SoilUse

and Management
Soil Use and Management, June 2012, 28, 177–184 doi: 10.1111/j.1475-2743.2012.00407.x

Physical activation of biochar and its meaning for soil

fertility and nutrient leaching – a greenhouse experiment

N. Borchard1*, A. Wolf1, V. Laabs1 , R. Aeckersberg2, H. W. Scherer3, A. Moeller4 & W. Amelung1

1
Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Soil Science and Soil Ecology, University of Bonn, Nussallee 13, Bonn
53115, Germany, 2Formerly Coking, Briquetting and Thermal Waste Treatment Group, RWTH Aachen University, Wüllnerstrasse
2, Aachen 52062, Germany, 3Institute of Crop Science and Resource Conservation, Plant Nutrition, University of Bonn, Karlrobert-
Kreiten-Strasse 13, Bonn 53115, Germany, and 4Department of Groundwater and Soil Science, Federal Institute for Geo-Science
and Natural Resources, Stilleweg 2, Hannover 30655, Germany

Abstract
The slow alteration of the surface of charred biomass (biochar) over time may contribute to an
improved nutrient retention and thus fertility of tropical soils. Here, we investigated soils from
temperate climates and investigated whether a technical steam activation of biochar could accelerate its
positive effects on nutrient retention and uptake by plants relative to nonactivated biochar. To this
aim, we performed microcosm experiments with sandy or silty soil, mixed with 2.0, 7.5 and 15.0 g ⁄ kg
soil of fine (<2 mm) or coarse-sized (2–10 mm) biochar from beech wood (Fagus sp.). After initial
fertilizer (NPK), ashes and excess nutrients were leached with water, and the microcosms were planted
for 142 days with Italian Ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum ssp. italicum). Thereafter, leachate, soil and
plant samples were analysed for their nutrient contents. The results showed that biochar additions of
£15 g ⁄ kg soil left elevated contents of available P and N in the surface soil but reduced their uptake
into the plants. As a result, total biomass production was unchanged. Different particle size and
application amounts influenced these findings only marginally. Nitrate leaching was enhanced in the
sandy soil (+41% for nitrate, but reduced in the silty soil )17%) and P was immobilized. Hence, the
fertility of the temperate soils under study was only marginally affected by pure biochar amendments.
Steam activation, however, almost doubled the positive effects of biochars in all instances, thus being
an interesting option for future biochar applications.

Keywords: Biochar, steam activation, nutrient retention, soil fertility

enhance cation exchange capacity (CEC), nutrient retention

Introduction
Biochar (charred biomass) is increasingly discussed as a
means to improve soil fertility and contribute to C
sequestration (e.g. Sohi et al., 2010; Jeffery et al., 2011).
When applying fresh biochar (plus mineral fertilizers) to
strongly weathered tropical soils, their fertility was improved
significantly (e.g. Glaser et al., 2002; Steiner et al., 2007),
while similar test have rarely been performed for soils of
temperate climate (Atkinson et al., 2010). It is, however, not
the mere presence of biochar in soils that is needed to
enhance its fertility. Predominantly hydrophobic biochar
(Glaser et al., 2002) in soil may be prone to slow surface
alteration, thereby forming hydrophilic surfaces, which
Correspondence: N. Borchard. E-mail: n.borchard@fz-juelich.de
Received June 2011; accepted after revision March 2012
*Present address: Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH, Agrosphere
Institute, 52425 Jülich, Germany.
Present address: Gayerstrasse 26, 67346 Speyer, Germany.
and aggregation (Liang et al., 2006; Brodowski et al., 2007;
Steiner et al., 2007). Consequently, it could be more efficient
for the amelioration of soils, if the biochar surfaces are
already hydrophilic prior to the adding of biochar to soil.
This aim, however, cannot be reasonably achieved using
chemical activation of biochar surfaces, because an exposure
to other chemicals may generate hazardous, unwanted by-
products (Zhang et al., 2004). Such risks are avoided in
physical activation procedures (e.g. Park et al., 2003).
Activated carbonaceous materials are widely used for water
purification, environmental remediation (e.g. Libra et al.,
2011) and as tissue culture media (Yam et al., 1990). During
activation, the surface area and pore size increases so that the
activated biochars promote the adsorption of nutrients
(Radovic et al., 2001) and possibly also in soils.
The aim of this study was twofold: (i) First, we wanted to
elucidate to which degree the application of biochars may
help to improve nutrient retention (N, P) and biomass

ª 2012 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2012 British Society of Soil Science 177
178 N. Borchard et al.

production (ryegrass) of temperate soils (neutral sand and

(m2 ⁄ g)
SBET

CEC, potential cation exchange capacity at pH 8.1; PCAL, plant-available P extracted with CAL-method; SBET, surface area; calculation with BET isotherm. aAfter washing with 0.01 m
108
463

466
51
slightly alkaline silt). (ii) Second, we wanted to investigate
whether the positive effects of biochar can be enhanced by

pHCaCl2
steam activation. We tested these questions in a microcosm

(HCla)

6.96
7.10
6.85
6.91
experiment using two soils of different texture and different
amount and size of biochar particles (nonactivated biochar

pHCaCl2
and its steam activated form). The pots were leached

8.00
8.68
8.10
8.58
extensively after initial fertilizer application but prior to
planting of Lolium multiflorum ssp. italicum in order to

(mg ⁄ kg)
minimize the nutrient effects of ashes that are usually

PCAL

2.65

1.49
0.31
n.d.
contained in the biochar particles.

