Science of the Total Environment 672 (2019) 698–707

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Erodibility assessment of compacted biochar amended soil for

geo-environmental applications☆
Himanshu Kumar a, Suriya Prakash Ganesan b, Sanandam Bordoloi b, S. Sreedeep b, Peng Lin a, Guoxiong Mei c,
Ankit Garg a, Ajit K. Sarmah d,⁎
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shantou University, China
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, India
c
Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Guangxi University, China
d
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• Production of biochar from different

wastes for compacted soil erosion
treatment
• Surface functional groups and particle
morphology of biochar influence soil
erosion
• Addition of biochar had minimal effect
on erosion of compacted silty sand.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Biochar amended soil (BAS) has been explored as a cover material for geo-environmental applications such as
Received 10 January 2019 landfill cover due to its vegetation potential. Soil erosion in these infrastructures can progressively lead to failure
Received in revised form 26 March 2019 and hamper the workability of the system. BAS is compacted for geo-environmental applications, unlike agricul-
Accepted 26 March 2019
tural soil, which are loose in nature. Furthermore, the love-hate relationship of biochar with water can potentially
Available online 29 March 2019
affect the functioning of compacted cover system. Thus, the performance of compacted BAS in the context of ero-
Editor: Damia Barcelo sion potential is not well understood. The major objective of this technical note was to explore the erosion poten-
tial of compacted BAS sourced from four distinct biochars. Biochar were produced in-house and mixed with soil
Keywords: at 5% and 10% by weight. In total, 81 pinhole erosion tests were performed to gauge the erosion rate of bare soil
Biochar amended soil and BAS at three different compaction states at same compaction energy. It was revealed that the erosion rate de-
Erosion creased with gradual increment in water content for BAS, which was mainly attributed to the change of particle
Compaction state orientation from flocculated to dispersed along the compaction curve. Addition of biochar to soil resulted in de-
Pinhole test crease of erosion along the dry state whereas the opposite was observed for wet state. This was attributed to the
surface functional groups as well as particle gradation of biochar. Erodibility coefficient and critical shear stress
plot of soil and BAS revealed that addition of biochar had minimal effect on erosion of compacted silty sand.
© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

☆ The authors declare no competing financial interest.

⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: a.sarmah@auckland.ac.nz (A.K. Sarmah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.03.417
0048-9697/© 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
 H. Kumar et al. / Science of the Total Environment 672 (2019) 698–707 699

1. Introduction

Soil erosion can cause loss of fertility, increase pollution and sedi-
mentation in water bodies, induce landfill slope failures, exacerbate
desiccation cracks and chemical percolation in agricultural applications
(Montgomery, 2007; Reubens et al., 2007). In context to geo-
environmental applications, multi layered cover system (MLCS) has
gained considerable attention for waste disposal. United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency (USEPA) design guidelines have advocated
vegetation to be grown in the surface layer to mitigate soil erosion
loss (USEPA, 1989). However, not all local soils are suitable for fast veg-
etation growth and the soil is susceptible to erosion loss at their early
plant establishment period (Schmidt et al., 2001). Biochar amended
soil (BAS) has been advocated for use in such landfill systems in the re-
cent past (Reddy et al., 2015; Jayawardhana et al., 2016; Ni et al., 2018;
Weber and Quicker, 2018). Biochar is a carbon rich porous material, Fig. 2. Thermo-Gravimetric Analysis (TGA) of the selected feedstock for biochar
which is produced by heating any organic biomass in an oxygen free en- production.
vironment by a process called pyrolysis (Sohi et al., 2010; Kookana et al.,
2011). Addition of biochar in soil can improve the physical properties of There are few field studies to measure erosion potential of biochar-
soil like pore size distribution, porosity, bulk density, saturated hydrau- amended soil (BAS) from agricultural perspective (Jien and Wang,
lic conductivity, surface area and water retention (Abel et al., 2013; 2013; Hseu et al., 2014; Doan et al., 2015; Abrol et al., 2016; Sadeghi
Ulyett et al., 2014; Rodríguez-Vila et al., 2018). Due to high surface et al., 2016; Li et al., 2019). However, soils in agricultural applications
area of biochar, process of oxidation of methane (CH4) gas into carbon are loose in nature, while for geo-environmental applications it is
dioxide (CO2) can be enhanced by adding the biochar in landfill cover heavily compacted (Hauser et al., 2001). There are multiple reports of
(Sadasivam and Reddy, 2015a, 2015b). The general systematic diagram landfill failure due to gully erosion of compacted soil (Carpenter et al.,
for application of biochar in multilayer cover system is shown in Fig. 1. 1991; Merry et al., 2005; Blight and Fourie, 2005). The percentage
In geotechnical application, primary focus was given to biochar's role usage of biochar in soil for landfill applications may vary from 2% to
in altering the soil-water retention characteristics (Ni et al., 2018), infil- 20% based on design requirements (Chen et al., 2016; Wong et al.,
tration rate (Gopal et al., 2019), gas/water permeability (Wong et al., 2018). Addition of biochar is expected to enhance vegetation growth
2018; Garg et al., 2019) and mechanical strength (Sadasivam and and ultimately help control soil erosion in a sustainable manner
Reddy, 2015c). The role of biochar in mitigating soil erosion has been (Bernatek-Jakiel et al., 2017; Garg et al., 2019). However, during early
rarely investigated for compacted geo-environmental application. plant establishment period the top layer of landfill covers is susceptible

Fig. 1. Application of biochar in multilayer cover system.

700 H. Kumar et al. / Science of the Total Environment 672 (2019) 698–707

Table 1
Production conditions, elemental composition and selected chemical properties of biochar used.

