Environmental Sustainability Assessment of an …lcafood2014.org/papers/18.pdf · sidered. The “gate to gate” step included traditional or the eco-innovative dealcoholization

Environmental Sustainability Assessment of an Innovative Process for

partial Dealcoholization of Wines

Rubén Aldaco1,*, Nazely Diban1, María Margallo1, Albert Barceló2, Inmaculada Ortiz1, Angel Irabien1

1 Departamento de Ingenierías Química y Biomolecular, Universidad de Cantabria, Avda. de los Castros s/n 39005, Santander, Spain. 2 VITEC Parc tecnològic del vi. Carretera de Porrera, km.1 43730 Falset (Tarragona). Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]

ABSTRACT

Global warming, viticulture progress and customer demand in aromatic wines have led to an international production of more and more

alcoholized wines. More and more wine consumers complain about these high alcohol wines that are getting too heavy and strong to

drink. Besides, this increase of alcohol content in wine is maybe not negligible from the viewpoints of individual alcohol intake and

harmful effects of alcohol on health and behavior. The quest for techniques for wine partial dealcoholization allowing minimal aroma

compound losses is yet currently ongoing. The currently most used techniques applicable at industrial scale are Reverse Osmosis and

Spinning Cone Column. Both processes present high energy consumption and the sensory quality spoilage has not been overcome yet.

Therefore, the main drawback of these technologies is the high energy consumption required, either to create vacuum conditions and

slightly increase the working temperature or to pressurize the system. In order to reduce energy consumption, partial dealcoholization by

Evaporative Pertraction (EP) technology is presented in this work as adequate technology to reduce energy consumption, and therefore, to

reduce environmental impacts related to the dealcoholization process. In order to state the environmental benefits of obtaining the dealco-

holized wines by the ecoinnovative process, the evaluation of the environmental impacts is necessary. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) ap-

proach has been used in order to assess the environmental performance of the dealcoholized wines.

Keywords: Dealcoholization, Membrane contactors, Wine, Environmental Sustainability

1. Introduction

Wine is one of the most popular alcoholic drinks in the world. Mediterranean countries have a widespread

culture of wine, being France, Italy and Spain the most important producers of this beverage in the world

(Doering 2004).

Quality of wine is a key issue for the wine makers. Great effort is being done in optimizing the production of

specific aromas and flavors (i.e. cherry, chocolate, vanilla), and minimize the formation of non-desired flavors

(i.e. wet dog, plastic, rotten egg) (López et al. 2007). According to the European Commission (EC) regulations,

wine is defined as an alcoholic beverage resulting from fermentation of grapes or grape must with ethanol con-

tent higher than 8.5% v/v (Commission Regulation, 2009). Generally, the wines are composed of 10–15% v/v

alcohol, sugars, proteins, antioxidant agents and vitamins.

Alcoholic content has a strong impact on the quality of the wine affecting acidity, astringency and volatility

of aroma compounds (Mermelstein 2000), altering the organoleptic properties of the product. The degree of

ripeness of the grape conferring the optimum flavor characteristic matches normally the highest sugar content,

and the resulting alcohol concentration. Therefore, a small adjustment in the alcohol content between 1 and 2%

is currently and recently one of the most important objectives for the wine industry.

Nowadays, some methods to produce low alcohol-content wines or to adjust the ethanol content are em-

ployed by many wine makers in particular in the United States, for instance, spinning cone column (SCC)

(Makarytchev 2004) and reverse osmosis (RO) (Ferrari 1991). Nevertheless, RO leads to a wine concentration

(water and ethanol transfer through the RO membrane) which requires diluting further with water issued from

wine itself. Though SCC is performed at mild operation temperatures (26–35 °C), this operation takes place in

two steps: a first stage of aroma recovery and a second stage of ethanol removal. After ethanol separation, the

aromatic fraction is added back to the wine, what results in a long and expensive operation.

