Comprehensive Review On Production and Utilization of Biochar

Review Paper
Comprehensive review on production and utilization of biochar

N. L. Panwar1 · Ashish Pawar1 · B. L. Salvi2
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019
Abstract
The on-farm burning of crop residues and biomass results in numerous environmental issues and affects human beings.
Crop residues have considerable energy potential if utilized appropriately. Crop residues can be converted into biochar
through thermo-chemical routes; conversion helps in the managing and handling of biomass. Biochar reactors usually
operate at temperatures between 400 and 600 °C with fixed carbon contents ranging from 60 to 85%. The application
of this biochar to soil improves the physiochemical characteristics of soil because biochar is rich in organic carbon
content, which makes the soil more fertile and acts as a carbon sequestration agent over the long term. Biochar itself is
considered a source nutrient and can alter the soil nutrient pools and availability. Biochar applied up to 10 cm depth of
soil may decrease the denitrification potential and lower N 2O emission, greatly controlling leaching of mobile nutrients
such as potassium, thus improving water use efficiency, nutrient availability and plant growth. Furthermore, it reduces
the leaching of nitrogen into the groundwater and increases the water retention and cation-exchange capacity while
moderating the soil’s acidity, resulting in improved soil fertility. This article discusses different biochar production pro-
cesses and various feedstocks and characteristics of biochar. The factors affecting biochar production and advantages
of the utilization of biochar in soil are also reviewed.
Keywords Biomass · Biochar · Slow pyrolysis · Soil health · Greenhouse gas mitigation
1 Introduction Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring

adequate global food supplies represent two of the last
Biomass is referred to as an indirect source of solar energy decade’s most difficult challenges [6]. Although global
and considered a source of stored energy. Biomass is a food production has benefitted from chemical fertiliz-
renewable organic material derived from plants and ani- ers, environmental problems have emerged as a result of
mals serving as sources of energy [1]. Improper disposal their use [7]. Additionally, overuse of fertilizers can result
of biomass produced by the agricultural sector is a major in hardened soil, decreased soil fertility, polluted air and
challenge worldwide [2]. water, and the release of greenhouse gases. There is an
The demand for energy and food security is increas- urgent need to find an alternative to chemical fertilizers
ing as the world population grows. Energy is crucial for that, ideally, can be sourced in abundant amounts, pro-
the development of the industrial, agricultural and trans- motes global food production, enhances CO2 capture,
portation sectors of any country [3]. To meet the energy and does not affect soil health or damage the environ-
demand, fossil fuels are extensively used worldwide. Envi- ment [8]. To sustain agricultural productivity, it is crucial
ronmental and economic issues are continuously empha- to maintain adequate levels of organic matter in the soil
sizing the need to find eco-friendly renewable sources of to preserve its physical, chemical and biological integrity.
energy [4, 5]. Biochar, a pyrogenic black carbon, may play an important
* Ashish Pawar, [email protected] | 1Department of Renewable Energy Engineering, College of Technology and Engineering,
Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, Rajasthan 313001, India. 2Department of Mechanical Engineering,
College of Technology and Engineering, Maharana Pratap University of Agriculture and Technology, Udaipur, Rajasthan 313001, India.
SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:168 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-0172-6
Received: 25 October 2018 / Accepted: 8 January 2019 / Published online: 18 January 2019
Vol.:(0123456789)
Review Paper SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:168 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-0172-6
role in improving soil health, resulting in higher crop yield provide heat, liquid fuel and other elements for thermal
and absorbing atmospheric carbon dioxide [9]. Ji et al. [10] and electrical generation. This review paper is written with
reported that biochar is the most auspicious straw man- the aim to highlight and discuss the different production
agement measure and provides the highest carbon abate- processes, the use of biochar as a soil health enhancer, its
ment rate and economic profit. effects on crop yield and its role in mitigation and carbon
Biochar is produced by heating biomass at high tempera- sequestration.
tures (300–600 °C) in a closed reactor containing no to par-
tial levels of air. Under these conditions, biomass undergoes
thermochemical conversion into biochar [11–18]. Because 2 History of biochar technologies
of its numerous potential uses in agriculture, energy and the
environment, much attention has been given to biochar in Biochar has acquired new dimensions in the current
both the political and academic areas. Biochar can be used organic farming era, but its origins are associated with
in a variety of applications such as energy production, agri- soils of the Amazon region usually referred to as “terra
culture, carbon sequestration, wastewater treatment and preta” soils, which have been found up to 2 m depth. It is
bio-refinery [19]; additionally, biochar provides an alterna- a highly fertile dark-coloured soil that has supported the
tive strategy for managing organic waste. These advantages agricultural needs of the Amazonians for centuries [24].
have renewed the interest of agricultural researchers in pro- The presence of terra preta reveals that humans were
ducing biochar from bio-residues and using the product deliberately responsible for its creation. Carbonization of
as a soil amendment. Hakala et al. [20] conducted a study biomass for producing biochar has been recorded as long
to assess the potential of crop residues for the 1997–2006 as human evolution has existed [25, 26]. The wood dis-
period and found that availability of crop residues varied tillation industry was flourishing in 1850, but petroleum
from 4.8 to 5.1 billion tonnes. industries developed between 1920 and 1950, dimin-
Kumar et al. [21] reported that India has the poten- ishing the growth of wood distillation [25]. In 1970, the
tial for a large amount of biomass feedstock from differ- oil crisis accelerated the scope of alternative fuels and
ent sources. Hiloidhari et al. [22] estimated that annually advanced pyrolysis reactors were designed to extract the
about 686 million tonnes of gross residues is available bio-oil from biomass [27, 28]. Further development of
in India from agricultural crops, and about 234.5 million pyrolysis occurred during the decades of 1970 to 1990 to
tonnes represents the surplus potential. This shows the understand the fundamentals of biomass pyrolysis reac-
availability of enough raw materials for an efficient and tions [29–32]. The commercial use of fast, flash, vacuum
eco-friendly biochar production unit. The biomass used and ablative types of pyrolysis for the production of bio-
for biochar production can be classified [23] as illustrated char and bio-oil appeared between the 1980s and 1990s
in Fig. 1. Figure 2 summarizes the thermochemical con- [33–35]. A new technological achievement allowing a new
version routes of biomass, including direct combustion to bio-oil-based refinery to extract usable by-products from
Fig. 1 Classification of biomass
Vol:.(1234567890)
SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:168 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-0172-6 Review Paper
Fig. 2 Biomass conversion

routes
biomass has been proposed [36–41]. Biochar used for soil

improvement is produced through a slow pyrolysis pro-
cess because of its higher biochar yield compared with
other production processes [42]. Basically, under a slow
pyrolysis process, biomass is heated within the range of
300–600 °C for a longer period [43].
3 Biochar and sustainability
Biochar plays a major role in mitigating climate change,

promoting environmental sustainability and increasing
agricultural productivity [44–46], facilitating soil carbon
storage and improving soil fertility to increase plant and
overall crop yield [47, 48]. Lehmann and Joseph [49] have
presented four motivational objectives of biochar appli-
cation, i.e., soil improvement, waste management, cli-
mate change mitigation and energy. Either individually
or in combination, these objectives can have social or
financial benefits, or both, as illustrated in Fig. 3. Biochar
always draws attention as a potential input for agriculture
as it can improve soil fertility, aid sustainable production
and reduce contamination of streams and groundwater Fig. 3 Motivational objectives of biochar [49]
[50–53].
De Gisi et al. [54] discussed the concept of terra preta
sanitation (TPS), which has been extensively adopted in Woolf et al. [55] introduced a sustainable biochar con-
Amazon civilization. It was reported that TSP is a close loop cept, as illustrated in Fig. 5. Figure 5 clearly shows that
process and beneficial for a sustainable lifestyle, integrat- atmospheric CO2 is utilized by green plants during pho-
ing soil fertility, food security, waste management and tosynthesis. Pyrolyzation of the biomass results in bio-oil
renewable energy, as illustrated in Fig. 4. The terra preta and biochar. Furthermore, Woolf et al. [55] also reported a
sanitation process includes a diversion of urine through reduction in annual net emissions of CO2, CH4 and nitrous
a charcoal mixture and is based on lactic acid fermenta- oxide by 1.8 pg. Biochar amendment to soil can prevent
tion with subsequent vermicomposting. It was found that greenhouse gas emissions from the soil. The biochar can
lacto-fermentation is a biological anaerobic process where increase the water- and nutrient-holding capacities of soil,
no gas or odour is produced. which typically then result in increased plant growth.
Vol.:(0123456789)
correspondingly immense range of composition. In this

