## 3 Optimization Results
### Results for Scenarios 3 and 4  
Similarly, through the application of the optimization model to the layout of the production area, several solutions were obtained for the scenarios 3 and 4. Thus, through Figure 5, it is possible to observe the solutions that present a minimization of general and ergonomic risks combined with the highest degree of operability, including the execution of all operations (with the wine heating process exception), including the exclusive high-season operations (during the harvest).  
From the analysis of Figure 5a, it is possible to verify that after the application of the optimization model, the redistribution of the zones follows a similar profile to that verified in the previous scenarios, with the zones that have a higher degree of danger being redistributed along the centre of the building, while the remaining are relocated along the peripheral areas, specifically, at the south and north ends, and in relation to the orientation of the layouts.  
With regard to the operational efficiency combined with the prevention of general risks, it can be seen that the selected simulation was balanced, calling attention to the proximity and contiguous location of zones 1-5, making the raw material transformation process more efficient.  
In this solution, there is a desirable concentration of the ageing zones (zones 6 and 7) with the batch preparation area (zone 8) which, in turn, is located next to the bottling area (zone 9). Although the storage areas for packaging materials and finished products (zones 10 and 12) present a significant distance from the bottling area. The areas for semi-finished product storage (area 11), packaging (zone 13), and expedition (zone 14) are located in an acceptable distance from the bottling area, favouring the reduction in danger and increasing the fluidity of the production process.  
Through the analysis of Figure 5b, it was also verified that the zones that presented a higher level of danger were redistributed along the central area, while the remaining were relocated along the perimeter of the building.  
With regards to efficiency, in terms of process fluidity and reduction of ergonomic risk, the selected simulation shows a high level of efficiency inasmuch as the bottling area (zone 9), the blending area (zone 8), the semi-finished product storage (zone 11), the packaging (zone 13), and the expedition area (zone 14) are organized, favouring the fluidity of production activities and the reduction of potential ergonomic risks as well.  
On the other hand, the areas related to the reception of raw material and the respective transformation (zones 1, 2, and 3) are close to each other, flanked by the storage/ageing  
Figure 5: (**a**) Scenario 3; (**b**) scenario 4. Solutions obtained to optimize a production area layout in terms of general and ergonomic risk reduction, excluding the wine heating process (production of Madeira wine).  
(zones 6 and 7), stabilization (zone 4) and filtering areas (zone 5), thus benefiting the production flow in the first stage.  
The less positive aspect is the location of the packaging materials warehouse, which is further away from the bottling area, a fact that, however, can be easily transposed through good planning and the timely transfer of materials.  
Figure 6 shows the transposition of best result obtained (Figure 4c), in terms of occupational risk mitigation and higher operative efficiency, to the example of an already existing winery (Figure 3).  
Through Figure 6, it is possible to verify that the model allowed for the retrofitting of an existing winery, despite the few adaptations made due to the specific configuration of the building, namely, the zones 1-3 that were repositioned to the inner area of the building, and the zones 6 and 7, which were already located in the second floor of the main facilities. The rearrangement of production areas provided a good fit within the boundaries of the existing winery, allowing for the use of existing spaces.