SDB WHB PSB PLB

Feedstock Saw dust waste sourced from Dalbergia Water hyacinth stem sourced from Crushed peanut hull Straw, chicken faeces, bentonite clay (2%), basal
sissoo, Tectona grandis Deepor lake, India from industry dust (~1%) and traces of FeO2
Pyrolysis process Slow pyrolysis Slow pyrolysis Slow pyrolysis Slow pyrolysis
Pyrolysis 450–490 350–400 470 450
temperature
(°C)
Elemental
analysis
C (%) 53.34 53.39 58.27 61.73
O (%) 36.8 42.80 35.89 36.41
H (%) 6.7 1.99 3.85 1.86
N (%) 3.1 1.82 1.91 2.39
Molar ratios
H:C 0.125 0.047 0.066 0.051
C:N 17.20 29.33 30.51 15.23
Ash content (%) 22.67 39 48.09 56
CEC (cmol kg−1) NA 21.95 NA 56.3

for erosion loss as vegetation grows relatively slow in compacted soil
(Ng et al., 2013).
Given the presence of varied form of surface functional groups on
biochar, its influence on erosion is not well understood. The love-hate
relationship of biochar (Das and Sarmah, 2015) against water might po-
tentially affect the erosion characteristics of a soil. Thus, in line with the
aforementioned discussion, there is a need to ascertain the erosion po-
tential of compacted BAS at different biochar application rates and
source. Recent study by Li et al. (2019) reported the effect of simulated
rainfall and soil particle size on time to runoff, total runoff and soil loss
for a biochar amended soil. However, the effect of biochar type, compac-
tion state (Optimum moisture content and maximum dry density in
context to geo-environmental infrastructure) has been hitherto
neglected.
The pinhole erosion test is an index laboratory test for ascertaining
the erosion potential of soil (Sherard et al., 1976). The advantage of pin-
hole setup over other field scale setups such as flume test (Arulanandan
and Perry, 1983), rotating cylinder test (Arulanandan et al., 1975), jet
erosion setup (Hanson and Cook, 2004) and erosion function apparatus
(Briaud et al., 2001) is due to its quick assessment, ease of use, testing on
uniformly compacted soil and control over the runoff (Wan and Fell,
2004; Lüthi, 2011; Fouladi et al., 2018). However, it does not consider
the initial effect of raindrop impact in initiating erosion. Rather, the
test simulates erosion due to runoff flowing over a sample and gives a
direct estimate of the erosion potential of different soil type in relatively
less time.
The overarching aim of the current technical note is to present a pre-
liminary understanding of the erosion potential of compacted BAS by
discussing the soil-biochar-water interaction. Four distinct biochar
were produced in-house and mixed with soil at 5% and 10% application
rates. Each soil and BAS sample were tested in the pinhole apparatus at
three different compaction states. In total, 81 pinhole erosion tests were
performed in this technical note to gauge the erosion potential of the se-
lected samples. Prior to that, the individual effect of all four biochar in
altering the geotechnical properties has also been explored in the cur-
rent study.
Table 2
Particle size distribution of the soil and the selected biochar.
Size Bare soil SDB WHB PSB
Gravel (N4.75 mm) 0 0 0 0
Coarse sand (2.00–4.75 mm) 4 0 0 0
Medium sand (0.425–2.00 mm) 24 23 42 0 32
Fine sand (0.075–0.425 mm) 23 40 40 69.1
Silt (0.002–0.075 mm) 28 36 18 30.9
Clay (b0.002 mm) 21
Note: Finer percentage for biochar could not be ascertained by conventional method.
2. Materials and methodology
2.1. Production and characterization of biochar
Four distinct plant-based and animal-based biochar (i.e. Poultry Lit-
ter (PL), Water Hyacinth (WH), Saw Dust (SD) and Peanut shell (PS))
were produced to investigate the erosion potential BAS. PL was sourced
from a chicken ranch containing chicken faeces and straw. WH plants
were selected from same water body to minimize the impact of any he-
redity variation (Bordoloi et al., 2018a). SD was sourced from the woods
of Dalbergia sissoo and Tectona grandis utilized in the carpentry work-
shop. PS residue was derived by crushing the peanut shell, which are
obtained from the peanut industry. The obtained feedstock was ana-
lyzed for its mass loss with increasing temperature through Thermo-
Gravimetric Analysis (TGA) to ascertain the pyrolysis temperature
(Fig. 2). TGA was performed to measure the mass of the feedstock
over time as the temperature changes under controlled gas atmosphere,
where at certain temperature there would not be any change in mass.
This temperature was chosen as optimum temperature for pyrolysis of
feedstock. By observing the mass loss from TGA, the pyrolysis tempera-
ture for all the feedstock are individually chosen and presented in
Table 1. As per the TGA curve and observed mass loss of the feedstock
(Fig. 2), pyrolysis temperature was chosen at 450, 370, 470 and 450
for SD, WH, PS and PL feedstock. Temperature gradient was selected
to 10 °C/min and inert gas used was argon. All feedstock was heated
up to 400 °C. Slow pyrolysis was chosen as the pyrolysis method for bio-
char production as it offers the highest yield of biochar (Manya, 2012)
and avoids morphological damages in biochar structure due to sudden
change in temperature. The produced coarse biochar was crushed and
then sieved through 2 mm sieve for ease of mixing in soil. Sieve analysis
test were conducted to obtain particle size distribution for all biochar.
Particle size distribution for biochar is tabulated in Table 2.
The elemental analysis was carried out by element analyzer. From
the elemental analysis (Table 1), carbon content was observed to be
high in all biochar. Molar ratios of all biochar (Table 1), showed that
PS is recalcitrant because of its high H/C molar ratio (Choudhury et al.,
2014). Other than C-N elements, levels of selected heavy metals such
as Pb, As, Cr. Fe and Zn were measured (data not shown) using induc-
tively coupled plasma mass spectroscopy. However, they were below
the threshold recommendations for soil biochar composite (Yu et al.,
PLB
2018; Cornette et al., 2018; Adagunodo et al., 2018 and Toth et al.,
0
2016) and therefore would pose only a minimal environmental risk
0
(Freddo et al., 2012; Jones and Quilliam, 2014).
52 Fig. 3 depicts the intra pores of the selected biochar through
16 Field-Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FE-SEM) investiga-
tion. At 500× magnification, all the plant-based biochar showed
highly porous morphology. At 2K× magnification, SD, WH and PS
 H. Kumar et al. / Science of the Total Environment 672 (2019) 698–707
Fig. 3. Surface morphology of biochar by Field-Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy (FE-SEM).
biochar had clear honeycomb pores surface whereas PL did not
exhibit such pores.
2.2. Soil index properties
The selected soil was excavated from a nearby hilly slope within
Indian Institute of Technology, Guwahati, India. It should be noted that
the site was subjected to immense gully erosion due to lack of vegeta-
tion. The soil was characterized as per American Standard of Testing
and Materials (ASTM) provisions. The soil primarily constitutes of
sand (47%) trailed by silt (28%) and clay (21%) (ASTM D422–63,
2007). The Atterberg's limits of the soil were attained as liquid limit of
36.52% and plastic limit of 25.55% (ASTM D4318, 2010). The specific
gravity of the soil was found to be 2.74 (ASTM, D854-14, 2014). As per
the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), the soil is represented as
SM (Silty sand) (ASTM D2487–11, 2011). The optimum Moisture Con-
tent (OMC) and Maximum Dry Density (MDD) was calculated to be
16.7% and 1.73 g/cm3 respectively. Compaction test were carried out
Fig. 4. General representation of compact curves for bare soil and BAS with selected
compaction states for conducting erosion tests.
701
by using modified proctor compaction setup (ASTM D1557, 2015;
Sridharan and Sivapullaiah, 2005).
2.3. Measurement of critical shear stress and erodibility co-efficient
Pinhole erosion test gives a quantitative assessment of erosion pa-
rameters like erosion rate, critical shear stress and erodibility coeffi-
cient, which are commonly utilized in geotechnical practice (Wan and
Fell, 2004; Reddi et al., 2000). Critical shear stress is defined as mini-
mum shear stress for the detachment of particles and erodibility coeffi-
cient is defined as the quantification of failure time due to erosion
(Benahmed and Bonelli, 2012). Erosion rate general defines the amount
of eroded mass over time for a specific area. These parameters are very
important for controlling re-entrainment of particles (Aubert et al.,
1993). Shear stress induced by flow through the hole is determined by
(Reddi et al., 2000)