case, a compilation of different biochar conversion tech-
nologies along with their operating conditions and prod-
uct yields was offered by Xie et al. [56], who found that
with a longer residence period (up to 4 h) with moderate
temperature (up to 500 °C), the biochar yield varied from
15 to 35% while the bio-oil yield varied between 30 and
50%. On the other hand, with less residence time (up to
2 s), more bio-oil (50–70%) was found.
Thermochemical processes such as pyrolysis and car-
bonization convert the biomass into bio-fuels and other
bio-energy products. In the pyrolysis process, thermo-
chemical conversion of biomass is carried out in the
absence of air and at a temperature > 400 °C to form a
solid product known as biochar. The biochar mainly con-
sists of carbon (C), hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen (N),
sulphur (S) and ash. Generally, there are three modes of
Fig. 4 Terra preta sanitation system [53] pyrolysis: slow, intermediate and fast. A higher biochar
yield was found with a slow pyrolysis process than with
others [57]. Steiner et al. [58] produced biochar from
4 Biochar production technologies rice husk using a top-lit updraft gasifier and found that
this technology can be used relatively easily for farmers to
Biochar is derived from a wide variety of biomasses includ- produce biochar in the field, with an efficiency of 15–33%.
ing crop residues that have been thermally degraded Biochar produced from available on-farm crop residues is
under different operating conditions. It exhibits a sufficient to contribute 6.3–11.8% of the production area
annually [59].
Fig. 5 Sustainable biochar routes [55]
Vol:.(1234567890)
Carbonization is a slow pyrolysis process that has been wood as a feedstock. Lohri et al. [65] estimated an average
in use for thousands of years, and its main goal is the pro- emission component in the case of an earthen mound kiln.
duction of biochar. In slow pyrolysis, biomass is heated His analysis showed that the emission of carbon dioxide
slowly in the absence of air to a relatively low temperature (CO2) into the atmosphere was around 334 ppm. Signifi-
(≈ 400 °C) over an extended period of time [60]. Energy cant emissions of the products of incomplete combustion
can drive the process in the following different ways: (1) adversely affect human health and the environment. FAO
directly as a heat of reaction, (2) directly by flue gases from [66] found that a higher level of efficiency and product
the combustion of feedstock, (3) through indirect heating quality could be obtained at a maximum carbonizing tem-
of the reactor wall using a hot gas and (4) through indirect perature of approximately 500 °C.
heating of the reactor wall using sand or other non-gas
materials. The biochar production process can be classified 4.1.2 Brick, concrete and metal kiln
as illustrated in Fig. 6.
Kristofferson and Bokalders [67] constructed a rectangu-
4.1 Batch processes lar kiln using either masonry blocks or poured concrete
combined with steel reinforcements. They reported char-
The batch process is an ancient practice and is still used coal production cycles in a cold climate to be 25–30 days
in rural areas for biochar production. Though the char- long and in a warm climate to be 33 days with maximum
coal yield in such a process varies over the low range charcoal yields of 25–33%. Deal et al. [68] conducted an
of 12.5–30% [61], it is still preferred in the countryside experiment to produce biochar using a metallic kiln. Dur-
because of its low operational and construction costs. The ing the experiments, five different feedstocks were used:
batch process for biochar production includes: eucalyptus, maize, rice husks, coffee husks and groundnut
shells. The maximum temperatures reached inside the kiln
1. Earthen and mound kiln; were recorded as being between 400 and 600 °C at the top
2. Brick, concrete and metal kiln; of the kiln and between 600 and 800 °C at the bottom. Fur-
3. Retorts. thermore, biochar yields were 140–290 g/kg of the initial
biomass weight for eucalyptus, 240–250 g/kg for maize
4.1.1 Earthen and mound kiln cobs, 450–490 g/kg for rice husks, 360–430 g/kg for coffee
husks and 290–320 g/kg for groundnut shells.
Duku et al. [62] conducted an experiment on the pro- Pennise et al. [69] tested a Brazilian round brick kiln
duction of biochar by using an earthen mound kiln in with a capacity of 20,000 kg of woody biomass and
Ghana. During the study, they used wood as a feedstock noted a charcoal yield of approximately 68.9% with a
and found that the ground acts as an insulating material carbon content of 85.7% and a calorific value of approxi-
that resists the entry of oxygen during the carbonization mately 29.20 kJ/g. Mwampamba et al. [70] used wood as
process. Masek [63] performed an experiment on biochar a feedstock for charcoal production, using a brick and
production using an earthen mound kiln and found a yield metal kiln, and found that the efficiency of production
> 10%. Bailis [64] used wood as a feedstock for charcoal fell between 25 and 35%. Kammen and Lew [61] com-
production and found that moisture content affects the pared the efficiencies of five metal kilns, including Sia-
yield of charcoal in traditional processes. He reported that mese, Nilgiri, standard beehive, South African garage
the yield of charcoal ranges from 10 to 30% when using and commercial half orange, from different nations,
Fig. 6 Classification of biochar

