at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135

Contents lists available

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jc lepro

Water footprint assessment in the winemaking industry: a case studyfor a Romanian medium size production plant

Simona Andreea Ene, Carmen Teodosiu*, Brindusa Robu, Irina VolfDepartment of Environmental Engineering and Management, Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Protection,“Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, 73, Prof. Dr. D. Mangeron Street, 700050 Iasi, Romania

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 2 July 2012Received in revised form24 November 2012Accepted 25 November 2012Available online 23 December 2012

Keywords:Water footprintWinemaking industryWater useEnvironmental impactSustainable practices

Abbreviations: WF, water footprint; WFgreen, greenwater footprint; WFgrey, grey water footprint; BOD, bTOC, total organic carbon; COD, chemical oxygen detivity; TDS, total dissolved salts.* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ40 232 237594.

E-mail addresses: cteo@tuiasi.ro, carmen_teo@yah

0959-6526/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.051

a b s t r a c t

The sustainable use of water resources bring nowadays challenges related to the production andconsumption phases of water intensive related goods such as food and beverages, not only in terms oftechnological improvements, but also of management practices considered at the level of the water usecycle.

This study focuses on the water footprint assessment of one 750 mL bottle of wine produced ina medium-size wine production plant in Romania, evaluated for a 4-year period with differentprecipitation regimes. The assessment is based on the production-chain diagram, presenting the relevantprocess stages from the source to the final product, as well as the current emissions and environmentalimpacts, considering the existent equipments and actual water related practices. The wine trade-offssocio-economic potential, and the evaluation of the national water footprint scheme related to Roma-nian wine production and consumption were assessed. The findings of this study indicated that almost99% of the total water footprint is related to the supply-chain water use, out of which 82% green, 3% blueand 15% grey.

In addition, suggestions of sustainable practices for the winemaking industry have been selected andbriefly discussed based on international relevant cases. Such practices may contribute to savings in water,energy, raw materials, diminished emissions and waste generation and a more efficient use of personneltime, with benefits for the decrease of business costs, the increase of profit and competitiveness. At thelevel of the studied Romanian company, due to the current economic and environmental issues, only fewof these practices have been applied for the last three years, e.g.: waste monitoring and treatment, soil,plant and pest management, waste minimization, water resources efficiency program, integratedmanagement programmes.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Water, an increasingly scarce commodity contributes to thegrowing pressure of a globalized economy, and receives moreinterest from business leaders, politicians and community(McKinsey and Company, 2009). Global economic developmentalso influences water through increasing number of consumers andby changes in their consumption patterns, as the goods and servicesare provided from different location of activities (World Water

water footprint; WFblue, blueiochemical oxygen demand;mand; EC, electrical conduc-

oo.com (C. Teodosiu).

All rights reserved.

Assessment Programme, 2009). The rise of living standards dueto economic growth in developing countries has enhanced theconsumption and production of goods and thereby, has increasedthe demand for water resources (Stoeglehner et al., 2011).

It is important to comply with the sustainable developmentconcept, by considering the consequences that derives from theproduction, consumption and various socio-economic factors(�Cu�cek et al., 2012). A key issue is represented by the research oninnovative industrial technologies or methodologies and riskprevention designed, not only for ensuring a sustainable andhealthy environment, but also for sustainable competitiveness(European Commission Community Research, 2004).

The necessary increase in water consumption to meet futureagricultural demands, while balancing any associated social andenvironmental impacts (Cojocariu et al., 2012), poses one of theleading environment and sustainability challenges that the planet

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135 123

is facing nowadays. The issue of water consumption and pollutionover the entire production and supply chains has been mentionedas being very important for the water management practices(Hoekstra et al., 2009).

The “water footprint” concept has been introduced by Hoekstraand Hung (2002) and subsequently elaborated by Chapagain andHoekstra (2004), as a useful tool that indicates and quantify thetendencies in water scarcity and pollution. The water footprintassessment is a helpful tool for the quantification of water usethroughout the supply chain, providing valuable insights of thelargest components and locations of water consumption, and thepotential effects on local watersheds, and future water availabilityto serve the needs of communities, nature, companies, producersand suppliers (TCCC and TNC, 2010).

Water footprint of a business is a new concept developed byGerbens-Leenes and Hoekstra (2008) and was designed to estimatethe total water use in a business operation at both direct (factoryand processing) and indirect (supply-chain) levels. It has been alsodifferentiated by blue (water withdrawn), green (soil moisture) andgrey water (polluted water that returns into the water systems).

The water footprint instrument can facilitate businesses andother water users with a better understanding of the crucial pointsof water use and the needs for an improved water management. Itcan contribute with essential information for the private sector toattainwater-conscious operational decisions regarding a number ofproblems, in order to decrease business risk and increase envi-ronmental sustainability (Ene, 2011).

Various companies expressed an increasing interest in their“water risk” (Levinson et al., 2008; Pegram et al., 2009; Morrisonet al., 2009, 2010; Barton, 2010). The evaluation of the water foot-print of a business contributes to a better understanding of therisks, by indicating which parts of a business are unsustainable(Gerbens-Leenes and Hoekstra, 2008); even so, a water footprintassessment is not equivalent to a full risk assessment.

The water footprints for different businesses have been studiedinmore or less detail such as sugar-containing carbonated beverage(Chapagain and Orr, 2010), dehydrated onion products (IFC et al.,2010), bite size shredded wheat (Ercin et al., 2011), beer(SABMiller and WWF-UK, 2009) and wine (Herath et al., 2013).

Romania is a major wine country in Europe with rich historicaland cultural traditions, member of the International Organizationof Vine and Wine since 1927, holding an important area plantedwith vines that are the subject of the CommonMarket Organizationin the wine sector. Romania is one of the fifteen global wineproducers, the sixth European grape producer after Italy, France,

Fig. 1. Romanian wine imports and exports quan

Spain, Germany and Greece and the sixth wine producer in Europeafter France, Italy, Spain, Germany and Portugal (Popa, 2009).

Romania has eight major wine producing areas, 37 vineyardsand 171 viticulture centers, being among the few countries in theworld that benefits from favorable conditions for vine growing andwinemaking (excepting France, which can produce such a largevariety of wines). Romania can provide up to 402 different types ofwine, out of which 11 types are for current consumption, 42 typesof so-called Superior Wines (VS) and 349 wine types of controlleddenominations of origin placed Romania among the top 10 winecountries in the world (IPIM, 2008).

For centuries, the North Eastern region of Romania has beenrenowned for its vineyards and wines, with 40% from the total vinegrowing area of Romania. At the same time, wineries differ widelyin their water use. Thus, various older wineries were not conceivedwith a concern for water useminimization, especially in the regionswhere are heavy rainfall or considerable underground and surfacewater supplies.

As one of the world’s largest wine producers, Romania has beenpresent in foreignmarketswith significant exports to Europe and US.Thewineproduction inRomania increased from2,602,200hL in2005to 6,700,000 hL in 2009, and therefore it decreased to 4,058,000 hL in2011 (MADR, 2012). An image of the imported and exported quanti-ties of the Romanianwine market is illustrated in Fig. 1.

The aim of this paper is the assessment of thewater footprint fora medium-size wine production plant. Firstly, the blue, green andgreywater footprint for grapes was assessed for 2005e2008 period,a period containing years with different precipitation regimes. Thenext stepwas the quantification of the blue and greywater footprintfor the operational and supply-chain stageswithin the business andthe volume of water needed to drink a glass of wine in Romania. Inaddition, the wine trade-offs socio-economic potential, and theevaluation of the national water footprint scheme related toRomanian wine production and consumption were assessed.Moreover, the last step consisted in the suggestions of differentsustainable practices associated with the winemaking industry.

2. Methodology

A water footprint assessment (Hoekstra et al., 2009, 2011) hasbeen conducted in order to assess the freshwater use along thegrapes-wine operational and supply chain phases. The analyzedvineyard and wine producer (with the created denomination of SVVIasi, Romania) is a medium-size company, whose yearly production,human and financial resources can be described by the following

tities and values for the period 2000e2011.

Table 1Nitrogen application rate and the total grapes production in Iasi County.

Year Averagefertilizerapplicationrate (kg/ha)a

Areab

(ha)Totalfertilizerapplied(t/y)

Nitrogenleached towater bodies10% (t/y)

Total grapesproduction(t/y)b

2005 315 9699 3060 306 408932006 243 9096 2211 221.1 510212007 191 9428 1798 179.8 267402008 245 9870 2422 242.2 49537

a Source: DADR (2005e2008).b Source: INS (2005e2008).

