Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13399-022-02795-5

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Review on effect of biochar on soil strength: Towards exploring usage

of biochar in geo‑engineering infrastructure
Insha Wani1,2 · Vinod Kushvaha2 · Ankit Garg1 · Rakesh Kumar3 · Sambit Naik4 · Prabhakar Sharma3

Received: 11 February 2022 / Revised: 4 May 2022 / Accepted: 6 May 2022

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2022

Abstract
Biochar is an environment friendly material that has been widely adopted in various fields, such as agricultural, environmen-
tal and energy. On the contrary, the use of biochar in geoengineering infrastructure is still rare. The review critically summa-
rizes the influence of biochar on soil strength in the context of geoengineering infrastructure. For an ease of understanding, a
new index, biochar strength factor (BSF), has been introduced to assess the strength of biochar amended soils with respect to
bare soil (BSF more than unity reflects an increase in strength, whereas BSF less than one indicates a decrease in strength).
Further, in the review, a discussion has been put forward about the various pyrolysis production methods of biochar and its
influence on physicochemical properties (i.e., particle size, density, porosity, surface area, etc.). Feedstocks and pyrolysis
conditions govern physicochemical properties of biochar and alter soil bulk density, porosity, hydrophobicity/ hydrophilic-
ity, aggregate stability, and water retention/holding capacity. Due to high porosity, low density, high compressibility, and
water retention capacity, biochar addition is likely to reduce the BSF (decrease in shear, compressive, and tensile strength)
for most of soils (except clayey). On the other hand, the biochar strength factor is greater than unity (BSF > 1) for clayey
and expansive soil. BSF was found to vary significantly from as low as 0.25 for silty sand to as high as 2.97 for lean clay.
However, the inherent mechanism seems yet to be investigated thoroughly. Compared to other cementing and reinforcement
materials, the production, cost-effectiveness, and economy are also a matter of research. The future scope for understanding
the soil-biochar interaction in geoengineering has been briefly discussed.

Keywords Biochar amendment · Soil strength · Pyrolysis · Porosity · Surface area · Tensile strength · Biochar amended
soils

Abbreviations GHGs Greenhouse gases

AWC​ Available water content IBI International biochar initiative
BAS Biochar amended soils MAP Microwave-assisted pyrolysis
BET Brunauer Emmet Teller PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
BSF Biochar strength factor pH Potential of hydrogen
CBC Cement-based composites SBC Soil biochar composite
CEC Cation exchange capacity TP Terra Preta
EAB Engineered activated biochar WHC Water holding capacity
Ar Argon
* Ankit Garg C Carbon
ankit@stu.edu.cn Ca Calcium
Cu Copper
1
Guangdong Engineering Center for Structure Safety H Hydrogen
and Health Monitoring, Shantou University, Shantou, China
K Potassium
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute Mg Magnesium
of Technology, Jammu, India
N Nitrogen
3
School of Ecology and Environment Studies, Nalanda Na Sodium
University, Rajgir 803116, Bihar, India
O Oxygen
4
Active Fault and Earthquake Hazard Mitigation Research P Phosphorous
Center, Pukyong National University, Busan, South Korea

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

 Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

CH4 Methane potentials [9–11]. The material has an appearance some-

CO Carbon monoxide what similar to charcoal, synthesized from various types of
CO2 Carbon dioxide biomass, such as agroforestry residue, animal wastes and
Cu Copper remains, animal manures, sewage sludge, seaweeds [12, 13],
H2 Dihydrogen freshwater macroalgae [9, 14], and invasive plant species
H3PO4 Phosphoric acid [7, 15–17]. Biochar, as a novel renewable material, is effec-
HCl Hydrochloric acid tively being used in agriculture, environmental remediation,
K2CO3 Potassium carbonate climate mitigation, and geoengineering and has proven as a
KOH Potassium hydroxide sustainable waste disposal material (Figure 1).
Na2CO3 Sodium carbonate The feedstock type determines the composition and
NaOH Sodium hydroxide morphology of the biochar. The plant raw materials mainly
NO Nitrogen oxide consist of cellulose, hemicellulose, lignin, and considerable
NO2 Nitrogen dioxide moisture content. The biomass thermally decomposes at
NO3 Nitrate temperatures in the range of 200–500 °C. The temperature
SO2 Sulphur dioxide at which evaporation of moisture content occurs varies from
ZnCl2 Zinc chloride 100 to 120 °C; hemicellulose decomposes at 200–260 °C,
C = N Nitrites degradation of cellulose occurs at 240–350 °C, and lignin
–C = O Ketones degradation occurs at 280–500 °C [5, 9]. The biochar pro-
–COOH Carboxyl group duced from dense woody feedstocks is of high porosity, sur-
–OH Hydroxyl group face area, pH, and aromatic composition [18, 19] as com-
–COOR Ester group pared to biochar derived from animal wastes, which have
low surface areas [20] and less porosity [21]. The biochar
produced from aquatic raw materials has high nutrient con-
1 Introduction tent and functional groups but less surface area and organic
carbon content [22]. Lei and Zhang [23] observed that the
Biochar is a carbonaceous, fine-grained, porous, solid end hydraulic conductivity of wood-derived biochar was more
product produced by thermochemically degrading the bio- than manure-derived biochar.
mass under an oxygen-deficient environment [1–8]. It pos- Various methods of thermochemical conversions, such
sesses unique heterogeneous elemental composition, func- as pyrolysis, carbonization, hydrothermal treatment, etc.,
tional groups, textural properties, and electro-kinetic surface are being used to synthesize biochar [7, 24, 25]. However,

Fig. 1  Use of biochar in various

fields

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
pyrolysis is more suitable for the preparation of biochar on
a large scale [26], and mainly involves the decomposition of
lignocellulosic components thermally in an oxygen-deficient
environment [27]. Further, the conventional pyrolysis pro-
cess can be classified as slow, fast, flash, hydrothermal, or
gasification, depending on pyrolyzing temperature, residence
time, and heating rate. The yield of biochar and its properties
is dependent on the pyrolysis process adopted and the com-
position of feedstock used. During the process, the feedstock
undergoes a primary decomposition that produces thermally
stable solid char [26, 28] and is followed by the secondary
decomposition reactions, which convert the unstable, vola-
tile compounds to form gas products [28, 29].
Many studies have explored biochar as a construction
material [30–33]. Low flammability and thermal conduc-
tivity, high chemical stability, and water retention capacity
(WRC) help make biochar an insulating material for con-
struction purposes and regulate humidity [30, 32–34]. When
biochar is used in concrete, the water retained by biochar can
benefit in curing [31, 32]. The porous nature of biochar acts
as an insulating material and limits the heat movement [17,
32]. Gupta and Kua [35] observed that the fine particles of
biochar are responsible for improving the early strength and
water tightness of cement mortar mixtures as compared to
normal biochar (having macropores) [32]. The biochar and
cement were used in the ratio of 1:1 on plastering work of
Ithaka Institute in Switzerland [32]. From a strength point
of view, it was reported that 2% biochar addition in cement
enhanced the concrete strength after the ­7th day by about
40% [32], whereas the toughness and flexural strength were
observed to increase by use of 1% biochar amendment in
concrete [33]. Riera et al. [36], while working on 1–2% of
biochar addition in concrete, observed an increase in tensile,
compressive strength, and leakage proofing of concrete [36,
37]. It was noticed that in concrete constructions, biochar
produced from wood waste could act as a filler material for
improving strength and water tightness. Biochar has been
observed to act as an alternative admixture and modifier
in bitumen [31, 32, 38–41]. In road constructions also, the
addition of 10% biochar was observed to improve resist-
ance against rutting and added viscosity to asphalt [32, 40],
water leakage, and overall life durability of the road [32,
38]. However, the authors believe that the use of biochar in
geoengineering infrastructure (slopes, landfill covers) has
not yet been given the due consideration.
The inherent physicochemical properties of biochar
make it a novel material. Observations from previous
literature show that biochar produced has more surface
area, high aromaticity, increased pH, and more ash con-
tent, also improving other soil physical properties as
the pyrolyzing temperature is greater or equal to 500 °C
[42–44]. Higher pyrolysis temperature results in a high
pH of biochar [45–48], even though some researchers
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
have reported otherwise. For example, studies by Nguyen
et al. and Zhang et al. [49, 50] have reported the acidic
nature of biochar produced at 350 to 600 °C. Biochar
preparation at high temperatures has a high aromatic
structure and surface area (making it more water-absor-
bent), resulting in higher carbon sequestration and envi-
ronmental remediation [51]. However, an unprecedented
increase in pyrolysis temperature resulted in the break-
down of structural and textural properties and decreased
surface area [52, 53]. For example, in an investigation,
Ramola et al. [53] observed that maximum surface area
was possible at a temperature of 500 °C, but it started
to decrease at 700 °C. Besides, Ahmad et al. [54] and
Ghanim et al. [55] observed that increase in pyrolytic
temperature increased the C content, whereas N ­ 2, ­O2, and
H decreased due to decarboxylation and dehydration. The
O/C and H/C ratios started decreasing with an increase
in the pyrolysis temperature due to the condensation of
aromatic hydrocarbon structure [56]. The decrease in the
O/C ratio indicates loss of polar functional groups and
more carbonization, making the biochar more hydro-
philic. Dehydration is caused due to removal of hydroxyl
groups, and decarboxylation causes the removal of car-
boxyl and carbonyl groups [57, 58].
Considering the unique inherent characteristics, as stated
above, biochar helps modify the physicochemical and bio-
logical properties of soils [52, 59, 60]. The porous nature
and high surface area of biochar affect the soil’s hydraulic
conductivity, WHC, porosity, aggregate stability, and bulk
density [61]. Fredlund et al. [62] observed that the stability
and performance of the geoengineering structures like land-
fill covers, bioengineered slopes, etc., depends on the phys-
icochemical and mechanical properties of soils [63]. The
increase in the liquid limit, plastic limit, pH and moisture
content of the biochar treated soil, and decrease in the maxi-
mum dry density of ordinary soil was reported by several
researchers [64–66]. The decrease in bulk density of soil
biochar composite (SBC) is caused due to low bulk density
of biochar [59, 67]. However, the authors reported a minor
decrease in the second year of the experiment, and in the
third year, no decrease was observed in bulk density [67].
Some researchers observe that the biochar amendment to
soil increases the formation and stability of aggregates but
reduces soil strength [68–70]. In this review, the authors
introduced new biochar–soil strength reflecting index, bio-
char strength factor (BSF), a ratio of the strength of biochar
soil composite and bare soil. For example, Chan et al. [71]
found a 52% and 72% reduction in tensile strength as biochar
was added at 50 t/ha and 100 t/ha to the soil, which indicates
that the BSF at 50 t/h is 0.52 and at 100 t/h is 0.72. Reddy
et al. [64] noticed an increase in shear strength with 5%,
10%, and 20% biochar amendment to the soil; as such, the
BSF was more than unity. Zong et al. [72] experimented
13