q 8η R
τ¼ ð1Þ
A R2 2
where τ (Pa) is the shear stress on the contact surface of soil-water, A
(m2) is the cross-sectional area of hole, q (m3/s) is the controlled
flow rate, η (kg/m−1s) is the viscosity of water at 27 °C
(i.e., 0.0009 kg/m−1s), and R (m) is the radius of the hole. Final radius
of soil sample is determined by (Haghighi et al., 2012)
rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m
R¼ r0 þ ð2Þ
πγd L
where r0 (m) and R (m) are radius of the initial and final radius of the
sample, respectively. m (kg) is the eroded mass in 1 min interval, L
(m) is the length of the sample (=0.05 m) and γd (kg/m3) is the dry
density of soil. Erosion rate of a test condition is determined by
(Haghighi et al., 2012)
_m
ε_ ¼ 0 ð3Þ
At
702 H. Kumar et al. / Science of the Total Environment 672 (2019) 698–707

Table 3
Characterization of biochar amendment soil.

Type of Biochar composition Consistency limits Compaction parameters Specific

biochar (% w/w of soil) gravity
Liquid Plastic Shrinkage Optimum moisture Maximum dry
limit (%) limit (%) limit (%) content (%) density (g/cm3)

Used code for experiments ASTM D4318-00 ASTM D4943-18 ASTM D698-07 ASTM
D854-14

Bare soil 0% 36.5 25.5 13.9 16.7 1.73 2.74

Saw dust 5% 42.0 26.0 15.1 19.8 1.56 2.54
10% 55.4 32.1 15.6 25 1.44 2.52
Water hyacinth 5% 41.5 28.3 13.7 20.1 1.58 2.7
10% 49.9 42.4 11.8 24.1 1.55 2.47
Peanut shell 5% 47.4 28.6 9.6 17.2 1.6 NA
10% 50.3 30.2 10.2 17.9 1.49 NA
Poultry litter 5% 45.9 24.4 9.3 17.4 1.62 2.85
10% 48.8 28.8 10.7 20.3 1.52 2.75

where A′ (m2) is the soil water contact area of the sample (i.e. 2πrL) and
t is the time interval of flow rate (i.e. 1 min). Two main variables to char-
acterize the erodibility of soil are critical shear stress (τc) and erodibility
coefficient (kd) in practice (Wahl, 2010). The basic erosion law is
expressed as:

