Fotini
Drosou
,
Tryfon
Kekes
*,
Christos
Boukouvalas
,
Vasiliki
Oikonomopoulou
and
Magdalini
Krokida
Laboratory of Process Analysis and Design, School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Iroon Polytechneiou 9, 15780, Athens, Greece. E-mail: tryfonaskks@yahoo.com; Tel: +(30)2107723149
First published on 22nd August 2024
The brewing sector is known for its high energy consumption, significant water usage, and the generation of substantial solid and liquid waste. Therefore, effective treatment methods for these wastes have been explored to treat and either recycle water within the industry or proceed to safe aquatic discharge, while repurposing solid waste for energy production and valuable products. This study aims to assess the overall environmental sustainability of solid waste valorization and wastewater treatment in a brewery through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). The evaluation involved comparing the total environmental impact of a typical brewing industry utilizing conventional waste management methods (base case scenario) with two alternative approaches employing appropriate waste treatment and valorization processes. In scenario A, waste management employed anaerobic digestion coupled with a cogeneration unit, aeration treatment, and membrane filtration treatment. Meanwhile, Scenario B utilized gasification, screening, membrane bioreactors and UV treatment as treatment techniques. As anticipated, the LCA study revealed that both Scenarios A and B exhibited significantly improved environmental footprints across all studied indicators compared to the base case scenario, with reductions in the greenhouse gas emissions reaching up to 25.90% and 45.68% for Scenarios A and B, respectively. The findings from this case study underscore the potential for the brewing industry to efficiently generate energy and markedly improve its environmental footprint by integrating appropriate waste treatment methods. This contribution to environmental safety and sustainability emphasizes the significance of adopting suitable techniques within the industry.
Sustainability spotlightThis study illustrates the brewing sector's sustainable progression with tangible evidence of reduced environmental impact. It exemplifies advancements in waste management by showcasing reductions in GHG emissions, energy generation from waste, and enhanced environmental footprints compared to conventional practices. Aligning with the UN's Sustainable Development Goals, this work contributes notably to multiple goals. It addresses Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) by exploring effective wastewater treatment methods and Goal 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) by demonstrating waste valorization's energy generation. Moreover, it aligns with Goal 13 (Climate Action) and serves as a pivotal example of sustainable practices in an industry traditionally associated with high resource consumption and waste generation, embodying the essence of multiple Sustainable Development Goals. |
Beer production is a combination of malting and brewing processes. More specifically, the malting process relies on water for steeping and energy primarily for germination, kilning, and storage. The energy needs can vary based on the scale of the malting operation, the efficiency of equipment and processes, and the type of energy sources used. Modern malting facilities aim to optimize both water and energy usage to reduce environmental impact and operational costs. As for the brewing process, it involves water for mashing, lautering, cooling, and cleaning, and energy is mainly required for heating during mashing and boiling, cooling, and packaging.3 The specific water and energy demands can vary depending on the brewery's size, technology, and the type of beer being produced, with modern breweries focusing on sustainability and efficiency to reduce resource consumption along with their environmental impact. Thus, beer production is a resource-intensive process that consumes substantial quantities of grains, water, and energy, resulting in the generation of significant amounts of solid wastes and wastewater. Various methods have been employed to address these waste products, with the goal of purifying the wastewater and harnessing the potential energy within the solid waste to promote the recycling of the generated energy within the industry.
