See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259865856

Life Cycle Assessment of Wine: Focus on Water Use Impact Assessment

Article  in  Environmental engineering and management journal · March 2012

DOI: 10.30638/eemj.2012.066

CITATIONS READS

14 1,345

5 authors, including:

Comandaru iulia maria George Barjoveanu

Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi
3 PUBLICATIONS   49 CITATIONS    35 PUBLICATIONS   244 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Carmen Teodosiu
Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iasi
154 PUBLICATIONS   1,278 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Integrated and sustainable processes for environmental clean-up, wastewater reuse and waste valorization (acronym: SUSTENVPRO) View
project

Integrated System for Reducing Environmental and Human – Related Impacts and Risks in the Water Use Cycle (acronym WATUSER) View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carmen Teodosiu on 28 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Environmental Engineering and Management Journal March 2012, Vol.11, No. 3, 533-543
http://omicron.ch.tuiasi.ro/EEMJ/

“Gheorghe Asachi” Technical University of Iasi, Romania

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF WINE: FOCUS ON WATER USE

IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Iulia Maria Comandaru1, George Bârjoveanu1, Nicolae Peiu2,

Simona-Andreea Ene1, Carmen Teodosiu1
1
"Gheorghe Asachi" Technical University of Iasi, Faculty of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Protection,
Department of Environmental Engineering and Management, 73 Prof.Dr.Docent D. Mangeron Street, 700050 Iasi, Romania
2
Environmental Protection Agency, 10bis Theodor Văscăuţeanu, 700464 Iasi, Romania

Abstract

This paper presents and discusses the possibility of using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology as a support instrument in
water resources management. Traditionally, water is considered in LCA studies as a transport media for other impact generators
and not as an impact category itself (i.e. damaged environmental component).
In this context, this study introduces and discusses the possibility of implementing two new impact categories in the life cycle
impact assessment phase (LCIA) of LCA to account for the impacts of water consumption and discharge of wastewater flows to
subsequent or downstream water uses. These two new indicators, named consumptive water use and degradative water use are
implemented into the widely used Eco-Indicator 99 (EI99) LCIA methodology in the resources impact class and are tested in a
LCA case study from a wine making industry. This research approaches the wine life cycle, since its production contributes to a
variety of environmental impacts due to the high demand of water and energy.
The LCIA was performed using the classic Eco-Indicator 99 methodology and the updated methodology using the two new
impact categories. The results have shown that the production phase in the wine life cycle generated the highest impacts, although
the impact profiles are different for the two methodologies. Also, by using the classic EI99 methodology it is difficult to identify,
quantify and analyze the water related impacts, while the proposed new methodology allows for an in-depth analysis of water
related impacts, in terms of water consumption and wastewater discharges.

Key words: consumptive water use, degradative water use, life cycle assessment, water resources management, wine life cycle

Received: September, 2011; Revised final: February, 2012; Accepted: March, 2012

1. Introduction water use cycle. The current objectives of water

Due to the growing concern regarding limited
water resources and their uneven distribution,
mismanagement and climate change, there is a major
interest in developing management tools able to
quantify in an appropriate way the human activities
impacts on natural water bodies (Barjoveanu et al,
2010a; Teodosiu, 2006; 2007). In this context, a vast
array of environmental assessment methods and
instruments have been developed and implemented so
as to quantify different aspects of water use and water
quality related impacts of different stages across the
resources management, as expressed by the European
Water Framework directive, are oriented towards the
development and implementation of technological
and management instruments in order to achieve the
good water status, which has to limit as much as
possible the human induced water related impacts.
This is a very challenging task, since water resources
are part of so many complex systems and keeping
track and managing the various impacts of water use
becomes very difficult. In this context, the Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA), which quantifies environmental
impacts of products over their entire life cycles,


