Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 44–49

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/seta

Energy recovery from wine sector wastes: A study about the biogas T
generation potential in a vineyard from Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
⁎
Marildo Guerini Filho , Marluce Lumi, Camila Hasan, Munique Marder, Letícia C.S. Leite,
Odorico Konrad
Laboratory of Bioreactors, Environmental Engineering Course, University of Vale do Taquari, Lajeado, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The constant concern with the environment and the depletion of fossil fuels has attracted interest in renewable
Winery waste energy from bio resources and/or materials wasted incorrectly. The process of anaerobic digestion converts
Biomethane organic waste into valuable energy sources, while reducing the pollution potential of this waste to the en-
Bioenergy vironment. The study was designed to analyze the biogas and methane generation potential from organic by-
Biogas
products of wine. Using the methodology described in VDI 4630 and automated biogas quantification based on
Anaerobic digestion
the displacement of fluids. The results showed the biogas and methane production potential of the wine bio-
masses, and the ones with greatest potentials are grape must, the mixture of all biomass and bagasse 1.151; 289
and 199 m3 biogas.tonVS−1, respectively. Likewise, it was verified that biomass energy recovery for methane
production has the capacity to supply approximately 2% of the natural gas demand in Rio Grande do Sul. These
results presented specifically the biomass characterization of the wine sector and as potential energy for the
production of biogas and methane, verifying the possibility of using this form of clean and sustainable energy on
a large scale.

Introduction
The wine activity is one of the leading sectors in the food processing
industry. According to the International Organization of Vine and Wine
(OIV) the world wine production in 2015 was approximately 280 mil-
lion hectoliters or 28 billion litters, and France and Italy are the
countries with the highest production, which correspond to approxi-
mately one third of the global volume [1].
According to the OIV, Brazil is the 15th country with the highest
production of wine in the world (≅280 million liters), whose production
is concentrated mainly in the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS). According
to the Brazilian Institute of Wine, the RS has 731 wineries legally re-
gistered in the IBRAVIN and produces about 90% of the Brazilian wine
(≅250 million liters), and the cities of Bento Gonçalves, Flores da
Cunha, Farroupilha, Garibaldi, Caxias do Sul, Carlos Barbosa, Cotiporã,
Vila Flores, Nova Roma do Sul, Antonio Prado and Veranópolis are the
largest wine producers [2].
The wine industry has become an activity of great social and eco-
nomic importance in this region of the Northeast Gaucha Highlands [3].
In addition, the Atlas of the Rio Grande do Sul Biomass shows that this
region generates annually about 290.000 tons of biomass from the wine
sector and which can be harnessed to generate biogas and methane [4].
The wine is a traditional and seasonal process in the State of Rio
Grande do Sul that varies according to the type of wine produced. In
general, the process consists in harvesting, milling, pressing, fer-
menting, decanting, stabilizing and bottling, and in each one of these
steps by-products can be generated [5].
Researches from the Italian Agency for Environmental Protection
(APAT) evaluated the amount of waste generated in the grape wine
process and found that 2 L of effluent are generated from the processing
of 1 L of wine, but this value is directly related to the type of technology
used. The main by-products are generated in vineyards are bagasse,
stems and dregs, whose generation is estimated at 0.18, 0.04 and
0.06 kg, respectively, per liter of wine processed [6,7].
To Da Ros et al. the anaerobic digestion of the by-products from the
wine production show as a very promising treatment, since it is possible
to use the biogas as a source of clean energy [8]. Through the anaerobic
digestion, the organic material contained in the biomass is converted
into biogas, whose main constituents are methane (CH4) and carbon
dioxide (CO2) [9,10]. Besides these, other gases are found in smaller
proportions as water vapors (H2O), hydrogen sulphide (H2S), hydro-
carbons, ammonia (NH3), oxygen (O2), carbon monoxide (CO) and ni-
trogen (N2) [11,12,13]. Other gas production routes can be exploited
through anaerobic digestion, for example the generation of hydrogen