(mg ⁄ kg)
NO3-N
Material and methods

2.09
1.05
1.56
0.64
Materials

CEC (HCla)
(cmolc ⁄ kg)
Soil samples were taken from two different soil types in

0.22
0.43
2.75
4.68
Germany, a Haplic Luvisol (silty texture) and sandy textured
Haplic Fluvisol near Bonn. To simulate worst-case soils in
need for amelioration, samples from the topsoil and subsoil

Table 1 Chemical properties and specific surface area of biochar produced from beech wood (475 C, 13–18 h charring)

(cmolc ⁄ kg)
were pooled to adjust for low SOC contents of 7.0 g SOC ⁄ kg

CEC

2.40
6.07
4.53
8.61
(silty soil) and of 3.5 g SOC ⁄ kg (sandy soil). The initial
amounts of nutrients then averaged 25.1 mg NO3-N ⁄ kg,
34.1 mg P ⁄ kg, 44.9 mg K ⁄ kg and 81.5 mg Mg ⁄ kg in the silty

Ash content
soil, and 28.8 mg NO3-N ⁄ kg, 76.3 mg P ⁄ kg, 73.0 mg K ⁄ kg

(mg ⁄ g)

14.5
21.0
14.2
15.7
and 12.2 mg Mg ⁄ kg in the sandy soil. The potential cation
exchange capacity (CECpot) at the start of the experiment was
14.1 cmolc ⁄ kg for the silty and 4.3 cmolc ⁄ kg for the sandy soil,
the pH values (0.01 m CaCl2) were 7.4 and 6.7, respectively.
0.071
0.007
0.065
0.005
O⁄C
Atomic

We used commercial charcoal (biochar) and its steam

ratio

activated form as soil amendment (for selected biochar

H⁄C

0.47
0.18
0.46
0.18
properties, see Table 1). The commercial biochar (proFagus
GmbH, Bodenfelde, Germany) had been produced from 90%
O (mg ⁄ g)

beech (Fagus sp.) and 10% oak (Quercus sp.) wood at 475 C
HCl. bParticle size <2 mm. cParticle size 2–10 mm. n.d., not detectable.
84.1

77.0
9.7

6.0

(±25 C) in the Degussa (Reichert) process (Antal & Grønli,

2003). Depending on initial wood wetness, the feedstock had
been carbonized slowly over a period of 13–18 h in a retort.
N (mg ⁄ g)

14.8
13.6
12.3
7.9

The production quality standards guarantee high content of

fixed C (>83 wt-%), a content of volatile organic matter
(<20 wt-%) and ash (<2 wt-%). The biochar activation was
H (mg ⁄ g)

carried out subsequently at 900 C over a period of 30 min in

34.8
15.0
34.2
15.2

a batch-wise process (Jenkner retort). During this period, hot

water steam was periodically blown into the activation
chamber (heated to 1000 C) for 30 s ⁄ min (Kim & Hong,
C (mg ⁄ g)

1998). We used ambient air (N2 ⁄ O2 gas mixture) and not an

888
975
890
981

inert gas during activation process to ensure surface

oxidation (Shen et al., 2008).
Coarsec and nonactivated
Fineb and nonactivated

Coarse and activated

Pot experiment
Fine and activated

To each soil type, we added one type of biochar in activated

and nonactivated form at a rate of 0, 2.0, 7.5 or 15.0 g ⁄ kg
Sample

soil (for activated biochar only 0, 2.0 and 7.5 g ⁄ kg soil). Each
application was conducted with particle sizes of <2 or

ª 2012 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2012 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 28, 177–184

