Please wait a minute...
Shopping Cart Email List Chinese
Advanced Search Fig/Tab
Frontiers of Environmental Science & Engineering

ISSN 2095-2201

ISSN 2095-221X(Online)

CN 10-1013/X

Postal Subscription Code 80-973

2018 Impact Factor: 3.883

Featured Articles  |  Most Downloaded  |  Most Reading
Online Submission Subscribe to Our RSS Content Feed
Front. Environ. Sci. Eng.    2016, Vol. 10 Issue (1) : 168-176    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11783-014-0693-6
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Integrated approach to winery waste: waste generation and data consolidation
Margarida OLIVEIRA1,2(), Elizabeth DUARTE1
1. Instituto Superior de Agronomia (ISA), University of Lisbon, 1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal
2. Escola Superior Agrária de Santarém (ESAS), Instituto Superior Politécnico de Santarém, 2001-904 Santarém, Portugal
 Download: PDF(149 KB)   HTML
 Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks
Abstract

The winemaking process involves the generation of a significant amount of waste and wastewater. These residues should be addressed for recycling or treatment before being returned to environment. As each winery is unique in waste generation and disposal, plans for environmentally friendly waste management are not universal and should be tested for their effectiveness. In this study, a diagnostic was made during three years, in different wineries, throughout Portugal, in order to quantify and characterize the waste and the wastewater produced. The results showed that solid waste and wastewater are mainly produced during the harvest period, corresponding to 74% and 87%, respectively. One ton of processed grape approximately produce 0.13 t marc, 0.06 t lees, 0.03 t of stalks and 1.65 m3 of wastewater. No significant differences (P≤0.05) were observed for grape marc, lees and wastewater ratios, between years or wineries. With respect to the stalk ratio, there was no effect of year but the winery significantly affected this ratio (P≤0.05). During the study period the treated wastewater, since diluted, revealed suitable characteristics for irrigation representing an additional source of water. In this regard, the data acquisition and consolidation ensure the transfer of information and experience which constitute an essential step in a support decision tool design.
Keywords waste management      wastewater reuse      winery wastewater     
Corresponding Author(s): Margarida OLIVEIRA   
Online First Date: 23 April 2014    Issue Date: 03 December 2015
 Cite this article:   
Margarida OLIVEIRA,Elizabeth DUARTE. Integrated approach to winery waste: waste generation and data consolidation[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2016, 10(1): 168-176.
 URL:  
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/10.1007/s11783-014-0693-6
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fese/EN/Y2016/V10/I1/168
waste treatment uses references
grape marc fractionation of grape seed polyphenol production [8,9,11–13]
hydrolysis and fermentation lactic acid production [16,17]
hydrolysis and fermentation biosurfactants and bioemulsifiers production [16,17]
destillation ethanol and tartaric acid production [10]
extraction tannins,polyphenols and oil production [16,17]
fermentation of grape seed laccase production [15]
composting plant substrate [15]
lees solubilization and precipitation tartaric acid production [10]
composting plant substrate [15]
stalks composting plant substrate [15,18]
lyophilisation and extraction polyphenol production [11]
sludge co-composting plant substrate [19,20]
anaerobic digestion biogas production [15]
Tab.1  Solid waste treatment and uses
Fig.1  Diagram of the winemaking process. Adapted from [16]
year winery production /(t grape) ratio /(t marc·t−1 grape) ratio /(t lees·t−1 grape) ratio /(t stalk·t−1 grape) ratio /(total t·t−1 grape) ratio /(L wastewater·t−1 grape)
1 CB1 50 0.18 0.05 0.04 0.28 2.19
2 CB2 100 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.20 1.54
3 CB3 78 0.17 0.06 0.04 0.27 1.55
1 HM1 780 0.13 0.04 0.03 0.20 1.97
2 HM2 1093 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.22 1.30
3 HM3 924 0.12 0.05 0.03 0.20 1.70
1 CT1 559 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.23 1.60
2 CT2 1012 0.09 0.06 0.02 0.17 1.41
3 CT3 496 0.12 0.08 0.03 0.12 1.60
average 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.22 1.65