Other technologies such as adsorption on zeolites and supercritical fluid extraction are being studied in the

literature as possible alternatives to reduce the alcoholic content in beverages. Membrane technologies such as

vacuum distillation, pervaporation and dialysis are also proposed to dealcoholize wine.

A membrane-based technology known as evaporative pertraction (EP), also named as osmotic distillation,

shows promising results (Diban, el al. 2008) for partial dealcoholization of wine. During the EP process the feed

phase (wine) is circulated through a hydrophobic hollow fiber membrane contactor while a second

phase/stripping phase (water) flows through the other side of the membrane inside the hollow fiber contactor.

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector

21

The partial pressure difference of the volatile components e.g. ethanol, between both phases creates the driving

force of the process. The main advantages of the technology are: (i) the process can be conducted at room tem-

perature, (ii) low energy consumption (no pressurization of the system is required) and (iii) a cheap and non-

hazardous extractant, water, is normally used as stripping phase. The application of EP to get high dealcoholiza-

tion degrees (> 2%, v/v) causes great sensory modifications on the wine. However, recently, the European Union

(EU) regulation has fixed the maximum permitted dealcoholization level at 2% (v/v) (Commission Regulation

2009) for partially dealcoholized wines. Different red wine varieties partially dealcoholized (2%v/v) by EP were

found to present an acceptable impact on the sensory properties (Diban et al. 2008). Moreover, the application of

membrane contactors to the partial wine dealcoholization did not change significantly the presence of some of

the main phenolic compounds and the color and total and volatile acidity of different red wine varieties studied

(Gambuti et al. 2011).

In order to state the environmental benefits of obtaining the dealcoholized wine by the ecoinnovative process,

the evaluation of the environmental impacts by the reference and by the alternative process is essential. Life Cy-

cle Assessment (LCA) is a powerful tool used for assessing the environmental performance of a product, pro-

cess, or activity that helps in identifying clean and sustainable alternatives in the process design activity. LCA

also allows analysis at the different stages of the product life cycle. The present study focuses on the application

of LCA for the evaluation of the dealcoholized wines by the different processes.

Figure 1. LCA for the environmental performance of dealcoholized wine using the reference and the alternative

processes.

2. Methods

2.1. Goal and Scope

The main objective of the work is to quantify the environmental impacts of the conventional dealcoholization

process (RO and SCC) and to evaluate the environmental benefits and drawbacks of EP process.

The scope of the assessment was based on the “cradle to grave” life cycle of a product and entailed resources

usage and environmental impacts (Figure 1). The LCA started with the “cradle to gate” step where the natural

resources water, energy, and materials needed for the manufacture of the resources used in the process were con-

NATURAL RESORCES

“cradle to gate”

PRODUCTION

“gate to gate”

END OF LIFE

“gate to grave”

Energy, water and materials

Energy, water and materials

Dealcoholized wine

Ethanol/Water

Environmental burdens



System limits considered in this work


22

sidered. The “gate to gate” step included traditional or the eco-innovative dealcoholization processes. The LCA

ended with the “gate to grave” step that consisted of the transfer of the ethanol stream to valorization process or

discharge.

2.2. Functional Unit

In this work, the functional unit (FU) was related to the dealcoholized wine, which is objective of the process

under evaluation, the dealcoholization process. In order to compare the environmental performance of the tradi-

tional and eco-innovative process, the “cradle to grave” LCA of the different manufacture processes must be re-

ferred to the same quantity of the final product. The cubic meter of dealcoholized product was established as the

most appropriate unit to describe the FU considering the available data. All the emission, consumption of mate-

rials, water, and energy during the scenarios are referred to this FU.

2.3. Description of Systems under Study.

In this work has been considered tree scenarios. Figure 1 illustrates the boundaries of the three scenarios un-

der study.