2–10 mm. Each treatment was performed in quadruplicate.
To avoid nutrient limitations for grass growth, the soils were
fertilized with Ca(H2PO4)2*H2O, NH4NO3 and K2SO4
at rates corresponding to 18 mg P ⁄ kg, 190 mg N ⁄ kg and
178 mg K ⁄ kg in the sandy soil, and to 29 mg P ⁄ kg,
190 mg N ⁄ kg, and 180 mg K ⁄ kg in the silty soil, according
to good agricultural practice. In total, 72 Kick-Brauckmann
pots were filled with 8 kg of soil mixtures each and installed
in a greenhouse.
Prior to the start of experiment, the water content was
adjusted to 60% of the maximum water-holding capacity
(WHC) and the soils were equilibrated for 5 days.
Afterwards, soils were saturated bottom up with water and
leaching of ashes and excess nutrients was induced by
percolating 1 L tap water each day for seven consecutive
days. At each of these 7 days, three 100 mL aliquots of the
percolated water were filled into PET-flasks, preserved with
chloroform and stored at 4 C for £7 days until chemical
analyses.
After a further 5 days of letting soils dry to 60%
WHC, 0.55 g Ryegrass (L. multiflorum ssp. italicum) seeds
(corresponding to ca. 230 seeds per pot) were sown. The
WHC was kept constant through daily gravimetric control of
the zero biochar treatment pots as a reference and rewetting
with 200–700 mL of deionized water per day. Ryegrass was
harvested 23, 37, 71 and 125 days after sowing (at growth
heights of about 30 cm), dried at 60 C and ground prior to
analyses.
At day 142 [5 (equilibration) + 7 (leaching experiment)
+ 5 (drying) + 125 (incubation experiment) days], the
experiment was stopped and composite soil samples were
taken at five positions from each pot with a stainless steel
auger (Ø 1.5 cm), dried at 40 C and passed through a sieve
(<2 mm); coarse biochar particles were softly passed through
the sieve.
Analyses of biochar, soil and plant material
Biochar samples were analysed using the BET method for its
specific surface area with nitrogen sorption at )196 C
(ASAP 2010-Accelerated Surface Area and Porosimetry
System; Micromeritics Instrument Corporation, USA). Prior
to the measurements, the samples were degassed at 35 C in
high vacuum. The element contents of C, H and N were
measured from carbonate-free biochar with a CHN-2000-
Analyzer (LECO Corporation, USA) and S was measured
using a SC-144DR-Analyzer (LECO Corporation). The
O-content (dry ash-free weight; daf) was calculated
accordingly: O [% daf] = 100 ) C [% daf] ) H [% daf] ) N
[% daf]. The ash contents were analysed by incineration at
815 C until weight stability. Carbonates were removed with
0.01 m HCl and excess chlorine was washed out with 500 mL
Millipore water.
ª 2012 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2012 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 28, 177–184
Physical activation of biochar 179
The dried biochar and soil samples (35 C) were then
characterized by the measurement of pH (0.01 m CaCl2) and
potential cation exchange capacity (CEC), using a modified
Mehlich-250 method (Schlichting et al., 1995). The amounts
of plant-available P were extracted by the CAL-method
(0.05 m Ca-lactate, 0.05 m Ca-acetate, acetic acid, pH 4.1,
1:20 w ⁄ v) and quantified photometrically using the
molybdenum blue method (Schlichting et al., 1995) and a
Specord 205 photometer (Analytik Jena AG, Germany) at
578 nm. The contents of plant-available NO3-N were
estimated after extraction with 0.01 m CaCl2 (1:10 w ⁄ v),
(Soper & Huang, 1963) centrifugation of extracts for 10 min
at 266 g (Heraeus Multifuge 3SR; Thermo Fisher Scientific
Inc., USA), filtration (paper filter 589 ⁄ 2; Schleicher &
Schuell, Germany) and quantification with a Specord 205
photometer (Analytik Jena AG) at 210 nm. Ammonium
analyses are not reliable after sample drying and were not
performed. The maximal WHC was calculated as difference
from wet weight (water saturation for about 30 min and with
subsequent drainage for about 2 h) and dry weight. The
contents of total C and N in soil and biomass were measured
after dry combustion using a C ⁄ N analyzer (NA 2000; Fisons
Instruments, UK).
Contents of P in biomass were analysed after incineration
(at 550 C for about 4 h) and dissolution of the ash in hot
5.0 m HCl. It was measured with inductively coupled plasma
optical emission spectrometry (Jobin Yvon 70 Plus
spectrometer; Horiba Jobin Yvon Inc., USA).
Statistical analysis
To evaluate whether biochar type, size or amount changed
leaching, soil and biomass properties multiple group
comparisons were carried out using Kruskal–Wallis H-test.
Comparisons between nonactivated and activated biochar
were performed using Mann–Whitney U-test. Nonparametric
methods were chosen instead of analysis of variance because
data distribution was non-normal and ⁄ or variances of groups
were not homogenous, tested by Shapiro–Wilks test and
Levene’s test. Statistical analysis was performed using
Statistica 8 for Windows.
Results and discussion
Characterization
The element contents of the activated and nonactivated
materials are comparable with biochars produced at similar
temperatures (Table 1; Keiluweit et al., 2010). Yet, steam
activation increased the C-content of the biochar by about
10% (w ⁄ w) and reduced its H and O contents by 55 and 90%
(w ⁄ w), respectively, relative to nonactivated biochar. This
result has been somewhat surprising, as a higher degree of
oxidations (and thus O-content) was expected to result from
180 N. Borchard et al.
the hot steam activation of biochar surfaces (Shen et al.,
2008). Seemingly, the main effect of the activation process
was the removal of low-volatile tar constituents, which
showed a higher O-content than the solid biochar matrix,
thereby lowering the overall O-content of the remaining
biochar. There was no difference in element contents between
the coarse and fine materials after activation, as reported for
charred material from high-temperature pyrolysis (Demirbas,
2002).
The pH values of both biochars were higher than 8.0