Tab.2  Waste production during three year, in three different Portuguese wineries
parameter source df MS F value
production year 2 6.54 × 104 3.34 n.s.
winery 2 5.84 × 105 29.9 **
error 4 1.95 × 104
marc/grape year 2 4.98 × 10−4 1.39 n.s.
winery 2 2.26 × 10−3 6.33 n.s.
error 4 3.57 × 10−4
stalk/grape year 2 4.77 × 10−5 2.66 n.s.
winery 2 1.58 × 10−4 8.85 *
error 4 1,.78 × 10−5
lees/grape year 2 1.15 × 10−4 0.45 n.s.
winery 2 9.25 × 10−4 3.60 n.s.
error 4 2.57 × 10−4
total solid waste/grape year 2 1.73 × 10−3 0.84 n.s.
winery 2 4.02 × 10−3 1.96 n.s.
error 4 2.05 × 10−3
total wastewater/grape year 2 1.19 × 10−1 5.38 n.s.
winery 2 3.75 × 10−2 1.05 n.s.
error 4 3.58 × 10−2
Tab.3  Mean squares (MS) and F values from the analyses of variance from the effects of year and winery on production, and ratios marc, stalk, lees, total solid waste and wastewater per ton of grape processed
Fig.2  Solid waste produced during wine process, expressed as percentage by weight
parameter CB HM CT
average standard deviation average standard deviation average standard deviation
pH 8.0 0.5 7.1 103 7.6 0.3
conductivity /(μs·cm−1) 920 120 2310 200 965 65
COD /(mg·L−1) 140 70 430 175 345 230
BOD /(mg·L−1) 20 8 50 14 26 10
TSS /(mg·L−1) 30 20 262 125 113 80
SAR /(meq·L−1)0.5 23 6 13 2 18 5
Cl2 /(mg·L−1) 0 – 0 – 0 –
fecal coli / 100?mL <1 – <1 – <1 –
Tab.4  Physical and chemical composition of the treated wastewater
parameter California Title 22 EPA Guidelines WHO Guidelines European Union
regulations / recommendations
Portugal
DL 236/98		 France
CSHPF 1991
[30]		 Spain
AEAAS, 2005 [31]		 Greece
[32]		 Germany
[23]		 Turkey
[23]		 Cyprus
K.D.269/2005
pH – 6.0–9.0 6.5–8.0 4.5–9.0 – – – 6.0–9.0 6.5–8.5 –
BOD /(mg·L−1) – 30 <500 – 100–400 – – 20 25–50 10
TSS /(mg·L−1) – 30 <50 60 150–500 20–35 20–35 30 30 10
SAR /(meq·L−1)0.5 – – 3–12 8 – – – – 10–18 –
fecal coliforme / 100?mL 2.2–23 200 <1000 <100 <1000 200–1000 100–1000 100 2–20 <15
Helmith egg <2 – <1 <1 <1 <1 – – – –
Tab.5  Legal requirement parameters to reuse treated wastewater in crop irrigation
waste disposal discharge fees /fine cost/benefit(−/+)
grape marc distillation to recover ethanol (1) 20?€·t−1 +
landfilling (2) 58?€·t−1 −
composting (2) 25–30?€·t−1 −
lees distillation to recover ethanol (1) 25–30?€·t−1 +
unauthorized discharge of grape marc to a water body 30000–60000?€ −
unauthorized discharge of grape marc to a sewage (3) 25000–45000?€ −
wastewater discharge to a municipal treatment plant (4) −
wastewater discharge to a water body (5) −
water intake fees (6)
Tab.6  Costs and benefits associated with waste production in Portuguese wine industry
1 I Boudouropoulos, I S Arvanitoyannis. Current state and advances in the implementation of ISO 14000 by the food industries. Comparison of ISO 14000 to ISO 9000 to other environmental programs. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 1999, 9(11–12): 395–408
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(99)00008-4
2 I Boudouropoulos, I Arvanitoyannis. Potential and perspectives for application of environmental management system (EMS) and ISO 14000 to food industries. Food Reviews International, 2000, 16(2): 177–237
https://doi.org/10.1081/FRI-100100287
3 M A Hanjra, J Blackwell, G Carr, F Zhang, T M Jackson. Wastewater irrigation and environmental health: implications for water governance and public policy. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 2012, 215(3): 255–269
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2011.10.003 pmid: 22093903
4 A Kumar, E Christen. Developing a Systematic Approach to Winery Wastewater Management. Final Report to Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation, Project Number: CSL05/02. CSIRO ed. series ISSN: 1834-6618, 2010.
5 G Andreottola, P Foladori, G Ziglio. Biological treatment of winery wastewater: an overview. Water Science and Technology, 2009, 60(5): 1117–1125
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.551 pmid: 19717897
6 A Eusébio, M Mateus, L Baeta-Hall, E Almeida-Vara, J C Duarte. Microflora evaluation of two agro-industrial effluents treated by the JACTO jet-loop type reactor system. Water Science and Technology, 2005, 51(1): 107–112
pmid: 15771105
7 M Oliveira, C Queda, E Duarte. Aerobic treatment of winery wastewater with the aim of water reuse Water Science and Technology, 2009, 60(5): 1217–1223
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.558 pmid: 19717908
