Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Kuryntseva, P.; Karamova,
K.; Galitskaya, P.; Selivanovskaya, S.;
Evtugyn, G. Biochar Functions in Soil
Depending on Feedstock and
Pyrolyzation Properties with
Particular Emphasis on Biological
Properties. Agriculture 2023,13, 2003.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
agriculture13102003
Academic Editors: Irina K.
Kravchenko, Mikhail V. Semenov,
Alena D. Zhelezova and
Ryusuke Hatano
Received: 8 August 2023
Revised: 19 September 2023
Accepted: 26 September 2023
Published: 15 October 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
agriculture
Review
Biochar Functions in Soil Depending on Feedstock and
Pyrolyzation Properties with Particular Emphasis on
Biological Properties
Polina Kuryntseva 1, *, Kamalya Karamova 1, Polina Galitskaya 1, Svetlana Selivanovskaya 1
and Gennady Evtugyn 2
1Institute of Environmental Sciences, Kazan Federal University, Kazan 420008, Russia;
cool.kama-160692@yandex.ru (K.K.); gpolina33@yandex.ru (P.G.); svetlana.selivanovskaya@kpfu.ru (S.S.)
2Alexander Butlerov Institute of Chemistry, Kazan Federal University, Kazan 420008, Russia;
gennady.evtugyn@kpfu.ru
*Correspondence: polinazwerewa@yandex.ru; Tel.: +7-(927)-242-22-45
Abstract:
Biochar effects are strongly dependent on its properties. Biochar improves physical soil
properties by decreasing bulk density and increasing medium and large aggregates, leading to faster
and deeper water infiltration and root growth. Improvement of the chemical properties of soil is
connected with pH neutralization of acidic soils, increase of cation exchange capacity and base
saturation, providing a larger surface for sorption of toxicants and exchange of cations. Biochar
increases the stocks of macro- and micronutrients in soil and remains sufficient for decades. Biochar
effects on (micro)biological properties are mainly indirect, based on the improvements of habitat
conditions for organisms, deeper root growth providing available C for larger soil volume, higher
crop yield leading to more residues on and in the topsoil, better and deeper soil moisture, supply of
all nutrients, and better aeration. Along with positive, negative effects of biochar while used as a
soil conditioner are discussed in the review: presence of PAH, excessive amounts of K, Ca and Mg,
declination of soil pH. In conclusion, despite the removal of C from the biological cycle by feedstock
pyrolysis, the subsequent application of biochar into soil increases fertility and improves physical and
chemical properties for root and microbial growth is a good amendment for low fertility soils. Proper
use of biochar leads not only to an increase in crop yield but also to effective sequestration of carbon
in the soil, which is important to consider when economically assessing its production. Further
research should be aimed at assessing and developing methods for increasing the sequestration
potential of biochar as fertilizer.
Keywords: pyrogenic carbon; land use; soil fertility and productivity; biochar effects
1. Introduction
In accordance with the International Biochar Initiative (IBI), biochar is defined as a
solid material obtained by thermochemical carbonization in oxygen-limited conditions [
1
].
It is mostly produced during the pyrolysis process from organic matter at temperatures
300–700 ◦C
at low access to oxygen [
2
]. Other pyrolysis products are liquid fuel and pyrol-
ysis gas [
3
]. During the last decade, biochar has attracted attention in agroindustry and
environmental sciences due to the prospects of its application as a soil conditioner and
fertilizer, fodder additive, wastewater cleaning agent, renewable energy source and inex-
pensive sorbent used to remove heavy metals and organic pollutants. Biochar improves soil
structure and fertility, promotes water holding capacity and is an important source of mi-
croelements and nutrients for plants, in stock and chicken farming [
4
]. Biochar application
decreases methane and N
2
O emission [
5
,
6
], stimulates the activity of soil microorganisms
and plant germination. It is important that biochar shows advantages by amendments in
almost all agricultural conditions, including soil type and climate [
7
]. Contrary to many
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13102003 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 2 of 39
organic fertilizers, biochar carbon (C) is quite stable and is mineralized very slowly with
the release of CO
2
[
8
–
10
]. This makes biochar important in green sustainability policy, C
sequestration, yield improvements and decrease of greenhouse gas emissions.
Biochar properties and hence the consequences of its application in agriculture de-
pend on the biomass used for its production and the pyrolysis conditions [
11
]. Organic
wastes including manure, plant residues, food wastes, sewage sludge, etc. have been used
for soil fertilization since ancient times. In natural processes of biomass decomposition,
about 90 to 95% of carbon is returned in the atmosphere within a few years (or earlier),
whereas pyrolysis of bioresidues results in C sequestration and about half decrease CO
2
emissions [
12
]. Therefore, biomass pyrolysis dramatically affects the C cycle (Figure 1).
A slower rate of biochar mineralization prolongs its effect on soil fertility and decreases
demands in other amendments. Biochar can also affect nitrogen cycling by mitigating
N
2
O, another greenhouse gas also involved in atmospheric ozone decomposition, and by
stimulating nitrification via indirect influence on the soil microbial community [13].
Agriculture 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 43
Contrary to many organic fertilizers, biochar carbon (C) is quite stable and is mineralized
very slowly with the release of CO2 [8–10]. This makes biochar important in green sus-
tainability policy, C sequestration, yield improvements and decrease of greenhouse gas
emissions.
Biochar properties and hence the consequences of its application in agriculture de-
pend on the biomass used for its production and the pyrolysis conditions [11]. Organic
wastes including manure, plant residues, food wastes, sewage sludge, etc. have been
used for soil fertilization since ancient times. In natural processes of biomass decomposi-
tion, about 90 to 95% of carbon is returned in the atmosphere within a few years (or ear-
lier), whereas pyrolysis of bioresidues results in C sequestration and about half decrease
CO2 emissions [12]. Therefore, biomass pyrolysis dramatically affects the C cycle (Figure
1). A slower rate of biochar mineralization prolongs its effect on soil fertility and de-
creases demands in other amendments. Biochar can also affect nitrogen cycling by miti-
gating N2O, another greenhouse gas also involved in atmospheric ozone decomposition,
and by stimulating nitrification via indirect influence on the soil microbial community
[13].
Figure 1. Carbon turnover in the production and application of biochar to soils.
2. Biochar Production, Main Sources and Properties
2.1. Feedstock Materials
Biochar is commonly produced by pyrolysis of plant biomass, animal and food
residues, forestry wastes, crop residues (nut shells, fruit pits, bagasse, straw [14–17]), al-
gae [18,19], manures [11,20–22], biosolids and sewage sludge formed in wastewater
treatment, etc. [23–26]. In the laer case, the content of heavy metals should be limited to
avoid possible contamination of the soil. The elemental content of biochar (mainly, C, N,
K, P, Ca and Mg) depends on the feedstock source and pyrolysis parameters (Table 1).
Figure 1. Carbon turnover in the production and application of biochar to soils.
2. Biochar Production, Main Sources and Properties
2.1. Feedstock Materials
Biochar is commonly produced by pyrolysis of plant biomass, animal and food
residues, forestry wastes, crop residues (nut shells, fruit pits, bagasse, straw [
14
–
17
]),
algae [
18
,
19
], manures [
11
,
20
–
22
], biosolids and sewage sludge formed in wastewater treat-
ment, etc. [
23
–
26
]. In the latter case, the content of heavy metals should be limited to avoid
possible contamination of the soil. The elemental content of biochar (mainly, C, N, K, P, Ca
and Mg) depends on the feedstock source and pyrolysis parameters (Table 1).
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 3 of 39
Table 1. Classification of sources for biochar production.
Biomass Group Biomass Sub-Groups
Plant biomass
1. Wood biomass (sawdust, lumps, stems, branches, foliage)
2. Grass biomass (plant planting for biomass production: alfalfa,
arundo, bamboo, banana, brassica, cane, cynara, miscanthus,
switchgrass, timothy, etc.)
3. Aquatic biomass (marine or freshwater algae; macroalgae)
Organic waste
1. Animal manure (chicken manure, cow manure, horse manure,
pig manure, turkey poultry manure, etc.)
2. Crop and food processing waste (straws, spoiled fruits, shells,
husks, hulls, pits, pips, grains, spoiled seeds, coir, stalks, cobs,
kernels, bagasse, spoiled food, fodder, pulps, cakes, etc.)
3.
Municipal wastes (Sewage sludge, organic fraction of municipal
solid waste, paper-pulp sludge, waste papers, chip-board,
fiberboard, plywood, wood pallets and boxes)
The use of animal manures often results in increased potassium content. Generally,
mineral components of biochar vary from 1% (grasses) to about 20% (wastewater sludge).
C content of the biomass used as biochar feedstock depends on the source, pre-treatment
conditions, storage period, moisture content and other parameters, some of which can be
partially considered prior to thermal treatment for unification of the pyrolysis parameters
and product characteristics. The classification of biomass applied for biochar production is
mainly based on its source, biological diversity and origin [27].
Plant residues, especially forest and grass residues, mainly contain cellulose, lignin and
hemicellulose (lignocellulosic biomass (Dhyani and Bhaskar 2018) [
28
]). Cellulose is present
in all plant cell walls. It consists of repeating D-glucose units interacting with each other
by hydrogen bonds, providing mechanical strength and chemical stability. Hemicellulose
is a less polymerized analog of cellulose containing glucose, galactose, mannose, xylose,
arabinose and glucuronic acid units (50–200 monomers per molecule). Lignin is a cross-
linked phenol polymer consisting of differently substituted phenylpropane units. Lignin
forms the outer layer of cellulose fibers and binds hemicellulose and cellulose within the
cell wall. Lignin content varies from 16 (soft wood) to 40% (hard wood) (Table 2).
Table 2. Composition of lignocellulosic biomass of various origin.
Biomass Source
Composition, %
References
Cellulose Hemicellulose Lignin Extractives Ash
Soft wood 41 24 28 2 0.4 [29]
45–50 25–35 25–35 - - [30]
Hard wood 39 35 20 3 0.3 [29]
40–55 24–40 18–25 - - [30]
Pine bark 34 16 34 14 2 [29]
Wheat straw 40 28 17 11 7 [31,32]
Rice husk 30 25 12 18 16 [33]
Hazelnut 41 27 26 - 3 [34]
Orange peels 14 6 2 - 1.5 [35]
Sugarcane bagasse 35 33 25 - 4 [36]
Rice straw 32 24 18 - 1.2 [37]
Banana 60–65 6–8 5–10 - 1.2 [38]
Newspaper 40–55 25–30 18–25 - - [39]
Corn cobs 45 35 15 - - [40]
Sponge gaurs fibers 67 17 15 - - [38]
In addition to the three main components, organic matter of biomass contains some
extractives (alkaloids, essential oils, glycosides, pectin, phenolics, simple sugars, terpenes
etc.) They can be removed from biomass by organic solvents without hydrolysis. Details of
the biopolymers’ chemical structure and their physical properties as well as examples of
the ash content of the biomass and ash are presented in review [41].
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 4 of 39
Organic matter of biosolids (more than 50% of dry matter) mostly contains hydro-
carbons, amino acids and lipids but a rather small percentage of lignin and cellulose [
26
].
Lignin and cellulose content is higher in urban wastes but remains significantly below the
level typical for wood or crop residues. Biosolids are also rich in nitrogen, mostly present in
organic form (up to 6% of dry weight) and phosphorus (up to 3% of dry weight), but they
can be partially lost in combustion and pyrolysis (the loss of P is less than the loss of N).
Biosolids themselves and biochar produced from biosolids are characterized by a high ash
content, which complicates the use of this parameter for calculations of the biochar yield.
The classification of biochar feedstocks mostly uses moisture content as one of the key
features. Freshly cropped biomass, including agricultural plant and forest residues, sewage
sludge, algae, animal manure, etc., typically contains more than 30% of water (Table 3).
They are referred to as wet biomass. Agricultural wastes with a water content below 30% are
classified as dry feedstock. Wet biomass can be pre-dried using technologies developed for
drying other biomaterials. However, in most cases, such technologies are labor consuming
and decrease the total economic effect of biochar application [
42
]. Biomass is classified
on that specially harvested as bioenergy crops (bamboo, sorghum, willows, Miscanthus,
switchgrass [
43
,
44
] and agricultural wastes [
28
]. The use of energy crops provides a high
yield of the target product and minimal preliminary treatment is required. Thus, no
pre-drying is commonly needed. The ash content of such a biomass can significantly
vary depending on the harvesting time and planting density complicates the selection
of optimal pyrolysis parameters and feedstock unification. Biomass from various wastes
is more variable regarding its content. This type of feedstock involves wastes formed in
agriculture, forestry, food production, sewage sludge from water treatment plants, animal
manure, etc. Their conversion to biochar is always beneficial because it reduces expenses
for their environmentally safe storage and/or processing. On the other hand, parts of
such wastes that do not contain toxic metals and organic contaminants can be applied on
land as soil amendments and organic fertilizers with no or minimal treatment. Thus, full
processing of the plant biomass into biochar seems exhausting. It should also be taken into
account that crop residue removal negatively affects the soil organic carbon pool, which
should be reimbursed by agrochemical measures [
45
]. Preliminary treatment of biomass
is one of the key factors affecting both the pyrolysis products and the repeatability of the
technological parameters of biochar production. Moisture content, preliminary crushing
or, vice versa, pressing of the feedstock are most frequently utilized on the preliminary
stage of pyrolysis [
46
]. Appropriate protocols influence both the economy and preferable
directions of biochar application.
Table 3. Chemical composition of algae, sludge and manure biochar feedstocks.
Biomass Source Chemical Content (wt.%) Proximate Analysis, wt.% Reference
Proteins Lipids Carbohydrates Moisture Volatile Matter Fixed Carbon Ash
Chlorella 53.8 1.0 37.1 0 76.4 14.5 9.1 [47]
Cladophora glomerata 27.8 5.3 32.4 4.5 46.3 14.7 34.5 [48]
Sewage sludge 26.3 27.3 22.9 3.6 53.9 6.2 36.3 [49]
Sewage sludge - - - 16.8 64.4 10.8 24.8 [50]
Chicken manure 31.6 2.1 34.5 - - - 15.9 [51]
Swine manure 22 9.1 39.1 - - - 15.1
Cow manure 18.1 8.7 52.6 - - - 12.0
Cattle manure - - - - 64.6 20.7 14.7 [22]
Chicken manure - - - - 64.8 14.9 20.2
2.2. Pyrolysis Conditions
The technological process of biomass pyrolysis starts with supplementary drying of
the substrate if its moisture is higher than optimal. The following heating removes the
natural volatile components present in the raw material. After that, decomposition of
the biopolymers present in biomass results in consecutive increases in the C content and
release of permanent gases (CO
2
and nitrogen oxides, ammonia and methane) and volatile
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 5 of 39
organic compounds of decomposition. The latter can be condensed and then used as liquid
fuel. The solid residue is biochar. The reaction pathways of the formation of gaseous and
liquid pyrolysis products partially compete with each other and differ depending on the
pyrolysis parameters (residence time, heating rate, pyrolysis temperature) and substrate
properties. Thus, fast heating increases the yield of pyrolysis gases and fuel, whereas
slow and rather long pyrolysis is more appropriate for predominant carbonization and
maximum biochar yield.
Thermal treatment of biomass can be performed using several regimes, which are
chosen depending on the type of feedstock, its pre-treatment, desired properties and future
application of biochar. They are classified as slow, fast, flash and intermediate pyrolysis,
dry torrefaction and hydrothermal carbonization, which are performed in the absence
or limited access of oxygen. Pyrolysis can also be accelerated by microwave treatment.
The characteristics of pyrolysis reported for some feedstock and regimes are presented in
Table 4as an example.
Table 4. Biochar yield under various production conditions and feedstock used.
Pyrolysis Type Feedstock Pyrolysis Temperature, ◦C Biochar Yield, % Ref.
Slow Rice straw
300 50
[52]
500 39
700 36.5
Slow Switchgrass 400 48 [52]
600 25
Slow
Canola straw 350 24
[53]
Rice straw 350 33
Soybean straw 350 32.5
Pea straw 350 32
Slow Poultry litter
300 60
[54]
400 52
500 48
600 46
Slow
Magnolia leaves 300 62
[55]
Apple wood 600 25
Spotted gum wood 400 51
Slow Black locust wood 300 42 [56]
500 24
Slow Pine chips 550 30 [57]
Slow Sawdust 550 28 [58]
Fast Pitch pine wood chips 300 61 [59]
Fast Pine sawdust 400 55 [60]
800 18
Torrefaction Coffee ground 300 81 [53]
Microalgae residues 56
Long pyrolysis is a traditional technology of biochar production with heating at
300–700
◦
C by the rate of 5 to 20
◦
C/min for more than one hour. In traditional biochar
production, carbonization can take place for more than one week. It produces a maximum
yield of biochar against other technologies mentioned above (more than 50% of dry weight).
Hard wood can be heated up to 1000
◦
C with the final carbonization level. Meanwhile,
biomass from agricultural waste and other sources with rather mild temperature of ash
melting is normally heated at not more than 700 ◦C [61,62].
Fast pyrolysis is mostly used for the production of liquid fuel: volatile products
are condensed by rapid cooling to avoid polymerization of by-products. The biomass is
heated for several seconds to pyrolysis temperatures. Gases contain various quantities
of carbon oxides, methane and hydrogen [
55
]. Fast pyrolysis may result in incomplete
conversion of biomass so that up to 9% of hydrocarbons (mostly in the form of cellulosic
and hemicellulosic fractions) remain in the product. Their presence diminishes later C
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 6 of 39
sequestration in soil. Raising the pyrolysis temperature decreases the content of this fraction
but due to lower amounts of biochar obtained.
Flash pyrolysis [
56
] is performed by ignition of the press biomass at elevated pressure
(1–2 MPa). The reactions provide heating of the feedstock up to 300 to 600
◦
C for about
30 min. The yield of biochar increases with temperature and pressure [57].
Dry torrefaction is a process in which biomass is heated in an inert atmosphere at
200 to 300
◦
C for the period of 30 min to 2–3 h. Up to 30% of biomass is lost, including a 10%
decrease in energy content. Polysaccharides are depolymerized to solid residues with a low
O/C ratio. Torrefaction assumes slow heating and can be categorized as mild pyrolysis.
Torrefaction is commonly used for pre-treatment of biomass prior to its combustion or
gasification. The product of dry torrefaction still contains significant amounts of volatile
organic matter from the feedstock.
Gasification is partial combustion of the biomass at a high temperature (600 to 1200
◦
C)
for several seconds [
63
]. As follows from the name of the process, gas consisting mostly of
methane and hydrogen is formed. Up to 10% of the dry weight of the biomass is converted
into biochar. Unlike other biochar sources, it can be contaminated with polyaromatic
hydrocarbons and heavy metals so that it cannot be recommended for application as a soil
amendment. Nevertheless, its application improves the physical properties of the soil and
positively affects microbial activity [58].
Hydrothermal carbonization is performed at 180 to 260
◦
C with biomass dispersed in
water under elevated pressure (2–6 MPa) for 5 to 240 min [
64
,
65
]. The char produced has a
higher carbon content than the products of dry pyrolysis [
59
]. Its characteristics depend on
the reaction temperature, pressure, residence time and biomass/water ratio. An increase
in the temperature results in a higher yield of liquid products. At 250
◦
C, up to 70% (dry
weight) of biochar are obtained. Preliminary treatment of the feedstock with mineral acids
and salts increases the yield and decreases optimal temperature and pressure due to better
solubilization of the biomass and suppression of hydrogen bonds between the biopolymer
molecules [60,66].
Chemical reactions during biomass pyrolysis depend on substrate composition and
heating conditions. Cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin comprising biomass undergo
various conversion paths, including depolymerization, cross-linking and decomposition
of the fragments. Hemicellulose decomposes at 200 to 260
◦
C, cellulose breaks at 240 to
350
◦
C and lignin starts decomposing at 280 to 500
◦
C [
67
]. Slow pyrolysis at rather low
temperatures results in decomposition and carbonization of cellulose, whereas fast pyrolysis
promotes volatilization and formation of levoglucosan [
68
], which is later decomposed by C-
O, C-C scission and dehydration to low-molecular compounds [
58
,
69
]. In a similar manner,
hemicellulose undergoes cleavage to 1,4-anhydro-D-xylopyranose yielding furfural and 2C-
, 3C-fragments [
70
]. Lignin is involved in drying and fast and slow degradation steps result
in the formation of a number of compounds, e.g., phenolics [
63
]. Regarding other elements,
sodium and chlorine are released at a relatively low temperature, whereas calcium and
magnesium can be bonded to organic species and removed at higher temperatures [
71
].
Alkali and alkali-earth metals exert autocatalytic effects on biomass pyrolysis due to the
acceleration of secondary destruction of volatiles produced in pyrolysis and formation of
more gases affecting biochar cracking [
64
]. Phosphorus, sulfur and nitrogen are mostly
bonded in less complex organic compounds present in the plant cells and decomposed in
slow pyrolysis at rather low temperatures. What becomes of various chemical elements
in biomass during its pyrolysis and mechanisms of chemical reactions responsible for the
formation of organic species, biofuel and biochar is described in detail in a review [65].
2.3. Improving Biochar Properties by Modification Approaches
Biochar application often assumes pre-treatment aimed at introduction of additional
functional groups, increase of porosity and specific surface area [
72
]. Such a treatment is
also desirable for the application of biochar for catalyst production because it increases
the adsorptive capacity of potential catalytic sites, such as transient metal cations. Mean-
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 7 of 39
while, biochar application may have unexpected and undesired effects, e.g., formation and
accumulation of toxic species (polyaromatic hydrocarbons). The general classification of
biochar pre-treatment approaches is presented in Figure 2.
Agriculture 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 43
sure due to beer solubilization of the biomass and suppression of hydrogen bonds be-
tween the biopolymer molecules [60,66].
Chemical reactions during biomass pyrolysis depend on substrate composition and
heating conditions. Cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin comprising biomass undergo
various conversion paths, including depolymerization, cross-linking and decomposition
of the fragments. Hemicellulose decomposes at 200 to 260 °C, cellulose breaks at 240 to
350 °C and lignin starts decomposing at 280 to 500 °C [67]. Slow pyrolysis at rather low
temperatures results in decomposition and carbonization of cellulose, whereas fast py-
rolysis promotes volatilization and formation of levoglucosan [68], which is later de-
composed by C-O, C-C scission and dehydration to low-molecular compounds [58,69]. In
a similar manner, hemicellulose undergoes cleavage to 1,4-anhydro-D-xylopyranose
yielding furfural and 2C-, 3C-fragments [70]. Lignin is involved in drying and fast and
slow degradation steps result in the formation of a number of compounds, e.g., phenolics
[63]. Regarding other elements, sodium and chlorine are released at a relatively low
temperature, whereas calcium and magnesium can be bonded to organic species and
removed at higher temperatures [71]. Alkali and alkali-earth metals exert autocatalytic
effects on biomass pyrolysis due to the acceleration of secondary destruction of volatiles
produced in pyrolysis and formation of more gases affecting biochar cracking [64].