with the effect of biochar prepared from wood chips, straw,
and wastewater sludge and reported a decrease in cohesion
and an increase in internal friction of the soil; here, the BSF
would be less than 1.
This study reviews the available literature about the
strength of biochar soil composite and other related proper-
ties. In this review, we aim to discuss (a) biochar synthesis
and pyrolysis mechanism, (b) physicochemical characteris-
tics of biochar, and (c) the influence of biochar amendment
on the strength of different types of soils in terms of BSF.
This review critically summarizes the pyrolyzing conditions
to feedstock types and their influence on physicochemical
properties, i.e., particle size, density, porosity, surface area,
strength, etc. Lastly, in this work, we have discussed the future
scope and preliminary biochar guidelines and engineered bio-
char for using biochar in geo-engineering infrastructure.
2 Biochar production and properties
2.1 Feedstock type
Forestry, agriculture, and animal wastes, including munic-
ipal solid wastes and sewage sludge, can be disposed off
by burning in the open or used in landfills. When burnt in
the open air, large quantities of gases ­(CO2, CO, NO, ­NO2,
Fig. 2  Schematic representation
of biochar amendment in soil
and their respective properties.
Reproduced with permission
from Zhang et al. [126]. License
number 5241770557572, Copy-
right Elsevier
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
­SO2) are released and create atmospheric pollution. Wastes
increase soil porosity and cause groundwater pollution as
disposed off in the landfills. Also, during microbial decom-
position, the release of harmful gases like C ­ H4, ­CO2, CO,
etc., ultimately add to the pollution of the soil and environ-
ment, causing Green house gas (GHG) emissions and, thus,
global warming [7, 73]. The unscientific disposal of these
wastes has to be avoided to take full advantage of the energy,
nutrient, and strength values and minimize the utilization
of fossil fuels. The researchers are making efforts and find-
ing ways for a cleaner, more advantageous, and economic
system under which these wastes are efficiently utilized. The
biochar production from biomass is an environment-friendly
and technology-oriented production process, which can be
used as an amendment in different fields, such as agricul-
tural, environmental, and geoengineering (Figure 2).
Material resembling biochar was found in Amazonian
basins long ago, known as Terra Preta (TP) [5, 7]. TP soils
are dark in colour and highly fertile, which is a classic exam-
ple of soil fertility and sustainability achieved by applying
pyrolysed biomass [74]. Studies suggested that Terra Preta
soils resulted from anthropogenic activities that might have
occurred intentionally or unintentionally. The fertility of
these soils has mainly been attributed to the collection of
substantial quantities of animal and plant wastes, bone resi-
dues, fire residues, etc., that are rich in pyrogenic organic
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
matter. TP soils contain large amounts of nutrients, for
instance, phosphorus (P), nitrogen (N), copper (Cu), potas-
sium (K), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca) [75], and large
percentages of stable organic soil matter [5, 7, 8].
Biochar, charcoal, and char differ from each other in the
production method, stability, porosity/WHC, nutrient avail-
ability, and use. Biochar is produced at high pyrolysis tem-
peratures, whereas charcoal is usually produced by pyrolysis
only at low temperatures of up to 300 °C. The char is pro-
duced during combustion and (not necessarily pyrolysis) in
the presence of oxygen. Due to high production temperature,
the biochar is a very stable product as compared to charcoal.
The char has the least stability. Also, the WHC and nutri-
ents are high in biochar, low in charcoal, and least in char.
Similarly, the porosity of biochar is more than charcoal and
char. Biochar is basically produced with the sole motto of
soil amendment, while charcoal and char are used as fuel.
However, all three are blackish in colour, carbonaceous in
nature, and obtained from organic raw materials, but the
carbon content is highest in biochar and least in char.
The organic matter or biomass, including agricultural,
forest, aquatic, or animal residues, includes raw materials
or feedstock for biochar production (Figure 3). The quantity
and quality of biochar depend on the percentage composition
of the constituents in biomass [26, 27, 76–78]. Feedstock
composition and chemistry help to determine the biochar
structural features. Occasionally, feedstocks contain con-
taminants that lead to the final product being heterogeneous,
making it difficult to compare different biochar types [5].
Fig. 3  Various types of feed-
stocks used for the production
of biochar
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
The feedstock being used may affect the carbon and lignin
content [79], carbon sequestration capacity, and ash content
in biochar [28, 80]. Plant biomass consists of hemicellulose,
cellulose, and lignin of approximately 40–60%, 15–30%,
and 10–25%, respectively, with some minor percentages of
inorganic but good quality volatile matter, especially water.
Cellulose is an amorphous homo-polymer made up of glu-
cose units in numerous linear bundles. Hemicellulose is an
amorphous hetero-polymer composed of polysaccharides.
However, the lignin structure is more complex and com-
prises three propyl (benzene) units [5, 7, 73].
2.2 Types of the pyrolysis process
In agriculture, adding charcoal has been practised dating
back to decades for increasing soil fertility. As defined
briefly above, the biochar and char differ in the production
method. While char is a material produced by incomplete
feedstock combustion in an open oxygen environment. Bio-
char is produced in an oxygen-deficient environment by
thermochemical conversion of biomass. Biochar has been
applied as a soil modifier in agriculture and is considered
an environmental remediation material [10, 81, 82]. On the
other hand, charcoal is also produced by thermochemical
conversion but is not necessarily from organic matter and is
used for energy purposes [5].
The biochar production process involves thermochemical
degradation of biomass under an oxygen-controlled environ-
ment called pyrolysis. Feedstocks and pyrolysis processes
13

are adopted to determine the biochar physicochemical char-
acteristics [5, 7, 83–85]. The original feedstock structure
causes an impact on the final structure of biochar, eventually
affecting the physical characteristics and the final interac-
tion of biochar with soil [5, 11, 86]. Surface area, pore size,
carbon content, and physicochemical properties of biochar
depend on the pyrolysis conditions and feedstock used to
prepare biochar [28, 87–89].
The pyrolysis process can be done in any of the following
methods:
2.2.1 Conventional pyrolysis
Conventional pyrolysis is a large-scale biochar production
method. Pyrolysis is affected by many factors, such as heat-
ing rate, residence time, and the adopted temperature, which
influence the structural and physical characteristics of bio-
char. Also, the initial treatment steps like drying and chemi-
cal activation affect the biochar structure [90]. Depending
upon the temperature, time, and rate of heating, used in the
process, conventional pyrolysis can be categorized as slow,
fast, flash, gasification, and hydrothermal carbonization.
Temperature is considered a crucial factor affecting bio-
char structure during the processing and also after the pyroly-
sis. As temperature increases, biochar yield decreases [28,
91]. Increasing the heating rate helps in the rapid volatiliza-
tion, thus increasing porosity. There is formation of a stable
matrix after the biomass decomposition, resisting the release
of volatile compounds with lowered heating rates [28, 29].
The pyrolysis process causes structural and physical changes,
including the loss of volatile components, which results in
structural shrinkage at high pyrolyzing temperatures. The
heating rate pressure used in the reaction of the pyrolysis pro-
cess influences the behaviour of the volatile matters produced
and the formation of the structure during processing [5].
Biochar production can be done on small and large
scales, ranging from small individual farms to laboratories
and industries. Various thermochemical methods are used
to synthesize biochar, including carbonization, pyrolysis,
and hydrothermal treatment [7, 24, 25]. Pyrolysis or ther-
mal cracking involves the thermal degradation of long-chain
polymer molecules into smaller and less complex molecules
Table 1  Different types of thermochemical processes
Particulars Slow Fast Flash
Temperature 400–900 °C 450–800 °C 600–1200 °C
Heating rate 0.1–10 °C/s 10–200 °C/s > 1000 °C/s
Residence time > 5 min 10–25 min < 1 min
Biochar yield 25–50% 15–25% 5–15%
Bio-oil yield 20–40% 60–25% 25–40%
Syngas yield 10–25% 10–20% 50–60%
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
without oxygen [18, 92], degrading the lignocellulose com-
ponents thermally [27] at increased pressure and temperature
(300–600 °C) [93] for a short duration. Three main products
are formed in the pyrolysis process. These include biochar (a
solid product), a volatile matter condensed to form a liquid
phase known as bio-oil, and non-condensable gases like CO,
­CO2, ­CH4, and H ­ 2 [93–95]. Pyrolysis is the most convenient
method for biochar preparation on a large scale [7, 26]. The
difference between the various pyrolysis processes lies in
the temperature, heat transfer rate, maximum temperature
and residence time, and inherent properties of biochar pro-
duced. The pyrolysis of biomass generally proceeds in the
following steps, which occurs as the temperature increases
as initial evaporation of moisture in the feedstock, followed
by rapid depolymerization and volatilization, and lastly, slow
carbonization of the feedstock [96].
Libra et al. [97] classified slow, fast, and flash pyrolysis as
dry pyrolysis. It was observed that when moderate heating
rates were used with increased residence time, high amounts
of gas and vapours (around 30–35%) are liberated, and good
quantity char (20–40%) was produced [97, 98]. In Table 1,
brief descriptions of the process parameters of each pyroly-
sis process are given as under:
i. Fast pyrolysis
  In fast pyrolysis, the biomass is burned in the
absence of oxygen at higher temperatures and heat-
ing rates. As a result, 60–70% of the liquid product,
(biofuels) with 15–25% solid residues (biochar), and
10–20% gaseous products (syngas), are produced
depending upon the conditions adopted for the
process, and biomass used [27, 99]. Fast pyrolysis
involves rapid heating of the feedstock and cooling
of the vapours generated rapidly [97]. The biochar
obtained has high oxygen content at high heating
rates, resulting from the short residence time [87,
100].
ii. Flash pyrolysis
  This process, as carried out, gives solid, liquid, and
gaseous products. The temperature ranges from 400
to 1000 °C, with a 900–1300 °C/min heating rate.
The residence time is less than 2 s. Consequently, a
Hydrothermal Torrefaction Solar Gasification
180–220 °C 200–300 °C 150–2000 °C 600–1800 °C
< 10 °C/min < 50 °C/min 5–450 °C/s -
1–72 h 30 min to hours - Seconds to minutes
10–25% 80% 8–29% 10%
68–75% 0% 25–78% 5%
3–9% 20% 1.4–63% 85%
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
minimal quantity of biochar is produced [7]. The pro-
cess is an advanced technology that thermochemically
converts biomass to biochar. The main product in the
process is bio-oil and is obtained in large amounts
with low water content at 70% conversion efficiencies
[96, 99, 101]. For obtaining a high heating and heat
transfer rate, the particle size of feedstock has to be
very small [96, 102].
iii. Slow pyrolysis
Slow pyrolysis processes involve a relatively long vapour
residence time and low heating rates, which are critical pro-
cess parameters used to generate charcoal many years ago
[87, 103]. The peak temperature, pressure, vapour residence,
and moisture content are several variables that have been
identified as factors playing a critical role in the process
[87, 98]. The highest temperature reached in the process is
known as the peak temperature. An increase in temperature
reduces the biochar yield. The temperatures vary from 300
to 500 °C. Temperature affects the surface area and pore size
distribution of the synthesized biochar [87].
Slow pyrolysis is known as the primary pyrolysis process
to produce a higher biochar yield [93]. In a typical slow
pyrolysis process, the three end products (biochar, bio-oil,
and syngas) are roughly distributed in the same ratio. Slow
pyrolysis carried out at around 300 °C temperature; is also
known as Torrefaction. On the other hand, if the tempera-
tures are raised to 300–900 °C; the process is known as car-
bonization [104].
2.2.2 Gasification
Gasification is a process that converts the organic material to
biochar at a high temperature (>800 °C) without combustion
[97]. It is thermochemical processing in which the feedstock
is converted to a non-condensable gas at a high temperature
(>800 °C) [87, 103, 105]. The use of air leads to partial
combustion to generate a combustible gas (syngas) [87]. The
gaseous product mainly contains a mixture of H ­ 2, CO, ­CO2,
and ­CH4, which can be used as syngas. In the process, there
is production of a small amount of char [87]. Large gasifiers
are set up for economic purposes so that a large amount of
char can be obtained at reasonable costs. One of the products
that are obtained in the process is tar. However, the conden-
sation of tar on chars has to be avoided in this process to
form polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs).
2.2.3 Torrefaction
It is also referred to as mild pyrolysis or low-temperature
pyrolysis. The biomass is heated at temperatures varying
between 200 °C and 300 °C for a time-varying between 30
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
min to hours. [93, 103, 106]. The heating rate is low (<50
°C/min). It is generally used as a pre-treatment method to
ensure complete drying to make the grinding easy. In this
way, feed transfer to the pyrolysis reactor is improved [96].
2.2.4 Hydrothermal carbonization
In this process, feedstocks are surrounded by water and
allowed to rise with the help of steam pressure in high-
pressure reactors. The temperature in the process is raised
to 180–220 °C, and pressure is kept between 20 and 25 bars
with residence time from 1 h to 72 h [57]. The percentage
of gases produced is less. However, when the temperature is
raised to 400 °C, and catalysts are used; more liquid hydro-
carbons and more gases are formed. This process has gained
more attention and organic solvents are used in the liquefac-
tion work rather than water [97, 107]. A high quantity of
biochar is achieved at low temperatures, lower heating rates,
and longer retention time [27]. The more extended periods
of the production process may cause an increase in the cost
of energy consumption which is a matter of concern. Hydro-
thermal carbonization is further classified as liquefaction
and vaporization (supercritical water gasification).
2.2.5 Microwave‑assisted pyrolysis (MAP)
Microwave-assisted pyrolysis (MAP) is the recent and
modern pyrolysis type, which involves less capital and pro-
duction cost, with better bio-oil and biochar production. In
addition, the heating is more targeted, and the temperature
and output are uniform [73, 108]. MAP is considered time,
energy, and quality efficient than conventional and vacuum
pyrolysis [73, 109–111]. However, there is a limitation to
using electric energy compared to solar pyrolysis, but it has
the advantage that it can be used in any weather. Also, some
raw materials are not microwaved sensitive and need absor-
bents while using a microwave reactor.
2.2.6 Vacuum pyrolysis
In conventional pyrolysis, an inert medium is made by
pumping nitrogen (N) or argon (Ar) into the reactor. On
the other hand, in this method, the vacuum pump is used
to remove gases from inside the reactor to create an inert
atmosphere (0.5 to 50 kPa) with a temperature of 400–600
°C [73, 112–114]. In vacuum pyrolysis, less pressure, less
energy, and less temperature are required for charring
[73, 115, 115]. Also, in this type of pyrolysis, the cost
of production is low with high-quality biochar. However,
the literature has cited shortcomings for vaccum pyroly-
sis including the polycyclic macromolecular compounds
concentrating the bio-oils obtained [73, 116]. As such, the
13