(Table 1), indicating remaining alkaline, carbonate containing
ash, with quite common contents ranging between 14 and
21 mg ⁄ g biochar. The contents of available NO3-N and P
were low in the used biochar variants (Table 1), which is in
accordance with nutrient contents of biochars reviewed by
Chan & Xu (2009). A process-specific variability of nutrient
contents in biochars is mostly influenced by the type of
feedstock and pyrolysis conditions (Joseph et al., 2010). The
activation of biochar reduced contents of available NO3-N
and P on average by 55 and 90% (w ⁄ w) (Table 1). The loss
of available nitrogen is likely to have resulted from the escape
of volatile nitrogen-containing compounds during biochar
activation at 1000 C (Leppälahti & Koljonen, 1995; Zhou
et al., 2000) and from net transfer of labile nitrogen into
heterocyclic N forms (Knicker et al., 1996). Martin et al.
(1999) described that P was retained in the gasification system
completely, but that available P decreased strongly.
After activation, there was an average 6.7-fold increase in
the specific surface area (SBET) and an average 2.2-fold rise in
CEC (Table 1), which is in line with Zhang et al. (2004) and
Singh et al. (2010). With the gain of SBET, the physical basis
for CEC increased (Sohi et al., 2010). Arriagada et al. (1994)
found that steam activation removes highly acidic functional
groups (e.g. carboxylic, lactonic) and enlarges weakly acidic
groups (e.g. phenolic). Hence, the rise in CEC was less
pronounced than indicated by the gain in SBET.
Effects of biochar amendments on soil properties and
biomass yield
During our study, the CEC of the soils did not change after
application of £15 g biochar ⁄ kg soil (Table 2). It is likely that
the addition of CEC with the biochars was not strong enough
to be detectable in the complete soil matrix. Also no effects
on CEC were observed by Steiner et al. (2007), Novak et al.
(2009) and van Zwieten et al. (2010) after addition of even up
to 150 g biochar ⁄ kg soil. These results do not comply with
Tryon (1948), who reported an elevated CEC after addition
of >150 g hardwood biochar ⁄ kg soil, which, however, is far
above realistic application scenarios for larger areas.
In contrast to earlier studies, the WHC did not change
after biochar application in our soils. However, we have to
consider that we used much lower biochar application rates
than Tryon’s (1948) and Kishimoto & Sugiura’s (1985)
ª 2012 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2012 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 28, 177–184
>150 g biochar ⁄ kg soil, smaller biochar particle sizes than
those taken by Karhu et al. (2011) <10 mm, and biochars
with lower contents of ashes, which may potentially rise
WHC (Stoof et al., 2010), than those used by Libra et al.
(2011) and Brockhoff et al. (2010). With unchanged WHC,
we assume that water fluxes were unaffected by biochar
additions during the experiments. Some soil chemical
properties, however, were altered significantly. There was an
elevated pH of the biochar-amended soils (Table 2), because
of the alkaline effect of the added ash (Rondon et al., 2007).
Intriguingly, also total N contents were elevated in the
biochar-soils (Table 3), probably due to added biochar-N
(Table 1) or caused by a positive feedback loop: that is,
elevated nutrient contents enabled plants to provide microbes
with carbohydrates in exchange for nutrients (Chapin et al.,
2011). Such nutrient allocation may in principle comprise
both labile and stable nutrient forms (Atkinson et al., 2010;
Chapin et al., 2011).
The contents of available soil nitrate and P tended to be
elevated relative to the control (Table 2). However, increasing
amounts of biochar did not affect contents of available NO3-
N and P in soils (Table 2). For nitrate, the finding is
consistent with Rondon et al. (2007), who investigated
biochar additions even at rates up to 90 g ⁄ kg soil for 80 days.
For P, biochar effects appear to be less consistent with earlier
reports: Chan et al. (2007) did not find any effects on
available P contents (6 g biochar ⁄ kg soil; 42 days of
incubation), they were only elevated after addition of 35 and
60 g biochar ⁄ kg (corresponding to an application rate of ca.
50 and 100 t ⁄ ha, respectively). Novak et al. (2009) found
elevated contents of extractable P even at biochar additions
£15.0 g ⁄ kg soil to acidic, sandy soils (67 days of incubation),
while Rondon et al. (2007) observed reduced contents of
extractable P. In any case, our data confirmed that in arable
soils from temperate zone neither the concentration of nitrate
nor those of inorganic P were significantly affected by
biochar additions (Jones et al., 2012).
Intriguingly, the N uptake into plant biomass was reduced
by up to 24% (w ⁄ w), particularly at the highest biochar
application rate of 15.0 g ⁄ kg soil (Table 2). As the biochars
exhibits a wide C ⁄ N ratio, the addition of 15.0 g biochar ⁄ kg
soil increased the soil C ⁄ N ratio from 11.4 up to 29.2
(Table 2). This value exceeds favourable C ⁄ N ratios of <25,
above which soil microbes are increasingly forced to
immobilize plant-available nitrogen to meet their own N
demand (Chapin et al., 2011). As a result, the N uptake of
the plants was reduced, resulting in lower N contents at
similar amounts of total dry mass (Table 2). If the rise in soil
C ⁄ N ratio was lower than 21, however, no reduced uptake of
N was found (Table 2). Plant uptake of P did not change
significantly, as also reported for the first vegetation season
by Major et al. (2010).
The influence of biochar particle size on nutrient contents
in soil and biomass was relatively small. The uptake rates of
 Table 2 Nutrient leaching at beginning of microcosm (pot) experiment, soil nutrient stocks after 142 days of experimental time, and nutrient contents in biomass and harvested dry
mass (average for silty and sandy soil, standard deviation in parenthesis)