Author to whom all correspondence should be addressed: e-mail: gb@ch.tuiasi.ro; Phone/Fax: +40 232 237594
 Comandaru et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 11 (2012), 3, 533-543
represents an important instrument of tracking water
impacts of manufacturing and usage of production
goods and services.
Unfortunately, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
fails to represent all the impacts of the water use/
wastewater discharges (Barjoveanu et al., 2010b) to
the environment and to consider the whole water use
cycle. This situation prevents LCA of being used in a
correct and objective way as an appropriate
instrument for water management strategy and action
plans development and implementation.
LCA is used as an analytical tool that
evaluates the environmental impact caused by
products or processes/services throughout their entire
life cycle by calculating the impacts of using
resources and releasing pollutant species into the
environment, mainly based on cause-effect
relationships. Depending on methodology, the
environmental impacts are grouped into different
impact categories and classes (areas of protection)
and then are interpreted according to the goals and
scopes definition of the LCA study. In the current
LCA methodologies, water is seen as any abiotic
resource (Owens, 2002), whose consumption
generates impacts of various impact categories, while
the changes of the water quality along its use cycle
are generally ignored in most of the LCA studies
(Khasreen et al., 2009). This approach of the
traditional LCA studies is somehow motivated by the
fact that water itself does not suffer impacts and it is
not considered as an impact category (like e.g.
ecosystems or human health), but in turn it represents
only a transport media or sink for various pollutants
that generate impacts and which consequently are
considered and quantified. Anyway, the LCA
community has recognized the necessity of
developing a general assessment framework for water
Fig. 1. Water related impacts in current LCA methodologies with presentation of the proposed new indicators
534
resources through the establishment of impact
assessment methods for characterizing water usage
and more importantly water quality issues and their
related environmental impacts in LCA studies. This
issue has received increasing attention in the LCA
field for the past few years, but due to the lack of a
generally accepted methodology for assessing the
water use or water quality in LCA, this area of
research still remains challenging.
Many ideas about this type of evaluation were
developed, but each failed to emphasize a unique
scope and method on how that should be used
adequately in the LCA studies (Owens, 2002; Milà i
Cannals, 2009; Pfister et al., 2009). The lack of a
good and widely accepted method for evaluating
water use and changes of the water quality are
probably the most important reasons why LCA is
sometimes considered not a very relevant tool in
assessing water-related impacts. In traditional LCA
studies, water use is usually reported in the life cycle
inventory next to energy and materials as an input
into processes and products, therefore it is assessed
mainly from the consumption point of view (Bayart,
2010; Pfister et al., 2009) by generating water-
deprivation impacts to the environment and human
systems, as presented in Fig. 1.
From the qualitative point of view, as stated
above, water is merely a transport media for other
impact generators which in current LCA
methodologies are thoroughly investigated, modelled
and quantified (Forsberg, 2003; Hellweg et al., 2003;
Santero et al., 2011). Most of these impacts relate to
ecosystem health and human health LCIA impact
categories and usually these impacts are quantified
based on the effects of the pollutants on the aquatic
biota or human health, respectively.
Degradative depletition
Consumptive depletition
 Life Cycle Assessment of wine: focus on water use impact assessment
Although it is widely accepted and encouraged
to include in LCA studies the output of water related
impacts (Bayart, 2010; Pfister et al., 2009) to the
resources impact class, to our knowledge there is no
study performed to develop LCA methodologies that
consider also the impacts of releasing polluted water
on the availability of water resources for subsequent
(temporal or spatial) uses.
Given the need to develop LCA methodologies
that are compatible with the current water resources
management objectives, as well as to include all the
water use impacts into the existing LCA impact
categories, this study have the following objectives:
1. To design a LCA indicator (degradative water
use) aimed at quantifying the impacts of discharging
wastewaters on the availability for downstream or
subsequent water users, thus being a measure of the
water resources functionality.
2. To integrate this indicator together with another
water-use indicator (consumptive water use) in the
Eco-Indicator 99 methodology in order to present a
complete and accurate picture of the water related
impacts in a LCA case study.
3. To test the effectiveness of the new LCA
indicator scheme on a case study. This case study is
developed on the wine producing industry, which
contributes to a wide range of environmental impacts
due to the high demand of water and energy
(Benedetto, 2010).
2. Methodology and case study
2.1. LCA Methodology
As water resources have received increasing
importance in the recent LCA studies, several
approaches have been proposed to include the water-
related impacts within development of life cycle
inventories. Most of these studies focus on the input
dimension of water resources and the subsequent
impacts generated by the (intensive) water uses in
various impact categories, as presented in Fig. 1. In
general, water as an output is considered only as a
transport medium for other pollutants whose impacts
are subsequently quantified and analyzed, especially
in human-health and ecosystem quality impact
classes. Relatively recently (Pfister et al., 2008;
2009), acknowledged the fact that the LCA studies
should also consider the changes in water quality that
affect the availability and subsequent functionality of
water resources, but to our knowledge no studies have
been performed in order to define such indicators and
furthermore to calculate characterization factors
needed to compute these impacts. Pfister et al. (2008)
suggest that the degradative water use should be
addressed as a function of different water quality
classes, but they do not follow the idea into an impact
indicator. Bayart et al. (2010) also point out that the
degradative water use should be accounted into the
resources impact class, and furthermore state that the
quality aspects of wastewater discharge can be
modelled using two distinct approaches: distance to
target and functionality. Furthermore, the same
authors show that in the distance-to-target approach,
water quality issues can be modelled in two different
ways: either by quantifying the volumes of water
necessary to dilute pollutants to acceptable limits,
either by assessing the energy requirements needed to
eliminate the pollutants to acceptable levels.
The first option is very close to the grey water
concept (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008; Ene and
Teodosiu, 2011; Ene, 2011), and applying it would be
a real step forward in joining the water footprint