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mfilho1@universo.univates.br (M. Guerini Filho).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2018.06.006
Received 21 November 2017; Received in revised form 19 April 2018; Accepted 27 June 2018
2213-1388/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Guerini Filho et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 44–49

[14,15], however, this study will only address the generation of biogas. Table 1
The CH4 is the most economically important gas because of its ca- Characterization of the total, volatile and fixed solids at the beginning of the
lorific power (biogas with 65% of methane has calorific value of experiment (average ± SD).
22.35 kJ.m3−1) [11,12,16]. After the biogas being subjected to filtra- Biomass TS (%) VS (%) FS (%)
tion and purification processes, it can reach 98% of CH4 and assume
characteristics similar to the natural gas vehicular (NGV). In addition to Triplicate 1 3.52 ± 0.04 52.88 ± 0.12 47.11 ± 0.12
Triplicate 2 4.44 ± 0.06 54.17 ± 0.12 45.82 ± 0.12
this usage, biogas can either be used as a heat source or electric power
Triplicate 3 4.44 ± 0.04 53.97 ± 0.12 46.02 ± 0.12
generator [17,18]. Triplicate 4 2.46 ± 0.03 38.63 ± 0.30 61.36 ± 0.12
Agro industrial wastes are increasingly being used as a biomass, for Triplicate 5 2.58 ± 0.04 60.36 ± 0.32 39.63 ± 0.30
generating energy. The biogas production from anaerobic digestion Triplicate 6 4.56 ± 0.04 54.29 ± 0.10 45.70 ± 0.10
Triplicate 7 4.37 ± 0.05 54.73 ± 0.11 45.26 ± 0.11
using different methodologies are evaluated and used throughout the
world as the main source of biogas production from organic substrates
[19,20,21,22]. Da Ros et al. evaluated the recycling of vineyard re-
CH4 contained in the biogas. The CH4 readings were carried out every
sidues through anaerobic co-digestion with the use of activated sludge
day with the injection of an aliquot of 20 mL of biogas generated in
and found that the waste obtained yields of 0.40 Nm3.kgCOD−1 with
each one of the reactors. This methodology is based on the automated
percentages of 65% methane [8]. Liao et al. investigated the biogas
system of fluid displacement described by Konrad et al. [32].
generation from sludge with low organic matter concentration and
The biomasses used (bagasse, stems, must and sludge from waste-
found that sludge with organic content < 50% decreased biogas pro-
water treatment plant) were collected at a vineyard located in the city
duction to 25–30% [23]. Achkar et al. studied the potential of methane
of Farroupilha, in the Gaucha Highlands region. The inoculum pre-in-
using grape pomace, pulp and seeds in the process of anaerobic diges-
cubated for a period of ten days comes from the mesophilic and anae-
tion. They observed that the grinding of the substrates increases the
robic treatment of livestock waste from the Biogas and the Renewable
maximum degradability of 22% [24]. Da Ros et al. studied the ther-
Energy Studies Center from Univates. The biomasses were packed in
mophilic digestion of batch wine substrates, they found that longer
HDPE bottles and sent to the Bioreactors Laboratory for solids content
hydraulic retention time (HRT) and the use of co-substrates can im-
characterization (Table 1). The AOAC [33] determinations were used to
prove biogas production [25]. Lumi et al. evaluated the biogas gen-
evaluate the physicochemical parameters: total solids (TS), volatile
eration potential from animal waste supplemented with different per-
solids (VS), and fixed solids (FS).
centage of babassu oil and concluded that the oil supplementation in
Twenty one reactors containing 600 mL of substrate were used in
7.5% proved to be the most effective [26]. In addition, a number of
this study, which were placed in an incubator with controlled meso-
other studies show that the production of biogas from anaerobic bio-
philic temperature (37 °C ± 2 °C) and attached to the automated
digestion can improve efficiency in waste treatment, overcoming en-
system for measuring biogas volume (Fig. 1).
ergy deficits and especially by bringing an extra source of income to
The reactors were divided in triplicate, according to the substrate
industries [27].