8 I S Arvanitoyannis, D Ladas, A Mavromatis. Potential uses and applications of treated wine wastes: a review. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 2006, 41(5): 475–487
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.01111.x
9 B Santamaría, G Salazar, S Béltran, J L Cabezas. Membrane sequences for fractionation of polyphenolic extracts from defatted milled grape seeds. Desalination, 2002, 148(1–3): 103–109
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(02)00661-6
10 D Yalcin, O Ozcalik, E Altiok, O Bayraktar. Characterization and recovery of tartaric acid from wastes of wine and grape juice industries. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, 2008, 94(3): 767–771
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10973-008-9345-z
11 A M Alonso, D A Guillén, C G Barroso, B Puertas, A García. Determination of antioxidant activity of wine byproducts and its correlation with polyphenolic content. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2002, 50(21): 5832–5836
https://doi.org/10.1021/jf025683b pmid: 12358446
12 T I Lafka, V Sinanoglou, E S Lazos. On the extraction and antioxidant activity of phenolic compounds from winery wastes. Food Chemistry, 2007, 104(3): 1206–1214
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.01.068
13 Y Sakata, H Zhuang, H Kwansa, R C Koehler, S Doré. Resveratrol protects against experimental stroke: putative neuroprotective role of heme oxygenase 1. Experimental Neurology, 2010, 224(1): 325–329
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.expneurol.2010.03.032 pmid: 20381489
14 M A Pedroza, M Carmona, G L Alonso, M R Salinas, A Zalacain. Pre-bottling use of dehydrated waste grape skins to improve colour, phenolic and aroma composition of red wines. Food Chemistry, 2013, 136(1): 224–236
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2012.07.110 pmid: 23017417
15 I S Arvanitoyannis, D Ladas, A Mavromatis. Wine waste treatment methodology – review article. International Journal of Food Science & Technology, 2006, 41(10): 1117–1151
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.01112.x
16 R Devesa-Rey, X Vecino, J L Varela-Alende, M T Barral, J M Cruz, A B Moldes. Valorization of winery waste vs. the costs of not recycling. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 2011, 31(11): 2327–2335
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2011.06.001 pmid: 21752623
17 C F Silva, S L Arcuri, C R Campos, D M Vilela, J G L F Alves, R F Schwan. Using the residue of spirit production and bio-ethanol for protein production by yeasts. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 2011, 31(1): 108–114
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2010.08.015 pmid: 20864326
18 M A Bustamante, C Paredes, J Morales, A M Mayoral, R Moral. Study of the composting process of winery and distillery wastes using multivariate techniques. Bioresource Technology, 2009, 100(20): 4766–4772
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2009.04.033 pmid: 19435658
19 M Kumar, Y L Ou, J G Lin. Co-composting of green waste and food waste at low C/N ratio. Waste Management (New York, N.Y.), 2010, 30(4): 602–609
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2009.11.023 pmid: 20034778
20 L Ruggieri, E Cadena, J Martínez-Blanco, C M Gasol, J Rieradevall, X Gabarell, T Gea, X Sort, A Sánchez. Recovery of organic wastes in Spanish wine industry. Technical, economic and environmental analyses of the composting process. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2009, 17(9): 830–838
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.12.005
21 S López-Palau, J Dosta, J Mata-Alvarez. Start-up of an aerobic granular sequencing batch reactor for the treatment of winery wastewater. Water Science and Technology, 2009, 60(4): 1049–1054
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.554 pmid: 19700844
22 M Oliveira, E. DuarteWinery Wastewater Treatment- Evaluation of the Air Micro-Bubble Bioreactor Performance. Mass Transfer book, InTech open access publisher, 2011.
23 D Hidalgo, R Irusta, A Sandoval, Á Fiel. Development of Tools and Guidelines for the Promotion of the Sustainable Urban Wastewater Treatment and Reuse in the Agricultural Production in the Mediterranean Countries, Task5: Development of Specification for Urban Wastewater Utilization, Project ME8/AIDCO/2001/0515/59341-P033, 2005.
24 APHA, AWWA, WEF. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th edition. Washington, D C, USA: APHA, AWWA, WEF, 2006