methodology with LCA practices. Calculating
dilution factors and volumes would indeed be an
indication of wastewaters impacts on the downstream
or subsequent availability of water resources, but
several practical drawbacks appear. Firstly, water
quality is a multi-dimensional problem, as water
quality cannot be expressed by a single quality
indicator and because of this, the calculation of
multiple dilution volumes for each pollutant species
will not represent the real impacts. Secondly, it would
be difficult to calculate characterization factors for
the generalization of this indicator because dilution
factors or volumes depend on the pollutant
concentrations, impact location and the life cycle
stages.
The second option, of evaluating the energy
needed to eliminate pollutant species presents a series
of advantages over the first one. This approach is very
similar to the other theoretical backup technologies,
and especially the seawater desalination energy
requirement that has been successfully applied in the
last period (Munoz and Fernandez-Alba, 2008; Vince
et al., 2008).
Consumptive water use (quantitative use of
water resources) represents all water inputs in the
products and systems life cycle, being the most
commonly used water resources indicator in the LCA
practices (Pfister et al., 2009). In this case study, the
consumptive water use impact category was
introduced in the EI 99 classic methodology to
measure the water use (consumption) impact on the
available resources from the place of sampling.
The present study is developed onto this approach and
it introduces a new end-point indicator, named
freshwater degradative use (in accordance with the
terminology proposed by Bayart et al., 2010) for
evaluating the impacts of discharging wastewaters
onto the availability of subsequent freshwater uses.
The freshwater degradative use quantifies the energy
needed to eliminate pollutants from wastewaters to
such levels so as not to hamper the subsequent water
users in using the freshwater resources.
This indicator is similar to the freshwater
consumptive use, proposed by Bayart et al. (2010) and
presented in Eq. (1), but it has two main differences:
 Because water quality is multidimensional,
and every pollutant species has a different energy
requirement to be eliminated, and moreover it has
to be reduced to different acceptable levels, the
535
 Comandaru et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 11 (2012), 3, 533-543
freshwater degradative use, ∆D in Eq. (1), is also
used as a characterization factor for the indicator;
 The freshwater degradative use considers the
specific elimination energy (MJ/m3) needed to
treat the freshwater degradative volume
(WUdegradative, m3).
Etreatment is also used as a characterization
factor for the degradative water use indicator as the
virtual surplus of energy needed to treat one cubic
meter of wastewater to such levels so as not to
hamper the subsequent water users in using the
freshwater resources. Choosing this as a
characterization factor for this indicator eliminates the
multi-dimensional problem of water quality.
D  E treatment  WU deg radative (1)
where: ΔD – freshwater degradative use (MJ),
Etreatment – specific elimination energy (MJ/m3),
WUdegradative – wastewater volume (degradative
volume), (m3).
Etreatment is based onto two generic treatment
processes, as presented in Table 1, considering the
necessity of eliminating pollutants to acceptable
levels.
Table 1. Characterization factors for different processes
Etreatment
Process References
(MJ/m3)
Conventional wastewater 3.2652 Pasqualino
treatment et al., 2011
(mechanical and biological)
Advanced wastewater 11 Pfister et al.,
treatment 2009
(membrane processes)
The current LCA case study is developed
using the Eco-Indicator 99 LCA methodology
(Goedkoop and Spriensma, 2000; Goedkoop and
Oele, 2001) by defining a new impact category in the
Resources impact class (area of protection) in order to
include the impacts of water use and discharging
wastewaters on the subsequent water uses.
2.2. Case study - LCA of a winemaking industry
The most important issues in the wine-making
process are: a considerable use of energy; different
kind of solid co-products during production, large
amounts of water used and wastewaters generated
from equipment cleaning operations, CO2 emissions
(Aranda et al., 2005; Gonzalez et al., 2006;
Notarnicola et al., 2003; Pizzigallo et al., 2008; Point,
2008). The causes for most of the CO2 emissions are
the transport, the way of packaging and distribution
of wine (van der Zanden, 2009). Like other usual
agricultural operations, viticulture is characterized by
high environmental impacts due to the use of
pesticides and fertilizers (Aranda et al., 2005).
The majority of LCA studies on wine
production have limits due to the lack of certain data
536
for a complete inventory, mainly emissions caused by
herbicides and fungicides, the total volume of water
used in the system (Point, 2008). In some case studies
water was not taken into account as an input due to
the variability of grapes species and the differences
between water regulations (Petti et al., 2006). One of
the objectives of this LCA study is to assess the
potential environmental impacts of the different
stages of the wine life cycle.
This research approaches the wine life cycle,
since its production contributes to a variety of
environmental impacts due to the high demand for
materials and energy. From a water use perspective,
water is an important resource for both grape and
wine production, as large quantities of water are
needed for irrigation in viticulture, while in wineries
water is mostly being used in cleaning operations.
2.3. LCA case study planning
The case study was based at a wine-production
facility with a capacity of 75,000 hl/year, situated in
Iasi County. The wine life cycle is organized in seven
stages: plantation establishment, grapes culture and
harvest, vinification, packaging, transport from the
seller (58 km), transport and takeover by the
consumer (5 km), storage and bottles recycling.
LCA planning refers to the setting of project
objectives (goals and scopes), defining the system
limits, setting the functional unit and the associated
reference product flow (ISO 14040, 2006; ISO 14044,
2006).
Goal and Scope definition
The goal of the LCA case study on wine
production aimed to quantify environmental impacts
of one bottle of white wine, using two LCIA
methodologies, namely Eco-Indicator 99 and the
updated Eco-Indicator 99 methodology (which
includes the water-related impact categories:
consumptive and degradative water use).
Furthermore, the aim of the study was to identify
what are the life stages and related processes of wine,
which generate high water-related impacts.
The System limits
The limits of the studied system, as well as the
frontline processes and life phases are presented in
Fig. 2. Our case study follows the main processes of
the winemaking industry, the use phase and the end-
of-life management. We have not included the
connected life cycles of bottles manufacturing and
corks, as these processes were not in accordance with
the aims of this study.
The Functional Unit (FU)
The Functional Unit (FU) represents the
quantified unit of production to which all inputs and
outputs generated during the product system are to be
reported (ISO, 2006a; 2006b).
 Life Cycle Assessment of wine: focus on water use impact assessment