mixture: Inoculum (Triplicate 1), Inoculum and Bagasse (Triplicate 2),
In short, the use of the anaerobic digestion process of biomass from
Inoculum and Stem (Triplicate 3), Inoculum and Primary Sludge
the wine industry is an adequate alternative, because reduces energy
(Triplicate 4), Inoculum and Secondary Sludge (Triplicate 5), Inoculum
costs and is able to improve treatment efficiencies [28], due to the
and Must (Triplicate 6) and Mix - Inoculum and 43% of bagasse, 34% of
seasonality of the organic load flow of the biomasses of these industries
Stem, 9% of Primary Sludge, 9% of Secondary Sludge and 5% of Must-
becomes favorable, once the microorganisms present enable the inter-
(Triplicate 7).
ruption in load flow feeding [29].
The specific methanogenic potential (BMP) was based on the prin-
In this context, considering that the Rio Grande do Sul, especially
ciples described in VDI 4630 norm [34] except for some alterations to
the Gaucha Highlands has great potential for generating biomass from
the gas measurement system [26,35]. The ratio between inoculum and
the wine sector, and the fact that the Gaucho Government established in
substrate used was 2 based on the VS. The experiment was concluded
the year 2016 the State Policy for the Promotion of Generation and Use
when the daily gas production was equivalent to 1% of the total volume
of Biomethane, law n°. 14.864 [30], this study aimed to characterize
of gas produced during the experiment.
qualitatively, quantitatively and evaluate the biogas and methane
The results obtained about the generation of biogas and methane
generation of biomass from the vinification process and, thus, con-
was analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
tribute to the advancement of bioenergy in the State.
(SPSS), 20.0 version. We used the Shapiro-Wilk test to analyze the
variables that followed the normal distribution. The variables did not
Methodology
show normal distribution and therefore analyses were performed using
non-parametric tests (Kruskal-Wallis followed by Dunnett post hoc).
The study was conducted at the University of Vale do Taquari -
The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the seven samples of
UNIVATES in the Bioreactor Laboratory which is equipped with an
biomass to the degree of gas generation (biogas and methane) during
automated quantification system of biogas which is composed of re-
the study period. The Dunnett's post hoc test was used to analyze the
actors with a capacity of 1 l, glass tubes in “U” shape, optical sensor and
differences between the samples, two by two, and according to the kind
a polystyrene ball connected to an electronic circuit that records and
of gas generated. Besides these, descriptive statistical tests were per-
stores the biogas volume that passes through the system.
formed as average, standard deviation and variance.
The biogas quantification occurs when the fluid level contained in it
is high in its opposite side, as the gas exerts pressure on one of the sides
of the “U” tube. Each time this process happens, the optical sensor that Results and discussion
sends the information to the storage system detects it [26].
The generated biogas volume is determined by the combined The bio kinetic tests were prepared in accordance with the volatile
equation of ideal gas where the relation among pressure, temperature solids analysis, as shown in Table 2.
and volume of a gas is constant [31]. However, when starting each In Table 3 there are the percentage of removal and increase of TS,
experiment is carried out the system calibration, considering the tem- VS and FS after the anaerobic digestion period. The analysis showed
perature, volume and pressure of the calibration moment. results close to those found by [36], which carried out the character-
A sensor called Advanced Gasmitter (manufactured by PRONOVA ization of the waste generated in a vineyard and also were close to the
Analysentechmik GmbH & Co) is used to determine the concentration of values obtained by [37], which managed from a homogenous mixture,

45
M. Guerini Filho et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 44–49

Fig. 1. Automated system for biogas quantitation.

Table 2 the TS value of 3%.

