Abstract

Wine production is an important socio-economic activity in Mediterranean countries. This study is focused on wine production under warm and dry climate conditions in south Portugal, in two major wine-producing regions (Tejo and Alentejo), characterized by small to medium sized wineries. Vineyards have been expanding in this region of Portugal, where about 50–70% of the vineyards are irrigated, increasing regional water demand. The aim of this study is to propose an integrative approach for wine production, where a simple calculation model has been developed and validated to preview water consumption and wastewater production, as functions of winemaking periods and type of processed grapes. Results revealed a global ratio of 2.2 ± 0.45 and 2.1 ± 0.17 Lwater/Lwine. Concerning dedicated indicators, 60–75% of the wastewater was produced during Period I and the red wine production represented a 50–64% increase in water consumption. This tool will enable winemakers to calculate Global and Dedicated Indicators, based on their own parameters, which provide information on flow volumes and peak flows. In this context, it will be possible to identify improvements for wastewater treatment and management towards water reuse as a promising solution for the wine sector in the framework of the circular economy.

ABBREVIATIONS

     
  • BAT

    best available technics

  •  
  • BOD

    biochemical oxygen demand

  •  
  • COD

    chemical oxygen demand

  •  
  • EC

    electrical conductivity

  •  
  • F

    correction factor for the ratio fgt ij

  •  
  • fgt ij

    ratio of wastewater production red/white

  •  
  • FW

    Farm Winery

  •  
  • gtj

    ratio of grape type, red/white, (%)

  •  
  • i

    Periods (i = 1, Period I; i = 2, Period II)

  •  
  • j

    type of grape (j = 1, white wine; j = 2, red wine)

  •  
  • NTU

    Nomenclature Territorial Units

  •  
  • P

    production (kg of grape/yr)

  •  
  • Qi

    ratio of wastewater flow in each Period (%)

  •  
  • Qi,j

    average wastewater flow (m3/d)

  •  
  • T

    number of days of each Period

  •  
  • TSS

    total suspended solids

  •  
  • V

    vinification rate

  •  
  • W

    annual wastewater produced (m3/yr)

INTRODUCTION

The context of the Mediterranean wine industry

The global wine industry assumes considerable relevance in Europe, particularly in Mediterranean countries such as Portugal (IVV 2016). Climate change affects water resources worldwide and Southern Europe is one of the regions where water scarcity is expected to increase in the future (Lavrnić et al. 2017), which represents a risk for the wine sector (Fraga et al. 2018). Furthermore, wine consumers are increasingly aware of the environmental impact of the sector (Costa et al. 2016; Martins et al. 2018). Therefore, new strategies to save water in the vineyards and wineries are required and the use of alternative water resources is increasingly considered in dry areas (EC 2012). In this context, the environmental impact of viticulture and oenology demands improved characterization to support the efforts of the modern wine industry to adapt to climate change, minimize environmental burdens and guarantee consumer acceptance (Christ & Burritt 2013; Martins et al. 2018).

Portugal has 14 different winegrowing regions. However, according to Nomenclature Territorial Units 2 (NTU2) they are aggregated in only seven regions, and the Alentejo NTU2 region includes the Alentejo and Tejo winegrowing regions. In Alentejo, the average area per farm is about 6.8 ha, which is five times that of the country's average, accounting for 20% of the Portuguese wine-production area and about one-third of Portuguese wine production (IVV 2016).

The climate of the Alentejo NTU region has an average temperature of 14.5 °C with maximum average values of 33 °C (July–August) and minimum values of 5 °C or less (in January), and 3,000 h/yr of sun. Temperatures can be colder in winter and heat waves can strike during summer and the region is characterized by large inter-annual variability in terms of precipitation (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Yearly accumulated rainfall variability for Évora (AlentejoNTU2) over the period comprising 1973–2010. Q1 to Q3 represents the interquartile range, and shows the variability of the middle 50% yearly accumulated rainfall events observed in that period of observation. Q1 (first quartile rank) represents the lowest 25% yearly accumulated rainfall events in the analyzed period. Q3 (third quartile rank) refers to the highest 25% yearly accumulated rainfall events in the analyzed period (Source: adapted Coelho et al. 2013).