SYSTEM LIMITS

Production Phase
Use Phase
Plantation establishment
Transport to End-of life Phase
consumer
Grape culture
Storage Bottle Recycling
Vinification
Use
Bottling and transport to seller

Fig. 2. Life Cycle Assessment system limits for wine production case study

Table 2. The Functional Unit components

Name of the component Type Weight (g)

Wine white 750
Glass white 750 mL 520 / 460
Stopper cork 2.97
Shrink hood plastic with Al insertion 0.78
Cardboard package 12 bottles 384 g/6 bottles 303 g 32 / 50.5
Glue (label) 0.2
Label + headband paper 1.52
Polyethylene Film packaging 0.2
Wood pallets 15 kg of 40 cartons 31.25
Total 1302.2 / 1242.2

The functional unit used in this survey was a
0.75 L bottle of white wine produced in 2005 whose
components of the functional unit are presented in
Table 2.
Data quality requirements
Basic data necessary for the study,
representative from the qualitative, temporal and
geographical point of view, were obtained directly
from a wine producer in Romania situated in Iasi
County. Background data were sourced from the
Ecoinvent database (Swiss Centre for Life-Cycle
Inventories, 2009) existent in SimaPro software
developed by Pré Consultants in the Netherlands (Pré
Consultants, 2008).
In order to model the life cycle using the
functional unit, SimaPro software (version 7.3.0) was
used, given its specific and multifunctional attributes
for LCA modeling which allows the analysis and
simulation of products and services environmental
performance.
2.4. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)
The Life Cycle Inventory (LCI) was compiled
considering all the resources and emissions connected
to different processes related to the functional unit.
Energy and raw material requirements, emissions in
air, water and soil, solid wastes, and other
environmental interventions (aspects) were quantified
for all the stages of the wine life cycle. In a LCA of a
product from a beverage industry and especially from
food industry, the analysis regarding the agricultural
stage is compulsory, due to the use of raw materials
like grains, grapes and water (Talve, 2001).

Table 3. Inputs and Outputs in the vineyard establishment stage

Input Output
Element Quantity (kg) / ha*year Source Element Quantity / ha*year (kg)
Solid Manure 2275.12 Air emissions
Triple Superphosphate 39.4 NH3 266.19
Potassium chloride 38.33 N2O 29.57
Winemaking Industry
Wire drawing 98.59 NO 29.57
Worksheet, 2005
Water 947 Water emissions
Insecticides 0.8
Nitrogen (as NO3-) 443.65
Aerated concrete block 1786.13
Logs 1.44 m2 Phosphorus (as super-
Benedetto, 2010 30.38
Diesel 50 phosphate)

537
 Comandaru et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 11 (2012), 3, 533-543

Table 4. Inputs and Outputs in the grapes growth stage

Input Output
Quantity (g) / kg
Element Source Element Quantity (kg) / ha*year
grapes
Insecticides 0.39 Air emissions
Water (green water)* 606000 NH3 154.56
Winemaking Industry
Solid manure 1321 NO 17.17
Worksheet, 2005
Fertiliser (P205) 14.86 N2O 17.17
Fertiliser (K) 9.9 Water emissions
Nitrogen (as NO3-) 257.56
Diesel 15.45 Notarnicola et al., 2003 Phosphorus (as super-
17.72
phosphate)
* This water flow considers all water that was available for grape development

Table 5. Inputs and Outputs in the Vinification stage

Input Output
Quantity (g) / kg wine Quantity (mg) / kg
Element Source Element
for packing wine for packing
Grapes 1458.3 Air emissions
SO2 0.17 Acetaldehyde 0.09
Bentonite 1.33 Ethanol 220
Expanded Perlite 1.33 Methanol 0.08
Hydrogen sulfide 0.17
Soda 0.5
Water emissions
Winemaking Industry
Suspended solids 1840
Sodium phosphate 0.17 Worksheet, 2005
BOD 4660
Lubricating oil 0.17 COD 6990
NH4 46.6
Water process) 1766
H2S 46.6
Drinking water
1300
(process water)
Electricity 0.4 kwh Benedetto, 2010 Detergents 23.3

Table 6. Inputs in the Wine Packing stage

Element Quantity / FU
Cork (g) 2.97
Polyvinylchloride (g) 0.78
Paper (labels) (g) 1.52
Packaging film (g) 0.2
Wood pellets (m3) 0.000048
Electricity (kwh) 0.135

Table 7. Wastewater characteristics for the winemaking industry

Concentration Maximum allowed concentration (mg/L)

