Yolanda Picó – November 15, 2024
Abstract
Water is essential at various stages of winemaking, from irrigation in the vineyard to cleaning equipment and facilities, controlling fermentation temperatures, and diluting grape juice if necessary. Additionally, water is used for sanitation purposes to ensure the quality and safety of the final product. This article provides an overview of the existing knowledge regarding the use of water in wineries throughout the winemaking process, water consumption values, effluent treatment, efficient use of water measures, and water reuse. Different assessment methods, including Water Footprint (WF) and Life Cycle Assessment(LCA), provide varied insights into water use impacts, emphasizing the importance of standardized methodologies for accurate assessment and sustainable practices. This research showed that the characterization of the vinification processes of each type of wine is fundamental for further analysis on the environmental impact of winemaking regarding water use. It was also observed that WF is affected by factors like climate, irrigation needs, and cleaning procedures. Thus, efficient water management in all the stages of wine production is crucial to reduce the overall WF. Water efficiency measures may involve the modification of the production processes, reusing and recycling water and the implementation of cleaner production practices and technological innovations, such as automated fermentation systems that reduce water needs. Furthermore, waste management in wineries emphasizes the importance of sustainable practices and technological innovations to mitigate environmental impacts and enhance resource efficiency.
Graphical abstract
Keywords
Winemaking industry
Winery
Water efficiency
Wastewater treatment
Viniculture
1. Introduction
Water is undeniably a vital resource for life on Earth. It is also essential for economic activities such as food production, manufacturing, or energy production. However, water availability is decreasing, which reinforces the need for enhancing water-use efficiency across all sectors (FAO, UN Water, 2021), implementing water resource management, and reducing pollution (United Nations, 2023). According to the UN Sustainable Development Goal Indicator 6.4.2 (European Environment Agency, 2021), which addresses water scarcity based on freshwater consumption as a share of available freshwater resources, the world water stress level is around 18.5 %. The regions with greater water stress levels are Northern Africa and Western Asia, with around 84 %. The agriculture sector, followed by industry, contributes to the largest water withdrawals in most countries (European Environment Agency, 2021). In the USA, the 1972 Clean Water Act (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1972) sets the regulations for surface water quality standards and discharge of wastewater into rivers to prevent pollution and therefore restore and maintain water resources. To facilitate the implementation of the Clean Water Act, the National Water Quality Standards Regulation was updated in 2015 (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2015). According to the US Geological Survey (European Environment Agency, 2017), of the total water use of 322 billion gallons (1 trillion and 218 billion litres) per day in 2015, thermoelectric power (47 %) and irrigation (42 %) are the categories with the highest consumption. The self-supplied industry is the fourth-highest category with 5 % (Fig. 1), and the water is used to process products by cooling, cleaning, diluting, or transporting them.
In the EU, since 2000, the main law for water protection has been the Water Framework Directive (WFD) (European Commission, 2023). This directive sets the rules to avoid the deterioration of European water bodies such as rivers, lakes, or groundwater. According to the European Environment Agency report (European Environment Agency, 2021), the amount of water used for agriculture varies within Europe. In southern Europe, water abstraction reaches almost 90 %, while in other areas it is just 10 %. This sector represents 40–60 % of the total water consumed in Europe, which is mainly for irrigation. The amount of irrigated land is higher for southern European countries such as Malta (28 %) and Spain and Portugal (13 %). In Europe, during an average year, water stress is a reality that affects about 20 % of the territory and 30 % of the Europeans. As visible in Fig. 2, water consumption by sector has seasonal variations (European Environment Agency, 2017). More water is used during spring and summer in industries such as agriculture, forestry, fishing and households, while higher values of water consumption are verified during the fall and winter seasons in the electricity, gas, stream, and air conditioning supply sectors.
The wine sector comprises viticulture and viniculture activities. Viticulture includes the cultivation and harvesting of grapes, which are the raw material for winemaking. In this activity, vine irrigation contributes to most of the freshwater withdrawal. Furthermore, when it comes to analyzing the water footprint in this field, it is highlighted the expected relation between water demand and water stress worsened by climate change and the occurrence of extreme events. It should also be referred that other factors can influence the disparity found in water footprint assessment such as the differences that may occur in winemaking processes and water use, which may also lead to different calculation methodologies. Studies reveal that the global average water footprint of grapes is 610 l/kg (Hoekstra and Heek, 2017; Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011). Although this practice (irrigation) was mostly common in countries such as Australia, Argentina, Chile, and the United States, it has recently been adapted in southern areas of Europe as a consequence of climate change (Ojeda and Saurin, 2014). For large wine-producing countries such as Spain, the average water footprint of wine is 1170 L/kg, while for France and Italy, it is 540 l/kg (Hoekstra and Heek, 2017). In Spain, the irrigation of vineyards has increased exponentially since 1994, and it is more evident in the region of Castilla-La Mancha (Ayuda et al., 2020). Regarding the irrigation of water-stressed vineyards in Italy, Lamastra et al. (2014) noted that, as expected, areas requiring irrigation have greater needs during periods of high water scarcity. This observation is in line with Aivazidou and Tsolakis’s (2020) who also stated that Italian wines have a high water footprint, particularly in water-stressed areas. In some vine-producing regions in Portugal, such as the Douro region, irrigation is not allowed (Matos and Pirra, 2020). However, due to the increase of extreme environmental phenomena in the region, in 2019, the Portuguese government introduced legal exceptions, allowing irrigation if the vines are subject to water stress that could impact the normal physiological development of the vines and could cause imbalances in the composition and quality of the grapes (Conselho de Ministros, 2019). In this situation, the Instituto dos Vinhos do Douro e do Porto (IVDP) either grants permission for irrigation or the vineyard owner notifies the IVDP (Conselho de Ministros, 2019). As part of the manufacturing industry, viniculture is included in the food and beverage sub-sector. The winemaking process also requires water for other activities such as washing and cleaning equipment and facilities (Borsato et al., 2019). Thus, most of the water used in the winemaking process results in wastewater (Milani et al., 2020), with seasonal variation in volume and composition (Milani et al., 2020; Conradie et al., 2014), requiring treatment before being discharged. In 2022, the European Union accounted for over 45 % of the world’s vine-growing area, had a vineyard surface area of around 3316 kha, and produced over 62 % of the world’s wine (International Organisation of Vine and Wine, 2023). As shown in Fig. 3, Italy, France and Spain were the top wine producers, exceeding half of the world’s production. However, the mean water stress level across these countries is 31.23 %, surpassing the figures of all other major wine-producing nations, except for South Africa. This confirms the importance of increasing water use efficiency and improving water resource management and wastewater treatment in the winemaking industry.
In this context, it is intended with this article to provide an overview of the existing knowledge regarding the use of water in wineries throughout the winemaking process, water consumption values, effluent treatment, efficient water use measures, and water reuse. In Section 2, the methodology applied for data collection and selection is described. Section 3 presents the winemaking processes and outlines the use of water throughout these operations. In Section 4, the water consumption data for wineries is shown as are the water-saving measures used in wineries. In Section 5, an overview of the wastewater treatment process is provided, along with a discussion of several advancements in this field. The last part of the article is dedicated to presenting the results drawn from the research and discussing selected views.
2. Methodology
The criteria for selecting the data are the focus of Section 2.1. This involves duties such as screening the data to confirm that the subject of the research falls within the article’s scope. In this stage, the abstracts of the articles are filtered to identify the works that fall within the article’s purpose. Additionally, the studies undergo a comprehensive screening process to verify if they are within the scope of the review and to arrange the topics accordingly. In the following phase, a supplementary search is conducted to address the absence of primary sources concerning a particular topic.
2.1. Data collection criteria
The scope of this review is water efficiency in the wine sector, particularly within the wineries. The search method consisted of two steps: an initial search of a database of scientific literature, and then a larger data collection on the subjects with fewer primary data sources. In the initial search, it uses (i) Scopus as the scientific literature database, (ii) a time range, and (iii) a set of keywords. Apart from the limited search period that was set between January 2013 and December 2023, no other constraints were imposed. The main search keywords used are water and wine. The word water is combined with use, consumption, efficiency, footprint, effluent, wastewater, and treatment, while the word wine is combined with production in conjugation with winery and wineries. In the follow-up search, pertinent sources that were not obtained during the initial database search are gathered. This is accomplished by examining the referenced sources within the articles initially selected.
2.2. Data selection criteria
The Scopus database search yielded a total of 253 documents. Through an initial examination of the abstracts, it was observed that the study topics of 122 articles fell beyond the scope of the review. The academic publications that were not included in the study covered various topics. These topics included other wine industries such as rice wine, spirits, distilleries, and banana wineries. Additionally, there were publications that focused solely on viticulture subjects, such as wine and table grape production, vineyard carbon footprint, and irrigation of vineyards without the reuse of winery wastewater. Other excluded studies examined solid wineries’ waste, focused on wastewater treatment outside the wineries, such as municipal or private wastewater facilities, or combined wastewater treatment with additional agro-industry waste or domestic waste (i.e., chicken manure, swine wastewater, wastewater from olive oil production, beverage wastewater, canning wastewater, and sewage sludge), toxicological impact studies and laboratory-scale studies. The 131 selected studies included themes such as water use in winery processes, water use in wineries and efficiency measures, and wastewater treatment processes in wineries.
3. Winery processes and identification of water use within these processes
Vinification is a combination of processes required for wine production and begins when the harvested grapes arrive at the winery. Upon arrival, the grapes are weighed, and the following processes, although similar, may differ according to the type of wine, such as red wine, white wine, or ‘vinho verde’. The main process stages, as shown in Table 1, are crushing and destemming the grapes, pressing, adding antioxidant agents to prevent bacterial growth (Ene et al., 2013) or clarifying enzymes, alcoholic fermentation, stabilization, filtration, refining, bottling, and ageing. The processes also differ based on wine quality; for example, a high-quality white wine requires an ageing stage, which is not necessary for a medium-quality one (Iannone et al., 2014). Wine is the final product resulting from the process of vinification, but other additional outputs are produced along the way. This is the case of waste and by-products, including stalks, pomace, lees, and wastewater, which are discussed in Section 5. The main stages of vinification are summarized in Table 1, showing the differences in process duration, inputs, and outputs for white wine, red wine, and ‘vinho verde’. Key processes of vinification include: crushing & destemming: for all wine types except ‘vinho verde’; pressing: done for white wine and ‘vinho verde’, but not for red wines, fermentation: essential for all wine types; and cleaning that is required in all processes, contributing significantly to water use. The characterization of the vinification processes of each type of wine is fundamental for further analysis on the environmental impact of winemaking regarding water use. Some of the studies carried out in this context consider the analysis of the water footprint throughout the process, from the cultivation in vineyards until obtaining the final product. However, despite reference being made to water use for irrigation, this article intends to give special emphasis to the analysis of water use in the winery stage.
Table 1. Vinification process according to the type of wine (Ene et al., 2013; Iannone et al., 2014, Iannone et al., 2016; Martins et al., 2017; Quinteiro et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2017).
| Perioda | Process | White wineb | Red wineb | “Vinho verde”a | Inputb | Outputc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Period I – vintage and first racking. | Crushing & destemming | x | x | n/a | Grapes | Stalks (stems) |
| From 30 to 60 days | Pressing | x1 | – | x | 1Destemmed grapes | 1Pomace⁎ (bagasse) |
| High peak flows and pollution. | Antioxidant agent (in vats) | – | – | x | Must⁎⁎ & sulphur dioxide | |
| Clarifying | x | – | x | Must & Enzymes | Lees⁎⁎⁎ (wastewater, suspended solids) | |
| De-sulphiting | n/a | n/a | x | Clarified must | ||
| Maceration | – | x | n/a | |||
| Fermentation | x | x | x | Must & Yeast | Carbon dioxide & heat | |
| Pressing | – | x | n/a | Wine | Pomace (bagasse) | |
| Cleaning | x | x | n/a | Wine | Lees (wastewater, suspended solids) | |
| Period II – non-vintage stage | Stabilization | x | – | x | Wine & oenological substances | Solid waste containing K+, Ca2+ |
| From 305 to 335 days. Longer periods for high quality red wine | Filtration | n/a | n/a | x | Wine | Hazardous waste |
| Refining | x | x | n/a | Wine | ||
| Final cleaning | – | x | n/a | Wine | Lees (organic matter, wastewater) | |
| Refining | – | x | n/a | Wine | ||
| Sterilization of bottles | n/a | n/a | x | Bottles | Wastewater, broken bottles | |
| Bottling | x | x | x | Wine | Bottle 0.75 l | |
| Ageing | high quality | x | – | |||
| Packaging | x | x | x | |||
| Distribution | x | x | x |
a
As in (Quinteiro et al., 2014)b
As in (Iannone et al., 2014, Iannone et al., 2016)c
As in (Ene et al., 2013; Iannone et al., 2014, Iannone et al., 2016)⁎
Pomace or marc is the grape residue after extracting the juice through pressing.⁎⁎
Must is the unfermented liquid produced by crushing grapes (Quinteiro et al., 2014).⁎⁎⁎
Lees are wine sediments (Quinteiro et al., 2014).