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135124

indicators: 320 ha of vine plantations that are managed with 18permanent employees and 80 employees with temporary workingcontracts. The plantations are cultivated with vine varieties withcontrolled appellation of origin Feteasca alba, Sauvignon, Char-donnay or varieties of grapes for table wines: Aligote, Feteascaregala, Riesling. Within the time studied the average grapeproduction was 4.4 t/ha. The company maintains and manages 1e2 ha for the production of seedlings wine and a winemakingstation plant with 20 permanent employees and 20 employeeswith temporary working contracts. The annual sales volume is 80wagons (800,000 L) of wines with designation of origin or currentconsumption. Moreover, the wine company obtains about 940,000EUR fromwine sales and approx. 200,000 EUR from other activities.

2.1. Water footprint of primary crops

Data acquisition was based on the records of national, regionaland county governmental organizations as well as on the selectedreferences specified in the text.

Water footprint accounting was carried out according to theapproach outlined in the Water Footprint Manual provided by theWater Footprint Network (Hoekstra et al., 2009, 2011).

The water footprint of crops has been calculated with therespect to the distinction between the green, blue and grey waterfootprint. The bluewater refers to groundwater and surface waters;the green water refers to the rainwater stored into the soil as soilmoisture; and the grey water is related to water pollution, quanti-fied as the volume of freshwater needed to dilute the pollutants tosuch an extent that the quality of the ambient water remains aboveagreed water quality standards (Hoekstra et al., 2009).

The total crop water requirement, effective rainfall and irriga-tion requirements per regionwas estimated by using the CROPWATmodel (Allen et al., 1998).

The evaluation of the green, blue and grey water footprints ofgrowing a crop requires a substantial volume of data sources aspresented in this study.

The water footprint assessment has been done by using theclimatic data from the National Institute of Meteorology andHydrology (NIMH, 2010) e Regional Meteorological Center Mol-dova Iasi, the three closest and most representative meteorologicalstations for Iasi County, situated near the considered cropproducing region.

For grapes, the production quantity, yield and harvested area inIasi County were obtained from the Romanian National Institute ofStatistics for Iasi County (INS, 2012). The crop parameters wereadopted after Allen et al. (1998), Chapagain, and Hoekstra (2004).

Crop coefficients for grapes are taken from FAO (Allen et al.,1998). The growing periods for grapes begins on April 1st andends on October 27th.

Low level of grapes yields shows low level of using naturalresources for vine in Romania. Using old technologies, especially insmall size exploitations, where mechanical means do not exist,determines low yields (Manole et al., 2008). Moreover, anotherreason for obtaining low yield levels is the natural factors that aremanifesting excessively such as droughts, floods, spring and fallfrosts, and pests’ attacks and diseases. In 2005 and 2007, many ofthese factors caused calamities for grape vines, hail, shower andstorms causing losses of 50% of the production, at national level(Ion et al., 2009). In 2007, the grapes production decreased with52.4%, and the yields decreased with 50.1% compared to 2006(considered a normal year for grapes production).

Finally, the “grey” water footprint of a product is an indicator offreshwater pollution that can be associated with the production ofa product over its full supply chain (Chapagain et al., 2006;Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008).

Data on the application rate of nitrogen fertilizers (Table 1) havebeen obtained from the Department for Agriculture and RuralDevelopment, Iasi (DADR, 2010). The data on fertilizer use per cropare not specified for the studied area, therefore it was assumed aftera report from Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development(MADR, 2012). Grey water footprint is providing spatiotemporallyexplicit information that is crucial in order to identify the hotspotsand to assess the local impacts of the pollution.

2.2. Business water footprint

Thewater footprint assessment can also be applied to a businessor organization (WBCSD, 2006; Gerbens-Leenes and Hoekstra,2008) and is defined as the total volume of freshwater that isused directly or indirectly to run and support a business to producethe products and services of that unit, expressed in terms of thevolume of freshwater use per year.

The total water footprint of a business is equal to the sum of thesupply-chain water footprint and the operational water footprint.The operational (direct) water footprint of a business is the volumeof freshwater consumed or polluted due to its own operationswhile the supply chain (indirect) water footprint is the volume offreshwater consumed or polluted to produce all the goods andservices that constitute the inputs of production of the business(Hoekstra et al., 2009).

The calculations of the water footprint of a private winecompany from Iasi County have been done after Gerbens-Leenesand Hoekstra (2008) methodology.

For the purpose of this study, it has been assumed that 1 L ofwine is made from 1.3 kg of grapes as the main ingredient, and 2 Lof water used mainly for the equipment washing and cleaning.According to the methodology, the water footprint of the winecompany was calculated based on data for the business as a whole.The business abstracts an average of 600,000 L of freshwater peryear, of which 62,000 L do not return to the hydrological systemfrom which it was withdrawn (i.e. it evaporates or is incorporatedin the products). There is no use of green water in the productionprocess and the wastewater flow is sufficiently treated before itsdisposal (as it will be seen in the description of thewine productionplant and the identification of the emissions), so there is noproduction of grey operational water footprint.

2.3. The national water footprint accounting

According to Chapagain and Hoekstra (2004), a national waterfootprint has two components the internal and the external waterfootprint. The internal water footprint is defined as the volume ofwater used from domestic water resources to produce goods andservices consumed by the inhabitants of the region (Hoekstra andChapagain, 2008). It is the sum of the total water volume usedfrom the domestic water resources in the national economy minusthe volume of virtual water export to other countries. Secondly, the

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135 125

external water footprint, it is the volume of water used in otherregions to produce goods and services imported and consumed bythe inhabitants of that region. The present study calculates thewater footprint related to the wine trade with other countries in2008, following the methodology described by Hoekstra et al.(2009). The international trade data was taken from APEV (2011).

3. Environmental aspects and associated impacts

Wine production is a technique of extreme attention andcomplexity to produce a beverage appreciated worldwide. Theprocess begins at the vineyard, where wine grapes are cultivatedand supported by means of special techniques, depending on thespecies of grapes and the associated type of wine; afterwards, thegrapes are harvested and transported to the production plant.

In the winery, the key process stages are: crushing and stem-ming of grapes; addition of sulfur dioxide to discourage bacterialgrowth; possible addition of clarifying agents, usually in powder orgranular form; processing to produce grape juice; alcoholicfermentation; clarification and filtration; addition of preservatives;bottling, possibly in an inert atmosphere to protect wine fromoxidation. The flow sheet diagram and the emissions resulted inthis technological processes are presented in Fig. 2.

Most of these residues are considered by-products because theyare a source of substances (sugars, alcohol etc.) of interest for otherindustrial processes (distilleries of wine alcohol), or some of them(especially the grape pomace and the fermentation sediments)contain active molecules (mostly belonging to the poly-phenolsclass) that have an antioxidant effect.

Green, Blue and Grey water

Grapes

Crushing and stemming

Pressing

Clarifying

Alcoholic fermentation

Separation from the yeastdeposits

SO2 treatment

Partial disposal

Tartric stabilization

Filtration

Specialtreatment

Filtration

Pasteurization

Bottling

Delivery

Vegetal materials

Vegetal material

Wastewater, suspended solids

CO2

Organic matter, Waste water

SO2 6%

Solid waste containing K, Ca

K Ferocyanide

Hazardous wastes

Washing

bottles

Bluewater

Broken bottles

Waste water

Conditioning

Primaryprocessing

Wastewater Treatment

Plant

Grey water

Fig. 2. Technological wine production processes and the emissions identification.

The analyzed medium-sized winemaking industry produceslarge quantities of organic wastes, resulted from the grapes trans-formation into must and from must to wine. Almost all thesewastes are considered by-products since they are a source ofsubstances (sugars, alcohols, etc.) being also a source of interest forother industrial processes like wine alcohols distilleries.

Organic pollution in wastewater mainly comes from thefollowing sources: yeast and surplus yeast, trub, weak worthdischarge, emptying and rinsing of water from kettles, emptying ofprocess tanks, pre- and aftere runs from Kieselguhr filtration andfilling, chase water from process pipes, rejected wine in the pack-aging area, returned wine, breakage of bottles in the packagingarea, ancillary materials used in packaging area (e.g. adjective forbottles washer), conveyor purification, and label adhesive.

Effluents are variable and the pollution load of the differentsteps do not follow the volumes throughput, e.g. bottle washingproduces a high amount of wastewater but with only a low organicload, while effluents from fermentation and filtering account foronly about 3% of the total wastewater volume but 97% of the BODload.

Suspended solids in the effluents originate from the discharge ofby-products, Kieselguhr and possible label pulp from the bottlewasher.

Nitrogen originates mainly from detergents used for tankscleaning, from the malt and from the auxiliary agents. Phosphorousmay come from the cleaning agents used. Large variation in pHmayoccur due to the use of acids and caustic for the cleaning of processequipment and returnable bottles. Heavy metals are normallypresent in very low concentration. Wear of the machines, especiallyconveyors in packaging lines may be sources of nickel andchromium.

Traditionally, in many European countries the winemakingindustry has not been heavily regulated by environmental legisla-tion as emissions have been considered to be relatively comparedto many other industrial sectors.