raw fuel needs further treatment. Also, the reactor needs a
proper design to prevent the burning of raw materials [73].
2.2.7 Solar pyrolysis
The process is environmental friendly and is carried
out without any external heating source (neither elec-
tricity nor fossil fuels). However, the reactor used
for solar pyrolysis is costly and complicated. It runs
with solar energy at the temperature ranging from
150 to 2000 °C and a heating rate of 5–450 °C/s [73,
117–119]. The yield ranges as biochar 8–29%, bio-fuel
25–78%, and syngas 1.4–63%, governed by tempera-
ture [73]. The drawbacks of solar pyrolysis are that the
initial setup is costly, continuous operation is not easy,
and control of the pyrolysis conditions is different.
2.3 Mechanism of pyrolysis
In pyrolysis, the degradation of biomass occurs by the
breakdown of larger and complex molecules into sim-
pler and smaller ones. The products include biochar
(solid part), bio-oils (the liquid part, which includes
tars, hydrocarbons, and water), and syngas (gases like
CO, ­CO 2, ­C 2H 2, ­C 2H 4, ­C 2H 6, ­C 6H 6, and water vapours).
The quantity and quality of these products are deter-
mined by the pyrolysis conditions, i.e., temperature,
heating rate, residence time, and the feedstock (type
and size).
As explained above, the biomass is basically composed
of cellulose, hemicellulose, and lignin. The cellulose and
hemicellulose break down prior to lignin, i.e., at lower
temperatures (slow pyrolysis), into volatile form, which
condenses to char. Lignin breaks at higher temperatures.
By increasing the temperature further (fast pyrolysis), the
volatile gases are released to get a very smaller time inter-
val for depolymerization and are mostly converted into liq-
uid with less char. At higher temperatures (gasification),
the volatile compounds are mostly released as gases with
a very low quantity of solid and liquid parts. The thermal
degradation mechanism takes place in a concurrent and
consecutive manner.
The pyrolysis reaction mechanism involves the evapora-
tion of moisture from the feedstock, which usually takes
place at 100–150 °C, followed by the devolatilization and
release of heavy compounds (cresol, phenol, leviglucosin,
etc.) [73, 120–122]. Decomposition of hemicellulose takes
place at almost 180–285 °C and cellulose at around 365 °C.
The lignin is more complex, and its degradation occurs at
around 1000 °C [73, 123].
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
2.4 Physicochemical properties of biochar
2.4.1 pH
The pH of biochar significantly depends on pyrolyzing tem-
perature; for example, biochar synthesized at high tempera-
ture produces high ash content, due to which H and O ele-
ments are reduced and aromatic structure increases, resulting
in high pH of biochar. In short, higher pyrolysis temperature
results in a high pH of biochar [45–48], even though some
researchers have reported otherwise. For example, with
wastewater sludge biochar, Hossain et al. [124] reported that
biochar synthesized at more than 450 °C possesses high pH
(> 7). Previous studies reported the alkaline nature of the
biochar, which was prepared at high pyrolysis temperature,
whereas some studies reported its acidic nature, specifically
biochar prepared from oak wood, corn stover, wheat straw,
wastewater sludge, etc. [49, 50, 124, 125]. Zhang et al. [126]
have summarized that biochar synthesized at 300 °C and 400
°C are slightly acidic in nature, whereas synthesized at 700
°C have pH more than 7. Besides, studies by Nguyen et al.
and Zhang et al. [49, 125] have reported the acidic nature
of biochar produced at 350 to 600 °C. In addition, litera-
ture shows that the alkaline nature of biochar at high tem-
peratures is caused because of the loss of acidic functional
groups [44] and Ca, Mg, Na, K-bearing oxide, hydroxide,
and carbonate mineral phases [127]. In addition, low-tem-
perature produced biochar has more easily decomposable
volatile material, which can be used as fertilizers [128, 129].
2.4.2 Surface area and porosity
Increasing the temperature in the pyrolysis process leads
to an increase in the surface area of biochar and porosity,
which may be due to the decomposition of organic matter
and micropore formation [47, 126, 130, 131]. In Figure 4,
Zhang et al. [126] summarized that carbonization retains
micro-porosity in biochars, thus, resulting in increased
surface area and porosity. It was observed that when tem-
peratures was reached greater than 650 °C, biochar became
hydrophobic and thermally stable [47, 132]. Rafiq et al.
[133] observed that increasing the temperature in the pyroly-
sis process drives off the pore blocking substances or cracks
them thermally, thus increasing the surface area accessible
externally. Similarly, Ahmad et al. [134] reported that soy-
bean stover biochar and pine needles biochar synthesized at
700 °C have surface areas of 420.33 ­m2/g and 390.52 ­m2/g,
which are significantly higher than those synthesized at 300
°C, surface area of 5.61 ­m2/g and 4.09 ­m2/g, respectively. In
contrast, it was observed that biochars obtained from poul-
try litter (17.7 ­m2/g) [44], cottonseed hull (4.7 ­m2/g) [135],
and dairy manure (13.0 m ­ 2/g) [127] had low specific surface
area and ash contents [47]. Besides, biochar obtained at high
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
Fig. 4  Morphological images of various biochar synthesized at dif-
ferent temperatures (a) mesquite wood chip biochar synthesized at
850 °C, (b) mixed food waste (40%) and wood (60%) biochar pyro-
lysed at 850 °C, (c) wood chip biochar synthesized at 850 °C, and
temperatures has (due to a high surface area), high adsorp-
tion power and function as environment contaminant reme-
diators and carbon sequesters [136]. In contrast, excessive
heating of feedstock during pyrolysis may result in volatili-
zation of organic compounds, with blockage of pore spaces
and reduction of the surface area [52, 53]. The temperature
to acquire the optimum surface area is also not discussed
in literature except Chia et al. [137] and Ramola et al. [77],
who suggest that the optimum temperature is about 800 °C
and 900 °C, and 500 °C, respectively.
2.4.3 Elemental composition and functional groups
The elemental composition of biochar is the basis of aro-
matic biochar structure. C, H, N, and O are the main con-
stituents of biochar [126]. Besides this, main elements, Ca,
Mg, Fe, S, Si, P, K, Zn, Cu, etc., are also present in biochar
depending on feedstocks [138]. Depending on pyrolysis
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
(d) dairy manure biochar synthesized at 600 °C. Reproduced with
permission from Zhang et al. [126]. License number 5241770557572,
Copyright Elsevier
temperature, H and O elements decrease with increased
temperature [139, 140]. Various functional groups, such as
–OH, –COOH, –C=O, and –COOR are present on biochar
surface, which mainly determine cation exchange capacity,
electro-kinetic potential, and alkaline biological carbon.
In addition, functional groups associated with biochar
also determine hydrophobic or hydrophilic surface and
acidic or alkaline conditions. Zhang et al. [126] summa-
rized that pyrolyzing temperature governs the functional
groups associated with biochar surface. For example, at
250–350 °C, functional groups are significantly reduced
due to decarboxylation and esterification, which reduce the
carboxyl content and increase the hydroxyl content [126,
141, 142]. At higher temperatures (500–700 °C), aroma-
ticity increases on biochar surfaces, and alcohol groups
are converted to phenolic hydroxyl groups, resulting in
an increase in the content of functional groups on biochar
surfaces [143, 144].
13

2.4.4 Cation exchange capacity
CEC denotes the total cations adsorbed on the biochar
surface, mainly determined by pyrolysis temperature and
feedstocks [126]. As stated above, biochar synthesis at high
temperatures governs carboxyl functional groups and carbon
oxidation. The electro-kinetic potential of biochar had nega-
tive values as pH value increased; therefore, the dissocia-
tion of functional groups in solution increased the negative
value on the biochar surface, resulting in increased cation
exchange capacity [145–147].
3 Engineered biochar
3.1 Physical activation
The activation of biochar involves activation of its surface
texture or structure by physical or chemical means. The acti-
vation makes the substance more active to use as a catalyst.
The physical activation involves an increase in the sur-
face area and porosity by physical means so that it has more
adsorption capacity for heavy metals, i.e., removing more
contaminants [148]. Some of the processes for physical acti-
vation include using steam and allowing ­CO2 to pass through
biochar or a combination of both.
3.1.1 Steam
The steam removes any volatile matter present in the sub-
stance and thus increases the adsorption area. The process
temperature usually ranges from 200 to 800 °C for about 0.5
to 1 h at a heating rate of 10 °C/min, during which meso- and
micro-pores are formed on the biochar surface [148–151].
As a result, the biochar polarity reduced and aromaticity
increased [152].
3.1.2 CO2
Here instead of steam, ­CO2 is allowed to pass through the
biochar at 200–900 °C, which creates meso and micro-pores
without being reactive by itself (or is significantly less reac-
tive) but enhances the oxidation reaction for a very porous
biochar production [148, 153]. Even though the research-
ers have not obtained any major difference in the activation
using steam or ­CO2 [148, 154], some have advocated using
steam as a better option than ­CO2 [148].
3.2 Chemical activation
The physical method is environment friendly but costly and
time-consuming as activation time, and temperature are
more [73, 155]. In the physical method, the activation is
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
done by steam or C ­ O2 [73, 156]. In comparison, the chemi-
cal activation is done by treating the biochar with alkali
chemicals such as NaOH, KOH, NaOH + KOH [73, 111,
157, 158] or acids like H
­ 3PO4, ­ZnCl2 [73, 159, 160], or salts
­(Na2CO3, ­K2CO3) [73, 161, 162]. The chemical treatment
involves three main steps. First, the biochar is activated with
mixing and stirred with the chemical reagent with a proper
ratio (to allow complete mixing) for a pre-determined time
[73, 163, 164]. The material is then properly filtered and
dried in an oven to remove all moisture. Finally, the material
is subjected to pyrolysis at 400–700 °C [73, 165]. The Engi-
neered Activated Biochar (EAB) obtained has high porosity
and BET surface area, which is finally washed with HCl or
NaOH and then with the water to neutralize and remove any
traces of the chemical used for activation.
Biochar engineering helps to achieve the properties of
biochar that are useful for the specific application and can
help enhance the properties that help make the biochar and
the BAS more useable and active. EAB is used in many
fields, as given below:
3.2.1 Adsorption of pollutants from water
EAB has been used as a pollutant absorber for household
and commercial water for decades [56, 73, 166]. However,
the EAB needs to be changed and replaced yearly, making
it costly and, when thrown away, causes environmental pol-
lution [73].
3.2.2 Catalytic support
Interest is growing in using the EAB as a catalyst because
the catalysts used for commercial purposes might be costly
[167]. The large surface area of EAB provides a fertile active
and catalytic surface for active metal ions like iron, nickel,
copper, etc. [73, 168].
3.2.3 Energy storage
EAB is used in electrodes of batteries as it has high poros-
ity and surface area [73] and can act as an active site for
charge accumulation [73, 169, 170]. An electric double-
layer capacitor can be used as an energy storage mate-
rial that is applied widely in a large number of fields. It
is characterized by fast charging, a long life cycle, high
energy, and power densities similar to conventional capac-
itors [171].
3.2.4 Gas adsorption
The oxides of nitrogen, carbon, sulphur, etc., pollute the
atmosphere and endanger human life. EAB is being adopted
to reduce the emission of air pollutants in the environment
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
[73]. Severa et al. [172] used activated biochar for gas
adsorption. ­CO2 is a greenhouse gas emitted by the burning
of fossil fuels. Thus, efforts are being made to use biochar
in various fields. For example, it is used in the construction
field to produce ready mix concrete where C ­ O2 is used to
improve the compressive strength and concrete binder [117,
173]. Also, in many cases, it has been used to grow algae
that generate renewable biodiesel [117, 174]. ­CO2 helps in
the production of biochar with high porosity from feedstock
like sludge [175], rice husk [176], and corn cob [177] by
conventional pyrolysis process [117]. There are other areas
where EAB has been used. Mohan et al. [56] focused on
removing organics, metal ions, and anions from the wastes
using chemical and biological methods. The disposal of
wastes from the dye industries posed a significant problem
as these contain large amounts of bases, acids, dissolved sol-
ids, and toxic coloured compounds. Hameed and El-Khaiary
[178] used rice straw biochar to remove malachite green (dye
from an aqueous solution). It was noticed that rice straw-
derived biochar proved to be a suitable adsorbent for the dye
removal from the solutions. It was also observed by Mohan
et al. [56] that plastics, dyes, drugs, pesticides, etc., contain
phenol compounds that pollute the water by affecting the
water at very low concentrations. Liu et al. [179] observed
that biochar derived from rice husks and corncobs has high
adsorption capacity and helped in the adsorption of phenol
and functional groups through acid-base interaction and the
binding between phenol functional groups.
4 Metal biochar interaction
The physicochemical properties of biochar, pH, C content,
CEC, porosity, specific surface area, mineral content, and
other functional groups affected the metal mobility and bio-
availability [180–182] of the treated soil. As a result, a heavy
metal activity is immobilized [180, 183–185]. In addition,
biochar is alkaline (high pH), so its electronegativity attracts
positively charged ions [134, 186, 187] which become more
active at high pH values [180, 188–190].
The high CEC of biochar releases Ca(II) and Mg(II) cati-
ons, resulting in a reaction with the metal ions on its sur-
face [180, 191], and makes its surface adsorptive for heavy
metals [192]. Literature shows that animal manure-based
biochar can cause immobilization of Cd(II) and Cu(II) more
than plant-based biochar due to their high CECs [193]. Also,
functional groups like (–OH, –C=O, –COOH, and C=N)
and heavy metals are adsorbed on the biochar surface [180,
194–196]. Ahmad et al. [20] observed that more stable metal
complexes are formed as the concentration of carbonates,
Fe(II) or Mn(II), is more in biochar. Cao and Harris [127]
observed that metals in the soil precipitate with minerals in
biochar. Available literature [180, 183, 185, 197, 198] shows
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
that biochar’s alkaline nature reduces the acidity of the soil
and heavy metals, reduces their complexity, and helps in
their absorption by the soil [180, 199].
However, many researchers have cautioned about the
adverse effects of uncontrolled biochar amendments, which
may cause the addition of more heavy metals in biochar to
soil, impacting plant growth and polluting soil [180, 200,
201]. Several studies have reported that repeated use of
sludge-derived biochar, synthesized at low pyrolysis temper-
ature, contains heavy metals and toxic contaminants which
ultimately pollute the soil [180, 202–206], cause nitrate
leaching [180], lead to enhanced C ­ H4 emissions [207], and
cause enhancement of sulphate and dissolved organic carbon
levels in soils [180, 208–210]. Also, direct risks have been
reported as inhaling biochar dust [180, 211] and indirect
risks, such as consuming toxic substances through water or
vegetation [212]. Few other sources of heavy metal depo-
sition sources, as per available literature, have been given
below:
• Feedstock: Some feedstocks have high concentrations
of heavy metals, e.g., miscanthus [213, 214], pinewood,
bamboo, and oak [215].
• Pyrolysis temperature: As the pyrolysis temperature
increases, the heavy metal concentration increases [216].
• pH: The leaching of heavy metals increases at pH from
7 to 13 [216, 217].
• PAH: Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) are det-
rimental to plants and microorganisms as they are highly
bio-toxic. The PAH concentration has been observed to
increase with an increase in pyrolysis temperature. It was
noticed that PAH increased more in biochar produced
in fast pyrolysis than in slow pyrolysis [218]. Also, the
PAH level increased in BAS with time [219–221]. Sludge
biochar has more PAH levels [218, 219].
• Dioxins: In a study, Hale et al. [218] studied > 50 biochar
types obtained from different feedstocks like waste food,
digested milk fertilizer, pinewood, etc., and found about
130 toxic and non-toxic dioxins. Similarly, Sormo et al.
[222] observed a significant level of dioxins in food waste
biochar.
• EPFRs: Environmentally persistent free radicals (EPFR)
are produced because of the presence of transition metals
­Fe2++ from biochar residues in the environment [219,
223], and their level increases with an increase in pyroly-
sis temperature [224, 225].
• Ageing: The ageing reduces the adsorption of heavy
metals by biochar [226], pollutants of organic nature
get released and cause secondary pollution [219], and
physical decomposition of biochar because ageing
releases endogenous pollutants, i.e., heavy metals [219,
227–231].
13
 Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