The environmental impact of the wine industry has been a recurring subject of research, predominantly using the life cycle assessment (LCA) as a methodological approach with a primary emphasis on the analysis of greenhouse gas emissions (Ponstein et al., 2019a, Ponstein et al., 2019b; Litskas et al., 2020; Marco-Fondevila et al., 2020). Due to the research work from the Water Footprint Network (WFN) and the development of the water footprint assessment, water use and waste generation have emerged as new fields of research in LCA over the past two decades (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2021). Nowadays, these two approaches, namely the water footprint and the LCA, have as a common goal the achievement of sustainable water consumption (Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2021). The water footprint assessment was introduced by Hoekstra et al. (2011) with the global standard manual developed through the Water Footprint Network (WFN). The notion of water footprint, as a measuring metric of water usage and pollution was first presented by Hoekstra in 2002, emphasizing the need to account for both direct and indirect water usage across a product’s supply chain. The consumed water that is used throughout a product’s life cycle is referred to as the water footprint (ISO 14046) (ISO Standard, 2014), and it is calculated using Eq. (1) (Hoekstra et al., 2011), where WFblue is the blue water footprint, which is the volume of freshwater used in the process that was taken from the surface and ground; WFgreen is the green water footprint, which is the volume of rainwater used in the process that was lost through evapotranspiration; and WFgrey is the grey water footprint, which is the volume of water required to dilute effluent pollutants.(1)WaterFootprint=WFblue+WFgreen+WFgrey
Johnson and Mehrvar (2021), focused on assessing the water footprint of the wine production process from grape cultivation to the final product. This study involved data from various stages of wine production, including vineyard irrigation, grape processing, and wine bottling. It provides a comprehensive analysis using the Water Footprint Network’s methodology, which includes blue, green, and grey water footprints. In what concerns to blue water footprint, the study emphasizes efficient irrigation techniques to reduce the blue water footprint. This study highlights the significance of selecting grape varieties suited to the local climate to optimise green water usage. Related to grey water footprint the authors highlight the effective wastewater treatment, whose methods are crucial for minimizing this component. The main recommendations of this study are focused on the improvement of irrigation efficiency, by implementing advanced irrigation systems like drip irrigation that can significantly reduce the blue water footprint, in sustainable practices such as adopting sustainable vineyard management practices (rainwater harvesting and soil moisture conservation) in order to reduce green water footprint, and finally wastewater management, by developing efficient wastewater treatment systems that can help reduce the grey water footprint, thus mitigating the environmental impact of wine production. The study underscores the importance of comprehensive water management strategies in the winery industry to ensure sustainability and address the challenges posed by water scarcity. Green water footprint is informative but offers little from an economic perspective. In contrast, the blue water footprint is fundamental as it requires hydraulic works to supply water to the vineyards. From this point of view, some countries face a significant problem with the expansion of irrigation for wine production in recent decades. Despite the relevance of this issue, it receives very little attention, especially in wine-producing countries where it is a significant concern, such as Argentina, Australia, or Spain. In Table 2 there is a summary of the main methodologies identified in the main wine producing countries.
Table 2. Methodologies identified in the main wine producing countries.
| Year | Country/region | Objectives | Methodology | Results | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Italy: Umbria | Calculation of water footprint (WF) of the wine industry, focusing on winery. | Water Footprint Assessment (WFA) methodology in line with ISO 14046 standards; cradle-to-grave approach, from grape cultivation to end-of-life disposal; Water Footprint Components: Green Water; Blue Water and Grey Water; 0.75-l bottle of red wine. | The total water footprint of the wine was calculated to be 632.2 l per bottle; Green Water constituted the majority of the WF at 98.3 %; Blue Water represented only 0.5 % of the WF; Grey Water made up 1.2 % of the WF. Green Water is the predominant component, reflecting the significant dependence on rainwater in grape cultivation; | (Bonamente et al., 2015) |
| 2020 | Portugal | Measurement of the water footprint (WFP) across two Portuguese vineyards. | Combination of field experiments and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA); WFP focusing on the entire production process from vineyard to bottle; Water Footprint Components: Green Water. | Green Water constitutes more than 50 % of the total WFP; The direct WFP ranged from 366 to 899 l per functional unit (0.75 l bottle); Over 97.5 % of the total WFP is associated with the vineyard stage; The winery stage, although consuming less water, is responsible for more than 75 % of the global warming potential (GWP); Climate change will exacerbate water stress, potentially increasing the blue WFP by 40 % to 82 % due to earlier and prolonged water stress periods. | (Saraiva et al., 2020) |
| 2019 | Portugal | Evaluation of the effect of wastewater treatment on the water footprint (WFP) in a Portuguese medium-sized winery. | The boundary included the direct water use of all the processes in the winery and bottling, not taking into account the water use related to grape growing, ttransportation and machinery; Considered geographically and temporally explicit data accounting, based on the collection and treatment of primary and secondary data on water flows and quality. Water Footprint Components: Grey Water | The WFP ranges from 9.6 to 12.7 l per 0.75-l bottle of wine, with wastewater responsible for about 98. The grey water footprint, linked to wastewater treatment, is significant and cannot be ignored; Proper maintenance and monitoring of wastewater treatment systems can potentially reduce the winery’s WFP by up to 87 | (Saraiva et al., 2019) |
| 2020 | Canada/ Niagara Region of Ontari | Assessment of the Grey Water Footprint of Winery Wastewater | Data Collection: Involves sampling and analyzing winery wastewater for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and total suspended solids (TSS); Grey Water Footprint (GWF) Estimation: Uses specific dilution factors based on environmental regulations to calculate the GWF. | Effective wastewater treatment systems can significantly reduce the GWF; Co-treatment with municipal wastewater plants is important to manage winery effluents; High GWF is obtained due to significant pollutant levels; Advanced treatment methods can reduce GWF by decreasing pollutant concentrations; Local water management strategies are crucial for sustainability in the Niagara Region; | (Johnson and Mehrvar, 2019) |
| 2013 | New Zealand | Evaluation and comparison of the various methodologies for calculating the water footprint (WF) of agricultural products, specifically focusing on New Zealand wine as a case study. | Detailed data collection on water inputs and outputs at various stages of wine production; Examination of different established protocols or methodologies for WF assessment, such as Water Footprint Network or ISO standards; Application of each protocol to quantify the total WF, considering different types of water (blue, green, grey) and their environmental impacts; Comparison of different protocols to assess their applicability, accuracy, and effectiveness. | The variability and reliability of different methodologies for water footprint assessment in agricultural products, particularly in the context of New Zealand wine, were verified; The findings may inform stakeholders about the best practices for assessing and mitigating water use impacts in wine production, aiming towards sustainability and efficient resource management. | (Herath et al., 2013b) |
As previously referred, the calculation of the water footprint or the water use impact of winemaking requires knowledge regarding the supply chain and production stages with all direct and indirect water consumption (Lamastra et al., 2014). Generally, as shown in Table 3, the studies can include within the system boundaries stages such as viticulture and vinification, bottling, storage, and packaging.
Table 3. Water footprint and water use impact of winemaking processes.
| Year | Region | Method | Type of wine | Stages | Units | WF green | WF Blue | WF grey | By stage | Total | Water use impact | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | Romania, Iasi County | Comparative study LCA – LCIA with two water impact categories | White | Production phase, use phase, end-of life phase | 0.75 l bottle | – | – | – | – | – | The updated methodology shows a higher impact on water resources, while the original method shows a greater impact on human health and ecosystem indicators. | (Comandaru et al., 2012) |
| 2013 | Romania, Iasi County | WFN | Controlled appellation of origin and table wines | Viticulture and vinification | 0.75 l bottle, (0.125 l glass) | 82 % | 3 % | 15 % | Supply chain = 1842 l water/1 l wine (+ − 99 %), Winery = 2 l water/ 1 l wine (+ − 1 %) | 2006 = 165 l water /glass, 2007 = 343 l water /glass | Around 99 % of the water footprint comes from supply-chain water use, mostly from viticulture. The water footprint depends on weather. In the winery, cleaning barrels and tanks has the greatest impact on water usage. | (Ene et al., 2013) |
| 2013 | New Zealand: Marlborough (M) Gisborne (G) | LCA – the hydrological water balance. 36 wineries | – | Vineyard and winery (up to packaging) | 0.75 l bottle | Neglig. | Vineyard: M = −81.3 l, G = −414.9 l, Winery: M = 2.7 l, G = 3.9 l | Vineyard: M = 40.6 l, G = 187.8 l, Winery: M = 0.5 l, G = 1.1 l | – | – | The impact of the vineyard is greater than that of the winery. In the winery, the direct use of water is mostly for washing, cleaning, and staff use | (Herath et al., 2013b) |
| 2013 | New Zealand: Marlborough (M) Gisborne (G) | Comparative study WFN; stress-weight water footprint (LCA); MilaÌ€ I Canals et al. (LCA); and the hydrological water balance (HWB) | – | Vineyard and winery (up to packaging) | 0.75 l bottle | – | – | – | – | – | The WFN is limited in the comparison of different regions. The two LCA based methods can be used to compare different regions but is limited to access the impacts on a local level. The HWB outcome results are more meaningfully for a non-technical community. | (Herath et al., 2013a) |
| 2014 | Italy, Palermo | Comparative study WFN and new method VIVAa | 6 types of wines (red and white) | Vineyard and winery (including bottling and packaging) | 1 l of wine | VIVA: 689.5–915.9 l WFN: 694.5–902.9 | Both: 2.6–42.5 l | VIVA: 0–389.8 l WFN: 0–228.6 l | – | – | Green water has the highest impact. The parameters with greater impact are distance from the water source, fertilisation rate, quantity, and eco-toxicological behaviour of used products. | (Lamastra et al., 2014) |
| 2014 | Portugal:; Demarcated Region of ‘vinho verde’ | Comparative study Pfister (Pf); Ecological Scarcity Model (ESM); stress-weight water footprint R; and MilaÌ€ I Canals (MiC) | White | Viticulture and wine production including (i) vinification, (ii) conservation and preparation of lots, and (iii) bottling and storage. | 0.75 l bottle | Vineyard MiC: 396.9 l Winery Pf: 1.0 l ESM: 1.2 l R: 1.6 l MiC: 18.7 l | – | – | Vineyard Pf: 56 % ESM: 24 % R: 55 % MiC: 97 % Winery Pf: 44 % ESM: 76 % R: 45 % MiC: 3 % | – | The impact assessment of freshwater use differs by applied method. | (Quinteiro et al., 2014) |
| 2014 | Italy, Umbria | VIVA software; ISO 14046 | Red | Viticulture; vinification | 0.75 l bottle | 621.4 l (98.3 %) | 3.4 l (0.5 %) | 7.4 l (1.2 %) | – | 632.2 l | Results are similar with literature. The water footprint range values are between 644 and 653.3 l. Green water has the highest impact (98.3 %). | (Bonamente et al., 2015) |
| 2014 | Italy, Umbria | ISO 14046, Comparative study | Red | Viticulture; vinification | 0.75 l bottle | 621.4 l (98.3 %) | 3.4 l (0.5 %) | 7.4 l (1.2 %) | – | 632.2 l | Results are similar with literature. The water footprint range values are between 644 and 653.3 l. Green water has the highest impact (98.3 %). | (Bonamente et al., 2015) |
| 2016 | Italy, Umbria | LCA ISO/TS 14067; ISO 14046; ISO 1404; ISO 14044 | Red and White | Cradle to grave | 0.75 l bottle | Red wine 89.38 % White wine 90.13 % | Red wine 1.98 % White wine 1.77 % | Red wine 8.64 % White wine 8.10 % | Red wine Grapes: 458.43 l (90.95 %) Cellar water: 2.45 l (0.49 %) White wine Grapes: 505.30 l (91.70 %) Cellar water: 2.45 l (0.45 %) | Red wine: 504.1 l White wine: 551 l | Grape production has the highest impact on wine’s water footprint (90.95–91.70 %). Red grapes have higher productivity per unit surface and, therefore, have lower water consumption than white grapes. | (Rinaldi et al., 2016) |
| 2017 | Portugal: Douro | Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) | Terroir wine | Viticulture and transportation; winemaking; bottling and storage | 0.75 l bottle | – | – | – | Viticulture: 17.44 l (92 %) Winemaking: 0.4280 l (2 %) Bottling: 1.1497 l (6 %) | 19.0178 l | Viticulture has the greatest impact on water consumption (92 %). Bottling has the greatest impact on effluent production (76 %). | (Martins et al., 2017) |
| 2018 | Portugal: Douro | LCA ISO 14040:2006 | Terroir wine and a branded wine | Winemaking and bottling | 0.75 l bottle | – | – | – | Terroir wine Winemaking: 27 % Bottling: 63 % Ageing: 10 % Branded wine Winemaking: 71 % Bottling: 29 % | Terroir wine: 1.58 l Branded wine: 4.93 l | The terroir wine’s ageing stage is not relevant to the total Water Footprint. The branded wine has greater water footprint because of the winemaking process. Unlike the terroir wine, the branded wine requires a desulfitation process that consumes a high volume of water. It is also produced in different installations; therefore, a greater volume of water is required for the washing of equipment. Additionally, the constant bottling process of the branded wine increases water consumption. | (Martins et al., 2018) |
| 2019 | Italy: Northeast | Comparative study VIVA, AWAREb and WSIc | White | Viticulture; cellar (grape pressing and winemaking); bottling | 0.75 l bottle | Vineyard VIVA: 988 l | Vineyard VIVA: 175 l Winery VIVA: 6 l | Vineyard VIVA: 24 l | Vineyard VIVA: 1187 l AWARE: 1316 l WSI: 8.53 l Winery VIVA: 6 l (5 %) AWARE: 124 l (8.6 %) WSI: 1.48 l (14.7 %) | VIVA: 1193 l AWARE: 1440 l WSI: 10 l | The VIVA method is better for the vineyard phase; the AWARE and WSI are better for identifying impact stages. | (Borsato et al., 2019) |
| 2019 | Portugal: Alentejo | WFN | 2 case studies | Vineyard and winery | 0.75 l bottle | Vineyard 302–594 l | Vineyard 42–299 l Winery 0.11–3.3 l | Vineyard 0–78 l Winery 0–9.4 l | Vineyard 359–895.7 l Winery 1.9–9.55 l | 366–899 l | Viticulture has the greatest impact on water consumption (98–99 %). In the winery, cleaning processes contribute 75.8–77.9 % of the water footprint. | (Saraiva et al., 2020) |
| 2020 | Portugal: Alentejo | WFN and LCA | Medium-size winery; red and white wine | Winery | 0.75 l bottle | – | 0.15–0.20 l | 9.47–12.54 l | – | 9.6–12.7 l | Wastewater accounts for 98 % of the winery’s water footprint. | (Saraiva et al., 2019) |
| 2020 | Spain: Castilla-La Mancha | Average wine water intensities (m3/ton) | All types of wine; 4 case studies (Albacete, Ciudad Real, Toledo and Cuenca) | Vineyard and winery | – | – | 17.3 % (Albacete); 53.9 % (Ciudad Real); 31.4 % (Cuenca); 24.% (Toledo)d | -% | – | – | It was verified a very fast increase of the blue water footprint from 1995, which has multiplied six-fold in twenty years with an extreme concentration in the region of Castilla-La Mancha, which accounts for 70 % of this increase in Spain. | (Ayuda et al., 2020) |
| 2021 | Italy: Emilia Romagna, Toscana, Veneto, Umbria and Marche | VIVA | 15 red wines | Cradle to gate | 0.75 l bottle | 86.75 % | 1.95 % | 11.34 % | – | 666.7 l | It was identified a correlation between the CF results and the combined amount of blue and grey water footprints. | (D’Ammaro et al., 2021) |
a
Valutazione Impatto Viticoltura sull’Ambiente (VIVA).b
Available water remaining (AWARE).c
Water Stress Index (WSI); NA (Not Applicable).d
Contribution in Castilla-La Mancha of wine to the increase of the blue water footprint of crop production (1955–2010).