Figure 1

Yearly accumulated rainfall variability for Évora (AlentejoNTU2) over the period comprising 1973–2010. Q1 to Q3 represents the interquartile range, and shows the variability of the middle 50% yearly accumulated rainfall events observed in that period of observation. Q1 (first quartile rank) represents the lowest 25% yearly accumulated rainfall events in the analyzed period. Q3 (third quartile rank) refers to the highest 25% yearly accumulated rainfall events in the analyzed period (Source: adapted Coelho et al. 2013).

About 50% of the Alentejo NTU2 vineyards are already irrigated (IVV 2016). Therefore, one of the biggest challenges for the Portuguese wine industry relates to water issues, namely water use, wastewater production and management in viticulture and oenology (Peth et al. 2017). In a climate change scenario that predicts restrictions in water availability in dry areas for the industry and irrigated agriculture, and where additional gains in water use efficiency are difficult to achieve, water reuse for multiple purposes can be an alternative solution for the wine sector. Moreover, implementation of leading practices for sustainable water and wastewater management in the wine sector will help to protect water resources.

Water issues related to wine production in the Mediterranean

Similarly to other industries, winemaking can create a negative environmental impact that must be minimized (Navarro et al. 2017). The fact that industrial processes and production methods related to wine production are largely dependent on the type of operation and organized along the wine-growing phase (viticulture), winemaking phase (oenology) or a combination of both (viticulture–oenology) pressures the industry to face a complex mixture of, often interconnected, environmental issues, restrictions and problems (Costa et al. 2016; Martins et al. 2018).

One of the most important issues in the Mediterranean area concerns water metrics and sustainable water use in both the farm and the winery. In the case of the winemaking phase, water-use assessment must consider the different vinification stages (i.e., preliminary phases, fermentation, wine clarification, cleaning and bottling) in order to identify hotspots and provide potential solutions to improve environmental performance (e.g. water savings, decreased water pollution, water reuse).

It is well reported in previous literature that water use at the winery depends on several characteristics, namely the winery dimension, the type of wine (e.g. red, white or special wines) and the available cleaning and winemaking technologies (Brito et al. 2007; GWRDC 2011; Oliveira & Duarte 2016). This may justify to a great extent why water use (e.g. L of water/L of wine produced) can vary widely with the region, company and country (Kumar & Christen 2009; Oliveira & Duarte 2015). Australian wineries still use over 8 L of water in the winery to produce a bottle of wine (750 mL) despite the reported best practice of 0.4 L referred to in the literature (Kumar & Christen 2009). However, our own previous findings show that the water volume consumed is proportional to vintage duration, i.e. a longer harvesting period leads to higher water consumption (Oliveira & Duarte 2015). In addition, the larger wineries often have more efficient use of water resources and a smaller specific volume of wastewater requiring disposal and/or treatment and show better data reporting than smaller ones. Wineries often produce large amounts of wastewater and the seasonal nature of the winemaking industry poses problems for wastewater treatment in terms of volume and composition. Therefore, the sector is increasingly demanding efficient and low-cost alternatives based on the concept of ‘fit for purpose’ wastewater treatment to treat winery wastewater and promote planned discharge or recycling (GWRDC 2011).