Wastewater parameters
(mg/L) according to HG 352/2005
Suspended solids 1840 150
BOD 4660 25
COD 6990 125
NH4 46.6 5
Detergents 23.3 0.05

The LCI inventory was compiled for an
average production of grapes per hectare in 2005 of
7570 kg. In order to obtain a bottle of wine of 0.75 L
(the functional unit), are 1.09 kg of grapes or 1.44 m2
plantation necessary. It is assumed that the plantation
has a life period of 30 years of which, the first two
years are dedicated to its founding. Tables 3 to 6
present all the inputs and outputs for each stage of the
wine life cycle.
Table 7 presents the average wastewater
quality indicators used to compute the water
emissions. One may observe that for the assessed
period (2005), there were significant problems for all
wastewater quality indicators.
2.5. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)
According to the study objectives, the Life
Cycle Impact Assessment was performed to compare
the updated methodology presented at Chapter 2.1
with the classic Eco-indicator 99 methodology.

538
 Life Cycle Assessment of wine: focus on water use impact assessment
According to ISO 14040:2006 (ISO, 2006a)
the LCIA framework involves 4 phases: two
mandatory (Classification, Characterization) and two
optional (Normalization and Weighting). The
structure of classic and updated Eco-indicator 99
methods is presented in Fig. 3, where one may
observe that in the Classification step the inventory
entries are assigned into different impact categories.
In the Characterization step, impact values are
computed for each of the input/output entries within
the LC inventory by means of characterization factors
which serve at providing an impact reference for
different substances (entries) that give impact in the
same impact category. For the classic Eco-Indicator
99 methodologies, default values were sourced from
SimaPro (Pré Consultants, 2008), while for the new
and updated Eco-indicator 99 methodology, the water
stress index (Alcamo et al., 2000; Döll et al., 1999)
was used as a characterization factor for the
Consumptive water use indicator and the specific
energy consumption (Eq. 1) was used as a
characterization factor for the Degradative water use
indicator.
For comparing impacts of different impact
categories, in the Normalization phase, the relative
contribution of several impact categories is computed
by using normalization factors, which were sourced
from a dedicated study (Pfister et al., 2009).
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Life cycle impact assessment analysis using Eco-
Indicator 99 classic methodology
To have a starting point in the life cycle
inventory analysis of a bottle of wine, the following
life cycle impact assessment results were computed
by using the Eco-indicator 99 (EI99) classical
methodology. Eco-indicator 99 method uses, apart
Fig. 3. Eco-indicator 99 Methods (classic and updated) impact categories structures
from the characterization of the impact phases for
each impact category (mandatory according to ISO
14040), the normalization stage, where all indicators
(impact categories) are grouped into classes of impact
(areas of protection, damage assessment) by
expressing them in the same unit of measure.
Subsequent to the normalization stage, the results can
be expressed in a single global indicator (single
score), only after the weighting phase.
The representation and interpretation of results can be
achieved either by considering the total impact of the
functional unit (bottle of wine), or by process
categories and life cycle stages, in the latter case, the
results analysis can be achieved with a more detailed
level. In this case, the results have been presented by
processes and life cycle stages. Because the life-cycle
implementation, life cycle stages components have
been grouped in sets, some of these processes
including other processes, but the results are not
affected by the automatic grouping carried out in
SimaPro software.
The life cycle impact assessment analysis can
also be performed by following the impacts
distribution of various life cycle stages in the impact
categories specific to EI99. In Fig. 4 it can be
observed the impact distribution of the production
processes, which significantly contributes in all
impact categories. Slightly lower impacts are
generated by the energy production and transport of
materials and finished products.
The comparison of impact values across
different impact categories can only be possible by
normalization. Such a comparison is presented in Fig.
5, showing that the largest impacts are generated by
the respiratory inorganic category, followed by
acidification - eutrophication and in a lower
proportion in fossil fuels and climate change
categories.
539
 Comandaru et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 11 (2012), 3, 533-543

100% provide detailed information on the impacts related to

80%
water resources.
60%
3.2. Life cycle impact assessment analysis using Eco-
40% indicator 99 updated methodology
20%
EI99 updated methodology includes the water-
0%
related impacts: consumptive and degradative water

n
s

y
n

se
ics

s
ics

er
ge

ls
tio
use. In Fig. 6, it may be observed the impacts
en

al
cit
io

ue
 u
lay
an
an

er
an

at

ica
og

i
ox

nd

il f
ch

in
e 
rg
rg

di
cin

ph
ot

La

ss
on
Ra
no
. o

e 

ro
distribution of various life cycle stages in specific
Ec

Fo
r

at

Oz
Ca

. i
sp

ut
im
sp
Re

 E
Cl
Re

n/

impact categories for wine production case study.