Reactors composition to determine the BMP. Considering that in the biodigestion process the degradation of the
Triplicate Biomass Production days ml biomass g.VS organic matter to the formation of gas occurs, some physical parameters
of the biomass undergo changes. For forming gas microorganisms ty-
1 Inoculum 23 600.00 11.18 pically use whole or in part, depending on the efficiency of digestion,
2 Inoculum 23 581.60 10.84
the volatile organic content (volatile solids) present in the biomass. In
Bagasse 18.40 5.58
3 Inoculum 23 582.90 10.86
this way, it can be said that gas production is directly linked to the
Stem 17.10 5.59 consumption of volatile solids [38,39].
4 Inoculum 23 123.40 2.30 In this research it was verified that the triplicate 6 showed higher
Primary Sludge 476.60 3.65 removal of TS and VS. These values can be justified in function of or-
5 Inoculum 23 191.20 3.56
ganic load systems, where the tests with higher load supplied more food
Secondary Sludge 408.80 5.59
6 Inoculum 16 540.80 10.08 to the microorganisms and, consequently, considering an efficient di-
Must 59.20 5.59 gestion process, therefore further reduction of this material and higher
7 Inoculum 23 570.90 10.64 production of biogas [40].
Mixture 29.10 5.59

Specific methanogenic potential

Table 3
Percentage of removal (−) and increase (+) of the TS, VS and FS parameters. In Table 4 there is the specific potential (m3.gVS−1), the average of
Sample TS (%) VS (%) FS (%)
total production (mL) and the volume of biogas and methane per ton. of
biomass (m3.ton.biomass−1).
Triplicate 1 −0.43 −4.64 +4.64 The greater generation of biogas and methane was obtained from
Triplicate 2 −0.83 −1.14 +1.14 the anaerobic degradation of must (triplicate 6), which corresponds to
Triplicate 3 −0.92 −2.89 +2.89
Triplicate 4 −0.28 +1.38 −1.38
1151.71 and 837.69 m3.tonVS−1, respectively. The triplicate 7, con-
Triplicate 5 −0.38 −3.92 +3.92 taining the waste mixture had the second best potential,
Triplicate 6 −0.93 −6.74 +6.74 289.13 m3.tonVS−1 of biogas and 212 m3.tonVS−1 of methane, while
Triplicate 7 −0.66 −1.92 +1.92 triplicate 2 that represents the bagasse generated at the end of 23 days,
199.04 and 148 m3.tonVS−1 of biogas and methane. The biogas and
methane production, obtained mainly in the sample with must, was
close to the research conducted by [37] where the authors had results of

Table 4
Specific methanogenic potential (BMP*).
Sample Biogas CH4

Total (ml) m3.tonVS−1 m3.ton of biomass−1 Total (ml) m3.tonSV−1 m3.ton of biomass−1

Triplicate 1 1.314.76 117.54 2.19 616.42 55.11 1.03

Triplicate 2 2.386.72 199.04 60.45 1.425.15 148.10 44.98
Triplicate 3 2.024.75 133.60 43.71 535.25 < 50.00 < 10.00
Triplicate 4 306.82 < 50.00 < 10.00 68.58 < 50.00 < 10.00
Triplicate 5 741.54 < 50.00 < 10.00 272.88 < 50.00 < 10.00
Triplicate 6 7.624.48 1.151.71 108.77 5.239.30 837.69 79.12
Triplicate 7 2.868.65 289.13 55.59 1.772.62 212.00 40.76

* The Calculations for the BPM were carried out according to the VDI 4630 norm.