• Fine-sized biochar particles: The micro and nano bio- 5.2 Soil bulk density
char particles (< 0.45 µm) can increase the release of
heavy metal ions into the medium (soil/water) [232] Biochar is a porous material, having less bulk density than
and result in pollution [219, 233–235]. soil. The bulk density is 1.5 g/cm3 for sandy soil and 1.1
g/cm3 for clayey soils. The density of biochar is higher
than that of the original biomass. As the temperature is
increased, it causes a shrinkage of the solid matrix and
5 Effect of biochar amendment on soil degree of carbonization [246]. Biochar amendment to soil
physicochemical characteristics decreases the bulk density of the SBC and increases the
porosity [23, 126, 247]. The bulk density of the SBC shall
Biochar is a fine grained, highly porous, black carbo- depend on the biochar quantity used in the soil. However,
naceous, alkaline, heterogeneous material obtained by Pratiwi and Shinogi [248], in a loam soil mixture of sand
thermochemical degradation (pyrolysis) of organic raw (42%), silt (36%), and clay (19%), suggested that the addi-
materials (feedstock). Also, the application of biochar tion of 2% biochar has no influence on the bulk density of
to soil results in changes in physicochemical properties SBC (bulk density = 1.25 g/cm3), whereas, a significant
of soil, such as pH, porosity, bulk density, water holding reduction in bulk density was observed for 4% biochar
capacity, hydraulic conductivity, soil temperature, organic addition to soil (bulk density = 1.13 g/cm3) than controlled
matter, particle size distribution, porosity, adsorption treatment soil (bulk density = 1.29 g/cm3). Similarly, Laird
capacity, structural arrangement, surface area, etc. [89, et al. [249] also reported that the bulk density of silt soil
89, 236–240]. was reduced to 1.33 g/cm3 for silt soil amended with 25 g/
kg of biochar, from 1.52 g/cm3 of controlled soil. In Fig-
ure 5, Gluba et al. [250] reported that biochar amendment
5.1 Particle size increases the bulk density of biochar-soil blends; therein,
the most significant increase was observed for <100 μm of
The particle size influences the interaction between biochar biochar fractions, and subsequently, bulk density decreases
and the soil. The particle size can be manipulated during the with increased biochar content in BAS.
pyrolysis process so that biochar can be designed accord-
ing to the requirements. Several studies reported that small
biochar particles derived from small sizes of feedstock have
higher pH values and high ash content [237, 241–243]. Sev-
eral researchers reported that biochar produced from small
cut-down feedstock has a large surface area, high sorp-
tion capacities, and increased micro-porosity. It has been
observed that to increase the mass and heat transfer rate
during pyrolysis, small particles of biomass are used with a
high heating rate, which produces fine-grained biochar. On
the contrary, at low heating rates, the produced biochar parti-
cles are large. Sangani et al. [89] observed that though some
studies addressed the impact of feedstock particle size on the
biochar characteristics, no study has been done to address
their modification effect on post pyrolysis particle size.
Moreover, Liu et al. [244] observed that biochar particles,
as used in the field, may have varying sizes and shapes than
soil particles. Application of biochar grains with varying
shapes and sizes changes interpore characteristics (shape,
size, volume, and connectivity), affecting water storage
capacity and mobility of biochar in soil. It was observed
that the biochar grain size, whether small or large, will help
in packing, and in turn, it will help in increasing the tortuos-
ity of the pore spaces in the soil. The usage of engineered
biochar and its particle size distribution may help in the
Fig. 5  Representation of bulk density of soil-biochar mixes for BAS
more efficient use of biochar in various applications [89, then unamended sandy soils with various biochar content in BAS.
244, 245]. Adopted from Gluba et al. [250]

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

5.3 Porosity the addition of biochar in the soil compared to bared soil.

Patwa et al. [251] reported that biochar amendment reduced
soil compaction; thus, porosity increases for biochar-
soil blends. Because of its porous nature, biochar has a
high water holding capacity and hydraulic conductivity
[252–254]. For example, Zhang et al. [254], in loamy clay
soil field conditions, observed that biochar amended soil
has increased soil water content (23.8%) than non-amended
soil; therefore, biochar can broadly be applied in drought-
prone regions. Kameyama et al. [255] observed an increase
in unsaturated hydraulic conductivity in biochar amended
soil. In Figure 4, porosity and surface area are directly
linked and dependent on pyrolysis temperature; the more
the pyrolysis temperature, the more surface area and poros-
ity [18, 256–258]. Rasa et al. [259] stated that soil poros-
ity changes due to biochar addition in the range of 5–10
and 25 μm. Similarly, Wang and Zhang [260] also observed
similar results with respect to soil porosity. Sun and Lu [70]
reported that the implication of biochar particles enhances
macro-porosity and meso-porosity in clay soils and biochar-
soil agglomerates stability, including the rearrangement of
soil pores distribution.
5.4 Hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity
Similar kinds of results were reported by Curaqueo et al.
[263]. However, Dong et al. [264] observed no effect on
the wet aggregate stability after biochar application. It was
observed from the literature that the addition of biochar to
soil increases the aggregate stability of coarse soil more than
fine particles [10, 261] and helps to control erosion.
5.6 Hydraulic properties
The increased porosity increases the WRC of the biochar. As
soil is amended with biochar, its increased porosity leads to
more hydraulic pathways, resulting in increased infiltration
and allowing water to be held in the soil, increasing available
plant water and vegetation, and reducing erosion problems
[238, 250, 265]. In Figure 6, Gluba et al. [250] reported that
biochar amendment in sandy soils increases available water
content for unamended soil. Significant increases in the
available water content (AWCs) were observed for various
biochar fractions; however, AWCs decreased with increased
biochar content in BAS [250, 265, 266]. Several studies
observed an increase in the unsaturated hydraulic conductiv-
ity. When 5% and 10% biochar amendment was done in clay
soils, it was noticed that there was an increase in hydraulic
conductivity [247, 255, 261, 267, 268]. Zhang et al. [269]

Hydrophobicity affects the plant water uptake, WHC, and

microbial interactions. The biochar produced at low temper-
atures is hydrophilic, but increasing the residence time in the
pyrolysis process can reduce the hydrophilicity of biochar
[19]. Hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity of biochar depend
on the surface characteristics and functional groups of the
biochar [252]. The temperature in the pyrolysis process
increases, and the surface functionality of biochar is said
to decrease. The increase in the temperature of the produc-
tion process increases the WHC properties of the material.
The surface area and the functional groups are functions of
pyrolysis parameters, and hydrophobicity and hydrophilic-
ity are directly dependent on these two properties. Patwa
et al. [251], while working on saturated biochar-soil mixes,
reported that hydrophilic and hydrophobic networks of bio-
char induce the separation distance between soil particles,
resulting in a decrease in the electrostatic force of attraction
and a drop in cohesion forces.

5.5 Aggregate stability

Aggregates are the materials that help to increase soil

strength and fertility by reducing soil erosion, adjusting per-
meability, and water infiltration. The stability of these aggre-
gates affects the soil’s physical properties, such as soil infil-
tration and erosion [261, 262]. Herath et al. [261] observed Fig. 6  Available water content in biochar-soil blends for BAS then
that the stability of the aggregates in BAS increased with unamended sandy soils. Adopted from Gluba et al. [250]

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.