Water use in the vineyard, but also in the winery, is not well characterized for the Portuguese reality (Costa et al. 2016). More detailed quantification is required attending to water scarcity problems and the increasing restrictions posed to industrial water users. Water use in the winery relates mainly to the cleaning of equipment, tanks, vats, barrels, presses, de-stemmers, reception hoods and taps, floors, walls and pipes (Andreottola et al. 2009; Oliveira & Duarte 2015). Moreover, water use depends on the type and size of the winery and the type of wine (red, white, others) and technology (Brito et al. 2007; Andreottola et al. 2009; GWRDC 2011). Considering this scenario, a simplified approach based on the previous work of Duarte et al. (2004) and Oliveira & Duarte (2016) is proposed in which two or more activities are aggregated. The Portuguese wine industry is largely based on small and small–medium sized wineries (Table 1), so a ‘Farm Winery’ (FW) concept can integrate the majority of Portuguese viticulture and oenology producers, where vineyard and wine production are considered as a single-stream grape system. Most of the wine producers of the Alentejo NTU2 region correspond to small–medium and medium sized integrating the concept of FW, accounting for 27% of national wine production (IVV 2016).

Table 1

Winery types in Portugal, according to the wine volume production capacity (IVV 2016)

CodeWinery class (hL/yr)Number of wineriesWine production (hL)% Wineries% Wine production
Small <2,000 20,884 919,380 98.1 15.4 
Small/Medium 2,000–5,000 196 608,940 0.9 10.2 
Medium 5,000–10,000 82 549,240 0.4 9.2 
Large >10,000 120 3,892,440 0.6 65.2 
Total  21,282 5,970,000 100 100 
CodeWinery class (hL/yr)Number of wineriesWine production (hL)% Wineries% Wine production
Small <2,000 20,884 919,380 98.1 15.4 
Small/Medium 2,000–5,000 196 608,940 0.9 10.2 
Medium 5,000–10,000 82 549,240 0.4 9.2 
Large >10,000 120 3,892,440 0.6 65.2 
Total  21,282 5,970,000 100 100 

Metrics and indicators in the wine industry

The wine industry requires improved water metrics in order to robustly evaluate and predict its sustainability and environmental impact. Indeed, several sustainability programs for wine chain production have emerged worldwide, and in particular in the ‘New World’ producing countries such as the USA, New Zealand or Australia. These programs aim to address the increasing need for evaluation and scrutiny by stakeholders (government, customers and consumers) on the environmental performance of the wine industry (Gemmrich & Arnold 2007; Martins et al. 2018). In addition, audit firms for benchmarking and environmental performance of water issues require more accurate monitoring of water use and wastewater production (EPA 2004) and more consistent standards/metrics for sustainability, regardless of the ‘terroir,’ region and management practices.

Global indicators for wastewater production were proposed as a function of grapes crushed or wine produced (Sheridan et al. 2005; Aybar et al. 2007). Multiple key indicators were used to assess the sustainability of the wine industry. However, results vary with the region/country, the size of the winery or even with the type of grape and related winemaking technology, which makes it complicated for stakeholders or auditors to compare ‘companies/farms’ performance (Da Ros et al. 2017). Indeed, there is still a lack of information in relation to dedicated indicators, which should combine BAT implementation, size of the winery, different winemaking periods and also final disposal/reuse practices. In this context, the aim of the study is to propose an integrative approach for wine production in the Alentejo NTU2 and develop a simple calculation model for water use and wastewater production in the winery, as a function of winemaking aggregated periods and type of processed grapes. The model was applied to FW case studies located in the Alentejo NTU2 region.

MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

Case studies characterization

The present study was carried out in Portugal, particularly in the NTU2 of Alentejo, which comprises the Alentejo and Tejo winegrowing regions. Winery I and Winery II were selected on the basis of the conceptual approach of FW systems, in order to evaluate an integrated strategy of vineyard and winery on water issues. These two medium sized wineries (5,000–10,000 hL production capacity) were monitored during three campaigns, between August 2013 and July 2016. With this purpose the winery installed water flow meters to provide daily registers. It is assumed that all the water consumed is discharged as wastewater.