Winery waste is defined (WDR order no. R3-2002e0084) as anyby-product of winemaking operations. Winery waste includes, butis not limited to pomace (e.g., grape skins, stems and seeds), lees(wine sediment), tank/barrel/bottle/floor/crush pad wash water(which may contain sterilization and/or preservation chemicals),and water softener waste brine.

The wastewater resulted from the winemaking industry ischaracterized by high concentrations of organic matter and nutri-ents, high acidity and large variations of flows due to seasonalproduction. Consequently, the water management alternativesrequire adequate monitoring and treatment, as well as waterminimization practices.

Effluent wastewater from wine production is generated innearly all process steps from washing the containers, reactors andfilters or auxiliary processes (cooling towers, distillation processes,ion exchange regeneration, etc.). The highest concentrated waste-water is produced during fermentation and racking, fining andracking due to the washing out of the sediments, marc and lees. Thesemi-solids fractions should be separated for further de-watering,drying, processing or dumping rather than being washed withwater, due to their organic load. If solids from fining and racking arenot separated the effluents are highly contaminated and haveextremely high BOD values of up to 50,000 mg/L (Canut andPascual, 2007). Therefore, it is essential to recover the wastewa-ters components at sources by filtering, centrifugation or sedi-mentation, so that they do not enter the sewage system. Thewastewater normally show an acidic character (pH ¼ 4e6) exceptfor caustic solutions utilization in tartrate elimination or bottlesconditioning. The wastewater must support a physical-mechanicalpre-treatment and a monitoring of quality indicators (Volf and

Table 3Environmental impacts of wastes discharged from a winemaking industry (adaptedafter EPA, 2004).

Constituent Indicators Impacts

Organic matter BODTOCCOD

- Can deplete oxygen when is dischargedinto water, causing the death of fish andother aquatic organisms;

- Odors produced by anaerobicdecomposition can generate nuisance ifwaste is stored in open lagoons or appliedto lands;

- Can negatively affect human healthdue to priority compounds, toxic orcarcinogenic.

Alkalinity/acidity

pHCalciumcarbonate

- Death of aquatic organisms at extreme pH;- Influences the microbial activity inbiological wastewater treatment processes;

- Influence the solubility of heavy metals inthe soil and availability and/or toxicity inwaters;

- Influences crop growth.Nutrients Nitrogen,

phosphorus,potassium,sulphur

- Might cause eutrophication or algal bloomwhen discharged to water;

- N as nitrate and nitrite in drinking watersupplies can be toxic for children;

- N is also toxic for crops being used in largequantities.

Salinity ECTDSChloride

- Confers an undesirable taste to water;- Toxic to aquatic organisms;- Affects water uptake by crops.

Metalcontamination

Cadmium,chromium,cobalt, copper,nickel, lead,zinc, mercury

- Toxic for plants, animals and humans;- Negative effects for ecosystems.

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135126

Teodosiu, 2004). The characterization of wastewaters after the pre-treatment is presented in Table 2 (values registered at a Romanianwinemaking company).

There are other potential environmental aspects such ashandling and storage of materials (sugar syrups, other additivesand products, cleaning materials, oils and fuels), and the odor fromprocess operations.

There is a major possibility for different winemaking industriesto treat and reuse important volumes of water if there will beinvestments done in the wastewater treatment plants to gives theopportunity of recyclingwastewater. There is an important need forsuch investments due to the different kind of potential environ-mental negative impact that the wastewater discharged from thewinemaking industries might produce, this being resumed inTable 3.

The disposal of solid or liquid waste has to comply with nationaland regional legislation. However, in order to implement a pro-active approach and to implement pollution prevention measuresand clean technologies, good practices as well as voluntary initia-tives to decrease winery waste should be considered. An example isprovided by Sustainable Winegrowing New Zealand Program,a voluntary initiative introduced by New Zealand Winegrowers,this program helping the winegrowers, by providing a frameworkto improve all the aspects of their operational performance in termsof environmental, social and economic sustainability. Moreover,this program delivers a “best practice” model for vineyard andwinery processes and assigns a high assurance level that thesustainable practices have been used.

4. Results and discussions

Considering the water footprint assessment methods (Hoekstraet al., 2009, 2011), with respect to the distinction between blue,green and grey water, the analysis for grapes production has beendone for the 2005e2008 period, a period containing years withdifferent precipitation regimes, in order to capture the fluctuationsat the level of local production. A comparison of the blue waterfootprint for grapes production has been done on a monthly basisfor two years with severe weather events, in order to point thedifferences in crop water use.

Secondly, the average water footprint for one bottle of wine,related to the production process, summed up the indirect wateruse in the supply chain and the direct operational water use.Different values of the water footprint were identified due to thesupply-chain water footprint (especially for grapes production)which fluctuated over the analyzed period.

In addition, the wine trade-offs socio-economic potential, andthe evaluation of the national water footprint scheme related toRomanian wine production and consumption were assessed, inorder to support an extensive analysis and to better inform decisionmakers and stakeholders.

Table 2Quality indicators for wastewater characterization.

No. Quality indicator Values afterfermentation

Values afterpre-treatment

Maximumallowed valuesa

1. pH 4.6 5.7e7.7 6.5e8.52. COD (mg/L) 6020 200e480 5003. TSS (mg/L) 492 60e350 3505. Sulphides (mg/L) e 1 16. Hydrogen sulphide

(mg/L)e 1 1

7. BOD (mg O2/L) 3020 100e300 300

a Maximum allowed concentrations in the effluent according to Romanianlegislations (NTPA 002/HG 352/2005).

4.1. The water footprint assessment of grapes

A total water footprint assessment accounts for the impacts ofthe water consumption, as well as for the suitable response strat-egies in order to minimize the impacts.

Grapes’ yields fluctuated in the period 2005e2008. Themaximum level of yield was 5489 kg/ha in 2006, and the minimumone was 2750 kg/ha in 2007. During the analyzed period, theaverage productions per year decreased with almost 60% than theaverage from 1990 to 2005, as from 77,281 ton/y in 1995 to26,740 ton/y in 2007 (Fig. 3).

Nitrogen is the most important nutrient required, elementaryfor the wine’s production, though the proportion is important sothat excessive growth is not stimulated, that is why in this study,the grey water footprint have been assessed only for nitrogenfertilizers.

The greywater footprint estimates the volume of water requiredto dilute the pollutants that reaches the water body. Relying on theaverage N fertilizer application rate, the leaching factor wasassumed to be 10% and the water quality standard for the nitrogenconcentration is10 mg/L.

The crop water requirement of grapes is 112 mm/season in thevineyards within Iasi county. The effective rainfall used by the cropis 396 mm/season, namely green water use (evaporation of soilmoisture sustained by rainfall). Since there is no irrigation to therelated vineyard fields but only a small percent in the dry periods,the blue water evaporation in the fields can be considered as notsignificant.

The total production of grapes at Iasi county level was0.042 million ton/y, resulting a total WF at county level of 58.8million m3/y.

Grapes water footprint over 2005e2008 period, where 2005was considered a normal hydrological year for grapes production

Fig. 3. Vine cultivated area and grapes yield for 2005e2008 period in Iasi County.

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135 127

and 2007 an excessive dry year especially from July until end ofAugust (the most important period for agriculture) and excessivelywet during the end of August until November (cropping period), isshown in Fig. 4. The grey component is quite high, 39% in 2005 dueto the nitrogen application rate which was 315 kg N/ha.

The average green water footprint for grapes production withinIasi County is 1149 m3/t, blue water footprint is 40 m3/t and greywater footprint 212m3/t. The big difference between green and bluewater footprints is due to the water needed and supplied by theirrigation systems.

Grapes is one of the crops that is mainly grownwith greenwater,irrigations was only used for severe drought like the one in 2007.The total average water footprint for the period 2005e2008 forgrapes production was estimated, after summing green, blue andgrey water footprint as 1401 m3/t.

Bluewater footprint for grapes, was assessed on a monthly basisshowing that in 2005, the water use for grapes growth was

Fig. 4. Grapes water footprint in 20

significantly smaller than in 2007 where it can be seen that fromJuly until September the considerable difference is explained by therecord of unusual severe weather events in Romania (Fig. 5).

Low level of grapes yields shows the low level for using thewaterresources for vine in Romania and was considered the mostimportant parameter affecting the water footprint calculations.Moreover, the uses of old technologies, especially in small sizeexploitations, wheremechanical means do not exist, lame the yields.

4.2. The water footprint of wine production

When considering the wine production, two particular stagesare very important such as growing the grapes (viticulture) andturning grapes into wine (vinification). Grapes contain all theelements to make wine, such as the pulp that is rich in sugar andyeasts, which are contained in the bloom, looking like a whitepowder on the skin.

05e2008 period in Iasi County.