Phosphorus, sulfur and nitrogen are mostly bonded in less complex organic compounds
present in the plant cells and decomposed in slow pyrolysis at rather low temperatures.
What becomes of various chemical elements in biomass during its pyrolysis and mecha-
nisms of chemical reactions responsible for the formation of organic species, biofuel and
biochar is described in detail in a review [65].
2.3. Improving Biochar Properties by Modification Approaches
Biochar application often assumes pre-treatment aimed at introduction of additional
functional groups, increase of porosity and specific surface area [72]. Such a treatment is
also desirable for the application of biochar for catalyst production because it increases
the adsorptive capacity of potential catalytic sites, such as transient metal cations.
Meanwhile, biochar application may have unexpected and undesired effects, e.g., for-
mation and accumulation of toxic species (polyaromatic hydrocarbons). The general
classification of biochar pre-treatment approaches is presented in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Classification of biochar modification approaches.
The introduction of additional functional groups starts from partial oxidation of bi-
ochar. Hydrogen peroxide [72], ozone [73], potassium permanganate [74] (and nitric acid
Figure 2. Classification of biochar modification approaches.
The introduction of additional functional groups starts from partial oxidation of
biochar. Hydrogen peroxide [
72
], ozone [
73
], potassium permanganate [
74
] (and nitric
acid [
75
] are used for this purpose. Oxidation products contain carboxyl, phenolic, peroxide
fragments and lactones. Oxidation increases the hydrophilicity of the char surface. Similar
results can be obtained by heating biochar in an inert atmosphere with low amounts
of oxygen. The appropriate changes depend on the treatment temperature. Thus, post-
treatment of chars obtained from carbohydrates and activated by heating to 300
◦
C in
the presence of oxygen was investigated by FT-IR spectroscopy and X-ray fluorescence
analysis [
76
]. Treatment below 450
◦
C promotes opening inner space without mesopore
widening and results in preferable surface adsorption of inorganic components. Treatment
temperature increase to 900
◦
C removes most oxygen-containing functional groups and
stimulates the formation of more common aromatic structures.
Oxidation within the range of 450 to 900
◦
C makes mesopores wider and deeper. The
contribution of the adsorption of inorganic species on initial organic matter decreases.
Metal cations remain attached in pores and on the surface due to electrostatic interactions
with aromatic
π
-electron systems. Meanwhile, full pore volume, surface area and capacity
toward anions (phosphates) can decrease during high temperature pyrolysis [
58
,
69
]. High
temperature post-treatment decreases the biochar mass by about 10% per each 100
◦
C.
In turn, this increases the yield of mineral residue and the content of metal oxides and
carbonates [77].
In addition to oxidation in the presence of small amounts of oxygen, micropore
widening is achieved by controlled biochar gasification. For this purpose, it is treated
with water vapor or carbon dioxide. This increases the internal volume of micropores, but
the number of mesopores increases insignificantly. Thus, post-activation of biochar from
coconut shells has been described with various rates of vapor and carbon dioxide supply
with simultaneous microwave treatment [
78
]. The specific surface square was increased
to 2000 m
2
/g, and micropore volume exceeded 80% of the total internal volume of the
activated product. Simultaneous microwave treatment and water vapor/CO
2
treatment
increased the product yield twofold [79].
Some catalysts, i.e., zinc chloride and phosphoric acid, make for porosity increase and
are added to raw biomass prior to pyrolysis. Being absorbed by biomass, they prevent
gumming in the first heating stages. Phosphoric acid hydrolysis glycoside bonds in hemi-
cellulose and cellulose and breaks ether bonds in lignin. The reactions mentioned are often
followed by degradation and dehydration of the cellulose structure and condensation of
oligomeric by-products. In such a conversion, carbon oxides and methane are released.
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 8 of 39
Phosphoric acid can also form esteric bonds with hydroxide groups of biomasses if tem-
peratures do not exceed 200
◦
C. This promotes the cross-binding of polymeric chains [
80
].
As a result, carbon retention, sorption capacity and pore formation are synchronously
improved [
81
]. Unlike phosphoric acid, zinc chloride acts as a dehydration agent. It
decreases carbonization temperature for cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin and changes
paths of their following chemical conversion in favor of gumming suppression and open
pore formation. ZnCl2can then stimulate wood swelling due to its implementation in the
biomass and depolymerization processes. Zinc chloride remains in melted conditions up
to the end of pyrolysis (melting point below 700
◦
C) and hence inhibits C rearrangement
in the structures to be obtained. Removal of ZnCl
2
from biochar leaves well-pronounced
micropores. Unlike other chemical agents, zinc chloride maximizes the increase of the pore
volume in biochar. Other additives, e.g., FeCl
3
, mostly affect biomass graphitization and
the formation of graphitic particles with a high specific surface area (up to 2000 m
2
/g) [
82
].
Biochar amination is the second most widespread method of biochar functionalization.
It simplifies CO
2
capture and toxicant sorption [
83
,
84
]. Amination starts with preliminary
biochar oxidation, followed by its ammonia addition [
85
,
86
]. Polyethyleneimine [
87
,
88
]
is involved in similar reactions. In addition, amino groups are formed by nitration of
biochar followed by reduction of nitro groups introduced with dithionite [
62
]. Aminated
biochar finds applications in binding metal cations. In addition, amino groups change
the hydrophilicity of the surface and improve biochar wettability, which is important for
its field application. It should be mentioned that in addition to chemical modification,
increased nitrogen content is achieved by an environmentally safer approach based on
pyrolysis of biomass enriched with nitrogen-containing materials, e.g., chitin [
89
] and
chitosan [
90
]. Such modifiers also increase sorption of metal cations [
91
] and are applied in
the preparation of composite materials with the implementation of magnetic particles [
92
].
Biochar sulfurization (introduction of sulfonate groups) can be achieved by post-
treatment of biochar with sulfuric acid, filtration and centrifugation of target products [
93
].
They are used for sorptional removal of toxic metals and as solid acids in soil remediation
and wastewater treatment [79,94].
Most of the modified biochar particles have negative surface charges associated with a
few carboxylic, carbonyl and sulfonate groups. Therefore, they can adsorb metal cations
that are additionally bonded by complexation with amino (amide) groups. High ash
content in the substrate increases the accumulation of metals, whereas higher pyrolysis
temperatures affect this parameter in the opposite way due to partial destruction of acidic
groups. Instead, the products of high temperature pyrolysis adsorb increased quantities
of organic species, e.g., catechols or humic acids [
80
]. This is referred to as the general
increase of the pore volume [
95
]. However, they do not effectively bind anions, e.g., nitrates,
arsenates or phosphates. To avoid this limitation, metal oxides can be introduced into
the biochar structure. The feedstock is soaked in a solution of metal nitrates or chlorides.
Their following heating in the presence of atmospheric oxygen to about 300
◦
C releases
nitrogen oxides (chlorine) so that metals are fixed in the biochar material in oxide form.
Meanwhile, impregnation of metal oxides regularly decreases the biochar surface area due
to partial filling of the pores [
96
]. Treatment of the biochar obtained from the corn comb
by slow pyrolysis at 500
◦
C with Fe(III) nitrate resulted in 20 times higher accumulation
of As [
97
]. Hybrid material obtained by pyrolysis of the mixture of naturally occurring
hematite (
γ
-Al
2
O
3
) and pinewood biomass showed a much stronger ability to remove
arsenic from wastewaters than biochar with no impregnation [
98
]. A similar efficiency was
registered for biochar impregnated with gelatin containing ferrite magnetic particles [
99
].
Introduction of AlO(OH) [
100
], manganese oxides [
101
] and MgO [
102
] was also described
for soil remediation and toxic metals removal from the sediments and wastewaters. It
is interesting to mention that biochar containing MgO was obtained from tomato tissue
biomass that accumulated Mg from irrigation waters [103].
In addition to metal oxides, chemical modification of biochar with clay minerals,
e.g., kaolinite, montmorillonite and bentonite, has been described as increasing accu-
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 9 of 39
mulation of ammonia and phosphates. The product obtained by mixing biomass with
appropriate materials prior to pyrolysis is enriched with Al, Fe and Na [
104
,
105
]. Ben-
tonite keeps its structure in the final product, whereas montmorillonite is dehydrated.
Maximum sorption capacities of biochar for ammonia and phosphates exceeded 12.5 and
105 mg/g, respectively.
Biochars were also mixed with carbonaceous nanomaterials, e.g., graphene oxide [
106
]
and carbon nanotubes [
107
]. They increase the porosity of the product, specific surface area
and surface concentration of oxygenated functional groups. As a result, they accumulated
metal cations better than the biochars themselves. Hybrid materials described have been
utilized for the removal of Cr(VI) and Hg(II) from the wastes of sugar production.
2.4. Biochar Properties
2.4.1. Physical Properties
The physical properties of biochar are pre-determined by the processes taking place
during carbonization. Biochar obtained in low temperature pyrolysis consists of graphitic
layers. The distance between the layers, as well as their specific surface area, increases
with the carbonization temperature [
108
]. Aromatic carbon atoms dominate the biochar
structure obtained at 350
◦
C with rather small contribution of alkyl oxygen and C atoms.
An increase in the pyrolysis temperature to 500
◦
C converts alkyl fragments into aryl groups
with a low H/C ratio. Hydrothermal conversion results in the formation of roundish
particles. The model study showed that they resulted from the preliminary formation of
lignin-like structures with a high number of oxygen-containing functional groups (ether,
quinone and pyron groups) distributed within hydrophobic internal layers covered by
hydrophilic coats [
46
]. The nature and distribution of the surface functional groups were
established using FTIR spectroscopy [
109
] and XRD analysis [
110
]. Biochar obtained at low
temperatures contains a shell formed by furan-like pentatonic rings (60% of carbon atoms)
bridged with sp2- (sp3-) C atoms [
111
]. At higher temperatures, such layers are converted
into condensed aromatic rings to form graphitic particles. Based on solid-phase 13C NMR,
FT-IR spectroscopy and GC-MS, the conversion starts at 270
◦
C and is accompanied by the
evolution of volatile furan derivatives [
112
]. Similar behavior has been reported in other
works utilizing various feedstocks and pyrolysis regimes [77,113,114].
The biochar particle morphology results from the chemical reactions during pyrolysis.
At low temperature (at about 300
◦
C) free radicals appear [
115
]. The following heating
destroys cellulose with the formation of anhydrosugars that are less reactive than radical
products of the bond cleavage. Being volatile, such intermediates are condensed in the
pores of biochar and then in secondary carbonization form a typical crystal lamellar struc-
ture [
116
]. The surface groups of biochar depend on the pyrolysis rate. Oxygen containing
hydroxide and carboxylic groups are mostly present on the materials obtained in fast
pyrolysis, whereas aromatic C-H bonds are mostly found on the surface of slow pyroly-
sis products [
117
]. Heating changes ratio of main components and structural properties
(Figure 3).
The structure of the biochar particles changes slightly with the heating rate but is sen-
sitive to the final pyrolysis temperature. With its increase, crystal fragments become bigger
and their internal structure—more regular [
118
]. The variety of the structure fragments is
higher in fast pyrolysis. As gases are released from the solid matrix, bulk density decreases.
This results in a lower bulk density that also takes into account free space between the
biochar particles. Thus, pyrolysis of woody biomass decreases density twofold against
feedstock at the pyrolysis temperature of 350
◦
C, which is considered a lower limit of
fastest changes of biochar porosity [
119
]. Similar changes in porosity were observed for
grass biomass heated at 350 to 700
◦
C [
120
]. For the plant substrate rich in hemicellulose,
the temperature promoting pore formation can be decreased due to the lower thermal
stability of hemicellulose. The porosity changes caused by lignin decomposition at higher
temperatures are more complex. On the one hand, decomposition of lignin can result in
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 10 of 39
even higher porosity than that of hemicellulose carbonization. On the other hand, the
shrinking of solid residue influences this parameter in the opposite direction [121].
Agriculture 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 43
structure obtained at 350 °C with rather small contribution of alkyl oxygen and C atoms.
An increase in the pyrolysis temperature to 500 °C converts alkyl fragments into aryl
groups with a low H/C ratio. Hydrothermal conversion results in the formation of roun-
dish particles. The model study showed that they resulted from the preliminary for-
mation of lignin-like structures with a high number of oxygen-containing functional
groups (ether, quinone and pyron groups) distributed within hydrophobic internal layers
covered by hydrophilic coats [46]. The nature and distribution of the surface functional
groups were established using FTIR spectroscopy [109] and XRD analysis [110]. Biochar
obtained at low temperatures contains a shell formed by furan-like pentatonic rings (60%
of carbon atoms) bridged with sp2- (sp3-) C atoms [111]. At higher temperatures, such
layers are converted into condensed aromatic rings to form graphitic particles. Based on
solid-phase 13C NMR, FT-IR spectroscopy and GC-MS, the conversion starts at 270 °C
and is accompanied by the evolution of volatile furan derivatives [112]. Similar behavior
has been reported in other works utilizing various feedstocks and pyrolysis regimes
[77,113,114].
The biochar particle morphology results from the chemical reactions during pyrol-
ysis. At low temperature (at about 300 °C) free radicals appear [115]. The following
heating destroys cellulose with the formation of anhydrosugars that are less reactive than
radical products of the bond cleavage. Being volatile, such intermediates are condensed
in the pores of biochar and then in secondary carbonization form a typical crystal lamel-
lar structure [116]. The surface groups of biochar depend on the pyrolysis rate. Oxygen
containing hydroxide and carboxylic groups are mostly present on the materials obtained
in fast pyrolysis, whereas aromatic C-H bonds are mostly found on the surface of slow
pyrolysis products [117]. Heating changes ratio of main components and structural
properties (Figure 3).
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 3.
SEM images from biochar prepared (
a
)—from plant residues, (
b
)—from chicken manure,
and (c)—from sewage sludge.
It should be mentioned that the lower density of biochar against substrate is related
to bulk density. The so-called true density describing solid phase disregarding pore space
increases with residence time and pyrolysis temperature. Shrinking biomass during py-
rolysis can also result in incomplete removal of volatiles, especially in low temperature
pyrolysis (Figure 4) [122].
Changes in the specific surface area during pyrolysis follow porosity increase. Thus,
it starts raising at 400–500
◦
C until 900
◦
C from about 10 to 100–500 m
2
/g depending on
the feedstock and the pyrolysis conditions [
123
,
124
]. The following heating above 900
◦
C
leaves surface area constant or slowly decreasing. This was attributed to changes in the
particle structure resulting in pore widening or collapse of some pore walls. In addition,
decreased area can be influenced by ash melting and fusing [
125
]. Similar consequences are
expected from secondary reactions between char and volatiles remaining entrapped in the
inner pore volume [
126
] and from crystallization of amorphous carbon into graphite [
127
].
Thus, the average pore size of the biochar particles obtained from sewage sludge increased
from 4.7 nm (feedstock) to 8 and 28 nm at 500 and 600
◦
C and then decreased to 16 nm at
700
◦
C [
128
]. The surface area of the wood pyrolysis products obtained at 450
◦
C increased
from 4 to 23 m
2
/g with the residence time varied from 10 to 60 min, respectively [
19
].
Biochar from rubber wood sawdust increased the surface area from 1.93 to 5.49 m
2
/g with
the pyrolysis temperature raised from 300 to 700 ◦C [129].
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 11 of 39
Agriculture 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 43
Figure 4. Molecular structure of biochar from plant biomass across a charring temperature gradi-
ent; (A) Characterization of organic phases. (B) Char composition from gravimetric analysis [130].
With permission of the American Chemical Society.
In addition to porosity, the surface square depends on the particle size distribution
[131]. The average size of the biochar particles regularly decreases with the pyrolysis
temperature due to weakened macromolecular structure and formation of fragile parti-
cles likely to be broken [132]. Thus, pitch pine pyrolysis increased the fraction of particles
below 500 µm from 70 to 95% (pyrolysis at 300 °C) [133].
2.4.2. Chemical Properties
The chemical composition of biochar is mostly determined by carbonization result-
ing from the loss of hydrogen and oxygen containing groups. The progress of carboniza-
tion is reflected by changes in the atomic rations. Regarding three main elements, i.e.,
carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, such changes are expressed by a diagram presented first
by D. van Kleveren [134] (Figure 5). In natural carbonization there are various natural
ways of carbonization. However, the release of oxygen is twofold faster than that of hy-
drogen until coal is formed. After that, the decrease in the H/C ratio becomes constant if
the oxygen content is maintained at a low level. In technical conditions, the relative de-
crease of the O/C and H/C molar ratios can vary, but contrary to natural conditions, the
appropriate rates do not change within the pyrolysis duration. The van-Kleveren dia-
grams are present in many reviews and original works devoted to biochar production. A
summary of 212 experimental results obtained for various pyrolysis conditions and bi-
omass origins is presented in [135]. Maximum decrease of the atomic ratios corresponds
to a 250 to 350 °C interval in which the O/C and H/C ratios decrease twofold. The fol-
lowing removal of oxygen requires heating to 700 °C whereas full removal of hydrogen
requires even higher heating. Van Kleveren diagrams reflect a general assessment of bi-
ochars and related products from the point of view of energy storage and energy losses in
combustion.
Figure 4.
Molecular structure of biochar from plant biomass across a charring temperature gradient;
(
A
) Characterization of organic phases. (
B
) Char composition from gravimetric analysis [
130
]. With
permission of the American Chemical Society.
In addition to porosity, the surface square depends on the particle size distribu-
tion [
131
]. The average size of the biochar particles regularly decreases with the pyrolysis
temperature due to weakened macromolecular structure and formation of fragile particles
likely to be broken [
132
]. Thus, pitch pine pyrolysis increased the fraction of particles below
500 µm from 70 to 95% (pyrolysis at 300 ◦C) [133].
2.4.2. Chemical Properties
The chemical composition of biochar is mostly determined by carbonization resulting
from the loss of hydrogen and oxygen containing groups. The progress of carbonization
is reflected by changes in the atomic rations. Regarding three main elements, i.e., carbon,
oxygen and hydrogen, such changes are expressed by a diagram presented first by D.
van Kleveren [
134
] (Figure 5). In natural carbonization there are various natural ways of
carbonization. However, the release of oxygen is twofold faster than that of hydrogen until
coal is formed. After that, the decrease in the H/C ratio becomes constant if the oxygen
content is maintained at a low level. In technical conditions, the relative decrease of the O/C
and H/C molar ratios can vary, but contrary to natural conditions, the appropriate rates do
not change within the pyrolysis duration. The van-Kleveren diagrams are present in many
reviews and original works devoted to biochar production. A summary of 212 experimental
results obtained for various pyrolysis conditions and biomass origins is presented in [
135
].
Maximum decrease of the atomic ratios corresponds to a 250 to 350
◦
C interval in which the
O/C and H/C ratios decrease twofold. The following removal of oxygen requires heating
to 700
◦
C whereas full removal of hydrogen requires even higher heating. Van Kleveren
diagrams reflect a general assessment of biochars and related products from the point of
view of energy storage and energy losses in combustion.
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 12 of 39
Agriculture 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 43
Figure 5. Van Krevelen diagram for the natural carbonization process [135].
Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and minor quantities of nitrogen are the main compo-
nents of biochar. Elemental composition follows changes in the atomic ratios corre-
sponding to the appropriate temperature of pyrolysis and heating rate. In addition,
moisture, silicon, phosphorus and metal residues should be considered. The particular
content of biochar highly depends on the substrate used. Carbon content varies com-
monly from 45 to 60 wt.%, hydrogen from 2 to 5 wt.% and oxygen at the level of 10 to 20%
[136]. Inorganic components (minerals) are present in a higher amount in plant resides
and algae, and in a lower amount in woody biomass. Biochar obtained from plants con-
tains more carbon than that from manure (Table 5).
Table 5. Chemical properties of biochar produced from different feedstocks by pyrolysis (Nguyen
et al. 2010) [137].
Feedstock Oak Wood Corn Stover Poultry Lier
Pyrolysis temperature 350 600 350 600 350 600
pH 4.80 6.38 9.39 9.42 9.65 10.33
CEC, mmol/kg 294 76 419 252 1121 59
C, % 75 88 60 71 29 24
C/N 455 489 51 66 15 25
P, mg/kg 12 29 1890 2114 21,256 23,596
Fixed C 38 71 40 60 1.6 0.1
H/C 0.55 0.33 0.75 0.39 0.57 0.18
O/C 0.20 0.07 0.29 0.10 0.41 0.62
In most cases, carbonization of biomass promotes increase of the pH of the product
to final pH = 8–10. The higher the pyrolysis temperature, the more the pH shift. In a sim-
ilar manner, pH correlates with ash content. Thus, the use of woody biomass results in
the formation of the product with a pH lower than that of manure carbonization products
rich in mineral components. The consideration of the pH is complicated by the changes in
acidity observed within the time after implementation of biochar in soil. As an example,
the pH of the biochar obtained from oak chips decreased within a year of application to
soil, whereas the coals from corn wastes increased from 6.7 to 8.1 [138]. Such relation-
ships are related to the destruction of acidic functional groups at high temperatures of
Figure 5. Van Krevelen diagram for the natural carbonization process [135].
Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and minor quantities of nitrogen are the main components
of biochar. Elemental composition follows changes in the atomic ratios corresponding to
the appropriate temperature of pyrolysis and heating rate. In addition, moisture, silicon,
phosphorus and metal residues should be considered. The particular content of biochar
highly depends on the substrate used. Carbon content varies commonly from 45 to
60 wt.%
,
hydrogen from 2 to 5 wt.% and oxygen at the level of 10 to 20% [
136
]. Inorganic components
(minerals) are present in a higher amount in plant resides and algae, and in a lower amount
in woody biomass. Biochar obtained from plants contains more carbon than that from
manure (Table 5).
Table 5.
Chemical properties of biochar produced from different feedstocks by pyrolysis
(Nguyen et al., 2010) [137].
Feedstock Oak Wood Corn Stover Poultry Litter
Pyrolysis temperature 350 600 350 600 350 600
pH 4.80 6.38 9.39 9.42 9.65 10.33
CEC, mmol/kg 294 76 419 252 1121 59
C, % 75 88 60 71 29 24
C/N 455 489 51 66 15 25
P, mg/kg 12 29 1890 2114 21,256 23,596
Fixed C 38 71 40 60 1.6 0.1
H/C 0.55 0.33 0.75 0.39 0.57 0.18
O/C 0.20 0.07 0.29 0.10 0.41 0.62
In most cases, carbonization of biomass promotes increase of the pH of the product to
final pH = 8–10. The higher the pyrolysis temperature, the more the pH shift. In a similar
manner, pH correlates with ash content. Thus, the use of woody biomass results in the
formation of the product with a pH lower than that of manure carbonization products
rich in mineral components. The consideration of the pH is complicated by the changes in
acidity observed within the time after implementation of biochar in soil. As an example,
the pH of the biochar obtained from oak chips decreased within a year of application to
soil, whereas the coals from corn wastes increased from 6.7 to 8.1 [
138
]. Such relationships
are related to the destruction of acidic functional groups at high temperatures of pyrolysis.