Scenario 1: Evaporative pertraction (EP)

The evaporative pertraction (EP), also called osmotic distillation, is a membrane technology less energy de-

manding than Spinning Cone Column (SCC) and Reverse Osmosis (RO) as it operates at ambient temperature

and atmospheric pressure. The gas transfer of volatile components (e.g. ethanol) is promoted from aqueous solu-

tions through a micro-porous membrane. The wine is circulated through a hydrophobic hollow fiber membrane

contactor while a second phase/stripping phase (water) flows through the other side of the membrane inside the

hollow fiber contactor. The partial pressure difference of the components, between both phases creates the driv-

ing force of the process and permits the ethanol transfer. It has been determined that working under optimum op-

erational conditions could minimize aroma compound losses below 20% during partial wine dealcoholization by

EP. Therefore, the low energy consumption accompanied by the acceptable impact on sensory properties of wine

make EP a promising technique to remove ethanol from wine at industrial scale (Diban et al., 2013, Lisanti et al.,

2012 and Diban et al., 2008).

Scenario 2: Reverse osmosis (RO)

RO is the most used membrane separation process in wine industry for wine dealcoholization. However, the

RO membranes allow the permeation of water and ethanol with high operation pressures (60 to 80 bar) which, in

addition to considerable energy consumption, brings possible changes of the organoleptic properties of wine

(Gonçalves et al., 2013). Two streams are obtained from the original wine: one of permeate containing water and

ethanol, and one of retentate with the dealcoholized wine. The wine is slightly heated before the entrance to the

membrane module from approximately 15ºC (wine storage temperature) to a temperature of 22-25ºC in order to

facilitate the ethanol flux. The decrease in volume resulting from permeation is compensated by adding a large

amount of water to the retentate. In this scenario, the water addition has been considered as an external income

to simplify the calculations.

Scenario 3: Spinning Cone Column (SCC)

SCC is a two-stage distillation process used industrially for the production of wine with less 1% v/v of etha-

nol. In the first stage, the aroma compounds are removed at high vacuum conditions (0.04 atm), low temperature

(26-28ºC) and collected in a high strength ethanol stream that represents approximately one percent of the origi-

nal wine volume. The second stage in which ethanol is removed from the base wine is conducted at higher tem-

peratures, usually around 38ºC. After ethanol reduction, the aroma fraction is added to the dealcoholized base

wine. A number of ancillary devices are required for the SCC; heat exchangers to warm the product feed to op-

erating temperatures, pumps and condensers to collect the gaseous vapor and collect the removed fraction.

Therefore, this means a high capital outlay and operating costs (Belisario-Sánchez et al. 2009).


23

Figure 2. Flow diagrams of the “gate to gate” and “gate to grave” steps of the LCA: Scenario 1-Evaporative Per-

traction (EP), Scenario 2-Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Scenario 3- Spinning Cone Column (SCC).

Table 1 collects a comparison of estimative energy and water consumption and the type of waste stream gen-

erated by the tree technologies (EP, RO and SCC). The waste generated in SCC is a stream rich in ethanol

(<80%) that is usually valorized in waste to energy plants. The waste streams in RO and EP are poor amounts of

ethanol (3-4%) that should be possible to recovery by distillation and pervaporation processes. However, these

processes have low yields and high energy consumption, so the valorization process it is not technically and eco-

nomically possible. The limits of BOD and COD established by the Spanish regulations for waste waters allow

their discharge to the municipal sewage network.


24

2.4 Allocation

The total emissions and consumptions associated with dealcoholization process has been allocated to the

wine stream. Additionally, waste incineration as valorisation process in the SCC process involves waste treat-

ment and energy production, providing to the system an additional function. This situation was handled through

system expansion. In this study the electric power mix of Spain included in the ELCD-PE GaBi database was se-

lected as the technology in the system expansion (PE International 2011).