production process
Vol.:(0123456789)
including Malaya, India, Brazil, South Africa and Argen- benefits [75]. The continuous process for biochar produc-
tina, and found variations in charcoal yields that ranged tion includes:
from 12.5 to 30%, reported as the dry weight ratios of
the charcoal output to the wood feedstock input. 1. Drum type pyrolyzer;
2. Screw type pyrolyzer;
3. Rotary kiln.
4.1.3 Retorts
4.2.1 Drum type pyrolyzer
Peterson and Jackson [71] produced biochar by adopt-
ing two different processes, a retort-type oven with Robert et al. [45] used a generalized model in which the
inert gas and a gasification technology using various feedstock is pyrolyzed in continuous operation, is hori-
crop residues (such as corn stover, wheat straw and zontally mounted to a drum kiln and heated externally
wheat straw treated with glycerin). They reported that to around 450 °C. The continuous feeding and moving of
gasification is a simpler, easier and more cost-effec- biomass took place in the drum with the help of paddles,
tive means to produce biochar compared with retort, which increased the kiln efficiency about 50% so that 90%
because while the retort method effectively promoted of the heat recovered from the kiln was used for drying the
pyrolysis in the absence of oxygen, it was costly during feedstock. Jelinek [76] developed a drum pyrolyzer which
scale-up. This expense was due to the need to control uses heating tubes placed in the centre of the durm. The
the atmosphere with sealed systems in conjunction with tubes are subjected to low-temperature carbonization
the use of inert gas. For operation, as a batch reactor, of trash and reuse material with a temperature of about
atmospheric control is also required; otherwise, it can- 400–500 °C by slowly rotating the drum. The drum pyro-
not run with a continuous supply of feedstock. Adam lyzer feed material to be carbonized was located near one
[72] built an improved charcoal production system in end of the face and discharge took place at the other end.
India and East Africa from a low-cost retort kiln that pro- Collin [77] discovered that aromatic pyrolysis oil can be
duces charcoal from forest residue such as wood and produced by pyrolyzing special wastes containing hydro-
that is more eco-friendly. Also, during the experiment carbons such as scrap tires, cable, waste plastics, etc., in an
Adam [72] realized that the charcoal production effi- indirectly heated drum reactor at a temperature of around
ciency was approximately doubled (30–42%) compared 700 °C. Collin [77] saw a yield of up to 50% in relation to
with traditional charcoal production methods (10–22%). the organic material. Becchetti et al. [78] studied the use
He also found that ICPS reduces emissions into the of a conventional type rotary drum pyrolysis reactor for
atmosphere up to 75% compared with traditional car- the production of pyrolysis gases and carbonaceous solid
bonization processes. Antal and Grønli [73] studied the residue such as charcoal from municipal solid waste and
required operating cycle for the production of charcoal observed that the pyrolysis process not only improved
from the Missouri kiln in the USA and reported that it the energy yield but also minimized the waste disposal
produces charcoal in a 25% yield for every 7–12 days of problem; solid waste was controlled to 10–15% of the total
its operating cycle. The average temperature required weight of the initial residue.
for the operation is between 450 and 510 °C; the work-
ing temperature varies significantly throughout the kiln, 4.2.2 Screw type pyrolyzer
which affects the charcoal quality. Furthermore, Moreira
et al. [74] produced biochar from cashew nut shells in Agirre et al. [79] developed an auger reactor for the contin-
a batch-type reactor. The temperature was varied from uous carbonization process by using biomass waste. Dur-
200 to 400 °C and yielded 30% biochar, 40% liquid and ing the experiment it was realized that 900 °C temperature
30% gas products. was required for suitable quality of charcoal production,
which contains a high carbon content of approximately
4.2 Continuous process for production of biochar 85% and a low volatile amount of approximately 10%. For
the auger pyrolysis reactor, many parameters, such as the
At present, the continuous process for production of bio- moisture content, residence time, grain size and operat-
char is widely adopted in the commercial sectors because ing temperature, affect the yield of charcoal and its qual-
of maximum yield, energy efficiency and its quality. The ity. Maschio et al. [80] studied a moving bed in the pilot
biochar yield was between 25 and 35% [62]. The con- plant, a continuous screw reactor for charcoal production,
tinuous production of biochar is ideal for medium- to by using biomass with indirect heating. They found that a
large-scale production and it provides greater flexibil- 350 °C to a 450 °C operating temperature was required for
ity concerning the biomass feedstock, which are major charcoal production. During the study they realized that a
Vol:.(1234567890)
heating rate in the range of 20–40 k/min rate was required; as a feedstock. Another six samples in Switzerland were
the higher temperature could decrease the charcoal yield, produced from a horizontally constructed kiln heated to
and the particle size should range from 50 to 200 mm. a temperature of 650 °C.
Brown and Brown [81] developed a laboratory-scale reac-
tor to pyrolyze red oak wood biomass for the production 4.3 Novel processes
of char and bio-oil. During the experiment, they found that
operating conditions, such as the flow rate of the sweep Flash carbonization is a novel process. In it, biomass is
gas (3.5 standard l/min), heat carrier temperature (600 °C), quickly and efficiently converted into biochar. The maxi-
high auger speeds (63 RPM) and high heat carrier mass mum biochar yield was around 40–50% with 70–80% fixed
flow rates (18 kg/h), were helpful for maximum bio-oil carbon content [87]. Antal and Grønli [73] examined the
yield and minimum char yield. The result indicated that high yield of charcoal using different feedstocks, such as
this reactor was well suited for bio-oil production, achiev- leucaena wood, oak wood, corncobs and macadamia nut
ing > 73% liquid yield. Mozammel et al. [82] used a Her- shells, carbonized at high pressure (1 MPa) in controlled
bold pyrolyzer in which a screw type shaft was fitted inside flash fires within a packed bed. In flash carbonization, the
the reactor to produce activated charcoal from feedstock direction of the fire and the entry of the air were controlled
such as coconut shells using Z nCl2 activation. While per- with a counter current and at an elevated pressure. Char-
forming the experiment, results were obtained in which coal with a fixed carbon yield was reached at < 30 min
the initial calorific value of coconut shell was 18.38 MJ/kg, of reaction time. Furthermore, during the experiment,
and the final calorific value of charcoal was 30.75 MJ/kg. the charcoal yield was between 29.5 and 40%, fixed car-
The fixed carbon content was approximately 76.32% and bon ranged from 27.7 to 30.9%, and the energy conver-
had a maximum yield up to 32.96%. The activation time sion efficiency of biomass to charcoal ranged from 55.1
was 50 min for the production of activated charcoal at a to 66.3%. Wade et al. [88] investigated laboratory-scale
temperature of 600 °C with an impregnation ratio of about flash carbonization (a novel process) for the conversion
40%. Recently, Ferreria et al. [83] developed a screw reactor of feedstock biomass (corncob and macadamia nut shell)
to produce biochar from elephant grass. The reactor tem- into biocarbon. During the experiment, biomass feedstock
perature during the experimental study ranged between was placed in a packed bed within a pressure vessel, and
400 and 600 °C. Their experimental results reveal that the an initial pressure of 1–2 MPa was maintained through
maximum biochar yield was about 37.4% at 400 °C. the use of compressed air. A flash fire was ignited at the
bottom of the bed, and after a duration of 2 min, air was
4.2.3 Rotary kiln supplied to the top of the bed. It was found that biomass
could be converted to biocarbon at a high yield. For corn-
Ortiz et al. [84] carried out a study using a pilot rotary cob, a pressure > 1.31 MPa was achieved at a rate up to
kiln to produce carbonized material from a variety of raw 1.21 MPa/s, for an initial system pressure of 2.17 MPa. In
materials such as eucalyptus wood. The pilot rotary kiln the case of macadamia nut shell, this phenomenon did
was cylindrical and rotated around its longitudinal axis. To not occur. Nunoura et al. [89] used biomass feedstock such
facilite the discharge of material, the pilot rotary kiln was as corncob and nut shell to produce charcoal by using a
slightly inclined (slope of about 2–6%). In their research flash carbonization process. After the experiment was
project, Ogawa et al. [85] introduced an internal heat- completed, they found that the fixed carbon yield from
ing rotary kiln designed to produce charcoal using wood corncob feedstock reached 29.30% and the yield from nut
waste as a feedstock. During their experiment, they found shell was 32.0% at elevated pressures of 0.791–2.86 and
that the rotary kiln produced around 358.0 Mg-C/year bio- 1.14–2.17 MPa, respectively. Gas chromatography was
char from 936.0 Mg-C/year wood waste at a planned tem- also used to analyze the composition of effluent gas com-
perature in the range of 500–600 °C. Schimmelpfennig and ing from the carbonization canister. Both feedstocks con-
Glaser [86] analyzed two different rotary kilns used in the tained up to 2% hydrogen, 14% oxygen, 60–80% nitrogen,
carbonization of organic material that discharged pyrolysis 10% carbon monoxide, 3% methane and 2–20% carbon
gases suitable for heating purposes or for driving the pro- dioxide. Nartey and Zhao [90] studied the flash carboniza-
cesses. The experiment used rotary kilns that are heated tion of biomass; their ignition of the flash fire took place
externally and have a shape similar to a cylindrical pyro- at elevated pressure (1–3 MPa) in the middle of a packed
lyzer in which biomass is moved continuously by rotating bed, and 0.8–1.5 kg air per kg of biomass was required
the spiral inside the kiln. The rotary kilns produced a total to complete the carbonization. Those researchers found a
of 16 samples of biochar. Ten samples were produced in 50% biochar yield by using various feedstocks for reactor
a vertically constructed rotary kiln in China operating in a temperatures ranging from 330 to 650 °C, where the time
temperature range from 400 to 600 °C and using bamboo required for flash carbonization was < 30 min. A two-step
Vol.:(0123456789)
pyrolysis process was developed by Cheng et al. [91] to was tested with Anjan (Hardwickia binata), Babul (Acacia
improve the biochar yield. With this process, the biochar nilotica), Behada (Terminalia chebula), Char (Buchnania
yield was 39.3% at 600 °C. Furthermore, it was also noted lazan) and Dhawda (Anogeissus latifolia) wood, and the
that the fixed carbon yield obtained from two-step pyroly- mass conversion efficiency was found to be 27.14%.
sis was higher than that from the one-step process.
4.4 Method of biomass heating to produce biochar 5 Factors affecting biochar production
Biochar production from crop residues starts with the The performance results of biochar production which
feeding of biomass into the biochar production unit and occur via different production technologies broadly
combustion in the absence of air. The formation of char- depend on the various types of feedstock used, the mois-
coal is completed in five different temperature stages: ture content of said feedstock, and the operating tem-
stage 1: At 20–110 °C, biomass absorbs heat as it dries, peratures and pressure points at which experiments were
giving off moisture as water vapour. At this stage, the tem- conducted. Biomass has three main groups, cellulose,
perature remains at or slightly above 100 °C until the wood hemicellulose and lignin, with trace amounts of extractives
is dry. Stage 2: At 110–270 °C, biomass starts to decom- and minerals. These propositions are varied depending on
pose by giving off carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ace- the feedstock, a variation which highly affects the biochar
tic acid and methanol, making an endothermic reaction. yield [73, 95, 96]. Moisture content is another factor that
Stage 3: At 270–290 °C, this is the point when an exother- affects the biochar properties and char yield. The mois-
mic reaction starts, generating a considerable amount of ture content affects the char reaction and is extensively
heat. Such a reaction leads to a continuous breakdown; used to produce activated carbon [97]. Bridgwater and
the desired temperature is maintained to keep the wood Peacocke [98] reported that in the fast pyrolysis processes
from cooling down below the decomposition tempera- around 10% moisture content is fairly desirable during the
ture. During the exothermic reaction, gases are released charcoal-making process, with feedstock having 15–20%
in vapour form with some tar. Stage 4: With increasing moisture that can be carbonized [73].
temperature, a vapour mixture of combustible gases (i.e., Production of biochar is a thermochemical process and
carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane) and carbon temperature plays a major role in the properties of bio-
dioxide is released into the atmosphere. As the tempera- char and its suitability for soil health [99]. A laboratory-
ture increases up to 400 °C, the condensable vapours such scale study on pyrolysis’ ability to produce biochar from
as water, acetic acid, methanol, acetone, etc., and tar are pin, mixed larch and spruce chips and from softwood pel-
predominate. Stage 5: When the temperature reaches lets was conducted by Masek et al. [100]. In the study by
400 °C, the transformation of biomass to charcoal will be Masek et al. [100] temperatures varied between 350 and
practically complete, but appreciable amounts of tar are 550 °C. Also, Masek et al. [100] reported that the stability
contained within the biochar, and some tar has condensed of biochar increases as the temperature increases, and the
on the charcoal. To avoid this, the temperature should be yield of biochar is independent of temperature. Angin and
further increased to 500 °C to complete the carbonization Sensoz [101] also reported that the chemical and surface
stage [92]. properties of biochar are affected by pyrolysis tempera-
There are several ways to provide heat to maintain ture. As the pyrolysis temperature is increased from 400
the desired temperature of pyrolysis kilns. One method to 700 °C, the volatile matter, hydrogen and oxygen con-
involves combusting part of the biomass within the kiln. tents of the biochar were decreased, but the value of fixed
This is called autothermal pyrolysis, as illustrated in Fig. 7a. carbon was increased. Biomass cannot be converted into
Due to the use of partial combustion, authothermal kilns biochar at low pyrolysis temperature (300 °C) because at
typically have lower char yields. Another method is for the this temperature the desired carbon frame structure has
heat to be produced externally and to heat the biomass not developed [102].
directly. This involves hot gas being brought into con- The reactor operating temperature plays a vital role in
tact with the biomass, as shown in Fig. 7b, or heat being deciding the fixed carbon and oxygen content of biochar.
transferred through the reactor walls, as in shown Fig. 7c. It has been found that higher operating temperatures
Condensable pyrolysis vapour can be recovered during have higher fixed carbon contents and lower oxygen con-
indirect heating, and this ultimately enhances the biochar tents, as presented in Table 1.
yield [93]. Operating pressure also affects the biochar yield. The
A performance test of the Argentinean-type charcoal effect of absolute pressure (0.1–1.5 MPa) and peak tem-
kiln (see Fig. 8) involving the carbonization of wood bio- perature (400–550 °C) on pyrolysis behaviour of two-
mass was carried out by Mohod and Panwar [94]. The kiln phase olive mill wastes was examined by Manya et al.
Vol:.(1234567890)
Fig. 7 a Kiln, autothermal car-

bonization [93]. b Retort with
direct heating using pyroly-
sis gases [93]. c Retort with
indirect heating using pyrolysis
gases [93]
[107]. Increasing both absolute pressure and peak tem- to produce the biochar and syngases that mainly
perature results in a decrease in biochar yield; however, depend on biomass and its operating condition. The
the fixed carbon yield increases [83, 107]. Furthermore, term enthalpy for pyrolysis or carbonization is the heat
Manya et al. [108] investigated the effect of particle size or energy used to produce pyrolysis. Daugaard and
along with pressure and peak temperature on the stability Brown [110] revealed that the enthalpy required for
of vine shoot-derived biochar. It was found that operat- the thermal decomposition of oat shell and pine was
ing a pyrolysis reactor under high pressure and high tem- approximately 1.04 ± 0.18 MJ/kg and 1.61 ± 0.26 MJ/
perature maximizes pyrolysis gas production, but reduces kg, respectively. However, the corresponding energies
the char yield. The pyrolysis process carried out at high required for thermal decomposition were approxi-
temperature (750°C) electrical conductivity significantly mately 0.8 ± 0.2 MJ/kg and 1.6 ± 0.3 MJ/kg, respectively,
increased, but there is scope vitalization of heavy metal as presented in Table 2. Laird [111] reported that the
(Zn) with the low melting point [109]. net amount of energy required for the pyrolysis pro-
cess is nearly 15% of the total energy obtained from
dry biomass. Furthermore, Fing [112] estimated that the
6 Energy required for the production energy demand for obtaining biochar from biomass var-
of biochar ied in the range of 1.1–16 MJ/kg, whereas 44–170 MJ/
kg energy was required to produce activated carbon,
Energy consumption during biochar production which was approximately ten times higher than that of
obtained from a pyrolysis plant is the major issue biochar production.
involved in carbon-free emission in the carbon indus- Ro et al. [113] used swine solid and blended swine
try. The enthalpy for pyrolysis is the energy required solids (29% rye grass + 71% swine solids) to produce
Vol.:(0123456789)
Fig. 8 Argentinean-type
charcoal kiln (all dimensions in
mm) [94]
high-temperature value-added biochar feedstocks. found that a lower oxygen-to-carbon (O:C) ratio resulted
In the same study [91], the authors demonstrated the in a more stable biochar material. Conclusively, when the
energy balance of their study for drying and pyrolysis, oxygen-to-carbon molar ratio (O:C) is > 0.6, biochar will
revealing that 12.5 MJ/kg energy was required for swine probably possess a half-life on the order of < 100 years;
solids and 0.5 MJ/kg for blended material to obtain the if the range is 0.2–0.6, the accepted half-life range is
desired value-added biochar, as mentioned in Table 2. between 100 and 1000 years. If the molar oxygen-to-
carbon ratio is < 0.2, the half-life will be > 1000 years.
In this way, the process temperature, i.e., pyrolysis tem-
perature, is highly responsible for biochar stability [118].
7 Classification of biochar
The International Biochar Initiative (IBI) broadly classi-