tio

Production Use 
ca

Energy Transport
ifi

Processes from the production group contribute

id

Waste
Ac

significantly in all impact categories, especially in the

Fig. 4. Distribution of life cycle phase over specific impact Consumptive use water and Degradative water use.
categories related to EI99 classic applied for wine The impact related to the latter is being generated by
production the energy use required for the removal of the
existing pollutants in the wastewater, especially those
0.0014 that are removed by advanced treatment processes.
0.0012 Significant impacts are generated by the energy,
0.001 transport and use production processes.
0.0008
0.0006
100%
0.0004
80%
0.0002
0 60%
ic s

ty

s
n
cs

als
n
s

se
e

el
en

e
io

tio
ng
ni

ic i
lay

 u
an

fu
er

40%
at
og

ha

ca

nd
ox

in

i l 
rg
rg

di

e 
in

hi
e c

ot

ss
M
La
.  o

no

on
Ra
rc

op

Fo
Ec
at
.  i
sp

Oz
Ca

tr
im
sp
Re

20%
Eu
Re

Cl

n/
ti o
ca

0%
ifi
id
Ac

n
s

e
ty
n
ics

se
r

s
ics

ge

ls

se
tio
en

al

e W r  us
io

ue
ici

 u
lay
an
an

 U
er
an

at

ica
og

ox

nd

l f

er
e
ch

in
e 
rg
rg

di
in

ph

at
i
ot

La

at
s
on
no

Ra
. o

e 
rc

u m Fos

e W
Ec

ro
at

Oz
Ca

. i
sp

Fig. 5. Distribution of total impact in impact categories the

ut
im
sp
Re

De ptiv

iv
 E
Cl
Re

at
n/

ad
classic EI99 methodology applied for wine production case
tio

Production Use

gr
ns
ca

Co
Energy Transport
ifi

study
id

Waste
Ac

The wine production stage generates the most
important environmental impacts in all categories or
impact classes. Although EI99 is an established
methodology in LCA practices that can be
successfully applied to complex and detailed analysis
Fig. 6. Distribution of life cycle phase over specific impact
categories related to updated EI99 methodology applied for
wine production case study
0.9

of life cycle stages of products and services, and its 0.8

0.7
application for impacts analysis related to water 0.6
resources, have the following limitations: 0.5

 From the specific EI99 impact categories 0.4

0.3
definitions, as well as from the analysis presented 0.2
above, it can be seen that the impact related to water 0.1
consumption is not taken into account in quantifying 0

the impacts of the Resource impact category;

e c ic s

ls
hi y
on on
no ics

Fo rals
. o ns

er

se
Ra ge

se
at e
t
tio

ue

s
ic i
e

lay

 u
an

im rg an

ti

 U
n

u
Re nog

e
ha

ive t er 
De ptiv si l f
ca
 Eu tox

nd

in

er
rg

di

e 

 The qualitative aspects of water resources

M
La
i

a
s
rc

op

 W
Ec
at
.  i
sp

Oz
Ca

tr

e 
sp

are included in Human health and Ecosystem quality

Re

Cl

at
n/

um

ad
ti o

gr

impact category, but they are „hidden” in specific

ns
ca

Co
ifi
id

indicators to these categories, whose expression is

Ac

not directly used in this LCA study for suggesting

measures related to water resource management in
the vines or wine production.
For these reasons, the update of EI99
methodology, by considering all types of impacts
related to water consumption, especially the
qualitative aspects of water resources, is a scientific
approach fully justified. In terms of water resources,
the usage of the classic EI99 methodology does not
Fig. 7. Normalization phase over specific impact
categories related to updated EI99 methodology
applied for wine production case study
In the normalization phase is possible to
compare the impact categories. Thus in Fig. 7 one
may observe that the most significant impacts are
generated in the acidification/eutrophication and
consumptive water use categories, followed by fossil

540
 Life Cycle Assessment of wine: focus on water use impact assessment

fuels and in a lower proportion the degradative water produced the largest volumes of wastewater (related
use. to functional unit) throughout the product life cycle.
The use of fertilizers for the vine plantation In addition, energy consumption is high because,
and respectively for its cultivation, especially those based on water quality indicators exceeding discharge
based on nitrogen, generates high impact in the limits, it was considered the necessity of a virtual
acidification/eutrophication category. Since the advanced treatment, thus a high virtual energy input
impact generated by the emissions in water, this is for removing pollutants to acceptable limits.
being measured in other impact categories of the
classic EI99 methodology; water quality mitigation 0.016

Degradative water use impact (MJ/FU)
efforts must be quantified as a loss of water resources. 0.014
Waste
0.012 Transport
3.2.1. Consumptive water use 0.01
Energy
Use
Fig. 8 presents the water supply impact 0.008 Production
distribution that generates impact in consumptive 0.006
water use category. These volumes of water are
0.004
reported to the functional unit. It can be observed that
0.002
the process water is that one which contributes
mostly to the water consumption associated impacts 0
Vinification Packaging  Diesel Remaining
followed by the input in the grape growth stages. production processes

1.4 Fig. 10. Contribution of production processes on the water

consumption impacts in the Degradative water use category
Water consumption impact, kg/FU

1.2

1
The results presented in Fig. 11 represent the
0.8 comparison of the total impacts in all impact classes
0.6
computed through the two methodologies applied for
wine case study. In the classic EI 99 methodology,
0.4
the Human Health (HH) impact class has the higher
0.2 value (64 of the total impact), followed by Ecosystem
0 quality and Resources impact categories. This profile
Process water Water, natural origin Remaining water inputs is changed when using the updated EI99
methodology, most of the impacts being generated in
this case in the ecosystem quality and resources
Fig. 8. Contribution of water types on water consumption
impacts in the Consumptive water use category classes.