observed that the saturated hydraulic conductivity decreased
as fine biochar particles were used to amend soil compared
to coarse biochar particles. It was noticed that the hydrau-
lic conductivity and infiltration decreased in coarse soils.
The water retention properties are affected by void ratio and
suction, amongst other parameters. Biochar produced has
hydrophobic properties; there will be a decreased infiltra-
tion and WHC. Increased WHC of BAS reduces the crack-
ing intensity of soil. Biochar particle size is less than soil;
the capillarity increases as smaller biochar particles fill the
soil pores. This increases suction in the pore spaces of SBC
and thus increases WRC. However, the contradictory results
in the literature about the biochar’s effect on the hydraulic
conductivity of soils show that an in-depth investigation
is required. Many researchers observed a decrease in the
hydraulic conductivity as the soil was treated with biochar
[268, 270–273], whereas some observed no effect [10, 42,
249, 274]. Several investigations are being conducted on
idea laboratory and field conditions on samples with distinct
types of biochar and soil. A comparison of the experimental
and material conditions is difficult.
5.7 Strength of BAS
5.7.1 Tensile strength
Compared to the shear and compressive strength, lesser
studies have been conducted to understand the effect of
biochar amendment on the tensile strength of biochar-soil
mixes. Biochar addition to soil increases the organic carbon
which alters the interaction between the soil particles, pro-
motes micro-crack formation in the soil and reduces tensile
strength. The modifications of soil porosity may also be
considered as a factor that reduces tensile strength in BAS.
Chan et al. [68] used the biochar prepared from green waste
biomass (a mixture of plant pruning, grass clippings, and
cotton trash) produced at 450 °C in a pyrolysis plant (BEST
Energies, Australia). It was noticed that biochar obtained
from green waste decreased the tensile strength of the soil,
(classified as Alfisol), when amended with 50 t h­ a−1 and 100
t ­ha−1 biochar. Khademalrasoul et al. [275] investigated that
biochar amendment in the soil increases tensile strength,
characterized by X-ray visualization. Zong et al. [72] evalu-
ated the tensile strength of soils amended with biochar
made from wheat straw, wood chips, and waste sludge. It
was observed that the tensile strength of the soil reduces
with an increase in the biochar content. Soil amended with
waste sludge biochar was observed to possess the highest
tensile strength [72]. It is generally believed that biochar will
enhance non-cohesiveness, leading to lower tensile resist-
ance. Recently, Patwa et al. [251] observed thermal con-
ductivity and volumetric heat capacity of biochar amended
soil, i.e., in clayey sand soil, which significantly reduced
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
by 22% and 16% for hardwood biochar, 29% and 24% for
water hyacinth, and 33% and 26% for sugarcane bagasse
biochar, respectively. This study states that biochar particles
significantly govern the heat transfer mechanisms in biochar
amended soil. Similar results were reported by Zhang et al.
[276]. However, further research is required to understand
how and what effect moisture content has on the efficiency
of biochar in amending tensile strength. As discussed earlier,
meniscus water sorption at the surface of biochar through
its hydrophilic functional groups or porous structure can
enhance suction and, hence, the tensile strength of biochar
amended soils. Such mechanisms are yet to be investigated
for biochar and soil of varying particle size and compaction
states.
5.7.2 Compressive and shear strength of BAS
Kumar et al. [277] observed contrasting effects on the shear
strength of lean clay amended with biochars produced from
wood feedstock and pig manure. Biochar from wood feed-
stock enhanced shear strength, while pig manure influenced
negatively. There was an increase in frictional angle and a
reduction in the cohesion of loam clay due to the presence
of biochar. Higher angularity and sharp edges of wood bio-
char may be a possible reason that increases the frictional
angle and enhances inter-locking amongst lean soil-biochar
particles.
On the other hand, biochar produced from pig manure
was reported to possess neither high porosity nor angularity.
Hence, the shape of biochar particles can be highly crucial
in determining the shear strength of the soil. The cohesion-
less nature of biochar reduces the natural cohesive nature
of lean clay during mixing [277]. Reddy et al. [64] focused
on the effect of biochar particle size on the shear strength
of silty clay. It was found from their study that for a given
biochar content (5%), there is an optimum particle size (<
0.42 mm) that provides maximum cohesion (41.4 kPa).
However, frictional angle (46.3°) was found to be maxi-
mum under biochar content of 20% and particle size of less
than 2 mm. Under this condition, cohesion was found to be
20 kPa. For a given particle size, cohesion reduces while
frictional angle increases with biochar content. Therefore,
the study observed impacts of biochar application on cohe-
sion and frictional angle could vary considerably depending
on the relative size of soil particles, biochar particles, and
amendment ratio. A possible mechanism is likely due to the
filling of pores and the shape of biochar particles, which
may influence the inter-locking mechanism. Surface func-
tional groups of biochar and porosity could also influence
shear strength parameters under an unsaturated state. Water
can be absorbed on biochar surface (i.e., enhancing menis-
cus water), likely enhancing unsaturated shear strength.
Hydrophobic biochar groups could repel water away from
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
its surface, enhancing bulk water and possibly reducing
strength. Such mechanisms may differ with soil type and
biochar functional groups and shape. Further studies are
needed to reveal a complex mechanism of soil-biochar-water
interaction in an unsaturated state.
5.7.3 Cyclic shear strength of BAS
Most of the geotechnical application of biochar is confined
to clayey soil, which indicates the biochar mixed with clayey
soil increases the shear strength and the volumetric strain of
the expansive clay soil. The biochar mixed clay soil can be
used as landfills on slopes [64, 278, 279]. However, limited
studies have been carried out to understand the behaviour
of cohesion-less soil mixed with biochar, more specifically
under cyclic loading conditions. Pardo et al. [279] suggested
that adding 0 to 5% biochar by weight in sandy soil with D50
= 0.81 increases the cyclic resistance of the sand. Naik et al.
[280] reported that adding 3 to 10% biochar to fine sand (D50
= 0.20) increases the number of cycles required for lique-
faction, increasing the cyclic strength of the fine sand. The
increase in shear resistance of sandy soil with the addition
of biochar may be due to the addition of active chemicals
inside the pore spaces of soil and biochar, along with the
hydrophilic and hydrophobic nature of biochar. This interac-
tion may create a complex network between water and bio-
char, delaying the pore water pressure development within
the soil due to cyclic loading and providing an improved
shear resistance. Nevertheless, the mechanism involved is
poorly understood. It is required to understand the effect of
particle size of both soil and biochar in the cyclic behaviour
of cohesion-less soil, the role of the preparation method of
biochar, and its type in improving soil properties.
5.7.4 Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of BAS
The UCS of soil is used for calculating unconsolidated
and undrained shear strength. The unconfined compressive
strength is the load at which an unconfined soil sample fails
in the axial compression test. Factors of cohesion, inter-
nal friction, and aggregate formation determine the shear
strength [278, 281]. The cohesion decreases between the soil
particles as they dry up and increases due to particle inter-
locking and capillarity. The functional groups in the form of
electrostatic and electromagnetic forces play a more critical
role in the cohesion of particles; the more the forces, the
more cohesion [282]. The biochar particles have a high con-
centration of these functional groups and increase the cohe-
sion between the particles in SBC. Patwa et al. [251] stated
that the specific surface area of biochar governs the UCS of
soil, as fine, medium, and coarse biochar fractions possess
a UCS value of 201.30 kPa, 205.44 kPa, and 193.09 kPa,
respectively, for 5% biochar content in biochar-soil mixes.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Similar trends were observed for 10% and 15% biochar
content in biochar-soil blends due to higher specific surface
area possessed by finer biochar fractions than medium and
coarser fractions.
Similarly, Sadasivam and Reddy [278] worked on bare
soil and 10% SBC at 15% moisture content with a direct
shear test at 24-kPa, 48-kPa, and 96-kPa normal stresses and
observed that SBC had higher values of cohesion and inter-
nal friction than bare soil. Besides this, Patwa et al. [251]
observed that compaction in biochar-soil mixes reduces
thermal conductivity and UCS of soil. In addition, Patwa
et al. [251] also reported that the UCS value of BAS for high
plastic silt decreases with increased biochar amendment,
whereas it increases for clayey soils with increase in bio-
char amendment, in which UCS increases due to enhanced
friction between BAS and biochar particles
6 Effect of biochar amendment on strength
for different types of soils and biochar
strength factor (BSF)
Applying biochar to soil results in changes in shear strength,
unconfined compressive strength, tensile strength, and cyclic
shear strength. A new index, the biochar strength factor
(BSF), has been proposed in Table 2. BSF is the ratio of the
strength of soil-biochar mix with respect to bare soil. BSF
value greater than one implies that strength has improved
with the addition of biochar, while BSF less than one implies
a reduction in strength due to the addition of biochar. Some
of the available literature data about the strength of biochar
amended soils has been discussed in Table 2 in terms of
biochar strength factor (BSF) with a summary of biochar
amended soil’s compressive, shear, and tensile strength.
Biochar strength factor (BSF) was also estimated for a few
experiments in the literature. There are relatively more
studies on soil compressive and shear strength than tensile
strength. As observed in Table 2, various studies [72, 277,
281] have analysed soil shear strength with and without bio-
char. BSF was found to vary significantly from as low as
0.25 (for silty sand) to as high as 2.97 (i.e., lean clay).
Xu et al. [285] conducted shear strength tests of pure clay
amended with wheat straw biochar under different consoli-
dation pressures (50 kPa, 100 kPa, 200 kPa, and 400 kPa). It
was observed that the biochar increased the shear strength of
clay in most cases, i.e., BSF is greater than one, except for an
amendment ratio of 20% where strength reduced, indicating
BSF was less than unity for the biochar amendment of 20%.
It was noticed that the BSF value reduces with an increase
in consolidation pressure. It implies that the effect of biochar
on the increase in strength may be more visible at shallower
depths of soil than at deeper depths. BSF was highest at a
consolidation pressure of 50 kPa and biochar content of 5%.
13
 Table 2  Summary of compressive, shear and tensile strength of biochar amended soils, and proposed “biochar strength factor” (soil-biochar mix/bare soil)
Study Soil type Biochar parameters UCS (kPa) Shear strength Tensile BSF
parameters strength

13
(kPa)
Sand Silt Clay Coarse/ Soil type Biochar Feedstock type Pyrolysis Particle size c (kPa) Φ (°) Mohr–Cou-
fine content (%) tempera- of biochar lomb strength
content ture (mm) (at 1-m depth)

[281] 2 45 54 0.02 Expansive 0 - - - - 6 15 11.3 - -

clay
10 Wood 400 °C <2 4.2 20.3 11.5 - 1.02
10 Pig manure 400 °C <2 5.3 14.3 10.3 - 0.91
[277] 0 45 55 0 Lean clay 0 - - - 1.5 12.8 6.0 - -
5 Wood 400 °C < 0.25 4.5 18.62 11.2 - 1.85
5 Wood 400 °C 0.25- 2 2.6 16.17 8.3 - 1.39
10 Wood 400 °C < 0.25 12.7 14.69 17.9 - 2.97
10 Wood 400 °C 0.25–2 6.98 12.98 11.5 - 1.91
5 Pig manure 400 °C < 0.25 1.6 11.8 5.7 - 0.95
5 Pig manure 400 °C 0.25- 2 1.59 10.1 5.1 - 0.85
10 Pig manure 400 °C < 0.25 1.9 7.16 4.4 - 0.73
10 Pig manure 400 °C 0.25- 2 1.7 6.50 3.9 - 0.65
[283] 87 - 13 6.69 Silty sand 0 - - < 4.76 0 34 51 - -
6 Wood 550 < 4.76 1.06 32 52 1.02
10 Wood 550 < 4.76 1.5 31 58 1.12
[284] 20 44 36 0.4 Clayey silt 0 - - - 114 -
Clayey silt 15 Wet sugarcane 500 < 0.3 165 - - - 1.44
Baggase
Clayey silt 20 Wet sugarcane 500 < 0.3 248 - - - 2.17
Baggase
Clayey silt 25 Wet sugarcane 500 < 0.3 229 - - - 2.0
Baggase
[72] 26 30.7 43.3 0.35 Expansive 0 - 500 - 14.3 20.8 21.8 937 -
clay
2 Wheat straw 500 > 2 (48%) 10.8 23 19.3 860 0.91 (T)
< 2 (52%) 0.88 (S)
4 Wheat straw 500 > 2 (48%) 10.6 25 19.9 745 0.79 (T)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

< 2 (52%) 0.91 (S)
6 Wheat straw 500 > 2 (48%) 9.7 26.5 19.6 458 0.48 (T)
< 2 (52%) 0.89 (S)
2 Wood chips 500 < 0.25 5.1 23.5 13.8 785 0.83 (T)
0.63 (S)
4 Wood chips 500 < 0.25 4.9 26.7 14.9 680 0.72 (T)
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

0.68 (S)
 Table 2  (continued)
Study Soil type Biochar parameters UCS (kPa) Shear strength Tensile BSF
parameters strength
(kPa)
Sand Silt Clay Coarse/ Soil type Biochar Feedstock type Pyrolysis Particle size c (kPa) Φ (°) Mohr–Cou-
fine content (%) tempera- of biochar lomb strength
content ture (mm) (at 1-m depth)

6 Wood chips 500 < 0.25 5.3 27 15.49 495 0.52 (T)
0.70 (S)
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

2 Waste sludge 500 > 2 (84%) 8.7 22 16.78 905 0.96 (T)
< 2 (16%) 0.76 (S)
4 Waste sludge 500 > 2 (84%) 7.5 24.5 16.6 835 0.89 (T)
< 2 (16%) 0.75 (S)
6 Waste sludge 500 > 2 (84%) 4.5 25.4 14 659 0.70 (T)
< 2 (16%) 0.63 (S)
[71] - - - - Clay enriched 0 - - <2 64.4 -
with Fe and
Al
10 (t/ha) Plant waste 450 <2 69.2 1.07
50 Plant waste 450 <2 31.7 0.45
(t/ha)
100 Plant waste 450 <2 18.8 0.59
(t/ha)
[66] 1.5 98.5 1.5 Highly plastic 0 - - 149 - - - - -
clay
5 Pine - > 0.84 165 - - - - 1.10
and < 2.38
10 Pine - > 0.84 200 - - - - 1.34
and < 2.38
20 Pine - > 0.84 178 - - - - 1.19
and < 2.38
30 Pine - > 0.84 110 - - - - 0.73
and < 2.38
5 Pine - < 0.84 205 - - - - 1.37
10 Pine - < 0.84 215 - - - - 1.44
20 Pine - < 0.84 190 - - - - 1.27

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

30 Pine - < 0.84 155 - - - - 1.04
*[285] 0 0 100 0 Clay 0 - - 0.1 - - - 40 - -
2.5 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 70 1.74
5 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 79 - 1.95
10 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 64 - 1.6