Another factor influencing the chemical composition of biochar is particle size. A number
of authors have found that different particle sizes of raw materials can lead to different
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 13 of 39
heating during pyrolysis, so a smaller fraction could be more carbonated than a larger
fraction and contain more C, as well as Ca, Mg and K ions [131,139].
3. Biochar Functions in Soil
Biochar is commonly used in rehabilitating infertile or degraded soils because it
improves soil physicochemical characteristics, reduces greenhouse gas emissions, increases
fertilizer application efficiency, increases yields, and absorbs organic pollutants [
140
].
Biochar affects physical and chemical soil properties directly, and biological properties
mainly indirectly. The direct effects are mainly connected with feedstock sources and
pyrolysis conditions.
3.1. Effects on Soil Physical Properties
The physical properties of biochars (microstructure of biochar particles) are crucial for
their effects on soils. The biochar bulk density varies from 1.5 to 2 g/cm
3
[
117
] and that
of soil particles varies from 2.4 to 2.8 g/cm
3
. The application of 30 t/ha of woody biochar
reduced the soil bulk density by 14% on a fallow land [
141
]. The bulk density decreased
linearly with the biochar application rate in the range from 0 to 100% vol. from 2.62 to
1.60 g/cm
3
[
142
]. In most cases, linear dependence of the biochar amendment and soil
density decrease were observed with maximum effect for application of about 60 t/ha and
no influence of small application rates (<10 t/ha) [
143
]. In coarse textured solids, reduction
of the bulk density caused by biochar is higher than coalescence that in fine textured soils.
The largest decrease, by 31%, reported in 2016 was found for sand [
144
]. This is explained
by the mixing effect due to the rather high difference in the above parameters of the soils
and chars used.
The mean size of the soil aggregates used for estimation of many important soil
properties, e.g., water filtration, macropore development, soil particle cracking, etc., is also
expressed as the mean size (diameter) of the aggregates present in amended soil. Biochar
increases wet aggregate stability with no respect to the soil type and application rate due to
the ability of organic matter to establish bonds between soil particles. The release of binding
molecules as well as direct aggregation of biochar particles with organomineral complexes
results in the formation of aggregates and their following coalescence. The effect is more
pronounced in sandy soils [
145
,
146
]. Aggregate size increases have also been observed in
grassland and volcanic soils with organic carbon levels of >10% [
147
,
148
]. Clay mineralogy
is another factor altering the biochar influence on soil aggregates. Similar relationships were
found for dry aggregation stability that requires a rather high application rate (
20–25 t/ha
)
of biochar and was preferable on sandy soils [149,150].
Changes in soil bulk density affect soil porosity. This is mostly referred to as the soil C
content, which varies with biochar amendment and hence influences soil porosity [
151
]. The
porosity is normally increased due to the combination of various factors, e.g., reduced bulk
density, increase of the aggregation, changes in the interaction with mineral components,
and denser packing of the soil particles. For example, fine-textured soil (clay) is less
affected by bio-char than coarse-textured soil (sandy) in terms of the degree of change in
bulk density. To reliably reduce soil density, the application rate of biochar should vary in
the range of 1–5% [
152
]. It has been shown that biochar can increase soil porosity by up
to 19% and reduce bulk density by up to 35% [153]. To increase the overall porosity of the
soil and reduce its bulk density, it is necessary to use a highly porous biochar, i.e., biochar
obtained at low and medium temperatures and obtained from plant raw materials. Thus,
biochar obtained by wheat bran pyrolysis at 800
◦
C increased soil porosity to a lower extent
than that obtained at 1200 ◦C [154].
Tensile strength refers to the inherent capability of the soil to resist external forces
that can cause fractures and ruptures. Biochar application on clayey soils decreases ten-
sile strength because clays have viscoelasticity exceeding that of biochar. The tensile
strength decreased from 64 to 32 kPa after 50 t/ha of biochar application and to 19 kPa for
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 14 of 39
100 t/ha [155]
. In sandy soils, however, biochar added alone or together with organic fertil-
izers improves soil structure and increases tensile strength due to better aggregation [
156
].
3.2. Effects on Soil Chemical Properties
Great attention has been paid to studying the use of biochar for the remediation and
restoration of polluted soils [
157
–
160
]. Its beneficial effects are most often attributed to
immobilizing toxicants and reducing the bioavailability of toxins to soil organisms. An
increase in the pyrolysis temperature increases the carbonization degree of biomasses
and the surface of biochar particles, which contributes to an increase in their sorption
capacity for organic pollutants and hence a decrease in their potential hazard to soils. In
particular, a decrease in the bioaccumulation of polychlorinated biphenyls by soil organisms
was found when activated carbons were introduced into soils, supported by an adequate
change in the equilibrium concentration of the toxicant in the study of their extraction from
water systems [
161
,
162
]. A similar effect of biochar on the equilibrium concentrations of
organic toxicants was established for DDT [
163
] and polycyclic aromatic compounds [
164
].
Sorption of organic toxicants does not preclude their subsequent release from the bound
form over time. Biochar also binds heavy metals in a carbon matrix. In particular, a
relationship has been registered between a decrease in the mobility of copper, cadmium
and nickel during the period of decomposition of biochar introduced into the soil and
the content of organic matter in it [
165
]. Therefore, its production and application to
soils can be considered an effective strategy in limiting the circulation of such elements
in the environment. A fairly large number of examples of biochar use with a view to
suppressing the phytotoxic properties of heavy metals have been described. For example,
a regular decrease in the phytotoxic concentrations of cadmium and zinc was registered
in a 60-day experiment with biochars introduced into silt masses [
166
,
167
]. The amounts
of retained heavy metals correlate with the cation-exchange capacity of biochar, which
provides evidence of the mechanism of their retention on the carboxylate groups of biochars.
At the same time, an inverse relationship was found for copper, associated with an increase
in soluble organic carbon in soil moisture when biochar from hardwood was introduced.
This proves that the specific effects of biochar application on the bioavailability of toxic
soil elements require verification for actual application conditions. There is a necessity
to certify the maximum allowable levels of toxic elements in biochar [
168
]. The ability of
biochar to remove arsenic from wastewater has been found [
169
]. Unlike metals, arsenic
is present in soil in the form of oxo anions. Accordingly, the mobility of arsenic in soils
does not decrease with pH increase, as in the case of copper, zinc, lead and cadmium, but
increases. Its retention in soils is due to the presence of aluminum, iron and manganese
oxides in them, which react with arsenic forms. Thus, there is a possibility of increasing
the bioavailability of this element due to the fact that the introduction of biochar increases
the pH and soluble carbon of soils. In laboratory tests aimed at assessing the influence
of biochar on the arsenic content in wastewater moderately polluted with heavy metals,
the effect of biochar introduced in an amount of 30 vol.% was not reliably detected [
170
].
Additional benefits in the removal of arsenic can be expected from biochar enriched with
iron oxides, and if used in conjunction with compost, a simultaneous decrease in the
bioavailability of other common heavy metals can be achieved [
171
]. Similar patterns were
revealed for the binding of chromium (VI) compounds.
There are works devoted to the use of biochar produced from chicken manure with
the aim of removing metals from the environment. Thus, its high efficiency with respect to
copper (II) ions has been proven. The share of the removed metal increases with biochar
mineralization and varies from 1.3 to 26 mg/g of the sorbent. The use of chicken manure
as a raw material provided a higher capacity of biochars compared to coals produced from
corn waste, pine wood, and eucalyptus [
172
]. A decrease in copper bioavailability was also
observed when chicken manure biochar was applied to copper-contaminated sandy loamy
soils. Biochar was prepared by slow pyrolysis at 500
◦
C for 2 h [
173
]. It was characterized
by a high content of phosphorus (19.4 g/kg) and potassium (17.2 g/kg), pH 9.1 (water
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 15 of 39
suspension 1:5) and a specific surface area of 11.5 m
2
/g. The interaction of biochars with
copper was also controlled by changing the growth rate of O. picenis; the indicator species
is a metallophile. In model experiments in seed germination in a greenhouse, biochar
was applied in the amount of 5 and 10%. In addition to the effect on plants, a decrease
in the concentration of copper in soil moisture and an increase in soil microbial activity
are described. The manifestation of the phytotoxic properties of biochar with a high
content of a number of other trace elements (phosphorus, boron, zinc, manganese) in
relation to plants sensitive to their presence in the soil was registered [
174
,
175
]. There
are other risks associated with the agronomic use of biochar. Thus, it was found that the
introduction of 1% biochar made of eucalyptus chips halved the bioavailability of two
insecticides (chlorpyrifos and carbofuran) [
176
]. Sorption of pesticides can help in reducing
crop contamination, but it reduces the efficacy of their application against insect pests. In
addition, the biochar itself may contain phytotoxic compounds [
177
]. The influence of
biochar on the content of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) is the focus, as they are
partially formed in the pyrolysis of organic matter, the precursor of biochar. Adsorption or
other protection against microbiological degradation of PAHs limits their removal from
polluted soils; saturation of biochar pores with other adsorbed substances reduces its effect
on the removal of those compounds into groundwater. It is not entirely clear how the
influence of biochar on the microbiological community and its protective effect on PAHs
correlate, as both adsorption and microbiological activity depend in a complex way on
soil pH after the application of biochars. Examples of agrochemical and ecotoxicological
consequences of biochar application to soils are given in Table 6[178].
Table 6. Agrochemical and Ecotoxicological Consequences of Biochar Application to Soils.
Biochar Application Effect Ref.
Positive Negative
Wheat straw 0–40 t/ha + 300 kg N/ha
Increase in pH, C, N, decrease in
bulk density, decrease in
N2O emission
Increase in methane emission
(34–41%) when applying 40 t/ha
[179]
Eucalyptus chips 0–90 g/kg of
soil + rhizobium culture
Increase in biological nitrogen
fixation, pH, bioavailability of
soil B, Mo, R, Ca, P at 60 g/kg
Decrease in available nitrogen
and yield when applying
90 g/kg of biochar
[138]
Paper production waste
10 t/ha + Nutricote fertilizer
12.5 g/250 g of soil (15% N,
4.7% P, 8.9% K)
Increase in organic carbon, pH,
exchangeable Ca, and in
total carbon
Decrease in the yields of wheat
and radishes [180]
Sawdust 20–60% of biochr Increased sorption of atrazine
and acechlor by 5% biochar
Increase in the yield of N2O and
CH4when applying 20%
of biochar
[181]
Wood 13–52 t/ha –
Decrease in the efficiency of
herbicides when the dose of
biochar increases
[182]
Eucalyptus wood 1% of coal
Decrease in bioavailability of
insecticides, and in the
accumulation of herbicides by
plants by 10–25%
Increase in the resistance of
herbicide residues in soil
fertilized with biochar
[176]
Eucalyptus wood 0.5% of coal Decreased bioavailability of
chlorantraniliprole
Biochar influence on pesticide
bioavailability depended on
soil type
[183]
Corn cobs
Fertilizer from 2–20 g/kg of
coal + N (0–100 mg/kg) + P
(0–20 mg/kg), biochar
100 and 200 t/ha
–
Additional nitrogen application
is required to increase the
crop yield
[184]
Peanut husk 100 and 200 t/ha Increased yield and drought
tolerance Chenopodium quinoa
A positive effect is achieved only
at the maximum application rate
(200 t/ha)
[185]
In general, an increase in the pyrolysis temperature during the production of biochar
increases the sorption efficiency in relation to organic pollutants. Presumably, this occurs
as a result of an increase in the specific surface area and microporosity of coals.
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 16 of 39
3.3. Effects on Soil Biological Properties
Although the positive effect of biochar on soil fertility and agriculture ecosystems
mainly refers to the pH changes in acidic soils and improved nutrient retention and aeration,
remarkable influence of biochar amendments on microbial communities and soil animals
has been reported [
186
–
188
]. Changes in microbiota composition and abundance also
follow soil structure improvement and nutrient availability caused by biochar application
(indirect biochar effect). All of these factors influence plant growth and crop quality and
consequently, more input of rhizodeposits into the soil. The positive influence of biochar
amendments can be counterbalanced by toxic metals contained in the pyrolysis products,
especially those derived from sewage sludge or wastewater sediments. The consideration
of the biochar effects on soil microorganisms reported in the literature mainly depends
on what kind of effect is expected, i.e., biodiversity, abundance, or secondary effects on
soil biota on crops and soil fertility. Thus, soil biota diversity is often believed to be a key
factor for soil functions [
189
] and organic amendments derived from biochar are key factors
affecting trophic relations in soil [
190
]. The second approach assumes indirect influence
of biochar on nutrient availability and possible effects of various species adsorbed in
biochar particles and released in the environment during biochar aging and mineralization.
Microbial abundance always increases with biochar amendments with low dependence
on the feedstock and soil type. The mycorrhizal response estimated by root colonization
increased twice for a two-year exposition of 0.6–6 t/ha of biochar to Eucalyptus wood [
191
].
The protective effect of biochar particles, sorption of signaling compounds, detoxification of
allelochemicals, and improvement of physical properties of soil were mentioned as possible
reasons for the positive effect of biochar on extraradical mycelium [
3
]. In addition, biochar
was reported to be able to stimulate spore germination [
192
]. An opposite effect of biochar
amendment was attributed to symbiotic relations in conditions of high nutrient availability,
undesirable pH shifts and toxic effects of metal cations or high salt content [
193
,
194
].
Some other effects of biochar on the microbial abundance affected by its application are
summarized in Table 7.
Table 7. Possible mechanism of biochar’s influence on microbial abundance in soil [188].
Mechanism of Influence
Rhizobia
Other Bacteria
Mycorrhizal Fungi
Other Fungi
Protection from grazers 0 (+) (+) (+)
Improved hydration + + ? ? or ±
Greater P, N Ca, Mg, K availability + + - -
Greater micronutrient availability + + - ?
Higher pH + + nc nc
Lower pH - - nc nc or -
Sorption of signaling compounds ? or - ? ? ?
Greater N availability (also through
sorption of phenolics and increased
nitrification
- + or - nc nc
Sorption of microorganisms nc ? nc nc
Biofilm formation + + ? ?
Sorption of inhibitory compounds ? + ? ?
Sorption of dissolved organic matter ? ? nc ?
‘+’—relative abundance increase, ‘-‘—abundance decrease ‘0
0
—no influence observed, ‘?’—influence not consid-
ered; ‘
±
’—multidirectional changes; ‘nc’—influence not calculated; parentheses—weak circumstantial evidence.
Fertilizers commonly reduce the influence of biochar application on microbial abun-
dance. The effect is mostly pronounced for P, N-containing fertilizers that inhibit accelera-
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 17 of 39
tion of root colonization observed with biochar added alone [
195
]. The plants did not rely
on biological N fixation in the presence of fertilizers as much as in the presence of biochar.
Non-symbiotic organisms can slightly increase their abundance in the same conditions
due to the higher availability of nutrients from fertilizer. Biological nitrogen fixation can
also be stimulated by introduction with soybean straw-derived biochar [
196
]. Microbial
biomass increases with pH values caused by biochar in acidic soils. The effect is more
pronounced for bacteria, whereas fungi are more tolerant to this factor and can even reduce
their growth at high pH [
197
]. It should be taken into account that changes in the soil pH
observed after biochar application can reflect secondary effects on microbial activity [
192
].
The pH effect significantly depends on the soil properties. Biochars added to soil protect
microorganisms from the inhibitory effect of some species (catechols, flavonoids, phenolics)
that are adsorbed on the pores and hence excluded from the microorganism metabolism.
Such an effect was described for biochar obtained from corn stover [
198
]. Fast-pyrolysis
biochar from wood promoted arbuscular colonization of asparagus due to limitations in
access to some aromatic acids exerting an allelopathic effect.
The microbial response to the biochar addition is also sensitive to the adhesion of
the cells on the particle surface. This formation of biofilms mostly affects bacterial but
not fungal abundance. The attachment of the cells to the biochar particles can occur
via hydrophobic attraction and electrostatic forces. The mineralization of the biochar, as
well as higher salt content, accelerate adhesion. Inclusion of the cells into the pores is
limited by their size, which should be at least 2–5 times bigger than the cell size. For
Bacillus mucilaginous and Acinetobacter sp., it was estimated of 204
µ
m [
150
]. In addition to
abundance, microbial community composition significantly differs with biochar addition
against that of unmodified soils of the same mineralogy [
151
]. Viscosity decreases stimulate
the development of plant roots and rhizobia because of the higher availability of nutrients.
Additionally, invertebrates move easier through the amended soil, making pores and
influencing predator/prey ratio. A similar influence on plant roots and fungi can be
attributed to the changes in the soil bulk density caused by the rather small value of this
parameter of biochar particles (typically between 0.09 and 0.5 g/cm
3
against 1.5–2.1 g/cm
3
for true density).
Transformation of soil nutrients. It has been established that nitrification is accelerated
when biochar is added to forest soils, which is explained by the sorption of phenols that
inhibit the process and an increase in the mass of ammonium-oxidizing bacteria [
199
].
In addition, an increase in the activity of alkaline phosphatase, aminopeptidase and N-
acetylglucosamine oxidase was revealed upon the introduction of biochar [
200
], which may
be associated with an increase in the production of organic nitrogen and phosphorus due to
the accelerated growth of plant roots in the pores of biochar. Bradyrhizobiaceae (Rhodoblastus,
Rhodopseudomonas,Bradyrhizobium and Nitrobacter) may take part in the process, as well
as nitrogen utilizing Hyphomicrobiaceae (Rhodoplanes,Starkeya), nitrates and ammonia in
nitrogen fixation or denitrification [
201
]. The same microorganisms can produce ethylene
from fresh biochar, which in turn leads to a reduction in greenhouse gas (N
2
O and CO
2
)
emissions [
202
]. To study nitrogen fixation by legumes (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in soils treated
with 0–90 g/kg biochar soil, the isotope dilution method (
15
NH
4
)
2
SO
4
was used [
203
]. At
the maximum dose of biochar, the proportion of fixed nitrogen increased from 50% in the
control to 72%. The increase in total nitrogen supplied from the atmosphere was 49% for the
dose of 30 g/kg of biochar and 78% for 60 g/kg, a decrease was registered at the maximum
dose of application. A possible reason for the increase in microbial nitrogen fixation was an
increase in the availability of boron and molybdenum and, to a lesser extent, potassium,
calcium and phosphate, an increase in pH, a decrease in the availability of nitrogen, and
saturation of aluminum. At the same time, the input of soil nitrogen decreased by 14 and
17% at an application rate of 30 and 60 g/kg of biochar, respectively. Biochar has a
positive effect on phosphorus-mobilizing mycorrhiza, as it protects mycelium, indirectly
influencing the changes in the physicochemical characteristics of soils, and detoxifying
allelopathic secretions [
204
,
205
]. There are also opposite observations, indicating the
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 18 of 39
absence of the influence of biochar or its negative effect on mycelium. One explanation for
this contradiction is the indirect effect of biochar due to changes in pH, saturation of the
soil with oxygen, and changes in its porosity.
Microbial diversity in soils enriched with biochar has been studied using various meth-
ods, including total DNA analysis of the soil microbial community [
206
], colony culture
and counting [
207
], substrate-induced respiration [
208
,
209
], microbial
biomass [210,211]
,
extraction of phospholipid fatty acids [
212
–
215
], contrasting, and direct examination of
individual biochar particles [
3
]. The introduction of biochar increases microbial diversity
in different ways for different groups of microorganisms. The two most common types of
mycorrhizal fungi (arbuscular and ectomycorrhizal fungi) most often respond positively to
the application of biochar (see review [
3
]). The response of mycorrhiza is usually assessed
by root colonization. Thus, the rate of formation and the number of processes of ectomycor-
rhizae on larch seedlings in the presence of biochar in the soil increased by 20–160% [216].
Similar results were obtained on wheat in a two-year experiment with the introduction of
biochar from eucalyptus wood (0.6–6.0 t/ha)—the acceleration of colonization was 5–20%
relative to the control without the introduction of biochar [
191
]. It is less clear how the
part of the mycelium located in the soil interacts with the biochar. The direct interaction of
biochar and mycelium may be important. For example, the internal pores of the biochar
particles can protect the extraradial mycelium from external influences, for example, from
grazing animals or from soil overconsolidation [188].
The introduction of biochar at doses of 5 and 25 t/ha was studied when cultivating
wheat for 10 weeks while simultaneously varying the dose of applied nitrogen [
217
]. It was
shown that Cmic decreased when biochar was introduced, while Nmic remained practically
unchanged. The experiment cannot be explained by the sorption of inorganic nitrogen
on coals, since carbon dioxide emissions decreased in the presence of 5 t/ha of biochar,
but not in the presence of 25 t/ha. The structure of the ammonium-oxidizing microbial
community changed only when biochar was introduced together with a nitrogen source.
The authors concluded that the introduction of biochar reduced the activity of the microbial
community as a whole. An increase in the dose of mineral fertilizers reduces the positive
effect of biochar on the rate of reproduction of microorganisms [
218
], depending on the
nature of the fertilizer and the group of microorganisms. Thus, mycorrhizal infection is
suppressed by phosphorus-containing fertilizers, regardless of the application of biochar,
but it does not depend on the application of nitrogen fertilizers. The opposite situation
was registered for Rhizobium [
219
]. The reason may be the different influences of external
conditions on the symbiosis of microorganisms. Therefore, when nitrogen fertilizers are
added, the plant may not need biological nitrogen fixation to the same extent as in the
absence of top dressing. A similar reason may explain the different effects of increased
carbon load in the rhizosphere during exudation. The microbial diversity of non-symbiotic
microorganisms can increase with increased availability of nutrients, either as a result of
their longer retention in soil enriched with biochar or due to their entry into soils together
with biochar. In most cases, a similar improvement can be achieved by the direct application
of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers without biochar.
An increase in the concentration of microelements, such as molybdenum or boron, can
also cause an increase in biological nitrogen fixation by Rhizobium colonizing biochar [
220
].
This phenomenon was discovered during the study of the immobilization of toxic elements
by biochar. Similarly, sorption reduces the toxic effect of antimicrobial compounds and
elements by reducing the time of their action, especially when they first enter the soil [
221
].
An example of the indirect effect of biochar on soil microorganisms is a change in pH.