0 _if jτj≤τ c
ε_ ¼
kd ðjτ j−τc Þ if jτjNτ c
_
where, ε-erosion rate (kg/m2/s), kd-erodibility coefficient, τ-shear stress
(Pa) and τc critical shear stress (Pa). Critical shear stress and Erodibility
co-efficient of a soil state is determined by plotting a chart against shear
stress and erosion rate. Studies have been established to follow this ex-
trapolation of results (Wan and Fell, 2004; Wahl, 2010). The undrained
shear strength was measured by unconfined compressive strength test
setup at a strain rate of 1.15 mm/min and cylindrical sample dimensions
was 38 mm dia. with 76 mm height.
2.4. Experimental procedure
The general portrayal of compaction state chosen for conducting
erosion test is shown in Fig. 4. The compaction state of soil and BAS
are tabulated in Table 3. All the samples were prepared at same compac-
tion energy corresponding to the results obtained from the modified
proctor compaction test. The test setup and procedure are systemati-
cally presented in Fig. 5.
The BAS samples were statically compacted within the mold having
the dimensions of 2.5 cm diameter and 5 cm length respectively. A
7 mm diameter opening was drilled at the center of the sample along
the axis. The size of the hole was based on the consideration that the
higher flow rates require a bigger hole to initiate erosion and a small
hole may cause significant re-deposition of eroded particles on its
walls (Reddi et al., 2000). Drilled samples were installed in pinhole
ð4Þ
setup and was subjected to different increasing continuous flowrates.
The eroded particles were collected by passing the eroded effluent
through Whitman filter paper (Fig. 5e). The eroded mass was estimated
by oven drying method. The shear stress and erosion rate for a specific
flow rate was estimated. The corresponding critical shear stress and
erodibility coefficient were estimated for every soil state. For each test
condition, a minimum of three trials were done to check the deviation
of results. A sum of 81 tests were performed in this study to represent
bare soil (9 tests) and biochar amended soil (72 tests).
3. Result and discussion
3.1. Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy analysis of produced
biochar
Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy analysis was done
for all biochar to examine the surface functional groups. Biochar pro-
duced at relatively low temperature (≤500 °C) has majorly hydrophobic
group on its surface. From FTIR (Fig. 6), at wavelength ranging between

Fig. 5. Systematic description of pinhole test procedure.

 H. Kumar et al. / Science of the Total Environment 672 (2019) 698–707 703

(Aromatic) C=O C-H (Aromatic) were hydrophobic functional group aromatic C\\H in all biochar rang-
-CH2 (aliphatic) C=C ing between 1000 and 1200 cm−1. However, there are hydrophilic func-
-OH tional group like hydroxyl (O\\H) as well as neutral ether (C\\O) group
C=O -CH2 (Aromatic)
present in biochar (Gray et al., 2014; Van der Spoel et al., 2006).
Sawdust
Biochar 3.2. Biochar amended soil (BAS) index properties

Basic geotechnical properties of BAS are tabulated in Table 3. It can

be observed that the liquid limit of BAS shows a significant increase
Water (5% to 19%) with increment of biochar content from 5% to 10% for all
Absorbance

Hyacinth biochar. In the case of plastic limit for BAS; SD, PS and PL showed an in-
Biochar
crement in the range of 2% to 7%. However, WH showed a drastic in-
crease in plastic limit by 3% and 17% for 5% and 10% BAS respectively.
This increase in Atterberg limits indicate that the retention capacity of
Peanut
the soil increases with addition of biochar and can be attributed to the
Shell highly porous nature of biochar. Shrinkage limit for WH, PS and PL
Biochar BAS decreases by 3% to 4% and is expected due to the cohesion-less na-
ture of biochar (Bordoloi et al., 2018b). However, there is also increment
of 2% in shrinkage limit for SD BAS for both 5% and 10%.
In the presence of biochar, OMC of BAS increased from 1% to 9%. SD
Poultry and PL BAS shows the maximum and minimal change in maximum
Litter
Biochar dry density, respectively. In the presence of biochar, specific gravity of
soil decreases (Table 3) and it is seen that MDD decreases for all BAS.
The decreased MDD was mainly attributed to the lower specific gravity
of biochar particles (Liu et al., 2016) and the smaller compressibility of
4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 the amended soils at a given compaction energy (Reddy et al., 2015).
Wave Number (cm-1) The higher optimum water content could be caused by the highly po-
rous structure (Fig. 3) and larger surface area of biochar particles (Guo
Fig. 6. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) response of the selected biochar. et al., 2014).

3.3. Effect of compaction state on erosion rate of soil and BAS

2700 and 3000 cm−1, there was a clear indication on the presence of hy-
drophobic functional group C\\H in all biochar. The presence of C\\H
groups is expected to enhance the hydrophobicity of the biochar. The
peak between 1300 cm−1 and 1500 cm−1 indicated a high-intensity re-
gion of C_C ring stretching in WH biochar. The aromatic C_C
stretching peaks shows the benzene like ring in the biochar, which
might give additional hydrophobicity towards water (Gray et al.,
2014; Kinney et al., 2012; Das and Sarmah, 2015). In addition, there
Fig. 7 presents the erosion rate variation with shear stress computed
from the pinhole tests considering three different compaction states at
two biochar percentage addition. Fig. 7(a–b) presents results along
dry compaction state, whereas Fig. 7(e–f) presents results on the wet.
Erosion results at OMC are shown in Fig. 7(c–d). It is seen from the fig-
ure that with increase in water content, erosion rate decreases for both
soil and BAS. This is attributed to two factors- one is the cohesive forces

Fig. 7. Erosion rate variation with shear stress for biochar composition of 5% (a, c and e) and 10% (b, d, and f).
704 H. Kumar et al. / Science of the Total Environment 672 (2019) 698–707

Biochar particles

H-C-H
(Aliphatic) Compacted BAS
Compacted silty sand C=O H-C-H
(Aromatic)
(Aliphatic) Soil particle
C=O
C-H (Aromatic) Water molecule
(Aromatic)
-OH C=C Biochar particle
(Aliphatic) (Neutral)
Idealized representation of Fine biochar dust
(A) biochar surface functional groups Intrapores

Soil at 200 X WH biochar at 200 X

20 µm 20 µm

BAS at 200 X BAS at 500 X

20 µm 20 µm

(B) Regular biochar particle Fine biochar dust Soil particle

Fig. 8. Schematic (a) and pictorial (b) representation of soil-biochar composite.