13
 Table 2  (continued)
Study Soil type Biochar parameters UCS (kPa) Shear strength Tensile BSF
parameters strength

13
(kPa)
Sand Silt Clay Coarse/ Soil type Biochar Feedstock type Pyrolysis Particle size c (kPa) Φ (°) Mohr–Cou-
fine content (%) tempera- of biochar lomb strength
content ture (mm) (at 1-m depth)

20 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 15 - 0.37

**[285] 0 0 100 0 Clay 0 0.1 - - - 80 - -
2.5 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 101 - 1.26
5 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 120 - 1.5
10 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 109 - 1.36
20 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 55 - 0.68
***[285] 0 0 100 0 Clay 0 0.1 - - - 145 - -
2.5 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 165 - 1.13
5 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 178 - 1.22
10 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 150 - 1.03
20 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 115 - 0.79
**** 0 0 100 0 Clay 0 0.1 - - - 260 -
[285]
2.5 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 275 - 1.05
5 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 286 1.1
10 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 254 0.96
20 Wheat straw 500 0.1 - - - 185 0.71
[286] 27 73 0.37 Highly com- 0 - - 200 - - - - -
pressible
clay
5 Prosopis juliflora 500 < 4.75 (55%) 405 - - - - 1.97
< 2 (40%)
< 0.075
(5%)
10 Prosopis juliflora 500 510 - - - - 2.48
[64] 8.3 58.6 33 0.09 Silty clay 0 - - - - - 6.2 24.9 - -
5 Wood pellets 520 <2 - - 22.8 29.7 -
10 Wood pellets 520 <2 - - 17.9 36.5 -

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

20 Wood pellets 520 <2 - - 20 46.3 -
100 Wood pellets 520 <2 - - 51.7 42.8 -
5 Wood pellets 520 < 0.42 - - 41.4 29.4 -
10 Wood pellets 520 < 0.42 - - 7.6 34.7 -
20 Wood pellets 520 < 0.42 - - 11.7 35 -
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
 Table 2  (continued)
Study Soil type Biochar parameters UCS (kPa) Shear strength Tensile BSF
parameters strength
(kPa)
Sand Silt Clay Coarse/ Soil type Biochar Feedstock type Pyrolysis Particle size c (kPa) Φ (°) Mohr–Cou-
fine content (%) tempera- of biochar lomb strength
content ture (mm) (at 1-m depth)

5 Wood pellets 520 < 0.84 - - 12.4 28.2 -

10 Wood pellets 520 < 0.84 - - 14.5 35.8 -
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

20 Wood pellets 520 < 0.84 - - 31 41.7 -

[287]-12% 51 28 21 1.04 Silty sand 0 - - 370 - - - - -
MC
5 Water hyacinth 390 <2 140 - - - - 0.38
10 Water hyacinth 390 <2 130 - - - - 0.35
5 Poultry litter 450 <2 290 - - - - 0.78
10 Poultry litter 450 <2 95 - - - - 0.25
5 Saw dust 530 <2 215 - - - - 0.58
10 Saw dust 530 <2 160 - - - - 0.43
5 Peanut shell 510 <2 330 - - - - 0.89
10 Peanut shell 510 <2 320 - - - - 0.96
[287]-17% 51 28 21 1.04 Silty sand 0 - - 175 - - - - -
MC
5 Water hyacinth 390 <2 125 - - - - 0.71
10 Water hyacinth 390 <2 95 - - - - 0.54
5 Poultry litter 450 <2 170 - - - - 0.97
10 Poultry litter 450 <2 75 - - - - 0.42
5 Saw dust 530 <2 140 - - - - 0.8
10 Saw dust 530 <2 130 - - - - 0.74
5 Peanut shell 510 <2 150 - - - - 0.85
10 Peanut shell 510 <2 145 - - - - 0.82
[287]-22% 51 28 21 1.04 Silty sand 0 - - 105 - - - - -
MC
5 Water hyacinth 390 <2 70 - - - - 0.66
10 Water hyacinth 390 <2 65 - - - - 0.61

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

5 Poultry litter 450 <2 80 - - - - 0.76
10 Poultry litter 450 <2 70 - - - - 0.66
5 Saw dust 530 <2 55 - - - - 0.52
10 Saw dust 530 <2 30 - - - - 0.28
5 Peanut shell 510 <2 60 - - - - 0.57

13
 Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery

Yang and Lu [13] used five different types of biochar pre-

BSF pared using rice straw, wheat straw, maize straw, rice husk,

0.55
and bamboo. These feedstocks were pyrolysed in a large-
scale reactor for 3 h at 550 °C. Biochar amendment was used
in well-drained paddy soils developed in alluvial deposits.
strength
Tensile

(kPa)

Observations from their study show that BSF is more than

- unity. As per the study, the porous nature of biochar modifies
(at 1-m depth)
lomb strength

the shear stress and existing contact between soil particles

c (kPa) Φ (°) Mohr–Cou-

(as the soil particles enter the inter-pores of biochar). Studies

have reported that using biochar, which is porous in nature,
could act as a curing additive in cement-based composites
-

(CBC) and can affect WHC for improvement in hydration

UCS (kPa) Shear strength

of cement [288, 289] and internal curing [289, 290]. High

parameters

pore volume indicates a high porosity [289, 291] and may

reduce BSF (cause a reduction in the strength) of the SBC
-

[32, 289, 292].

It should be noted that the optimal content of biochar
required for enhancing the BSF may depend on the consoli-
58

dation pressure. Such observations are helpful while devel-

oping preliminary guidelines for practical usage of biochar
Particle size

in field applications (i.e., landfill cover material). Other stud-

of biochar

ies [64, 286] also found an increment in the BSF of clayey

(mm)

soil with an addition of biochar. From the studies, it can be

<2

said that the BSF is more than one in soil with significant
clayey content (i.e., a lower ratio of coarse and fine content).
Pyrolysis
tempera-

Interestingly, a study by Zong et al. [72] found that adding

ture
510

biochar (wheat straw, wood chips, and waste sludge) reduced

the BSF (reduced expansive clay’s shear strength and com-
Feedstock type

pressive strength) and increased the cohesion, but the fric-

Peanut shell

tional angle reduced with an increase in biochar. Studies

also show that biochar amendment to soil affected the angle
Biochar parameters

of internal friction, cohesion, and the compressive proper-

ties of BAS [13]. A possible reason may be the lower inter-
content (%)

locking between soil-biochar and biochar-biochar particles.

Biochar

Enhancement in cohesion is mainly because of the water

10

retention in mesopores of biochar. Zong et al. [72] reported

contradicting results with wood biochar amendment in lean
clay. Patwa et al. [251] reported that cohesion reduction
Soil type

leads to decreased soil strength, i.e., BSF decreased due to

the addition of biochar. Further studies are needed to investi-
gate the reasons for the contradictions in the research regard-
Clay Coarse/

ing the biochar strength and to examine micro-structural

content

interaction between soil-soil, biochar-biochar, soil-biochar,

fine

and soil-biochar-water-air interfaces.

Compared to clayey soil, a significant reduction in BSF
(for compressive strength) in general was found in silty sand
Sand Silt
Soil type

amended with various types of biochar [287]. Their study

suggests that the frictional angle between sand-sand particles
Table 2  (continued)

is likely to reduce significantly under the presence of biochar

particles. Biochar-biochar and sand-biochar frictional angles
are much lower than that of sand-sand interaction. Moreover,
in their study, biochar from peanut shells retained higher
Study

BSF than that from water hyacinth, sawdust, and pig manure.

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
This was likely due to the angularity of peanut shell bio-
char particles that might have enhanced the inter-locking of
grains and frictional angle. Bora et al. [287] also attempted
to quantify the influence of soil moisture on the efficiency
of biochar. The observation was made that with an increase
in soil moisture, the difference in efficiency between biochar
amended soil and bare soil (as indicated by BSF values)
reduces significantly. In other words, it implies that biochar
may not significantly influence the strength of the cover layer
in landfills located in humid regions of the world.
7 Recommendations and future scope
In recent times, due to the demand for sustainable develop-
ment in the construction field and controlling environmen-
tal pollution, biochar is being used in different fields like
geoengineering, environment, agriculture, and construction.
The research on using biochar as a construction material
is gaining importance day by day. Investigations are being
done to modify the properties of the biochar, which can be
used to deal with the practical problems in the sustainable
built environment. Feedstock and the production process
are two main important factors that help determine the
properties of biochar produced. As discussed in the preced-
ing sections, the quality and quantity of biochar produced
depend upon the various process parameters adopted during
the pyrolysis, which determine the elemental composition,
behaviour, and strength parameter. The properties of bio-
char can be modified and enhanced by physical or chemical
treatments (explained in Sect. 3) to make it suitable for new
uses and technology. The researchers are using Artificial
Intelligence techniques to develop models to understand
the soil-biochar interaction mechanism [1–4]. Researchers
have used artificial intelligenceand other numerical tech-
niques for various engineering studies, such asdimensional
analysis, k-nearest neighbour (KNN) [293], multipleregres-
sion analysis [294], and artificial neural networks (ANN).
They are seento be multidimensional, less tedious, flexible,
and advanced numericalapproaches used by researchers to
solve various engineering problems. Sametechniques can
be used to understand the efficiency of biochar to achieve
theoptimum soil properties for various geo-engineering
applications.
Contradictions have been observed in the properties that
limit the use of biochar in this field. From the geotechni-
cal point of view, mechanical strength (shear, tension, and
compression) is of prime importance, for which the research-
ers have also given contradictory results (illustrated above
in Sect. 5.7). Due to this discrepancy and also the fact that
the quantity of biochar needed in the geo-engineering will
be required in large quantity, there is a need for extensive
research for:
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
• Making the availability of biochar in abundance and
close to sites of use. The biochar production can be tai-
lored accordingly to control mechanical properties of
soil-biochar mix.
• A comparison of strength parameters with respect to
other reinforcing agents like fibre sheets, etc needs to be
done. Further, a hybrid material selection may be suit-
able as biochar alone may not be suitable for gaining the
required strength [295].
• As far as the literature is available, the use of biochar
seems to be in the early stages of construction technol-
ogy, and there are almost no guidelines about its use in
the construction industry. However, much development
is seen in the agriculture sector with initiatives like Euro-
pean Biochar Certificate (EBC) and International Bio-
char Initiative (IBI). Preliminary guidelines for selecting
an appropriate feedstock, a particular production process
for a required quantity and quality, and a pre-selected
ratio of biochar amendment with the soil are necessary
for the geo-engineering field.
7.1 Cost and benefit analysis that includes
production of biochar for its application
The cost of biochar production involves (a) cost of plant
setup, (b) feedstock, (c) production, (d) labour for handling,
(e) storage, and (f) maintenance. The plant setup includes
land cost, land development cost, civil, electrical, and
mechanical works as well as expenditure related to mainte-
nance. Capital costs are a one-time investment, and the other
costs like feedstock purchase, transportation, energy costs
for production, workforce/labour (skilled/unskilled), storage,
and overall maintenance costs are market dependent [296].
All the factors need to be analysed while doing cost analysis.
In a study on life cycle assessment of two different biochar
types in Belgium conducted by Hamedani et al. [297], it was
observed that the woody biochar type (willow) outperformed
manure biochar in many ways like pretreatment costs, ­CO2
generation, and other environmental impacts. However, as
far as the cost-effectiveness is concerned, the land use for
crop growth and terrestrial ecotoxicity due to the applica-
tion of fertilizers makes it further a costly consideration.
The authors recommend further investigation in this regard.
Ahmad et al. [134] brought out that the average price of
biochar was $2.65/kg worldwide, with as low as $0.08/kg
in India and $13.48/kg in the USA. Bordoloi et al. [298], in
their cost analysis of water hyacinth biochar, observed cost
per kg in India as 0.45US$, North America ≥0.64 US$ [299,
300], Europe ≥ 0.67 US$ [301, 302], and in the UK as 5.668
US$ [303]. In their cost analysis of biochar, Li et al. [304]
observed that the cost of biochar increases with an increase
in pyrolysis temperature. The authors observed that a pyrol-
ysis temperature of 400 °C is the most cost-effective in
13