Fig. 5. Comparison between blue water footprint for grapes production on a monthly basis in 2005 and 2007.

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135128

The average water footprint of one bottle of wine, related to theproduction process, summed up the indirect water use in thesupply chain and the direct operational water use (Fig. 6). Differentvalues of the water footprint over the analyzed period were iden-tified due to the supply-chain water footprint (especially for grapesproduction) which fluctuated in the period analyzed.

The resulted water footprint for the winemaking companyshowed that approximately 99% of the total water footprint isrelated to the supply chainwater use, and the remaining 1% belongsto the operational water use in the processing plant.

Thus, by adding together the green, blue and grey component ofthe water footprint gives a total water footprint for a glass of wineranged between 165 L water/glass of wine in 2006 to 343 L water/glass of wine in 2007 as it can be seen in Fig. 7. The total waterfootprint of wine production is distributed as follows: 82% green, 3%blue and 15% grey.

Washing the barrels and cleaning the tanks accounts for muchof thewater use, but in awine cellar everything needs to be as cleanas possible, and water is often the most suitable tool.

If the grey water footprint is not taken into consideration, itcan be compared with other data related to the Water FootprintNetwork studies. For example in 2006 the green and blue water

Fig. 6. Direct and indire

footprint in Iasi County came up to 830 L of water for a bottle ofwine and 138 L of water for a glass of wine, compared to theglobal average water footprint up to 120 L of water for one glassof wine.

Weather conditions do not only affect the quality and style ofwine produced in a considered year, but further can explain forsignificant variations in the quantity of production.

4.3. The external water footprint of Romanian’s wine

For the estimation of the water footprint related to the winetrade with other countries in 2008, the methodology described byHoekstra et al. (2009) was taken into consideration. The interna-tional trade data was taken from APEV (2011).

We considered the average wine water footprint (green andblue) for Romania in 2008 as the one calculated for Iasi Countyequivalent to 1288 L water/L wine and for the importing countries,we considered the wine water footprint to be 920 L water/L winecalculated by Chapagain and Hoekstra (2008) as the world average.In 2008 was recorded a total production of wine of 6,300,000 hL;therefore the water footprint related to wine production withinRomania was 811.44 Mm3.

ct water footprints.

Fig. 7. Water footprint results for a bottle and a glass of wine.

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135 129

In 2008, the total gross virtual water export (Table 4) of winewas 17.77 Mm3/y, Romania exporting wine mainly to Germany(27%), China (13%), UK (11%) and Russia (11%).

Wine imports to Romania remains quite high and this is notexpected to change in the future. Nowadays Romania imports(Table 4) especially from Italy (26%), France (25%) and Spain (24%)with a total gross virtual water import of 36.89 Mm3/y.

The big difference between the external water footprint relatedto wine products (36.12 Mm3/y) and internal water footprint(794.44 Mm3/y) provides a measure of self-sufficiency and virtualwater import dependency that confirms the position of Romania asbeing dependent on external water resources regarding wineconsumption.

Romania’s national water savings as a result of wine trading isshown in the figure below (Fig. 8), observing that in Italy and Spainwater saving through tradewas11.26Mm3/y respectively 11.34Mm3/y, meanwhile in Bulgaria it was noticed a water loss of 0.25 Mm3/y.

In theory, a nation could conserve its domestic water resourcesby importing water-intensive products as an alternative ofproducing them domestically.

Table 4Total wine gross virtual water export and import in 2008.

Country ExportMm3 water/y

ImportMm3 water/y

Germany 4.80 2.21China 2.31 e

UK 1.96 e

Russia 1.96 e

Estonia 1.60 e

Italy 1.60 9.59Bulgary 1.24 0.74USA 1.07 e

Canada 0.71 e

Spain 0.53 8.85France e 9.22Moldova e 3.69Chile e 1.11S. Africa e 0.74Holland e 0.74

Total gross virtual waterexport/Import

17.77 36.89

International trade might save water globally if a water-intensive good or product is produced in a high water resourcesregion and traded to a regionwith lower water resources. However,trade has high environmental costs in energy and fuel, needed totransport the goods on a global scale.

4.4. The national water footprint assessment related to wineconsumption

A brief representation of the water footprint assessment forRomania related towine consumption, production and trade can beseen in Fig. 9.

The water footprint of national wine consumption in Romaniawas estimated as 830.56 Mm3/y, with an average water footprintper capita of 35.6 m3/y, a quite high value being the 5th one inrelation to wine consumption in comparison to other Europeancountries such as Portugal (83.61 m3/capita/y), Spain (55.81 m3/capita/y), France (41.93 m3/capita/y), Croatia (41.48 m3/capita/y)and Italy (37.66 m3/capita/y).

5. Sustainable practices for the winemaking industry

The selection of sustainable practices for the winemakingindustry considered international relevant cases and the integra-tion of wine grapes cultivation with the winemaking process. Theintegrative dimensions of such cases referred to the water andenergy related use, but also the innovative/cleaner technologies,management/integrated systems and instruments applied for thereduction of environmental impacts and associated risks, throughdecreased emissions and waste generation.

The consideration of sustainable practices in the field of thewinemaking industry (CSWA, 2009; Gabzdylova et al., 2009) referusually to the components of sustainability addressed at the level ofeconomically feasible, environmental sound and socially equitableprocesses (for both wine grapes growing and winemaking). Suchpractices may contribute to savings in water, energy, raw materials,diminished emissions and waste generation and a more efficientuse of personnel time, with benefits for the decrease of businesscosts, the increase of profit and competitiveness.

Fig. 10 presents an overview of these practices illustrating alsotheir evolution in time with waste monitoring, segregation and

Fig. 8. National water savings related to trade.

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135130

treatment (endofpipe)aswell as soil, plant andpestmanagement in thecenter, as the earliest management alternatives, and the current andfuture management approaches extending from there. These prac-tices are discussed briefly below and the specific references are pre-sented in Table 5. Depending on the institutional capacity and theregulatoryandpolicy framework at thenational levels, suchpracticesmay be adopted partially and successively. It isworthmentioning thefact that, a sustainability assessment based on the quantification ofsustainability indicators (according to the frameworks of the LowellCentre for Sustainable Production or theGlobal Reporting Initiative)hasnot been performed yet for the winemaking industry.

5.1. Waste monitoring, segregation and treatment

In order to manage winery wastes and their potential environ-mental impacts in an efficient manner, the emission sources andpotential pollutants, as well as the available management optionsto minimize their impacts should be identified. Treatment plantsshould be adapted to the wastewater inflows (and their seasonal

Internal WF of national

consumption 794.44

External WF of national

consumption 36.12

WF of national

consumption 830.56

Virtual water export related

to wine 17

Virtual water re-export

0.77

Virtual water export

17.77

WF within Romania

801.44

Virtual water import

36.89

Virtual water budget

843.33

+

+

+ +

+

+

=

=

== =

=

Fig. 9. The national water footprint assessment for wine consumption (Mm3/y).

variations) and the prospective end-use, e.g. recycling for irrigationor discharge to the natural receiving water. Within the winery, theaccent on pre-treatment stages should be paced so as to avoidemissions and to reduce wastes. Segregating wastewaters ofdifferent quality is another key to efficient treatment, optimizingthe reuse and recycling options.

5.2. Soil, plant and pest management

Various management practices can be used to prevent or miti-gate soil related risks while ensuring good soil health andincreasing sustainability of the vineyard. Integrated Pest manage-ment is an integral part of any sustainable farming program,controlling pests by integrating biological, cultural, and chemicaltools in a manner that reduces health, economic, and environ-mental risks.

5.3. Waste minimization and recycling

Waste minimization has been slowly adopted by the wineindustry, due to the lack of programmes targeting specific waste

Fig. 10. Hierarchy of the sustainable practices for wine grapes growing and wineproduction.

Table 5An overview of sustainable practices for the winemaking industry.

No. Adopted practices References

1. Waste monitoring, segregation and treatment Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia/New Zealand, 1998; CSWA, 2006;Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2008; Le Moigne et al., 2008; Kumar and Christen, 2009;Anastasiadi et al., 2010; Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation, 2011.

2. Soil, plant and pest management Cooperative Research Centre for Viticulture, 2005; CSWA, 2006; Lovell, 2006; Szögi et al., 2007;Celette et al., 2008; CSWA, 2008; Steenwerth and Belina, 2008; Chien, 2011; CSWA, 2009; Keller, 2010;Stefanelli et al., 2010; Thomson and Hoffmann, 2010; Amer, 2011; Coll et al., 2011; Gil et al., 2011;Ruiz-Colmenero et al., 2011; Point et al., 2012; Rodríguez-Pulido et al., 2012.