An increase in microbial biomass (Cmic) from 20 to 180
µ
g/g and in ninhydrin nitrogen
from 0.5 to 4.5
µ
g/g was registered with an increase in soil pH from 3.7 to 8.3 [
222
]. At the
same time, bacteria and fungi react differently to changes in pH. Bacteria increase diversity
with an increase in pH to 7 or more, while fungi do not change their biomass in the specified
pH range and decrease biomass with further increase [
197
,
223
]. Therefore, biochar with
pH varying within the specified range can affect soil biota differently depending on soil
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 19 of 39
pH. In addition, even with the introduction of acidic samples, for example, hydrochar with
pH 4, an increase in the pH of fertilized soils was observed, apparently due to secondary
processes of microbial reduction of unidentified organic substrates and electron transfer
mediators [
192
]. The said work indicates the importance of secondary processes in fertilized
soils, which, in turn, are determined by the pH value of the soil before its cultivation, the
direction and magnitude of the change in pH when biochar is added, etc. In addition,
it should be taken into account that the pH on the surface of biochar particles, where a
bacterial film is formed, may differ from that in the bulk of the soil [188].
In addition to changing the microbial biomass, the introduction of biochar and related
changes in the conditions of microbiological community development change its structure
up to the change of dominants. Such changes have been repeatedly recorded for Terra preta
(artificial soil based on low-grade activated carbon, also called Brazilian black soil), soils
enriched with coal from natural fires and soils with biochar and for soil fungi, bacteria and
archaea [
207
,
224
–
226
]. As a rule, the diversity of the bacterial community increased up to
25% when biochar was applied to the soils of Terra preta but decreased with a similar tillage
in soils after natural fires. Simultaneously, in these cases, the diversity of archaea and fungi
decreased, which indicates the unequal effect of biochar on various components of soil
communities. However, it should be noted that these studies were carried out at different
times, from 0.5 and 2.5 years for soils after fires and with the introduction of biochar and
up to hundreds and thousands of years for Terra preta soils.
The bacterial community in soils with a high content of biochar differs from that
in soils possessing the same mineralogy without biochar in them [
207
,
227
]. This was
also shown with the help of genetic fingerprinting of Terra Preta soils and unmodified
forest soil in the Amazonian region. The first ones showed a larger number of unique
taxonomic units. At the same time, all taxa present in the forest soil were found in Terra
preta, while the latter contained unique units that were absent in the forest soil. The greatest
difference between the microbiological communities of both soils was established for an
evolutionary distance of 5%, which indicates the presence of differences at the genome
and species levels. Studies [
207
] revealed a high taxonomic diversity in biochar-fertilized
Terra Preta soils in four areas of the central Amazonian region compared to unmodified
soils. The maximum difference is fixed at the family level. Similar discrepancy values
of 80% were observed for soils enriched with biochar and agricultural soils differing in
cultivation time, past and present crops, and other conditions [
206
]. For uncultivated
soils, the diversity did not exceed 40%. Up to the present, the biochar of Terra preta soils,
introduced hundreds and thousands of years ago, remains the main factor determining the
development of the microbiological community, despite the dissimilarity of other factors,
such as agricultural use, soil texture, mineralogy, nutrient content and pH. Although the
application of fertilizers, especially for podzolic soils, leads to differences in the results of
genetic fingerprinting, it is incomparably small with the effect of biochar additions, which
at times drastically changed the microbiological community. An increase in the application
of biochar to the soils of the temperate zone increased the divergence of the bacterial
community composition in the rhizosphere and soil. Rhizospheric soils with the application
of 12 and 30 g/ha of biochar were characterized by the greatest dissimilarity from the soil,
with minimal or no additional fertilization (0 or 1 g/ha) [
188
]. It was concluded that
the introduction of biochar into soils leads to the development of communities similar to
rhizospheric ones, which were formed without the introduction of biochar.
Similar studies were carried out at the level of taxa. Thus, two new taxa of Acidobacte-
ria [
227
], and later two potentially new taxa of
α
-Proteobacteria were identified in the soils
of Terra preta. It was shown that Acidobacteria are widely represented in all studied soils
and differ in their genetic profile from analogs included in databases by at least 2% of the
code. Some genomes isolated from Brazilian soils enriched with biochar were grouped with
93% similarity with Verrucomicrobia, whose genome is mainly found in tropical rice husks,
but is characterized by a gradual spread to other soils. Genomes assigned to Pseudomonas,
Acidobacteria and Flexibacter sp. were found both in Terra preta soils and in control soils.
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 20 of 39
In moderately rich soils with and without biochar additions, 70% of the isolated sequences
are classified as Ascomycota,Basidiomycota or Zygomycota. However, the occurrence fre-
quency of the main phylotype genes differed for soils enriched and not enriched with
biochar. In the presence of biochar, the communities were characterized by less genetic
diversity. Similarly, less diversity was found in the Archaean community in Terra Preta
soils, particularly in the ammonium-oxidizing Chrenarcheota [
225
]. Probably, this effect
indirectly reflects changes in soil pH caused by the introduction of biochar [
228
]. Soils
enriched with biochar show multiple Zygomycota involved in the degradation of glucose
and cellulose and forming Glomeromycota mycorrhiza. At the same time, the diversity of
Basidiomycota decreases by a third compared to unenriched soils. Some Ascomycota are
known to degrade lignin but can also use simpler organic compounds as a substrate. In this
regard, the lack of available carbon in biochar can inhibit the colonization of this fungal
species, while soluble carbon adsorbed on the surface of biochar particles will increase the
proportion of Zygomycota that apparently find sufficient resources of oxidizable carbon.
Similarly, under the influence of biochar, the bacterial community also changes. In re-
sponse to the introduction of biochar obtained in high temperature pyrolysis (pyrolysis
products of oak wood and a mixture of herbs at 650
◦
C), bacterial diversity increases, includ-
ing taxonomy, in contrast to the effect of biochar obtained at 250
◦
C [
226
]. An increase in
the diversity of Actinobacteria and Gemmatimonadetes was found, in agreement with similar
observations of Terra preta soils and forest soils naturally fertilized with fire coal [
229
].
Separately, the effect of biochar on pathogenic microorganisms should be mentioned. The
application of biochar to soils can increase E.coli contamination of groundwater, especially
since current approaches do not consider reducing microbiological diversity in soil mois-
ture as a goal. The transfer of E. coli to soil and ground moisture depends on the biochar
application rate and the pyrolysis temperature. Thus, high temperature biochar (700
◦
C)
from poultry litter at a dose of 2% applied to sandy soils does not reduce the number of E.
coli in the leachate; increasing the dose to 10% (not realistic in real land use for economic
reasons) reduces the number of microorganisms by several orders of magnitude [
230
]. Soil
treatment with the same biochar, produced at 350
◦
C, increases the abundance of E.coli
itself, which should be taken into account when assessing the consequences of its use
in agriculture.
Along with the conservation of carbon and the reduction of the greenhouse effect in
general, the introduction of biochar into soils has a general soil-improving effect, mainly
associated with agronomic and environmental factors. There are various assumptions
about the nature of such an effect, but most of them associate biochar with improved
storage of soil moisture and nutrients, improved soil structure and drainage [
231
]. There is
evidence of a connection between the application of biochar and the state of the soil micro-
biological community. These factors also affect the yield of agricultural plants, sometimes
indirectly, for example, through the acceleration of nitrogen fixation by free and symbiotic
diazotrophs [
232
]. The ability of biochars to absorb pollutants should also be taken into
account, thereby reducing their availability for biota during the restoration of damaged
soils and the neutralization of production wastes [
203
]. At the same time, such processes
can lead to secondary contamination of soils with the same pollutants in the future during
the decomposition of biochars.
Biochar stability in soil, i.e., its resistance to degradation, leaching and chemical
oxidation, depends on the aromatic structure, surface functional groups, and sorption char-
acteristics for minerals and organic compounds [
233
]. Biochar destruction proceeds under
the influence of biotic factors (microbial community) due to photooxidation and disper-
sion [
234
]. Observations of freshly prepared biochar during the year showed that a decrease
in its mass is accompanied by an increase in the number of surface oxygen atoms in the com-
position of carboxyl and phenolic groups, a decrease in the positive charge of the surface
and the acquisition of a negative charge by it [
138
]. The O/C ratio determines the stability
of a biochar, as expressed by its half-life, from
>1000 years (O/C < 0.2) to <100 years
at
O/C > 0.6 [
181
]. It is difficult to accurately determine the lifetime of biochar in the soil,
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 21 of 39
since the inhomogeneity of samples and the tendency of biochar to modify depending on
environmental conditions increase during exposure.
3.4. Mineralization of Biochar
Biochar has a high sequestration potential due to the conversion of easily accessible
C from plant biomass, organic waste, etc., into a hard-to-reach form, due to the absence
of a priming effect when used as a soil improver, due to non-energy-intensive production
(the resulting pyrolysis fuel and pyrolysis gas ensures the maintenance of the process,
without the use of additional fuel sources), as well as by increasing the frequency of
application (every 3–10 years) compared to other organic fertilizers, such as compost or
digestate [
22
,
235
–
242
]. Evaluation of retention time of biochar carbon in soils varies from
hundreds to thousands of years, while biomass carbon is retained for several decades [
243
].
The introduction of biochar derived from biomass reduces the return of carbon to the
atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. Thus, provided that the gases released in parallel,
as well as the products released into the ecosphere during the production, transportation
and storage of biochar, do not compensate for the positive effect, the introduction of biochar
contributes to a decrease in the greenhouse effect [
244
]. The manifestation of such an effect
depends on the degree of carbon conservation in the biochar, i.e., on the ratio of carbon
content in biomass and the same value in biochar obtained from the specified amount of
biomass. Slow pyrolysis gives a carbon conservation value of about 50%; higher values are
typical for a less stable biochar with a stable existence time in soils of 4 to 29 years [245].
The rate of natural mineralization of coals under natural conditions is usually low.
Its evaluation is difficult because the changes over a reasonable period of observations
are too small and because of the difficulty of unambiguous identification of the chemical
nature of the resulting products. One of the methods of such an assessment is the use of
biomass enriched in the
14
C carbon isotope in the production of biochar. In particular, it
was experimentally possible to prove the mineralization of 6% biochar, obtained in this way
from a chaff, to CO
2
, during an 8.5-year experiment. This corresponds to the processing
of 0.3% of the carbon introduced per year [
246
]. In another laboratory experiment with
the carbonization products of
14
C-labeled Pyrenean chaff, the rate of mineralization was
estimated from the rate of
14
CO
2
release after the introduction of coals into loess soils [
247
].
It amounted to no more than 0.5% of the introduced carbon per year, which, in terms of
real conditions, gives a lifetime of coals in soils of at least 2000 years. At the same time, the
joint application of glucose to intensify the co-metabolism of soil bacteria reduces this time
by more than 10 times.
The literature provides a fairly wide range of data on the carbon footprint of biochar,
from 0.04 tCO
2
-eq to a net reduction of 3.9 tCO
2
-eq per ton of raw material [
153
,
248
–
252
].
This wide range is obtained due to different pyrolysis feedstocks, different pyrolysis plants,
and different system boundaries established during the biochar life cycle assessment. A
similarly wide range is set for the price of biochar. According to calculations by Nema-
tian [
253
] and co-authors, the cost of producing 1 ton of biochar in the USA is USD 449–1847,
in European countries EUR 300–2000 [
254
].Calculations made for Russia showed that the
cost of production of 1 ton of biochar is USD 40; at a cost of USD 110/t, biochar production
becomes profitable, which is comparable to other soil fertilizers and immobilization agents.
It is worth noting that the growing demand for biochar, according to the European Biochar
Market Report 2022/2023 biochar production capacity continues to grow in 2022 by 52%
to 53,000 t biochar [
252
]. Indeed, the cost of compost in European countries and the USA
is about 10 times lower than that of biochar and amounts to USD20–50/t. However, it is
important to consider that when producing 1 ton of biochar in European countries, up to
4 tons of carbon credits worth EUR 70–370/t can be returned [
153
,
254
,
255
]. In addition, de-
spite the same application doses, the frequency of applying biochar is once every
2–5 years
,
in contrast to the annual application of compost. In connection with the above, the most
rational thing is to calculate the carbon footprint of crop products grown using biochar, as
well as to change its cost taking into account the carbon units obtained.
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 22 of 39
3.5. Biochar Influence on Soil Microorganisms
Biochar influences many soilprocesses, such as denitrification, methane oxidation [
256
,
257
],
carbon mineralization [
210
,
247
] and the transformation of nutrients. The reasons for this are
numerous. They include switching to other carbon sources, changing nutrient availability,
sorption of inorganic and organic components, including enzymes, to biochar, soil moisture
retention, and changes in infiltration or pore structure. Later, those that are directly or
indirectly related to the microbial community of soils will be considered.
As mentioned above, the microbial community is able to actively respond to the
introduction of biochar. Higher microbial diversity could potentially lead to greater miner-
alization or oxidation of the biochar itself, as shown for organic carbons of non-pyrolysis
origin. Usually, these processes are stimulated by an increase in microbial biomass. How-
ever, some reports have indicated the opposite effect or a combination of decreased diversity
and absolute respiration carbon (carbon turnover) [
210
,
258
]. This may be the consequence
of the lower amount of available carbon, the high stability of biochar, or the adsorption
of organic carbon on it, which could contribute to its slower degradation. Vice versa,
the introduction of freshly prepared biochar from waste products usually increases both
respiratory activity and community metabolism [
208
]. It is explained, inter alia, by a high
content of nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, as well as a significant proportion
of organic biochar, which, in particular, follows from a slight activation of respiration with
increasing biochar application rates [
259
,
260
]. In the same work, a positive connection was
described between the amount of volatile organic components in the biochar and carbon
dioxide released during incubation. Both of these factors, i.e., an increase in the nutrient
component and labile carbon, directly follow the introduction of biochar into soils, and
their overall effect on biochar mineralization depends on the ratio of labile carbon and
nutrient components both in the biochar itself and in the soil inorganic matter.
From the same standpoint, it would be logical to expect a multidirectional effect of
biochar on the structure of the microbial community. The shift toward a greater variety of
fungi after the introduction of biochar into the soil potentially indicates a greater mineral-
ization of the biochar itself. Root fungi are known to promote the degradation of lignin in
woody biomasses and coal [
261
,
262
]. Interestingly, among fungi, there is a shift in diversity
toward taxa that prefer glucose as a source of carbon, and among bacteria, in the opposite
direction. It is not entirely clear how the introduction of a much more oxidatively tolerant
biochar could contribute to the development of such preferences, especially given the
wide variety of other carbon sources available in soils (own organic matter, litter, etc.).
It is possible that mineralization of biochar does not increase access to labile carbon but
promotes the mineralization of available non-pyrolysis carbon. This statement is consistent
with observations showing a connection between an increase in microbial biomass and
a higher rate of soil carbon decomposition (so-called priming) in the presence of biochar.
The fact that this increase usually remains below the initial higher salinity when freshly
prepared biochar is added [
209
] suggests that there are other mechanisms leading to carbon
loss, such as physical carbon removal, changes in nutrient content or pH. In addition,
volatile carbon compounds present in biochar, along with similar smoke components,
can stimulate microbial activity immediately after the application of biochar to soils, but
then quickly mineralize [
263
,
264
]. Longer-term (more than a year) observations show that
biochar reduces the rate of soil carbon mineralization [
137
,
210
,
265
]. A similar situation
(more biomass but less soil respiration) was also registered in liquid waste treatment, when
the biofilm on irrigated fields showed a higher rate of mineralization of soluble aromatic
carbon than the same film on activated carbons with a larger specific surface area of the
latter [
266
]. It is possible that carbon dioxide forms carbonates on the surface of the biochars
due to the higher pH value of their surface. This explains the decrease in the amount of
recorded CO2with a simultaneous increase in microbial biomass.
Changes in the composition and enzymatic activity of the microbial community upon
the introduction of biochar into soils may be responsible for the lower mineralization of soil
carbon. The activity of glycosidase and cellobiosidase decreased with the introduction of
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 23 of 39
more than 12 t/ha of biochar. In addition to soil analysis, a similar change was recorded for
the purified enzyme and biochar obtained by rapid pyrolysis from Panicum virgatum [
200
].
In such experiments, it is also necessary to take into account the localization of microorgan-
ism colonies on biochar particles. Their proximity to a carbon source increases the efficiency
of carbon mineralization, even without additional enzyme production. An alternative
explanation associated with the assumption of adsorption of enzymes on biochar seems
less probable; for example, lipases form stable and highly effective adducts with activated
carbons [
267
]. Biochar particles can generate regions of local enrichment in available carbon
and thereby promote the growth of microbial colonies, as occurs in biological wastewater
treatment [
268
]. In the latter case, immobilization of biochars also reduces the possible toxic
effect of organic waste on microorganisms, which contributes to their higher metabolic
activity [
269
]. Biochar can adsorb large amounts of soil organic carbon, which was demon-
strated by studying microbial cultures and the processes of substance leaching from soil
horizons [
270
]. Numerous evidence of strong adsorption of aromatic hydrocarbons on
various kinds of coals and soot also proves this statement [271]. Although such processes,
with the inclusion of microbial biomass and litter, are slower than the sorption of PAHs,
they can significantly determine the influence of coals on the mineralization of soil carbon.
The influence of biochar on multicellular soil organisms is of great interest from the point
of view of monitoring the state of the microbiological community based on the following
considerations: soil organisms are included in the general flow of soil matter and energy,
they are present at the upper levels of the food chain, and their reactions are derived
from the reactions of microorganisms to the introduction of biochar. Then, geophages, for
example, earthworms, are important participants in the processes of biochar modification
and its transfer to other soil horizons, which cannot but affect microorganisms. Finally,
the reactions of soil organisms to toxic elements may reflect corresponding changes in the
structure and abundance of the microbiological community.
The interaction of biochars with earthworms has been the most studied. They are able
to absorb particles of coal, crushing them along the way and mixing them with the soil.
In a number of experiments with microcosms, it was shown that worms prefer mixtures
of soils with biochar over pure soils [
180
]. Perhaps they use coal particles to ground soil
organic matter, or they are attracted to microorganisms and their metabolic products that
accumulate in the pores of the biochar. Long-term plot experiments have shown that worms
also contribute to the transportation of biochar particles within the soil layer but most
likely not beyond it. At the same time, in similar experiments with PAH-contaminated
biochar, a decrease in the mass of worms was observed in comparison with the inhabitants
of the same soils without biochar [
272
]. The joint enrichment of soils with biochar and
worms increased the concentrations of inorganic nitrogen, as well as the productivity of
agricultural crops (for example, rice [
273
]). Data on the influence of biochar on nematodes
are scarce. Soils treated with smoke from the production of activated carbons show a
higher number of nematodes, which may be due not to the direct action of the components
contained in the pyrolysis products but to their effect on competitive interaction in soils.
The same can be said about arthropods, the change in the abundance of which in soils
enriched with coals was established from the products of their vital activity.
3.6. Effect of Biochar on Crop Yields
Biochar application usually improves crop productivity by increasing the availability
of nutrients, increasing the activity of microorganisms that determine the mobility of soil
nutrients [274–277], and accelerating the development of the plant root system because of
colonization of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and improved soil physical properties [
278
].
There is also a decrease in the loss of nutrients due to their reduced leaching from soils and
an improvement in the physical characteristics of soils that contribute to water retention
and oxygenation [
279
,
280
]. There is also data on the absence of the biochar effect or even
its negative effect on crop yields. In Table 8, there is an example of generalization of the
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 24 of 39
biochar effect on crop yields. Table 8also contains information on the application rate and
statistical parameters of the assessment [281,282].
Table 8. Average yield changes as a percentage of control for various biochar applications.
Dose of Biochar, t/ha The Mean Values and the Range Corresponding to the
95% Confidence Interval
135 −26–67
100 15–65
67.5 −16–45
65 −10–50
50 16–35
40 −8–38
25 10–38
22 −13–18
20 −15–40
16 −28–22
14 −14–28
11 −11–17
10 5–17
8−5–17
6−3–16
5.5 −40–50
5−56–7
4−32–22
3−5–15
1.5 −7–12
When evaluating the contribution of biochar to soil fertility, it is necessary to take into
account all aspects of a complex interrelated system that includes, in addition to biochar
and soil, a specific agricultural crop, inorganic and organic fertilizers used in parallel,
biochar application volumes, climatic and other environmental conditions (Table 8).
In Table 9the results of testing various types of biochar in a field experiment are
given. The effect of biochar on crop yield depends on soil type. For example, corn showed
a 2–3-fold increase in yield when applied at 4 t/ha in acid sandy soils and only 30% to
40% when biochars were used in sandy-clay acid soils. In neutral clayey soils, no effect of
biochar application was found.
Table 9.
Effect of biochar application on the productivity of various crops (according to Subedi et al.,
2017) [282].
Biochar Source Pyrolysis
Conditions Application Dose Term Crop Effect Ref.
Mixed wood 500 ◦C 30 and 60 t/ha 2 seasons Hard wheat +30% (grain) [283]
Mixed wood 500 ◦C
10 t/ha 1 season Hard wheat, corn +10% (wheat),
+(6–24)% corn [284]
30 and 60 t/ha 8.5 weeks L. perenne +(20–29)%
(biomass)
100 and 120 t/ha 8.5 weeks L. perenne −(10–20)%
(biomass)
Corn heart,
soft wood 400 ◦C 4 t/ha 2 seasons Corn +(233–322)% [285]
Wheat straw 450 ◦C, enriched
with minerals 670 kg/ha 15 weeks Green pepper
+(16–16)% (fruits)
[286]
Eupatorium
adenophorum 680–700 ◦C 750 kg/ha 17 weeks Pumpkin +(85–300)% [287]
Eucalyptus 600 ◦C, activated 1.1 and 5.44 t/ha 1 harvest cycle Sweet corn - [288]
Hard wood 500–575 ◦C
(hydrothermal) 0–96 t/ha 1 harvest cycle Corn +(11–55)% [289]
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 25 of 39
Table 9. Cont.
Biochar Source Pyrolysis
Conditions Application Dose Term Crop Effect Ref.
Spruce and
pine chips 550–600 ◦C 5 and 10 t/ha 3 years Horse beans, turnips
and wheat - [290]
Willow 600 ◦C,
decomposted
10 t/ha (biochar),
25 t/ha (biochar
and compost)
1 harvest cycle for
each crop Bananas, papaya
−(18–24)%
bananas,
-papaya
[291]
Fruit tree
branches 500 ◦C 22 and 44 t/ha 4 years Vine +(16–66)% [292]
Hard wood 500 ◦C 8 t/ha 3 years Vine - [293]
Mixed
wood chips 450 ◦C 25 and 50 t/ha 3 years Corn (year 1) and hay
grass (years 2 and 3)
9 (corn),
+(13–32)% (hay) [294]
In the study [
295
], a 50% increase in the yield of chaff was established on slightly acidic
fatty loams and 44% on calcareous sandy soils. In Australian calcareous soils, a negative
effect of biochar on the yield of lettuce and hay grass was registered [
296
]. Technological
aspects complicate the dependence of yield on the type of soil, cultivated crops and the
method of biochar preparation. Thus, in a greenhouse experiment, a decrease in the yield
of corn in the first year of cultivation was registered when biochar from eucalyptus wood
obtained in fast pyrolysis at 800
◦
C was introduced into acidic marl soils [
297
]. At the same
time, biochar did not affect this value when applied to weakly acid silty loams. When
using biochar obtained in slow pyrolysis at 350
◦
C, no increase in yield was observed
for either of the two soil types. Different results were obtained in the second year of the
experiment: after the introduction of biochar obtained in slow pyrolysis, the yield increased
by 500% on slightly acidic loams and by 150% on acidic marl soils. The authors attributed
the reasons for the decrease in the efficiency of using the fast pyrolysis product to the
possible presence of PAHs and the antagonistic effect of excess potassium on calcium and
magnesium, although reliable results for measuring these chemical compounds are not
given in the work. However, an increase in yield in the second year of biochar application
is recorded quite often due to an increase in the cation exchange capacity of soils, the
availability of nutrients, the ability to retain water and a decrease in the mobility and
toxicity of aluminum and manganese [296,298].