between soil particles due to increase in moisture (Chepil, 1956) and
because of particle orientation change with compaction state (Lambe,
1958). In case of compacted soil, the soil particles change its orientation
from flocculated to dispersed gradually from dry to wet of OMC. Runoff
water can easily erode the flocculated particles in dry side, as there is
edge-to-face interaction. In case of dispersed particles, flow happens
along the particle surface and consequently produces relatively less
drag (Grissinger, 1966). This gradual decrease in erosion rate is seen
for both 5% and 10% of BAS.
The effect of biochar addition on erosion rate of soil can be discussed
with change in water content. An examination of Fig. 7a–b revealed that
along the dry side, biochar addition at both 5% and 10% decreased the
erosion rate as compared to bare soil. Only SDB at 5% showed an in-
crease in erosion rate as compared to bare soil. The decrease in erosion
rate with biochar addition was in agreement with a recent study by Li
et al. (2019) where the authors have explored the erosion potential of
apple wood biochar by conducting flume tests. The decrease in erosion
rate was expected as finer biochar particles are being embedded into
 H. Kumar et al. / Science of the Total Environment 672 (2019) 698–707 705

Table 4
Critical shear stress and erodibility co-efficient.

Type of material Composition of biochar Soil state Water content (%) Density (g/cm3) Critical shear stress, τc (Pa) Erodibility coefficient, Kd (cm3/N-m)

Bare soil 0% Dry (−5% OMC) 11.7 1.67 0.259 0.133

Optimum (OMC) 16.7 1.73 0.119 0.065
Wet (+5% OMC) 21.7 1.68 0.089 0.022
Sawdust biochar 5% Dry (−5% OMC) 14.8 1.51 0.154 0.074
Optimum (OMC) 19.8 1.56 0.112 0.064
Wet (+5% OMC) 24.8 1.5 0.101 0.042
10% Dry (−5% OMC) 20 1.42 0.093 0.045
Optimum (OMC) 25 1.44 0.101 0.026
Wet (+5% OMC) 30 1.35 0.103 0.034
Water hyacinth biochar 5% Dry (−5% OMC) 15.1 1.53 0.164 0.080
Optimum (OMC) 20.1 1.58 0.306 0.126
Wet (+5% OMC) 25.1 1.51 0.094 0.011
10% Dry (−5% OMC) 19.1 1.51 0.130 0.060
Optimum (OMC) 24.1 1.55 0.109 0.038
Wet (+5% OMC) 29.1 1.42 0.111 0.028
Peanut shell biochar 5% Dry (−5% OMC) 12.2 1.56 0.134 0.073
Optimum (OMC) 17.2 1.6 0.103 0.056
Wet (+5% OMC) 22.2 1.51 0.133 0.077
10% Dry (−5% OMC) 12.9 1.46 0.135 0.077
Optimum (OMC) 17.9 1.49 0.115 0.051
Wet (+5% OMC) 22.9 1.44 0.115 0.045
Poultry litter biochar 5% Dry (−5% OMC) 12.4 1.55 0.400 0.142
Optimum (OMC) 17.4 1.62 0.153 0.091
Wet (+5% OMC) 22.4 1.59 0.109 0.050
10% Dry (−5% OMC) 15.3 1.46 0.189 0.106
Optimum (OMC) 20.3 1.52 0.153 0.111
Wet (+5% OMC) 25.3 1.48 0.105 0.042

the soil, the porosity of the soil-biochar composite will gradually in-
crease (Liu et al., 2016). However, at the wet compaction state (Fig. 7
(e–f)), addition of biochar at both percentages actually increased the
erosion rate to some degree. This contrasting behavior can be attributed
to interaction of surface functional groups with water. The FTIR results
(Fig. 6) clearly indicate presence of hydrophobic functional groups in al-
most all biochar, which can potentially disrupt cohesive bonds that are
formed between soil particles. The gradual effect of biochar-water inter-
action on erosion of BAS can be observed if comparison is made from
dry to wet side. Even at optimum water content state (Fig. 7(c–d)),
it was observed that biochar addition was gradually making the
composite relatively more erodible as compared to bare soil. The
aforementioned trends were observed to be same in case of 10% biochar.
The mechanism of surface functional response and its interaction in
compacted soil is hypothetically shown in Fig. 8 in conjuncture to previ-
ous literature (Pardo et al., 2018) and FE-SEM images. It should be noted
that biochar gradation can be observed two gradation microscopically -
regular grains (30–70 μm) to very fine biochar dust at (10–20 μm). It is
seen in the current FE-SEM images that these fine biochar dust can en-
gulf soil particles thus decreasing surface area where cohesive bonds
with soil can take place. Rather, the biochar particles repel water, thus
reducing soil cohesion. The decrease in cohesive forces of BAS with
gradual moisture increment is manifested in the erosion results as ob-
served in Fig. 7.

3.4. Erodibility coefficient and critical shear stress of soil and BAS

Erodibility coefficient and critical shear stress of soil and BAS were
calculated from the erosion tests as shown in Section 2.3 and the indi-
vidual values are reported in Table 4. In Fig. 9, the τc vs kd plot is
shown for soil and BAS considering all compaction states. It was ob-
served that with increase in τc there is a gradual increase in the kd for
both bare soil and BAS. This showcases that addition of biochar doesn't