2.5. Life Cycle Inventory

The life cycle inventory (LCI) was developed using the data given by the dealcoholization unit supplier

(AMTA, Alfa Laval), literature, regulation, ELCD-PE database (PE International. GaBi 4.4 Software and Data-

bases for Life Cycle Assessment), chemical analysis, or was estimated by the authors using stoichiometric calcu-

lations. Further, Ecoinvent ELCD-PE database were mainly used for building the “cradle to gate” inventory. Ta-

ble 1 encompasses the energy, water, and materials required in the scenarios, and Table 3 lists the generated

outcome in the LCA steps.

Table 1. Comparison of estimative energy consumption, additional raw materials and waste generation between

Scenario 1 (EP), scenario 2 (RO) and scenario 3 (SCC). Dealcoholization

process Scenario 1 (EP) Scenario 2 (RO SCC

Energy consumption Wine pump, water pump

(<1 KWh/m3)

Wine pump, heat exchanger

(approx. 1 KWh/m3 for wa-

ter desalination) (AMTA)

Vacuum pumps, heat exchang-

ers, condensers (120 KWh/m3)

(Alfa Laval)

Raw materials Water 0.5 m3/m3

Water 0.1 m3/m3 (Labanda

et al., 2009)

-

Waste generation Water stream with ethanol (<4%

v/v) discharge

Ethanol and water mixture

(3.0-1.5% v/v) discharge

Ethanol stream (80% v/v)

valorization

2.6. Life Cycle Impact Assessment

Most LCA studies apply the conventional impact assessment methods, such as CML 2001 (Guinée et al.

2001), EDIP 97 (Wenzel et al. 1997), or Eco-indicator 99 (Goedkoop et al. 2000). These methods use a set of

metrics, which in some cases is hard to understand and makes difficult process comparison (Margallo 2014). In

this sense, the use of novel indicators that reduce the LCA complexity and assist the decision making process,

will improve the compression of LCA results. In this regard, this work propose a technical way to carry out the

environmental sustainability assessment (ESA) of dealcoholization process based on a LCA approach using two

main variables: natural resources sustainability (NRS) and environmental burdens sustainability (EBS) (Figure

3). NRS includes the consumption of the final useful resources, such as energy, materials, and water for the con-

sidered process and/or product. Land as a NR is currently excluded (Margallo et al. 2014). EBS is given by the

environmental sustainability metrics developed by the Institution of Chemical Engineers (IChemE). This set of

indicators can be used to measure the environmental sustainability performance of an operating unit, providing a

balanced view of the environmental impact of inputs (resource usage), and outputs (emissions, effluents, and

waste) (IChemE 2002). In relation to the outputs, a set of environmental impacts to the atmosphere, aquatic me-

dia, and land was chosen. The environmental burden (EB) approach was used to estimate and quantify the poten-

tial environmental impacts (Garcia et al. 2013). In particular, the environmental impacts were classified in 12

variables grouped into the release to each environmental compartment: air, water, and land. These environmental

impact categories chosen are a sub-set of those used internationally in environmental management, selected to

focus on areas where the activities of process industry are most significant.


25

Figure 3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment methodology based on Natural Resources (NRS) and Environmental

Burdens (EBS).

However, as natural resources (NR) and environmental burdens (EB) are rarely normalized, a normalization

procedure is proposed. The normalization of EB is based on the threshold values of the European Pollutant Re-

lease and Transfer Register E-PRTR (E-PRTR Regulation 2006) leading to normalized variables, and a similar

procedure based on the values given by Guide of Best Available Techniques of wine production (MTD Vi and

Cava 2011) for the NR normalization. The E-PRTR regulation establishes the contaminants for which the Euro-

pean installations must provide notification to the authorities along with the threshold values of those pollutants.

The threshold values can be used as an important aid in the normalization process because they provide an over-

view of the environmental performance of the installation at a European level (Margallo et al. 2014).

This normalization procedure reduces the complexity and allows the decision maker to track the progress to-

wards environmental sustainability and to clarify the optimization procedure at least for the environmental pillar.