Sampling approach

In order to optimize the analysis, a simplified approach was considered as previously proposed by Duarte et al. (2004) and Oliveira & Duarte (2016). Two or more activities were aggregated: (1) vintage and first racking (Period I) characterized by high peak flows and high pollution loads; and (2) all the remaining activities, including bottling (Period II) characterized by reduced water flows and medium/low pollution loads (Figure 2). During Period I, the flows and loads were analyzed weekly; during Period II samples were collected twice a month.

Figure 2

Winemaking timeline for the winery, as function of the type of wine (red or white). V – vintage; CD – crushing/destemming; F – filtration; P – pressing; D – decanting; M – maturation; C – clarification; S – stabilization; B – bottling.

Figure 2

Winemaking timeline for the winery, as function of the type of wine (red or white). V – vintage; CD – crushing/destemming; F – filtration; P – pressing; D – decanting; M – maturation; C – clarification; S – stabilization; B – bottling.

Wastewater production and characterization

Composite samples of the winery wastewater, representative of each phase of the process, were taken and kept at 4 °C. Several key parameters were analyzed, according to the Standard Methods (APHA 2012), to assess winery wastewater load (Table 2): pH, electrical conductivity (EC), chemical oxygen demand (COD), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS) and total polyphenols.

Table 2

Wastewater characterization according to the working period

Period I
ParametersWhiteRedPeriod II
BOD5 (g O2/L) 1.0–1.1 1.3–4.9 0.25–8.6 
COD (g O2/L) 2.2–5.4 2.5–10.1 2.8–17.0 
Polyphenols (mg/L) 10.0–12.9 28.0–54.0 18.0–270 
TSS (g/L) 0.3–1.6 0.9–3.6 0.10–4.9 
EC (μS/cm) 460–1,400 740–1,400 920–3,200 
pH 5.6–6.0 4.1–6.2 3.5–11.5 
Period I
ParametersWhiteRedPeriod II
BOD5 (g O2/L) 1.0–1.1 1.3–4.9 0.25–8.6 
COD (g O2/L) 2.2–5.4 2.5–10.1 2.8–17.0 
Polyphenols (mg/L) 10.0–12.9 28.0–54.0 18.0–270 
TSS (g/L) 0.3–1.6 0.9–3.6 0.10–4.9 
EC (μS/cm) 460–1,400 740–1,400 920–3,200 
pH 5.6–6.0 4.1–6.2 3.5–11.5 

Calculation model

A calculation model is proposed to determine a ‘Global Indicator’ of wastewater production based on ‘Dedicated Indicators’ of water consumption (Equation (1)). If different periods and type of wine produced are considered as well as the implementation of best available technics (BAT), it is possible to calculate the Dedicated Indicators, based on labour periods (Equation (2) and Equation (3)). Wineries that apply BAT can reduce wastewater production 30–50%. During Period I white wine can produce less wastewater than red. Therefore, the ratio of wastewater production red/white (fgt ij) considers this information. During Period II the activities are measured together, so F is the correction factor for the ratio fgt ij during Period II and fgt 2j is then 1/F. 
formula
(1)
 
formula
(2)
 
formula
(3)
where,
  • i – Periods (i = 1, Period I; i = 2, Period II)

  • j – type of grape (j = 1, white wine; j = 2, red wine)

  • P – production (kg of grape/yr)

  • V – vinification rate

  • Qi – ratio of wastewater flow in each Period (%)

  • W – annual wastewater produced (m3/yr)

  • gtj – ratio of grape type, red/white, (%)

  • fgt ij – ratio of wastewater production red/white

  • F – correction factor for the ratio fgt ij during Period II

  • BAT – coefficient related to BATs implementation.