25 F Tano, L Valenti, O Failla, E Beltrame. Effects of distillery vinasse on vineyard yield and quality in the D.O.C. “Oltreoò Pavase Pinot nero” – Lombardy- Italy. In: Proceedings of the 3rd International Specialised Conference on Sustainable Viticulture and Winery Wastes Management, Barcelona. Barcelona, Spain: University of Barcelona Press, 2004, 225–230
26 D Bolzonella, D Rosso. Winery wastewater characterisation and biological treatment options. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Specialised Conference on Sustainable Viticulture and Winery Wastes Management. Trento andVerona, Italy: University of Verona Press, 2009, 19–26
27 G Lofrano, V Belgiorno, A Mascolo. Winery wastewater treatment options: drawbacks and advantages. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Specialized Conference on Sustainable Viticulture: Winery Wastes and Ecological Impacts Management, University of Trento, Trento and Verona, Italy. Trento and Verona, Italy: University of Verona Press, 2009, 27–34
28 K P M Mosse, J Lee, B T Leachman, S J Parikh, T R Cavagnaro, A F Patti, K L Steenwerth. Irrigation of an established vineyard with winery cleaning agent solution (simulated winery wastewater): vine growth, berry quality, and soil chemistry. Agricultural Water Management, 2013, 123: 93–102
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2013.02.008
29 K P M Mosse, A F Patti, E W Christen, T R Cavagnaro. Review: winery wastewater quality and treatment options in Australia. Australian Journal of Grape and Wine Research, 2011, 17(2): 111–122
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0238.2011.00132.x
30 F Brissaud. Criteria for water recycling and reuse in the Mediterranean countries. Dessalination, 2008, 218(1–3): 24–33
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2006.07.016
31 K P Tsagarakis, G E Dialynas, A N Angelakis. Water resources management in Crete (Greece) including water recycling and reuse and proposed quality criteria. Agricultural Water Management, 2004, 66(1): 35–47
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2003.09.004
32 I Hussain, L Raschid, M A Hanjra, F Marikar, W van der Hoek. Wastewater use in agriculture: review of impacts and methodological issues in valuing impacts. Working Paper 37. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute, 2002
33 K P M Mosse, A F Patti, E W Christen, T R Cavagnaro. Winery wastewater inhibits seed germination and vegetative growth of common crop species. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 2010, 180(1–3): 63–70
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.02.069 pmid: 20452120
34 E Bertran, X Sort, M Soliva, I Trillas. Composting winery waste: sludges and grape stalks. Bioresource Technology, 2004, 95(2): 203–208
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2003.07.012 pmid: 15246445
[1] Zaki Alam Pushan, Ehsanur Rahman, Nafisa Islam, Nirupam Aich. A critical review of the emerging research on the detection and assessment of microplastics pollution in the coastal, marine, and urban Bangladesh[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(10): 128-.
[2] Joana C. Prata, Ana L. Patrício Silva, Armando C. Duarte, Teresa Rocha-Santos. The road to sustainable use and waste management of plastics in Portugal[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2022, 16(1): 5-.
[3] Sheng Huang, Xin Zhao, Yanqiu Sun, Jianli Ma, Xiaofeng Gao, Tian Xie, Dongsheng Xu, Yi Yu, Youcai Zhao. Pollution of hazardous substances in industrial construction and demolition wastes and their multi-path risk within an abandoned pesticide manufacturing plant[J]. Front. Environ. Sci. Eng., 2017, 11(1): 12-.
[4] Yi XU, Shunze WU, Hongkuan ZANG, Guiguang HOU. An interval joint-probabilistic programming method for solid waste management: a case study for the city of Tianjin, China[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2014, 8(2): 239-255.
[5] Yongpeng Lü, Kai YANG, Yue CHE, Zhaoyi SHANG, Jun TAI, Yun JIAN. Industrial solid waste flow analysis of eco-industrial parks: implications for sustainable waste management in China[J]. Front Envir Sci Eng, 2012, 6(4): 575-587.
[6] WANG Lisha, HU Hongying, WANG Chao, Koichi Fujie. Change in genotoxicity of wastewater during chlorine dioxide and chlorine disinfections and the influence of ammonia nitrogen[J]. Front.Environ.Sci.Eng., 2007, 1(1): 18-22.
Viewed
Full text


Abstract

Cited
  Shared   
  Discussed