Among the various methods available for treating and making better use of beer processing by-products, the following techniques are considered highly suitable due to their effectiveness in both wastewater treatment and the generation of renewable energy from waste materials: membrane bioreactors, aeration treatment, ultraviolet (UV) treatment, anaerobic digestion, and gasification. Aeration treatment involves the introduction of air into wastewater, enabling the biodegradation of organic compounds and leading to water decontamination.4 Simultaneously, membrane treatment aids in the removal of suspended particles and microorganisms from the treated water.5 Anaerobic digestion, a process for wet solid waste, efficiently breaks down organic matter through microorganisms, ultimately converting it into biogas.6 Subsequently, the generated biogas can be harnessed in a biogas cogeneration unit to produce renewable electricity and heat.7 A membrane bioreactor is an advanced approach for wastewater treatment, combining a biological process (aeration treatment) with membrane filtration. This method involves a bioreactor tank where biomass is broken down, followed by membrane filtration to eliminate microorganisms from the treated water.1 UV treatment is an efficient technique for disinfecting treated water by subjecting it to ultraviolet light, which effectively eliminates harmful pathogens like bacteria and viruses.8 Finally, gasification of solid wastes involves converting them into combustible gases, mainly in the form of hydrogen, through a high-temperature process in the absence of oxygen.9
The assessment of environmental impacts in product systems is facilitated using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), a valuable framework that considers inputs, outputs, and potential environmental effects throughout the entire life cycle of a product system.10,11 LCA's primary purpose is to identify key environmental hotspots during various production stages and offer recommendations for enhancing the overall production process with a focus on environmental sustainability.12
The main purpose of this study is to investigate whether the processing of wastewater and solid wastes within the boundaries of a brewery can exhibit a positive impact on its environmental footprint in the brewing industry. The primary objective of this study is to assess the sustainability from an environmental aspect of a beer industry adopting advanced wastewater treatment methods; aeration and membrane treatment for Scenario A and membrane bioreactors as well as UV treatment for Scenario B. Moreover, for the valorization of solid wastes, anaerobic digestion coupled with CHP was studied for Scenario A and gasification for the latter scenario. Subsequently, the two different scenarios were directly compared with current practices regarding the disposal of wastewater (transportation to municipal wastewater treatment plants) and solid wastes (biodegradable waste in landfills) in most breweries, utilizing LCA as the evaluation tool. To sum up, the main scope of the present study is to assess the environmental sustainability of incorporating novel methods in the valorization of solid wastes and the treatment of wastewater that are generated in the brewing industry via performing an LCA analysis.
The study centered on a conventional brewing operation as the baseline case, focusing on the production of beer as the final product. The various processes involved in brewing, illustrated in Fig. 1, include grinding, mashing, boiling, fermentation, conditioning, filtration and finally the packaging. Each stage was analyzed to understand its environmental impact and resource utilization within the broader context of the brewing industry.
Regarding the base case scenario that is depicted in Fig. 1, the produced wastewater is conveyed to and treated at a municipal wastewater treatment facility, while solid waste is simply disposed of in landfills; thus the brewing industry adopts a passive approach. This traditional practice reflects a historical norm where industries typically remained detached from the active treatment and reutilization of their wastes.
In Scenario A, wastewater and solid wastes are treated on site within the boundaries of the industry (Fig. 2). Specifically, wastewater is first subjected to aeration treatment and subsequently filtered through a membrane unit to obtain clean water. Solid wastes undergo treatment in an anaerobic digester, where the resulting biogas, after removing CO2 to enhance methane concentration, is utilized for electricity and heat generation through cogeneration.13
Scenario B (Fig. 3) includes several meticulous stages for the treatment of wastewater and the valorization of solid wastes. Initially, wastewater is screened to remove large solids, and then enters a membrane bioreactor followed by a subsequent exposure to UV light. The resulting water achieves a quality level suitable for either recycling within the industry to curtail fresh water consumption or safe discharge into aquatic ecosystems. Solid waste valorization is accomplished utilizing gasification, a process in which the solid wastes (mainly spent grains) are converted into hydrogen, which can be used for the production of electricity and thermal energy. In Scenarios A and B, the production of thermal energy and electricity is represented as thermal and electricity credits, respectively. These credits typically contribute positively to the environmental footprint of both scenarios as they stem from the valorization of waste, rather than relying on the traditional combustion of fossil fuels for energy generation.
A significant assumption is the homogeneity and reliability of the data across different literature sources. One major assumption is that these sources provide consistent and representative information applicable to our scenarios, despite potential variations in data collection methods and reporting standards. This assumption extends to the operational conditions and efficiencies across different breweries, presuming them to be similar to those described in the literature.14
Another critical assumption is the uniform impact of uncertainty across all scenarios. This implies that any inconsistencies or variations in data quality do not bias one scenario over another, thereby maintaining a level playing field. Additionally, static environmental conditions are assumed, which may not accurately reflect real-world variances such as local climate differences and resource availability.