46
M. Guerini Filho et al. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 44–49

Table 5 biogas generation was 82% and 118% higher, while the methane cor-
Statistical evaluation of organic waste from a vineyard for the production of responds to 131% and 187%, respectively.
biogas and methane in Rio Grande do Sul, 2016. The bio-kinetics of the biogas generation for the different tests have
Sample Biogas p1 Methane p1 been established and viewed the variations as appears on Fig. 3. The
period with higher generation flow was up to the 8th day of experi-
Triplicate 1 57.16 (18.47)a < 0.001 26.80 (5.59)d < 0.001 ment, decreasing gradually until ceasing the production, according to
Triplicate 2 103.77 (99.63)a 61.96 (54.21)d
the criteria established.
Triplicate 3 88.03 (67.29)a 23.27 (25.17)d
Triplicate 4 13.33 (16.13)b 2.98 (2.62)e The grape must when compared to other wine waste is easily de-
Triplicate 5 32.24 (33.02)b 11.86 (9.93)f graded (especially in the first week), which was also observed by [42]
Triplicate 6 482.94 (548.11)c 331.52 (388.22)g which obtained CH4 concentration between 55 and 60% and biogas
Triplicate 7 124.72 (132.89)a 77.06 (81.04)d
production around 855 l.kgVS. Moreover, the same authors indicate
that the must easily degrades organic acids, which may result in de-
The values are expressed in average and standard deviation: Average and (SD).
In columns, the averages followed by different letters indicate a statistically creased production of CH4 and this situation was also observed in this
significant difference of Biogas (a = a, a ≠ b, a ≠ c, b = b, b ≠ c) and Methane study, where the CH4 concentration reached a peak at the beginning of
(d = d, d ≠ e, d ≠ f, d ≠ g; e ≠ g; f ≠ g) at the probability level, according to the second week of experimentation (around 80%), gradually de-
the Dunnett's test. creasing until the end of the experiment (65%).
1
Kruskal Wallis test to compare the seven substrates (IC 95%). In Figs. 2 and 3, the low yield of biogas and methane obtained by
Triplicates 4 and 5, which were composed by primary and secondary
0.89 m3.kgVS−1of biogas and especially the CH4 concentration data sludge from the wastewater treatment plant of the vineyard, is due to
obtained by the author was 65% of the one obtained in this study. the limited availability of organic material present in the samples, since
The data in Table 5 indicate that the sample values of the seven the sludge had part of the organic matter already degraded in the
samples differed significantly with p < 0.001. When evaluating the wastewater treatment process.
samples in pairs, two by two, the tests showed that the triplicate 1 Considering the total biomass production in the state of Rio Grande
containing only inoculum differed significantly from Triplicates 4, 5 do Sul described by Konrad et al [4], the total amount of 290.000
and 6. The samples containing sludge were significantly different from tons.year−1 of biomasses, currently used directly as organic fertilizer, is
the others, but the sample of secondary sludge (Triplicate 5) showed the observed. However, when valuing the anaerobic digestion process as
higher methane percentage than the sludge from the primary system part of the treatment of this biomass, this sector would have the ca-
(Triplicate 4). pacity to produce approximately 50.000 and 36.000 m3.day−1 of biogas
Considering the total period of testing, we considered that the and methane, respectively. So the findings of this study differ in ap-
Triplicate 6, which was composed of grape must, obtained a significant proximately 15% of the results presented by Konrad et al. [4].
difference when compared to other samples. Regarding the generation In this context, the Rio Grande do Sul, according to Mine and Energy
of biogas and methane, the Triplicates 6, followed by the Triplicates 7 Secretary [43], have an average of 1.900 thousand cubic meters of
and, 3 showed how the vineyard wastes are more suitable for the natural gas consumed per day, so that using only the biomass from the
production of biogas and methane. winemaking process for methane production, Rio Grande do Sul would
The obtained results corroborate with studies performed by [41] have an approximate capacity to generate 2% of all gas daily consumed,
and [42], which obtained the biogas generation around generating an extra source of income for companies and mainly pro-
220 m3.tonVS−1 and 360 m3.tonVS-1, showing that the correct opera- ducing a clean, sustainable and decentralized energy, that reduces ne-
tion of anaerobic digestion boosts the biogas and methane generation, gative impacts on the environment.
and moreover, actively participates in the improvement of waste
treatment processes. Conclusion
Fig. 2 shows the volume of biogas and methane produced during the
experiment period in all the samples evaluated, and highlights the vo- The vegetable wastes from the sampled wine installation proved to
lume generated by Triplicate 6, which generated 505% more biogas and be capable of energy recovery when they are treated through anaerobic
788% more than methane compared to the sample containing only digestion. Analyzing each biomass in parallel, it was observed that the
inoculum (Triplicate 1).1). Making the same percentage comparison for grape must showed a significantly higher yield when compared to other
the other plant waste that stood out, as the triplicates 2 and 7, the wastes.