If the interest is the assessment of Dedicated Indicators, based on type of wine, Equation (2) can be modified to Equation (4), and the dedicated indicator will be expressed as Lwastewater/Lwhite wine or Lwastewater/Lred wine. 
formula
(4)
On the other hand, if all flows are known, in both periods, as well as the length of each Period I and II, Equation (2) can be simplified as Equation (5): 
formula
(5)

where,

  • i – Periods (i = 1, Period I; i = 2, Period II)

  • j – type of grape (j = 1, white wine; j = 2, red wine)

  • P – production (kg of grape/yr)

  • V – vinification rate

  • Qi,j – average wastewater flow (m3/d)

  • t – number of days of each Period

  • BAT – coefficient related to BATs implementation.

Data collection, of each representative vinification process, obtained in previous Portuguese case studies (FW) was grouped (Table 3) and can be used as reference values to fill the model for wineries where there is lack of information.

Table 3

Global and dedicated indicators for wastewater flows in Portuguese wineries, according to the working period

Winery type
Medium
 Type of grape White Red 
 Lwater/Lwine 1–2 2–3 
Period I (30–60 d) Wastewater ratio 0.6–0.8 
fgt 1j 1–4 
Period II (305–335 d) Wastewater ratio 0.2–0.4 
fgt 2j 1/F 
With BAT  0.5–0.7 
Winery type
Medium
 Type of grape White Red 
 Lwater/Lwine 1–2 2–3 
Period I (30–60 d) Wastewater ratio 0.6–0.8 
fgt 1j 1–4 
Period II (305–335 d) Wastewater ratio 0.2–0.4 
fgt 2j 1/F 
With BAT  0.5–0.7 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There are several references for the amount of wastewater produced per litre of wine bottled (Lwastewater/Lwine) but wastewater production as a function of the type of grape (white versus red) has not been fully addressed. The proposed approach allows the stakeholder to evaluate wastewater production throughout the year, by labour period and by type of grape processed, based on their own parameters: production (kg grape/yr); vinification rate, usually 0.75; type of grape processed (white or red) and annual water consumption during the oenological processes (Table 4).

Table 4

Data collected in the case studies during three years of monitoring

yrP (m3/yr)W (m3/yr)Q1gt2fgt11fgt12FBAT
Winery I 585 1,540 0.73 0.70 0.588 
820 1,420 0.70 0.65 0.606 
695 1,570 0.65 0.65 0.606 
Average  700 1,510 0.69 0.67 0.600 
Winery II 570 1,215 0.70 0.60 0.455 
760 1,430 0.68 0.60 0.455 
620 1,370 0.60 0.58 0.463 
Average  650 1,340 0.63 0.59 0.457 
yrP (m3/yr)W (m3/yr)Q1gt2fgt11fgt12FBAT
Winery I 585 1,540 0.73 0.70 0.588 
820 1,420 0.70 0.65 0.606 
695 1,570 0.65 0.65 0.606 
Average  700 1,510 0.69 0.67 0.600 
Winery II 570 1,215 0.70 0.60 0.455 
760 1,430 0.68 0.60 0.455 
620 1,370 0.60 0.58 0.463 
Average  650 1,340 0.63 0.59 0.457 

A more integrated approach of vineyard and winery environmental management is required by the modern wine industry. To optimize the system, the focus should be on the knowledge of flows and loads, during Periods I and II, according to dimension and type of grape processed (white vs red). In this study it is not only possible to analyse the global indicator of water consumption, but also to identify dedicated indicators, as a function of processed grapes or labour period (Table 5). In the present study, two wineries were monitored for water consumption and a ratio of 2.2 ± 0.45 and 2.1 ± 0.17 L of water/L of wine was recorded. These values are in agreement with the range most frequently reported by other authors, 2–3 L of water/L of wine (Bolzonella & Rosso 2009). Usually, the variation of this ratio is related to the amount of grapes processed, and different models have been proposed to predict a global indicator of wastewater generated, as a function of the amount of grapes crushed or wine produced. For example, Aybar et al. (2007) correlated wastewater generated (V) and grapes produced by the equation V = 226P−0.315, where P is grape production, whereas Sheridan et al. (2005) proposed the equation A = 4037.5T0.9243 to estimate the water consumption (A), based on ton of processed grapes (T). Nevertheless, when these equations were applied to the Portuguese case-studies an overestimation of the wastewater produced was found. Also, it was identified that in small to medium sized wineries, years of lower production affected negatively the water ratio consumption. This could be explained by some specific washing operations which are strongly dependent on the size of the tanks, e.g. fermentation vessels, storage tanks and maturation tanks (Vlyssides et al. 2005), because regardless of the amount of grapes processed, the tanks and machinery have a fixed volume or size and consume the same amount of washing water.