Technological consistency is another assumption, where it is hypothesized that the technology and processes used in waste treatment and beer production are in line with those documented in the literature. This does not account for advancements or regional differences in process efficiency, which could impact the study's outcomes.
However, these assumptions bring several limitations. The reliance on literature data may not fully capture the diversity and complexity of real-world situations, leading to potential inaccuracies in estimating environmental footprints. Geographical and temporal variations, such as regional differences in environmental regulations and changes in technology over time, are not accounted for, which could affect the generalizability of the obtained results.
The study also simplifies complex environmental processes and interactions, potentially overlooking certain indirect or long-term impacts. Moreover, it may not cover all environmental impact categories comprehensively, focusing primarily on those directly related to wastewater and solid waste treatment.
To understand the robustness of the conclusions, a sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying key parameters within realistic ranges.
Process | Flow | In/out | Unit | Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Grinding | Spring barley | In | kg | 0.0635 |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.0145 | |
Graded malt | Out | kg | 0.0571 | |
Spring barley | Out | kg | 0.0064 | |
Cooker | Water | In | kg | 0.0971 |
Thermal energy | In | MJ | 0.0241 | |
Steam | In | kg | 0.0181 | |
Spring barley | In | kg | 0.0064 | |
Spring barley | Out | kg | 0.122 | |
Mash tun | Water | In | kg | 0.213 |
Spring barley | In | kg | 0.122 | |
Graded malt | In | kg | 0.0572 | |
Thermal energy | In | MJ | 0.0508 | |
Steam | In | kg | 0.0227 | |
Spring barley | Out | kg | 0.392 | |
Filtration | Spring barley | In | kg | 0.392 |
Water | In | kg | 0.136 | |
Thermal energy | In | MJ | 0.0324 | |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.0089 | |
Spent grains | Out | kg | 0.0576 | |
Spring barley | Out | kg | 0.47 | |
Screening & pressing | Spent grains | In | kg | 0.0576 |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.0089 | |
Spent grains | Out | kg | 0.0191 | |
Wastewater 1 | Out | kg | 0.0386 | |
Spent grain dryer | Thermal energy | In | MJ | 0.317 |
Spent grains | In | kg | 0.0191 | |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.0053 | |
Spent grains to a landfill | Out | kg | 0.0018 | |
Brewing | Spring barley | In | kg | 0.47 |
Steam | In | kg | 0.0408 | |
Spring barley | Out | kg | 0.463 | |
Filtration and cooling 1 | Spring barley | In | kg | 0.463 |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.0604 | |
Spring barley | Out | kg | 0.455 | |
Fermentation | Spring barley | In | kg | 0.455 |
Yeast | In | kg | 0.0109 | |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.004 | |
Beer | Out | kg | 0.438 | |
Carbon dioxide | Out | kg | 0.0218 | |
Compressor | Water | In | kg | 0.181 |
Carbon dioxide | In | kg | 0.0218 | |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.0093 | |
Wastewater 2 | Out | kg | 0.181 | |
Carbon dioxide | Out | kg | 0.0218 | |
Filtration and cooling 2 | Beer | In | kg | 0.438 |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.0084 | |
Refrigerant | In | kg | 0.002 | |
Beer | Out | kg | 0.438 | |
Filling | Beer | In | kg | 0.438 |
Container glass | In | kg | 0.0136 | |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.0053 | |
Beer | Out | kg | 0.454 | |
Container wash | Water | In | kg | 0.181 |
Thermal energy | In | MJ | 0.043 | |
Container glass | In | kg | 0.0136 | |
Container glass | Out | kg | 0.0136 | |
Wastewater 3 | Out | kg | 0.181 | |
Pasteurization | Water | In | kg | 1.13 |
Beer | In | kg | 0.454 | |
Thermal energy | In | MJ | 0.27 | |
Beer | Out | kg | 0.454 | |
Packaging | Beer | In | kg | 0.454 |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.0137 | |
Beer | Out | kg | 0.454 | |
Wastewater collection | Wastewater 1 | In | kg | 0.0386 |
Wastewater 2 | In | kg | 0.181 | |
Wastewater 3 | In | kg | 0.181 | |
Wastewater to a municipal wastewater treatment plant | Out | kg | 0.401 |
Tables 2 and 3 outline the input and output specifics for each process within the various scenarios, as depicted in Fig. 2 and 3.