Fig. 2. Cumulative production of biogas and percentage of methane in the seven evaluated samples (methane and biogas are read on the left side axis, while CH4 on
the right side axis).

47
M. Guerini Filho et al.
Fig. 3. Daily Generation of biogas and methane concentration of the evaluated triplicates.
For the samples used, the biogas specific potential values are in-
herent to these substrates; however they can change according to the
percentage of each biomass used for the tests. The results obtained from
the sample containing grape must were 1.152 and 838 m3.tonVS−1 of
biogas and methane, respectively.
Considering the methane yield of triplicate 7, it is estimated that the
State of Rio Grande do Sul has the potential to generate approximately
36.000 m3.dia−1 corresponding to 2% of the average annual con-
sumption. The use of anaerobic digestion technology by wine industries
shows a promising investment, since it points benefits to the environ-
ment by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), contributing to
the mitigation of climate changes and can also bring economic benefits
to the company, since the biogas can be converted into heat or electrical
energy.
In conclusion, the achieved results clearly demonstrated the success
of the proposed approach for the energy recovery of the organic re-
sidues from the winemaking process for energy production.
Acknowledgements
Special thanks to the Laboratory of Bioreactors, at the University of
Vale do Taquari, for the availability and contribution to the study.
References
[1] OIV - Organisation Internationale de la Vigne te du Vin. State of the Vitiviniculture
World Market april 2016. April 2016 2016:1–14. http://www.oiv.int. (accessed
July 11, 2017).
[2] IBRAVIN. Vinícolas no Rio Grande do Sul. Inst Bras Do Vinho 2016. http://www.
ibravin.org.br (accessed July 5, 2017).
[3] Ferrari V. A sustentabilidade da vitivinicultura através de seus próprios resíduos.
48
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 44–49
Universidade de Caxias do Sul 2010.
[4] Konrad O, Guerini Filho M, Lumi M, Hasan C. Atlas das biomassas do Rio Grande do
Sul para produção de biogás e biometano. 1st ed. Lajeado: Ed. Univates; 2016.
[5] Rebecchi S, Bertin L, Vallini V, Bucchi G, Bartocci F, Fava F. Biomethane production
from grape pomaces: a technical feasibility study. Environ Eng Manag J
2013;12:105–8.
[6] Bustamante MA, Paredes C, Moral R, Moreno-Caselles J, Pérez-Murcia MD, Pérez-
Espinosa A, et al. Co-composting of distillery and winery wastes with sewage sludge.
Water Sci Technol 2007;56:187–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.488.
[7] Oliveira M, Duarte E. Integrated approach to winery waste : waste generation and
data consolidation. Front Environ Sci Eng 2016;10:168–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1007/s11783-014-0693-6.
[8] Da Ros C, Cavinato C, Pavan P, Bolzonella D. Winery waste recycling through
anaerobic co-digestion with waste activated sludge. Waste Manag
2014;34:2028–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014.07.017.
[9] Konrad O, Akwa JV, Koch FF, Lumi M, Tonetto J. Quantification and character-
ization of the production of biogas from blends of agro-industrial wastes in a large-
scale demonstration plant. Acta Sci 2016;38:415–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.4025/
actascitechnol.v38i4.28649.
[10] Ribeiro EM, Barros RM, Tiago Filho GL, dos Santos IFS, Sampaio LC, dos Santos TV,
et al. Power generation potential in posture aviaries in Brazil in the context of a
circular economy. Sustain Energy Technol Assessments 2016;18:153–63. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2016.10.009.
[11] Ghouali A, Sari T, Harmand J. Maximizing biogas production from the anaerobic