The direct or indirect effect of biochar on the growth of the root system and phytotoxic
compounds indirectly affects crop yields. The acceleration of root culture development is
due to the general improving effect of biochar on the soil structure, including its aeration
and moisture saturation. Moreover, more than a hundred years ago, it was already believed
that root development was accelerated due to the sorption removal of allelopathic com-
pounds by activated carbons and similar products. At the same time, it should be taken
into account that, most likely, the sorption removal of allelopaths and other phytotoxic
compounds, including those released from litter and other plant residues, is complicated by
the complex effect of biochar on the availability of nutrients, which leads to contradictory
results in laboratory experiments [
299
]. In a number of studies, biochar was used as a
substitute for peat in a nutrient medium for growing plants (soilless method). At a content
of less than 30 wt%, biochar had a positive effect on plants, which was manifested in
improved seed germination and seedling survival. In a number of studies, biochar was
used as a substitute for peat in a substrate for growing plants (soilless method). Peat
moss is conventionally used as a container substrate; however, this use causes several
environmental concerns, such as peatland ecosystem destruction when peat is obtained,
over-use of fertilizers since peat itself does not provide plants with essential nutrients,
and carbon release since peat organic matter is quickly decomposed by plant-associated
microbes. Biochar seems to have the potential to alleviate these concerns; however, the
number of publications on peat substitution by biochar is still quite low as compared with
the total number of publications on biochar used as a soil conditioner, suggesting that this
study direction will be developed in the future. In most cases (depending on the initial
substrate and pyrolysis process characteristics), biochar has a larger surface area, better
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 26 of 39
pore size distribution, better rewetting characteristics, and higher content of N, P and other
essential elements [
300
]. Examples of assessing the impact of biochar in the soilless method
of cultivating a number of crops are shown in Table 10.
Table 10. Study of biochar as a substitute for peat in a nutrient medium.
Crop Dose of Positive Effect
(% of Biochar)
Dose of Negative Effect
(%of Biochar) Ref.
Gaillardia (Gaillardia spp.) 25 50 [301]
Calathea (Calathea insignis) 20–35 [302]
Pelargonium zonale (Pellargonium zonale) 30 70 [303]
Kale (Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala) 1–5 [304]
Lettuce (L. saliva) 50–75 [305]
Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) 25–75 100 [306]
Tomatoes (Solanium lycopesicum) 5 [307]
It is necessary to discuss separately the effect of biochar on plant diseases [
308
]. Even
170 years ago, there was a decrease in rust damage in wheat and powdery mildew in other
crops. Since then, the effect of biochar has been tested on 13 pathogens, of which 85%
have responded to biochar application by reducing plant infection, 12% have not, and 3%
have increased plant disease. Later [
309
], the list of potential pathogens was expanded
to 15 (30 plant/pathogen pathosystems). In 60% of the cases (70% of pathosystems), the
maximum biochar concentration of 0.5–1% did not have any effect or had a negative effect
on plant disease. Moreover, increasing the dose of biochar to 3% did not affect or accelerate
the course of the disease. The study covered 12 different environments and 5 different
prepared biochars, differing in salinity, carbon content, alkalinity and other parameters.
The negative effect of biochar was less pronounced for foliar infections compared to soil
pathogens. Other examples of assessing the impact of biochar on pathogens and plant
infections are given in the review [
310
]. Examples of the acceleration of pathogen effects on
plants are given in Table 11.
Table 11. Stimulation of plant diseases by biochar introduced into the nutrient medium.
Pathogen Plant Biochar Raw Material Biochar Dosis Ref.
Botrytis cinerea C. annum Citrus wood 3% [311]
Fusarium oxysporum
f.sp lycopersici L. esculatum
Wastes of processing
wood and green parts
of trees
3% [312]
Phytophthora
cinnanomi Quercus rubra Wood >5% [313]
Pythium ultimum C. annum,
Ocimum basilicum Spruce bark 50% (oб.) [314]
Plasmodiophora
brassica Brassica rapa Miscanthus 0.5% [315]
Pratylenchus penetrans Daucus carota Pine (wood and bark),
wheat husk 0.8% [316]
Strengthening the influence of pathogens under the effect of biochar often coincides
with its suppressive effect on the development of the plants themselves, which manifests
itself at high application rates. Moreover, even in the case of a positive effect on the growth
rate of plants, the risk of irreversible damage to plants in the event of infection is potentially
high. The contrary is also true—infected plants are more sensitive than healthy ones to
an excess of applied biochar. The reasons for this phenomenon are not fully understood,
but similar dose-dependent effects were observed for other agrochemicals, for example,
glyphosate, which acts as a growth regulator at low concentrations, and as a herbicide at
high concentrations. Biochar may contain certain organic components that, individually
or in combination, have hormone-like or phytotoxic effects. Ethylene released from some
biochars can serve as an example of such an indirect effect. In small doses, it has an effect
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 27 of 39
on plants as a growth promoter and increases resistance to diseases, and in large doses, it
has an opposite effect.
3.7. Immobilization of Microorganisms on Biochar
The number of positive examples of the use of biochar with immobilized microor-
ganisms in soil bioremediation is rather limited. Thus, accelerated decomposition of the
pyrethroid cypermethrin in soils enriched with biochar with an immobilized consortium of
Bacillus zhanjiangensis (TJTB48), Bacillus pseudofirmus (TJTB58), and Oceanobacillus kimchii
(TJTB66) bacteria was described [
317
]. Bacteria were grown on a mineral substrate and
then mixed in an aqueous suspension with biochar (concentrations of 0.5, 1 and 2%) for
24 h. The mixture was added to the surface layer of soil contaminated with pyrethroid. An
increase in the rate of decomposition of cypermethrin was observed at a biochar load of
0.5% (time to reduce the concentration by 2 times 16.4 days).
Accelerated bioremediation of soils contaminated with PAHs under the action of bac-
teria immobilized on a biochar was described [
318
]. To do this, we used bacteria previously
isolated by the ability to degrade polyaromatic hydrocarbons (Pseudomonas putida and the
second one remains unidentified). The microorganisms were immobilized on pre-crushed
biomass (wood chips, bamboo leaves, orange bark, pine needles) and its pyrolysis product
at 100, 300, 400 and 700
◦
C under oxygen-deficient conditions. Immobilization was carried
out by mixing the cell suspension with the carrier in the presence of sodium alginate. Next,
the mixture was dried and subjected to gelation by the introduction of calcium chloride.
The presence of bacteria increased the degree of sorption extraction of hydrocarbons from
water, while the organic mass before pyrolysis insignificantly reduced the bioavailability
of the absorbed toxicant. When microorganisms immobilized on an organic substrate and
biochar were placed in soils in a 90-day experiment, the highest rate of decomposition of
polyaromatic hydrocarbons was demonstrated by a sample in which the bacteria carrier
was biochar prepared at 400 ◦C.
Corynebacterium variabile HRJ4, which is highly salt tolerant, was used to accelerate the
oxidation of gasoline hydrocarbons. The bacterium was immobilized on biochar prepared
from wood chips by pyrolysis at 250, 400, or 700
◦
C [
319
]. The pyrolysis product was mixed
with a suspension of microorganisms in a ratio of 5:100 for 12 h and then stored at 4
◦
C. The
immobilized bacteria showed the highest activity in the oxidation of aliphatic hydrocarbons
C16, C18, C19, C26 and C26, as well as pyrene and naphthalene. Activity during 7-day
incubation reached 79% of the relatively free non-immobilized bacteria. Biochar from corn
cobs and pig manure was used as a carrier of the mutant strain B. subtilis B38 in the study of
bioremediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals [
320
]. It has been established that
the presence of microorganisms contributes to a decrease in the bioavailability of cationic
and anionic forms of metals (cadmium, lead, chromium) and increases the biomass during
the cultivation of lettuce three times more than in the absence of microorganisms. The
introduction of phosphate-mobilizing bacteria into biochar was used to reduce the toxicity
of lead in soils [
242
]. For this purpose, Pseudomonal chlororaphis in the culture liquid was
mixed in a volume ratio of 1:10 with biochar prepared from cow dung by pyrolysis at 200,
300, 400 and 500
◦
C for 4 h. The effect of additives was assessed by the degree of lead
extraction from contaminated soils.
4. Conclusions
It can be concluded that the interest of both the scientific community and enterprises
in biochar is growing. The variety of substrates for the production of biochar and the
scope of its application are increasing. The characteristics of biochar are very diverse; it is
possible to achieve the optimal ones both through the selection of the optimal substrate for
pyrolysis, pyrolysis conditions, and through pre- or post-treatment. The use of biochar as a
soil fertilizer leads to changes in the physical, chemical and biological properties of soils.
This increases bulk density, soil porosity, and wet aggregate stability, while clayey soils
decrease tensile strength. Biochar increases the pH and soluble carbon of soils, immobilizes
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 28 of 39
toxicants, and reduces the bioavailability of toxins to soil organisms. However, biochar can
contain phytotoxic compounds, such as PAHs and heavy metals. The use of biochar as a
soil fertilizer leads to an increase in the amount of macro- and microelements in the soil.
The introduction of biochar into the soil leads to an increase in the number and diversity
of the soil microbial community, with the greatest effect observed for the rhizobiome. All
of these factors influence plant growth and crop quality and consequently, more input of
rhizodeposits into the soil if the dose of biochar application was right chosen. In addition,
the production of biochar is zero-emission technology; its use as a soil amendment leads
to the sequestration of carbon in the soil and greater efficiency in the capture of carbon
dioxide in plant biomass. We assume that further research will be aimed at optimizing the
efficiency of the pyrolysis process and finding methods for increasing the sequestration
potential of biochar.
Funding:
This work was funded by the subsidy allocated to Kazan Federal University for the state
assignment in the sphere of scientific activities, project №FZSM-2022-0003.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
The data are available at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/
1ap5yELJ-AxJpGZTt95aIDT-Vf6xzbZG2?usp=drive_link (accessed on 7 August 2023).
Acknowledgments:
The authors of the article express their sincere gratitude to Yakov Kuzyakov for
the idea of the review and valuable comments during the preparation of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
IBI. Standardized Product Definition and Product Testing Guidelines for Biochar That Is Used in Soil; International Biochar Initiative:
Bowdoinham, ME, USA, 2015. Available online: http://www.biochar-international.org/characterizationstandard (accessed on
7 August 2023).
2.
Xu, G.; Lv, Y.; Sun, J.; Shao, H.; Wei, L. Recent Advances in Biochar Applications in Agricultural Soils: Benefits and Environmental
Implications. CLEAN—Soil Air Water 2012,40, 1093–1098. [CrossRef]
3.
Warnock, D.D.; Lehmann, J.; Kuyper, T.W.; Rillig, M.C. Mycorrhizal Responses to Biochar in Soil—Oncepts and Mechanisms; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; Volume 300, pp. 9–20.
4.
An, N.; Zhang, L.; Liu, Y.; Shen, S.; Li, N.; Wu, Z.; Yang, J.; Han, W.; Han, X. Biochar application with reduced chemical fertilizers
improves soil pore structure and rice productivity. Chemosphere 2022,298, 134304.
5.
Huang, Y.; Wang, C.; Lin, C.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, X.; Tang, L.; Liu, C.; Chen, Q.; Onwuka, M.I.; Song, T. Methane and Nitrous Oxide
Flux after Biochar Application in Subtropical Acidic Paddy Soils under Tobacco-Rice Rotation. Sci. Rep.
2019
,9, 17277. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
6.
Tang, Z.; Liu, X.; Li, G.; Liu, X. Mechanism of biochar on nitrification and denitrification to N
2
O emissions based on isotope
characteristic values. Environ. Res. 2022,212, 113219. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Bruun, E.W.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.; Ibrahim, N.; Egsgaard, H.; Ambus, P.; Jensen, P.A.; Dam-Johansen, K. Influence of fast
pyrolysis temperature on biochar labile fraction and short-term carbon loss in a loamy soil. Biomass. Bioenergy
2011
,35, 1182–1189.
[CrossRef]
8.
Verheijen, F.G.A.; Graber, E.R.; Ameloot, N.; Bastos, A.C.; Sohi, S.; Knicker, H. Biochars in soils: New insights and emerging
research needs. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2014,65, 22–27. [CrossRef]
9.
Awad, Y.M.; Blagodatskaya, E.; Ok, Y.S.; Kuzyakov, Y. Effects of polyacrylamide, biopolymer and biochar on the decomposition
of 14C-labelled maize residues and on their stabilization in soil aggregates. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2013,64, 488–499. [CrossRef]
10.
Yin, J.; Zhao, L.; Xu, X.; Li, D.; Qiu, H.; Cao, X. Evaluation of long-term carbon sequestration of biochar in soil with biogeochemical
field model. Sci. Total Environ. 2022,822, 153576. [CrossRef]
11.
Kuryntseva, P.; Galitskaya, P.; Selivanovskaya, S. Optimization of pyrolysis regime for chicken manure treatment and biochar
production. Water Environ. J. 2022,36, 270–281. [CrossRef]
12.
Ennis, C.J.; Evans, A.G.; Islam, M.; Ralebitso-Senior, T.K.; Senior, E. Biochar: Carbon Sequestration, Land Remediation, and
Impacts on Soil Icrobiology. Environ. Sustain. 2012,42, 2311–2364. [CrossRef]
13. Clough, T.J.; Condron, L.M. Biochar and the Nitrogen Cycle: Introduction. J. Environ. Qual. 2010,39, 1218–1223. [CrossRef]
14.
Junna, S.; Bingchen, W.; Gang, X.; Hongbo, S. Effects of wheat straw biochar on carbon mineralization and guidance for large-scale
soil quality improvement in the coastal wetland. Ecol. Eng. 2014,62, 43–47. [CrossRef]
15.
Barrow, C.J. Biochar: Potential for countering land degradation and for improving agriculture. Appl. Geogr.
2012
,34, 21–28.
[CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 29 of 39
16.
Haris, M.; Hamid, Y.; Usman, M.; Wang, L.; Saleem, A.; Su, F.; Guo, J.; Li, Y. Crop-residues derived biochar: Synthesis, properties,
characterization and application for the removal of trace elements in soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021,416, 126212. [CrossRef]
17.
Gao, J.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, W.; Sui, Y.; Jin, D.; Xin, W.; Yi, J.; He, D. Biochar prepared at different pyrolysis temperatures affects
urea-nitrogen immobilization and N2O emissions in paddy fields. PeerJ 2019,2019, e7027. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18.
Yu, K.L.; Lau, B.F.; Show, P.L.; Ong, H.C.; Ling, T.C.; Chen, W.H.; Ng, E.P.; Chang, J.S. Recent developments on algal biochar
production and characterization. Bioresour. Technol. 2017,246, 2–11. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
19.
Ronsse, F.; van Hecke, S.; Dickinson, D.; Prins, W. Production and characterization of slow pyrolysis biochar: Influence of
feedstock type and pyrolysis conditions. GCB Bioenergy 2013,5, 104–115. [CrossRef]
20.
Qi, L.; Pokharel, P.; Chang, S.X.; Zhou, P.; Niu, H.; He, X.; Wang, Z.; Gao, M. Biochar application increased methane emission, soil
carbon storage and net ecosystem carbon budget in a 2-year vegetable–rice rotation. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
2020
,292, 106831.
[CrossRef]
21.
Tsai, W.T.; Liu, S.C.; Chen, H.R.; Chang, Y.M.; Tsai, Y.L. Textural and chemical properties of swine-manure-derived biochar
pertinent to its potential use as a soil amendment. Chemosphere 2012,89, 198–203. [CrossRef]
22.
Cely, P.; Gascó, G.; Paz-Ferreiro, J.; Méndez, A. Agronomic properties of biochars from different manure wastes. J. Anal. Appl.
Pyrolysis 2015,111, 173–182. [CrossRef]
23.
Liu, W.J.; Jiang, H.; Yu, H.Q. Development of Biochar-Based Functional Materials: Toward a Sustainable Platform Carbon Material.
Chem. Rev. 2015,115, 12251–12285. [CrossRef]
24.
Xue, Y.; Wang, C.; Hu, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Xiao, Y.; Wang, T. Pyrolysis of sewage sludge by electromagnetic induction: Biochar properties
and application in adsorption removal of Pb(II), Cd(II) from aqueous solution. Waste Manag.
2019
,89, 48–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25.
Xu, G.; Zhang, Z.; Deng, L. Adsorption behaviors and removal efficiencies of inorganic, polymeric and organic phosphates from
aqueous solution on biochar derived from sewage sludge of chemically enhanced primary treatment process. Water
2018
,10, 869.
[CrossRef]
26.
Paz-Ferreiro, J.; Nieto, A.; Méndez, A.; Askeland, M.P.J.; Gascó, G. Biochar from biosolids pyrolysis: A review. Int. J. Environ. Res.
Public Health 2018,15, 956. [CrossRef]
27.
Vassilev, S.V.; Baxter, D.; Andersen, L.K.; Vassileva, C.G. An overview of the chemical composition of biomass. Fuel
2010
,89,
913–933. [CrossRef]
28.
Dhyani, V.; Bhaskar, T. A comprehensive review on the pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. Renew. Energy
2018
,129, 695–716.
[CrossRef]
29.
Krylova, A.Y.; Zaitchenko, V.M. Hydrothermal Carbonization of Biomass: A Review. Solid Fuel Chem.
2018
,52, 91–103. [CrossRef]
30.
Malherbe, S.; Cloete, T.E. Lignocellulose biodegradation: Fundamentals and applications. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Technol.
2002
,1,
105–114. [CrossRef]
31.
Vassilev, S.V.; Baxter, D.; Andersen, L.K.; Vassileva, C.G.; Morgan, T.J. An overview of the organic and inorganic phase composition
of biomass. Fuel 2012,94, 1–33. [CrossRef]
32. Demirba¸s, A. Calculation of higher heating values of biomass fuels. Fuel 1997,76, 431–434. [CrossRef]
33.
Raveendran, K.; Ganesh, A.; Khilar, K.C. Influence of mineral matter on biomass pyrolysis characteristics. Fuel
1995
,74, 1812–1822.
[CrossRef]
34.
Saura-Calixto, F.; Cañellas, J.; Garcia-Raso, J. Determination of hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin contents of dietary fibre and
crude fibre of several seed hulls. Data comparison. Z. Lebensm. Unters. Forsch. 1983,177, 200–202. [CrossRef]
35.
Ververis, C.; Georghiou, K.; Danielidis, D.; Hatzinikolaou, D.G.; Santas, P.; Santas, R.; Corleti, V. Cellulose, hemicelluloses, lignin
and ash content of some organic materials and their suitability for use as paper pulp supplements. Bioresour. Technol.
2007
,98,
296–301. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36.
Ayeni, A.O.; Adeeyo, O.A.; Oresegun, O.M.; Oladimeji, T.E. Compositional analysis of lignocellulosic materials: Evaluation of an
economically viable method suitable for woody and non-woody biomass. Am. J. Eng. Res. 2015,4, 14–19.
37.
Anwar, Z.; Gulfraz, M.; Irshad, M. Agro-industrial lignocellulosic biomass a key to unlock the future bio-energy: A brief review.
J. Radiat. Res. Appl. Sci. 2014,7, 163–173. [CrossRef]
38.
Guimarães, J.L.; Frollini, E.; da Silva, C.G.; Wypych, F.; Satyanarayana, K.G. Characterization of banana, sugarcane bagasse and
sponge gourd fibers of Brazil. Ind. Crops Prod. 2009,30, 407–415. [CrossRef]
39.
Howard, R.L.; Abotsi, E.; Van Rensburg, E.L.J.; Howard, S. Lignocellulose biotechnology: Issues of bioconversion and enzyme
production. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2003,2, 602–619. [CrossRef]
40.
Prasad, S.; Singh, A.; Joshi, H.C. Ethanol as an alternative fuel from agricultural, industrial and urban residues. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2007,50, 1–39. [CrossRef]
41.
Kambo, H.S.; Dutta, A. A comparative review of biochar and hydrochar in terms of production, physico-chemical properties and
applications. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015,45, 359–378. [CrossRef]
42.
Mani, S.; Sokhansanj, S.; Bi, X.; Turhollow, A. Economics of producing fuel pellets from biomass. Appl. Eng. Agric.
2006
,22,
421–426. [CrossRef]
43.
Roy, P.; Dias, G. Prospects for pyrolysis technologies in the bioenergy sector: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2017
,77, 59–69.
[CrossRef]
44.
Posom, J.; Saechua, W.; Sirisomboon, P. Evaluation of pyrolysis characteristics of milled bamboo using near-infrared spectroscopy.
Renew. Energy 2017,103, 653–665. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 30 of 39
45.
Blanco-Canqui, H. Crop Residue Removal for Bioenergy Reduces Soil Carbon Pools: How Can We Offset Carbon Losses?
Bioenergy Res. 2013,6, 358–371. [CrossRef]
46.
Fuertes, A.B.; Arbestain, M.C.; Sevilla, M.; MacIá-Agulló, J.A.; Fiol, S.; López, R.; Smernik, R.J.; Aitkenhead, W.P.; Arce, F.; MacIas,
F. Chemical and structural properties of carbonaceous products obtained by pyrolysis and hydrothermal carbonisation of corn
stover. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2010,48, 618–626. [CrossRef]
47.
Zhao, B.; Wang, X.; Yang, X. Co-pyrolysis characteristics of microalgae Isochrysis and Chlorella: Kinetics, biocrude yield and
interaction. Bioresour. Technol. 2015,198, 332–339. [CrossRef]
48.
Norouzi, O.; Jafarian, S.; Safari, F.; Tavasoli, A.; Nejati, B. Promotion of hydrogen-rich gas and phenolic-rich bio-oil production
from green macroalgae Cladophora glomerata via pyrolysis over its bio-char. Bioresour. Technol.
2016
,219, 643–651. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
49.
Ma, W.; Du, G.; Li, J.; Fang, Y.; Hou, L.; Chen, G.; Ma, D. Supercritical water pyrolysis of sewage sludge. Waste Manag.