As illustrated in Figure 1, the LCA considered the use of primary resources energy, water, and materials for ob-

taining the raw materials needed in the process or “gate to gate” cycle. This step generated some environmental

burdens (EBs) caused by the substance upon the receiving environment. Further, the use of the resources needed

in the process produced new EBs. The “gate to grave” step refers to the waste stream transfer to end of life pro-

cess and also produced EBs, which refers to the discharge or energetic valorization. In this step, no materials as

natural resources were considered. EBs for emissions to air and to water were estimated using GaBi 4.4. Related

to the outputs, a set of environmental impacts to the atmosphere and aquatic media was chosen. The EBs ap-

proach was used to estimate and quantify the potential environmental impacts. The EB caused by the emission of

a range of substance was calculated by adding the weighted emission of each substance. The weighting factor of

the impact is known as the potency factor. In particular, the environmental impacts were classified into atmos-

pheric and aquatic impacts. The EBs for emission to air were divided into atmospheric acidification (AA), global

warming (GW), human health (carcinogenic) effects (HHE), stratospheric ozone depletion (SOD), and photo-

chemical ozone (smog) formation (POF). The EBs for emission to water were defined by the aquatic oxygen

demand (AOD), ecotoxicity to aquatic life (metals to seawater) (MEco), ecotoxicity to aquatic life (other sub-

stances) (NMEco), and eutrophication (Eutroph). The environmental sustainability indicators used in this study

had different units depending on the environmental impact. In order to compare the EBs to air and water, the

threshold values stated in the European regulation EC No 166/2006 for the main contributors to the environmen-

tal impacts were considered as weighting factors to obtain dimensionless impacts indicators. Table 2 shows

threshold values from E-PRTR for Normalization and Impact Weighting purposes (Azapagic and Clift 1999,

Regulation EC No 166/2006).


26

Table 2. Threshold Values from E-PRTR for Normalization and Impact Weighting purposes

Environmental Burden (EB) Threshold Value

(kg/year) No. of substances

EB to air

AA (Kge SO2)

GW (Kge CO2)

HHE (Kge benzene)

POF (Kge Ethylene)

SOD (Kge CFC-11)

150000

100 million

1000

1000

1

6

23

52

100

60

EB to water

AOD (Kge H+)

Meco (Kge Cu)

NMEco (Kge formaldehyde)

Eutroph (Kge phosphate)

50000

50

50

5000

14

11

18

8

Abbrev: AA, atmospheric acidification; AOD, aquatic oxygen demand; EB, environmental burden; Eutroph, eutrophication; GW, global

warming; HHE, human health effects; MEco, ecotoxicity to aquatic life (metals to seawater); NMEco, ecotoxicity to aquatic life (other

substances); POF, photochemical ozone (smog) formation; SOD, stratospheric ozone depletion.

3. Results and discussion

The majority of the materials and energy used in scenario 1 (EP) are needed in the “cradle to gate” step to ob-

tain water and primary energy: 100% of the materials and 64.7% of the energy as can be seem in Table 3. The

energy used in the “gate to grave” step is neglected. Further, 78.0% of the water demand happens during the

“cradle to gate” step. The “gate to gate” contributes to 20.0% of the water usage, mainly as second

phase/stripping phase. It is important to note that the water footprint was out of the scope of this work, and only

the use of natural resources has been considered when comparing the dealcoholization processes. Similar results

has been obtained in scenario 2 (RO), where the natural resources to obtain water and primary energy (100% of

the materials and 86.6% of the energy) has been mainly used in the life cycle or the process.