110
Undrained shear strength (kPa)

100
90 Bare Soil
80
70
60
50
40
30
20

Fig. 9. Representation of pin-hole results by Kd vs τc plot considering (a) and (b) reference
studies. Fig. 10. Undrained shear strength of BAS at optimum compaction state.
706 H. Kumar et al. / Science of the Total Environment 672 (2019) 698–707
fundamentally alters the erosion relationship considering same scale.
Thus, the hydrophobic nature of biochar at compacted conditions will
not overshadow the compaction energy applied to it such that the ero-
sion potential will be significantly altered. This conclusion can be further
cross referred with existing erosion classification scheme presented by
Hanson and Simon (2001). As shown in Fig. 9b, the current soil falls
under erodible category regardless of the addition of biochar. Thus, if
the current local soil is used in mild sloped cover system (near 3–5)°,
the hydrophobic nature of biochar will not additionally induce erosion
that might hamper the workability of the cover system. Rather, it is ex-
pected to eventually help in vegetation growth (Kuttner and Thomas,
2017; Ni et al., 2018) that should reduce erosion during rainfall period.
The undrained shear strength results of BAS at OMC as obtained from
conducting unconfined compression strength test showed that the ma-
jority of BAS exhibited a reduction in undrained shear strength com-
pared to the bare soil (Fig. 10). This would be expected due to
cohesion less nature of biochar in dry conditions (Zong et al., 2014,
Bordoloi et al., 2018a, 2018b) which caused weaker bonds among the
soil grains.
4. Conclusion
We demonstrated through this study the erosion potential of
compacted BAS using pin-hole test incorporating four different biochar
(PL, WH, SD and PS). A sum of 81 pin hole tests were done at 3 different
compaction states and 2 biochar amendment percentage. In view of the
outcomes and discussions, the following conclusions were inferred.
1. The erosion rate decreases with gradual increment in water content
of the compacted BAS as well as in bare soil. This is majorly attributed
to the phenomenon of flocculated and dispersed particle orientation
of the soil particles along the compaction curve. As previously re-
ported for bare soil, erosion is more prominent in edge to face (floc-
culated) orientation. This was observed in case of compacted BAS.
2. In comparison with bare soil, BAS showcased decreased erosion rates
in dry of OMC and is attributed to the change in gradation of the com-
posite into finer materials. On the contrary, erosion is relatively exac-
erbated in the wet of OMC and is attributed to the hydrophobic
surface functional groups of biochar. The engulfment of fine biochar
dust on soil particle is expected to further decrease the cohesive
forces of the soil.
3. The Erodibility coefficient and Critical shear stress plot of soil and BAS
in the same scale reveal that addition of biochar does not significantly
alter the mechanics of erosion for silty sand. This is cross referred by
comparing current results with other erosion classification scheme.
The biochar used in the current study were produced at one temper-
ature. The change in pyrolysis temperature used to produce biochar will
directly affect the hydrophobicity or hydrophilicity of the material.
Hence, future studies can be directed to specifically investigate the ef-
fect of temperature on the erosion potential of BAS. WH biochar needs
to be further investigated by looking into the mineralogy to arrive at a
concrete understanding of the deviations observed in dry side of OMC.
Acknowledgement
We would like to acknowledge Shantou University Scientific Re-
search Fund (NTF17007) for their generous support to complete the
project.
References
Abel, S., Peters, A., Trinks, S., Schonsky, H., Facklam, M., Wessolek, G., 2013. Impact of bio-
char and hydrochar addition on water retention and water repellency of sandy soil.
Geoderma. 183–191.
Abrol, V., Ben-Hur, M., Verheijen, F.G.A., Keizer, J.J., Martins, M.A.S., Tenaw, H.,
Tchehansky, L., Graber, T.E., 2016. Biochar effects on soil water infiltration and
erosion under seal formation conditions: rainfall simulation experiment. J. Soils Sed-
iments 16, 1–11.
Adagunodo, T.A., Sunmonu, L.A., Emetere, M.E., 2018. Heavy metals data in soils for agri-
cultural activities. Data Brief 18, 1847–1855.
Arulanandan, K., Perry, E.B., 1983. Erosion in relation to filter design criteria in earth dams.
J. Geotech. Eng. Div. ASCE 109 (GT5), 682–698.
Arulanandan, K., Loganathan, P., Krone, R.B., 1975. Pore and eroding fluid influences on
surface erosion of soils. J. Geotech. Eng.-ASCE 101 (GT1), 55–66.
ASTM D1557, 2015. Standard test methods for laboratory compaction characteristics of
soil using modified effort (56,000 ft-lb/ft3 (2,700 kN-m/m3)). Annual Book of Stan-
dards. 4.
ASTM D2487–11, 2011. Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Pur-
pose (Unified Soil Classification System). http://www.astm.org.
ASTM D422–63, 2007. Standard Test Method for Particle-size Analysis of Soils. 10. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, p. 1520.
ASTM D4318, 2010. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity
Index of Soils. 2003. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/
10.1520/D4318-10.
ASTM D854-14, 2014. Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water
Pycnometer.
Aubert, M.C., Elluard, M.P., Barnier, H., 1993. Shear stress induced erosion of filtration cake
studied by a flat rotating disk method - determination of critical shear stress of ero-
sion. J. Membrane Sci. 84 (3), 229–240.
Benahmed, N., Bonelli, S., 2012. Investigating concentrated leak erosion behaviour of co-