2017
,59,
371–378. [CrossRef]
50.
Calisto, V.; Ferreira, C.I.A.; Santos, S.M.; Gil, M.V.; Otero, M.; Esteves, V.I. Production of adsorbents by pyrolysis of paper mill
sludge and application on the removal of citalopram from water. Bioresour. Technol. 2014,166, 335–344. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51.
Heilmann, S.M.; Molde, J.S.; Timler, J.G.; Wood, B.M.; Mikula, A.L.; Vozhdayev, G.V.; Colosky, E.C.; Spokas, K.A.; Valentas, K.J.
Phosphorus reclamation through hydrothermal carbonization of animal manures. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2014
,48, 10323–10329.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
52.
Wu, W.; Yang, M.; Feng, Q.; McGrouther, K.; Wang, H.; Lu, H.; Chen, Y. Chemical characterization of rice straw-derived biochar
for soil amendment. Biomass Bioenergy 2012,47, 268–276. [CrossRef]
53.
Yuan, J.-H.H.; Xu, R.-K.K. Effects of biochars generated from crop residues on chemical properties of acid soils from tropical and
subtropical China. Soil Res. 2012,50, 570. [CrossRef]
54.
Imam, T.; Capareda, S. Characterization of bio-oil, syn-gas and bio-char from switchgrass pyrolysis at various temperatures.
J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2012,93, 170–177. [CrossRef]
55.
Kinney, T.J.; Masiello, C.A.; Dugan, B.; Hockaday, W.C.; Dean, M.R.; Zygourakis, K.; Barnes, R.T. Hydrological properties of
biochars produced at different temperatures. Biomass Bioenergy 2012,41, 34–43. [CrossRef]
56.
Uzoma, K.C.; Inoue, M.; Andry, H.; Fujimaki, H.; Zahoor, A.; Nishihara, E. Effect of cow manure biochar on maize productivity
under sandy soil condition. Soil Use Manag. 2011,27, 205–212. [CrossRef]
57.
Mašek, O.; Budarin, V.; Gronnow, M.; Crombie, K.; Brownsort, P.; Fitzpatrick, E.; Hurst, P. Microwave and slow pyrolysis
biochar—Comparison of physical and functional properties. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2013,100, 41–48. [CrossRef]
58.
Zhao, L.; Cao, X.; Mašek, O.; Zimmerman, A. Heterogeneity of biochar properties as a function of feedstock sources and
production temperatures. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013,256–257, 1–9. [CrossRef]
59.
Kim, K.H.; Eom, I.Y.; Lee, S.M.; Choi, D.; Yeo, H.; Choi, I.-G.; Choi, J.W. Investigation of physicochemical properties of biooils
produced from yellow poplar wood (Liriodendron tulipifera) at various temperatures and residence times. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis
2011,92, 2–9. [CrossRef]
60.
Laghari, M.; Hu, Z.; Mirjat, M.S.; Xiao, B.; Tagar, A.A.; Hu, M. Fast pyrolysis biochar from sawdust improves the quality of desert
soils and enhances plant growth. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016,96, 199–206. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61.
Song, W.; Guo, M. Quality variations of poultry litter biochar generated at different pyrolysis temperatures. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis
2012,94, 138–145. [CrossRef]
62.
Godwin, P.M.; Pan, Y.; Xiao, H.; Afzal, M.T. Progress in Preparation and Application of Modified Biochar for Improving Heavy
Metal Ion Removal From Wastewater. J. Bioresour. Bioprod. 2019,4, 31–42. [CrossRef]
63.
McKendry, P. Energy production from biomass (part 1): Overview of biomass. Bioresour. Technol.
2002
,83, 37–46. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
64.
Mumme, J.; Eckervogt, L.; Pielert, J.; Diakité, M.; Rupp, F.; Kern, J. Hydrothermal carbonization of anaerobically digested maize
silage. Bioresour. Technol. 2011,102, 9255–9260. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65.
Hoekman, S.K.; Broch, A.; Felix, L.; Farthing, W. Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) of loblolly pine using a continuous, reactive
twin-screw extruder. Energy Convers. Manag. 2017,134, 247–259. [CrossRef]
66.
Ho, S.H.; Zhang, C.; Chen, W.H.; Shen, Y.; Chang, J.S. Characterization of biomass waste torrefaction under conventional and
microwave heating. Bioresour. Technol. 2018,264, 7–16. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
67. Weber, K.; Quicker, P. Properties of Biochar; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 217, pp. 240–261.
68.
Bruun, E.W.; Ambus, P.; Egsgaard, H.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H. Effects of slow and fast pyrolysis biochar on soil C and N turnover
dynamics. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012,46, 73–79. [CrossRef]
69.
Zhao, L.; Cao, X.; Wang, Q.; Yang, F.; Xu, S. Mineral Constituents Profile of Biochar Derived from Diversified Waste Biomasses:
Implications for Agricultural Applications. J. Environ. Qual. 2013,42, 545–552. [CrossRef]
70.
Nunoura, T.; Wade, S.R.; Bourke, J.P.; Antal, M.J. Studies of the flash carbonization process. 1. Propagation of the flaming
pyrolysis reaction and performance of a catalytic afterburner. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2006,45, 585–599. [CrossRef]
71.
Bourke, J.; Manley-Harris, M.; Fushimi, C.; Dowaki, K.; Nunoura, T.; Antal, M.J. Do all carbonized charcoals have the same
chemical structure? 2. A model of the chemical structure of carbonized charcoal. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.
2007
,46, 5954–5967.
[CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 31 of 39
72.
Sabio, E.; Álvarez-Murillo, A.; Román, S.; Ledesma, B. Conversion of tomato-peel waste into solid fuel by hydrothermal
carbonization: Influence of the processing variables. Waste Manag. 2016,47, 122–132. [CrossRef]
73.
Lynam, J.G.; Coronella, C.J.; Yan, W.; Reza, M.T.; Vasquez, V.R. Acetic acid and lithium chloride effects on hydrothermal
carbonization of lignocellulosic biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 2011,102, 6192–6199. [CrossRef]
74.
Lynam, J.G.; Toufiq Reza, M.; Vasquez, V.R.; Coronella, C.J. Effect of salt addition on hydrothermal carbonization of lignocellulosic
biomass. Fuel 2012,99, 271–273. [CrossRef]
75. Babu, B.V. Biomass pyrolysis: A state-of-the-art review. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefining 2008,2, 393–414. [CrossRef]
76.
Shen, D.K.; Gu, S. The mechanism for thermal decomposition of cellulose and its main products. Bioresour. Technol.
2009
,100,
6496–6504. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77.
Patwardhan, P.R.; Brown, R.C.; Shanks, B.H. Product distribution from the fast pyrolysis of hemicellulose. ChemSusChem
2011
,4,
636–643. [CrossRef]
78.
Mu, W.; Ben, H.; Ragauskas, A.; Deng, Y. Lignin Pyrolysis Components and Upgrading-Technology Review. Bioenergy Res.
2013
,
6, 1183–1204. [CrossRef]
79.
Xin-hui, D.; Srinivasakannan, C.; Jin-hui, P.; Li-bo, Z.; Zheng-yong, Z. Comparison of activated carbon prepared from Jatropha
hull by conventional heating and microwave heating. Biomass Bioenergy 2011,35, 3920–3926. [CrossRef]
80.
Jagtoyen, M.; Derbyshire, F. Activated carbons from yellow poplar and white oak by H
3
PO
4
activation. Carbon
1998
,36, 1085–1097.
[CrossRef]
81.
Zhao, L.; Zheng, W.; Mašek, O.; Chen, X.; Gu, B.; Sharma, B.K.; Cao, X. Roles of Phosphoric Acid in Biochar Formation:
Synchronously Improving Carbon Retention and Sorption Capacity. J. Environ. Qual. 2017,46, 393–401. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82.
Uçar, S.; Erdem, M.; Tay, T.; Karagöz, S. Preparation and characterization of activated carbon produced from pomegranate seeds
by ZnCl2activation. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2009,255, 8890–8896. [CrossRef]
83. Yaman, S. Pyrolysis of biomass to produce fuels and chemical feedstocks. Energy Convers. Manag. 2004,45, 651–671. [CrossRef]
84.
Liu, N.; Zhou, J.; Han, L.; Ma, S.; Sun, X.; Huang, G. Role and multi-scale characterization of bamboo biochar during poultry
manure aerobic composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2017,241, 190–199. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Jansen, R.J.J.; van Bekkum, H. Amination and ammoxidation of activated carbons. Carbon 1994,32, 1507–1516. [CrossRef]
86.
Shafeeyan, M.S.; Wan Daud, W.M.A.; Houshmand, A.; Arami-Niya, A. The application of response surface methodology to
optimize the amination of activated carbon for the preparation of carbon dioxide adsorbents. Fuel 2012,94, 465–472. [CrossRef]
87.
Anfruns, A.; García-Suárez, E.J.; Montes-Morán, M.A.; Gonzalez-Olmos, R.; Martin, M.J. New insights into the influence of
activated carbon surface oxygen groups on H
2
O
2
decomposition and oxidation of pre-adsorbed volatile organic compounds.
Carbon 2014,77, 89–98. [CrossRef]
88.
Wu, X.; Xu, J.; Dong, F.; Liu, X.; Zheng, Y. Responses of soil microbial community to different concentration of fomesafen. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2014,273, 155–164. [CrossRef]
89.
Gokce, Y.; Aktas, Z. Nitric acid modification of activated carbon produced from waste tea and adsorption of methylene blue and
phenol. Appl. Surf. Sci. 2014,313, 352–359. [CrossRef]
90.
Tu, C.; Wei, J.; Guan, F.; Liu, Y.; Sun, Y.; Luo, Y. Biochar and bacteria inoculated biochar enhanced Cd and Cu immobilization and
enzymatic activity in a polluted soil. Environ. Int. 2020,137, 105576. [CrossRef]
91.
Jung, K.W.; Kim, K.; Jeong, T.U.; Ahn, K.H. Influence of pyrolysis temperature on characteristics and phosphate adsorption
capability of biochar derived from waste-marine macroalgae (Undaria pinnatifida roots). Bioresour. Technol.
2016
,200, 1024–1028.
[CrossRef]
92.
Fletcher, A.J.; Smith, M.A.; Heinemeyer, A.; Lord, R.; Ennis, C.J.; Hodgson, E.M.; Farrar, K. Production Factors Controlling the
Physical Characteristics of Biochar Derived from Phytoremediation Willow for Agricultural Applications. Bioenergy Res.
2014
,7,
371–380. [CrossRef]
93.
Dehkhoda, A.M.; West, A.H.; Ellis, N. Biochar based solid acid catalyst for biodiesel production. Appl. Catal. A Gen.
2010
,382,
197–204. [CrossRef]
94.
Yang, K.; Peng, J.; Srinivasakannan, C.; Zhang, L.; Xia, H.; Duan, X. Preparation of high surface area activated carbon from
coconut shells using microwave heating. Bioresour. Technol. 2010,101, 6163–6169. [CrossRef]
95.
Zhao, S.X.; Ta, N.; Wang, X.D. Effect of temperature on the structural and physicochemical properties of biochar with apple tree
branches as feedstock material. Energies 2017,10, 1293. [CrossRef]
96.
Rajapaksha, A.U.; Chen, S.S.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Zhang, M.; Vithanage, M.; Mandal, S.; Gao, B.; Bolan, N.S.; Ok, Y.S. Engi-
neered/designer biochar for contaminant removal/immobilization from soil and water: Potential and implication of biochar
modification. Chemosphere 2016,148, 276–291. [CrossRef]
97.
Frišták, V.; Micháleková-Richveisová, B.; Víglašová, E.; ˇ
Duriška, L.; Galamboš, M.; Moreno-Jimenéz, E.; Pipíška, M.; Soja, G.
Sorption separation of Eu and As from single-component systems by Fe-modified biochar: Kinetic and equilibrium study. J. Iran.
Chem. Soc. 2017,14, 521–530. [CrossRef]
98.
Wang, S.; Gao, B.; Zimmerman, A.R.; Li, Y.; Ma, L.; Harris, W.G.; Migliaccio, K.W. Removal of arsenic by magnetic biochar
prepared from pinewood and natural hematite. Bioresour. Technol. 2015,175, 391–395. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
99.
Zhou, Z.; Liu, Y.G.; Liu, S.B.; Liu, H.Y.; Zeng, G.M.; Tan, X.F.; Yang, C.P.; Ding, Y.; Yan, Z.L.; Cai, X.X. Sorption performance and
mechanisms of arsenic(V) removal by magnetic gelatin-modified biochar. Chem. Eng. J. 2017,314, 223–231. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 32 of 39
100. Zhang, M.; Gao, B. Removal of arsenic, methylene blue, and phosphate by biochar/AlOOH nanocomposite. Chem. Eng. J. 2013,
226, 286–292. [CrossRef]
101.
Wang, S.; Gao, B.; Li, Y.; Mosa, A.; Zimmerman, A.R.; Ma, L.Q.; Harris, W.G.; Migliaccio, K.W. Manganese oxide-modified
biochars: Preparation, characterization, and sorption of arsenate and lead. Bioresour. Technol.
2015
,181, 13–17. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
102.
Zhang, M.; Gao, B.; Yao, Y.; Xue, Y.; Inyang, M. Synthesis of porous MgO-biochar nanocomposites for removal of phosphate and
nitrate from aqueous solutions. Chem. Eng. J. 2012,210, 26–32. [CrossRef]
103.
Yao, Y.; Gao, B.; Chen, J.; Zhang, M.; Inyang, M.; Li, Y.; Alva, A.; Yang, L. Engineered carbon (biochar) prepared by direct
pyrolysis of Mg-accumulated tomato tissues: Characterization and phosphate removal potential. Bioresour. Technol.
2013
,138,
8–13. [CrossRef]
104.
Ismadji, S.; Tong, D.S.; Soetaredjo, F.E.; Ayucitra, A.; Yu, W.H.; Zhou, C.H. Bentonite hydrochar composite for removal of
ammonium from Koi fish tank. Appl. Clay Sci. 2016,119, 146–154. [CrossRef]
105.
Tan, X.F.; Liu, Y.G.; Gu, Y.L.; Xu, Y.; Zeng, G.M.; Hu, X.J.; Liu, S.B.; Wang, X.; Liu, S.M.; Li, J. Biochar-based nano-composites for
the decontamination of wastewater: A review. Bioresour. Technol. 2016,212, 318–333. [CrossRef]
106.
Shang, M.R.; Liu, Y.G.; Liu, S.B.; Zeng, G.M.; Tan, X.F.; Jiang, L.H.; Huang, X.X.; Ding, Y.; Guo, Y.M.; Wang, S.F. A novel graphene
oxide coated biochar composite: Synthesis, characterization and application for Cr(VI) removal. RSC Adv.
2016
,6, 85202–85212.
[CrossRef]
107.
Inyang, M.; Gao, B.; Zimmerman, A.; Zhou, Y.; Cao, X. Sorption and cosorption of lead and sulfapyridine on carbon nanotube-
modified biochars. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2015,22, 1868–1876. [CrossRef]
108.
Downie, A.; Crosky, A.; Munroe, P. Physical properties of biochar. In Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology;
Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2012; ISBN 9781849770552.
109.
Shen, D.K.; Gu, S.; Bridgwater, A.V. Study on the pyrolytic behaviour of xylan-based hemicellulose using TG-FTIR and Py-GC-
FTIR. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2010,87, 199–206. [CrossRef]
110.
Kappler, A.; Wuestner, M.L.; Ruecker, A.; Harter, J.; Halama, M.; Behrens, S. Biochar as an Electron Shuttle between Bacteria and
Fe(III) Minerals. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. 2014,1, 339–344. [CrossRef]
111.
Baccile, N.; Laurent, G.; Babonneau, F.; Fayon, F.; Titirici, M.M.; Antonietti, M. Structural characterization of hydrothermal carbon
spheres by advanced solid-state MAS 13C NMR investigations. J. Phys. Chem. C 2009,113, 9644–9654. [CrossRef]
112.
Pastorova, I.; Botto, R.E.; Arisz, P.W.; Boon, J.J. Cellulose char structure: A combined analytical Py-GC-MS, FTIR, and NMR study.
Carbohydr. Res. 1994,262, 27–47. [CrossRef]
113.
Peters, B. Prediction of pyrolysis of pistachio shells based on its components hemicellulose, cellulose and lignin. Fuel Process.
Technol. 2011,92, 1993–1998. [CrossRef]
114.
Huang, J.; Liu, C.; Tong, H.; Li, W.; Wu, D. Theoretical studies on pyrolysis mechanism of xylopyranose. Comput. Theor. Chem.
2012,1001, 44–50. [CrossRef]
115. Shafizadeh, F. Introduction to pyrolysis of biomass. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 1982,3, 283–305. [CrossRef]
116.
Wornat, M.J.; Hurt, R.H.; Yang, N.Y.C.; Headley, T.J. Structural and compositional transformations of biomass chars during
combustion. Combust. Flame 1995,100, 131–143. [CrossRef]
117.
Brewer, C.E.; Schmidt-Rohr, K.; Satrio, J.A.; Brown, R.C. Characterization of biochar from fast pyrolysis and gasification systems.
Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2009,28, 386–396. [CrossRef]
118.
Lua, A.C.; Yang, T.; Guo, J. Effects of pyrolysis conditions on the properties of activated carbons prepared from pistachio-nut
shells. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2004,72, 279–287. [CrossRef]
119.
Plötze, M.; Niemz, P. Porosity and pore size distribution of different wood types as determined by mercury intrusion porosimetry.
Eur. J. Wood Wood Prod. 2011,69, 649–657. [CrossRef]
120.
Brewer, C.E.; Chuang, V.J.; Masiello, C.A.; Gonnermann, H.; Gao, X.; Dugan, B.; Driver, L.E.; Panzacchi, P.; Zygourakis, K.; Davies,
C.A. New approaches to measuring biochar density and porosity. Biomass Bioenergy 2014,66, 176–185. [CrossRef]
121.
Pulido-Novicio, L.; Hata, T.; Kurimoto, Y.; Doi, S.; Ishihara, S.; Imamura, Y. Adsorption capacities and related characteristics of
wood charcoals carbonized using a one-step or two-step process. J. Wood Sci. 2001,47, 48–57. [CrossRef]
122.
Jimenez-Cordero, D.; Heras, F.; Alonso-Morales, N.; Gilarranz, M.A.; Rodriguez, J.J. Porous structure and morphology of granular
chars from flash and conventional pyrolysis of grape seeds. Biomass Bioenergy 2013,54, 123–132. [CrossRef]
123.
Cetin, E.; Gupta, R.; Moghtaderi, B. Effect of pyrolysis pressure and heating rate on radiata pine char structure and apparent
gasification reactivity. Fuel 2005,84, 1328–1334. [CrossRef]
124.
Wafiq, A.; Reichel, D.; Hanafy, M. Pressure influence on pyrolysis product properties of raw and torrefied Miscanthus: Role of
particle structure. Fuel 2016,179, 156–167. [CrossRef]
125.
Fu, P.; Hu, S.; Xiang, J.; Sun, L.; Li, P.; Zhang, J.; Zheng, C. Pyrolysis of maize stalk on the characterization of chars formed under
different devolatilization conditions. Energy Fuels 2009,23, 4605–4611. [CrossRef]
126.
Burhenne, L.; Damiani, M.; Aicher, T. Effect of feedstock water content and pyrolysis temperature on the structure and reactivity
of spruce wood char produced in fixed bed pyrolysis. Fuel 2013,107, 836–847. [CrossRef]
127.
Chen, Y.; Yang, H.; Wang, X.; Zhang, S.; Chen, H. Biomass-based pyrolytic polygeneration system on cotton stalk pyrolysis:
Influence of temperature. Bioresour. Technol. 2012,107, 411–418. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 33 of 39
128.
Yuan, H.; Lu, T.; Huang, H.; Zhao, D.; Kobayashi, N.; Chen, Y. Influence of pyrolysis temperature on physical and chemical
properties of biochar made from sewage sludge. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2015,112, 284–289. [CrossRef]
129.
Shaaban, A.; Se, S.-M.; Dimin, M.F.; Juoi, J.M.; Mohd Husin, M.H.; Mitan, N.M.M. Influence of heating temperature and holding
time on biochars derived from rubber wood sawdust via slow pyrolysis. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2014,107, 31–39. [CrossRef]
130.
Keiluweit, M.; Nico, P.S.; Johnson, M.; Kleber, M. Dynamic molecular structure of plant biomass-derived black carbon (biochar).
Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010,44, 1247–1253. [CrossRef]
131.
He, P.; Liu, Y.; Shao, L.; Zhang, H.; Lü, F. Particle size dependence of the physicochemical properties of biochar. Chemosphere
2018
,
212, 385–392. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
132.
Abdullah, H.; Wu, H. Biochar as a fuel: 1. Properties and grindability of biochars produced from the pyrolysis of mallee wood
under slow-heating conditions. Energy Fuels 2009,23, 4174–4181. [CrossRef]
133.
Kim, K.H.; Kim, J.Y.; Cho, T.S.; Choi, J.W. Influence of pyrolysis temperature on physicochemical properties of biochar obtained
from the fast pyrolysis of pitch pine (Pinus rigida). Bioresour. Technol. 2012,118, 158–162. [CrossRef]
134. Van Krevelen, D. Graphical statistical method for the study of structure and reaction processes of coal. Fuel 1950,29, 269–284.
135. Weber, K.; Quicker, P. Eigenschaften von Biomassekarbonisaten. In Biokohle; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2016.
136.
Mullen, C.A.; Boateng, A.A.; Goldberg, N.M.; Lima, I.M.; Laird, D.A.; Hicks, K.B. Bio-oil and bio-char production from corn cobs
and stover by fast pyrolysis. Biomass Bioenergy 2010,34, 67–74. [CrossRef]
137.
Nguyen, B.T.; Lehmann, J.; Hockaday, W.C.; Joseph, S.; Masiello, C.a. Temperature Sensitivity of Black Carbon Descomposition
and Oxidation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010,44, 3324–3331. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
138.
Cheng, C.-H.H.; Lehmann, J.; Thies, J.E.; Burton, S.D.; Engelhard, M.H. Oxidation of black carbon by biotic and abiotic processes.
Org. Geochem. 2006,37, 1477–1488. [CrossRef]
139.
Prasad, M.; Chrysargyris, A.; McDaniel, N.; Kavanagh, A.; Gruda, N.S.; Tzortzakis, N. Plant nutrient availability and pH of
biochars and their fractions, with the possible use as a component in a growing media. Agronomy 2020,10, 10. [CrossRef]
140.
Choppala, G.K.; Bolan, N.S.; Megharaj, M.; Chen, Z.; Naidu, R. The influence of biochar and black carbon on reduction and
bioavailability of chromate in soils. J. Environ. Qual. 2012,41, 1175. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
141.