3. Waste minimization and recycling Bertran et al., 2004; Flavel et al., 2005; Keenan, 2005; CSWA, 2006; Musee et al., 2007; CSWA, 2009;Kumar and Christen, 2009; Ruggieri et al., 2009; Stefanelli et al., 2010; Cox et al., 2012; Point et al., 2012.

4. Water resources and energy efficiency Tee et al., 2003; Beckingham et al., 2004; Vilela et al., 2004; Cifre et al., 2005; Galitsky et al., 2005;Smith, 2005; CSWA, 2006; Costa et al., 2007; CSWA, 2008; Du et al., 2008; Kennedy/Jenks Consultants,2008; Cholette and Venkat, 2009; CSWA, 2009; Kumar and Christen, 2009; McCarthy et al., 2009;Ruggieri et al., 2009; Smyth and Russell, 2009; Acevedo-Opazo et al., 2010; Giddings and Deegenaars,2010; Bucchetti et al., 2011; Lopes et al., 2011; Costa et al., 2012; Moreira Barradas et al., 2012;Point et al., 2012; Smyth, 2012.

5. Pollution prevention & cleaner technologies Vilela et al., 2004; Cooperative Research Centre for Viticulture, 2005; van Schoor, 2005; CSWA, 2008;Gabzdylova et al., 2009; Kumar and Christen, 2009; Sánchez-Hernández et al., 2010; Cox et al., 2012.

6. Integrated environmental management andinstruments

Jackson and Lombard, 1993; Baughman et al., 2000; Brentrup et al., 2004; Aranda et al., 2005;Hughey et al., 2005; CSWA, 2006; Lawrence et al., 2006; Pizzigallo et al., 2008; CSWA, 2009; Forbes et al.,2009; Martinez-Rodriguez et al., 2009; Ruggieri et al., 2009; Mira de Orduña, 2010; Bories et al., 2011;Point et al., 2012; Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012.

7. Environmental performance evaluation andreporting

Knowles and Hill, 2001; Aranda et al., 2005; Hughey et al., 2005; Gabzdylova et al., 2009;Forbes et al., 2009; Marshall et al., 2010; Mira de Orduna, 2010; Vázquez-Rowe et al., 2012.

8. Legislation and policy developments Hughey et al., 2005; Taylor, 2006; Shin et al., 2008; McEwan and Bek, 2009.

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135 131

streams such as grape pomace, lees, stalk, wastewater and dewa-tered sludge. Grape pomace and lees may be used as by-products,stalk and sludge may be used for compost while wastewater maybe recycled after adequate treatment.Wasteminimization can yieldconsiderable benefits to the wine industry with the condition to beincorporated as an integral part of the entire winemaking process.Recycling or disposing wastes in a safe manner can provideeconomic value for by-products and wastes and can minimize theenvironmental risks by recycling.

5.4. Water resources and energy efficiency

Every winery should be committed to reliable environmentalmanagement practices and should implement cleaner productionstrategies, which will guarantee a minimal use of chemicals, waterand energy. The prevention of water losses (hoses, tanks, and bottlewashing equipment) as well as the efficient water use throughdifferent irrigation techniques is of particular importance. Byreducing thewater use in the cellar to the lower limit, the volume ofwastewater that must be managed will also be reduced, eventuallyto the level where compliance with national legislation fordischarge (or for irrigation re-use), may be achieved with simplepre-treatment. Water is strongly connected with the energy use forthe wine grapes growing and the wine production processes,through the following uses: a) energy requirements for waterpumping for irrigation, water supply and wastewater treatment; b)energy used for heating, cooling, crushing in the winemakingprocess; c) energy used for by-products processing, waste com-posting and incineration. Alternative energy sources such as solarthermal or photovoltaics offer a complimentary energy solution formany American and European winemaking facilities.

5.5. Pollution prevention & cleaner technologies

Cleaner production was defined as “decreasing risks on humanand environment by continuous application of an integrated andpreventive environment strategy on products and processes” (UNEP).Cleaner production is achieved through a diversity of practicesincluding: good housekeeping, process and/or equipment

modification, input material substitution, on/off site recycling andreuse, changes in products/services/processes and/or technologies.Pollution prevention measures and the efficient use of materialsand energy, as well as the use of renewable energy sources andclosed-loop systems can also contribute to emissions and wastereduction and the continuous improvement in productionprocesses.

The conduction of a winery audit (with the support of anenvironmental specialist) for further implementation of a cleanerproduction strategy related towater & energy utilization, chemicalsand waste management should be accompanied by a study of thesoil in order to establish the total area needed for beneficial irri-gation accomplished through wastewater recycling. Beneficialirrigation may only take place where the wastewater quality iscomplying with the existing regulations and where the quantitiesfall within imposed limits. Innovations in process equipment mayalso provide pollution prevention opportunities, if they are moreefficient in materials use, energy use, or if they diminish emissionsto the environment.

5.6. Integrated environmental management alternatives

Environmental management is one of the key pillars of anysustainable practices at the level of winemaking companies, notonly from the perspective of integrating the environmentalprotection and pollution prevention programs into the generalmanagement of the companies, but also from the overall benefitsdue to the use of associated instruments for environmental evalu-ation of production processes products and performances, opera-tional practices improvements, economical/environmental/socialbenefits, competitiveness and consolidation of the market position.

An environmental management system (EMS) and its imple-mentation and certification according to the voluntary standardsISO 14001:2004(E) (International Standard Organisation) or EMASIII e EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (2009) involvesa structured, systematic way of identifying, addressing, and cor-recting environmental problems while integrating them into thegeneral management system of the companies so as to ensure thecontinuous improvement. The integration of environmental

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135132

management system with other management systems such asquality management system (QMS, according to ISO 9001), ormicrobial hazard analysis and critical control points identification(HACCP, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) provideframework for sustainable processes in the winemaking industry,with benefits in the higher wine quality and safety, reduced waste& emissions, resource and energy efficiency, improved productivity.

Environmental management instruments used for the evalua-tion of production and products may be applied according to theexisting international standards (ISO 14000 family), e.g. environ-mental assessment of sites and organizations, environmentalaudits, life-cycle assessment, integration of environmental aspectsinto product design and development, environmental labels. Suchinstruments or derived instruments (Environmental integratedimpact and risk assessments, water footprinting) have been appliedfor the winemaking processes evaluation and proposal of envi-ronmental improvements programmes.

5.7. Environmental performance evaluation, reporting andcommunication

Effective winemaking management and sustainable practicesshould involve the use of 2 other important management instru-ments such as environmental performance evaluation and envi-ronmental communications. Environmental reports or corporatesocial responsibility reports usually make known to the stake-holders and general public, in a transparent way the environ-mental, social and business outcomes.

5.8. Legislation and policy developments

The treatment and disposal or recycling of winery wastewater,or the use of recycled wastewater from the treatment plants,involves a rational understanding of the distinctive characteristicsof each situation, of appropriate management options and relevantlegislation and regulations. In many cases, the legislation require-ments are at the basis of environmental improvement programs,especially considering the imposed discharge limits or wastemanagement requirements. However, sustainable practicesconsider apart from the legislation requirements, national/regionalpolicy programs and frameworks that encourage their imple-mentation in different industries, ensuring thus not only environ-mental protection requirements but also businesses developmentand competitiveness on the international export market.

An overview of the international research and case studiesconcerning the actual sustainable practices, grouped according tothe above sections is presented in Table 5.

It is worthwhile mentioning that at the level of the studiedRomanian company, only few of these practices have been appliedfor the last three years, e.g.: waste monitoring and treatment, soil,plant and pest management, waste minimization, water resourcesefficiency program, integrated management programmes. Anoverview of these practices are presented below.

5.8.1. Waste monitoring and treatmentA facility to capture and purify CO2 from fermentation gases has

been used for the last 2 years. In winemaking, during the alcoholicfermentation process, 0.83 m3 CO2 result for 100 hL per hour fer-mented must, this gas being further recovered, purified andcompressed for future use as an inert blanket to avoid wineoxidation. Gas capture was done directly from the fermentationvessels by means of fans. Gases are sent into a column of waterabsorption followed by a degassing tower. After the primarycleaning stage, the gas is passed to a temporary storage before itsfurther use.

Also, the producer has completed the wastewater treatmentplant (mechanical treatment) with a coagulation-flocculationprocess, which finally leads to the decrease of the solid andorganic wastewater loads.

5.8.2. Soil, plant and pest managementBarriers or eco-friendly compounds applications to eliminate

pests that may carry pathogens to plants are used for the diseasecontrol. The use of natural amendments for soil has becomea practice in the studied vineyard. Vineyards showed a strong trendtoward less reliance on residual herbicides in last 2 years. Totalnumber of herbicide applications decreased from an average of 3.3in 2007 to 2.7 applications in 2010.

5.8.3. Water resources efficiency programThe prevention of water losses (hoses, tanks, and bottle washing

equipment) is of particular importance. By reducing the water usein the cellar to the lower limits, 7% reduction of the wastewatervolume was recorded.