Concerning the development of methodologies to support water use assessments, Comandaru et al. (2012) adapted a LCA to introduce two water impact categories: water consumption and degradative water use. The proposed new method enables an in-depth analysis of water-related impacts, a task that was previously challenging to undertake. Herath et al. (2013b) use a hydrological water balance method, previously developed by the authors, to assess the water footprint impact of New Zealand’s wine on local water resources regarding water quantity and quality. The authors found that in New Zealand, due to irrigation values, the contribution of the winery phase is very small compared to the impact of grape production. Also, wineries’ lower impact is linked to the country’s resource management regulations, particularly wastewater disposal. The quantitative impact on water use in wineries is due to activities such as washing, cleaning and staff use, while the qualitative impact can be attributed to two factors: the winery effluent and the production of packaging materials. As part of the Italian VIVA project, Lamastra et al. (2014) developed a methodology for determining the water footprint of wine. This new water footprint assessment software was examined in a subsequent investigation (Herath et al., 2013a). The tool methodology was enhanced for assessing virtual water volume. The total water footprint for a functional unit of 0.75 l was 632.2 l. The result includes the viticulture and vinification stage and was consistent with prior research. Later, with an improved methodology, the authors (Bonamente et al., 2016) evaluated the water footprint impact of an Italian wine red wine. The total water footprint was 578.1 per 0.75 l bottle of wine, and it was detected a correlation between the total carbon footprint values and the sum of the water footprint green and blue results. For the same location, Rinaldi et al. (2016) reported that the water footprint of a red wine and a white wine was 504.1 l and 551 l, respectively. The water footprint of the white wine was higher because the white grapes yield per cultivated area was lower than that of red grapes. In a recent study by D’Ammaro et al. (2021), the average water footprint per 0.75 l bottle of fifteen Italian red wines was determined to be 666.7 l.
Several studies on water use in winemaking processes focus on the comparative analysis of the new developed methodologies. Herath et al. (2013b) compared four methods to evaluate the water footprint of New Zealand wine. The methods were the WFN (Hoekstra et al., 2011), the hydrological water balance (HWB) (Herath et al., 2013b), the LCA-based stress-weight (Ridoutt and Pfister, 2010), and the LCA-based Milà I Canals et al. (i Canals et al., 2009). Overall, the outcomes of the HWB technique were found to hold greater significance for the winemaking sector, since they enabled the industry to assess the effects of the method and set measurable objectives for reducing water footprint. Borsato et al. (2019) compared the use of LCA and the Italian VIVA certification framework to assess the impact of wine production on water resources. It was found that the VIVA framework was superior regarding the use of water during the vineyard phase, while the LCA methods, the Available Water Remaining (AWARE) and the Water Stress Index (WSI) were better at identifying impact stages due to direct and indirect use of water. In the winery, according to the LCA method, the wine packing stage has the highest impact due to water use, pollution associated with glass bottles, and energy for water heating. Quinteiro et al. (2014) compared four LCA methodologies, namely the Pfister et al. (2009) method, the Ecological Scarcity Model (ESM) (Frischknecht et al., 2009), the stress-weight water footprint assessment (R) (Ridoutt and Pfister, 2010), and the MilaÌ€ I Canals (MiC) method (i Canals et al., 2009). The objective of the study was to identify the strengths and constraints of these approaches in assessing the freshwater consumption of the Portuguese white “vinho verde”. The results showed a large variability in the freshwater use impact in the winery (e.g., vinification; conservation and preparation of lots; bottling and storage), with results ranging from 1 l to 18.7 l per bottle of wine. Therefore, it was recommended that international procedures be developed to integrate the freshwater use types into LCA methodologies, both in terms of inventory and impact assessment. Most water footprint assessments studies indicate that viticulture is the phase with the greatest water consumption due to irrigation, in some cases with values above 90 % (Ene et al., 2013; Martins et al., 2017; Saraiva et al., 2020). However, as reported in Ene et al.’s (2013) assessment of the water footprint of grape and wine production in a Romanian winery, climate and weather can affect irrigation requirements. In a dry year, the water footprint for a glass of wine of 0.125 l was 343 l, whereas in a normal year, it was 165 l per glass. Only about 1 % of the water was used in the winery, mainly for cleaning the cellar and washing tanks and barrels. A similar result was found by Martins et al. (2017) through a Life Cycle Thinking (LCT) study. According to the authors’ findings, the total water footprint for a 0.75 l bottle of a Portuguese terroir wine from the Douro was 19 l. From this value, 92 % was used in the production of grapes, while only 8 % was used within the winery, distributed between the vinification (2 %) and bottling (6 %) stages. Nevertheless, bottling activities were identified as the primary contributors to the production of effluent (76 %) due to cleaning procedures. Similarly, Saraiva et al.’s (2020) evaluation of two Portuguese case studies from Alentejo found that vineyards have the greatest impact on water footprint, with values as high as 98–99 %, primarily due to irrigation. The remaining water used in the winery was mostly for cleaning processes (75.8–77.9 %). The water footprint of Spanish wineries has been a growing concern due to its significant increase, particularly in the region of Castilla-La Mancha (Ayuda et al., 2020). The winery’s wastewater treatment system plays a crucial role in reducing this footprint, with potential for a significant reduction (Saraiva et al., 2019). The adoption of precision viticulture and sustainable production techniques can further mitigate the impact of the winery stage on the water footprint (Saraiva et al., 2020). A comprehensive approach for evaluating the water footprint, including the grey water component, has been proposed, with a focus on the wine industry (Rinaldi et al., 2016). On the assessment of a winery’s water footprint, Saraiva et al. (2019) looked at the impact of the grey water footprint. The study collected primary and secondary data on the water flow and quality of a Portuguese medium-size winery. It was found that 98 % of the winery’s water footprint is from effluents generated through winemaking activities. The wastewater treatment system’s performance generated 9.6–12.7 l per bottle of wine instead of the underestimated 1.36 l based on the system’s optimum efficiency. The authors proved that it is possible to reduce the impact by 87 % with measures such as adequate maintenance and monitoring of the wastewater treatment systems. In a later study, Martins et al. (2018) focused on the winery stages of winemaking and bottling to compare two types of wine: a terroir wine with a low production scale and a branded wine with a large production scale. The branded wine requires a higher amount of water due to a different winemaking process that requires desulfitation, the use of several installations that increase the number of washing activities, and the constant bottling process. The results are in line with Matos and Pirra [16] findings, which indicate that the amount of wine production affects water consumption. In a winery, water is not directly used to produce wine. Instead, the water is used throughout the winemaking process, primarily for cleaning operations (Oliver et al., 2008). For example, to wash a fermentation tank it is required 2.5 cycles of 45,300 l of water (Román-Sánchez and Belmonte-Ureña, 2013). García-Alcaraz et al. (2020) compared four cleaning procedures for 225-l oak-red wine barrels. It was found that the carbon dioxide method has greater efficiency, requiring 117.5 l of water to clean a barrel. The pressurised water with sulphur dioxide method required 177.7 l of water, while the water vapour with sulphur dioxide method and the ozone method used 182.5 l and 189.5 l of water, respectively. In a study on the use of reverse osmosis membrane to mitigate irregularities in grape yields, it is described the system’s membrane cleaning procedure that is required due to performance degradation after 20–30 h of operation (Notarnicola et al., 2015). This procedure is an example of the large amount of water necessary for cleaning equipment, which in this case consists of a 4-h cleaning cycle with three washings and two rinsing operations. Each cleaning cycle consumes approximately 500 l of water. In Oliver et al.’s (2008) study on the optimization of consumption in a winery, it was found that of the 30 operations that required water usage, 25 were for cleaning purposes. This highlights how a greater knowledge of water usage is necessary to establishing strategies for enhancing water efficiency. Despite a lack of awareness in the winemaking industry regarding the use (Matos and Pirra, 2020) and volume of water, studies on consumer preferences for sustainable attributes in the winemaking process reveal that water resource management is among the most valued attributes (Tait et al., 2019). The water footprint is affected by factors like climate, irrigation needs, and cleaning procedures. Different assessment methods, including LCA, VIVA, and others, provide varied insights into water use impacts, emphasizing the importance of standardized methodologies for accurate assessment and sustainable practices. Water footprint of wine involves direct and indirect water usage throughout the supply chain. As seen, various studies have been conducted to understand water usage in winemaking. Romania (2012−2013) showed the majority of water footprint in viticulture, with only 1 % used in wineries primarily for cleaning. Also New Zealand (2013) found negligible water footprint in wineries compared to vineyards, highlighting the impact of irrigation and resource management regulations. In Italy (2014–2021) consistent findings across several studies showed viticulture consumes the greatest amount of water, with variations based on methodologies and wine types. In Portugal (2014–2019) viticulture was also identified as the stage that has the highest water footprint, with significant water used in cleaning processes within wineries. In fact, most of water consumption occurs during viticulture, especially for irrigation, often exceeding 90 % of the total water footprint. The use of water for winery cleaning is comparatively minor but contributes significantly to wastewater production.
4. Water consumption in wineries and efficiency measures
Based on an analysis of data from 60 wineries in South Africa and data from the Winetech programmes, it was verified that 80 % of the wineries were unaware of the amount of water consumed, and the estimations were undervalued by around 60 % (Sheridan et al., 2005). The same study show that the amount of water consumed per one tonne of presses grapes is of 2m3, and the volume of water consumed by a winery increase with the quantity of grapes presses per year. Therefore, the amount of wine produced has the greatest impact on the water consumption in wineries (Matos and Pirra, 2020). The values of water consumption are greater during the harvest period (Buelow et al., 2015a), with reported values of 60 % (Kriel, 2008). However, water consumption from activities such as sanitation, floor and barrel cleaning, rackling, and bottling is required throughout the year (Buelow et al., 2015a), accounting for around 100,000m3 of water in the case of an Italian winery (Cerutti et al., 2021). According to monitored data from two wineries in Portugal, the amount of water consumed was reported as 2.2 ± 0.45 l and 2.1 ± 0.17 l per litre of wine (Oliveira et al., 2018) as indicated in Table 4. In this study, Oliveira et al. (2018) referred that the type of grape, as white or red grapes, is a parameter that affects the volume of water required during winemaking. In Portugal, since the quality of red wine is generally higher, the amount of water consumed for red wine production is also higher. According to the authors, due to greater needs for waste removal, red wine production requires an additional 50–64 % more water than white wine.