Dry mass and nutrient

Nutrient leaching Soil nutrient concentrations after 142 days stocks in biomassa

Available nutrients

NO3-N NO3-N CEC WHC%

(mg ⁄ kgb) P (mg ⁄ kgb) pHc (mg ⁄ kg) P (mg ⁄ kg) (cmolc ⁄ kg) (w ⁄ w) C⁄N Ntot (mg ⁄ kg) DM (g) Ntot (mgd) Ptot (mgd)

C 60 ± 42 2.7 ± 2.9 6.17 ± 0.12 0.8 ± 0.6 62 ± 12 7.1 ± 4.8 32.0 ± 9.6 11.4 ± 1.5 489 ± 210 3.4 ± 1.0 514 ± 102 2.9 ± 0.7
BCN 56 ± 26 2.1 ± 2.2 6.31 ± 0.12** 2.0 ± 2.2 66 ± 13 7.4 ± 4.9 30.8 ± 8.7 21.0 ± 8.5*** 526 ± 206 3.1 ± 0.6 390 ± 62* 3.0 ± 0.3
BCA 53 ± 17 1.8 ± 1.9 6.33 ± 0.13** 3.0 ± 3.0 66 ± 11 7.7 ± 4.7 28.9 ± 9.7 17.0 ± 6.4** 536 ± 192 3.8 ± 1.1 502 ± 57 2.9 ± 1.1
BCF 57 ± 25 2.0 ± 2.0 6.36 ± 0.12*** 2.8 ± 2.9 66 ± 13 7.7 ± 4.9 30.1 ± 8.7 22.2 ± 8.7*** 538 ± 192 3.5 ± 1.0 454 ± 51 3.1 ± 0.9
BCC 52 ± 20 2.0 ± 2.1 6.28 ± 0.12 2.0 ± 2.2 66 ± 11 7.3 ± 4.7 30.0 ± 9.6 16.5 ± 6.0** 521 ± 209 3.4 ± 0.9 440 ± 106 2.9 ± 0.7
BC2 54 ± 24 2.1 ± 2.1 6.26 ± 0.12 2.1 ± 2.3 66 ± 11 7.6 ± 4.8 28.4 ± 8.5 13.5 ± 2.5 524 ± 198 ND ND ND
BC7.5 54 ± 22 1.9 ± 2.0 6.35 ± 0.12** 2.5 ± 2.9 65 ± 13 7.2 ± 4.7 30.9 ± 9.3 20.3 ± 6.1*** 533 ± 204 3.8 ± 1.1 502 ± 57 2.9 ± 1.1
BC15 57 ± 25 2.0 ± 2.1 6.37 ± 0.11** 2.6 ± 2.7 68 ± 12 7.3 ± 5.1 31.6 ± 10.9 29.2 ± 8.0*** 534 ± 208 3.1 ± 0.6 391 ± 62* 3.0 ± 0.3
BC 55 ± 25 2.1 ± 2.1 6.31 ± 0.13** 2.2 ± 2.5 66 ± 12 7.5 ± 4.8 30.2 ± 8.8 18.6 ± 7.9** 526 ± 200 3.5 ± 1.0 460 ± 88 3.0 ± 0.8

CEC, Potential cation exchange capacity at pH 8.1; WHC, Water-holding capacity; DM, Dry mass; C, Control with no biochar amendment; BCN, Treatment with nonactivated
biochar; BCA, Treatment with activated biochar; BCF, Treatment with biochar – particle size smaller than 2 mm; BCC, Treatment with biochar – particle size from 2 to 10 mm; BC2,
Treatment with 2 g biochar ⁄ kg; BC7.5, Treatment with 7.5 g biochar ⁄ kg; BC15, Treatment with 15 g biochar ⁄ kg; BC, All treatments; ND, not determined. Data are means and standard
deviations. a2nd harvest; bCalculated as nutrient loss per kg soil; cSignificance calculated with de-logarithmized pH values; dCalculated as nutrient contents in biomass (mg ⁄ kg) per kg
soil; Significance at the *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001 level (Kruskal–Wallis H-test).
Physical activation of biochar 181