fies biochar based on the carbon storage value, fertilizer 9 Application of biochar
value (P, K, S and Mg only), liming value and particle
size distribution. Furthermore, Anon [114, 115] pro- 9.1 Biochar as soil improvement
posed three general classes of biochar on the basis of
organic carbon content. In class 1 type biochar, the Corg Biochar improves soil physiology and increases produc-
mass fraction is about ≥ 60%, in class 2 in the range of tivity, and it also assists with crop residue management.
30 to < 60% and in class 3 < 10% [116]. After the application of biochar to soil, many studies
report that the soil acidity was reduced considerably,
and essential mineral uptake increased with residual
8 Stability of biochar in soil effects for the following season [119]. In biochar signifi-
cant quantities of K and small amounts of Mg, Ca, Cu, Zn
The stability of biochar depends on the conditions of and Fe are present, which have potential as fertilizer [70].
its production and biomass feedstock. Spokas [117] Stockmann et al. [120] reported that soil contains
conducted a study on the stability of biochar in soil and approximately 2344 Gt of organic carbon globally and is
Vol:.(1234567890)
Table 1 Effect of temperature Feedstock Pyrolysis tempera- Biochar elements (%) References
on biochar composition ture (°C)
C H N O
Corn cob 400 75.23 3.37 0.82 14.11 [103]

450 77.84 2.95 0.86 11.45
500 80.85 2.5 0.97 8.87
550 82.62 2.25 0.84 7.43
Rapeseed 400 57.95 3.43 5.43 33.16 [104]
450 59.77 2.36 5.12 32.75
500 61.98 1.92 4.12 31.78
550 67.29 1.75 4.35 26.21
Safflower seed 400 68.76 4.07 3.77 23.49 [101]
450 70.43 3.49 3.69 22.39
500 71.37 2.96 3.91 21.76
550 72.96 2.67 3.74 20.63
600 73.72 2.34 3.84 20.10
Conocrpus waste 200 64.20 3.96 0.69 26.60 [105]
400 76.80 2.83 0.87 14.20
600 82.90 1.28 0.71 6.60
800 85.00 0.62 0.90 4.90
Wheat straw 400 57.80 3.20 1.50 21.60 [106]
500 70.30 2.90 1.40 17.70
600 73.40 2.10 1.40 14.90
700 73.90 1.30 1.20 14.60
Corn straw 400 56.10 4.30 2.40 22.00 [106]
500 58.00 2.70 2.30 21.50
600 58.60 2.00 2.00 18.70
700 59.50 1.50 1.60 16.60
Peanut shell 400 58.40 3.50 1.80 21.00 [106]
500 64.50 2.80 1.70 18.50
600 71.90 2.00 1.60 15.00
700 74.40 1.40 1.40 14.20
Table 2 Energy required to produce biochar from different feedstocks

Sample no. Type of feedstock Mode of process Energy Output products References
demand (MJ/
kg)
1. Oat shell Pyrolysis 0.8 ± 0.2 Biochar, oil, gases [110]

2. Pine Pyrolysis 1.6 ± 0.3 Biochar, oil, gases [110]
3. Swine solids Carbonization (high temperature) 12.5 Oil, biochar, gases [13]
4. Blended swine solid (29% rye Carbonization (high temperature) 0.5 Oil, biochar, gases [113]
grass + 71% swine solid)
5. Biomass Carbonization 1.1–16 Biochar [112]
considered the largest terrestrial pool of organic carbon. conversion of surplus crop residues as a source of organic
Small changes in the soil’s organic carbon stock could carbon is one way to improve the soil health and retain the
result in significant impacts on the atmospheric carbon water-holding capacity as well as essential nutrients [9].
concentration. The sustainability of agricultural produc- Demand for food has drastically increased as the global
tion is highly dependent on the physical, chemical and population has grown. Growers are increasingly using
biological integrity of the soil. Organic carbon plays a chemical fertilizers in the soil to meet demand. Soil fertility
major role in maintaining these factors. The efficient has significantly decreased as a result of this. The addition
Vol.:(0123456789)
of organic carbon is the only option for overcoming this Chintala et al. [127] produced biochar from corn stover
issue. Biochar has tremendous potential to improve soil (Zea mays L.) and switchgrass (Pencium vigratum L.) using
health, and it is currently attracting considerable interest microwave pyrolysis at 650 °C and applied in acidic soil. Liu
globally because of the sustainable stability of carbon, et al. [128] concluded that biochar can potentially reduce
which also helps in reducing the atmospheric carbon N2O emission in soil by affecting ammonia and nitrite-oxi-
dioxide concentration. In the present context, biochar is dizing bacteria and these effects depend on the biochar
globally considered a soil amendment tool because it has application rate in soil. Ibrahim et al. [129] also revealed
a suitable cation exchange capacity, which improves the that the application of biochar significantly increases plant
soil pH, water-holding capacity and affinity for micro- and fresh weight, chlorophyll and chlorophyll b.
macro-plant nutrients [17]. The environmental benefits can be maximized if recy-
Laird [121], Glaser et al. [122], Novak et al. [123] and cling of organic wastes occurs through proper routes
Muhammad et al. [124] found that the application of [130]. Maraseni [130] gives a very good example of value
charcoal worked to increase the available water, build soil addition in the Australian pulp and paper industry, as illus-
organic matter, enhance nutrient cycling, lower bulk den- trated in Fig. 9. Promoting fast-growing species on planta-
sity, act as a liming agent and reduce leaching of nutri- tions can not only aid in achieving goals for greenhouse
ents to groundwater. The application of biochar as a soil gas mitigation, but also help in carbon sequestration. Such
amendment significantly increased crop yield, even in the a value addition approach increases employment in rural
absence of nitrogen fertilizer [103]. Mogami et al. [125] areas.
reported that the soil water retention capacity with palm Iswaran et al. [131] applied biochar during the cultiva-
shell biochar application is significantly higher than that tion of pea and mungbean in Indian climatic conditions
without biochar. Furthermore, Mogami et al. [125] also and found that adding 0.5 tonne/ha biochar in the field
found that biochar application at 0–10 cm greatly con- increased the yield of peas by 160%, while the yield of
trolled leaching of mobile nutrients such as potassium, mungbean was increased by 122%. Kishimoto and Sugiria
thus improving water use efficiency, nutrient availability [132] conducted a study in Japan on soybeans grown on
and plant growth. Jia et al. [126] conducted a pot experi- volcanic ash loam, revealing that the yield was increased
ment to estimate the effect of maize straw biochar applica- by 151% with the addition of about 0.5 tonnes/ha biochar.
tion on nitrous oxide ( N2O) and methane ( CH4) emissions, By adding biochar at rates of 5 tonnes/ha and 15 tonnes/
N2O emission factor and vegetable yield. They concluded ha, the yield was increased by 63% and 29%, respectively.
that biochar application greatly reduced N 2O emissions In addition, biochar produced using cow manure was
and N2O—N emission factors while maintaining vegetable mixed with sandy soil at rates of 0, 10, 15 and 20 tonnes/
production. They found that the methane emission was ha before the cultivation of a maize crop revealing biochar
not affected by biochar amendment. application at 15 and 20 tonnes/ha significantly increased
Fig. 9 Value addition for the

