## 3 Optimization Results
### Results for Scenarios 1 and 2  
According to the established scenarios 1 and 2, after applying the model to optimize the layout of the production area, several solutions were obtained, among which those that presented a minimization of general and ergonomic risks combined with the best degree of operability were selected. Thus, through Figure 4, it is possible to observe the selected solutions contemplating the execution of all operations including exclusive high-season operations (during the harvest). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Areas**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 3**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario 4**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **Danger Level** & **J/s** & **kcal/min** & **Danger Level** & **J/s** & **kcal/min** \\ \hline
1. Reception of Raw Materials (i.e., Grapes) & 467.1 & 474.5 & 6.8 & 467.1 & 474.5 & 6.8 \\ \hline
2. Vnification & 574.6 & 474.5 & 6.8 & 574.6 & 474.5 & 6.8 \\ \hline
3. Fermentation & 600.4 & 467.5 & 6.7 & 600.4 & 467.5 & 6.7 \\ \hline
4. Clarification/Stabilization & 436.3 & 390.8 & 5.6 & 436.3 & 390.8 & 5.6 \\ \hline
5. Filtering & 462.9 & 523.4 & 7.5 & 462.9 & 523.4 & 7.5 \\ \hline
6. Wine Storage/Conservation in Stainless-Steel Vats & 580.0 & 502.4 & 7.2 & 580.0 & 502.4 & 7.2 \\ \hline
7. Wine Storage/Ageing in Wooden Barrels & 702.9 & 530.3 & 7.6 & 702.9 & 530.3 & 7.6 \\ \hline
8. Wine Heating (Madeira Wine Production) & 277.5 & 460.5 & 6.6 & — & — & — \\ \hline
9. Batches Preparation & 582.3 & 516.4 & 7.4 & 582.3 & 516.4 & 7.4 \\ \hline
10. Bottling & 555.0 & 411.7 & 5.9 & 555.0 & 411.7 & 5.9 \\ \hline
11. Packaging Materials Warehouse & 293.6 & 328.0 & 4.7 & 293.6 & 328.0 & 4.7 \\ \hline
12. Semi-Finished Product Warehouse & 241.7 & 404.7 & 5.8 & 241.7 & 404.7 & 5.8 \\ \hline
13. Finished Product Warehouse & 346.7 & 404.7 & 5.8 & 346.7 & 404.7 & 5.8 \\ \hline
14. Packaging & 394.0 & 362.9 & 5.2 & 394.0 & 362.9 & 5.2 \\ \hline
15. Expedition & 481.2 & 390.8 & 5.6 & 481.2 & 390.8 & 5.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Synthesis of the risk assessments applied to the four scenarios. Through Figure 4a, it is possible to observe that the zones with a higher degree of danger were redistributed along the central area, while the remaining were relocated along the periphery of the building, namely, at the southern and northern ends, with regard to the layout orientation. Concerning efficiency, in terms of risk prevention and operational fluidity, it is possible to conclude that the simulation obtained for scenario 1 presents an efficient arrangement of zones, highlighting the proximity and contiguous location of zones 1-5, allowing for an efficient transformation of raw materials, providing a desirable distance between the transformation zones, the staging zones (zones 6-8), and the areas associated with the bottling and product finishing processes, which is required given the need to separate these steps of production for food safety reasons and for occupational safety reasons as well, favouring the degree of danger reduction. With regard to the areas associated with bottling, packaging, and shipping, there is a dispersion of areas favourable to the efficiency of the process, once after the blending process, wines are directly transferred to the bottling area. On the other hand, the efficiency of the subsequent steps in the bottling process is also assured, and after bottling, the product is transported directly to the packaging/palletizing area, and it is also possible to transport it directly to the expedition area, an aspect that proves to be very useful when there is production of large quantities of product for immediate expedition. Through the analysis of Figure 4b,c, it is also verified that the zones that present a higher level of danger were redistributed along the central area, while the remaining zones were relocated along the periphery of the building.