Table 5

Model application to the medium sized wineries (Winery I and Winery II) located in the dry region of Alentejo NUT2, south Portugal

YearGlobal Indicator (Lwater/Lwine)Dedicated Indicator (Lwater/Lwhite wine)Dedicated Indicator (Lwater/Lred wine)% ww red wineDedicated Indicator (Lwater/Lwine PI)Dedicated Indicator (Lwater/Lwine PII)
Winery I 2.6 1.8 3.0 79 1.9 0.7 
1.7 1.2 2.0 75 1.2 0.5 
2.3 1.7 2.6 74 1.5 0.8 
Average  2.2 1.6 2.5 76 1.5 0.7 
Winery II 2.1 1.3 2.7 75 1.5 0.6 
1.9 1.2 2.3 75 1.3 0.6 
2.1 1.5 2.7 72 1.3 0.9 
Average  2.1 1.3 2.6 74 1.4 0.7 
YearGlobal Indicator (Lwater/Lwine)Dedicated Indicator (Lwater/Lwhite wine)Dedicated Indicator (Lwater/Lred wine)% ww red wineDedicated Indicator (Lwater/Lwine PI)Dedicated Indicator (Lwater/Lwine PII)
Winery I 2.6 1.8 3.0 79 1.9 0.7 
1.7 1.2 2.0 75 1.2 0.5 
2.3 1.7 2.6 74 1.5 0.8 
Average  2.2 1.6 2.5 76 1.5 0.7 
Winery II 2.1 1.3 2.7 75 1.5 0.6 
1.9 1.2 2.3 75 1.3 0.6 
2.1 1.5 2.7 72 1.3 0.9 
Average  2.1 1.3 2.6 74 1.4 0.7 

Regarding wastewater distribution throughout the year, our data revealed that most of the wastewater (60–75%) was produced during Period I (vintage and first racking periods), which lasts one to two months. In addition, in Italy, 78% of the global wastewater produced was generated during this winemaking period (Lofrano et al. 2009). As the quantity of red wine produced in Portugal is globally higher, the water consumption related to red wine production is higher. Furthermore, the results show that red wine leads to more water consumption related to waste removal, presenting an increase of 50–64% of water consumption compared with white wine, regardless of the amount of wine produced.

These findings highlight that the wastewater treatment system should be flexible, capable of facing fluctuations of volumes and loads, and allow adequate removal yields accordingly to final purpose. This calculation model will be able to produce an environmental diagnosis for FW case studies, in order to improve wastewater management and minimize errors in the design/operation of the treatment system.

Water is becoming scarce, particularly in dry regions. Treated wastewater can thus emerge as an alternative water resource. In Europe, the requirements for treated wastewater reuse in irrigation mainly include microbiological parameters, since its main focus is the reuse of domestic wastewater (Brissaud 2008). In Portugal, the legislation (DL n° 236/98, Annex XVI) provides water quality standards for irrigation, based on some physical–chemical parameters and two microbiological parameters (faecal coliforms and eggs of intestinal parasites). However, this legislation is not specific for reuse of treated wastewater, and the indicator parameters of organic matter, such as COD or BOD, are not covered. To regulate the use of treated wastewater in irrigation, a Portuguese Standard was published in 2005 (NP 4434) but this standard refers, only, to the reuse of domestic wastewater, stipulating four quality classes based on microbiological parameters. In this sense, the wastewaters, without faecal microrganisms but containing other contaminants, are not properly regulated. Moreover, the potential risks of phytotoxicity associated with this type of wastewater (Oliveira et al. 2009; Mosse et al. 2010) and the role of the edapho-climatic conditions of the winegrowing region should be better studied to create/adapt guidelines that are in compliance with the local legal requirements, as established in countries with high environmental concerns (EPA 2004; Mekala et al. 2008) and also to avoid the negative environmental impact related to the use of treated wastewater.