ª 2012 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2012 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 28, 177–184
182 N. Borchard et al.
Table 3 Biochar affected P and NO3-N leaching, soil contents of P, NO3-N and total N and uptake of P and N through plants
Nutrient leaching
Treatment P (mg ⁄ kga) NO3-N (mg ⁄ kga) P (mg ⁄ kg)
Sandy soil
Control 5.3a 23a 72a
Nonactivated biochar 4.2ab 32ab 78b
Activated biochar 3.6b 38b 75ab
Silty soil
Control 0.03a 97a 52a
Nonactivated biochar 0.02a 81a 54a
Activated biochar 0.02a 67b 56a
a
Calculated as nutrient loss per kg soil; bCalculated as nutrient contents in biomass (mg ⁄ kg) per kg soil; homogenous groups are indicated with
same letter (P < 0.05; Kruskal–Wallis H-test).
N and P from the coarse-sized biochar were not significantly
different from the fine particle amendments (Table 2).
So far, all described effects of biochar on soil fertility and
nutrient acquisition were relatively consistent for both soil
textures. The picture changes if leaching of nutrients is
considered prior to the ryegrass pot experiment: In the silty
soil, the biochar additions tended to reduce the nitrate
content in soil leachates, despite higher contents of total N
and, in tendency, also of nitrate, in the bulk soil (Table 3;
Figure 1). In the sandy soil with larger pore volume and thus
likely faster water flux, the amount of biochar applied failed
to retain nitrate; and significantly elevated nitrate contents
were found in the leachate water (Table 3; Figure 1).
Compared with coarser biochar particles, leaching of NO3-N
was elevated by finer particles (Table 2), which may
additionally clog pores. For soil phosphates, the low
additions of biochar (£15 g ⁄ kg soil) were sufficient to retain P
significantly in sandy soil, but not in silty soil (Table 3).
Yet, no significant effect on plant yields were observed,
thus contrasting with results reported for some coarse
textured tropical soils (Jeffery et al., 2011). It should be noted
that in our study biochar-inherent ashes were removed prior
to the start of plant growth, which in field studies may act as
short-term fertilizers. However, Jones et al. (2012) did also
not find increased biomass yields for a temperate soil after
application of nonwashed biochar.
Effects of biochar activation
Limited effects on soil fertility and leaching prevention lead
to question whether more positive effects can be achieved
when the biochar is activated. Here, we used a hot steam
activation of the biochar. Indeed, almost all biochar effects
could be enhanced by its activation, such as nutrient
retention, availability and plant uptake (Table 3, Figure 1):
The contents of available NO3-N increased by 50% (w ⁄ w) in
ª 2012 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2012 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 28, 177–184
Nutrient stocks
Soil nutrient content after 142 days in biomass
NO3-N (mg ⁄ kg) Nt (mg ⁄ kg) P (mgb) N (mgb)
0.23a 293a 2.3a 595a
0.30a 324ab 2.8a 397b
0.41a 348b 1.9a 532a
1.35a 685a 3.6a 432a
3.64a 728b 3.2a 386a
5.54b 724b 4.0a 472a
pots with activated biochar after an experimental time of
142 days compared to pots with nonactivated biochar
(Table 2). This finding confirms results of van Zwieten et al.
(2010), who reported that nitrate may be produced after
adding low-mineral ash biochars to an acidic sandy soil.
However, NH4-N contents remained unchanged. Probably,
changed soil pH conditions mediated nitrification (Barnard
et al., 2005), which has an optimum at moderate pH values
(Table 2). Furthermore, the higher CEC of activated biochars
may promote retention of ammonium (e.g. Ding et al., 2010),
which later can be nitrified (Atkinson et al., 2010). Also the
lower C ⁄ N ratio of the activated biochar may result in lower
nitrate immobilization by soil microbes (Table 2).
Notably, only in silty textured soil, the NO3-N was
retained and available NO3-N was significantly enriched after
addition of the activated biochar (Table 3), possibly because
the rates of ammonium adsorption or nitrate diffusion into
the biochar particles was not fast enough to compensate for
rapid nitrate leaching in the sandy soil. Also uptakes of N
and P by plants grown on the silty soil were promoted by the
activation of biochar, whereas the effect of nonactivated
biochar had been negative (Figure 1). Rapid nitrate losses
from the sandy soils likely prevented an efficient N use by the
plants compared with the silty soil. Furthermore, the
activation processes reduced the risk of microbial N
immobilization due of lower C ⁄ N ratios.
Overall, the activation of the biochar reduced the
concentrations of NO3-N in the leachate by 5% (w ⁄ w) and
that of P by 14% (w ⁄ w) compared with nonactivated biochar
treatments (Table 2). The activation of biochar doubled the
retention of NO3-N in silty soil and in the sandy soil P
retention was 55% (w ⁄ w) higher than in the pots with
nonactivated biochar (Figure 1). Yet, in the sandy soil, even
the elevated SBET in the activated biochar treatment did not
prevent the soils from losing more N with the leachate water
than the control. Possibly, this N was simply washed out too
 Physical activation of biochar 183

Phosphorus Nitrogen also of N. However, because of the observed variability, this

500 b finding should be further investigated using more extensive
testing schemes. The hot steam activation of biochar enhanced
400 the positive effects of biochar on nutrient availability,
a
Silty soil

300 retention and plant uptake by up to a factor of 2, though

Biochar induced changes in N and P [% of control]

also failed to reduce nitrate leaching from the sandy soil.

200
Further improving biochar properties through physical
b (steam) activation may thus be a potential option for its
0 combined use as soil amendment and for environmental
protection purposes (e.g. prevention of water pollution with
a a
b nitrate and phosphate).