Process | Flow | In/out | Unit | Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Anaerobic digestion15 | Spring barley | In | kg | 0.042 |
Thermal energy | In | MJ | 8.56 × 10−5 | |
Electricity | In | MJ | 1.37 × 10−5 | |
Biogas | Out | kg | 0.00809 | |
CHP16,17 | Biogas | In | kg | 0.0478 |
Electricity | Out | MJ | 0.42 | |
Thermal energy | Out | MJ | 0.48 | |
Aeration treatment18 | Wastewater | In | kg | 0.882 |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.00254 | |
Wastewater | Out | kg | 0.882 | |
Membrane treatment19 | Wastewater | In | kg | 0.882 |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.00196 | |
Clean water | Out | kg | 0.882 |
Process | Flow | In/out | Unit | Value |
---|---|---|---|---|
Solid waste collection | Sludge | In | kg | 0.00105 |
Solid waste | In | kg | 0.001 | |
Solids | Out | kg | 0.00205 | |
Gasification9 | Spent grains | In | kg | 0.0191 |
Solids | In | kg | 0.00205 | |
Electricity | Out | MJ | 0.0987 | |
Solid waste in a landfill | Out | kg | 2.45 × 10−5 | |
Screening20 | Wastewater | In | kg | 0.883 |
Electricity | In | MJ | 4.5 × 10−6 | |
Wastewater | Out | kg | 0.881 | |
Solids | Out | kg | 0.0022 | |
Membrane bioreactor21 | Wastewater | In | kg | 0.881 |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.0044 | |
Wastewater | Out | kg | 0.879 | |
Sludge | Out | kg | 0.0023 | |
UV treatment22 | Wastewater | In | kg | 0.879 |
Electricity | In | MJ | 0.000209 | |
Clean water | Out | kg | 0.879 |
However, the primary aim of the present study was to validate the environmental advantages of the proposed waste treatment methods against traditional wastewater and solid waste treatment. By focusing on these specific stages, all efforts were concentrated on the critical areas, ensuring a thorough and detailed examination. Including additional aspects such as transportation and specific ingredients would have broadened the study's scope, potentially diluting the focus and making it challenging to draw clear conclusions about the waste treatment methods themselves. Moreover, reliable and comprehensive data on the transportation of raw materials and the detailed environmental impacts of yeasts and hops can be difficult to obtain. Transportation data vary widely depending on distances traveled, modes of transport used, and fuel consumption. Similarly, the environmental impacts of cultivating yeasts and hops are influenced by factors such as local agricultural practices, climate conditions, and farming methods. This variability and potential lack of consistent, high-quality data would introduce significant uncertainties into our analysis, complicating the accuracy and reliability of the results. In summary, while including the transportation of raw materials and the incorporation of yeasts and hops would provide a more comprehensive view of the environmental footprint, it was not feasible in the present study due to the need to maintain focus, the challenges in obtaining reliable data, and the methodological constraints involved.
Thus, two different scenarios were studied within the industrial boundaries using the same assumptions as the base case scenario to address this, with the obtained results being presented in Fig. 5 and 6. According to the obtained results, the two studied scenarios that focus on the treatment of wastewater and solid waste within the brewery, employing suitable methods, significantly improve the environmental impact of the studied case. Purifying wastewater efficiently and safely disposing of it in the aquatic environment notably reduce the marine and freshwater ecotoxicity in both Scenarios A (involving aeration treatment and membrane filtration) and B (involving screening, MBR and UV treatment).32 Additionally, in both studied scenarios a decrease in the greenhouse gas emissions (25.90% and 45.68% for Scenarios A and B, respectively) and in human toxicity regarding cancer (32.87% and 38.18% for Scenarios A and B, respectively) is attained due to the valorization of solid wastes and the production of renewable energy that can substitute the use of conventional fossil fuels. The aforementioned observation can also explain the significant decrease in the studied category of fossil fuels exhibited in both studied scenarios (33.16% and 45.50% for Scenarios A and B, respectively). Finally, Scenarios A and B also achieved an improvement in the studied category of photochemical ozone formation (17.06% and 21.76% for Scenarios A and B, respectively) that affects human health.16,18,33,34
The improved environmental impacts observed in Scenarios A and B are attributed to the advanced and integrated treatment methods for wastewater and solid wastes within the brewery. In Scenario A, wastewater undergoes an aeration process, which introduces oxygen to promote the breakdown of organic matter by aerobic microorganisms, significantly reducing organic pollutants.4 The subsequent membrane filtration further purifies the water by removing residual contaminants, resulting in clean water suitable for discharge.5,35 This dual treatment process minimizes the ecological footprint by ensuring that the discharged water meets high environmental standards, reducing marine and freshwater ecotoxicity.
