaches for supplier selection in a cable company. Journal of Business, Economic Finance2013; 2: 56–74. DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056.
19.
OliveiraLBFortesMZFerreiraVHGaviãoLOLimaGBA. Uso de Métodos de Análise Multicritério na Certificação de Lâmpadas LED. In: VIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Sistemas Elétricos. Niterói, 2020.
20.
AraujoJSilvaLOliveiraLFortesMBorbaBColombiniA. Assessment of the technological update of public lighting in Brazil. IEEE Latin America Transactions2020; 18: 985–991. DOI:10.1109/TLA.2020.9099674.
21.
CardosoKRFreitasPVACastellanosPVGSilvaJOFortesMZ. Effects of electromagnetic interference caused by lighting technologies in bb-plc systems. Journal of Engineering and Technology for Industrial Applications2020; 6: 28–32. DOI:10.5935/2447-0228.20200014.
22.
FragosoALimaGFortesMGaviaoLNeyGPereiraA. Evaluation of the energy performance in LED lamps with integrated driver through multicriteria analysis. IEEE Latin America Transactions2019; 17: 642–647. DOI:10.1109/TLA.2019.8891929.
23.
SilvaLMde CarvalhoACTAraujoJFFortesMZOliveiraLBSilvaJO. Evaluation of the impact of EMI on ethernet networks from lighting technologies. Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications2019; 33: 249–259. DOI:10.1080/09205071.2018.1537135.
24.
Ernesto Viqueti FassarelaJZamboti FortesMPinheiros FragosoAMartins TavaresG. Analysis and suggested solution of power quality problems in lighting laboratory. IEEE Latin America Transactions2014; 12: 1019–1026. DOI:10.1109/TLA.2014.6893995.
25.
OliveiraLBSallesRAFragosoAPFortesMZTavaresGM. Lighting retrofit using LED technology—Efficiency analysis and environmental impacts. 2018 Simposio Brasileiro de Sistemas Eletricos (SBSE), IEEE, Niteroi, Brazil, 12–16 May 2018, 2018: 1–5. DOI:10.1109/SBSE.2018.8395906.
26.
JayantASharmaJ. Research article a comprehensive literature review of mcdm techniques electre, promethee, vikor and topsis applications in business competitive environment. International Journal of Current Research2018; 10: 65461–65477.
27.
MartinsLGBGomesLFAM. Análise Do Processo De Tomada Localização De Um Novo Empreendimento Industrial, Em Ambiente De Incerteza: Uma Avaliação Multicritério. In: IX National Congress of Management Excellence, 20–22 June 2013, 2013.
28.
PengYWangGKouGShiY. An empirical study of classification algorithm evaluation for financial risk prediction. Applied Soft Computing2011; 11: 2906–2915. DOI:10.1016/j.asoc.2010.11.028.
29.
JuniorFRLOsiroLCarpinettiLCR. Multicriteria decision methods for supplier selection: a literature review on the state of the art. Gestão & Produção2013; 20: 781–801. DOI:10.1590/S0104-530X2013005000005.
30.
Lima JuniorFRCarpinettiLCR. Uma comparação entre os métodos TOPSIS e Fuzzy-TOPSIS no apoio à tomada de decisão multicritério para seleção de fornecedores. Gestão & Produção2015; 22: 17–34. DOI:10.1590/0104-530x1190.
31.
AlbertoLRangelDHallJZotesLP. Aplicação do método TOPSIS na avaliação dos critérios utilizados na seleção de docentes em uma instituição de ensino superior. Capa2017; 9: 47–58.
32.
KayaTKahramanC. Multicriteria decision making in energy planning using a modified fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Expert Systems with Applications2011; 38(6): 6577–6585. DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.11.081.
33.
AfsordeganASánchezMAgellNZahediSCremadesLV. Decision making under uncertainty using a qualitative TOPSIS method for selecting sustainable energy alternatives. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology2016; 13: 1419–1432. DOI:10.1007/s13762-016-0982-7.
34.
BeccaliMCelluraMMistrettaM. Decision-making in energy planning. Application of the Electre method at regional level for the diffusion of renewable energy technology. Renewable Energy2003; 28: 2063–2087. DOI:10.1016/S0960-1481(03)00102-2.
35.
Abreu KangTHda Costa Soares JúniorAMde AlmeidaAT. Evaluating electric power generation technologies: a multicriteria analysis based on the FITradeoff method. Energy2018; 165: 10–20. DOI:10.1016/j.energy.2018.09.165.
36.
Al GarniHKassemAAwasthiAKomljenovicDAl-HaddadK. A multicriteria decision making approach for evaluating renewable power generation sources in Saudi Arabia. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments2016; 16: 137–150. DOI:10.1016/j.seta.2016.05.006.
37.
MousaviMGitinavardHMousaviSM. A soft computing based-modified ELECTRE model for renewable energy policy selection with unknown information. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews2017; 68: 774–787. DOI:10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.125.
38.
KarimiARMehrdadiNHashemianSJBidhendiGRNMoghaddamRT. Selection of wastewater treatment process based on the analytical hierarchy process and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process methods. International Journal of Environmental Science & Technology2011; 8: 267–280. DOI:10.1007/BF03326215.
39.
BehzadianMKhanmohammadi OtaghsaraSYazdaniMIgnatiusJ. A state-of the-art survey of TOPSIS applications. Expert Systems with Applications2012; 39: 13051–13069. DOI:10.1016/j.eswa.2012.05.056.
MardaniAJusohANorKMDKhalifahZZakwanNValipourA. Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications–a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja2015; 28: 516–571. DOI:10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139.
42.
IshizakaANemeryP. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Methods and Software.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2013.