Table 3. Natural Resources Usage (NRS) in Scenario 1 (EP), Scenario 2 (RO), and Scenario 3 (SCC). “cradle to gate”

units EP RO SCC

Energy (MJ) 7.76 12.30 1,433

Water (kg) 1.95 1.85 195

Materials (kg) 14.16 7.34 601

Basalt 1.90E-05 1.00E-05 8.32E-04

Bauxite 7.00E-03 1.41E-03 9.72E-04

Bentonite 7.31E-05 7.50E-05 8.06E-03

Clay 2.99E-05 4.33E-05 4.97E-03

Copper ore (0.14%) 4.56E-04 2.58E-04 2.22E-02

Gypsum (natural gypsum) 1.33E-05 2.21E-05 2.60E-03

Heavy spar (BaSO4) 1.80E-04 1.81E-04 1.93E-02

Inert rock 1.06E+00 1.76E+00 2.06E+02

Iron ore (56-86%) 3.00E-03 7.34E-04 1.78E-02

Lead - zinc ore (4.6%-0.6%) 4.38E-04 1.00E-04 1.68E-03

Limestone (calcium carbonate) 4.21E-02 1.21E-02 4.85E-01

Magnesium chloride leach (40%) 4.88E-03 1.14E-03 2.23E-02

Natural Aggregate 7.49E-03 4.98E-03 4.64E-01

Quartz sand (silica sand; silicon dioxide) 1.28E-01 2.55E-02 2.69E-03

Sodium chloride (rock salt) 6.51E-03 1.31E-03 1.09E-03

Soil 4.27E-02 9.24E-03 9.34E-02

Zinc - copper ore (4.07%-2.59%) 2.14E-04 5.53E-05 1.67E-03

Zinc - lead - copper ore (12%-3%-2%) 4.96E-05 1.73E-05 9.84E-04

Air 1.29E+01 5.52E+00 3.93E+02

Carbon dioxide 1.54E-02 3.02E-02 3.61E+00

“gate to gate”

units EP RO SCC

Energy (MJ) 3.60 1.80 432

Water (kg) 0.5 0.1 -

Materials (kg) - - -

“gate to grave”

units EP RO SCC

Energy (MJ) 0.40 0.11 -2,394.5

Water (kg) 0.15 0.03 -

Materials (kg) - - -


27

As can be seem in Table 3, energy in the “gate to grave” step of the scenario 3 (SCC) is negative related to

the valorization process of the waste stream to energy. It is possible to check that scenario 3 (SCC) has a greater

impact on energy consumption in the gate to gate step than RO and EP, but lacks of the necessity of any addi-

tional raw material, while RO and EP needs to supply water to perform the alcohol adjustment. Energy con-

sumption appears as a key factor in the wine dealcoholization process. In this sense, energetic impact is envi-

ronmental friendly when energetic valorization of the waste stream is possible.

Figure 4. Weighted and normalized environmental impacts (EBS) of Scenario 1 (EP), Scenario 2 (RO), and Sce-

nario 3 (SCC).

The weighted and normalized environmental impacts referred to the E-PRTR threshold are shown in Figure

4. Figure 4 (a) shows the environmental impact considering “cradle to gate” and “gate to gate” steps. From fig-

ure 4 (a) it is possible to check that the total environmental impact of scenario 1 (EP) is similar to scenario 2

(RO). However, the environmental impact of scenario 3 (SCC) increased significantly. The environmental im-

pact to water and to air were mainly based on the contribution of the energy consumption of SCC technology.

Scenario 1 (EP) Scenario 2 (RO) Scenario 3 (SCC)

(b) “cradle to gate”, “gate to gate” and “gate to grave”

a) “gate to grave”

(a) “cradle to gate” and “gate to gate”

0

1

10

100

1000

AA

GW

HHE

POF

SODAOD

MEco

NMEco

Eutroph

-60

-50

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

AA

GW

HHE

POF

SODAOD

MEco

NMEco

Eutroph


28

From Figure 4 (b) it is possible to note that, when the valorization process of the water/ethanol stream is con-

sidered, environmental impacts of the scenario 3 (SCC) are drastically reduced. However, the actual energy val-

orization of ethanol should account on an additional evaporation of water that has not been considered in the pre-

sent scenario. This should be further analyzed. According to this, AA, GW and POF impacts decrease about

130%. The environmental impacts of the scenario 3 (SCC) are negative, which is related to the avoided burdens

on the generation of energy in the valorization process of the waste stream.