In terms of processes contribution to the 100

90
consumptive water use category impacts, in Fig. 9 can 80
be seen that production processes (i.e. grape growth, 70
Classic EI99 Updated EI 99
% of total impact

respectively the wine-making process), leads to the 60

highest impacts. 50
40
30
1.4
20
Water consumption impact / FU 

1.2 10
1 0
Human Health Ecosystem Quality Resources
0.8

0.6

0.4 Fig. 11. Comparison between the total impact in the classic
0.2 and updated EI 99 methodologies
0
Vinification Vineyard Grape culture Remaining 4. Conclusions
establishment processes

The objective of the study was to develop and

Fig. 9. Contribution of production processes on the water test two new impact categories within the Eco-
consumption impacts in the Consumptive water use
Indicator 99 LCIA framework, which would include
category
the impacts due to water consumption (consumptive
water use) and due to changes in water quality
3.2.2. Degradative water use
In Fig. 10 it can be seen the process (degradative water use). The consumptive water use
contribution to Degradative water use impact approaches the quantitative aspects of water
consumption for subsequent availability, while the
category; the winemaking process has the highest
contribution, because in that process there are being degradative water use measures the impact of
wastewater discharge as the energy required to

541
 Comandaru et al./Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 11 (2012), 3, 533-543
remove the pollutants from wastewater to a level so
that water will be available for future uses. This study
considered the wine production industry in a facility
situated in Iasi County.
The results of the LCIA through both
methodologies have shown that for this case study,
the highest impacts are caused during the production
phase in the wine life cycle, although the impact
profiles generated through the two methodologies are
quite different. The classic EI99 methodology present
high impacts in the human health and ecosystem
quality classes (especially due to the respiratory
inorganics and acidification potential), while the
updated EI99 methodology presents high impacts in
the water resources impact class due to the high
values of consumptive and degradative use.
By using the updated EI99 methodology, it
was possible to identify the processes and stages in
the wine life cycle that generate water related
impacts, and furthermore to quantify and compare
them, which demonstrates the usefulness of the
proposed impact indicators.
The inclusion of water use impact assessment
in LCA remains a challenging domain. This study
represents an attempt to develop and test water-
related impact indicators to be used in LCIA
methodologies. Further development and research is
needed to refine these two indicators by including
them into the other impact classes (for example the
consumptive water use certainly causes effects to
human health), and to test them onto different case
studies. While degradative water use has been defined
in this paper as a measure of the additional energetic
effort needed to eliminate pollutants to such levels not
to hamper subsequent water users (current legal
limits), it still needs improvement so as to consider de
local effects on the water resources (river basin), so as
to be able to use LCA as an effective water
management instrument.
Acknowledgement
This study was realized with the support of the EURODOC
Project “Doctoral Scholarships for research performance at
European level” (ID 59410) and PERFORM-ERA
“Postdoctoral Performance for Integration in the European
Research Area” (ID 57649), financed by the European
Social Fund and the Romanian Government.
References
Alcamo J., Henrichs T., Rösch T., (2000), World Water in
2025 - Global modeling and scenario analysis, In:
World Water Scenarios – Analyses, Rijsberman F.
(Ed.), Earthscan Publications, London.
Aranda A., Scarpellini S., Zabalza I., (2005), Economic and
environmental analysis of the wine bottle production in
Spain by means of life cycle assessment, International
Journal of Agricultural Resource, Governance and
Ecology, 4, 178-191.
Barjoveanu G., Cojocariu C., Robu B., Teodosiu C.,
(2010a), Integrated assessment of wastewater treatment
plants for sustainable river basin management,
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal,
9, 1251- 1258.
542
Barjoveanu G., Comandaru I. M., Teodosiu C., (2010b),
Life cycle assessment of water and wastewater
treatment systems: An overview, The Bulletin of the
Polytechnic Institute of Iassy, Chemistry and Chemical
Engineering Section, LVI(LX), 73-86.
Bayart J.B., Bulle C., Deschênes L., Margni M., Pfister S.,
Vince F., Koehler A., (2010), A framework for
assessing off-stream freshwater use in LCA,
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 15,
439-453.
Benedetto G., (2010), Life Cycle Environmental impact of
Sardinian wine, Paper prepared for the 119th EAAE
Seminar „Sustainablility in the Food Sector:
Rethinking the Relationship between the Agro-Food
System and the Natural, Social, Economic and
Institutional Environments”, Capri, Italy.
Döll P., Kaspar F., Alcamo J., (1999), Computation of
global water availability and water use at the scale of
large drainage basins, Mathematische Geologie, 4,
111-118.
Ene S.A., Teodosiu C., (2011), Grey water footprint