pulp and paper industry [131]
Vol:.(1234567890)
maize yield by 150% and 98%, respectively. The study also at 200 mg-C/l, biochar removes 90% of organic matter in
found that application of cow manure-derived biochar to 20 min of contact, with a capacity of 0.0064 mg-dissolved
sandy soil not only improves the crop yield, but also sig- organic carbon/mg-C.
nificantly improves the physico-chemical properties of the Biochar acts as a super sorbent with the ability to
coarse soil [133]. remove organic and inorganic contaminants from the soil
Nitrogen (N) is one of the most important elements as well as water because of its physiochemical properties.
that play a major role in plant growth and productivity The activities of biochar and activated carbon (AC) are
as plants use inorganic N directly through the root sys- similar, but they differ from the type of raw material or
tem [134–138]. Nguyen et al. [139] reviewed the effects of feedstock, production techniques and final physiochemi-
biochar on soil inorganic nitrogen and found that biochar cal properties, as studied by Qambrani et al. [145].
production temperature and biochar surface properties
are the main factors affecting soil inorganic nitrogen. So 9.3 Biochar for climate change mitigation
far, there are limited long-term studies of > 1 year dura-
tion available in the literature; thus, the long-term effects To avoid the worst consequences of climate changes,
of biochar on soil inorganic nitrogen still remain unclear. humans need to significantly reduce global warming emis-
Shanta et al. [140] demonstrated the effects of biochar sions and, if possible, remove the existing carbon dioxide
along with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on plant from the atmosphere. Scientists have discovered a more
growth variables (i.e., height, stand count, dry biomass). environmentally friendly way to create charcoal by heat-
The 20 Mg/ha biochar treatment, in combination with ing biomass, plants and animal manure in a low-oxygen
100 kg N fertilizer h a−1, found almost the same biomass environment. The result is called biochar; it consists mostly
yield as the treatment with 50 kg N fertilizer ha−1 without of carbon and is produced specifically to help reduce
biochar. Furthermore, it was reported that this effect was global warming [146]. Bruckman et al. [147] reported that
not consistent across study sites, highlighting the incom- incorporating charred organic matter in soil is a potential
plete understanding of crop responses to biochar applica- geo-engineering method for climate change mitigation.
tion at different study locations. Surprisingly, inoculation In addition, Bruckman et al. [147] reported that biochar
of switchgrass seeds with bio-fertilizers did not appear to amendment on forest floors in an acidic spruce ecosystem
improve crop yield in the presence or absence of biochar could lead to an increase of surface carbon stocks. It is a
soil amendments. well-known fact that airborne black carbon, or soot, is a
significant contributor to global warming. If biochar is sim-
9.2 Application of biochar in water treatment ply spread on top of soil, there is the possibility of airborne
black carbon. However, such issues can be avoided if bio-
Recently, biochar derived from biomass has been given char is tilled deep into the soil, which can also improve the
significant attention, especially for the effective removal soil’s water retention and reduce leaching of agricultural
of heavy metals, toxic elements and contaminants from nutrients [148]. Furthermore, Waters et al. [149] reported
water and wastewater. Biochar is a promising low-cost and that issues of climate change mitigation impacts arise
effective material with remarkable physiochemical proper- largely with the stabilization of soil organic matter using
ties such as high surface area, cation exchange capacity, biochar and generation of renewable fuels, which can
aromatic character, carbon content and low H/C ratio, etc. reduce fossil fuel consumption.
Shaheen et al. [141] derived wood-based biochar as an
emerging bio-sorbent which has potential to remove toxic 9.4 Carbon sequestration
elements from water and wastewater. The biochar mate-
rial’s high surface area and its reactivity further its uses in Climate change is one of the biggest challenges presently.
water filters for the removal of pathogens such as lipids It affects the entire cropping patterns across the globe.
and phenol from water, as studied by Werner et al. [142]. Biomass is usually considered a carbon-neutral material,
Werner et al. [142] carried out a field experiment in Ghana whereas biochar, which is produced through crop resi-
using biochar-filtered water for irrigation and measured dues with stable carbon and returned to the soil, will act
the increase in maximum crop yield (> 40%) in leafy green as a long-term sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide. It
vegetable production. Gwenzi et al. [143] asserted that will enhance carbon fixation and reduce the emission of
biomass-derived biochar-based water treatment systems gases such as CH4, N2O and CO2 [150]. Lehmann et al. [151]
are a potentially low-cost sustainable technology for the reported that the global carbon sequestration potential
provision of clean water. Lee et al. [144] conducted experi- using agricultural and forestry wastes was estimated to
ments for removal of natural organic matters in water be about 0.16 Gt on an annual basis. Furthermore, these
through biochar with different doses and reported that authors also reported that by using renewable fuels the
Vol.:(0123456789)
carbon sequestration potential may reach the range of much lower greenhouse gas abatement costs of about
5.5–9.5 Gt/year by the year 2100. Smith et al. [152] esti- 30, 45 and 1.5 euros per tonne CO2e for biochar derived
mated the carbon sequestration potential considering from stover, switchgrass and yard waste, respectively. Fur-
agricultural soils globally at about 1.4–2.9 Gt of C
O2 equiv- thermore, Cowie et al. [163] examined the greenhouse gas
alents. Chatterjee and Lal [153] suggested a sequestration mitigation potential of poultry litter biochar applied to
potential of agricultural soils of up to 6 Gt of CO2 equiva- maize crops and reported a reduction of 3.2 kg C O2e per
lents per year by 2030. An experimental investigation of kg of biochar.
carbon sequestration through silage maize was carried out Zhang et al. [164] conducted an experiment to assess
under Denmark’s climatic conditions by Kristiansen et al. the effect of biochar with and without application of nitro-
[154]. They found that carbon from maize roots and stub- gen on the net greenhouse gas balance and greenhouse
ble accumulated in the soil at a rate of 0.25–0.49 tonnes gas intensity under the Jerusalem Artichoke Bioenergy
C/ha year. Furthermore, with the addition of 8 tonnes of Cropping System. During their experiment, it was found
dry matter per hectare, the carbon accumulation rate was that soil C
H4 emissions were 72–80% lower in the biochar-
between 0.71 and 0.98 tonnes C/ha year. Boddey et al. amended plots than in the unamended plots. Further-
[155] conducted experiments in a subtropical region of more, it was reported that biochar-amended soil improved
Southern Brazil to assess the soil’s organic carbon potential the greenhouse gas sink capacity.
at 30 and 100 cm. The soil carbon accumulation rate at a
depth of 30 cm was estimated to be between 0.04 and
0.88 mg/ha/year, whereas at 100 cm depth it was between 10 Safety measures during biochar
0.48 and 1.53 mg/ha/year. production and its applications
There is limited literature available with details on the