biochar production. It was suggested that the use of sunshine
should be made for drying feedstock, which shall reduce the
cost of production. However, the cost analysis given by the
researchers was specific to biochar and feedstock with no
uniformity of production, marketing, and usage. As such, no
specific result can be achieved because the authors are not
aware of any contrary regulating the market rates of biochar
to compare with other soil amendment materials, fertilizers
and reinforcing materials/methods.
Very limited studies are available in the literature regard-
ing the cost analysis of biochar and its cost-effectiveness with
respect to their usage in construction. A few available stud-
ies are related to the agriculture sector, where the quantity
of biochar to be used is limited. In geotechnical engineer-
ing, large quantities of biochar may be required, which will
involve large-scale production, sufficient quantities of raw
materials, labour, running costs, transportation costs, and
the land use in which the raw materials are to be grown. A
systematic and extensive survey and research are necessary
to provide a way forward for attracting investors in this field.
7.2 Negative impacts of biochar
on the environment
While understanding the use of biochar in geo-engineering
infrastructure, one cannot ignore its negative effects. The
researchers have raised concern about un-controllable and
un-manageable transportation of biochar particles as it
not only affects the medium in which it was added but other
media also [202, 220, 305–307]. There are various harmful
components in biochar that researchers have summarized,
some have been listed as under and need a serious thought:
a. On soil nutrients: The addition of biochar causes pH to
rise from acidic to alkaline, due to whic h the movement
of nutrients, ­NH4 is restricted to plants [219, 293]. The
addition of biochar causes the accumulation of charcoal
in the soil and restricts the movement of micronutri-
ents, decreasing the growth and survival of plants [140,
219]. The biochar application decreases the soil’s tensile
strength [13, 219], which increases the weathering, rup-
ture, and movement of soil [219, 294]. Few researchers
have observed an increase in toxic elements (As, Pb) by
applying biochar [308].
b. On crop productivity: After experimentation, research-
ers have listed several negative effects on crops, from
biochar pollutants (PAHs, heavy metals, EPFR) affect-
ing root growth and germination. The micro and nano
particles of biochar make the crops toxic. The nutrients
like N, P, and K get absorbed on the biochar surface and
decrease the availability of nutrients to plants [219].
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
c. On soil microbial community: The biochar addition in
soil decreases the nutrient availability for microorganisms
[309], reduces the interspecies microorganism communi-
cation [310], makes the soil toxic by the release of PAH’s,
heavy metals etc., for their growth and survival. [311].
8 Conclusion
Based on the literature review, it is observed that biochar
is a potential material that has recently being researched
for use in geotechnical engineering. From a strength point
of view, woody raw materials are more advisable than
non-woody. In this study, a new index, BSF, was intro-
duced to mention the strength of BAS with respect to bare
soil. It was revealed that the effect of biochar amendment
was more pronounced in increasing the BSF in clayey
soils. The BSF was found lowest in silty sand at 0.25 and
highest in lean clay at 2.97. From this, it can be under-
stood from a strength perspective that biochar applica-
tion is more feasible in clayey soils. On the other hand,
manure-based biochars are more suitable in agriculture
for fertilizer values.
The biochar properties can be engineered by various
methods, out of which steam treatment seems more effec-
tive and economical. The engineered biochar has found its
way in many fields but not in geotechnical engineering to
date. There are contradictions in research that have been
observed in some basic properties such as unsaturated soil
water retention capacity, aggregate stability, alkalinity,
and strength, which need a thorough investigation. There
are also negative impacts of biochar application in terms
of heavy metal depositions and leaching. Comprehensive
research and investigation in this field are the need of the
hour as the quantity of biochar required in geo-engineering
is huge, and since it has a half-life of thousands of years, its
negative impacts need to be curtailed or at least reduced.
Slow pyrolysis can make biochar production economical,
but qualitatively microwave pyrolysis may be preferred
owing to its control on production process parameters.
There is another knowledge gap in terms of conducting
comprehensive cost and benefit analysis for use of biochar
in geo-engineering.
Most importantly, the long-term negative effects of bio-
char application need consideration from the geotechnical
engineering point of view. In addition, the studies have been
carried out on small scales in laboratories. The long-term
behaviour of biochar in the stability of landfill covers and
slopes needs extensive study. Also, studies need to be con-
ducted to analyse how various biochar types and biochar
amendments affect strength in different soils. The role of
engineered biochar needs to be investigated.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
Acknowledgements Authors are grateful to Dr Sudipta Ramola for
providing her suggestions and input on the role of biochar production
and pyrolysis.
Author contribution First author is responsible for initial draft of
manuscript. Second author is responsible for funding and supervision
of first author. Third author is responsible for co-supervision, ideation,
conceptualization, and drafting of table that contains review of strength
of biochar amended soils. Fourth and fifth authors are responsible for
revision and adding environmental aspects of biochar. Last author is
responsible for overall checking of manuscript and also providing com-
ments and suggestions for improving review of biochar with respect
to pyrolysis.
Funding Authors are grateful to the National Natural Science Founda-
tion of China (NSFC project no. 41907252) for support.
Declarations
Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.
References
1. Garg A, Huang H, Kushvaha V, Madhushri P, Kamchoom V,
Wani I, Koshy N, Zhu HH (2020) Mechanism of biochar soil
pore–gas–water interaction: gas properties of biochar-amended
sandy soil at different degrees of compaction using KNN mod-
eling. Acta Geophys 68(1):207–217. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11600-​019-​00387-y
2. Wani I, Kumar H, Rangappa SM, Peng L, Siengchin S, Kushvaha
V (2021) Multiple regression model for predicting cracks in soil
amended with pig manure biochar and wood biochar. J Hazard
Toxic Radioact Waste 25(1):04020061. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​
(ASCE)​HZ.​2153-​5515.​00005​61
3. Garg A, Wani I, Zhu H, Kushvaha V (2021) Exploring efficiency
of biochar in enhancing water retention in soils with varying
grain size distributions using ANN technique. Acta Geotech
17(4):1315–1326. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11440-​021-​01411-6
4. Wani I, Narde SR, Huang X, Remya N, Kushvaha V, Garg A
(2021) Reviewing role of biochar in controlling soil erosion and
considering future aspect of production using microwave pyroly-
sis process for the same. Biomass Convers Biorefinery. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13399-​021-​02060-1
5. Lehmann J, Joseph S (2015) Biochar for environmental manage-
ment: science, technology and implementation. Routledge
6. Xu R, Qafoku NP, Van Ranst E et al (2016) Chapter one—
Adsorption properties of subtropical and tropical variable charge
soils: implications from climate change and biochar amendment.
In: Sparks DL (ed) Advances in agronomy. Academic Press, pp
1–58
7. Wani I, Ramola S, Garg A, Kushvaha V (2021) Critical review
of biochar applications in geoengineering infrastructure: mov-
ing beyond agricultural and environmental perspectives. Biomass
Conv Bioref. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13399-​021-​01346-8
8. Glaser B, Lehmann J, Zech W (2002) Ameliorating physical and
chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with
charcoal—a review. Biol Fertil Soils 35:219–230. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​1007/​s00374-​002-​0466-4
9. Mokrzycki J, Michalak I, Rutkowski P (2021) Biochars obtained
from freshwater biomass—green macroalga and hornwort as
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Cr(III) ions sorbents. Biomass Conv Bioref 11:301–313. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13399-​020-​00649-6
10. Ouyang L, Wang F, Tang J et al (2013) Effects of biochar amend-
ment on soil aggregates and hydraulic properties. J Soil Sci Plant
Nutr 13:991–1002. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4067/​S0718-​95162​01300​
50000​78
11. Yang W, Wang Y, Sharma P et al (2017) Effect of naphthalene
on transport and retention of biochar colloids through saturated
porous media. Colloids Surf A 530:146–154. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​colsu​rfa.​2017.​07.​010
12. De Bhowmick G, Sarmah AK, Sen R (2018) Production and
characterization of a value added biochar mix using seaweed,
rice husk and pine sawdust: a parametric study. J Clean Prod
200:641–656. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2018.​08.​002
13. Yang CD, Lu SG (2021) Effects of five different biochars on
aggregation, water retention and mechanical properties of paddy
soil: a field experiment of three-season crops. Soil Tillage Res
205:104798. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​still.​2020.​104798
14. Aj C, Na P, de N R, R DA (2017) Good for sewage treatment and
good for agriculture: algal based compost and biochar. J Environ
Manage 200:105–113. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2017.​
05.​082
15. Kumar S, Masto RE, Ram LC et al (2013) Biochar preparation
from Parthenium hysterophorus and its potential use in soil
application. Ecol Eng 55:67–72. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecole​
ng.​2013.​02.​011
16. Masto RE, Kumar S, Rout TK et al (2013) Biochar from water
hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) and its impact on soil biologi-
cal activity. Catena 111:64–71. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​catena.​
2013.​06.​025
17. Patwa D, Muigai HH, Ravi K et al (2022) A novel application
of biochar produced from invasive weeds and industrial waste in
thermal backfill for crude oil industries. Waste Biomass Valor.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12649-​022-​01694-0
18. Wani I, Sharma A, Kushvaha V et al (2020) Effect of pH, vola-
tile content, and pyrolysis conditions on surface area and O/C
and H/C ratios of biochar: towards understanding performance
of biochar using simplified approach. J Hazard Toxic Radioact
Waste 24:04020048. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​HZ.​2153-​
5515.​00005​45
19. Weber K, Quicker P (2018) Properties of biochar. Fuel 217:240–
261. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fuel.​2017.​12.​054
20. Ahmad M, Rajapaksha AU, Lim JE et al (2014) Biochar as a
sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: a review.
Chemosphere 99:19–33. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​
2013.​10.​071
21. Ippolito JA, Cui L, Kammann C et al (2020) Feedstock choice,
pyrolysis temperature and type influence biochar characteristics:
a comprehensive meta-data analysis review. Biochar 2:421–438.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s42773-​020-​00067-x
22. Roberts DA, Paul NA, Dworjanyn SA et al (2015) Biochar from
commercially cultivated seaweed for soil amelioration. Sci Rep
5:9665. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​srep0​9665
23. Lei O, Zhang R (2013) Effects of biochars derived from differ-
ent feedstocks and pyrolysis temperatures on soil physical and
hydraulic properties. J Soils Sediments 13:1561–1572. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11368-​013-​0738-7
24. Kong S-H, Loh S-K, Bachmann RT et al (2014) Biochar from oil
palm biomass: a review of its potential and challenges. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 39:729–739. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​
2014.​07.​107
25. Ren S, Lei H, Wang L, et al (2014) Hydrocarbon and hydrogen-
rich syngas production by biomass catalytic pyrolysis and bio-oil
upgrading over biochar catalysts
26. Liu W-J, Jiang H, Yu H-Q (2015) Development of biochar-
based functional materials: toward a sustainable platform carbon
13