–100 References
Antal, M.J. & Grønli, M. 2003. The art, science, and technology of
100 charcoal production. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research,
42, 1619–1640.
a Arriagada, R., Garcı́a, R. & Reyes, P. 1994. Steam and carbon
Sandy soil

dioxide activation of Eucalyptus globulus charcoal. Journal of

0
b b
–100
PCAL in soil
Ptot in biomass
PMo-blue in leachate
–200
Nonactivated Activated
biochar biochar
Figure 1 Biochar induced changes of N- and P-pools in the soils
relative
h to the biochar-free controli soil. The calculation
Change ð%Þ ¼ Treatment  Control  100 is based on averages of
Control
all treatments with different biochar sizes and amounts, but
separated for activated and nonactivated biochar. Significant
differences between properties of nonactivated biochar and activated
biochar treatments are indicated with different letters (P < 0.05,
Mann–Whitney U-test). PCAL, mg available P ⁄ kg soil; Ptot in
biomass, P content in biomass (mg ⁄ kg) and soil (kg); PMo-blue in
leachate, calculated as mg Pleachate ⁄ kg soil; Ntot in soil, mg N ⁄ kg
soil; NO3-N in soil, mg available NO3-N ⁄ kg soil; Ntot in biomass, N
content in biomass (mg ⁄ kg) and soil (kg); NO3-N in leachate,
calculated as mg Nleachate ⁄ kg soil).
fast. In summary, our results obtained from greenhouse
studies show that additions of activated biochar affect N and
P in soil–plant system, but it should be mentioned that the
intensity of these effects depend on soil texture.
Conclusion
The application of activated and nonactivated biochar from
wood in rates up to 1.5% of soil dry weight revealed that
both biochar types enhanced the concentrations of available
nutrients in the two temperate soils. However, there were no
significant effects on plant yields. Yet, biochar amendment to
soil reduced leaching losses of inorganic P and, in silty soil
Chemical Technology & Biotechnology, 60, 427–433.
Atkinson, C., Fitzgerald, J. & Hipps, N. 2010. Potential mechanisms
a for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar application to
Nt soil temperate soils: a review. Plant and Soil, 337, 1–18.
NO3-N soil Barnard, R., Leadley, P.W. & Hungate, B.A. 2005. Global change,
Nt biomass nitrification, and denitrification: a review. Global Biogeochemical
Cycles, 19, GB1007.
NO3-N leachate
Brockhoff, S.R., Christians, N.E., Killorn, R.J., Horton, R. &
Nonactivated Activated Davis, D.D. 2010. Physical and mineral-nutrition properties of
biochar biochar
sand-based turfgrass root zones amended with biochar. Agronomy
Journal, 102, 1627–1631.
Brodowski, S., Amelung, W., Haumaier, L. & Zech, W. 2007. Black
carbon contribution to stable humus in German arable soils.
Geoderma, 139, 220–228.
Chan, K.Y., Van Zwieten, L., Meszaros, I., Downie, A. & Joseph, S.
2008. Agronomic values of green waste biochar as a soil
amendment. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 45, 629–634.
Chan, K.Y. & Xu, Z. 2009. Biochar: nutrient properties and their
enhancement. In: Biochar for environmental management – science
and technology (eds J. Lehmann & S. Jospeh), pp. 67–84.
Earthscan, London.
Chapin, I., Stuart, F., Matson, P.A. & Vitousek, P.M. 2011.
Principles of terrestrial ecosystem ecology. Springer, New York,
Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London.
Demirbas, A. 2002. Gaseous products from biomass by pyrolysis
and gasification: effects of catalyst on hydrogen yield. Energy
Conversion and Management, 43, 897–909.
Ding, Y., Liu, Y.-X., Wu, W.-X., Shi, D.-Z., Yang, M. & Zhong,
Z.-K. 2010. Evaluation of biochar effects on nitrogen retention
and leaching in multi-layered soil columns. Water, Air, & Soil
Pollution, 213, 47–55.
Glaser, B., Lehmann, J. & Zech, W. 2002. Ameliorating physical and
chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with
charcoal – a review. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 35, 219–230.
Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F.G.A., van der Velde, M. & Bastos, A.C.
2011. A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to
soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, 144, 175–187.