Simultaneously, solid wastes in Scenario A are processed in an anaerobic digester, where anaerobic microorganisms decompose organic material in the absence of oxygen, producing biogas primarily composed of methane and carbon dioxide.7,36 After enhancing the methane concentration by removing CO2, the biogas is utilized in cogeneration units to produce both electricity and heat. This valorization of solid waste into renewable energy not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions but also lessens dependence on fossil fuels, leading to a significant decrease in fossil fuel consumption and associated emissions.
Scenario B employs a more elaborate wastewater treatment process, starting with screening to remove large solids, followed by treatment in a membrane bioreactor (MBR). The MBR combines biological degradation and membrane filtration, efficiently removing organic and inorganic pollutants.37,38 The final UV treatment disinfects the water, ensuring that it is safe for reuse within the brewery or for discharge into aquatic ecosystems.39,40 This comprehensive treatment process further enhances water quality and reduces environmental pollution.
For solid waste treatment in Scenario B, gasification is used. In this process, solid wastes, mainly spent grains, are converted into hydrogen gas through a high-temperature reaction in the presence of a controlled amount of oxygen. The resulting hydrogen can then be used to generate electricity and thermal energy, contributing to the brewery's energy needs.26 The production of energy from waste materials reduces the reliance on conventional fossil fuels and lowers greenhouse gas emissions.
In both scenarios, the production of thermal energy and electricity from waste valorization is represented as thermal and electricity credits. These credits positively impact the environmental footprint by offsetting the need for fossil fuel-based energy generation, thereby reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants.41 The integrated waste treatment and valorization processes demonstrate how breweries can achieve significant environmental benefits by adopting sustainable and circular economy practices.
The broader implications of these findings for the brewing industry and similar sectors are significant. By adopting these advanced waste treatments and valorization technologies, breweries can drastically reduce their environmental footprint, contribute to sustainability, and align with circular economy principles. This approach not only enhances environmental performance but also offers potential cost savings through energy production and waste reduction. These practices can serve as a model for other industries aiming to mitigate their environmental impact and promote sustainable production methods.
A direct comparison of base case scenarios and Scenarios A and B is shown in Fig. 7, and the overall reduction in environmental footprint is summarized in Table 4. Moreover, the endpoints of the ReCiPe methodology applied in the present work are depicted in Fig. 8 and Table 5.