Table 4. Estimated and monitored values of water used in wineries to produce wine.
| Process | Volume of water | Per… | Country | Empty Cell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Monitoring | 2.20(45) l; 2.10(17) l | 1 l of wine | Portugal | (Oliveira et al., 2018) |
| 9.6 l to 12.7 l | 0.75 l bottle | Portugal | (Saraiva et al., 2019) | |
| 1.9 l to 9.55 l | 0.75 l bottle | Portugal | (Saraiva et al., 2020) | |
| Monitoring and estimation | 33.3 l l−1 of wine | 1 l of wine | Spain, D.O.La Rioja typical winery | (Román-Sánchez and Belmonte-Ureña, 2013) |
| Fermented tank: 4.530 m3 (45.000 l × 2.5 cycles × 40 tanks) | 10 million litres of wine | |||
| Cooling treatment: 7.000 m3 | ||||
| Refrigeration chamber’s compressor: 13.470 m3 | ||||
| Bottling line: 3.000 m3 | ||||
| Other industrial waters: 2.000 m3 | ||||
| Estimation | 2 m3 | 1 tonne of grapes | South Africa | (Sheridan et al., 2005) |
| Eq. W=4037.5×T0.9243 | ||||
| T = tonne of grapes pressed per year | ||||
| 2 l (winery) | 1 l of wine | Romania | (Ene et al., 2013) | |
| 5.20 l (winery) | 1 l of wine | EU wineries average | (Trioli et al., 2015) | |
| 0.177 l (winery) | 0.75 l bottle | Cyprus | (Litskas et al., 2020) |
According to Román-Sánchez and Belmonte-Ureña (2013) study, a typical medium-size Spanish winery that produces 10 million litres per year of D.O. La Rioja has an annual volume of water consumption of 30 thousand m3, which is around 33.3 l of water per litre of wine. The sources for water consumption were grouped as (i) the winemaking process as harvesting, crushing, and fermentation; (ii) the refrigeration system as condensers, cooling towers, and boilers; and (iii) the cleaning of materials or equipment.
Overall, as pointed out by Howell and Myburgh (2018), data on water used by wineries is scarce and inconsistent, and most of it ends up as effluent. As previously stated in this article, 98 % of the water consumed in wineries ends up as wastewater (Saraiva et al., 2019). Therefore, the subjects of water consumption in wineries and wastewater from wineries are strongly interconnected. This is evident in Oliveira et al.’s (2018) work on developing a model that simulates water consumption as well as wastewater production. This tool allows wineries to develop their own sustainable indicators and assess improvements regarding wastewater management for water reuse. The primary options for reducing water consumption are modifying the wine production process, reusing, regenerating-reusing and regeneration-recycling (Oliver et al., 2008). The first option can include cleaner production practices that require a full commitment by the winery management and greater awareness and motivation among employees (Conradie et al., 2014), as well as technological innovation, such as improving equipment efficiency or methodologies. This is the case of Giovenzana et al.’s (2021) study, which tested a new automated alcoholic fermentation management system for yeast nutrition. The automated system reduced water consumption by 0.8–3.9 % because it removed cleaning operations from extra fermentation support equipment since the process of pre-dissolution of oenological products was eliminated. Case studies focus mainly on the impact of measures to improve water efficiency in wineries are scarce. Oliver et al. (2008) study pinpoint measures to reduce water consumption, as shown Table 5, and identify the water reuse possibilities in an Argentinian winery by establishing its water network. The potential water savings is around 30 %. Boulton (2017) presents a self-sufficient winery complex that has an integrated design approach that provides full water and energy monitoring. Regarding the water-efficient measures, they include the use of rainwater and cleaning solutions to extend water reuse. The onsite rainwater is captured, treated through filtration with reverse osmosis, stored for over six months, and used by the winery for cleaning operations from August to November, removing the need for using either ground or river water resources. The new cleaning solutions with diluted potassium-based salts and hydrogen peroxide can be used at ambient temperatures, and the water used can be re-filtered after each washing cycle. The water recovery allows an 80 % reduction in water consumption after 10 cycles. The same reverse osmosis filtration system is also used for cleaning and sanitising the laboratory water and processing equipment.
Table 5. Measures to reduce water use in wineries, based on Oliver et al. (2008).
| Empty Cell | Equipment, method and resource | Characteristics and purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Control and monitorization | Water meters | Quantify water use and control leaks. |
| Nozzles | With an automatic shutdown system. | |
| Environment targets | Set target and employees’ incentives and monitor achievements. | |
| Planning, informing, and training | Increase employers’ awareness and implement best practices. | |
| pH meters | Control water and wastewater characteristics. | |
| Process | Centrifuge | Remove tartrate from the wine. |
| Ecologic earth filter | Use it to avoid highly contaminated wastewater. | |
| Screens | Separate solid matters. | |
| Cleaning | Rainwater | Collect rainwater for cleaning. |
| High pressurised; dry cleaning | Reduce water usage. | |
| Training | Improve tasks. | |
| Washing | Recover the final rinsing water. | |
| Detergent solution | Recover and reuse. |
Most wineries use on-site water resources, either collected from groundwater or superficial water bodies. In the case of water treatment optimisation, Cerutti et al. (2021) tested a water treatment plan in an Italian winery to assess and optimise its performance. The water goes through a water treatment process to be suitable for use within the winery’s cleaning activities. The optimisation resulted in a lower use of chemicals, and the unit cost of the treated water could be reduced by 20 %. The initial approximated unit cost of 1.70 €/m3 was reduced to 1.40 €/m3 when the water cost charged by a local supply company was 4 €/m3. As a result of winemaking activities, there is a production of residues such as pomace and wastewater from cleaning activities, namelyequipment and fermentation tanks (Caceres et al., 2012). Wastewater normally is treated by the application of several technologies (Caceres et al., 2012). Christ 2013 (Christ and Burritt, 2013) examined the environmental issues of wine production focus on water related elements such as water use and wastewater and reached out to a review that reveals current practice, related with environmental aspects, within wine organisations to be largely unexplored and inadequate. In 2014, Mozell and Thach (2014), provided some practical solutions that industry professionals can take to mitigate and adapt to the coming climate changes in both vineyards and wineries, including (i) efficient water management and (ii) water reuse – recycling for irrigation. In conclusion, there are a big amount of water efficiency measures that may be implemented and that proven good. Measures regarding the reduction of water consumption may involve the modification of production processes, reusing and recycling water, and the implementation of cleaner production practices and technological innovations, such as automated fermentation systems that reduce water needs. Research in this field demonstrated that, per example, 30 % of water savings may be achieved by optimizing its water network. In this case, a self-sufficient winery using rainwater and new cleaning solutions can reduce its water usage by 80 % after 10 cycles. In what concerns to water treatment and respective costs, Italian case studies proved that the optimization of water treatment processes can significantly reduce the use of chemicals and related costs, where a reduction from 1.70 €/m3 to 1.40 €/m3 can be achieved. Finally, wine production generates residues like pomace and wastewater, which are treated using various technologies. Investigation developed so far revealed that environmental practices of wineries are often inadequate and need improvement. Thus, it can be concluded that practical solutions for mitigating climate change impacts in winemaking industry include efficient water management and recycling water for irrigation.
5. Wastewater treatment processes in wineries
The winemaking process generates waste in the form of solid residues and liquid effluents. The winery wastes are characterised by a high organic load (Hungría et al., 2020) and a seasonal nature (Rodríguez-Chueca et al., 2017; Oliveira et al., 2009), with large volumes at the harvesting (vintage) period (City of Darebin, 2023; Howell and Myburgh, 2018) of 69–86 % (?), and vintage and first racking periods of 60–75 % (Oliveira et al., 2018). This period corresponds to late summer and early autumn. In the case of solid waste, its components have high biodegradable organic matter, a low concentration of nutrients, and an acidic pH (Basset et al., 2016), requiring treatment prior to disposal to prevent harm to the environment (Conradie et al., 2014; Basset et al., 2016; Devesa-Rey et al., 2011) and the health of the population (Soceanu et al., 2021). These wine wastes can be used to generate energy, such as biomass (Zhang et al., 2017), biogas (Hungría et al., 2020), and bioethanol (Cortés et al., 2019). Bioactive compounds such as phenolics can be extracted to be used in the food and cosmetic industries (Barba et al., 2016). Additionally, it can be a complementary raw material to produce low-conductivity, lightweight bricks (Taurino et al., 2019). For pomace that is composed of grape skin (50–60 %) and grape seeds (40–50 %) (Sirohi et al., 2020), it accounts for 60 %–70 % (Zhang et al., 2017;?) of the winery’s organic waste. It is common practice to process it through distillation to produce spirits or fertiliser through composting (Zhang et al., 2017). In the case of lees, which account for 25 % of the winery’s solid waste (Sirohi et al., 2020), they can be processed to produce by-products such as antioxidants, calcium tartrate, and yeast cells (Cortés et al., 2019). The wineries effluents generated by activities such as cleaning the floors, bottles, and equipment used in the winemaking process, such as containers, presses, tanks, vats, filters, and barrels (Lamastra et al., 2014; Ene et al., 2013; Ioannou et al., 2015; Van Schoor et al., 2005), have the greatest contributions (Table 6), with flushing bottles and cleaning the bottling equipment and facilities generating the highest amount of winery wastewater (1 l per 0.75 l bottle) contributing for 76 % of a winery effluent (Martins et al., 2017). Additionally, wastewater is also produced by auxiliary processes such as cooling tanks, filtration with filter aid, acidification and stabilization (Van Schoor et al., 2005), and rainwater retained by the wastewater management system (Ioannou et al., 2015). The wastewater produced during processes such as fermentation and clarifying has high levels of concentration because of the removal of pomace and sediments, which is also the case for the water used to clear the lees (Ene et al., 2013) from wine containers after racking the wine into a new container. The use of water in laboratories (Van Schoor et al., 2005; Gómez-Lorente et al., 2017), restrooms, showers, and changing rooms also generates waste water (Gómez-Lorente et al., 2017).
Table 6. Wastewater sources in wineries and correspondent contributions, sourced from Van Schoor et al. (2005) and Martins et al. (2017).
| Process | Empty Cell | Contribution | Empty Cell |
|---|---|---|---|
| Empty Cell | Empty Cell | Van Schoor et al. (2005) | Martins et al. (2017) |
| Cleaning | Alkali washing & neutralization | Up to 33% | Cleaning and washing |
| Rinse water (tanks, floors, transfer lines, bottles, barrels, etc) | Up to 43% | 76% | |
| Winemaking | Filtration with filter aid | Up to 15% | Winemaking 24% |
| Acidification & stabilization of wine | Up to 3% | ||
| Cooling tower waste | Up to 6% | ||
| Other | Laboratory practices | Up to 5−10% | – |
The characteristics of the wastewater vary according to the season (Howell and Myburgh, 2018;?; Welz et al., 2016). During the harvesting period, the volume of effluent is greater, and it has the highest chemical oxygen demand (COD) (City of Darebin, 2023; Howell and Myburgh, 2018), high levels of K+ and Na + (Howell and Myburgh, 2018) and low pH (Amor et al., 2019). But the volume of produced effluent also varies based on the winery (Conradie et al., 2014; Oliveira et al., 2009; Howell and Myburgh, 2018) and wine type (Conradie et al., 2014). Available data on the volume of winery wastewater is limited (Howell and Myburgh, 2018). As show in Table 7, the reported values of wastewater production were initially based on units such as litres per one tonne of crushed grapes (0.262–1.1m3) and litre per one litre of produced wine (0.2–14 l). Recently, the most used unit is one litre of wastewater per 0.75 l bottle (1.2–12.54 l).
Table 7. Wastewater production in wineries.
| Year | Country | Wastewater production | Unit | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | South Africa | 1.3m3 (50 % evaporates) | 1 t of grapesa | Kriel (2008) |
| 2016 | Portugal | 1.65m3 (producing circ. 0.75m3 of wine) | 1 t of grapesa | Oliveira and Duarte (2016) |
| 2005 | South Africa | 5 l–5 l (estimation); 6 l–8 l (estimation more acceptable to the authorities) | 1 l wine | Van Schoor et al. (2005) |
| 2009 | Portugal | 2 l–14 l | 1 l wine | Oliveira et al. (2009) |
| 2017 | Italy | 1.96 l | 1 l wine | Da Ros et al. (2017) |
| 2013 | New Zealand | 1.2 l–2.4 l | 0.75 l bottle | Herath et al. (2013b) |
| 2017 | Portugal | 1.311 l | 0.75 l bottle | Martins et al. (2017) |
| 2018 | Portugal | 1.31 l (Terroir wine) | 0.75 l bottle | Martins et al. (2018) |
| 2019 | Portugal | 9.47 l–12.54 l | 0.75 l bottle | Saraiva et al. (2019) |
a
Crushed grapes.