A modernized technology for obtaining and recovery of tablegrapes by considering the EurepGAP quality standards in order toensure traceability and food safety was implemented in 2010, byusing the microbial hazard analysis and critical control pointsidentification (HACCP guidelines, Hazard Analysis and CriticalControl Points).

At the moment, the opportunities to access national environ-mental funds and structural European funds provide new oppor-tunities for this industry to engage in sustainable practices and toimprove its environmental management, performance evaluation,reporting and communication strategy. The economic crisis thataffected the European countries and Romania for the last 2 years,produced major effects especially to the small and medium sizedcompanies, in a period that was favorable for other environmentaloriented changes apart from the legislative imposed ones. More-over, the Romanian Association for Wine Producers and Exporters(APEV) does not have, at the moment, a comprehensive environ-mental policy fostering the introduction of such sustainable prac-tices in the winemaking industry.

6. Conclusions

In this paper, the main purpose was to evaluate the total waterfootprint assessment for the grapes production within Iasi Countyand for a medium-size winemaking industry, as well as the suitableresponse strategies to minimize the environmental impacts refer-ing to water and related energy use.

Climate and weather have a major influence on the ultimatequality and type of the produced wine and the climate variationscan have significant impacts. Grape vines, though tolerantcompared to most food crops, do have minimum irrigation needs,especially needed during severe droughts periods.

The total average water footprint for the period 2005e2008 forgrapes production, was estimated after summing green, blue andgrey water footprint as 1401 m3/t (82% green, 3% blue and 15% greywater). The total water footprint for a glass of wine varies accordingto the climate changes ranging between 165 L water/glass of winein a normal year to 343 L water/glass of wine in a dry year.

By calculating the water use over the whole production process,including green, blue and grey water, awareness is given to thewinemaking company, highlighting the water intensive stages,serving as a basis for formulating strategies in order reduce wateruse.

National water dependency related to wine production is 4.34%,while national water self-sufficiency is 95.66%, which indicates thatalmost all the water needed for wine production is available and

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135 133

practically taken from the own territory. Local planning andregional cooperation integrating the notion of water footprint ofnational consumption could result in the interchange of goods,diversification of crops or crop arrangement proceedings.

Another part of this study was dedicated to the analysis of thedifferent water saving options and sustainable practices in thegrape growing and winemaking stages, since the findings of thisstudy indicated that almost 99% of the total water footprint isrelated to the supply-chain water use. Suggestions of sustainablepractices for the winemaking industry have been selected andbriefly discussed based on international relevant cases. Suchpractices may contribute to savings in water, energy, raw materials,diminished emissions and waste generation and a more efficientuse of personnel time, with benefits for the decrease of businesscosts, the increase of profit and competitiveness. Moreover, theRomanian winemaking producer practices were discussed in thecontext of the actual economic and environmental perspectives.

Evaluating the water footprint is very important because theproduct and business transparency is a necessity for consumerswho need to have support for well-informed decisions on theiracquisitions. However, water footprint accounting constitutes goodeconomics for the wine industry, because water is such an essentialresource that needs to be correctly managed in the vineyard, in thecellar and throughout the production process. Water footprintassessment identified where the water was used in the wineproduction and what type of water was used. The water footprintaccounting can help companies in providing valuable insightwithin the production chain, and location of the water consump-tion and a better understanding of the water-related risks andsensitivity of a business.

Acknowledgments

This paper was realized with the support of PERFORM-ERA"Postdoctoral Performance for Integration in the European ResearchArea" (ID-57649), financed by the European Social Fund and theRomanian Government. The support of the WATUSER project“Integrated System for Reducing Environmental and Humane RelatedRisks and Impacts in the Water Use Cycle” (PN-II-PT-PCCA-2011-3.2-1491), Contract no. 60/2012 financed by the Romanian Governmentis also acknowledged.

References

Acevedo-Opazo, C., Ortega-Farias, S., Fuentes, S., 2010. Effects of grapevine (Vitisvinifera L.) water status on water consumption, vegetative growth and grapequality: an irrigation scheduling application to achieve regulated deficit irri-gation. Agricultural Water Management 97 (7), 956e964.

Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia/New Zealand, 1998.Australian Government’s National Water Quality Management Strategy e

Effluent Management Guidelines for Australian Wineries and Distilleries.Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Canberra,Australia.

Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., Smith, M., 1998. Crop Evapotranspiration: Guide-lines for Computing Crop Water Requirements. FAO Irrigation and DrainagePaper 56. Food and Agricultural Organization, Rome, Italy.

Amer, A.M., 2011. Effects of water infiltration and storage in cultivated soil onsurface irrigation. Agricultural Water Management 98 (5), 815e822.

Anastasiadi, M., Pratsinis, H., Kletsas, D., Skaltsounis, A.-L., Haroutounian, S.A., 2010.Bioactive non-coloured polyphenols content of grapes, wines and vinificationby-products: evaluation of the antioxidant activities of their extracts. FoodResearch International 43 (3), 805e813.

APEV, 2011. The Romanian Wine Industry Outlook. Wine Producers and ExportersAssociation, Bucharest, Romania (accessed at Feb 2012).

Aranda, A., Zabalza, I., Scarpellini, S., 2005. Economic and environmental analysisof the wine bottle production in Spain by means of life cycle assessment.International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology 4(2), 178e191.

Barton, B., 2010. Murky Waters? Corporate Reporting on Water Risk: A Bench-marking Study of 100 Companies. Ceres, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Baughman, A.D., Brown, E.J., Brummett, W., Dramko, J.M., Goldstain, J.H., Hooper,B.E., 2000. California winemaking impact assessment. MSc disseration,University of California, Santa Barbara, USA, p. 136

Beckingham, C., Bright, J., Creecy, H., Moulds, G., Quirk, L., Somers, A., 2004. Irri-gating Grapevines with Limited Water Supplies. New South Wales (NSW)Agriculture, Orange, ISBN 0 7347 1574 9.

Bertran, E., Sort, X., Soliva, M., Trillas, I., 2004. Composting winery waste: sludgesand grape stalks. Bioresource Technology 95, 203e208.

Bories, A., Sire, Y., Bouissou, D., Goulesque, S., Moutounet, M., Bonneaud, D., Lutin, F.,2011. Environmental impacts of tartaric stabilisation processes for wines usingelectrodialysis and cold treatment. South African Journal for Enology andViticulture 32 (2), 174e182.

Brentrup, F., Kusters, J., Barraclough, P., Kuhlmann, H., 2004. Environmental impactassessment of agricultural production systems using the life cycle assessment(LCA) Methodology II. The application to N fertilizer use in winter wheatproduction systems. European Journal of Agronomy 20, 265e279.

Bucchetti, B., Matthews, M.A., Falginella, L., Peterlunger, E., Castellarin, S.D., 2011.Effect of water deficit on Merlot grape tannins and anthocyanins across fourseasons. Scientia Horticulturae 128 (3), 297e305.

California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance (CSWA), 2006. The Code of Sustain-able Winegrowing Practices Self-assessment Workbook. Wine Institute andCalifornia Association of Winegrape Growers (CAWG), California, USA.

California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance (CSWA), 2008. Reducing Risks throughSustainable Winegrowing: A Growers’ Guide. United States Department ofAgriculture, Risk Management Agency, Washington, DC, USA.

California Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance (CSWA), 2009. Understanding Adop-tion and Impacts of Sustainable Practices in California Vineyards. San Francisco,California, USA.

Canut, A., Pascual, A., 2007. OzoneCip: Ozone cleaning in place in food industries,IOA Conference and Exhibition Valencia, Spain, October 29e31, 2007.

Celette, F., Gaudin, R., Gary, C., 2008. Spatial and temporal changes to the waterregime of a Mediterranean vineyard due to the adoption of cover cropping.European Journal of Agronomy 29 (4), 153e162.

Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2004. Water Footprints of Nations. Value of WaterResearch Report Series no. 16. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.

Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2008. The global component of freshwater demandand supply: an assessment of virtual water flows between nations as a result oftrade in agricultural and industrial products. Water International 33, 19e32.

Chapagain, A.K., Orr, S., 2010. Water Footprint of Nestlé’s ‘Bitesize Shredded Wheat’e A Pilot Study to Account and Analyse the Water Footprints of BitesizeShredded Wheat in the Context of Water Availability along Its Supply Chain.WWF-UK, Godalming.

Chapagain, A.K., Hoekstra, A.Y., Savenije, H.H.G., Gautam, R., 2006. The waterfootprint of cotton consumption: an assessment of the impact of worldwideconsumption of cotton products on the water resources in the cotton producingcountries. Ecological Economics 60 (1), 186e203.