digestion. J Process Control 2015;36:79–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jprocont.
2015.09.007.
[12] Ryckebosch E, Drouillon M, Vervaeren H. Techniques for transformation of biogas
to biomethane. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35:1633–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
biombioe.2011.02.033.
[13] Coimbra-Araújo CH, Mariane L, Bley C, Pires E, Sato M, Regina I, et al. Brazilian
case study for biogas energy: production of electric power, heat and automotive
energy in condominiums of agroenergy. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2014;40:826–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.07.024.
[14] Hawkes FR, Dinsdale R, Hawkes DL, Hussy I. Sustainable fermentative hydrogen
production: challenges for process optimisation. Int J Hydrogen Energy
2002;27:1339–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0360-3199(02)00090-3.
[15] Antonopoulou G, Gavala HN, Skiadas IV, Angelopoulos K, Lyberatos G. Biofuels
generation from sweet sorghum: fermentative hydrogen production and anaerobic
digestion of the remaining biomass. Bioresour Technol 2008;99:110–9. http://dx.
M. Guerini Filho et al.
doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2006.11.048.
[16] Katuwal H, Bohara AK. Biogas: A promising renewable technology and its impact on
rural households in Nepal. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2009;13:2668–74. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.05.002.
[17] Hosseini SE, Wahid MA. Biogas utilization: experimental investigation on biogas
flameless combustion in lab-scale furnace. Energy Convers Manag 2013;74:426–32.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2013.06.026.
[18] Matuszewska A, Owczuk M, Zamojska-jaroszewicz A, Jakubiak-lasocka J, Lasocki J,
Orlin P. Evaluation of the biological methane potential of various feedstock for the
production of biogas to supply agricultural tractors. Energy Convers Manag
2016;125:309–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2016.02.072.
[19] Berglund M, Börjesson P. Assessment of energy performance in the life-cycle of
biogas production. Biomass Bioenergy 2006;30:254–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.biombioe.2005.11.011.
[20] Boulamanti AK, Maglio SD, Giuntoli J, Agostini A. Influence of different practices
on biogas sustainability. Biomass Bioenergy 2013;53:149–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.020.
[21] Buratti C, Fantozzi F. Life cycle assessment of biomass production: development of a
methodology to improve the environmental indicators and testing with fiber sor-
ghum energy crop. Biomass Bioenergy 2010;34:1513–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.biombioe.2010.05.002.
[22] Gasol CM, Gabarrell X, Rigola M, González-García S, Rieradevall J. Environmental
assessment: (LCA) and spatial modelling (GIS) of energy crop implementation on
local scale. Biomass Bioenergy 2011;35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.
2011.03.041.
[23] Liao X, Li H. Biogas production from low-organic-content sludge using a high-solids
anaerobic digester with improved agitation. Appl Energy 2015;148:252–9. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.03.082.
[24] El Achkar JH, Lendormi T, Hobaika Z, Salameh D, Louka N, Maroun RG, et al.
Anaerobic digestion of grape pomace: Biochemical characterization of the fractions
and methane production in batch and continuous digesters. Waste Manag
2016;50:275–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.02.028.
[25] Da Ros C, Cavinato C, Pavan P, Bolzonella D. Mesophilic and thermophilic anae-
robic co-digestion of winery wastewater sludge and wine lees: an integrated ap-
proach for sustainable wine production. J Environ Manage 2017;203:745–52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.029.