Impact category (×10−3) | Base case scenario | Scenario A | Reduction in Scenario A (%) | Scenario B | Reduction in Scenario B (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Climate change, default, excl biogenic carbon [kg CO2 eq.] | 139.0 | 103.0 | 25.90% | 75.5 | 45.68% |
Fossil depletion [kg oil eq.] | 38.9 | 26.0 | 33.16% | 21.2 | 45.50% |
Freshwater ecotoxicity [kg 1,4 DB eq.] | 0.0666 | 0.0617 | 7.36% | 0.0608 | 8.71% |
Human toxicity, cancer [kg 1,4-DB eq.] | 0.0791 | 0.0531 | 32.87% | 0.0489 | 38.18% |
Marine ecotoxicity [kg 1,4-DB eq.] | 0.109 | 0.101 | 7.34% | 0.0909 | 16.61% |
Photochemical ozone formation, human health [kg NOx eq.] | 80.9 | 67.1 | 17.06% | 63.3 | 21.76% |
![]() | ||
Fig. 8 Comparison of the ReCiPe endpoints of the base case scenario and the two alternative scenarios. |
Endpoint | Base case scenario | Scenario A | Reduction in Scenario A (%) | Scenario B | Reduction in Scenario B (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Damage to human health [DALY] | 2.99 × 10−7 | 2.20 × 10−7 | 26.60% | 2.84 × 10−7 | 5.01% |
Damage to ecosystems [species × years] | 1.74 × 10−8 | 1.43 × 10−8 | 17.79% | 1.34 × 10−8 | 22.78% |
Damage to resource availability [$] | 1.07 × 10−2 | 7.22 × 10−3 | 32.61% | 7.75 × 10−3 | 27.68% |
According to the attained results, the adoption of innovative methods targeting wastewater purification, and repurposing of solid waste for energy production has notably enhanced the environmental impact of the brewing industry across all examined aspects in both Scenarios A and B. A direct comparison between the two studied alternative scenarios reveals that in the studied categories depicted in the present study, Scenario B exhibits a slighter enhanced environmental footprint compared to Scenario A. Moreover, the obtained endpoints from the ReCiPe methodology validate the significance of incorporating the studied wastewater treatment and solid waste valorization methods; as for the two studied scenarios, the damages to human health, ecosystems and resource availability are significantly lower compared to those of the base case scenario. In contrast to the studied categories, Scenario A exhibits lower values regarding the damage to human health and to resource availability compared to Scenario B. This can be attributed to the additional incorporation of other indicators (presented in the supplementary material) and to the larger electricity consumption in the treatment of wastewater and the valorization of solid wastes in Scenario B compared to Scenario A, respectively.
Impact category (×10−3) | Scenario A anaerobic digestion | Scenario B gasificatiom | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Low efficiency | Medium efficiency | High efficiency | Low efficiency | Medium efficiency | High efficiency | |
Climate change, default, excl biogenic carbon [kg CO2 eq.] | +1.2% | 103.0 | −1.3% | +0.9% | 75.5 | −1.0% |
Fossil depletion [kg oil eq.] | +2.1% | 26.0 | −2.1% | +1.8% | 21.2 | −1.8% |
Freshwater ecotoxicity [kg 1,4 DB eq.] | — | 0.0617 | — | — | 0.0608 | — |
Human toxicity, cancer [kg 1,4-DB eq.] | +0.2% | 0.0531 | −0.2% | +0.1% | 0.0489 | −0.1% |
Marine ecotoxicity [kg 1,4-DB eq.] | — | 0.101 | — | — | 0.0909 | — |
Photochemical ozone formation, human health [kg NOx eq.] | +0.8% | 67.1 | −0.8% | +0.6% | 63.3 | −0.6% |
According to the results of the uncertainty analysis, it is evident that the environmental footprint of the two studied alternative scenarios does not change significantly as a function of the anaerobic digester's biogas production and gasification's hydrogen production capacity. However, in both cases the high efficiency of the studied methods resulted in a slightly improved environmental performance, and the low efficiency, in a slight increase in the environmental footprint in certain categories, such as greenhouse gas emissions.
First, comprehensive feasibility studies are crucial. These studies should include technical, economic, and environmental assessments to ensure that the proposed waste treatment methods are suitable and beneficial for specific breweries. However, the initial cost and time investment for these studies can be significant barriers. To mitigate this, breweries can seek funding from government grants or industry partnerships and collaborate with academic institutions to reduce costs.42
Implementing pilot projects or demonstration plants is another vital recommendation. These projects showcase the effectiveness of the new technologies in real-world settings. The initial financial investment and potential operational disruptions during this phase pose challenges. To address these, subsidies and financial incentives from government bodies or environmental agencies can be utilized, and pilot projects can be planned in phases to minimize disruptions.42,43
Training and capacity building are essential for the successful adoption of new technologies. Extensive training programs should be provided to brewery staff and management on the operation and maintenance of new waste treatment systems. Resistance to change and lack of technical expertise among existing staff are potential barriers. Developing partnerships with technology providers for training sessions and offering incentives for staff participation can help overcome these challenges.