Usowicz, B.; Lipiec, J.; Łukowski, M.; Marczewski, W.; Usowicz, J. The effect of biochar application on thermal properties and
albedo of loess soil under grassland and fallow. Soil Tillage Res. 2016,164, 45–51. [CrossRef]
142.
Githinji, L. Effect of biochar application rate on soil physical and hydraulic properties of a sandy loam. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci.
2014
,
60, 457–470. [CrossRef]
143.
Gł ˛ab, T.; Palmowska, J.; Zaleski, T.; Gondek, K. Effect of biochar application on soil hydrological properties and physical quality
of sandy soil. Geoderma 2016,281, 11–20. [CrossRef]
144.
Liu, Z.; Dugan, B.; Masiello, C.A.; Barnes, R.T.; Gallagher, M.E.; Gonnermann, H. Impacts of biochar concentration and particle
size on hydraulic conductivity and DOC leaching of biochar-sand mixtures. J. Hydrol. 2016,533, 461–472. [CrossRef]
145.
Ouyang, L.; Wang, F.; Tang, J.; Yu, L.; Zhang, R. Effects of biochar amendment on soil aggregates and hydraulic properties. J. Soil
Sci. Plant Nutr. 2013,13, 991–1002. [CrossRef]
146.
Burrell, L.D.; Zehetner, F.; Rampazzo, N.; Wimmer, B.; Soja, G. Long-term effects of biochar on soil physical properties. Geoderma
2016,282, 96–102. [CrossRef]
147.
Curaqueo, G.; Meier, S.; Khan, N.; Cea, M.; Navia, R. Use of biochar on two volcanic soils: Effects on soil properties and barley
yield. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2014,14, 911–924. [CrossRef]
148.
Herath, H.M.S.K.; Camps-Arbestain, M.; Hedley, M. Effect of biochar on soil physical properties in two contrasting soils:
An Alfisol and an Andisol. Geoderma 2013,209–210, 188–197. [CrossRef]
149.
Gamage, D.N.V.; Mapa, R.B.; Dharmakeerthi, R.S.; Biswas, A. Effect of rice-husk biochar on selected soil properties in tropical
Alfisols. Soil Res. 2016,54, 302. [CrossRef]
150.
Liu, X.H.; Han, F.P.; Zhang, X.C. Effect of biochar on soil aggregates in the Loess Plateau: Results from incubation experiments.
Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2012,14, 975–979.
151.
Blanco-Canqui, H.; Lal, R.; Post, W.M.; Izaurralde, R.C.; Shipitalo, M.J. Organic Carbon Influences on Soil Particle Density and
Rheological Properties. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006,70, 1407–1414. [CrossRef]
152.
Haque, A.N.A.; Uddin, M.K.; Sulaiman, M.F.; Amin, A.M.; Hossain, M.; Aziz, A.A.; Mosharrof, M. Impact of organic amendment
with alternate wetting and drying irrigation on rice yield, water use efficiency and physicochemical properties of soil. Agronomy
2021,11, 1529. [CrossRef]
153.
Zilberman, D.; Laird, D.; Rainey, C.; Song, J.; Kahn, G. Biochar supply-chain and challenges to commercialization. GCB Bioenergy
2023,15, 7–23. [CrossRef]
154.
Andrenelli, M.C.; Maienza, A.; Genesio, L.; Miglietta, F.; Pellegrini, S.; Vaccari, F.P.; Vignozzi, N. Field application of pelletized
biochar: Short term effect on the hydrological properties of a silty clay loam soil. Agric. Water Manag.
2016
,163, 190–196.
[CrossRef]
155.
Chan, K.Y.; Van Zwieten, L.; Meszaros, I.; Downie, A.; Joseph, S. Agronomic values of greenwaste biochar as a soil amendment.
Soil Res. 2007,45, 629. [CrossRef]
156.
Khademalrasoul, A.; Naveed, M.; Heckrath, G.; Kumari, K.G.I.D.; Wollesen De Jonge, L.; Elsgaard, L.; Vogel, H.J.; Iversen, B.V.
Biochar effects on soil aggregate properties under no-till maize. Soil Sci. 2014,179, 273–283. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 34 of 39
157.
Zhang, H.; Lin, K.; Wang, H.; Gan, J. Effect of Pinus radiata derived biochars on soil sorption and desorption of phenanthrene.
Environ. Pollut. 2010,158, 2821–2825. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
158.
Beesley, L.; Moreno-Jiménez, E.; Gomez-Eyles, J.L.; Harris, E.; Robinson, B.; Sizmur, T. A review of biochars’ potential role in the
remediation, revegetation and restoration of contaminated soils. Environ. Pollut. 2011,159, 3269–3282. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
159.
Mohan, D.; Sarswat, A.; Ok, Y.S.; Pittman, C.U. Organic and inorganic contaminants removal from water with biochar, a
renewable, low cost and sustainable adsorbent-A critical review. Bioresour. Technol. 2014,160, 191–202. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
160.
Jeffery, S.; Bezemer, T.M.; Cornelissen, G.; Kuyper, T.W.; Lehmann, J.; Mommer, L.; Sohi, S.P.; van de Voorde, T.F.J.; Wardle, D.A.;
van Groenigen, J.W. The way forward in biochar research: Targeting trade-offs between the potential wins. GCB Bioenergy
2015
,7,
1–13. [CrossRef]
161.
Sun, X.; Ghosh, U. The effect of activated carbon on partitioning, desorption, and biouptake of native polychlorinated biphenyls
in four freshwater sediments. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2008,27, 2287–2295. [CrossRef]
162.
Cho, Y.-M.; Ghosh, U.; Kennedy, A.J.; Grossman, A.; Ray, G.; Tomaszewski, J.E.; Smithenry, D.W.; Bridges, T.S.; Luthy, R.G. Field
application of activated carbon amendment for in-situ stabilization of polychlorinated biphenyls in marine sediment. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2009,43, 3815–3823. [CrossRef]
163.
Tomaszewski, J.E.; Werner, D.; Luthy, R.G. Activated carbon amendment as a treatment for residual DDT in sediment from a
superfund site in San Francisco Bay, Richmond, California, USA. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2007,26, 2143. [CrossRef]
164.
Zimmerman, J.R.; Ghosh, U.; Millward, R.N.; Bridges, T.S.; Luthy, R.G. Addition of carbon sorbents to reduce PCB and PAH
bioavailability in marine sediments: Physicochemical tests. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2004,38, 5458–5464. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
165.
Uchimiya, M.; Lima, I.M.; Thomas Klasson, K.; Chang, S.; Wartelle, L.H.; Rodgers, J.E. Immobilization of heavy metal ions (Cu II,
Cd II, Ni II, and Pb II) by broiler litter-derived biochars in water and soil. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010,58, 5538–5544. [CrossRef]
166.
Beesley, L.; Moreno-Jiménez, E.; Gomez-Eyles, J.L. Effects of biochar and greenwaste compost amendments on mobility, bioavail-
ability and toxicity of inorganic and organic contaminants in a multi-element polluted soil. Environ. Pollut.
2010
,158, 2282–2287.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
167. Laird, D.; Fleming, P.; Wang, B.; Horton, R.; Karlen, D. Biochar impact on nutrient leaching from a Midwestern agricultural soil.
Geoderma 2010,158, 436–442. [CrossRef]
168.
Freddo, A.; Cai, C.; Reid, B.J. Environmental contextualisation of potential toxic elements and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
in biochar. Environ. Pollut. 2012,171, 18–24. [CrossRef]
169.
Mohan, D.; Pittman, C.U.; Bricka, M.; Smith, F.; Yancey, B.; Mohammad, J.; Steele, P.H.; Alexandre-Franco, M.F.; Gómez-Serrano,
V.; Gong, H. Sorption of arsenic, cadmium, and lead by chars produced from fast pyrolysis of wood and bark during bio-oil
production. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2007,310, 57–73. [CrossRef]
170.
Beesley, L.; Marmiroli, M. The immobilisation and retention of soluble arsenic, cadmium and zinc by biochar. Environ. Pollut.
2011,159, 474–480. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
171.
Mench, M.; Bussière, S.; Boisson, J.; Castaing, E.; Vangronsveld, J.; Ruttens, A.; De Koe, T.; Bleeker, P.; Assunção, A.; Manceau, A.
Progress in remediation and revegetation of the barren Jales gold mine spoil after in situ treatments. Plant Soil
2003
,249, 187–202.
[CrossRef]
172.
Arán, D.; Antelo, J.; Lodeiro, P.; Macías, F.; Fiol, S. Use of waste-derived biochar to remove copper from aqueous solution in a
continuous-flow system. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2017,56, 12755–12762. [CrossRef]
173.
Meier, S.; Curaqueo, G.; Khan, N.; Bolan, N.; Cea, M.; Eugenia, G.M.; Cornejo, P.; Ok, Y.S.; Borie, F. Chicken-manure-derived
biochar reduced bioavailability of copper in a contaminated soil. J. Soils Sediments 2017,17, 741–750. [CrossRef]
174.
Downie, A.; Munroe, P.; Cowie, A.L.; Van Zwieten, L.; Lau, D.M.S. Biochar as a geoengineering climate solution: Hazard
identification and risk management. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012,42, 225–250. [CrossRef]
175.
Novak, J.M.; Lima, I.; Xing, B.; Gaskin, J.W.; Steiner, C.; Das, K.C.; Ahmedna, M.; Rehrah, D.; Watts, D.W.; Busscher, W.J.; et al.
Characterization of designer biochar produced at different temperatures and their effects on a loamy sand. Ann. Environ. Sci.
2009,3, 195–206.
176.
Yu, X.-Y.; Ying, G.-G.; Kookana, R.S. Reduced plant uptake of pesticides with biochar additions to soil. Chemosphere
2009
,76,
665–671. [CrossRef]
177.
Rogovska, N.; Laird, D.; Cruse, R.M.; Trabue, S.; Heaton, E. Germination Tests for Assessing Biochar Quality. J. Environ. Qual.
2012,41, 1014. [CrossRef]
178.
Kuppusamy, S.; Thavamani, P.; Megharaj, M.; Venkateswarlu, K.; Naidu, R. Agronomic and remedial benefits and risks of
applying biochar to soil: Current knowledge and future research directions. Environ. Int. 2016,87, 1–12. [CrossRef]
179.
Asai, H.; Samson, B.K.; Stephan, H.M.; Songyikhangsuthor, K.; Homma, K.; Kiyono, Y.; Inoue, Y.; Shiraiwa, T.; Horie, T. Biochar
amendment techniques for upland rice production in Northern Laos. 1. Soil physical properties, leaf SPAD and grain yield. Field
Crop. Res. 2009,111, 81–84. [CrossRef]
180.
Van Zwieten, L.; Kimber, S.; Morris, S.; Chan, K.Y.; Downie, A.; Rust, J.; Joseph, S.; Cowie, A. Effects of biochar from slow
pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic performance and soil fertility. Plant Soil 2010,327, 235–246. [CrossRef]
181.
Spokas, K.A. Review of the stability of biochar in soils: Predictability of O:C molar ratios. Carbon Manag.
2010
,1, 289–303.
[CrossRef]
182.
Graber, E.R.; Tsechansky, L.; Khanukov, J.; Oka, Y. Sorption, Volatilization, and Efficacy of the Fumigant 1,3-Dichloropropene in a
Biochar-Amended Soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2011,75, 1365–1373. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 35 of 39
183.
Wang, J.; Pan, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Xiong, Z. Effects of biochar amendment in two soils on greenhouse gas emissions and crop
production. Plant Soil 2012,360, 1–12. [CrossRef]
184.
Nelson, N.O.; Agudelo, S.C.; Yuan, W.; Gan, J. Nitrogen and phosphorus availability in biochar-amended soils. Soil Sci.
2011
,176,
218–226. [CrossRef]
185.
Kammann, C.I.; Linsel, S.; Gößling, J.W.; Koyro, H.-W. Influence of biochar on drought tolerance of Chenopodium quinoa Willd
and on soil–plant relations. Plant Soil 2011,345, 195–210. [CrossRef]
186.
Glazunova, D.M.; Kuryntseva, P.A.; Selivanovskaya, S.Y.; Galitskaya, P.Y. Assessing the Potential of Using Biochar as a Soil
Conditioner. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018,107, 012059. [CrossRef]
187.
Gordeev, A.; Vasserman, D.; Galitskaya, P.; Selivanovskaya, D.S. Chemical and micromorphological characteristics, biotoxicity
and plant stimulating properties of the biochar obtained at different temperatures of pyrolysis. In Proceedings of the International
Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference Surveying Geology and Mining Ecology Management, SGEM, Albena, Bulgaria,
2–8 July 2018.
188.
Lehmann, J.; Rillig, M.C.; Thies, J.; Masiello, C.A.; Hockaday, W.C.; Crowley, D. Biochar effects on soil biota–A review. Soil Biol.
Biochem. 2011,43, 1812–1836. [CrossRef]
189.
Brussaard, L.; de Ruiter, P.C.; Brown, G.G. Soil biodiversity for agricultural sustainability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
2007
,121,
233–244. [CrossRef]
190.
Moore, J.C.; Berlow, E.L.; Coleman, D.C.; De Suiter, P.C.; Dong, Q.; Hastings, A.; Johnson, N.C.; McCann, K.S.; Melville, K.; Morin,
P.J.; et al. Detritus, trophic dynamics and biodiversity. Ecol. Lett. 2004,7, 584–600. [CrossRef]
191.
Solaiman, Z.M.; Blackwell, P.; Abbott, L.K.; Storer, P.P. Direct and residual effect of biochar application on mycorrhizal root
colonisation, growth and nutrition of wheat. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2010,48, 546–554. [CrossRef]
192.
Rillig, M.C.; Wagner, M.; Salem, M.; Antunes, P.M.; George, C.; Ramke, H.-G.G.; Titirici, M.-M.M.; Antonietti, M. Material
derived from hydrothermal carbonization: Effects on plant growth and arbuscular mycorrhiza. Appl. Soil Ecol.
2010
,45, 238–242.
[CrossRef]
193.
Killham, K.; Firestone, M.K. Salt stress control of intracellular solutes in streptomycetes indigenous to saline soils. Appl. Environ.
Microbiol. 1984,47, 301–306. [CrossRef]
194.
Covacevich, F.; Marino, M.A.; Echeverría, H.E. The phosphorus source determines the arbuscular mycorrhizal potential and the
native mycorrhizal colonization of tall fescue and wheatgrass. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2006,42, 127–138. [CrossRef]
195.
Blackwell, P.; Krull, E.; Butler, G.; Herbert, A.; Solaiman, Z. Effect of banded biochar on dryland wheat production and fertiliser
use in south-western Australia: An agronomic and economic perspective. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2010,48, 531–545. [CrossRef]
196.
Mohamed, I.; El-Meihy, R.; Ali, M.; Chen, F.; Raleve, D. Interactive effects of biochar and micronutrients on faba bean growth,
symbiotic performance, and soil properties. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2017,180, 729–738. [CrossRef]
197.
Rousk, J.; Brookes, P.C.; Bååth, E. Contrasting soil pH effects on fungal and bacterial growth suggest functional redundancy in
carbon mineralization. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009,75, 1589–1596. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
198.
Kasozi, G.N.; Zimmerman, A.R.; Nkedi-Kizza, P.; Gao, B. Catechol and Humic Acid Sorption onto a Range of Laboratory-Produced
Black Carbons (Biochars). Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010,44, 6189–6195. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
199.
DeLuca, T.H.; MacKenzie, M.D.; Gundale, M.J.; Holben, W.E. Wildfire-Produced Charcoal Directly Influences Nitrogen Cycling in
Ponderosa Pine Forests. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2006,70, 448–453. [CrossRef]
200.
Bailey, V.L.; Fansler, S.J.; Smith, J.L.; Bolton, H. Reconciling apparent variability in effects of biochar amendment on soil enzyme
activities by assay optimization. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011,43, 296–301. [CrossRef]
201.
Anderson, C.R.; Condron, L.M.; Clough, T.J.; Fiers, M.; Stewart, A.; Hill, R.A.; Sherlock, R.R. Biochar induced soil microbial
community change: Implications for biogeochemical cycling of carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. Pedobiologia
2011
,54, 309–320.
[CrossRef]
202.
Spokas, K.A.; Baker, J.M.; Reicosky, D.C. Ethylene: Potential key for biochar amendment impacts. Plant Soil
2010
,333, 443–452.
[CrossRef]
203.
Rondon, M.A.; Lehmann, J.; Ramírez, J.; Hurtado, M. Biological nitrogen fixation by common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)
increases with bio-char additions. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2007,43, 699–708. [CrossRef]
204.
Kuppusamy, S.; Kumutha, K.; Santhana Krishnan, P. Influence of biochar and azospirillumapplication on the growth of maize.
Madras Agric. 2011,98, 158–164.
205.
Elmer, W.H.; Pignatello, J.J. Effect of biochar amendments on mycorrhizal associations and Fusarium crown and root rot of
asparagus in replant soils. Plant Dis. 2011,95, 960–966. [CrossRef]
206.
Grossman, J.M.; O’Neill, B.E.; Tsai, S.M.; Liang, B.; Neves, E.; Lehmann, J.; Thies, J.E. Amazonian anthrosols support similar
microbial communities that differ distinctly from those extant in adjacent, unmodified soils of the same mineralogy. Microb. Ecol.
2010,60, 192–205. [CrossRef]
207.
O’Neill, B.; Grossman, J.; Tsai, M.T.; Gomes, J.E.; Lehmann, J.; Peterson, J.; Neves, E.; Thies, J.E. Bacterial community composition
in Brazilian Anthrosols and adjacent soils characterized using culturing and molecular identification. Microb. Ecol.
2009
,58, 23–35.
[CrossRef]
208.
Kolb, S.E.; Fermanich, K.J.; Dornbush, M.E. Effect of charcoal quantity on microbial biomass and activity in temperate soils. Soil
Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2009,73, 1173–1181. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 36 of 39
209.
Wardle, D.A.; Nilsson, M.-C.; Zackrisson, O. Fire-derived charcoal causes loss of forest humus. Science
2008
,320, 629. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
210.
Liang, B.; Lehmann, J.; Sohi, S.P.; Thies, J.E.; O’Neill, B.; Trujillo, L.; Gaunt, J.; Solomon, D.; Grossman, J.; Neves, E.G.; et al. Black
carbon affects the cycling of non-black carbon in soil. Org. Geochem. 2010,41, 206–213. [CrossRef]
211.
Zimmermann, M.; Bird, M.I.; Wurster, C.; Saiz, G.; Goodrick, I.; Barta, J.; Capek, P.; Santruckova, H.; Smernik, R. Rapid
degradation of pyrogenic carbon. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2012,18, 3306–3316. [CrossRef]
212.
Birk, J.; Steiner, C.; Teixiera, W.; Zech, W.; Glaser, B. Microbial response to charcoal amendments and fertilization of a highly
weathered tropical soil. In Amazonian Dark Earths: Wim Sombroek’s Vision; Woods, W.I., Teixeira, W.G., Lehmann, J., Steiner, C.,
WinklerPrins, A.M.G.A., Rebellato, L., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 309–324.
213.
Igalavithana, A.D.; Park, J.; Ryu, C.; Lee, Y.H.; Hashimoto, Y.; Huang, L.; Kwon, E.E.; Ok, Y.S.; Lee, S.S. Slow pyrolyzed biochars
from crop residues for soil metal(loid) immobilization and microbial community abundance in contaminated agricultural soils.
Chemosphere 2017,177, 157–166. [CrossRef]
214.
Ducey, T.; Novak, J.; Johnson, M. Effects of biochar blends on microbial community composition in two coastal plain soils.
Agriculture 2015,5, 1060–1075. [CrossRef]
215.
Gomez, J.D.; Denef, K.; Stewart, C.E.; Zheng, J.; Cotrufo, M.F. Biochar addition rate influences soil microbial abundance and
activity in temperate soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 2014,65, 28–39. [CrossRef]
216.
Makoto, K.; Tamai, Y.; Kim, Y.S.; Koike, T. Buried charcoal layer and ectomycorrhizae cooperatively promote the growth of Larix
gmelinii seedlings. Plant Soil 2010,327, 143–152. [CrossRef]
217.
Dempster, D.N.; Gleeson, D.B.; Solaiman, Z.M.; Jones, D.L.; Murphy, D.V. Decreased soil microbial biomass and nitrogen
mineralisation with Eucalyptus biochar addition to a coarse textured soil. Plant Soil 2012,354, 311–324. [CrossRef]
218.
Steiner, C.; Garcia, M.; Zech, W. Effects of charcoal as slow release nutrient carrier on N-P-K dynamics and soil microbial
population: Pot experiments with ferralsol substrate. In Amazonian Dark Earths: Wim Sombroek’s Vision; Woods, W.I., Teixeira, W.G.,
Lehmann, J., Steiner, C., WinklerPrins, A.M.G.A., Rebelllato, L., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 325–338,
ISBN 9781402090301.
219. Ogawa, M.; Okimori, Y. Pioneering works in biochar research, Japan. Aust. J. Soil Res. 2010,48, 489–500. [CrossRef]
220.
Vantsis, J.T.; Bond, G. The effect of charcoal on the growth of leguminous plants in sand culture. Ann. Appl. Biol.
1950
,37, 159–168.
[CrossRef]
221. Turner, E.R. The effect of certain adsorbents on the nodulation of clover plants. Ann. Bot. 1955,19, 149–160. [CrossRef]
222.
Pietri, J.C.A.; Brookes, P.C. Relationships between soil pH and microbial properties in a UK arable soil. Soil Biol. Biochem.
2008
,40,
1856–1861. [CrossRef]
223.
Rousk, J.; Bååth, E.; Brookes, P.C.; Lauber, C.L.; Lozupone, C.; Caporaso, J.G.; Knight, R.; Fierer, N. Soil bacterial and fungal
communities across a pH gradient in an arable soil. ISME J. 2010,4, 1340–1351. [CrossRef]
224.
Otsuka, S.; Sudiana, I.; Komori, A.; Isobe, K.; Deguchi, S.; Nishiyama, M.; Shimizu, H.; Senoo, K. Community structure of soil
bacteria in a tropical rainforest several years after fire. Microbes Environ. 2008,23, 49–56. [CrossRef]
225.
Taketani, R.G.; Tsai, S.M. The influence of different land uses on the structure of archaeal communities in Amazonian Anthrosols
based on 16S rRNA and amoA genes. Microb. Ecol. 2010,59, 734–743. [CrossRef]
226.
Khodadad, C.L.M.M.; Zimmerman, A.R.; Green, S.J.; Uthandi, S.; Foster, J.S. Taxa-specific changes in soil microbial community
composition induced by pyrogenic carbon amendments. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011,43, 385–392. [CrossRef]
227.
Kim, J.S.; Sparovek, G.; Longo, R.M.; De Melo, W.J.; Crowley, D. Bacterial diversity of terra preta and pristine forest soil from the
Western Amazon. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2007,39, 684–690. [CrossRef]
228.