assessment and challenges for its implementation,
Environmental Engineering and Management Journal,
10, 333-340.
Ene S.A., (2011), Studies on Water Footprint With
Application in Integrated Water Resources
Management, Politehnium Publishing House, Iasi,
Romania.
Forsberg P., (2003), Modelling and calculation techniques
for environmental systems, Thesis for the Degree of
Licentiate of Engineering, Goteborg, Sweden.
Goedkoop M., Spriensma R., (2000), The Eco-indicator 99:
A damage oriented method for life cycle impact
assessment, PRé Consultants, Amersfoort, The
Netherlands, On line at: www.pre.nl/eco-indicator99/.
Goedkoop M., Oele M., (2001), Introduction into LCA
methodology and practice with SimaPro 5, PréProduct
ecology consultants, Amersfoort.
Gonzalez A., Klimchuk A., Martin M., (2006), Life Cycle
Assessment of Wine Production Process: Finding
Relevant Process Efficiency and Comparison to Eco-
Wine Production, Royal Institute of Technology,
Stockholm.
Hellweg S., Hofstetter T.B., Hungerbühler K., (2003),
Discounting and the environment. should current
impacts be weighted differently than impacts harming
future generations?, International Journal of Life Cycle
Assessment, 8, 8–18.
Hoekstra A.Y., Chapagain A.K., (2008), Globalization of
Water: Sharing the Planet's Freshwater Resources,
Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK.
ISO, (2006a), ISO 14040 Environmental management –
Life cycle assessment – Principles and framework,
International Organization for Standardization.
ISO, (2006b), ISO 14044 – Environmental management –
Life cycle assessment – Requirements and guidelines,
International Organization for Standardization.
Khasreen M.M., Banfill P.F.G., Menzies G.F., (2009), Life-
Cycle Assessment and the environmental impact of
buildings: A review, Sustainability, 1, 674-701.
Milà i Canals L., Chenoweth J., Chapagain A.K., Orr S.,
Antón A., Clift R., (2009), Assessing freshwater use
impacts in LCA Part I: Inventory modelling and
characterisation factors for the main impact pathways,
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 14, 28-
42.
Munoz I., Fernandez-Alba A.R., (2008), Reducing the
environmental impacts of reverse osmosis desalination
 Life Cycle Assessment of wine: focus on water use impact assessment
by using brackish groundwater resources, Water
Research, 42, 801–811.
Notarnicola B., Tassielli G., Nicoletti G.M., (2003), Life
Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Wine Production, In:
Environmentally-friendlyfood processing, Mattson B.,
Sonesson U. (Eds.), Woodhead Publishing Limited,
Cambridge, England, 306-326.
Owens J.W., (2002), Water resources in Life- Cycle Impact
Assessment considerations in choosing category
indicators, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5, 37-54.
Pasqualino J.C., Meneses M., Castells F., (2011), Life
Cycle Assessment of urban wastewater reclamation
and reuse alternatives, Journal of Industrial Ecology,
15, 49–63.
Petti L., Raggi A., De Camillis C., Matteucci P., Sára B.,
Pagliuca G., (2006), Life cycle approach in an organic
wine-making firm: an Italian case-study, Proceedings
5th Australian Conference on Life Cycle Assessment,
Melbourne, Australia, 22-24 November 2006.
Pfister S., Stoessel F., Juraske R., Koehler A., Hellweg S.,
(2008), Regionalized LCIA of vegetable and fruit
production: quantifying the environmental impacts of
freshwater use, Proceedings 6th International
Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-
Food Sector, Zurich, Switzerland, November 12–14,
2008, 3–4.
Pfister S., Koehler A. Hellweg S., (2009), Assessing the
environmental impacts of freshwater consumption in
LCA, Environmental Science & Technology, 43, 4098–
4104.
Pizzigallo A.C.I., Granai C., Borsa S., (2008), The Joint
Use of LCA and Emergy Evaluation for the Analysis of
View publication stats
Two Italian Wine Farms, Journal of Environmental
Management, 86, 396-406.
Point E.V., (2008), Life Cycle Environmental Impacts of
wine production and consumption in Nova Scotia,
Thesis for the Degree of Master of Environmental
Studies, Canada Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova
Scotia.
Pré Consultants, (2008), Life Cycle Consultancy and
Software Solutions, On line at: http://www.pre.nl.
Santero N., Loijos A., Akbarian M., Ochsendorf J., (2011),
Methods, impacts, and opportunities in the concrete
pavement life cycle, Concrete Sustainability Hub,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Swiss Centre for Life-Cycle Inventories, (2009), Ecoinvent
database v. 2.01, Technical report 2008, On line at:
www.ecoinvent.org.
Talve S., (2001), Life Cycle Assessment of a basic lager
beer, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment,
6, 293–298.
Teodosiu C., (2006), Sustainable Water Management. I.
Water Treatment for Drinking and Industrial Purposes,
(in Romanian), Ecozone Publishing House, Iaşi,
Romania.
Teodosiu C., (2007), Challenges for integrated water
resources management in Romania, Environmental
Engineering and Management Journal, 6, 363−374.
van der Zanden G.J., (2009), The truth about CO2 emissions
in the wine industry, Viña De Martino, Reinventing
Chile.
Vince F., Aoustin E., Breant P., Marechal F., (2008), LCA
tool for the environmental evaluation of potable water
production, Desalination, 220, 37–56.
543