[26] Lumi M, Konrad O, Marder M. Potencial de geração de biogás a partir da
suplementação de óleo de babaçu em dejetos de animais Potential of biogas gen-
eration from babassu oil supplementation in livestock manure. Ciência E Nat
2015;37:756–66. 105902/2179460X19369.
[27] Manara P, Zabaniotou A. Indicator-based economic, environmental, and social
sustainability assessment of a small gasification bioenergy system fuelled with food
processing residues from the Mediterranean agro-industrial sector. Sustain Energy
Technol Assessments 2014;8:159–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2014.08.
007.
49
Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments 29 (2018) 44–49
[28] Miguel R, Vieira G. Contribuição para o estudo do tratamento de efluentes da
indústria vinícola. Universidade de Lisboa 2009.
[29] Molina F, Ruiz-Filippi G, García C, Roca E, Lema JM. Winery effluent treatment at
an anaerobic hybrid USBF pilot plant under normal and abnormal operation. Water
Sci Technol 2007;56:25–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.2166/wst.2007.468.
[30] RIO GRANDE DO SUL. Lei 14.864, de 11 de maio de 2016. Porto Alegre, Brasil:
2016.
[31] Halliday D, Resmick R, Walker J. Fundamentos de Física. 2 ed. Rio de Janeiro: LTC;
2009.
[32] Konrad O, Bezama AB, Prade T, Backes GM, Oechsner H. Enhancing the analytical
capacity for biogas development in brazil : assessment of an original measurement
system for low. Eng Agrícola 2016;4430:792–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1809-
4430.
[33] AOAC Association of Official Analytical Chemistry. Official methods of analysis,
1995.
[34] VDI 4630. Fermentation of organic materiais - Characterization of the substrate,
sampling, collection of material data, fermentation tests 2006;92.
[35] Konrad O, Koch FF, Lumi M, Tonetto JF, Bezama A. Potential of biogas production
from swine manure supplemented with glycerine waste. Eng Agrícola
2014;34:844–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0100-69162014000500004.
[36] Rodrigues AC, Oliveira JM, Oliveira JA, Peixoto J, Nogueira R, Brito AG.
Tratamento de efluentes vitivinícolas; um caso de estudo na região dos vinhos
verdes. Indústria E Ambient 2006;40:20–5. http://hdl.handle.net/1822/5877.
[37] Fiore S, Ruffino B, Campo G, Roati C, Zanetti MC. Scale-up evaluation of the
anaerobic digestion of food-processing industrial wastes. Renew Energy
2016;96:949–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2016.05.049.
[38] Rastogi G, Ranade DR, Yeole TY, Patole MS, Shouche YS. Investigation of metha-
nogen population structure in biogas reactor by molecular characterization of
methyl-coenzyme M reductase A (mcrA) genes. Bioresour Technol
2008;99:5317–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.11.024.
[39] Goulding D, Power N. Which is the preferable biogas utilisation technology for
anaerobic digestion of agricultural crops in Ireland: Biogas to CHP or biomethane as
a transport fuel? Renew Energy 2013;53:121–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2012.11.001.
[40] Odorico Konrad, Marluce Lumi, Alan Nelson Arenhart Heberle, Jaqueline Fernandes
Tonetto CEC. A influência da codigestão de óleo vegetal residual na geração de
biogás por lodo de estação de tratamento de efluentes. Rev Bras Energias Renov
2013;2:1–20. doi:10.5380/rber.v2i4.34840.
[41] Batstone DJ, Keller J, Angelidaki I, Kalyuzhnyi SV, Pavlostathis SG, Rozzi A. The
IWA Anaerobic Digestion Model No 1 (ADM1). Water Sci Technol 2002;1:65–74.
[42] Jasko J, Skripsts E, Dubrovskis V. Biogas production of winemaking waste in
anaerobic fermentation process. Eng Rural Dev 2012;24:576–9.
[43] SME - Secretaria de Minas e Energia. Balanço energético do Rio Grande do Sul 2015.
Porto Alegre, Grupo CEEE: 2015.