hesive soils by performing hole erosion tests. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 16 (1), 43–58.
Bernatek-Jakiel, A., Vannoppen, W., Poesen, J., 2017. Assessment of grass root effects on
soil piping in sandy soils using the pinhole test. Geomorphology. 295, 563–571.
Blight, G.E., Fourie, A.B., 2005. Catastrophe revisited–disastrous flow failures of mine and
municipal solid waste. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 23 (3), 219–248.
Bordoloi, S., Gadi, V.K., Hussain, R., Sahoo, L., Garg, A., Sreedeep, S., Mei, G., Poulsen, T.G.,
2018a. Influence of fiber from waste weed Eichhornia crassipes on water retention
and cracking characteristics of vegetated soils. Geotech. Lett. 8 (2), 1–25.
Bordoloi, S., Garg, A., Sreedeep, S., Lin, P., Mei, G., 2018b. Investigation of cracking and
water availability of soil-biochar composite synthesized from invasive weed water
hyacinth. Bioresour. Technol. 263, 655–677.
Briaud, J.L., Ting, F.C.K., Chen, H.C., Cao, Y., Han, S.W., Kwak, K.W., 2001. Erosion function
apparatus for scour rate predictions. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 127 (2), 105–113.
Carpenter, P.J., Calkin, S.F., Kaufmann, R.S., 1991. Assessing a fractured landfill cover using
electrical resistivity and seismic refraction techniques. Geophysics. 56 (11),
1896–1904.
Chen, X.W., Wong, J.T.F., Ng, C.W.W., Wong, M.H., 2016. Feasibility of biochar application
on a landfill final cover—a review on balancing ecology and shallow slope stability.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. R. 23 (8), 7111–7125.
Chepil, W.S., 1956. Influence of moisture on erodibility of soil by wind. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J.
20 (2), 288–292.
Choudhury, N.D., Chutia, R.S., Bhaskar, T., Kataki, R., 2014. Pyrolysis of jute dust: effect of
reaction parameters and analysis of products. J. Mater. Cycles Waste 16 (3), 449–459.
Cornette, J., Clementson, C., Fredericks, D., 2018. Environmentally sustainable manage-
ment of water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) in Guyana. Int. J. Agric. For. 8 (1), 4–9.
Das, O., Sarmah, A.K., 2015. The love–hate relationship of pyrolysis biochar and water: a
perspective. Sci. Total Environ. 512, 682–685.
Doan, T.T., Henry-des-Tureaux, T., Rumpel, C., Janeau, J.L., Jouquet, P., 2015. Impact of
compost, vermicompost and biochar on soil fertility, maize yield and soil erosion in
Northern Vietnam: a three-year mesocosm experiment. Sci. Total Environ. 514,
147–154.
Fouladi, S.R., Shourijeh, P.T., Soroush, A., 2018. The effects of soil erosion characteristics on
critical filter design in embankment dams. Geotech. Test. J. 42 (3).
Freddo, A., Cai, C., Reid, B.J., 2012. Environmental contextualisation of potential toxic
elements in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in biochar. Environ. Pollut. 171,
18–24.
Garg, A., Hazra, B., Zhu, H., Wen, Y., 2019. A simplified probabilistic analysis of water con-
tent and wilting in soil vegetated with non-crop species. Catena 175, 123–131.
Gopal, P., Bordoloi, S., Ratnam, R., Lin, P., Cai, W., Buragohain, P., Garg, A., Sreedeep, S.,
2019. Investigation of infiltration rate for soil-biochar composites of water hyacinth.
Acta Geophys. 1–16.
Gray, M., Johnson, M.G., Dragila, M.I., Kleber, M., 2014. Water uptake in biochars: the roles
of porosity and hydrophobicity. Biomass Bioenergy 61, 196–205.
Grissinger, E.H., 1966. Resistance of selected clay systems to erosion by water. Water
Resour. Res. 2 (1), 131–138.
Guo, Y., Tang, H., Li, G., Xie, D., 2014. Effects of cow dung biochar amendment on adsorp-
tion and leaching of nutrient from an acid yellow soil irrigated with biogas slurry.
Water Air Soil Pollut. 225 (1), 1820.
Haghighi, I., Chevalier, C., Duc, M., Guédon, S., Reiffsteck, P., 2012. Improvement of hole
erosion test and results on reference soils. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (2),
330–339.
Hanson, G.J., Cook, K.R., 2004. Apparatus, test procedures, and analytical methods to mea-
sure soil erodibility in situ. Appl. Eng. Agric. 20 (4), 455.
Hanson, G.J., Simon, A., 2001. Erodibility of cohesive streambeds in the loess area of the
midwestern USA. Hydrol. Process. 15 (1), 23–38.
Hauser, V.L., Weand, B.L., Gill, M.D., 2001. Natural covers for landfills and buried waste.
J. Environ. Eng. 127 (9), 768–775.
Hseu, Z., Jien, S., Chien, W.H., Liou, R.C., 2014. Impacts of biochar on physical properties
and erosion potential of a mudstone slope land soil. Sci. World J. 10, 602197.
Jayawardhana, Y., Kumarathilaka, P., Herath, I., Vithanage, M., 2016. Municipal solid waste
biochar for prevention of pollution from landfill leachate. Environ Mater Waste,
pp. 117–148.
 H. Kumar et al. / Science of the Total Environment 672 (2019) 698–707
Jien, S.H., Wang, C.S., 2013. Effects of biochar on soil properties and erosion potential in a
highly weathered soil. Catena 110, 225–233.
Jones, D.L., Quilliam, R.S., 2014. Metal contaminated biochar and wood ash negatively af-
fect plant growth and soil quality after land application. J. Hazard. Mater. 276,
362–370.
Kinney, T.J., Masiello, C.A., Dugan, B., Hockaday, W.C., Dean, M.R., Zygourakis, K., Barnes,
R.T., 2012. Hydrologic properties of biochars produced at different temperatures. Bio-
mass Bioenergy 41, 34–43.
Kookana, R.S., Sarmah, A.K., Van Zwieten, L., Krull, E., Singh, B., 2011. In: Sparks, D.L. (Ed.),
Biochar application to soil: agronomic and environmental benefits and unintended
consequences. Adv Agro vol. 112, pp. 103–143.
Kuttner, B.G., Thomas, S.C., 2017. Interactive effects of biochar and an organic dust sup-
pressant for revegetation and erosion control with herbaceous seed mixtures and