Ball, P.N.; MacKenzie, M.D.; DeLuca, T.H.; Holben, W.E. Wildfire and charcoal enhance nitrification and ammonium-oxidizing
bacterial abundance in dry montane forest soils. J. Environ. Qual. 2010,39, 1243–1253. [CrossRef]
229.
Bääth, E.; Frostegärd, A.; Pennanen, T.; Fritze, H. Microbial community structure and pH response in relation to soil organic
matter quality in wood-ash fertilized, clear-cut or burned coniferous forest soils. Soil Biol. Biochem.
1995
,27, 229–240. [CrossRef]
230.
Bolster, C.H.; Abit, S.M. Biochar Pyrolyzed at Two Temperatures Affects Transport through a Sandy Soil. J. Environ. Qual.
2012
,
41, 124–133. [CrossRef]
231.
Agegnehu, G.; Srivastava, A.K.; Bird, M.I. The Role of Biochar and Biochar-Compost in Improving Soil Quality and Crop Performance:
A Review; Elsevier B.V.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; Volume 119, pp. 156–170.
232. Ogawa, M. Symbiosis of people and nature in the tropics. Farm. Japan. 1994,28, 10–34.
233.
Shrestha, G.; Traina, S.J.; Swanston, C.W. Black Carbon’s Properties and Role in the Environment: A Comprehensive Review.
Sustainability 2010,2, 294–320. [CrossRef]
234.
Major, J.; Lehmann, J.; Rodon, M.; Goodale, C. Fate of soil-applied black carbon: Downward migration, leaching and soil
respiration. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2010,16, 1366–1379. [CrossRef]
235.
Wang, C.; Chen, D.; Shen, J.; Yuan, Q.; Fan, F.; Wei, W.; Li, Y.; Wu, J. Biochar alters soil microbial communities and potential
functions 3–4 years after amendment in a double rice cropping system. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2021,311, 107291. [CrossRef]
236.
Hagemann, N.; Harter, J.; Kaldamukova, R.; Guzman-Bustamante, I.; Ruser, R.; Graeff, S.; Kappler, A.; Behrens, S. Does soil
aging affect the N
2
O mitigation potential of biochar? A combined microcosm and field study. GCB Bioenergy
2017
,9, 953–964.
[CrossRef]
237. Blanco-Canqui, H. Does biochar improve all soil ecosystem services? GCB Bioenergy 2021,13, 291–304. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 37 of 39
238.
Case, S.D.C.; McNamara, N.P.; Reay, D.S.; Whitaker, J. The effect of biochar addition on N
2
O and CO
2
emissions from a sandy
loam soil-The role of soil aeration. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012,51, 125–134. [CrossRef]
239.
Farkas, É.; Feigl, V.; Gruiz, K.; Vaszita, E.; Fekete-Kertész, I.; Tolner, M.; Kerekes, I.; Pusztai, É.; Kari, A.; Uzinger, N.; et al.
Long-term effects of grain husk and paper fibre sludge biochar on acidic and calcareous sandy soils-A scale-up field experiment
applying a complex monitoring toolkit. Sci. Total Environ. 2020,731, 138988. [CrossRef]
240.
Biederman, L.A.; Harpole, W.S. Biochar and its effects on plant productivity and nutrient cycling: A meta-analysis. GCB Bioenergy
2013,5, 202–214. [CrossRef]
241.
Qambrani, N.A.; Rahman, M.M.; Won, S.; Shim, S.; Ra, C. Biochar properties and eco-friendly applications for climate change
mitigation, waste management, and wastewater treatment: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017,79, 255–273. [CrossRef]
242.
Zhang, X.; Li, Y.; Li, H. Enhanced Bio-Immobilization of Pb Contaminated Soil by Immobilized Bacteria with Biochar as Carrier.
Polish J. Environ. Stud. 2017,26, 413–418. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
243.
Lehmann, J.; Gaunt, J.; Rondon, M. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems—A review. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang.
2006,11, 403–427. [CrossRef]
244. Roberts, K.G.; Gloy, B.A.; Joseph, S.; Scott, N.R.; Lehmann, J. Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: Estimating the energetic,
economic, and climate change potential. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010,44, 827–833. [CrossRef]
245.
Woolf, D.; Amonette, J.E.; Street-Perrott, F.A.; Lehmann, J.; Joseph, S. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat.
Commun. 2010,1, 56. [CrossRef]
246.
Kuzyakov, Y.; Bogomolova, I.; Glaser, B. Biochar stability in soil: Decomposition during eight years and transformation as
assessed by compound-specific 14C analysis. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014,70, 229–236. [CrossRef]
247.
Kuzyakov, Y.; Subbotina, I.; Chen, H.; Bogomolova, I.; Xu, X. Black carbon decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial
biomass estimated by 14C labeling. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2009,41, 210–219. [CrossRef]
248.
Tisserant, A.; Cherubini, F. Potentials, limitations, co-benefits, and trade-offs of biochar applications to soils for climate change
mitigation. Land 2019,8, 179. [CrossRef]
249.
Hammond, J.; Shackley, S.; Sohi, S.; Brownsort, P. Prospective life cycle carbon abatement for pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK.
Energy Policy 2011,39, 2646–2655. [CrossRef]
250.
Hamedani, S.R.; Kuppens, T.; Malina, R.; Bocci, E.; Colantoni, A.; Villarini, M. Life cycle assessment and environmental valuation
of biochar production: Two case studies in Belgium. Energies 2019,12, 2166. [CrossRef]
251.
Leppäkoski, L.; Marttila, M.P.; Uusitalo, V.; Levänen, J.; Halonen, V.; Mikkilä, M.H. Assessing the carbon footprint of biochar from
willow grown on marginal lands in finland. Sustainability 2021,13, 10097. [CrossRef]
252.
Lerchenmüller, H.; Bier, H.; Hettich, L.; Gustafsson, M. European Biochar Market Report 2022/2023; European Biochar Industry:
Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany, 2022.
253.
Nematian, M.; Keske, C.; Ng’ombe, J.N. A techno-economic analysis of biochar production and the bioeconomy for orchard
biomass. Waste Manag. 2021,135, 467–477. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
254. Robb, S. Biochar making €300 to €2000 per tonne. Ir. Farmers J. 2023. Available online: https://www.farmersjournal.ie/biochar-
making-300-to-2-000-per-tonne-763428 (accessed on 7 August 2023).
255. EU Carbon Permits. Available online: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/carbon (accessed on 7 August 2023).
256.
Yanai, Y.; Toyota, K.; Okazaki, M. Effects of charcoal addition on N
2
O emissions from soil resulting from rewetting air-dried soil
in short-term laboratory experiments: Original article. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr. 2007,53, 181–188. [CrossRef]
257.
Van Zwieten, L.; Singh, B.P.; Joseph, S.; Kimber, S.; Cowie, A. Chan Biochar and emission of non-CO
2
greenhouse gases from
soil. In Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and Technology; Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009;
pp. 227–249, ISBN 978-1-84407-658-1.
258.
Spokas, K.A.; Koskinen, W.C.; Baker, J.M.; Reicosky, D.C. Impacts of woodchip biochar additions on greenhouse gas production
and sorption/degradation of two herbicides in a Minnesota soil. Chemosphere 2009,77, 574–581. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
259.
Deenik, J.L.; McClellan, T.; Uehara, G.; Antal, M.J.; Campbell, S. Charcoal volatile matter content influences plant growth and soil
nitrogen transformations. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 2010,74, 1259–1270. [CrossRef]
260.
Zimmerman, A.R. Abiotic and microbial oxidation of laboratory-produced black carbon (biochar). Environ. Sci. Technol.
2010
,44,
1295–1301. [CrossRef]
261.
Hofrichter, M. Review: Lignin conversion by manganese peroxidase (MnP). Enzyme Microb. Technol.
2002
,30, 454–466. [CrossRef]
262.
Derenne, S.; Largeau, C. A review of some important families of refractory macromolecules: Composition, origin, and fate in soils
and sediments. Soil Sci. 2001,166, 833–847. [CrossRef]
263.
Das, K.C.; Garcia-Perez, M.; Bibens, B.; Melear, N. Slow pyrolysis of poultry litter and pine woody biomass: Impact of chars and
bio-oils on microbial growth. J. Environ. Sci. Health-Part A Toxic/Hazardous Subst. Environ. Eng. 2008,43, 714–724. [CrossRef]
264.
Steiner, C.; Das, K.C.; Garcia, M.; Förster, B.; Zech, W. Charcoal and smoke extract stimulate the soil microbial community in a
highly weathered xanthic Ferralsol. Pedobiologia (Jena) 2008,51, 359–366. [CrossRef]
265.
Kimetu, J.M.; Lehmann, J. Stability and stabilisation of biochar and green manure in soil with different organic carbon contents.
Aust. J. Soil Res. 2010,48, 577–585. [CrossRef]
266.
Koch, B.; Ostermann, M.; Höke, H.; Hempel, D.-C. Sand and activated carbon as biofilm carriers for microbial degradation of
phenols and nitrogen-containing aromatic compounds. Water Res. 1991,25, 1–8. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 38 of 39
267.
Quirós, M.; García, A.B.; Montes-Morán, M.A. Influence of the support surface properties on the protein loading and activity of
lipase/mesoporous carbon biocatalysts. Carbon 2011,49, 406–415. [CrossRef]
268.
Ehrhardt, H.M.; Rehm, H.J. Phenol degradation by microorganisms adsorbed on activated carbon. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.
1985,21, 32–36. [CrossRef]
269.
Kaplan, D.L.; Kaplan, A.M. Biodegradation of N-nitrosodimethylamine in aqueous and soil systems. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
1985,50, 1077–1086. [CrossRef]
270.
Pietikäinen, J.; Kiikkilä, O.; Fritze, H. Charcoal as a habitat for microbes and its effect on the microbial community of the
underlying humus. Oikos 2000,89, 231–242. [CrossRef]
271.
Koelmans, A.A.; Jonker, M.T.O.; Cornelissen, G.; Bucheli, T.D.; Van Noort, P.C.M.; Gustafsson, Ö. Black carbon: The reverse of its
dark side. Chemosphere 2006,63, 365–377. [CrossRef]
272.
Gomez-Eyles, J.L.; Sizmur, T.; Collins, C.D.; Hodson, M.E. Effects of biochar and the earthworm Eisenia fetida on the bioavailability
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and potentially toxic elements. Environ. Pollut. 2011,159, 616–622. [CrossRef]
273.
Noguera, D.; Rondón, M.; Laossi, K.-R.; Hoyos, V.; Lavelle, P.; de Carvalho, M.H.C.; Barot, S. Contrasted effect of biochar and
earthworms on rice growth and resource allocation in different soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2010,42, 1017–1027. [CrossRef]
274. Lehmann, J.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Pan, G.; Ok, Y.S. Biochars and the plant-soil interface. Plant Soil 2015,395, 1–5. [CrossRef]
275.
Liu, X.; Zhang, A.; Ji, C.; Joseph, S.; Bian, R.; Li, L.; Pan, G.; Paz-Ferreiro, J. Biochar’s effect on crop productivity and the
dependence on experimental conditions—A meta-analysis of literature data. Plant Soil 2013,373, 583–594. [CrossRef]
276.
Camps Arbestain, M.; Saggar, S.; Leifeld, J. Environmental benefits and risks of biochar application to soil. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.
2014,191, 1–4. [CrossRef]
277.
Schmalenberger, A.; Fox, A. Bacterial mobilization of nutrients from biochar amended soils. Adv. Appl. Microb.
2016
,94, 109–159.
[CrossRef]
278.
Haque, A.N.A.; Uddin, M.K.; Sulaiman, M.F.; Amin, A.M.; Hossain, M.; Solaiman, Z.M.; Mosharrof, M. Rice Growth Performance,
Nutrient Use Efficiency and Changes in Soil Properties Influenced by Biochar under Alternate Wetting and Drying Irrigation.
Sustainability 2022,14, 7977. [CrossRef]
279.
Mukherjee, A.; Lal, R. Biochar impacts on soil physical properties and greenhouse gas emissions. Agronomy
2013
,3, 313–339.
[CrossRef]
280.
Mukherjee, A.; Lal, R.; Zimmerman, A.R. Effects of biochar and other amendments on the physical properties and greenhouse
gas emissions of an artificially degraded soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2014,487, 26–36. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
281.
Jeffery, S.; Verheijen, F.G.A.; van der Velde, M.; Bastos, A.C. A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on
crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2011,144, 175–187. [CrossRef]
282.
Subedi, R.; Bertora, C.; Zavattaro, L.; Grignani, C. Crop response to soils amended with biochar: Expected benefits and unintended
risks. Ital. J. Agron. 2017,11, 161–173. [CrossRef]
283.
Vaccari, F.P.P.; Baronti, S.; Lugato, E.; Genesio, L.; Castaldi, S.; Fornasier, F.; Miglietta, F. Biochar as a strategy to sequester carbon
and increase yield in durum wheat. Eur. J. Agron. 2011,34, 231–238. [CrossRef]
284.
Baronti, S.; Alberti, G.; Vedove, G.D.; di Gennaro, F.; Fellet, G.; Genesio, L.; Miglietta, F.; Peressotti, A.; Vaccari, F.P. The biochar
option to improve plant yields: First results from some field and pot experiments in Italy. Ital. J. Agron.
2010
,5, 3–11. [CrossRef]
285.
Cornelissen, G.; Martinsen, V.; Shitumbanuma, V.; Alling, V.; Breedveld, G.; Rutherford, D.; Sparrevik, M.; Hale, S.; Obia, A.;
Mulder, J. Biochar effect on maize yield and soil. Characteristics in five conservation farming sites in Zambia. Agronomy
2013
,3,
256–274. [CrossRef]
286.
Yao, C.; Joseph, S.; Li, L.; Pan, G.-X.; Lin, Y.; Munroe, P.; Pace, B.; Taherymoosavi, S.; Van Zwieten, L.; Thomas, T.; et al. Developing
more effective enhanced biochar fertilisers for improvement of pepper yield and quality. Pedosphere
2015
,25, 703–712. [CrossRef]
287.
Schmidt, H.; Pandit, B.; Martinsen, V.; Cornelissen, G.; Conte, P.; Kammann, C. Fourfold increase in pumpkin yield in response to
low-dosage root zone application of urine-enhanced biochar to a fertile tropical soil. Agriculture 2015,5, 723–741. [CrossRef]
288.
Nelissen, V.; Ruysschaert, G.; Müller-Stöver, D.; Bodé, S.; Cook, J.; Ronsse, F.; Shackley, S.; Boeckx, P.; Hauggaard-Nielsen, H.
Short-term effect of feedstock and pyrolysis temperature on biochar characteristics, soil and crop response in temperate soils.
Agronomy 2014,4, 52–73. [CrossRef]
289.
Rogovska, N.; Laird, D.A.; Rathke, S.J.; Karlen, D.L. Biochar impact on Midwestern Mollisols and maize nutrient availability.
Geoderma 2014,230, 340–347. [CrossRef]
290.
Tammeorg, P.; Simojoki, A.; Mäkelä, P.; Stoddard, F.L.; Alakukku, L.; Helenius, J. Biochar application to a fertile sandy clay loam
in boreal conditions: Effects on soil properties and yield formation of wheat, turnip rape and faba bean. Plant Soil
2014
,374,
89–107. [CrossRef]
291.
Bass, A.M.; Bird, M.I.; Kay, G.; Muirhead, B. Soil properties, greenhouse gas emissions and crop yield under compost, biochar
and co-composted biochar in two tropical agronomic systems. Sci. Total. Environ. 2016,550, 459–470. [CrossRef]
292.
Genesio, L.; Miglietta, F.; Baronti, S.; Vaccari, F.P. Biochar increases vineyard productivity without affecting grape quality: Results
from a four years field experiment in Tuscany. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015,201, 20–25. [CrossRef]
293.
Schmidt, H.-P.; Kammann, C.; Niggli, C.; Evangelou, M.W.H.; Mackie, K.A.; Abiven, S. Biochar and biochar-compost as soil
amendments to a vineyard soil: Influences on plant growth, nutrient uptake, plant health and grape quality. Agric. Ecosyst.
Environ. 2014,191, 117–123. [CrossRef]
Agriculture 2023,13, 2003 39 of 39
294.
Jones, D.L.; Rousk, J.; Edwards-Jones, G.; DeLuca, T.H.; Murphy, D.V. Biochar-mediated changes in soil quality and plant growth
in a three year field trial. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2012,45, 113–124. [CrossRef]
295.
Subedi, R.; Taupe, N.; Ikoyi, I.; Bertora, C.; Zavattaro, L.; Schmalenberger, A.; Leahy, J.J.; Grignani, C. Chemically and biologically-
mediated fertilizing value of manure-derived biochar. Sci. Total Environ. 2016,550, 924–933. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
296.
Marks, E.; Alcañiz, J.; Domene, X. Unintended effects of biochars on short-term plant growth in a calcareous soil. Plant Soil
2014
,
385, 87–105. [CrossRef]
297.
Butnan, S.; Deenik, J.L.; Toomsan, B.; Antal, M.J.; Vityakon, P. Biochar characteristics and application rates affecting corn growth
and properties of soils contrasting in texture and mineralogy. Geoderma 2015,237–238, 105–116. [CrossRef]
298.
Singh, B.; Singh, B.P.; Cowie, A.L. Characterisation and evaluation of biochars for their application as a soil amendment. Soil Res.
2010,48, 516. [CrossRef]
299. Klein, B.; Bopp, M. Effect of activated charcoal in agar on the culture of lower plants. Nature 1971,230, 474. [CrossRef]
300.
Yu, P.; Qin, K.; Niu, G.; Gu, M. Alleviate environmental concerns with biochar as a container substrate: A review. Front. Plant Sci.
2023,14, 1–14. [CrossRef]
301.
Dumroese, R.K.; Heiskanen, J.; Englund, K.; Tervahauta, A. Pelleted biochar: Chemical and physical properties show potential
use as a substrate in container nurseries. Biomass Bioenergy 2011,35, 2018–2027. [CrossRef]
302.
Zhang, L.; Sun, X.; Tian, Y.; Gong, X. Biochar and humic acid amendments improve the quality of composted green waste as a
growth medium for the ornamental plant Calathea insignis. Sci. Hortic. 2014,176, 70–78. [CrossRef]
303.
Conversa, G.; Bonasia, A.; Lazzizera, C.; Elia, A. Influence of biochar, mycorrhizal inoculation, and fertilizer rate on growth and
flowering of Pelargonium (Pelargonium zonale L.) plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2015,6, 429. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
304.
Kim, H.S.; Kim, K.R.; Yang, J.-E.; Ok, Y.S.; Kim, W.I.; Kunhikrishnan, A.; Kim, K.-H. A melioration of horticultural growing media
properties through rice hull biochar incorporation. Waste and Biomass Valorization 2017,8, 483–492. [CrossRef]
305.
Nieto, A.; Gascó, G.; Paz-Ferreiro, J.; Fernández, J.M.; Plaza, C.; Méndez, A. The effect of pruning waste and biochar addition on
brown peat based growing media properties. Sci. Hortic. 2016,199, 142–148. [CrossRef]
306. Steiner, C.; Harttung, T. Biochar as a growing media additive and peat substitute. Solid Earth 2014,5, 995–999. [CrossRef]
307.
Vaughn, S.F.; Kenar, J.A.; Thompson, A.R.; Peterson, S.C. Comparison of biochars derived from wood pellets and pelletized
wheat straw as replacements for peat in potting substrates. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013,51, 437–443. [CrossRef]
308.
Frenkel, O.; Jaiswal, A.K.; Elad, Y.; Lew, B.; Kammann, C.; Graber, E.R. The effect of biochar on plant diseases: What should we
learn while designing biochar substrates? J. Environ. Eng. Landsc. Manag. 2017,25, 105–113. [CrossRef]
309.
Bonanomi, G.; Ippolito, F.; Scala, F. A “black” future for plant pathology? Biochar as a new soil amendment for controlling plant
diseases. J. Plant Pathol. 2015,97, 223–224.
310.
Graber, E.R.; Frenkel, O.; Jaiswal, A.K.; Elad, Y. How may biochar influence severity of diseases caused by soilborne pathogens?
Carbon Manag. 2014,5, 169–183. [CrossRef]
311.
Elad, Y.; David, D.R.; Harel, Y.M.; Borenshtein, M.; Kalifa, H.B.; Silber, A.; Graber, E.R. Induction of systemic resistance in plants
by biochar, a soil-applied carbon sequestering agent. Phytopathology 2010,100, 913–921. [CrossRef]
312.
Akhter, A.; Hage-Ahmed, K.; Soja, G.; Steinkellner, S. Potential of Fusarium wilt-inducing chlamydospores,
in vitro
behaviour in
root exudates and physiology of tomato in biochar and compost amended soil. Plant Soil 2016,406, 425–440. [CrossRef]
313.
Zwart, D.C.; Kim, S.H. Biochar amendment increases resistance to stem lesions caused by phytophthora spp. in tree seedlings.
HortScience 2012,47, 1736–1740. [CrossRef]
314.
Gravel, V.; Dorais, M.; Ménard, C. Organic potted plants amended with biochar: Its effect on growth and Pythium colonization.
Can. J. Plant Sci. 2013,93, 1217–1227. [CrossRef]
315. Knox, O.G.G.; Oghoro, C.O.; Burnett, F.J.; Fountaine, J.M. Biochar increases soil pH, but is as ineffective as liming at controlling
clubroot. J. Plant Pathol. 2015,97, 149–152. [CrossRef]
316.
George, C.; Kohler, J.; Rillig, M.C. Biochars reduce infection rates of the root-lesion nematode Pratylenchus penetrans and
associated biomass loss in carrot. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016,95, 11–18. [CrossRef]
317.
Jie, L.; Ding, Y.; Ma, L.; Gao, G.; Wang, Y. Combination of biochar and immobilized bacteria in cypermethrin-contaminated soil
remediation. Int. Biodeterior. Biodegrad. 2017,120, 15–20.
318.
Chen, B.; Yuan, M.; Qian, L. Enhanced bioremediation of PAH-contaminated soil by immobilized bacteria with plant residue and
biochar as carriers. J. Soils Sediments 2012,12, 1350–1359. [CrossRef]
319.
Zhang, H.; Tang, J.; Wang, L.; Liu, J.; Gurav, R.G.; Sun, K. A novel bioremediation strategy for petroleum hydrocarbon pollutants
using salt tolerant Corynebacterium variabile HRJ4 and biochar. J. Environ. Sci. (China) 2016,47, 7–13. [CrossRef]
320.
Wang, T.; Sun, H.; Ren, X.; Li, B.; Mao, H. Evaluation of biochars from different stock materials as carriers of bacterial strain for
remediation of heavy metal-contaminated soil. Sci. Rep. 2017,7, 12114. [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