5. Conclusion

The LCA assessment of the dealcoholization practices demonstrated that the environmental profile of the

“cradle to gate”, “gate to gate”, and “gate to grave” steps are directly related and that the “cradle to gate” and

“gate to grave” (when valorization process in considered) steps of the scenarios contributed significantly more to

the environmental impacts than the “gate to gate” step. The production of primary energy has the most important

contribution to the environmental impact of the scenarios.

In this work, the reduction of the environmental impact of the partial dealcoholization of wines was ob-

tained by reducing energy consumption. However, other measures may be implemented to the “cradle to gate”

and “gate to grave” in order to further reduce the environmental impact of the overall LCA of the EP process.

These measures may consist of some valorization process, avoiding the discharge of the waste stream. This work

concludes that the eco-innovative dealcoholization EP process is positive in terms of resource usage and EB.

Finally, this work shows that future research should focus on evaluating the economic and social costs related

to the eco-innovative dealcoholization process, in order to assess the sustainability of the process.

6. References

Alfa Laval. Spinning Cone Column data sheet: http://www.alfalaval.com, last accessed April 2014.

AMTA America’s Authority in Membrane Treatment: http://www.amtaorg.com, last accessed April 2014.

Azapagic A, Clift R (1999) Allocation of environmental burdens in co-product systems: Product-related burdens

(Part 1). Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 4 (6): 357-369.

Belisario-Sánchez YY, Taboada-Rodríguez A, Marín-Iniesta F, López-Gómez A (2009). Dealcoholized wines

by spinning cone column distillation: phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity measured by the 1,1-

Diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl method. J. Agric. Food Chem., 57:6770-6778.

Chinaud N, Broussous P, Ferrari F (1991). Application de l’osmose inverse à la désalcoolisation des vins Journal

International des Sciences de la Vigne et du Vin, 25 (4):245.

Commission regulation (EC) nº 606/2009 of 10 July 2009 laying down certain detailed rules for implementing

Council Regulation (EC) nº 479/2008 as regards the categories of grapevine products, oenological practices

and the applicable restrictions. Official Journal of the European Union, L193 (2009)

Diban N, Arruti A, Barceló A, Puxeu M, Urtiaga A, Ortiz I (2013). Membrane dealcoholization of different wine

varieties reducing aroma losses. Modeling and experimental validation. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg., 20:259-268.

Diban N, Athes V, Magali B, Souchon I (2008). Ethanol and aroma compounds transfer study for a partial deal-

coholization of wine using membrane contactor. J. Membrane Sci., 311, 136-146.

Doering WF (2004). World wine production and trade update, Wines & Vines, September 2004.

Ecoinvent Centre. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, 2010. http://www.ecoinvent.ch (accessed April 21,

2013).

E-PRTR Regulation (2006) Regulation (EC) no. 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council con-

cerning the establishment of a European pollutant release and transfer register and amending Council Direc-

tives 91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC. Official Journal of the European Union 4.2.2006: L33, 1-17.

García V, Margallo M, Aldaco R, Urtiaga A, Irabien A (2013). Environmental sustainability assessment of an

innovative Cr (III) passivation process. ACS Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering 1 (5): 481-487.

Goedkoop M, Effting S, Coltignon M (2000) Eco-Indicator 99 - A damage oriented method for Life Cycle Im-

pact Assessment. Manual for Designers. The Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the En-

vironment. http://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/manuals/EI99_Manual.pdf/ Accessed 25.02.2014.