9.5 Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions smooth operation and necessary safety measures for the
production of biochar. Many reports have shown that the
Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are considered moisture content of crop residue or feedstock should be
the major greenhouse gases that are primarily responsi- < 8% as feedstock with lower moisture content requires
ble for climate change. The concentration of greenhouse less energy to convert into biochar. It is well known that
gases in the atmosphere has reached an alarming level. biochar is produced by heating of biomass and a consid-
The atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has erable amount of smoke is generated during the process.
increased from 280 ppm prior to industrialization to Therefore, the workplace should be well ventilated. Sig-
379 ppm in 2005 [156] and 402.9 ppm in 2016. Carbon mund et al. [165] investigated the cytotoxicity of biochar
dioxide levels today are higher than at any other point in and reported that cytotoxic effects were likely related to
at least the past 800,000 years [157]. Global crop residues its particulate nature and size distribution. They also sug-
produce about 3758 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a gested that, to minimize the risk of exposure, operators
year, which is equivalent to what is produced by approxi- should wear respiratory protective equipment during
mately 7560 million barrels of oil. The energy equivalent biochar production and its application in the field. It was
of these yearly crop residues was estimated to be about also suggested that biochar should be applied as a slurry
69.9 EJ [158]. and properly mixed with a soil matrix to avoid secondary
On the Asian continent, straw burning is a common dust formation.
problem. Gupta et al. [159] reported the particulate matter
produced by burning 1 tonne of straw as 60 kg CO, 1460 kg
CO2, 199 kg ash and 2 kg S O2. Furthermore, Gadde et al. 11 Conclusions
[160] estimated that the burning of crop residues on the
Asian continent annualy contributes about 0.10 Tg S O2, In developing countries, crop residue has traditionally
0.96 Tg NO2, 379 Tg CO2, 23 Tg CO and 0.68 Tg CH4. Emis- been used as animal feed. When not used as animal feed,
sion of such gases and aerosols adversely affects regional it becomes a huge surplus biomass, and farmers burning
environments and is also responsible for global climate it create a hazy and smoky environment. Conversion of
change. Renewable energy harvesting of surplus crop resi- such surplus biomass into biochar circumvents this prob-
dues, forest residues and agro-industrial wastes has been lem and creates employment and economic opportuni-
encouraged to reduce greenhouse gases [161, 162]. ties. Quality biochar with high fixed carbon content can be
In 2009, Roberts et al. [45] conducted a lifecycle assess- produced by maintaining a reactor temperature between
ment of the application of biochar derived from stover, 400 and 600 °C. It is highly porous, has a larger surface area
switchgrass and yard waste. They reported that it has for absorbing soluble organic and inorganic nutrients and
Vol:.(1234567890)
provides a favourable environment for the growth of use- Mandal S, Jeyaraman S, Venkateswarlu B, Sikka AK (2013) Use
ful microbes. It significantly increases microbial biomass of biochar for soil health enhancement and greenhouse gas
mitigation in India: potential and constraints. NICRA Bull pp
carbon in soil compared with chemical fertilizers. Biochar 1–51
is also considered a carbon sink and absorbs atmospheric 10. Ji C, Cheng K, Nayak D, Pan G (2018) Environmental and eco-
carbon dioxide; hence, it is a good sink for carbon seques- nomic assessment of crop residue competitive utilization for
tration. Biochar remains in soil longer if its oxygen-to-car- biochar, briquette fuel and combined heat and power genera-
tion. J Clean Prod 192:916–923
bon (O/C) molar ratio is < 0.2. The effect of biochar on crop 11. Shinogi Y, Yoshida H, Koizumi T, Yamaoka M, Saito T (2003)
yield has also been discussed, and most short-term studies Basic characteristics of low- temperature carbon products from
have reported improvements in crop yield. The long-term waste sludge. Adv Environ Res 7(3):661–665
effects of biochar on soil health are unknown and require 12. Cheng C-H, Lehmann J, Engelhard MH (2008) Natural oxida-
tion of black carbon in soils: changes in molecular form and
further study. surface charge along a climosequence. Geochim Cosmochim
Acta 72(6):1598–1610
Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to the Indian Council 13. Liang B, Lehmann J, Solomon D, Sohi S, Thies JE, Skjemstad JO,
of Agricultural Research and Government of India for providing Luizão FJ, Engelhard MH, Neves EG, Wirick S (2008) Stability of
financial support to design and develop a continuous-type biochar biomass-derived black carbon in soils. Geochim Cosmochim
production unit under the Consortium Research Platform on Energy Acta 72(24):6069–6078
from Agriculture. 14. Cheng C-H, Lehmann J (2009) Ageing of black carbon along a
temperature gradient. Chemosphere 75(8):1021–1027
Funding The study was funded by the Indian Council of Agricultural 15. Cao X, Harris W (2010) Properties of dairy-manure-derived bio-
Research and Government of India for the development of a contin- char pertinent to its potential use in remediation. Bioresour
uous-type biochar production unit under the Consortium Research Technol 101(14):5222–5228
Platform (CRP) on Energy from Agriculture. 16. Panwar NL, Kothari R, Tyagi VV (2012) Thermo chemical conver-
sion of biomass—eco friendly energy routes. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 16(4):1801–1816
Compliance with ethical standards 17. Nsamba HK, Hale SE, Cornelissen G, Bachmann RT (2015) Sus-
tainable technologies for small-scale biochar production—a
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of review. J Sustain Bioenergy Syst 5:10–31
interest. 18. Bernardino CA, Mahler CF, Veloso MC, Romeiro GA (2017)
Preparation of biochar from sugarcane by-product filter mud
by slow pyrolysis and its use like adsorbent. Waste Biomass
Valorization 8(7):2511–2521
19. Kambo HS, Dutta A (2015) A comparative review of biochar and
References hydrochar in terms of production, physico-chemical properties
and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 31(45):359–378
1. Abioye AM, Ani FN (2015) Recent development in the produc- 20. Hakala K, Kontturi M, Pahkala K (2009) Field biomass as global
tion of activated carbon electrodes from agricultural waste energy source. Agric Food Sci 18:347–365
biomass for super capacitors: a review. Renew Sustain Energy 21. Kumar AN, Baredar P, Shukla A (2015) A review on biomass
Rev 52:1282–1293 energy resources, potential, conversion and policy in India.
2. Siddiqui MTH, Nizamuddin S, Mubarak NM, Shirin K, Aijaz M, Renew Sustain Energy Rev 45:530–539
Hussain M, Baloch HA (2017) Characterization and process 22. Hiloidhari M, Das D, Baruah DC (2014) Bioenergy potential
optimization of biochar produced using novel biomass, waste from crop residue biomass in India. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
pomegranate peel: a response surface methodology approach. 32:504–512
Waste Biomass Valorization. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1264 23. Panwar NL (2010) Biomass for domestic and agro industrial
9-017-0091-y applications. In: Wood: type, properties and use. Nova Science
3. Enweremadu CC, Mbarawa MM (2009) Technical aspects of Publishers, Inc. pp 81–109
production and analysis of biodiesel from used cooking oil—a 24. Neves EG, Bartone RN, Petersen JB, Heckenberger MJ (2004)
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 13(9):2205–2224 The timing of terra preta formation in the central Amazon: new
4. Yaman S (2004) Pyrolysis of biomass to produce fuels and data from three sites in the central Amazon. Springer, Berlin
chemical feedstocks. Energy Convers Manag 45:651–671 25. Klark M, Rule A (1925) The technology of wood distillation.
5. Smets K, Roukaerts A, Czech J, Reggers G, Schreurs S, Carleer Chapman & Hall Ltd, London
R, Yperman J (2013) Slow catalytic pyrolysis of rapeseed cake: 26. Boroson ML, Howard JB, Longwell JP, Peters WA (1989) Hetero-
product yield and characterization of the pyrolysis liquid. Bio- geneous cracking of wood pyrolysis tar over wood char surface.
mass Bioenergy 57:180–190 Energy Fuels 3:735–740
6. Gurwick NP, Moore LA, Kelly C, Elias P (2013) A systematic 27. Emrich W (1985) Handbook of biochar making. The tradi-
review of biochar research, with a focus on its stability in situ tional and industrial methods. D. Reidel Publishing Company,
and its promise as a climate mitigation strategy. PLoS ONE Dordrecht
8(9):e75932 28. Bridgwater AV, Meier D, Radlein D (1999) An overview of fast
7. Savci S (2012) An agricultural pollutant: chemical fertilizer. Int pyrolysis of biomass. Org Geochem 30:1479–1493
J Environ Sci Dev 3(1):77–80 29. Evans R, Milne TA (1987) Molecular characterization of the
8. Harmful effects of chemical fertilizer. http://www.bkpind ia.net/ pyrolysis of biomass. Energy Fuels 1(2):123–137
Pdf/Effect_of_chemical_fertilizer.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2015 30. Piskorz J, Radlein DS, Scott DS, Czernik S (1989) Pretreatment of
9. Srinivasarao C, Gopinath KA, Venkatesh G, Dubey AK, Wakudkar wood and cellulose for production of sugars by fast pyrolysis. J
H, Purakayastha TJ, Pathak H, Jha P, Lakaria BL, Rajkhowa DJ, Anal Appl Pyrol 16(2):127–142
Vol.:(0123456789)
31. Scott DS, Piskorz J, Radlein D (1988) The effect of wood spe- 49. Lehmann J, Stephen J (2009) Biochar for environmental man-
cies on compstion of products obtained by the Waterloo fast agement: an introduction. Biochar for environmental manage-
pyrolysis process. In: Canadian chemical engineering confer- ment-science and technology. Earthscan, London
ence, Toronto 50. Marris E (2006) Putting the carbon back: black is the new green.
32. Bridgwater AV, Peacocke GVC (1994) Engineering development Nature 442(7103):624–626
in fast pyrolysis for bio-oils. In: Proceeding of biomass pyroly- 51. Lal R (2008) Black and buried carbons impacts on soil quality
sis oil properties and combustion meeting. Estes Park. Co., pp and ecosystem services. Soil Tillage Res 99(1):1–3
110–127 52. Sohi SP, Krull E, Lopez-Capel E, Bol R (2010) A review of biochar
33. Yang J, Tanguy PA, Roy C (1995) Heat transfer, mass transfer and its use and function in soil. Adv Agron 105:47–82
and kinetic study of the vacuum pyrolysis of a large used tire 53. Barrow CJ (2012) Biochar: potential for countering land degra-
particle. Chem Eng Sci 50:1909–1922 dation and for improving agriculture. Appl Geogr 34:21–28
34. Roy C, Yang J, Blanchette D, Korving L, De Caumia B (1997) 54. De Gisi S, Petta L, Wendland C (2014) History and technology
Development of a novel vacuum pyrolysis reactor with of terra preta sanitation. Sustainability 6(3):1328–1345
improved heat transfer potential. In: Developments in ther- 55. Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S
mochemical biomass conversion. Springer, Netherlands, pp (2010) Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change.
351–367 Nat Commun 1:56
35. Bridgwater AV, Czernik S, Piskorz J (2001) An overview of fast 56. Xie T, Reddy KR, Wang C, Yargicoglu E, Spokas K (2015) Charac-
pyrolysis. In: Bridgwater AV (ed) Progress in thermochemical teristics and applications of biochar for environmental reme-
biomass conversion. IEA bioenergy. Blackwell Sciences, Hobo- diation: a review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 45(9):939–969
ken, pp 977–997 57. Kung CC, Kong F, Choi Y (2015) Pyrolysis and biochar potential
36. Czernik S, French R, Feik C, Chornet E (2002) Hydrogen by cata- using crop residues and agricultural wastes in China. Ecol Ind
lytic steam reforming of liquid byproducts from biomass ther- 51:139–145
moconversion processes. Ind Eng Chem Res 41(17):4209–4215 58. Steiner C, Bellwood-Howard I, Häring V, Tonkudor K, Addai F,