ª 2012 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2012 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 28, 177–184
184 N. Borchard et al.
Jones, D.L., Rousk, J., Edwards-Jones, G., DeLuca, T.H. &
Murphy, D.V. 2012. Biochar-mediated changes in soil quality and
plant growth in a three year field trial. Soil Biology and
Biochemistry, 45, 113–124.
Joseph, S.D., Camps-Arbestain, M., Lin, Y., Munroe, P., Chia,
C.H., Hook, J., van Zwieten, L., Kimber, S., Cowie, A., Singh,
B.P., Lehmann, J., Foidl, N., Smernik, R.J. & Amonette, J.E.
2010. An investigation into the reactions of biochar in soil.
Australian Journal of Soil Research, 48, 501–515.
Karhu, K., Mattila, T., Bergström, I. & Regina, K. 2011. Biochar
addition to agricultural soil increased CH4 uptake and water
holding capacity – Results from a short-term pilot field study.
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 140, 309–313.
Keiluweit, M., Nico, P.S., Johnson, M.G. & Kleber, M. 2010.
Dynamic molecular structure of plant biomass-derived black
carbon (biochar). Environmental Science & Technology, 44, 1247–
1253.
Kim, S.C. & Hong, I.K. 1998. Pore development of the activated
carbon prepared by steam activation process. Journal of Industrial
and Engineering Chemistry, 4, 177–184.
Kishimoto, S. & Sugiura, G. 1985. Charcoal as a soil conditioner.
Symposium on Forest Products Research International
Achievements and the Future, CSIR Conference Centre: Pretorai,
National Timber Research Institute, South African Council for
Scientific and Industrial Research.
Knicker, H., Almendros, G., Gonzalez-Vila, F.J., Martin, F. &
Ludemann, H.D. 1996. 13C- and 15N-NMR spectroscopic
examination of the transformation of organic nitrogen in plant
biomass during thermal treatment. Soil Biology and Biochemistry,
28, 1053–1060.
Leppälahti, J. & Koljonen, T. 1995. Nitrogen evolution from coal,
peat and wood during gasification: literature review. Fuel
Processing Technology, 43, 1–45.
Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Kinyangi, J., Grossman, J.,
O’Neill, B., Skjemstad, J.O., Thies, J., Luizão, F.J., Petersen, J. &
Neves, E.G. 2006. Black carbon increases cation exchange
capacity in soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 70,
1719–1730.
Libra, J.A., Ro, K.S., Kammann, C., Funke, A., Berge, N.D.,
Neubauer, Y., Titirici, M.-M., Fühner, C., Bens, O., Kern, J. &
Emmerich, K.-H. 2011. Hydrothermal carbonization of biomass
residuals: a comparative review of the chemistry, processes and
applications of wet and dry pyrolysis. Biofuels, 2, 71–106.
Major, J., Rondon, M., Molina, D., Riha, S. & Lehmann, J. 2010.
Maize yield and nutrition during 4 years after biochar application
to a Colombian savanna Oxisol. Plant and Soil, 333, 117–128.
Martin, R.S., Manahan, S.E., Morris, J.S. & Larsen, D.W. 1999.
The destruction of chemical warfare surrogates and subsequent
phosphorus distribution during gasification. Journal of
Environmental Science and Health, Part A Toxic ⁄ Hazardous
Substances and Environmental Engineering, 34, 241–261.
Novak, J.M., Busscher, W.J., Laird, D.L., Ahmedna, M., Watts,
D.W. & Niandou, M.A.S. 2009. Impact of biochar amendment on
fertility of a southeastern coastal plain soil. Soil Science, 174, 105–
112.
ª 2012 The Authors. Journal compilation ª 2012 British Society of Soil Science, Soil Use and Management, 28, 177–184
Park, S.-J., Jang, Y.-S., Shim, J.-W. & Ryu, S.-K. 2003. Studies on
pore structures and surface functional groups of pitch-based
activated carbon fibers. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science,
260, 259–264.
Radovic, L.R., Moreno-Castilla, C. & Rivera-Utrilla, J. 2001.
Carbon materials as adsorbents in aqueous solutions. In:
Chemistry and physics of carbon, Vol. 27 (ed. L.R. Radovic), pp.
227–405. CRC Press, New York.
Rondon, M., Lehmann, J., Ramı́rez, J. & Hurtado, M. 2007.
Biological nitrogen fixation by common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris
L.) increases with bio-char additions. Biology and Fertility of Soils,
43, 699–708.
Schlichting, E., Blume, H.-P. & Stahr, K. 1995. Bodenkundliches
Praktikum. Eine Einführung in pedologisches Arbeiten für Ökologen,
insbesondere Land- und Forstwirte, und für Geowissenschaftler.
Blackwell, Berlin.
Shen, W., Li, Z. & Liu, Y. 2008. Surface chemical functional groups
modification of porous carbon. Recent Patents on Chemical
Engineering, 1, 27–40.
Singh, B., Singh, B.P. & Cowie, A.L. 2010. Characterisation and
evaluation of biochars for their application as a soil amendment.
Australian Journal of Soil Research, 48, 516–525.
Sohi, S.P., Krull, E., Lopez-Capel, E. & Bol, R. 2010. A review of
biochar and its use and function in soil. Advances in Agronomy,
105, 47–82.
Soper, R.J. & Huang, P.M. 1963. The effect of nitrate nitrogen in
the soil profile on the response of barley to fertilizer nitrogen.
Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 43, 350–358.
Steiner, C., Blum, W.E.H., Zech, W., de Macedo, J.L.V., Teixeira,
W.G., Lehmann, J. & Nehls, T. 2007. Long term effects of
manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and
fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil.
Plant and Soil, 291, 275–290.
Stoof, C.R., Wesseling, J.G. & Ritsema, C.J. 2010. Effects of fire
and ash on soil water retention. Geoderma, 159, 276–285.
Tryon, E.H. 1948. Effect of charcoal on certain physical, chemical,
and biological properties of forest soils. Ecological Monographs,
18, 81–115.
Yam, T.W., Ernst, R., Arditt, J., Nair, H. & Weatherhead, M.A.
1990. Charcoal in orchid seed germination and tissue culture
media: a review. Lindleyana, 5, 256–265.
Zhang, T., Walawender, W.P., Fan, L.T., Fan, M., Daugaard, D. &
Brown, R.C. 2004. Preparation of activated carbon from forest
and agricultural residues through CO2 activation. Chemical
Engineering Journal, 105, 53–59.
Zhou, J., Masutani, S.M., Ishimura, D.M., Turn, S.Q. & Kinoshita,
C.M. 2000. Release of fuel-bound nitrogen during biomass
gasification. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 39, 626–
634.
van Zwieten, L., Kimber, S., Downie, A., Morris, S., Petty, S., Rust,
J. & Chan, K.Y. 2010. A glasshouse study on the interaction of
low mineral ash biochar with nitrogen in a sandy soil. Soil
Research, 48, 569–576.