Normally, due to legal requirements, wastewater is treated before discharge (Basset et al., 2016), but regulations can differ by country without widely accepted best practices being implemented [85]. Because of the seasonal nature of winery wastewater, which influences volume and organic load, this effluent is challenging to treat (Rodríguez-Chueca et al., 2017). Additionally, since wineries are normally dispersed, they require their own wastewater treatment (Román-Sánchez and Belmonte-Ureña, 2013). However, it may impose a financial strain on small and medium-sized wineries (Vaclav et al., 2022). Regarding treatment stages, wineries may use different phases, such as preliminary, primary, secondary, and tertiary (Vlotman et al., 2022). The main categories of treatments are physicochemical, biological, membrane filtration and separation, advanced oxidation methods, and combined biological and advanced oxidation methods (Ioannou et al., 2015). The biological treatment process is a widely applied strategy (Melchiors and Freire, 2023). It normally takes place during a secondary stage and can be through aerobic, anaerobic, or combined systems (Vlotman et al., 2022) using either constructed wetlands, activated sludge, membrane bioreactors, or anaerobic digestion (Latessa et al., 2023). Aerobic treatment is the most common system, with ponds or open basins (Rochard et al., 2019), and conventional active sludge (Valderrama et al., 2012). They can remove up to 95 % of chemical oxygen demand (COD) (City of Darebin, 2023). However, aerobic systems can struggle in cases of greater wastewater volume (Ngwenya et al., 2022). Additionally, the systems are not cost-effective and are energy-intensive (Ngwenya et al., 2022; Nardi, 2020) and water-intensive (Ngwenya et al., 2022). Aerobic digestion has high efficiency rates on COD removal but requires an aeration system with energy consumption, while an anaerobic digestion is a cost-effective process that allows for high organic loads (Bolzonella et al., 2019). Therefore, a co-treatment system in which an aerobic treatment precedes an aerobic treatment has greater advantages (Brito et al., 2007). Although the initial purpose of in-situ winery wastewater treatment is to clean the effluent before discharge, there is an increasing interest in reusing the treated water. As a sustainable water management practice, the water can be reused either in the winery, for example, for cleaning purposes, or for irrigation of nearby vineyards. Additionally, since the winery effluent has a high organic load, it is a valuable energy production resource (Basset et al., 2016). The wastewater treatment process can be used to produce energy to supply the winery and vineyard activities or even to produce fertilisers. On effluent treatment for discharge purposes, the use of constructed wetland (CW) is pointed out as a method able to meet the required standards with minimal energy needs (Cohen et al., 2013; Masi et al., 2015), is low-cost, and has low maintenance (Masi et al., 2015). The system allows on-site wineries’ effluent treatment and has a lesser environmental impact than an on-site activated slugged system or off-site third-party treatment (Flores et al., 2019). There is potential to reduce the environmental impact by up to 90 % and the associated wastewater treatment and management costs by up to 60 times (Flores et al., 2023). However, clogging can have an impact on filtration performance. De la Varga et al.’s (de la Varga et al., 2013a) study demonstrates that this can be prevented by incorporating an anaerobic digester pre-treatment. The pre-treatment reduced the total suspended solids (TSS) loading rate of the winery waste by 76 %; no clogging of the CW was observed for two years. Later, the authors (de la Varga et al., 2013b) examined three subsurface horizontal-flow units in a CW and found that depth affected performance. The shallower units showed lower performance at higher influent concentrations. In relation to the use of cork as a filtering component of CW, it is pointed out as a key element for nutrient removal since it supports plant growth (Calheiros et al., 2018) and biofilm and microbial communities (Aguilar et al., 2022). On sand bioreactors, Welz et al. (2014) reported biodegradation rate variations with seasonal effluent characteristics. The authors stated that the system’s performance should not be assessed only by COD removal efficiency and identified redox status as a relevant factor that determines the system’s performance. Regarding the use of other wastewater treatment methods for water discharge, Candia-Onfray et al.’s (2018) study on the use of electrochemical oxidation demonstrated that it can be used to eliminate all organic matter. After electrolysis, the procedure achieves complete disinfection of the wastewater. Díez et al., 2017a, Díez et al., 2017b proved that a new sequential two-column electro-Feton-photolytic reactor could remove high levels of TOC and COD with low energy requirements. On the use of solar Feton oxidation, Ioannou et al. (2014) showed that it is an effective post-treatment approach and should be coupled with an initial treatment using a membrane bioreactor. Concerning the use of winery wastewater for irrigation, there are two main areas of research: one examines the impact of using both untreated and treated winery wastewater on crops and soil properties, while the other looks at the treatment process. A two-year investigation using wastewater samples from 18 wineries in California concluded that the treated wastewater had the potential to be reused on-site (Buelow et al., 2015a). Focusing on the impact of using effluents, Mosse et al. (2010) investigated to what extent it affects the germination and growth of different crop species. The authors found that though germination was unaffected, length was increased, reducing early growth. The greater the dilution with fresh water, the greater the biomass (roots and shoots) of the plants. Later, the authors (Mosse et al., 2012) examined how untreated wastewater, treated wastewater, and pure water affected soil. It was reported that untreated winery wastewater influenced soil respiration, nitrogen cycling, and microbial community structure after one application, while treated wastewater did not vary significantly from precipitation. However, inorganic particles built up in the soil after 30 years of treated wastewater application. Similarly, in follow-up research (Mosse et al., 2013a), it was shown that occasional irrigation has a minimal effect on established vines, whereas long-term usage may alter grapevine perennially and soil salt deposition. Hirzel et al. (2017) found that untreated wastewater raised the levels of Na + and K+ in the soil. The vine leaves had more Na + and Mg2+ and less K+ and Ca2+, but this did not affect their growth, and wine sensory analysis was unaffected. Although the soil can be fertilised with high levels of K+ (Howell and Myburgh, 2018), its long-term effect on the soil’s chemical composition can be negative (Howell and Myburgh, 2018), such as instability of the soil’s structure. For better understanding, it is important to assess the implications of water reuse, including its potential advantages and long-term risks (Liang et al., 2021; Laurenson et al., 2012) and the impact on different types of soils (Buelow et al., 2015b; Mulidzi et al., 2015, Mulidzi et al., 2016). Regarding the systems used to treat effluent for irrigation, Milani et al. (2020) tested a multistage CW and reported that the CW enhanced water quality. Harvest season COD and TSS removal rates averaged 81 % and 69 %, respectively, while in other periods the maximum reached was 99 %. Pascual et al. In (Pascual et al., 2021) the authors found a hydrolytic up-flow sludge blanket reactor (HUSB)-CW system efficient. The two-year average TSS and COD elimination was above 93 %. Holtman et al.’s (2022) evaluation of a vertical CW with biosand filters shown that it was suitable for treat wastewater for irrigation. The reactor’s spatial footprint is 40 % to 96 % smaller than comparable systems. Additionally, it enables higher loading rates. Oliveira et al. In (Oliveira et al., 2009) the authors evaluated an air micro-bubble bioreactor (AMBB) and found that it may be employed in an irrigation system to reclaim water. Treatment effectiveness reached 90 % on day 6 and 99 % by day 15. Kalogerakis et al. (2021) tested a nanobubble system to improve a winery’s wastewater treatment pond with 1600m3. The treated wastewater can be used for irrigation. The total daily energy requirements were 32.4 kWh, and the COD reduction rate of the pond was 62.9 kg-COD. On comparing different biological treatments, Valderrama et al. (2012) found that member bioreactors (MBRs) treated wastewater more efficiently than traditional active sludge (CAS). MBR and CAS systems have, respectively, 97 % and 95 % COD removal efficiency. According to Mosse et al. (2013b), pond, passive, CW, and sequencing batch reactors may minimize the primary environmental pollutants. However, the treatments did not remove many phenolic chemicals. On energy production, Basset et al.’s (2016) study has demonstrated that a sidestream anaerobic membrane reactor may create biogas to meet the system’s energy needs throughout vintage season. However, due to low COD during the winter, the biogas produced was unable to supply all electricity needs. Das Ros et al. (Da Ros et al., 2017) assessed a pilot-scale anaerobic digestion system that produces biogas from a winery lees. The resulting waste sludge and the digestate supernatant from digestion are combined with the winery wastewater and treated activated sludge. The authors report efficient biogas production, although the thermophilic method requires metal addition, reducing dewaterability. Also with a pilot test, Petta et al. (2017) tested a multi-stage wastewater treatment. The first stage aims to maximise biogas production through an up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket reactor. The optimal operational set-up had organic loading rates of 4.5 kg COD/m3/d and treatment efficiency of 97 %. The second step is an anoxic-aerobic ultrafiltration membrane bioreactor. This procedure removes COD, nitrogen and phenol by 48 %, 67 %, and 65 %, respectively. In the last step, chemical precipitation with lime and GAC absorption eliminates 79.6 % of TP, 85.3 % of phosphates, and 31.2 % of COD. Avila et al. (2022) evaluated a tertiary microalgae treatment to improve biogas production, optimise a winery wastewater treatment, and produce bio-fertilisers. Anaerobic co-digestion with collected microalgae and sludge improved by 45–70 %. Biowastes and treated wastewater may be used as biofertilizers and irrigation, respectively. Prenafeta-Boldú et al. (2020) also demonstrate bio-fertiliser production by designing a solar dryer, which successfully reduced the water content of a winery’s sludge. In the context of green hydrogen production, it is necessary to ensure that the interconnection between energy and water does not exacerbate water stress and competition. An alternative to tap water, on-site groundwater, or on-site surface-sourced water is the use of winery wastewater treated on-site. Therefore, effluents from wastewater treatment have the potential to serve as viable sources for energy generation (Woods et al., 2022). The LIFE REWIND project showed on-site irrigation water treatment and hydrogen generation for mobility. Winery wastewater is treated on-site using three ponds: an aeration pond with oxygen activation for purification, a filter pond, and a water storage pond (Bernal-Agustín et al., 2017; Carroquino et al., 2015, Carroquino et al., 2019). The stored water is used for irrigation purposes in a vineyard from May to September (Bernal-Agustín et al., 2017), with irrigation values reaching 10,000m3 (Carroquino et al., 2018, Carroquino et al., 2019, Carroquino et al., 2015). During the irrigation period, on-site solar energy powers irrigation pumps and transfers water between ponds (Bernal-Agustín et al., 2017). The photovoltaic system has floating solar panels in the irrigation water storage pond. These solar panels reduce pond water losses, avoid the use of terrain, and increase the system’s efficiency (Carroquino et al., 2017). When irrigation is not required, the surplus solar energy and the treated water are used to produce hydrogen through water electrolysis (Bernal-Agustín et al., 2017; García-Casarejos et al., 2017). The hydrogen is stored in 12 individual 50-l pressurised tanks (Carroquino et al., 2018; Mustata et al., 2016), and it is used to power an off-road vehicle (Bernal-Agustín et al., 2017; Carroquino et al., 2018; Mustata et al., 2016). In summary, wineries produce significant organic solid waste and effluents with high seasonal variation. Solid waste components are highly biodegradable and can be repurposed for energy and other products. The volume of generated wastewater (measured as litres per tonne of grapes or litres per litre of wine, with recent measures in litres per 0.75-l bottle) varies widely based on the winery and wine type. The types of treatment applied are also very diverse, although combined systems (anaerobic digestion followed by aerobic treatment) generally offer enhanced efficiency. Wastewater treatment involves various stages and methods, with biological treatment being prevalent. Treated wastewater is increasingly reused for irrigation, showing sustainable water management practices. Innovation includes integrated systems for water and energy management, promoting sustainability in wineries. So, treated wastewater can be reused for winery cleaning or vineyard irrigation, and environmental impact studies show minimal long-term negative effects on soil and vines with proper management.
6. Recomendations
Taking into account the investigation already developed regarding the use and consumption of water in the production of wine, some recommendations can be given with a view to determining the environmental impact of water use in the various stages of the winemaking process. Different methodologies (LCA, WFN, VIVA) offer insights into various aspects of water use, emphasizing the need for standardized methods to accurately assess and manage water consumption in the wine industry. By focusing on water footprint assessments and optimizing water use, wineries can reduce their environmental impact and meet consumer demands for sustainable practices. Efficient water management in all the stages of wine production is crucial to reduce the overall water footprint. Understanding water usage in winemaking is also crucial for developing strategies to enhance water efficiency. Although the industry may lack awareness regarding water use, consumer preferences indicate a high value placed on sustainable water management practices. Water efficiency measures may involve the modification of the production processes, reusing and recycling water and the implementation of cleaner production practices and technological innovation, such as automated fermentation systems that reduce water needs. Furthermore, waste management in wineries emphasizes the importance of sustainable practices and technological innovation to mitigate environmental impacts and enhance resource efficiency.
7. Conclusions
Water is undeniably a vital resource for life, being essential for economic activities such as food production, manufacturing, or energy production. However, water availability is decreasing, which reinforces the need for enhancing water-use efficiency across all the sectors of activity and, simultaneously, for protecting natural resources. Enforcing national and EU environmental regulations can lead to the efficient use of water in the vitiviniculture process, the implementation of environmental management system standards, and a reduction in costs [103]. Water is an indispensable resource in wineries, playing critical roles throughout the winemaking process that include:
- •Vineyard Irrigation: Water is essential for vine growth and grape development. Many wineries rely on irrigation systems to ensure consistent water supply to the vines, particularly in regions with limited rainfall or during dry seasons. This stage is highly dependent on climate and can vary widely.