Financial incentives and support are crucial for encouraging breweries to invest in new technologies. Tax breaks, low-interest loans, and grants can support initial investments. Lack of awareness or access to these financial support mechanisms can be a barrier. Engaging with local and national governments to create awareness and streamline the application process for financial incentives is a practical strategy to overcome this barrier.42,43
Regulatory support and a conducive policy framework are necessary to promote the adoption of sustainable waste treatment technologies. However, slow policy changes and regulatory approvals can hinder progress. Participating in industry associations to collectively advocate for regulatory changes and engaging in continuous dialogue with policymakers can facilitate faster policy support.44
Conducting detailed cost-benefit analyses can highlight the long-term economic benefits and environmental savings of adopting new technologies. A common barrier is the short-term cost focus among stakeholders. Presenting case studies and data from pilot projects to demonstrate long-term savings and environmental benefits can help shift this focus.44
Increasing public awareness and community engagement about the environmental benefits of the new waste treatment technologies is also important. Limited public knowledge about industrial waste management practices can be a barrier. Launching public awareness campaigns and involving local communities in pilot projects can demonstrate the benefits firsthand and garner public support.42,45
Fostering collaborations and partnerships between breweries, technology providers, research institutions, and environmental organizations can facilitate technology transfer and shared learning. Competitive concerns and lack of trust between different stakeholders can be barriers. Establishing formal agreements and creating neutral platforms for knowledge sharing and collaboration can help overcome these challenges.
Despite these recommendations, several potential barriers to implementation exist. High initial costs are a significant barrier, but securing funding through government grants, subsidies, and financial incentives, as well as exploring financing options like green bonds or public-private partnerships, can address this issue.44
Technical challenges and a lack of expertise can also hinder implementation. Investing in comprehensive training programs and collaborating with technology providers for ongoing support can mitigate these challenges.46
Regulatory and policy hurdles can delay the adoption of new technologies. Advocacy for policy changes through industry associations and maintaining active engagement with regulatory bodies can expedite approval processes.
Operational disruptions during the implementation of new systems are another barrier. Planning and executing the implementation in phases and utilizing off-peak production periods for major changes can minimize these disruptions.46
Lastly, cultural resistance to change among staff and management can impede progress. Fostering a culture of sustainability within the organization, highlighting long-term benefits, and involving employees in the decision-making process can help gain their buy-in and overcome resistance.
By addressing these barriers with targeted strategies, breweries can effectively adopt and benefit from advanced waste treatment technologies, leading to improved environmental performance and operational efficiencies.
Furthermore, the wine industry can benefit from the use of gasification, screening, membrane bioreactors, and UV treatment techniques to manage waste more effectively. Gasification of solid wastes such as grape marc and vine prunings can produce hydrogen-rich syngas, providing a renewable energy source and reducing waste disposal issues. The implementation of membrane bioreactors and UV treatments can improve the quality of wastewater discharged from wineries, making it safe for aquatic ecosystems and potentially suitable for reuse in vineyard irrigation. By integrating these waste treatment and valorization processes, the wine industry can achieve significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and overall environmental impact, fostering a more sustainable and environmentally friendly production cycle.49,50
The application of advanced waste treatment and valorization methods in the wine industry can bridge several critical gaps in environmental sustainability. One significant gap is the high energy consumption associated with traditional waste management practices. By adopting anaerobic digestion and cogeneration units, wineries can convert organic waste into biogas, subsequently generating renewable heat and electricity, thereby reducing their reliance on fossil fuels and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Another gap is the substantial water usage in wine production. Implementing aeration and membrane filtration treatments enables water recycling within wineries, minimizing freshwater withdrawals and reducing the environmental impact on local water resources. Additionally, the challenge of managing solid wastes such as grape marc and vine prunings can be effectively addressed through gasification, which converts these wastes into hydrogen-rich syngas, providing a renewable energy source and mitigating waste disposal issues. Furthermore, the use of membrane bioreactors and UV treatments enhances wastewater quality, making it suitable for safe discharge or reuse in vineyard irrigation, thus promoting a circular economy and significantly reducing the overall environmental footprint of the wine industry.45
This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2024 |