Chien, M.L., 2011. Vine Size and Balance and Balanced Pruning. Penn StateUniversity e College of Agricultural Sciences, USA. Presented at the NorthCarolina Winegrower’s Association Conference at February 4e6, 2011.

Cholette, S., Venkat, K., 2009. The energy and carbon intensity of wine distribution:a study of logistical options for delivering wine to consumers. Journal of CleanerProduction 17 (16), 1401e1413.

Cifre, J., Bota, J., Escalona, J.M., Medrano, H., Flexas, J., 2005. Physiological tools forirrigation scheduling in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): an open gate to improvewater-use efficiency? Agriculture. Ecosystems and Environment 106 (2e3 SPEC.ISS.), 159e170.

Cojocariu, C., Barjoveanu, G., Robu, B., Teodosiu, C., 2012. Integrated environmentalimpact and risk assessment of the agricultural and related industries in the PrutRiver Basin. UBB Studia Chemia 57 (1), 151e166.

Coll, P., Le Cadre, E., Blanchart, E., Hinsinger, P., Villenave, C., 2011. Organic viticul-ture and soil quality: a long-term study in Southern France. Applied SoilEcology 50, 37e44.

Cooperative Research Centre for Viticulture, 2005. Good EnvironmentalManagement Guidelines: Vineyard Pest and Chemical Management. Australia,1 74146 565.

Costa, J.M., Ortuño, M.F., Chaves, M.M., 2007. Deficit irrigation as a strategy to savewater: physiology and potential application to horticulture. Journal of Inte-grative Plant Biology 49 (10), 1421e1434.

Costa, J.M., Lopes, C.M., Rodrigues, M.L., Santos, T.P., Francisco, R., Zarrouk, O.,Regalado, A., Chaves, M.M., 2012. Deficit irrigation in Mediterranean vineyards -a tool to increase water use efficiency and to control grapevine and berrygrowth. Acta Horticulturae 931, 159e170.

Cox, J.W., Oliver, D.P., Fleming, N.K., Anderson, J.S., 2012. Off-site transport ofnutrients and sediment from three main land-uses in the Mt Lofty Ranges,South Australia. Agricultural Water Management 106, 50e59.

DADR, 2010. Department for Agriculture and Rural Development Report 2008. IasiCounty, Romania.

Du, T., Kang, S., Zhang, J., Li, F., Yan, B., 2008. Water use efficiency and fruit quality oftable grape under alternate partial root-zone drip irrigation. Agricultural WaterManagement 95 (6), 659e668.

EMAS III, 2009. REGULATION (EC) No 1221/2009 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTAND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 November 2009 on the voluntary participation byorganisations in a Community eco-management and audit scheme (EMAS),repealing Regulation (EC) No 761/2001 and Commission Decisions 2001/681/ECand 2006/193/EC.

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135134

Ene, S.A., 2011. Studies on Water Footprint with Application in Integrated WaterResources Management. Politehnium Publishing House, Iasi, Romania, ISBN978-973-621-345-8.

Environment Protection Authority (EPA), 2004. EPA Guidelines for Wineries andDistilleries. Adelaide, South Australia, ISBN 1 876562 66 8.

Ercin, A.E., Aldaya, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2011. Corporate water footprint accountingand impact assessment: the case of the water footprint of a sugar-containingcarbonated beverage. Water Resources Management 25, 721e741.

European Commission Community Research, 2004. The Path towards SustainableIndustrial Production. U.S. Environmental Impact Agency.

Flavel, T.C., Murphy, D.V., Lalor, B.M., Fillery, I.R.P., 2005. Gross N mineralizationrates after application of composted grape marc to soil. Soil Biology andBiochemistry 37 (7), 1397e1400.

Forbes, S.L., Cohen, D.A., Cullen, R., Wratten, S.D., Fountain, J., 2009. Consumerattitudes regarding environmentally sustainable wine: an exploratory studyof the New Zealand marketplace. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (13),1195e1199.

Gabzdylova, B., Raffensperger, J.F., Castka, P., 2009. Sustainability in the New Zea-land wine industry: drivers, stakeholders and practices. Journal of CleanerProduction 17 (11), 992e998.

Galitsky, C., Worrell, E., Radspieler, A., Healy, P., Zechiel, S., 2005. Best WineryGuidebook: Benchmarking and Energy and Water Savings Tool for the WineIndustry. LBNL - 3184, University of California. Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory, Berkeley, California, USA.

Gerbens-Leenes, P.W., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2008. Business Water Footprint Accounting: ATool to Assess How Production of Goods and Services Impacts on FreshwaterResources Worldwide. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 27. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.

Giddings, J., Deegenaars, A., 2010. Module 2: Managing the Conversion to DripIrrigation in Vineyards Ppitfalls and Post Conversion Scheduling Techniques).NSW Department of Primary Industries, Orange, New South Wales, Australia.

Gil, E., Llorens, J., Landers, A., Llop, J., Giralt, L., 2011. Field validation of dosaviña,a decision support system to determine the optimal volume rate for pesticideapplication in vineyards. European Journal of Agronomy 35 (1), 33e46.

Grape and Wine Research and Development Corporation, 2011. Winery Waste-water Management & Recycling e Operational Guidelines. Grape and WineResearch and Development Corporation, Adelaide, South Australia, ISBN 978-0-9871444-2-3.

Herath, I., Green, S., Singh, R., Horne, D., van der Zijpp, S., Clothier, B., 2013.Water footprinting of agricultural products: a hydrological assessment for thewater footprint of New Zealand’s wines. Journal of Cleaner Production 41,232e243.

Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., 2008. Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’sFreshwater Resources. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK, p. 232.

Hoekstra, A.Y., Hung, P.Q., 2002. Virtual Water Trade: A Quantification of VirtualWater Flows between Nations in Relation to International Crop Trade. Value ofWater Research Report Series No. 11. UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands.

Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., Mekonnen, M.M., 2009. Water Foot-print Manual: State of the Art 2009. Water Footprint Network, Enschede, TheNetherlands.

Hoekstra, A.Y., Chapagain, A.K., Aldaya, M.M., Mekonnen, M.M., 2011. The WaterFootprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard. Earthscan, London,UK.

Hughey, K.F.D., Tait, S.V., O’Connell, M.J., 2005. Qualitative evaluation of three’environmental management systems’ in the New Zealand wine industry.Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (12), 1175e1187.

IFC, LimnoTech, Jain Irrigation Systems, TNC, 2010. Water Footprint Assessments eDehydrated Onion Products, Micro-irrigation Systems. Jain Irrigation SystemsLtd., International Finance Corporation, Washington, D.C., USA.

INS, 2012. TEMPO e Time Series: AGR108B - Area Cultivated with Main Crops byCounties and Localities. National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, Romania(accessed: Feb 2012).

Ion, R.A., Turek Rahoveanu, A., Turek Rahoveanu, M., Manole, V., 2009. Areas undervine and production of grapes in Romania. Transion 10 (21e22), 81e86.

IPIM, 2008. Macao Trade and Investment Promotion Institute e Market Briefing:Romania. Issue no. 240, December 2008, Macao, China.

International Standards Organization (ISO) 14001, 2004 (E). International Stan-dard, Environmental Management Systems: Requirements with Guidance forUse.

Jackson, D.I., Lombard, P.B., 1993. Environmental and management practicesaffecting grape composition and wine quality e a review. American Journal ofEnology and Viticulture 44, 409e430.

Keenan, C., 2005. Winery waste management. Proceedings of the Romeo Bragato.In: 11th Annual Conference, 25e27 August, 2005, Gisborne, New Zealand. NewZealand Winegrowers, Auckland.

Keller, M., 2010. Chapter 3 e water relations and nutrient uptake. The Science ofGrapevines e Anatomy and Physiology, 85e105.

Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, 2008. Comprehensive Guide to Sustainable Manage-ment of Winery Wastewater and Associated Energy. The Wine Institute, Cal-ifornia, USA.

Knowles, L., Hill, R., 2001. Environmental initiatives in South African wineries:a comparison between small and large wineries. Eco-management and Audit-ing 8 (4), 210e228.

Kumar, A., Christen, E., 2009. Developing a systematic approach to winery waste-water management. Final Report to Grape and Wine Research & Development

Corporation. Project Number: CSL05/02. CSIRO Land and Water Science Reportseries ISSN: 1834-6618.

Lawrence, S.R., Collins, E., Pavlovich, K., Arunachalam, M., 2006. Sustainabilitypractices of SMEs: the case of NZ. Business Strategy and the Environment 15,242e257.

Le Moigne, M., Symoneaux, R., Jourjon, F., 2008. How to follow grape maturity forwine professionals with a seasonal judge training? Food Quality and Preference19 (8), 672e681.

Levinson, M., Lee, E., Chung, J., Huttner, M., Danely, C., McKnight, C., Langlois, 2008.Watching Water: A Guide to Evaluating Corporate Risks in a Thirsty World. J. P.Morgan Securities Inc., New York, USA.