37. Bridgwater AV (2005) Fast pyrolysis based bio-refineries. In: Atiah K, Abubakari AH, Kranjac-Berisavljevic G, Marschner B,
Presentation made to the American Chemistry Cociety. Was- Buerkert A (2018) Participatory trials of on-farm biochar pro-
tington DC duction and use in Tamale, Ghana. Agron Sustain Dev 38(1):12
38. Helle S, Bennett NM, Lau K, Matsui JH, Duff SJ (2007) A kinetic 59. Phillips CL, Trippe K, Reardon C, Mellbye B, Griffith SM,
model for production of glucose by hydrolysis of levoglu- Banowetz GM, Gady D (2018) Physical feasibility of biochar
cosan and cellobiosan from pyrolysis oil. Carbohydr Res production and utilization at a farm-scale: a case-study in non-
342(16):2365–2370 irrigated seed production. Biomass Bioenergy 108:244–251
39. Mahfud FH, Ghijsen F, Heeres HJ (2007) Hydrogenation of fast 60. Basu P (2013) Biomass gasification, pyrolysis and torrefaction:
pyrolyis oil and model compounds in a two-phase aqueous practical design and theory. Academic Press, Cambridge
organic system using homogeneous ruthenium catalysts. J Mol 61. Kammen DM, Lew DJ (2005) Review of technologies for the
Catal A Chem 264(1):227–236 production and use of charcoal. Renewable and appropriate
40. Ellott DC (2007) Historical development in hydro-processing energy laboratory report. http://rael.berkel ey.edu/old_drupal /
bio-oils. Energy Fuels 21:1792–1815 sites/default/files/old-site-files/2005/Kammen-Lew-Charcoal-
41. Jones SB, Valkenburg C, Walton CW, Elliott DC, Holladay JE, 2005.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2017
Stevens DJ, Kinchin C, Czernik S (2009) Production of gasoline 62. Duku MH, Gu S, Ben HE (2011) Biochar production potential in
and diesel from biomass via fast pyrolysis, hydrotreating and Ghana: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15:3539–3551
hydrocracking: a design case. Pacific Northwest National Labo- 63. Masek O (2017) Biochar production technologies, http://www.
ratory, Richland, pp 1–76 geos.ed.ac.uk/sccs/biocha r/docume nts/Biocha rLaun ch-OMase
42. Prins MJ, Ptasinski KJ, Janssen FJJG (2006) Torrefaction of wood: k.pdf. Accessed 15 Dec 2017
part1. Weightloss kinetics. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 77:28–34 64. Bailis R (2009) Modeling climate change mitigation from alter-
43. Onay O, Kockar OM (2003) Slow, fast and flash pyrolysis of rape- native methods of charcoal production in Kenya. Biomass Bio-
seed. Renew Energy 28:2417–2433 energy 33(11):1491–1502
44. Gaunt J, Cowie A (2009) Biochar, greenhouse gas accounting 65. Lohri CR, Rajabu HM, Sweeney DJ, Zurbrügg C (2016) Char fuel
and emissions trading. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for production in developing countries—a review of urban bio-
environmental management: science and technology. Earths- waste carbonization. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 59:1514–1530
can, London, pp 317–340 66. FAO (United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization): sim-
45. Roberts KG, Gloy BA, Joseph S, Scott NR, Lehmann J (2009) Life ple technologies for charcoal making (1983) 41.www.fao.org/
cycle assessment of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, docrep/S5328e/x5328e00.htm. Accessed 16 Dec 2017
economic, and climate change potential. Environ Sci Technol 67. Kristoferson LA, Bokalders V (2013) Renewable energy tech-
44:827–833 nologies: their applications in developing countries. Elsevier,
46. Smith CR, Buzan EM, Lee JW (2012) Potential impact of biochar Amsterdam
water-extractable substances on environmental sustainability. 68. Deal C, Brewer CE, Brown RC, Okure MA, Amoding A (2012)
ACS Sustain Chem Eng 1(1):118–126 Comparison of kiln-derived and gasifier-derived biochars as
47. Steiner C, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J, Nehls T, de Macêdo JLV, soil amendments in the humid tropics. Biomass Bioenergy
Blum WE, Zech W (2007) Long term effects of manure, charcoal 37:161–168
and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on 69. Pennise DM, Smith KR, Kithinji JP, Rezende ME, Raad TJ, Zhang J,
a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant Soil Fan C (2001) Emissions of greenhouse gases and other airborne
291(1–2):275–290 pollutants from charcoal making in Kenya and Brazil. J Geophys
48. McHenry MP (2009) Agricultural bio-char production, renew- Res Atmos 106(D20):24143–24155
able energy generation and farm carbon sequestration in 70. Mwampamba TH, Owen M, Pigaht M (2013) Opportunities,
Western Australia: certainty, uncertainty and risk. Agric Ecosyst challenges and way forward for the charcoal briquette indus-
Environ 129(1):1–7 try in Sub-Saharan Africa. Energy Sustain Dev 17(2):158–170
Vol:.(1234567890)
71. Peterson SC, Jackson MA (2014) Simplifying pyrolysis: using of contaminants: an overview. Adv Mater Sci Eng. https://doi.
gasification to produce corn stover and wheat straw bio- org/10.1155/2014/715398
char for sorptive and horticultural media. Ind Crops Prod 91. Cheng X, Tang Y, Wang B, Jiang J (2018) Improvement of char-
53:228–235 coal yield and quality by two-step pyrolysis on rice husks.
72. Adam JC (2009) Improved and more environmentally friendly Waste Biomass Valorization 9(1):123–130
charcoal production system using a low-cost retort–kiln (Eco- 92. Rathore NS, Panwar NL, Kurchania AK (2009) Renewable
charcoal). Renew Energy 34(8):1923–1925 energy: theory and practice. Himanshu Publication, Udaipur
73. Antal MJ, Grønli M (2003) The art, science, and technology of 93. Ronsse F (2013) Report on biochar production techniques. A
charcoal production. Ind Eng Chem Res 42(8):1619–1640 publication of the Interreg IVB project biochar: climate saving
74. Moreira R, dos Reis Orsini R, Vaz JM, Penteado JC, Spinacé EV soil. Ghent University
(2017) Production of biochar, bio-oil and synthesis gas from 94. Mohod AG, Panwar NL (2011) Evaluation of traditional half
cashew nut shell by slow pyrolysis. Waste Biomass Valorization orange type charcoal kiln for carbonisation: a case study. World
8(1):217–224 Rev Sci Technol Sustain Dev 8:196–202
75. Gwenzi W, Chaukura N, Mukome FN, Machado S, Nyamasoka 95. Mohan D, Pittman CU, Steele PH (2006) Pyrolysis of wood/bio-
B (2015) Biochar production and applications in sub-Saharan mass for bio-oil: a critical review. Energy Fuels 20(3):848–889
Africa: opportunities, constraints, risks and uncertainties. J 96. Brown R (2009) Biochar production technology. Chapter 8. In:
Environ Manag 150:250–261 Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for environmental manage-
76. Jelinek H (1989) Pyrolysis system.U.S. Patent No. 4,840,129. ment. Earthscan, London
20 Jun. 1989. https://www.google.com/patents/US4840129. 97. Zanzi R, Bai X, Capdevila P, Bjornbom E (2001) Pyrolysis of bio-
Accessed 20 Dec 2017 mass in the presence of steam for preparation of activated
77. Collin GE (1980) Pyrolytic recovery of raw materials from special carbon, liquid and gaseous products. In: 6th World congress
wastes. In: ACS Symp Ser (United States) 130 (CONF-790917-P5). of chemical engineering
Ruetgerswerke AG, Duisburg-Meiderich, Germany 98. Bridgwater AV, Peacocke GVC (2000) Fast pyrolysis processes
78. Becchetti F, Von Christen FE (2011) Integrated process for for biomass. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 4:1–73
waste treatment by pyrolysis and related plant. U.S. Patent 99. Yuan W, Meng X, James A (2018) The role of biochar in sustain-
No. 7,878,131. 1 Feb. 2011.https://patents.google.com/paten able agriculture and environment: promising but inconsistent.
t/US20090020052A1/en. Accessed 18 Dec 2017 Adv Biotech Micro 9(4):AIBM.MS.ID.555770
79. Agirre I, Griessacher T, Rösler G, Antrekowitsch J (2013) Pro- 100. Masek O, Brownsort P, Cross A, Sohi S (2013) Influence of pro-
duction of charcoal as an alternative reducing agent from duction conditions on the yield and environmental stability of
agricultural residues using a semi-continuous semi-pilot scale biochar. Fuel 103:151–155
pyrolysis screw reactor. Fuel Process Technol 106:114–121 101. Angın D, Şensoz S (2014) Effect of pyrolysis temperature on
80. Maschio G, Koufopanos C, Lucchesi A (1992) Pyrolysis, a chemical and surface properties of biochar of rapeseed (Bras-
promising route for biomass utilization. Bioresour Technol sica napus L.). Int J Phytoremediation 16(7–8):684–693
42(3):219–231 102. Tan Z, Yuan S (2017) The Effect of preparing temperature and
81. Brown JN, Brown RC (2012) Process optimization of an auger atmosphere on biochar’s quality for soil improving. Waste Bio-
pyrolyzer with heat carrier using response surface methodol- mass Valorization. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-017-0145-1
ogy. Bioresour Technol 103(1):405–414 103. Zheng W, Sharma BK, Rajagopalan N (2010) Using biochar as a
82. Mozammel HM, Masahiro O, Bhattacharya SC (2002) Activated soil amendment for sustainable agriculture. Submitted to the
charcoal from coconut shell using ZnCl2 activation. Biomass Sustainable Agriculture Grant Program Illinois Department of
Bioenergy 22(5):397–400 Agriculture
83. Ferreira SD, Manera C, Silvestre WP, Pauletti GF, Altafini CR, God- 104. Angin D (2013) Effect of pyrolysis temperature and heating
inho M (2008) Use of biochar produced from elephant grass by rate on biochar obtained from pyrolysis of safflower seed press
pyrolysis in a screw reactor as a soil amendment. Waste Bio- cake. Bioresour Technol 128:593–597
mass Valorization. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-0347-1 105. Al-Wabel MI, Al-Omran A, El-Naggar AH, Nadeem M, Usman
84. Ortiz OA, Suárez GI, Nelson A (2005) Dynamic simulation of A (2013) Pyrolysis temperature induced changes in charac-
a pilot rotary kiln for charcoal activation. Comput Chem Eng teristics and chemical composition of biochar produced from
29(8):1837–1848 conocarpus wastes. Bioresour Technol 131:374–379
85. Ogawa M, Okimori Y, Takahashi F (2006) Carbon sequestration 106. Gai X, Wang H, Liu J, Zhai L, Liu S, Ren T, Liu H (2014) Effects of
by carbonization of biomass and forestation: three case stud- feedstock and pyrolysis temperature on biochar adsorption of
ies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 11(2):421–436 ammonium and nitrate. PLoS ONE 9(12):e113888. https://doi.
86. Schimmelpfennig S, Glaser B (2012) One step forward toward org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113888
characterization: some important material properties to distin- 107. Manya JJ, Roca FX, Perales JF (2013) TGA study examining the
guish biochars. J Environ Qual 41(4):1001–1013 effect of pressure and peak temperature on biochar yield dur-
87. Evans RJ (2008) The relation of pyrolysis processes to charcoal ing pyrolysis of two-phase olive mill waste. J Anal Appl Pyrol
chemical and physical properties. National Renewable Energy 103:86–95
Laboratory, diakses pada 18 108. Manya JJ, Ortigosa MA, Laguarta S, Manso JA (2014) Experi-
88. Wade SR, Nunoura T, Antal MJ (2006) Studies of the flash car- mental study on the effect of pyrolysis pressure, peak tempera-
bonization process. 2. Violent ignition behavior of pressurized ture and particle size on the potential stability of vine shoots-
packed beds of biomass: a factorial study. Ind Eng Chem Res derived biochar. Fuel 133:163–172
45(10):3512–3519 109. Wang K, Peng N, Lu G, Dang Z (2018) Effects of pyrolysis tem-
89. Nunoura T, Wade SR, Bourke JP, Antal MJ (2006) Studies of the perature and holding time on physicochemical properties of
flash carbonization process. 1. Propagation of the flaming swine-manure-derived biochar. Waste Biomass Valorization.
pyrolysis reaction and performance of a catalytic afterburner. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-018-0435-2
Ind Eng Chem Res 45(2):585–599 110. Daugaard DE, Brown RC (2003) Enthalpy for pyrolysis for several
90. Nartey OD, Zhao B (2014) Biochar preparation, characteriza- types of biomass. Energy Fuels 17(4):934–939
tion, and adsorptive capacity and its effect on bioavailability
Vol.:(0123456789)
111. Laird DA (2008) The charcoal vision: a win–win–win scenario 130. Maraseni TK (2010) Biochar: maximising the benefits. Int J Envi-
for simultaneously producing bioenergy, permanently ron Stud 67(3):319–327