CONCLUSIONS

This methodology and related modelling approach have the major advantages of flexibility and adaptation to different case studies. This way, each type of winery will be able to develop its own sustainable indicators allowing benchmarking with similar wineries and to compare performances. This calculation model could be an advantage in wastewater management, particularly in Mediterranean dry areas where the demand for new water resources is identified as one of the most prominent hotspots in future climate-change projections for the Mediterranean basin. This approach towards the ultimate goal of ‘closing the cycle’ by reusing treated industrial wastewater onsite plays a key role in wine production water management.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia through the research unit UID/AGR/04129/2013 (LEAF) for financial support.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
Andreottola
G.
,
Foladori
P.
&
Ziglio
G.
2009
Biological treatment of winery wastewater: an overview
.
Water Sci. Technol.
60
,
1117
1125
.
APHA, AWWA, WEF
2012
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater
, 22nd edn.
APHA, AWWA, WEF
,
Washington, DC
,
USA
.
Aybar
M.
,
Carvallo
M.
,
Fabacher
F.
,
Pizarro
G.
&
Pastén
P.
2007
Towards a benchmarking model for winery wastewater treatment and disposal
.
Water Sci. Technol.
56
,
153
160
.
Bolzonella
D.
&
Rosso
D.
2009
Winery wastewater characterisation and biological treatment options
. In:
Proceedings of the 5th International Specialized Conference on Sustainable Viticulture and Winery Wastes Management
,
Trento–Verona, Italy
, pp.
19
26
.
Brito
A. G.
,
Peixoto
J.
,
Oliveira
J. M.
,
Oliveira
J. A.
,
Costa
C.
,
Nogueira
R.
,
Rodrigues
A. C.
2007
Brewery and winery wastewater treatment: some focal points of design and operation
. In:
Utilizations of By-Products and Treatment of Waste in the Food Industry
,
Vol. 3
(
Oreopoulou
V.
&
Russ
W.
, eds),
Springer
,
New York, USA
, pp.
109
131
.
Coelho
J. C.
,
Lopes
C. M.
,
Braga
R.
,
Pinto
P. A.
&
Egipto
R. J. L
, .
2013
Avaliação do impacte das alterações climáticas na sustentabilidade económica da cultura da vinha no Alentejo
. In:
VII APDEA Congress – ESADR 2013
,
Évora, Portugal, pp. 4015–4039
.
Costa
J. M.
,
Vaz
M.
,
Escalona
J.
,
Egipto
R.
,
Lopes
C.
,
Medrano
H.
&
Chaves
M. M.
2016
Modern viticulture in southern Europe: vulnerabilities and strategies for adaptation to water scarcity
.
Agr. Water Manage.
164
,
5
18
.
Duarte
E. A.
,
Reis
I. B.
&
Martins
M. O.
2004
Implementation of an environmental management plan towards the global quality concept – a challenge to the winery sector
. In:
Proceedings of the 3rd International Specialised Conference on Sustainable Viticulture and Winery Wastes Management
.
University of Barcelona
,
Barcelona
,
Spain
, pp.
23
30
.
EC (European Commission)
2012
Managing Water Demand, Reuse and Recycling. Science for Environment Policy
33.
EPA
2004
Guidelines for Wineries and Distilleries
. Environmental Proection Authority,
Adelaide, SA, Australia
. .
Fraga
H.
,
García de Cortázar Atauri
I.
&
Santos
J. A.
2018
Viticultural irrigation demands under climate change scenarios in Portugal