29

Gonçalves F, Ribeiro R, Neves L, Lemperle T, Lança M, Ricardo da Silva J, Laureano O. Alcohol reduction in

wine by nanofiltration. 2013. Some comparisons with reverse osmosis technique. 1st International Symposi-

um, Alcohol level reduction in wine – OENOVITI International Network, 64-67.

Guinèe JB, Gorrée M, Heijungs R, Huppes G, Kleijn R, de Koning A, van Oers L, Wegener Sleeswijk A, Suh S,

Udo de Haes HA, de Bruijn H, van Duin R, Huijbregts MAJ, Lindeijer E, Roorda AAH, Weidema BP (2001)

Life cycle assessment; An operational guide to the ISO standards; Characterisation and Normalisation Fac-

tors. Leiden, the Netherlands: Centre of Environmental Sciences, Leiden University.

Labanda J, Vichi S, Llorens J, López E (2009). Membrane separation technology for the reduction of alcoholic

degree of a White model wine. J. Food Sci. Technol., 42: 1390-1395.

Lisanti M T, Gambuti A, Genoveses A, Piombino P, Moio, L. (2012). Partial dealcoholization of red wines by

membrane contactor technique: effect on sensory characteristics and volatile composition. Food Bioprocess

Technology 6(9): 2289-2305.

López R, Lapeña A C, Cacho J, Ferreira V (2007). Quantitative determination of wine highly volatile sulfur

compounds by using automated headspace solid-phase microextraction and gas chromatography-pulsed flame

photometric detection. Critical study and optimization of a new procedure. J. Chromatogr. A, 1143 (1–2):8.

Makarytchev S V, Languish T A G, Fletcher D F (2004). Mass transfer analysis of spinning cone columns using

CFD. Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 82 (6):752.

Margallo M, Aldaco R, Irabien A (2014) Environmental management of bottom ash from municipal solid waste

incineration based on a life cycle assessment approach. Clean Technol Environ Policy. Article in Press.

MTD Vi i Cava (2011). Aplicació de les millors tècniques disponibles en l’elaboració del vi i cava. Documents

de referència sobre les millors tècniques disponibles aplicables a la industria. Generalitat VI. Col·lecció: Do-

cuments de referència sobre les millors tècniques disponibles aplicables a la industria.

Mermelstein N H (2000). Removing alcohol from wine. Food Technol., 54 (11):89.

PE International. GaBi 4.4 Software and Databases for Life Cycle Assessment. Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Ger-

many, 2011.

Regulation EC No 166/2006, Regulation EC No 166/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18

January 2006 concerning the establishment of a European Pollutant Release and Transfer Register and

amending Council Directives 91/689/EEC and 96/61/EC.

Tallis B, Azapagic A, Howard A, Parfitt A, Duff C, Hadfield C (2002) The Sustainability Metrics, Sustainable

Development Progress Metrics Recommended for Use in the Process industries. Institution of Chemical En-

gineers: Rubgy, UK.

Varavuth S, Jiraratananon R, Atcharyawut S (2009). Experimental study on dealcoholization of wine by osmotic

distillation process. Sep. Pur. Techn. 66:313–321.

Wenzel H, Hauschild M, Alting L (1997) Environmental assessment of products, Vol 1: Methodology, tools and

case studies in product development. Hingham, MA USA: Klumer Academic Publisher.


30

This paper is from:

Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on

Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector

8-10 October 2014 - San Francisco

Rita Schenck and Douglas Huizenga, Editors

American Center for Life Cycle Assessment

The full proceedings document can be found here:

http://lcacenter.org/lcafood2014/proceedings/LCA_Food_2014_Proceedings.pdf

It should be cited as:

Schenck, R., Huizenga, D. (Eds.), 2014. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life

Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), 8-10 October 2014, San Francisco,

USA. ACLCA, Vashon, WA, USA.

Questions and comments can be addressed to: [email protected]

ISBN: 978-0-9882145-7-6