Figure S1. Membrane modules used in PV, including main dimensions, for: A) tubular zeolite membranes. B) PDMS flat sheet membranes. Figure S2. Total flux as a function of time in both PV process. A) Total flux trough hydrophobic membranes; HFB PV results feeding with a 100 g of a water-ethanol solution with 5.3 ± 0.1 wt% of ethanol. B) Total flux trough hydrophilic membranes; HFL PV results feeding with a 100 g of a water-ethanol solution with 40.0 ± 0.1 wt% of ethanol. Figure S3. Pervaporation permeances as a function of ethanol concentration in the feed corresponding to the runs in Tables 2 and 4: A) membrane PDMS at 60 ºC, C) membrane SIL at 40 ºC, membrane SIL at 60 ºC, B) membrane MOR1 at 75 ºC, D) membrane MOR2 at 75 ºC and F) membrane FAU at 75 ºC. Table S1. Content of volatile compounds in wines (mg.L-1). W0 fresh, untreated wine; WA wine obtained with deionized water as stripper agent; WB wine obtained with PV treated water as stripper agent. Mean values ± standard deviations were obtained from two replicates. a Concentration expressed as mL.mL-1. Table S2. Heny’s constant (Hi) values for the components quantified in wines. Table S3. Average values of ethanol/water separation factor obtained of each collected permeate and retentate samples feeding water-ethanol solutions. Table S4. Average values of ethanol/water separation factor and total flux obtained with PDMS membranes at 30 °C with two different feeds. Table S5. Average values of ethanol/water separation factor and total flux obtained with SIL membranes under different experimental conditions. Table S6. Comparison of hydrophobic-hydrophilic PV application.

Peer reviewed