- •Cleaning and Sanitization: Maintaining cleanliness and sanitation is crucial in winemaking to prevent contamination and spoilage. Water is used extensively for cleaning equipment, tanks, barrels, and facilities to ensure hygiene standards are met.
- •Cooling and Heating: Wineries use water for temperature control during various stages of winemaking. Cooling systems are employed to regulate fermentation temperatures, while hot water is used for cleaning and sterilization purposes.
- •Wastewater Management: Winery operations generate wastewater containing organic matter, cleaning agents, and other contaminants. Proper wastewater management is essential to minimize environmental impact. Many wineries implement treatment systems to purify wastewater before disposal or reuse.
- •Sustainability Practices: With growing concerns about water scarcity and environmental sustainability, many wineries are adopting water-saving practices. This includes implementing water-efficient irrigation systems, recycling and reusing water where possible, and employing technologies to minimize water usage throughout the winemaking process.
Within wineries, the cleaning process is referenced as the one that presents the higher value of water consumption inside the winery. In fact, cleaning processes consume significant water volumes, with various studies detailing the water required for cleaning fermentation tanks, barrels, and equipment. For example, washing a fermentation tank can require 45,300 l, while cleaning oak barrels can range from 117.5 to 189.5 l depending on the method applied. Efficient water management at this stage is crucial for reducing the overall water footprint. Furthermore, water plays a multifaceted role in wineries, from vineyard irrigation to cleaning, temperature control, and wastewater management. As sustainability concerns continue to grow, wineries are increasingly focused on adopting different water-saving practices and technologies to minimize their environmental footprint while maintaining the quality of their wines. These practices may include very different approaches like rainwater recover for cleaning or monitoring processes. There is a strong focus on developing sustainable practices to reduce water use and improve wastewater management, which is critical given the high-water footprint associated with wine production. The environmental impact of the wine industry, particularly concerning water use, is increasingly studied using methodologies like the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and Water Footprint Network (WFN). The water footprint (WF) concept, introduced by Hoekstra et al., quantifies water usage through blue (surface and groundwater), green (rainwater), and grey (water required to dilute pollutants) water footprints. Most of the studies are based in LCA and water footprint methodologies to achieve sustainable water consumption in wineries. The use of water in the different stages of wine production is very variable, and comparing the values within stages in different studies are very different too. The data available for water consumption is very scarce and inconsistent, once it depends on the capacity of companies to measure and analyse this aspect. In some countries water is scarcer than in others and so, it is valued differently. With this research a conclusion about the inadeqaucy of the environmental practices of wastewater treatment in wineries, that really need improvement, also came out. In addition, it can also be referred that integrated systems using rainwater, efficient cleaning solutions, advanced filtration and renewable energy use (solar panels) for water treatment and irrigation demonstrate to be sustainable and innovative practices.
Acknowledgements/funding sources
This work was supported by the IAPMEI – PRR – Recovery and Resilience Plan / Mobilizing Agendas Vine and Wine Portugal – Driving Sustainable Growth Smart Innovation [grant numbers C644866286-011].
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Cristina Matos: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Investigation, Formal analysis. Manuela Castro: Writing – original draft, Software, Investigation. José Baptista: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Conceptualization. António Valente: Validation, Software, Data curation. Ana Briga-Sá: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration, Conceptualization.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
References
- Aguilar et al., 2022L. Aguilar, et al.Effect of aeration on nitrogen removal-associated microbial community in an innovative vertical cork-based constructed wetland for winery wastewater treatmentEcol. Eng., 185 (2022), Article 106781, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106781View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Aivazidou and Tsolakis, 2020E. Aivazidou, N. TsolakisA water footprint review of italian wine: drivers, barriers, and practices for sustainable stewardshipWater (Switzerland), 12 (2020), 10.3390/w12020369Google Scholar
- Amor et al., 2019C. Amor, L. Marchão, M.S. Lucas, J.A. PeresApplication of advanced oxidation processes for the treatment of recalcitrant agro-industrial wastewater: a reviewWater, 11 (2019), p. 205, 10.3390/w11020205View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Avila et al., 2022Avila, R., Justo,., Carrero, E., Crivillés, E., Vicent, T., Blánquez, P., 2022. Water resource recovery coupling microalgae wastewater treatment and sludge co-digestion for bio-wastes valorisation at industrial pilot-scale. Bioresour. Technol. 343, 126080. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.126080.Google Scholar
- Ayuda et al., 2020M.I. Ayuda, E. Esteban, M. Martín-Retortillo, V. PinillaThe blue water footprint of the spanish wine industry: 1935–2015Water, 12 (2020), 10.3390/w12071872Google Scholar
- Barba et al., 2016Barba, F.J., Zhu, Z., Koubaa, M., Sant’Ana, A.S., Orlien, V., 2016. Green alternative methods for the extraction of antioxidant bioactive compounds from winery wastes and by-products: a review. Trends in food science amp; Technology 49, 96–109. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.006.Google Scholar
- Basset et al., 2016N. Basset, E. Santos, J. Dosta, J. Mata-ÁlvarezStart-up and operation of an anmbr for winery wastewater treatmentEcol. Eng., 86 (2016), pp. 279-289, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.11.003View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Bernal-Agustín et al., 2017J.L. Bernal-Agustín, R. Dufo-López, J. Carroquino-Oñate, J.S. Artal-Sevil, J.A. Domínguez-Navarro, A. Bayod-Rújula, J. Yago-LoscosProfitable small-scale renewable energy systems in agrifood industry and rural areas: demonstration in the wine sectorRenewable Energy and Power Quality Journal, 1 (2017), pp. 774-777, 10.24084/repqj15.461View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Bolzonella et al., 2019D. Bolzonella, M. Papa, C. Da Ros, L. Anga Muthukumar, D. RossoWinery wastewater treatment: a critical overview of advanced biological processesCrit. Rev. Biotechnol., 39 (2019), pp. 489-507, 10.1080/07388551.2019.1573799View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Bonamente et al., 2015E. Bonamente, F. Scrucca, F. Asdrubali, F. Cotana, A. PresciuttiThe water footprint of the wine industry: implementation of an assessment methodology and application to a case studySustainability, 7 (2015), pp. 12190-12208, 10.3390/su70912190View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Bonamente et al., 2016E. Bonamente, F. Scrucca, S. Rinaldi, M. Merico, F. Asdrubali, L. LamastraEnvironmental impact of an italian wine bottle: carbon and water footprint assessmentSci. Total Environ., 560-561 (2016), pp. 274-283, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.04.026View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Borsato et al., 2019E. Borsato, et al.Comparison of water-focused life cycle assessment and water footprint assessment: the case of an italian wineSci. Total Environ., 666 (2019), pp. 1220-1231, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.02.331View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Boulton, 2017R. BoultonA self-sustainable winery, an advanced passive building and remote monitoring of environments in wineriesJournal of Agricultural Engineering, 48 (2017), 10.4081/jae.2017.735Google Scholar
- Brito et al., 2007A.G. Brito, J. Peixoto, J.M. Oliveira, J.A. Oliveira, C. Costa, R. Nogueira, A. RodriguesBrewery and winery wastewater treatment: Some focal points of design and operationV. Oreopoulou, W. Russ (Eds.), Utilization of by-Products and Treatment of Waste in the Food Industry, Springer US, Boston, MA (2007), pp. 109-131CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Buelow et al., 2015aM. Buelow, K. Steenwerth, L. Silva, S. ParikhCharacterization of winery wastewater for reuse in CaliforniaAm. J. Enol. Vitic., 66 (2015), pp. 302-310, 10.5344/ajev.2015.14110View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Buelow et al., 2015bM.C. Buelow, K. Steenwerth, S.J. ParikhThe effect of mineral-ion interactions on soil hydraulic conductivityAgric Water Manag, 152 (2015), pp. 277-285, 10.1016/j.agwat.2015.01.015View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Caceres et al., 2012C. Caceres, R. Caceres, D. Hein, M. Molina, J. PiaBiogas production from grape pomace: thermodynamic model of the process and dynamic model of the power generation systemInt. J. Hydrogen Energy, 37 (2012), pp. 10111-10117, 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2012.01.178View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Calheiros et al., 2018C.S.C. Calheiros, S.I.A. Pereira, P.M.L. CastroCulturable bacteria associated to the rhizosphere and tissues of iris pseudacorus plants growing in a treatment wetland for winery wastewater dischargeEcol. Eng., 115 (2018), pp. 67-74, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2018.02.011View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Candia-Onfray et al., 2018C. Candia-Onfray, et al.Treatment of winery wastewater by anodic oxidation using bdd electrodeChemosphere, 206 (2018), pp. 709-717, 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.04.175View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Carroquino et al., 2015J. Carroquino, R. Dufo-López, J.L. Bernal-AgustínSizing of off-grid renewable energy systems for drip irrigation in mediterranean cropsRenew. Energy, 76 (2015), pp. 566-574, 10.1016/j.renene.2014.11.069View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Carroquino et al., 2017Carroquino, J., Garcia-Casarejos, N., Gargallo, P., Garcia-Ramos, F.J., Yago, J., 2017. Renewable energy and hydrogen on-site generation for irrigation and mobility in vineyards. in 40th World Congress of Vine and Wine URL: https://www.bio-conferences.org/articles/bioconf/full_html/2017/02/bioconf-oiv2017_01005/bioconf-oiv2017_01005.html.Google Scholar
- Carroquino et al., 2018J. Carroquino, V. Roda, R. Mustata, J. Yago, L. Valiño, A. Lozano, F. BarrerasCombined production of electricity and hydrogen from solar energy and its use in the wine sectorRenew. Energy, 122 (2018), pp. 251-263, 10.1016/j.renene.2018.01.106View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Carroquino et al., 2019J. Carroquino, R. Dufo-López, J.L. Bernal-AgustínStandalone renewable energy and hydrogen in an agricultural context: a demonstrative caseSustainability, 11 (2019), p. 40951, 10.3390/su11040951Google Scholar
- Cerutti et al., 2021A. Cerutti, G. Campo, M. Zanetti, B. RuffinoOptimization of the water treatment process in an italian winery: a case studyJournal of Water Process Engineering, 41 (2021), 10.1016/j.jwpe.2021.102013Google Scholar
- Christ and Burritt, 2013K.L. Christ, R.L. BurrittCritical environmental concerns in wine production: an integrative reviewJ. Clean. Prod., 53 (2013), pp. 232-242, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.007View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- City of Darebin, 2023City of DarebinClimate Emergency Declaration and PlanURLhttps://www.darebin.vic.gov.au/waste-environment-and-climate/climate-and-sustainability/darebins-climate-action/climate-emergency-declaration-and-plan (2023), Accessed 23rd May 2023Google Scholar
- Cohen et al., 2013M.F. Cohen, et al.Wastewater polishing by a channelized macrophyte-dominated wetland and anaerobic digestion of the harvested phytomassJournal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A: Toxic/Hazardous Substances and Environmental Engineering, 48 (2013), pp. 319-330, 10.1080/10934529.2013.726896View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Comandaru et al., 2012I. Comandaru, G. Bârjoveanu, N. Peiu, S. Ene, C. TeodosiuLife cycle assessment of wine: focus on water use impact assessmentEnvironmental Engineering and Management Journal, 11 (2012), pp. 533-543, 10.30638/eemj.2012.066View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Conradie et al., 2014Conradie, A., Sigge, G., Cloete, T., 2014. Influence of winemaking practices on the characteristics of winery wastewater and water usage of wineries. South African Journal of Enology and Viticulture 35, 10–19. URL: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext pid=S2224–79042014000100015 nrm=iso.Google Scholar
- Conselho de Ministros, 2019Conselho de Ministros, 2019. Decreto-Lei n. ° 7/2019.Google Scholar