sequestering carbon, while improving soil and water qual- 131. Iswaran V, Jauhri KS, Sen A (1980) Effect of charcoal, coal and
ity. Agron J 100(1):178–181 peat on the yield of moong, soybean and pea. Soil Biol Bio-
112. Fing (2016) Biochar versus activated carbon. http://fingerlake chem 12:191–192
sbiochar.com/biochar-vs-activated-carbon/. Accessed 2 Oct 132. Kishimoto S, Sugiura G (1985) Charcoal as a soil conditioner. Int
2018 Achieve Future 5:12–23
113. Ro KS, Cantrell KB, Hunt PG (2010) High-temperature 133. Uzoma KC, Inoue M, Andry H, Fujimaki H, Zahoor A, Nishihara
pyrolysis of blended animal manures for producing renew- E (2011) Effect of cow manure biochar on maize productivity
able energy and value-added biochar. Ind Eng Chem Res under sandy soil condition. Soil Use Manag 27(2):205–212
49(20):10125–10131 134. Lynch J (1995) Root architecture and plant productivity. Plant
114. Anon (2003) Standardized product definition and prod- Physiol 109(1):7–13
uct testing guidelines for biochar that is used in soil, IBI- 135. Atkinson CJ, Fitzgerald JD, Hipps NA (2010) Potential mecha-
STD-01.1, International Biochar Initiative, Westerville, OH nisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar applica-
115. Anon (2014) Standardized product definition and product tion to temperate soils: a review. Plant Soil 337:1–18
testing guidelines for biochar that is used in soil, IBI-STD-2.0, 136. Bai SH, Blumfield TJ, Xu Z, Chen C, Wild C (2012) Soil organic
International Biochar Initiative, Westerville, OH matter dynamics and nitrogen availability in response to site
116. Klasson KT (2017) Biochar characterization and a method for preparation and management during revegetation in tropical
estimating biochar quality from proximate analysis results. Central Queensland, Australia. J Soils Sediments 12:386–395
Biomass Bioenergy 96:50–58 137. Reverchon F, Flicker RC, Yang H, Yan G, Xu Z, Chen C, Bai SH,
117. Spokas KA (2010) Review of the stability of biochar in soil: Zhang D (2014) Changes in δ15N in a soil–plant system under
predictability of O:C molar ratios. Carbon management different biochar feedstocks and application rates. Biol Fertil
1(2):289–303 Soils 50:275–283
118. Baldock JA, Smernik RJ (2002) Chemical composition and bio- 138. Bai SH, Dempsey R, Reverchon F, Blumfield TJ, Ryan S, Cernusak
availblity of thermally, altered Pinus resinosa (Red Pine) wood. LA (2017) Effects of forest thinning on soil-plant carbon and
Org Geochem 33(9):1093–1109 nitrogen dynamics. Plant Soil 411:437–449
119. Blackwell P, Riethmuller G, Collins M (2009) Biochar applica- 139. Nguyen TTN, Xu CY, Tahmasbian I, Che R, Xu Z, Zhou X, Wallace
tion to soil. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for envi- HM, Bai SH (2017) Effects of biochar on soil available inorganic
ronmental management: science and technology. Earthscan, nitrogen: a review and meta-analysis. Geoderma 288:79–96
London, pp 207–226 140. Shanta N, Schwinghamer T, Backer R, Allaire SE, Teshler I,
120. Stockmann U, Adams MA, Crawford JW (2013) The knowns, Vanasse A, Whalen J, Baril B, Lange S, MacKay J, Zhou X, Smith
known unknowns and unknowns of sequestration of soil DL (2016) Biochar and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria
organic carbon. Agric Ecosyst Environ 164:80–99 effects on switchgrass (Panicum virgatum cv. Cave-in-Rock) for
121. Laird DA (2008) The charcoal vision: a win–win–win scenario biomass production in southern Quebec depend on soil type
for simultaneously producing bioenergy, permanently and location. Biomass Bioenergy 95:167–173
sequestering carbon, while improving soil and water qual- 141. Shaheen SM, Niazi NK, Hassan NE, Bibi I, Wang H, Tsang DC,
ity. Agron J 100:178–181 Ok YS, Bolan N, Rinklebe J (2018) Wood-based biochar for the
122. Glaser B, Lehmann J, Zech W (2002) Ameliorating physical removal of potentially toxic elements in water and wastewater:
and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the a critical review. Int Mater Rev. https://doi.org/10.1080/09506
tropics with charcoal—a review. Biol Fertil Soils 35:219–230 608.2018.1473096
123. Novak JM, Busscher WJ, Laird DL, Ahmedna M, Watts DW, 142. Werner S, Kätzl K, Wichern M, Marschner B (2018) Biochar in
Niandou MAS (2009) Impact of biochar amendment on fertil- waste water treatment to produce safe irrigation water, recover
ity of a southeastern coastal plain soil. Soil Sci 174(2):105–112 nutrients and reduce environmental impacts of waste water
124. Muhammad N, Brookes PC, Wu J (2016) Addition impact of irrigation. In: EGU general assembly conference Abstracts 20,
biochar from different feedstocks on microbial community 15820
and available concentrations of elements in a Psammaquent 143. Gwenzi W, Chaukura N, Noubactep C, Mukome FN (2017) Bio-
and a Plinthudult. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr 16(1):137–153 char-based water treatment systems as a potential low-cost
125. Mogamia A, Tanoa Y, Matsumotoa H, Nishiharaa E (2011) and sustainable technology for clean water provision. J Environ
Improvement of sandy- soil water and nutrient use efficiency Manag 197:732–749
using palm shell biochar under controlled moisture condi- 144. Lee DJ, Cheng YL, Wong RJ, Wang XD (2018) Adsorption
tions. In: Asia Pacific biochar conference, APBC Kyoto removal of natural organic matters in waters using biochar.
126. Jia J, Li B, Chen Z, Xie Z, Xiong Z (2012) Effects of biochar Biores Technol 260:413–416
application on vegetable production and emissions of N2O 145. Qambrani NA, Rahman MM, Won S, Shim S, Ra C (2017) Biochar
and CH4. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 58(4):503–509 properties and eco-friendly applications for climate change
127. Chintala R, Schumacher TE, McDonald LM, Clay DE, Malo DD, mitigation, waste management, and wastewater treatment: a
Papiernik SK, Clay SA, Julson JL (2014) Phosphorus sorption review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 79:255–273
and availability from biochars and soil/biochar mixtures. 146. Gurwick NP, Kelly C, Elias P (2012) The Scientific basis for bio-
Clean-Soil Air Water 42(5):626–634 char as a climate change mitigation strategy: Does it Measure
128. Liu L, Shen G, Sun M, Cao X, Shang G, Chen P (2014) Effect of Up? Union of concerned scientist. Citizens and Scientists for
biochar on nitrous oxide emission and its potential mecha- Environment Solutions
nisms. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 64(8):894–902 147. Bruckman VJ, Terada T, Uzun BB, Apaydın-Varol E, Liu J (2015)
129. Ibrahim OM, Bakry AB, El kramany MF, Elewa TA (2015) Eval- Biochar for climate change mitigation: tracing the in situ prim-
uating the role of bio-char application under two levels of ing effect on a forest site. Energy Procedia 76:381–387
water requirements on wheat production under sandy soil 148. Ernsting A, Smolker R (2009) Biochar for climate change miti-
conditions. Glob J Adv Res 2:411–418 gation: fact or fiction. Agrofuels and the Myth of the Marginal
Lands 1–10
Vol:.(1234567890)
149. Waters D, Van Zwieten L, Singh BP, Downie A, Cowie AL, HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Con-
Lehmann J (2011) Biochar in soil for climate change mitigation tribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report
and adaptation. In: Singh B, Cowie A, Chan K (eds) Soil health of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,Cambridge
and climate change. Soil biology. Springer, Berlin, p 29 University Press, Cambridge, UK
150. Tan Z, Lin CS, Ji X, Rainey TJ (2017) Returning biochar to fields: 157. Lindsey R (2017) Climate change: atmospheric carbon dioxide.
a review. Appl Soil Ecol 116:1–11 https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-clima
151. Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M (2006) Bio-char sequestration te/climate-change -atmospheric-carbon-dioxide. Retrieve 14
in terrestrial ecosystems—a review. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Dec 2017
Change 11(2):395–419 158. Lal RA (2005) World crop residues production and implications
152. Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, McCarl of its use as a biofuel. Environ Int 31(4):575–584
B, Ogle S, O’Mara F, Rice C, Scholes B, Sirotenko O. Chapter 8: 159. Gupta PK, Sahai S, Singh N, Dixit CK, Singh DP, Sharma C (2004)
agriculture. In: Metz B, Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer Residue burning in rice–wheat cropping system: causes and
LA (2007) Climate change 2007: mitigation. In: Contribution implications. Curr Sci 87(12):1713–1715
of Working Group III to the fourth assessment report of the 160. Gadde B, Bonnet S, Menke C, Garivait S (2009) Air pollutant
intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge, New emissions from rice straw open field burning in India, Thailand
York and the Philippines. Environ Pollut 157:1554–1558
153. Chatterjee A, Lal R (2009) On farm assessment of tillage impact 161. Pacala S, Socolow R (2004) Stabilization wedges: solving cli-
on soil carbon and associated soil quality parameters. Soil Till- mate problem for the next 50 years with current technologies.
age Res 104:270–277 Science 305:968–972
154. Kristiansen SMHEM, Jensen LS, Christensen BT (2005) Natural 162. Goldemberg J (2007) Ethanol for a sustainable energy future.
13
C abundance and carbon storage in Danish soils under con- Science 315:808–810
tinuous silage maize. Eur J Agron 22:107–117 163. Cowie AL, Cowie AJ, Solutions RC (2013) Life cycle assessment
155. Boddey RM, Jantalia CP, Conceicao PC, Zanatta JA, Bayer C, of greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of biochar. Report IEA
Mielniczuk J, Dieckow J, Dos Santos HP, Denardin JE, Aita C, Bioenergy Task 38:136–145
Giacomini SJ, Alves BJR, Urquiaga S (2010) Carbon accumula- 164. Zhang Y, Lin F, Wang X, Zou J, Liu S (2016) Annual accounting of
tion at depth in Ferrasols under zero-till subtropical agriculture. net greenhouse gas balance response to biochar addition in a
Global Change Biol 16(2):784–795 coastal saline bioenergy cropping system in China. Soil Tillage
156. Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R, Fahey Res 158:39–48
DW, Haywood J, Lean J, Lowe DC, Myhre G, Nganga J, Prinn 165. Sigmund G, Huber D, Bucheli TD, Baumann M, Borth N, Guebitz
R, Raga G, Schulz M, Van Dorland R (2007) Changes in atmos- GM, Hofmann T (2017) Cytotoxicity of biochar: A workplace
pheric constituents and in radiative forcing. In: Solomon S, Qin safety concern? Environ Sci Technol Lett 4(9):362–366
D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller
Vol.:(0123456789)

Comprehensive Review On Production and Utilization of Biochar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comprehensive Review On Production and Utilization of Biochar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comprehensive Review On Production and Utilization of Biochar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Review Paper

Comprehensive review on production and utilization of biochar

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

1 Introduction Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring

SN Applied Sciences (2019) 1:168 | https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-0172-6

Fig. 1 Classification of biomass

Fig. 2 Biomass conversion

biomass has been proposed [36–41]. Biochar used for soil

3 Biochar and sustainability

Biochar plays a major role in mitigating climate change,

correspondingly immense range of composition. In this

Fig. 5 Sustainable biochar routes [55]

Fig. 6 Classification of biochar

4.4 Method of biomass heating to produce biochar 5 Factors affecting biochar production

Fig. 7 a Kiln, autothermal car-

The International Biochar Initiative (IBI) broadly classi-

Corn cob 400 75.23 3.37 0.82 14.11 [103]

Table 2 Energy required to produce biochar from different feedstocks

1. Oat shell Pyrolysis 0.8 ± 0.2 Biochar, oil, gases [110]

Fig. 9 Value addition for the

There is limited literature available with details on the

You might also like

3 Biochar and sustainability

4.4 Method of biomass heating to produce biochar 5 Factors affecting biochar production