Lopes, C.M., Santos, T.P., Monteiro, A., Rodrigues, M.L., Costa, J.M., Chaves, M.M.,2011. Combining cover cropping with deficit irrigation in a Mediterranean lowvigor vineyard. Scientia Horticulturae 129 (4), 603e612.

Lovell, J. (Ed.), 2006. Guidelines for Environmental Assurance in Australian Horti-culture. Horticulture Australia Ltd, Sydney.

MADR, 2012. Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Report of the SpringAgricultural Campaign Program (in Romanian). Bucharest, Romania.

Manole, V., Ion, R.A., Ladaru, G.R., 2008. Wine chain in Romania -a marketing approach. Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica2 (10), 52e57.

Marshall, R.S., Akoorie, M.E.M., Hamann, R., Sinha, P., 2010. Environmental practicesin the wine industry: an empirical application of the theory of reasoned actionand stakeholder theory in the United States and New Zealand. Journal of WorldBusiness 45 (4), 405e414.

Martinez-Rodriguez, A.J., Carrascosa, A.V., 2009. HACCP to control microbial safetyhazards during winemaking: Ochratoxin A. Food Control 20 (5), 469e475.

McCarthy, M., Biswas, T., Bourne, J., 2009. Sub-surface drip irrigation and othernovel irrigation management tools. GWRDC Vine & Water Module 12, 1e4.

McEwan, C., Bek, D., 2009. The political economy of alternative trade: social andenvironmental certification in the South African wine industry. Journal of RuralStudies 25 (3), 255e266.

McKinsey & Company, 2009. The Global Corporate Water Footprint. Risks, Oppor-tunities and Management Options. CCSI Water & Adaptation Service Line.October 2009.

Mira de Orduna, R., 2010. Climate change associated effects on grape and winequality and production. Food Research International 43 (7), 1844e1855.

Moreira Barradas, J.M., Matula, S., Dolezal, F., 2012. A Decision Support System-Fertigation Simulator (DSS-FS) for design and optimization of sprinkler anddrip irrigation systems. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 86, 111e119.

Morrison, J., Morkawa, M., Murphy, M., Schulte, P., 2009. Water Scarcity and ClimateChange: Growing Risks for Business and Investors. CERES, Boston, MA, USA.

Morrison, J., Schulte, P., Schenck, R., 2010. Corporate Water Accounting: An Analysisof Methods and Tools for Measuring Water Use and Its Impacts. United NationsGlobal Compact, New York, USA.

Musee, N., Lorenzen, L., Aldrich, C., 2007. Cellar waste minimization in the wineindustry: a systems approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 15 (5), 417e431.

NIMH, 2010. National Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology - Regional Meteo-rological Center Moldova Iasi - Climatic Data from Weather Stations in IasiCounty. Romania.

Pegram, G., Orr, S., Williams, C., 2009. Investigating Shared Risk in Water: CorporateEngagement with the Public Policy Process. WWF, Godalming, UK.

Pizzigallo, A.C.I., Granai, C., Borsa, S., 2008. The joint use of LCA and emergy eval-uation for the analysis of two Italian wine farms. Journal of EnvironmentalManagement 86 (2), 396e406.

Point, E., Tyedmers, P., Naugler, C., 2012. Life cycle environmental impacts of wineproduction and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. Journal of CleanerProduction 27, 11e20.

Popa, D., 2009. Romanian wine growing sector in the context of European inte-gration, competitive and sustainable development. Bulletin UASVM Horticul-ture 66 (1), 341e344.

Rodríguez-Pulido, F.J., Ferrer-Gallego, R., Lourdes González-Miret, M., Rivas-Gonzalo, J.C., Escribano-Bailón, M.T., Heredia, F.J., 2012. Preliminary study todetermine the phenolic maturity stage of grape seeds by computer vision.Analytica Chimica Acta 732, 78e82.

Ruggieri, L., Cadena, E., Martínez-Blanco, J., Gasol, C.M., Rieradevall, J., Gabarrell, X.,Gea, T., Sort, X., Sánchez, A., 2009. Recovery of organic wastes in the Spanishwine industry. Technical, economic and environmental analyses of the com-posting process. Journal of Cleaner Production 17 (9), 830e838.

Ruiz-Colmenero, M., Bienes, R., Marques, M.J., 2011. Soil and water conservationdilemmas associated with the use of green cover in steep vineyards. Soil andTillage Research 117, 211e223.

SABMiller, WWF-UK, 2009. Water Footprinting: Identifying & Addressing WaterRisks in the Value Chain, SABMiller. Woking, WWF-UK, Goldalming, UK.

Sánchez-Hernández, J.L., Aparicio-Amador, J., Alonso-Santos, J.L., 2010. The shiftbetween worlds of production as an innovative process in the wine industry inCastile and Leon (Spain). Geoforum 41 (3), 469e478.

Shin, D., Curtis, M., Huisingh, D., Zwetsloot, G.I., 2008. Development of a sustain-ability policy model for promoting cleaner production: a knowledge integrationapproach. Journal of Cleaner Production 16, 1823e1837.

Smith, F., 2005. Wineries of the Future, Cutting Energy Use. The Australian & NewZealand Grapegrower and Winemaker, No. 496. Winetitles Pty Ltd, SouthAustralia. May 2005.

Smyth, M., 2012. Solar photovoltaic installations in American and European wine-making facilities. Journal of Cleaner Production 31, 22e29.

S.A. Ene et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 43 (2013) 122e135 135

Smyth, M., Russell, J., 2009. ‘From graft to bottle’ e analysis of energy use in viti-culture and wine production and the potential for solar renewable technolo-gies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 13 (8), 1985e1993.

Steenwerth, K., Belina, K.M., 2008. Cover crops enhance soil organic matter, carbondynamics and microbiological function in a vineyard agroecosystem. AppliedSoil Ecology 40 (2), 359e369.

Stefanelli, D., Goodwin, I., Jones, R., 2010. Minimal nitrogen and water use inhorticulture: effects on quality and content of selected nutrients. Food ResearchInternational 43 (7), 1833e1843.

Stoeglehner, G., Edwards, P., Daniels, P., Narodoslawsky, M., 2011. The water supplyfootprint (WSF): a strategic planning tool for sustainable regional and localwater supplies. Journal of Cleaner Production 19 (15), 1677e1686.

Szögi, A.A., Leib, B.G., Redulla, C.A., Stevens, R.G., Mathews, G.R., Strausz, D.A.,2007. Erosion control practices integrated with polyacrylamide for nutrientreduction in rill irrigation runoff. Agricultural Water Management 91 (1e3),43e50.

Taylor, B., 2006. Encouraging industry to assess and implement cleaner productionmeasures. Journal of Cleaner Production 14, 601e609.

TCCC, TNC, 2010. Product Water Footprint Assessments: Practical Application inCorporate Water Stewardship. The Coca-Cola Company/The Nature Conser-vancy, Atlanta, USA, Arlington, USA.

Tee, E., Cooperative Research Centre for Viticulture (Australia), Victoria Dept. ofPrimary Industries, 2003. Best Irrigation Management Practices for Viticulturein the Murray Darling Basin. Cooperative Research Centre for Viticulture: Dept

of Primary Industries and the Murray Darling Basin Commission, Melbourne,Australia.

Thomson, L.J., Hoffmann, A.A., 2010. Natural enemy responses and pest control:Importance of local vegetation. Biological Control 52 (2), 160e166.

van Schoor, L.H., 2005. Guidelines for the Management of Wastewater and SolidWaste at Existing Wineries. Wine Industry Network of Expertise and Tech-nology e Winetech, p. 35.

Vázquez-Rowe, I., Villanueva-Rey, P., Moreira, M.T., Feijoo, G., 2012. Environmentalanalysis of Ribeiro wine from a timeline perspective: harvest year matterswhen reporting environmental impacts. Journal of Environmental Management98 (1), 73e83.

Vilela, O.C., Bione, J., Fraidenraich, N., 2004. Simulation of grape culture irrigationwith photovoltaic V-trough pumping systems. Renewable Energy 29 (10),1697e1705.

Volf, I., Teodosiu, C., 2004. Wastewater from winemaking industry: monitoring andpossibilities to decrease pollution loads. Environmental Engineering andManagement Journal 3 (2), 129e137.

WBCSD, 2006. Business in the World of Water: WBCSD Scenarios to 2025. WorldBusiness Council for Sustainable Development, Conches-Geneva, Switzerland.

World Water Assessment Programme, 2009. The United Nations World WaterDevelopment Report 3: Water in a Changing World. UNESCO Publishing, andLondon: Earthscan, Paris.

�Cu�cek, L., Kleme�s, J.J., Kravanja, Z., 2012. A Review of Footprint analysis tools formonitoring impacts on sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production 34, 9e20.