- Cortés et al., 2019A. Cortés, M.T. Moreira, G. FeijooIntegrated evaluation of wine lees valorization to produce value-added productsWaste Manag., 95 (2019), pp. 70-77, 10.1016/j.wasman.2019.05.056View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Da Ros et al., 2017C. Da Ros, C. Cavinato, P. Pavan, D. BolzonellaMesophilic and thermophilic anaerobic co-digestion of winery wastewater sludge and wine lees: an integrated approach for sustainable wine productionJ. Environ. Manage., 203 (2017), pp. 745-752, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.029View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- D’Ammaro et al., 2021D. D’Ammaro, E. Capri, F. Valentino, S. Grillo, E. Fiorini, L. LamastraA multi-criteria approach to evaluate the sustainability performances of wines: the italian red wine case studySci. Total Environ., 799 (2021), Article 149446, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149446View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- de la Varga et al., 2013aD. de la Varga, M.A. Díaz, I. Ruiz, M. SotoAvoiding clogging in constructed wetlands by using anaerobic digesters as pre-treatmentEcol. Eng., 52 (2013), pp. 262-269, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2012.11.005View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- de la Varga et al., 2013bD. de la Varga, I. Ruiz, M. SotoWinery wastewater treatment in subsurface constructed wetlands with different bed depthsWater, Air, Soil Pollution, 224 (2013), p. 1485, 10.1007/s11270-013-1485-5View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Devesa-Rey et al., 2011R. Devesa-Rey, X. Vecino, J. Varela-Alende, M. Barral, J. Cruz, A. MoldesValorization of winery waste vs. the costs of not recyclingWaste Manag., 31 (2011), pp. 2327-2335, 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.06.001View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Díez et al., 2017aA.M. Díez, E. Rosales, M.A. Sanromán, M. PazosAssessment of led-assisted electro-Fenton reactor for the treatment of winery wastewaterChem. Eng. J., 310 (2017), pp. 399-406, 10.1016/j.cej.2016.08.006View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Díez et al., 2017bA.M. Díez, M.A. Sanromán, M. PazosSequential two-column electro-Fenton-photolytic reactor for the treatment of winery wastewaterEnviron. Sci. Pollut. Res., 24 (2017), pp. 1137-1151, 10.1007/s11356-016-7937-xView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Ene et al., 2013S. Ene, C. Teodosiu, B. Robu, I. VolfWater footprint assessment in the winemaking industry: a case study for a romanian medium size production plantJ. Clean. Prod., 43 (2013), pp. 122-135, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.051View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- European Commission, 2023European Commission, 2023. Water Framework Directive. URL: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/water/water-framework-directive_en. accessed 08 August 2023.Google Scholar
- European Environment Agency, 2017European Environment Agency, 2017. Water use in europe by economic sector, in 2017.Google Scholar
- European Environment Agency, 2021European Environment AgencyWater Resources across Europe: Confronting Water Stress: An Updated AssessmentURLhttps://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/water-resources-across-europe-confronting (2021)Google Scholar
- FAO, UN Water, 2019FAO, UN WaterProgress on Level of Water StressURLhttps://sdg6data.org/en/indicator/6.4.2 (2019)Google Scholar
- FAO, UN Water, 2021FAO, UN Water, 2021. Progress on change in water-use efficiency: Global status and acceleration needs for sdg indicator 6.4.1. URL: https://www.unwater.org/sites/default/files/app/uploads/2021/08/SDG6_Indicator_Report_641_Progress-on-Water-Use-Efficiency_2021_ENGLISH_pages-1.pdf.Google Scholar
- Flores et al., 2019L. Flores, J. García, R. Pena, M. GarfíConstructed wetlands for winery wastewater treatment: a comparative life cycle assessmentSci. Total Environ., 659 (2019), pp. 1567-1576, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.348View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Flores et al., 2023L. Flores, I. Josa, J. García, R. Pena, M. GarfíConstructed wetlands for winery wastewater treatment: a review on the technical, environmental and socio-economic benefitsSci. Total Environ., 882 (2023), Article 163547, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2023.163547View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Frischknecht et al., 2009R. Frischknecht, R. Steiner, N. JungbluthThe ecological scarcity method–eco-factors 2006A method for impact assessment in LCA. Environmental studies (2009)(0906)Google Scholar
- García-Alcaraz et al., 2020J. García-Alcaraz, F.F. Montalvo, E.M. Cámara, J.S.D. Muro, E. Jiménez-Macías, J. Blanco-FernándezComparative environmental impact analysis of techniques for cleaning wood wine barrelsInnov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol., 60 (2020), 10.1016/j.ifset.2020.102301Google Scholar
- García-Casarejos et al., 2017N. García-Casarejos, P. Gargallo, M.M.B. CabanésA multi-level approach to analyze the effects of renewable energy in the wine sectorEnergy Procedia (2017), 10.1016/j.egypro.2017.10.264&partnerID=40&md5=b25a56259923ff7671cab3bee88f42b0Google Scholar
- Gerbens-Leenes et al., 2021W. Gerbens-Leenes, M. Berger, J. AllanWater footprint and life cycle assessment: the complementary strengths of analyzing global freshwater appropriation and resulting local impactsWater, 13 (2021), 10.3390/w13060803Google Scholar
- Giovenzana et al., 2021V. Giovenzana, et al.Technological innovation in the winery addressing oenology 4.0: testing of an automated system for the alcoholic fermentation management. Journal ofAgri. Eng., 52 (2021), 10.4081/JAE.2021.1213Google Scholar
- Gómez-Lorente et al., 2017D. Gómez-Lorente, O. Rabaza, F. Aznar-Dols, M. Mercado-VargasEconomic and environmental study of wineries powered by grid-connected photovoltaic systems in SpainEnergies, 10 (2017), p. 222, 10.3390/en10020222View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Herath et al., 2013aI. Herath, S. Green, D. Horne, R. Singh, S. McLaren, B. ClothierWater footprinting of agricultural products: evaluation of different protocols using a case study of New Zealand wineJ. Clean. Prod., 44 (2013), pp. 159-167, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.041View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Herath et al., 2013bI. Herath, S. Green, R. Singh, D. Horne, S.V.D. Zijpp, B. ClothierWater footprinting of agricultural products: a hydrological assessment for the water footprint of New zealand’s winesJ. Clean. Prod., 41 (2013), pp. 232-243, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.10.024View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Hirzel et al., 2017D.R. Hirzel, K. Steenwerth, S.J. Parikh, A. OberholsterImpact of winery wastewater irrigation on soil, grape and wine compositionAgric Water Manag, 180 (2017), pp. 178-189, 10.1016/j.agwat.2016.10.019View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Hoekstra and Heek, 2017Hoekstra, A., Heek, M., 2017. Product Gallery: Wine. URL: https://www.waterfootprint.org/resources/interactive-tools/product-gallery/. accessed 27 Sept 2023.Google Scholar
- Hoekstra et al., 2011A. Hoekstra, A. Chapagain, M. Aldaya, M. MekonnenThe Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global StandardEarthscan, London (2011)Google Scholar
- Holtman et al., 2022G.A. Holtman, R. Haldenwang, P.J. WelzComparison of continuous and pulse mode of operation of pilot biosand reactors treating winery effluentEcol. Eng., 182 (2022), Article 106706, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2022.106706View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Howell and Myburgh, 2018C. Howell, P. MyburghManagement of winery wastewater by re-using it for crop irrigation – a reviewSouth African Journal of Enology amp; Viticulture, 39 (2018), 10.21548/39-1-2475Google Scholar
- Hungría et al., 2020J. Hungría, J.A. Siles, M.C. Gutiérrez, A.F. Chica, M.A. MartínEvaluation of anaerobic digestion of verdejo lees from an ecological cropWaste Biomass Valoriz., 11 (2020), pp. 6781-6791, 10.1007/s12649-019-00922-4View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- i Canals et al., 2009L.M. i Canals, J. Chenoweth, A. Chapagain, S. Orr, A. Antón, R. CliftAssessing freshwater use impacts in lca: part i—inventory modelling and characterisation factors for the main impact pathwaysInt. J. Life Cycle Assess., 14 (2009), pp. 28-42, 10.1007/s11367-008-0030-zGoogle Scholar
- Iannone et al., 2014R. Iannone, S. Miranda, S. Riemma, I.D. MarcoLife cycle assessment of red and white wines production in southern ItalyChemical Engineering Transactions, 39 (2014), pp. 595-600, 10.3303/CET1439100View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Iannone et al., 2016R. Iannone, S. Miranda, S. Riemma, I.D. MarcoImproving environmental performances in wine production by a life cycle assessment analysisJ. Clean. Prod., 111 (2016), pp. 172-180, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.006View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- International Organisation of Vine and Wine, 2023International Organisation of Vine and WineState of the World Vine and Wine Sector in 2022URLhttps://www.oiv.int/sites/default/files/documents/OIV_State_of_the_world_Vine_and_Wine_sector_in_2022_2.pdf (2023)Google Scholar
- Ioannou et al., 2014L. Ioannou, C. Michael, S. Kyriakou, D. Fatta-KassinosSolar Fenton: from pilot to industrial scale application for polishing winery wastewater pretreated by mbrJournal of Chemical Technology Biotechnology, 89 (2014), pp. 1067-1076, 10.1002/jctb.4203View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Ioannou et al., 2015L. Ioannou, G.L. Puma, D. Fatta-KassinosTreatment of winery wastewater by physicochemical, biological and advanced processes: a reviewJ. Hazard. Mater., 286 (2015), pp. 343-368, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2014.12.043View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- ISO Standard, 2014ISO StandardEnvironmental Management – Water Footprint – Principles, Requirements and GuidelinesURLhttps://www.iso.org/standard/43263.html (2014)Google Scholar
- Johnson and Mehrvar, 2019Johnson, M.B., Mehrvar, M., 2019. An assessment of the grey water footprint of winery wastewater in the Niagara region of Ontario, Canada. J. Clean. Prod. 214, 623–632. URL: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652618340435, doi:https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.12.311.Google Scholar
- Johnson and Mehrvar, 2021M.B. Johnson, M. MehrvarFrom field to bottle: water footprint estimation in the winery industryS.S. Muthu (Ed.), Water Footprint. Environmental Footprints and Eco-design of Products and Processes, Springer, Singapore (2021), 10.1007/978-981-33-4377-1_4Google Scholar
- Kalogerakis et al., 2021N. Kalogerakis, G.C. Kalogerakis, Q.P. BothaEnvironmental applications of nanobubble technology: field testing at industrial scaleCan. J. Chem. Eng., 99 (2021), pp. 2345-2354, 10.1002/cjce.24211View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Kriel, 2008W. KrielTurning wine into waterFarmer’s Weekly, South Africa (2008)Google Scholar
- Lamastra et al., 2014L. Lamastra, N. Suciu, E. Novelli, M. TrevisanA new approach to assessing the water footprint of wine: an italian case studySci. Total Environ., 490 (2014), pp. 748-756, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.05.063View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Latessa et al., 2023S.H. Latessa, L. Hanley, W. TaoCharacteristics and practical treatment technologies of winery wastewater: a review for wastewater management at small wineriesJ. Environ. Manage., 342 (2023), Article 118343, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.118343View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Laurenson et al., 2012S. Laurenson, N.S. Bolan, E. Smith, M. McCarthyReview: use of recycled wastewater for irrigating grapevinesAust. J. Grape Wine Res., 18 (2012), pp. 1-10, 10.1111/j.1755-0238.2011.00170.xView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Liang et al., 2021X. Liang, P. Rengasamy, R. Smernik, L.M. MosleyDoes the high potassium content in recycled winery wastewater used for irrigation pose risks to soil structural stability?Agric Water Manag, 243 (2021), 10.1016/j.agwat.2020.1064Google Scholar
- Litskas et al., 2020V. Litskas, T. Nikolaos, M. StavrinidesDetermining the carbon footprint and emission hotspots for the wine produced in CyprusATMOSPHERE, 11 (2020), 10.3390/atmos11050463Google Scholar
- Marco-Fondevila et al., 2020M. Marco-Fondevila, J. Moneva-Abadía, F. Llena-MacarullaAccounting for carbon footprint flows in wine production process. Case study in spanish wineryApplied Sciences (Switzerland), 10 (2020), pp. 1-13, 10.3390/app10238381View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Martins et al., 2017A. Martins, A. Araújo, A. Morgado, A. Graça, N. Caetano, T. MataSustainability evaluation of a portuguese “terroir” wineChem. Eng. Trans., 57 (2017), pp. 1945-1950, 10.3303/CET1757325View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Martins et al., 2018A. Martins, A. Araújo, A. Graça, N. Caetano, T. MataTowards sustainable wine: comparison of two portuguese winesJ. Clean. Prod., 183 (2018), pp. 662-676, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.057View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Masi et al., 2015F. Masi, J. Rochereau, S. Troesch, I. Ruiz, M. SotoWineries wastewater treatment by constructed wetlands: a reviewWater Sci. Technol., 71 (2015), pp. 1113-1127, 10.2166/wst.2015.061View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Matos and Pirra, 2020C. Matos, A. PirraWater to wine in wineries in Portugal douro region: comparative study between wineries with different sizesSci. Total Environ., 732 (2020), Article 139332, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.139332View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2011M. Mekonnen, A. HoekstraThe green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop productsHydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 15 (2011), pp. 1577-1600, 10.5194/hess-15-1577-2011View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Melchiors and Freire, 2023E. Melchiors, F.B. FreireWinery wastewater treatment: a systematic review of traditional and emerging technologies and their efficienciesEnviron. Process., 10 (2023), 10.1007/s40710-023-00657-4Google Scholar
- Milani et al., 2020M. Milani, S. Consoli, A. Marzo, A. Pino, C. Randazzo, S. Barbagallo, G. CirelliTreatment of winery wastewater with a multistage constructed wetland system for irrigation reuseWater, 12 (2020), 10.3390/w12051260Google Scholar