willow cuttings. Restor. Ecol. 25 (3), 367–375.
Lambe, T.W., 1958. The engineering behavior of compacted clay. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div.
84 (2), 1–35.
Li, Y., Zhang, F., Yang, M., Zhang, J., Xie, Y., 2019. Impacts of biochar application rates and
particle sizes on runoff and soil loss in small cultivated loess plots under simulated
rainfall. Sci. Total Environ. 649, 1403–1413.
Liu, Z., Dugan, B., Masiello, C.A., Barnes, R.T., Gallagher, M.E., Gonnermann, H., 2016. Im-
pacts of biochar concentration and particle size on hydraulic conductivity and DOC
leaching of biochar–sand mixtures. J. Hydrol. 533, 461–472.
Lüthi, M., 2011. A Modified Hole Erosion Test (HET-P) to Study Erosion Characteristics of
Soil. (Doctoral dissertation). University of British Columbia.
Manya, J.J., 2012. Pyrolysis for biochar purposes: a review to establish current knowledge
gaps and research needs. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46 (15), 7939–7954.
Merry, S.M., Kavazanjian Jr., E., Fritz, W.U., 2005. Reconnaissance of the July 10, 2000,
Payatas landfill failure. J. Perfor. Const. Facil. 19 (2), 100–107.
Montgomery, D.R., 2007. Soil erosion and agricultural sustainability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
104 (33), 13268–13272.
Ng, C.W.W., Leung, A.K., Woon, K.X., 2013. Effects of soil density on grass-induced suction
distributions in compacted soil subjected to rainfall. Can. Geotech. J. 51 (3), 311–321.
Ni, J., Chen, X., Ng, C., Guo, H., 2018. Effects of biochar on water retention and matric suc-
tion of vegetated soil. Géotech. Lett. 1–23.
Pardo, G.S., Sarmah, A.K., Orense, R.P., 2018. Mechanism of improvement of biochar on
shear strength and liquefaction resistance of sand. Géotechnique 1–10.
Reddi, L.N., In-Mo, L., Bonala, M.V.S., 2000. Comparison of internal and surface erosion
using flow pump tests on a sand-kaolinite mixture. Geotech. Test. J. 23 (1), 116–122.
Reddy, K.R., Yaghoubi, P., Yukselen-Aksoy, Y., 2015. Effects of biochar amendment on geo-
technical properties of landfill cover soil. Waste Manag. Res. 33 (6), 524–532.
Reubens, B., Poesen, J., Danjon, F., Geudens, G., Muys, B., 2007. The role of fine and coarse
roots in shallow slope stability and soil erosion control with a focus on root system
architecture: a review. Trees. 21 (4), 385–402.
Rodríguez-Vila, A., Selwyn-Smith, H., Enunwa, L., Smail, I., Covelo, E.F., Sizmur, T., 2018.
Predicting Cu and Zn sorption capacity of biochar from feedstock C/N ratio and pyrol-
ysis temperature. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 25 (8), 7730–7739.
707
Sadasivam, B.Y., Reddy, K.R., 2015a. Adsorption and transport of methane in biochars de-
rived from waste wood. Waste Manag. 43, 218–229.
Sadasivam, B.Y., Reddy, K.R., 2015b. Adsorption and transport of methane in landfill cover
soil amended with waste-wood biochars. J. Environ. Manag. 158, 11–23.
Sadasivam, B.Y., Reddy, K.R., 2015c. Shear strength of waste-wood biochar and biochar-
amended soil used for sustainable landfill cover systems. From Fundamentals to
App Geotech. IOS Press, pp. 745–752.
Sadeghi, S.H., Hazbavi, Z., Harchegani, M.K., 2016. Controllability of runoff and soil loss
from small plots treated by vinasse-produced biochar. Sci. Total Environ. 541,
483–490.
Schmidt, K.M., Roering, J.J., Stock, J.D., Dietrich, W.E., Montgomery, D.R., Schaub, T., 2001.
The variability of root cohesion as an influence on shallow landslide susceptibility in
the Oregon Coast Range. Can. Geotech. J. 38 (5), 995–1024.
Sherard, J.L., Steele, E.F., Decker, R.S., Dunnigan, L.P., 1976. Pinhole test for identifying dis-
persive soils. J. Geotech. Eng. Div. 102 (1), 69–85.
Sohi, S.P., Krull, E., Lopezcapel, E., Bol, R., 2010. A review of biochar and its use and func-
tion in soil. Adv. Agron. 105, 47–82.
Sridharan, A., Sivapullaiah, P.V., 2005. Mini compaction test apparatus for fine grained
soils. Geotech. Test. J. 28 (3), 240–246.
Toth, G., Hermann, T., Da Silva, M.R., Montanarella, L., 2016. Heavy metals in agricultural
soils of the European Union with implications for food safety. Environ. Int. 88,
299–309.
Ulyett, J., Sakrabani, R., Kibblewhite, M., Hann, M., 2014. Impact of biochar addition on
water retention, nitrification and carbon dioxide evolution from two sandy loam
soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. 65 (1), 96–104.
USEPA-1989, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1989. Final Covers on Haz-
ardous Waste Landfills and Surface Impoundments (Technical Guidance Document).
Van der Spoel, D., Van Maaren, P.J., Larsson, P., Timneanu, N., 2006. Thermodynamics of
hydrogen bonding in hydrophilic and hydrophobic media. J. Phys. Chem. B 110,
4393–4398.
Wahl, T.L., 2010. A comparison of the hole erosion test and jet erosion test. Conference on
Sedimentation and Hydrologic Modelling. Las Vegas (NV).
Wan, C.F., Fell, R., 2004. Investigation of rate of erosion of soils in embankment dams.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (4), 373–380.
Weber, K., Quicker, P., 2018. Properties of biochar. Fuel 217, 240–261.
Wong, J.T.F., Chen, Z., Wong, A.Y.Y., Ng, C.W.W., Wong, M.H., 2018. Effects of biochar on
hydraulic conductivity of compacted kaolin clay. Environ. Pollut. 234, 468–472.
Yu, C.H., Wang, S.L., Tongsiri, P., Cheng, M.P., Lai, H.Y., 2018. Effects of poultry-litter bio-
char on soil properties and growth of water spinach. Sustainability 10, 2536.
Zong, Y., Chen, D., Lu, S., 2014. Impact of biochars on swell–shrinkage behavior, mechan-
ical strength, and surface cracking of clayey soil. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 177 (6),
920–926.