.
Agric. Water Man.
196
,
66
74
.
Gemmrich
A. R.
&
Arnold
R. C. G.
2007
Sustainable winegrowing, is it sustainable or just another fad? An international overview
.
Annals of Agrarian Science
5
(
4
),
87
90
.
GWRDC
2011
Winery Wastewater Management and Recycling – Operational Guidelines
.
Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation
,
Australia Government
,
Adelaide, SA, Australia
. .
IVV
2016
Vinhos e Aguardentes de Portugal 2015
.
Instituto da Vinha e do Vinho
,
Lisboa, Portugal
.
Kumar
A.
&
Christen
E.
,
2009
Developing a Systematic Approach to Winery Wastewater Management
,
final report to the Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation, Project Number: CSL05/02, CSIRO Land and Water Science Report, Adelaide, SA, Australia
.
Lavrnić
S.
,
Zapater-Pereyra
M.
&
Mancini
M. L.
2017
Water scarcity and wastewater reuse standards in Southern Europe: focus on agriculture
.
Water. Air. Soil. Poll.
228
,
251
.
Lofrano
G.
,
Belgiorno
V.
&
Mascolo
A.
2009
Winery wastewater treatment options: drawbacks and advantages
. In:
Proceedings of the 5th International Specialized Conference on Sustainable Viticulture and Winery Wastes Management
.
Trento—Verona
,
Italy
, pp.
27
34
.
Martins
A. A.
,
Araújo
A. R.
,
Graça
A.
,
Caetano
N. S.
&
Mata
T. M.
2018
Towards sustainable wine: comparison of two Portuguese wines
.
J. Clean Prod.
183
,
662
676
.
Mekala
G. D.
,
Davidson
B.
,
Samad
M.
&
Boland
A.
2008
A Framework for Efficient Wastewater Treatment and Recycling Systems
,
working paper 129
.
International Water Management Institute (IWMI)
,
Colombo, Sri Lanka
.
Mosse
K. P. M.
,
Patti
A. F.
,
Christen
E. W.
&
Cavagnaro
T. R.
2010
Winery wastewater inhibits seed germination and vegetative growth of common crop species
.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
180
,
63
70
.
Navarro
A.
,
Puig
R.
,
Kılıç
E.
,
Penavayre
S.
&
Fullana-i-Palmer
P.
2017
Eco-innovation and benchmarking of carbon footprint data for vineyards and wineries in Spain and France
.
J. Clean Prod.
142
,
1661
1671
.
Oliveira
M.
&
Duarte
E.
2015
Winery wastewater treatment: evaluation of the air micro-bubble bioreactor performance
. In:
Toward a Sustainable Wine Industry: Green Enology in Practice
(
Preston-Wilsey
L.
, ed.),
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA
, pp.
79
113
.
Oliveira
M.
&
Duarte
E.
2016
Integrated approach to winery waste: waste generation and data consolidation
.
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.
10
(
1
),
168
176
.
Oliveira
M.
,
Queda
C.
&
Duarte
E.
2009
Aerobic treatment of winery wastewater with the aim of water reuse
.
Water Sci. Technol.
60
,
1217
1223
.
Peth
D.
,
Drastig
K.
&
Prochnow
A.
2017
Quantity- and quality-based farm water productivity in wine production: case studies in Germany
.
Water
9
(
2
),
88
.
Sheridan
C. M.
,
Bauer
F. F.
,
Burton
S.
&
Lorenzen
L.
2005
A critical process analysis of wine production to improve cost, quality and environmental performance
.
Water Sci. Technol.
51
,
39
46
.
Vlyssides
A. G.
,
Barampouti
E. M.
&
Mai
S.
2005
Wastewater characteristics from Greek wineries and distilleries
.
Water Sci. Technol.
51
,
53
60
.