- Mosse et al., 2010K.P.M. Mosse, A.F. Patti, E.W. Christen, T.R. CavagnaroWinery wastewater inhibits seed germination and vegetative growth of common crop speciesJ. Hazard. Mater., 180 (2010), pp. 63-70, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.02.069View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Mosse et al., 2012K. Mosse, A. Patti, R. Smernik, E. Christen, T. CavagnaroPhysicochemical and microbiological effects of long- and short-term winery wastewater application to soilsJ. Hazard. Mater., 201–202 (2012), pp. 219-228, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.11.071View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Mosse et al., 2013aK.P.M. Mosse, J. Lee, B.T. Leachman, S.J. Parikh, T.R. Cavagnaro, A.F. Patti, K.L. SteenwerthIrrigation of an established vineyard with winery cleaning agent solution (simulated winery wastewater): vine growth, berry quality, and soil chemistryAgric Water Manag, 123 (2013), pp. 93-102, 10.1016/j.agwat.2013.02.008View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Mosse et al., 2013bK.P.M. Mosse, T.V. Verheyen, A.J. Cruickshank, A.F. Patti, T.R. CavagnaroSoluble organic components of winery wastewater and implications for reuseAgric Water Manag, 120 (2013), pp. 5-10, 10.1016/j.agwat.2012.05.011View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Mozell and Thach, 2014M.R. Mozell, L. ThachThe impact of climate change on the global wine industry: challenges & solutionsWine Econ. Policy, 3 (2014), pp. 81-89, 10.1016/j.wep.2014.08.001View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Mulidzi et al., 2015A.R. Mulidzi, C.E. Clarke, P.A. MyburghEffect of irrigation with diluted winery wastewater on cations and ph in four differently textured soilsSouth African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 36 (2015), pp. 402-412, 10.21548/36-3-973View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Mulidzi et al., 2016A.R. Mulidzi, C.E. Clarke, P.A. MyburghEffect of irrigation with diluted winery wastewater on phosphorus in four differently textured soilsSouth African Journal of Enology and Viticulture, 37 (2016), pp. 79-84, 10.21548/37-1-761View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Mustata et al., 2016Mustata, R., et al., 2016. Small scale demonstration project for the production and use of hydrogen from renewable energy sources in the wine sector. in WHEC 2016 – 21st World Hydrogen Energy Conference 2016, Proceedings URL: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85017005944&partnerID=40&md5=14b8085ae3146941ac41dd34a0a7b305.Google Scholar
- Nardi, 2020T. NardiMicrobial resources as a tool for enhancing sustainability in winemakingMicroorganisms, 8 (2020), p. 507, 10.3390/microorganisms8040507View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Ngwenya et al., 2022N. Ngwenya, C. Gaszynski, D. IkumiA review of winery wastewater treatment: a focus on uasb biotechnology optimisation and recovery strategiesJ. Environ. Chem. Eng., 10 (2022), Article 108172, 10.1016/j.jece.2022.108172View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Notarnicola et al., 2015B. Notarnicola, G. Tassielli, P. RenzulliEnvironmental and technical improvement of a grape must concentration system via a life cycle approachJ. Clean. Prod., 89 (2015), pp. 87-98, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.020View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Ojeda and Saurin, 2014H. Ojeda, N. SaurinPrecision irrigation of grapevines: methods, tools and strategies to maximize the quality and yield of the harvest and ensure water savingInnovations Agronomiques, 38 (2014), pp. 97-108https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-02638961Google Scholar
- Oliveira and Duarte, 2016M. Oliveira, E. DuarteIntegrated approach to winery waste: waste generation and data consolidation. Frontiers of environmental science ampEngineering, 10 (2016), pp. 168-176, 10.1007/s11783-014-0693-6View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Oliveira et al., 2009M. Oliveira, C. Queda, E. DuarteAerobic treatment of winery wastewater with the aim of water reuseWater Sci. Technol., 60 (2009), pp. 1217-1223, 10.2166/wst.2009.558View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Oliveira et al., 2018M. Oliveira, J. Costa, R. Fragoso, E. DuarteChallenges for modern wine production in dry areas: dedicated indicators to preview wastewater flowsWater Supply, 19 (2018), pp. 653-661, 10.2166/ws.2018.171Google Scholar
- Oliver et al., 2008P. Oliver, R. Rodríguez, S. UdaquiolaWater use optimization in batch process industries. Part 1: design of the water networkJ. Clean. Prod., 16 (2008), pp. 1275-1286, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.06.012View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Pascual et al., 2021A. Pascual, R. Pena, S. Gómez-Cuervo, D. de la Varga, J.A. Alvarez, M. Soto, C.A. AriasNature based solutions for winery wastewater valorisationEcol. Eng., 169 (2021), Article 106311, 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2021.106311View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Petta et al., 2017L. Petta, S.D. Gisi, P. Casella, R. Farina, M. NotarnicolaEvaluation of the treatability of a winery distillery (vinasse) wastewater by uasb, anoxic-aerobic uf-mbr and chemical precipitation/adsorptionJ. Environ. Manage., 201 (2017), pp. 177-189, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.06.042View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Pfister et al., 2009S. Pfister, A. Koehler, S. HellwegAssessing the environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in lcaEnvironmental Science Technology, 43 (2009), pp. 4098-4104, 10.1021/es802423eView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Ponstein et al., 2019aH. Ponstein, S. Ghinoi, B. SteinerHow to increase sustainability in the finnish wine supply chain? Insights from a country of origin based greenhouse gas emissions analysisJ. Clean. Prod., 226 (2019), pp. 768-780, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.088View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Ponstein et al., 2019bH. Ponstein, A. Meyer-Aurich, A. ProchnowGreenhouse gas emissions and mitigation options for german wine productionJ. Clean. Prod., 212 (2019), pp. 800-809, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.11.206View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Prenafeta-Boldú et al., 2020F.X. Prenafeta-Boldú, L. Burgos, J. Noguerol, B. Fernández, M. Mercader, J. SolerSolar drying in the vineyard: a sustainable technology for the recovery of nutrients from winery organic wasteWater Sci. Technol., 82 (2020), pp. 27-38, 10.2166/wst.2020.320View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Quinteiro et al., 2014P. Quinteiro, A. Dias, L. Pina, B. Neto, B. Ridoutt, L. ArrojaAddressing the freshwater use of a portuguese wine (‘vinho verde’) using different lca methodsJ. Clean. Prod., 68 (2014), pp. 46-55, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.017View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Ridoutt and Pfister, 2010B. Ridoutt, S. PfisterA revised approach to water footprinting to make transparent the impacts of consumption and production on global freshwater scarcityGlob. Environ. Chang., 20 (2010), pp. 113-120, 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.08.003View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Rinaldi et al., 2016S. Rinaldi, E. Bonamente, F. Scrucca, M. Merico, F. Asdrubali, F. CotanaWater and carbon footprint of wine: methodology review and application to a case studySustainability, 8 (2016), 10.3390/su8070621Google Scholar
- Rochard et al., 2019J. Rochard, R. Wang, A. Alary, Y. Lecuona, P. PhilippeIngénierie écologique appliquée aux effuents vinicoles : exemple du dispositif de blueset phytostation® dans la cave “les vignerons de buzet”BIO Web Conf., 12 (2019), p. 02002https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20191202002https://doi.org/10.1051/bioconf/20191202002Google Scholar
- Rodríguez-Chueca et al., 2017J. Rodríguez-Chueca, C. Amor, J. Mota, M.S. Lucas, J.A. PeresOxidation of winery wastewater by sulphate radicals: catalytic and solar photocatalytic activationsEnviron. Sci. Pollut. Res., 24 (2017), pp. 22414-22426, 10.1007/s11356-017-9896-2View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Román-Sánchez and Belmonte-Ureña, 2013I. Román-Sánchez, L. Belmonte-UreñaAppraisal of environmental regulations on sustainable consumption of water in the wine-producing spanish industryEnviron. Eng. Manag. J., 12 (2013), pp. 1979-1987, 10.30638/eemj.2013.247View in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Saraiva et al., 2019A. Saraiva, et al.The impact of the winery’s wastewater treatment system on the winery water footprintWater Sci. Technol., 80 (2019), pp. 1823-1831, 10.2166/wst.2019.432Google Scholar
- Saraiva et al., 2020A. Saraiva, et al.Water footprint sustainability as a tool to address climate change in the wine sector: a methodological approach applied to a portuguese case studyAtmosphere, 11 (2020), 10.3390/atmos11090934Google Scholar
- Sheridan et al., 2005C. Sheridan, F. Bauer, S. Burton, L. LorenzenA critical process analysis of wine production to improve cost, quality and environmental performanceWater Sci. Technol., 51 (2005), pp. 39-46CrossrefView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Sirohi et al., 2020R. Sirohi, A. Tarafdar, S. Singh, T. Negi, V.K. Gaur, E. Gnansounou, B. BharathirajaGreen processing and biotechnological potential of grape pomace: current trends and opportunities for sustainable biorefineryBioresour. Technol., 314 (2020), Article 123771, 10.1016/j.biortech.2020.123771View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Soceanu et al., 2021A. Soceanu, S. Dobrinas, A. Sirbu, N. Manea, V. PopescuEconomic aspects of waste recovery in the wine industry. A multidisciplinary approachSci. Total Environ., 759 (2021), Article 143543, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.143543View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Tait et al., 2019P. Tait, C. Saunders, P. Dalziel, P. Rutherford, T. Driver, M. GuentherEstimating wine consumer preferences for sustainability attributes: a discrete choice experiment of californian sauvignon blanc purchasersJ. Clean. Prod., 233 (2019), pp. 412-420, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.076View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Taurino et al., 2019R. Taurino, D. Ferretti, L. Cattani, F. Bozzoli, F. BondioliLightweight clay bricks manufactured by using locally available wine industry wasteJournal of Building Engineering, 26 (2019), Article 100892, 10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100892View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Trioli et al., 2015S.A. Trioli, C. Corbo, M. TrevisanEnvironmental impact of vinegrowing and winemaking inputs: a European surveyInternet Journal of Viticulture and Enology, 7 (2015)https://www.infowine.com/en/environmental-impact-of-vinegrowing-and-winemaking-inputs-an-european-survey/Google Scholar
- United Nations, 2023United NationsGoal 6: Clean Water and SanitationURLhttps://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/water-and-sanitation/ (2023), Accessed 31st May 2023Google Scholar
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1972United States Environmental Protection AgencySummary of the Clean Water ActURLhttps://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act (1972), Accessed 10th Aug 2023Google Scholar
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2015United States Environmental Protection AgencyFinal Rulemaking to Update the National Water Quality Standards RegulationURLhttps://www.epa.gov/wqs-tech/final-rulemaking-update-national-water-quality-standards-regulation (2015), Accessed 10th Aug 2023Google Scholar
- United States Geological Survey, 2015United States Geological Survey, 2015. Water use data for Usa. URL: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/water_use. Accessed 10 Aug 2023, ?Google Scholar
- Vaclav et al., 2022Vaclav, M., Michal, T., Marta, M., Vit?zslav, M., David, H., 2022. Winery wastewater treatment technologies: current trends and future perspective. Chemical Engineering Transactions 94, 847–852. doi:https://doi.org/10.3303/CET2294141.Google Scholar
- Valderrama et al., 2012C. Valderrama, G. Ribera, N. Bahí, M. Rovira, T. Giménez, R. Nomen, S. Lluch, M. Yuste, X. Martinez-LladóWinery wastewater treatment for water reuse purpose: conventional activated sludge versus membrane bioreactor (mbr)Desalination, 306 (2012), pp. 1-7, 10.1016/j.desal.2012.08.016View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Van Schoor et al., 2005L. Van Schoor, E. Winetech, M. Theron, T. Consultancies, J. Wooldridge, C. Theron, J. SchreuderGuidelines for the Management of Wastewater and Solid Waste at Existing Wineries 2 Guidelines for the Management of Wastewater and Solid Waste at Existing Wineries(2005)Google Scholar
- Vlotman et al., 2022D. Vlotman, D. Key, B. BladergroenTechnological advances in winery wastewater treatment: a comprehensive reviewSouth African Journal of Enology and Viticulture (2022), 10.21548/43-1-4931View at publisherGoogle Scholar
- Welz et al., 2014P.J. Welz, Z. Palmer, S. Isaacs, B. Kirby, M. le Roes-HillAnalysis of substrate degradation, metabolite formation and microbial community responses in sand bioreactors treating winery wastewater: a comparative studyJ. Environ. Manage., 145 (2014), pp. 147-156, 10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.06.025View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Welz et al., 2016P.J. Welz, G. Holtman, R. Haldenwang, M. le Roes-HillCharacterisation of winery wastewater from continuous flow settling basins and waste stabilisation ponds over the course of 1 year: implications for biological wastewater treatment and land applicationWater Sci. Technol., 74 (2016), pp. 2036-2050, 10.2166/wst.2016.226View at publisherView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Woods et al., 2022P. Woods, H. Bustamante, K.F. Aguey-ZinsouThe hydrogen economy – where is the water?Energy Nexus, 7 (2022), Article 100123, 10.1016/j.nexus.2022.100123View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
- Zhang et al., 2017N. Zhang, A. Hoadley, J. Patel, S. Lim, C. LiSustainable options for the utilization of solid residues from wine productionWaste Manag., 60 (2017), pp. 173-183, 10.1016/j.wasman.2017.01.006View PDFView articleView in ScopusGoogle Scholar