material. Chem Rev 115:12251–12285. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​
acs.​chemr​ev.​5b001​95
27. Zaman CZ, Pal K, Yehye WA, et al (2017) Pyrolysis: a sustain-
able way to generate energy from waste. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5772/​
intec​hopen.​69036
28. Pandey D, Daverey A, Arunachalam K (2020) Biochar: produc-
tion, properties and emerging role as a support for enzyme immo-
bilization. J Clean Prod 255:120267. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jclep​ro.​2020.​120267
29. Varma AK, Thakur LS, Shankar R, Mondal P (2019) Pyrolysis
of wood sawdust: effects of process parameters on products yield
and characterization of products. Waste Manage 89:224–235.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2019.​04.​016
30. Asada T, Ishihara S, Yamane T et al (2002) Science of bamboo
charcoal: study on carbonizing temperature of bamboo charcoal
and removal capability of harmful gases. J Health Sci 48:473–
479. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1248/​jhs.​48.​473
31. Choi WC, Yun HD, Lee JY (2012) Mechanical properties of
mortar containing bio-char from pyrolysis. J Korea Inst Struct
Maint Inspection 16:67–74. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 1112/j​ ksmi.2​ 012.​
16.3.​067
32. Gupta S, Kua HW (2017) Factors determining the potential of
biochar as a carbon capturing and sequestering construction
material: critical review. J Mater Civ Eng 29:04017086. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​MT.​1943-​5533.​00019​24
33. Khushnood RA, Ahmad S, Restuccia L et al (2016) Carbonized
nano/microparticles for enhanced mechanical properties and
electromagnetic interference shielding of cementitious materi-
als. Front Struct Civ Eng 10:209–213. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s11709-​016-​0330-5
34. Zhao MY, Enders A, Lehmann J (2014) Short- and long-term
flammability of biochars. Biomass Bioenerg 69:183–191. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biomb​ioe.​2014.​07.​017
35. Gupta S, Kua HW (2019) Carbonaceous micro-filler for cement:
effect of particle size and dosage of biochar on fresh and hard-
ened properties of cement mortar. Sci Total Environ 662:952–
962. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2019.​01.​269
36. Suarez-Riera D, Restuccia L, Ferro GA (2020) The use of biochar
to reduce the carbon footprint of cement-based materials. Pro-
cedia Struct Integr 26:199–210. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​prostr.​
2020.​06.​023
37. Gupta S, Kua HW, Low CY (2018) Use of biochar as carbon
sequestering additive in cement mortar. Cement Concr Compos
87:110–129. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.c​ emcon​ comp.2​ 017.1​ 2.0​ 09
38. Chebil S, Chaala A, Roy C (2000) Use of softwood bark charcoal
as a modifier for road bitumen. Fuel 79:671–683. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/​S0016-​2361(99)​00196-9
39. Walters RC, Fini EH, Abu-Lebdeh T (2014) Enhancing asphalt
rheological behavior and aging susceptibility using bio-char and
nano-clay. Am J Eng Appl Sci 7:66–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3844/​
ajeas​sp.​2014.​66.​76
40. Zhao S, Huang B, Shu X, Ye P (2014) Laboratory investigation
of biochar-modified asphalt mixture. Transp Res Rec 2445:56–
63. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3141/​2445-​07
41. Zhao S, Huang B, Ye XP et al (2014) Utilizing bio-char as a bio-
modifier for asphalt cement: a sustainable application of bio-fuel
by-product. Fuel 133:52–62. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fuel.​2014.​
05.​002
42. Busscher WJ, Novak JM, Evans DE et al (2010) Influence of
pecan biochar on physical properties of a Norfolk loamy sand.
Soil Sci 175:10–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​SS.​0b013​e3181​
cb7f46
43. Mukherjee A, Lal R (2013) Biochar impacts on soil physical
properties and greenhouse gas emissions. Agronomy 3:313–339.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​agron​omy30​20313
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
44. Novak JM, Lima I, Xing B, et al (2009) Characterization of
designer biochar produced at different temperatures and their
effects on a loamy sand. Annals of Environmental Science 3:
45. Ronsse F, van Hecke S, Dickinson D, Prins W (2013) Production
and characterization of slow pyrolysis biochar: influence of feed-
stock type and pyrolysis conditions. GCB Bioenergy 5:104–115.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​gcbb.​12018
46. Spokas KA, Cantrell KB, Novak JM et al (2012) Biochar: a syn-
thesis of its agronomic impact beyond carbon sequestration. J
Environ Qual 41:973–989. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.2​ 134/j​ eq201​ 1.0​ 069
47. Tomczyk A, Sokołowska Z, Boguta P (2020) Biochar physico-
chemical properties: pyrolysis temperature and feedstock kind
effects. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 19:191–215. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s11157-​020-​09523-3
48. Zhao S-X, Ta N, Wang X-D (2017) Effect of temperature on the
structural and physicochemical properties of biochar with apple
tree branches as feedstock material. Energies 10:1293. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3390/​en100​91293
49. Nguyen BT, Lehmann J, Hockaday WC et al (2010) Tempera-
ture sensitivity of black carbon decomposition and oxidation.
Environ Sci Technol 44:3324–3331. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​
es903​016y
50. Zhang J, Liu J, Liu R (2015) Effects of pyrolysis temperature
and heating time on biochar obtained from the pyrolysis of
straw and lignosulfonate. Biores Technol 176:288–291. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2014.​11.​011
51. Lehmann J (2007) Bio-energy in the black. Front Ecol Environ
5:381–387. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1890/​1540-​9295(2007)​5[381:​
BITB]2.​0.​CO;2
52. Atkinson CJ, Fitzgerald JD, Hipps NA (2010) Potential mecha-
nisms for achieving agricultural benefits from biochar applica-
tion to temperate soils: a review. Plant Soil 337:1–18. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11104-​010-​0464-5
53. Ramola S, Belwal T, Li CJ et al (2020) Improved lead removal
from aqueous solution using novel porous bentonite- and cal-
cite-biochar composite. Sci Total Environ 709:136171. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2019.​136171
54. Ahmad M, Lee SS, Dou X et al (2012) Effects of pyrolysis
temperature on soybean stover- and peanut shell-derived bio-
char properties and TCE adsorption in water. Biores Technol
118:536–544. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2012.​05.​042
55. Ghanim BM, Pandey DS, Kwapinski W, Leahy JJ (2016)
Hydrothermal carbonisation of poultry litter: effects of treat-
ment temperature and residence time on yields and chemical
properties of hydrochars. Biores Technol 216:373–380. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2016.​05.​087
56. Mohan D, Sarswat A, Ok YS, Pittman CU (2014) Organic
and inorganic contaminants removal from water with biochar,
a renewable, low cost and sustainable adsorbent—a critical
review. Biores Technol 160:191–202. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
biort​ech.​2014.​01.​120
57. Funke A, Ziegler F (2010) Hydrothermal carbonization of
biomass: a summary and discussion of chemical mechanisms
for process engineering. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 4:160–177.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​bbb.​198
58. Smith AM, Singh S, Ross AB (2016) Fate of inorganic material
during hydrothermal carbonisation of biomass: influence of feed-
stock on combustion behaviour of hydrochar. Fuel 169:135–145.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fuel.​2015.​12.​006
59. Castellini M, Giglio L, Niedda M et al (2015) Impact of biochar
addition on the physical and hydraulic properties of a clay soil.
Soil Tillage Res 154:1–13. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​still.​2015.​
06.​016
60. Huang H, Cai WL, Zheng Q, Chen PN, Huang CR, Zeng QJ,
Kumar H, Zhu HH, Garg A, Zheenbek K, Kushvaha V (2020)
Gas permeability in soil amended with biochar at different
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
compaction states. In: IOP Conference Series: Earth and Envi-
ronmental Science. IOP Publishing, Vol. 463, No. 1, p. 012073.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1755-​1315/​463/1/​012073
61. Lehmann J (2009) Terra Preta Nova—where to from here? In:
Woods WI, Teixeira WG, Lehmann J et al (eds) Amazonian
dark earths: Wim Sombroek’s vision. Springer, Netherlands,
Dordrecht, pp 473–486
62. Fredlund DG, Rahardjo H, Fredlund MD (2012) Unsaturated soil
mechanics in engineering practice. John Wiley & Sons
63. Hussain R, Ghosh KK, Garg A, Ravi K (2020) Effect of biochar
produced from mesquite on the compaction characteristics and
shear strength of a clayey sand. Geotech Geol Eng. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s10706-​020-​01549-2
64. Reddy KR, Yaghoubi P, Yukselen-Aksoy Y (2015) Effects of
biochar amendment on geotechnical properties of landfill cover
soil. Waste Manag Res 33:524–532. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​
07342​42X15​580192
65. Ni JJ, Chen XW, Ng CWW, Guo HW (2018) Effects of biochar
on water retention and matric suction of vegetated soil. Géotech-
nique Lett 8:124–129. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1680/​jgele.​17.​00180
66. Williams JM, Latifi N, Vahedifard F (2018) Effects of biochar
amendment on mechanical properties of buckshot clay. 125–134.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​97807​84481​592.​013
67. Haefele SM, Konboon Y, Wongboon W et al (2011) Effects and
fate of biochar from rice residues in rice-based systems. Field
Crop Res 121:430–440. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fcr.​2011.​01.​
014
68. Ekwue EI (1990) Organic-matter effects on soil strength prop-
erties. Soil Tillage Res 16:289–297. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
0167-​1987(90)​90102-J
69. Piccolo A, Pietramellara G, Mbagwu JSC (1997) Use of humic
substances as soil conditioners to increase aggregate stabil-
ity. Geoderma 75:267–277. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/​S 0016-​
7061(96)​00092-4
70. Sun F, Lu S (2014) Biochars improve aggregate stability, water
retention, and pore-space properties of clayey soil. J Plant Nutr
Soil Sci 177:26–33. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​jpln.​20120​0639
71. Chan KY, Van Zwieten L, Meszaros I et al (2007) Agronomic
values of greenwaste biochar as a soil amendment. Soil Res
45:629. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1071/​SR071​09
72. Zong Y, Chen D, Lu S (2014) Impact of biochars on swell-
shrinkage behavior, mechanical strength, and surface cracking
of clayey soil. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 177:920–926. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1002/​jpln.​20130​0596
73. Foong SY, Liew RK, Yang Y et al (2020) Valorization of
biomass waste to engineered activated biochar by microwave
pyrolysis: progress, challenges, and future directions. Chem
Eng J 389:124401. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cej.​2020.​124401
74. Glaser B, Haumaier L, Guggenberger G, Zech W (2001) The
“Terra Preta” phenomenon: a model for sustainable agriculture
in the humid tropics. Naturwissenschaften 88:37–41. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s0011​40000​193
75. da Costa ML, Kern DC (1999) Geochemical signatures of
tropical soils with archaeological black earth in the Amazon,
Brazil. J Geochem Explor 66:369–385. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​
S0375-​6742(99)​00038-2
76. Bharath KN, Madhu P, Gowda TGY et al (2020) Alkaline effect
on characterization of discarded waste of Moringa oleifera
fiber as a potential eco-friendly reinforcement for biocompos-
ites. J Polym Environ 28:2823–2836. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10924-​020-​01818-4
77. Ramola S, Belwal T, Srivastava DrR (2020) Thermochemical
conversion of biomass waste-based biochar for environment
remediation. 1–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​030-​11155-
7_​122-1
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
78. Wang S, Dai G, Yang H, Luo Z (2017) Lignocellulosic biomass
pyrolysis mechanism: a state-of-the-art review. Prog Energy
Combust Sci 62:33–86. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​pecs.​2017.​05.​
004
79. Chen D, Gao A, Cen K et al (2018) Investigation of biomass tor-
refaction based on three major components: hemicellulose, cel-
lulose, and lignin. Energy Convers Manag 169:228–237. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​man.​2018.​05.​063
80. Zhang M, Gao B, Varnoosfaderani S et al (2013) Preparation and
characterization of a novel magnetic biochar for arsenic removal.
Biores Technol 130:457–462. https://​doi.o​ rg/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​
2012.​11.​132
81. Vijayaraghavan K (2019) Recent advancements in biochar prep-
aration, feedstocks, modification, characterization and future
applications. Environ Technol Rev 8:47–64. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​21622​515.​2019.​16313​93
82. Anae J, Ahmad N, Kumar V et al (2021) Recent advances in
biochar engineering for soil contaminated with complex chemi-
cal mixtures: remediation strategies and future perspectives. Sci
Total Environ 767:144351. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​
2020.​144351
83. Reddy KR, Yargicoglu EN, Yue D, Yaghoubi P (2014) Enhanced
microbial methane oxidation in landfill cover soil amended with
biochar. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 140:04014047. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​GT.​1943-​5606.​00011​48
84. Song W, Guo M (2012) Quality variations of poultry litter bio-
char generated at different pyrolysis temperatures. J Anal Appl
Pyrol 94:138–145. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jaap.​2011.​11.​018
85. Sun Y, Gao B, Yao Y et al (2014) Effects of feedstock type,
production method, and pyrolysis temperature on biochar and
hydrochar properties. Chem Eng J 240:574–578. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​cej.​2013.​10.​081
86. Yang X, Zhang S, Ju M, Liu L (2019) Preparation and modifica-
tion of biochar materials and their application in soil remedia-
tion. Appl Sci 9:1365. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​app90​71365
87. Manyà JJ (2012) Pyrolysis for biochar purposes: a review to
establish current knowledge gaps and research needs. Environ
Sci Technol 46:7939–7954. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es301​029g
88. Zhao L, Cao X, Mašek O, Zimmerman A (2013) Heterogene-
ity of biochar properties as a function of feedstock sources and
production temperatures. J Hazard Mater 256–257:1–9. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​2013.​04.​015
89. Fazeli Sangani M, Abrishamkesh S, Owens G (2020) Physico-
chemical characteristics of biochars can be beneficially manipu-
lated using post-pyrolyzed particle size modification. Biores
Technol 306:123157. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2020.​
123157
90. Lua AC, Yang T, Guo J (2004) Effects of pyrolysis conditions on
the properties of activated carbons prepared from pistachio-nut
shells. J Anal Appl Pyrol 72:279–287. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jaap.​2004.​08.​001
91. Chandra S, Bhattacharya J (2019) Influence of temperature and
duration of pyrolysis on the property heterogeneity of rice straw
biochar and optimization of pyrolysis conditions for its applica-
tion in soils. J Clean Prod 215:1123–1139. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2019.​01.​079
92. Vijayakumar A, Sebastian J (2018) Pyrolysis process to produce
fuel from different types of plastic—a review. IOP Conf Ser
Mater Sci Eng 396:012062. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1757-​899X/​
396/1/​012062
93. Kambo HS, Dutta A (2015) A comparative review of biochar and
hydrochar in terms of production, physico-chemical properties
and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 45:359–378. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2015.​01.​050
94. Brownsort PA (2009) Biomass pyrolysis processes: performance
parameters and their influence on biochar system benefits
13

95. Mohan D, Pittman CU, Steele PH (2006) Pyrolysis of wood/
biomass for bio-oil: a critical review. Energy Fuels 20:848–889.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​ef050​2397
96. Li L, Rowbotham JS, Christopher Greenwell H, Dyer PW (2013)
Chapter 8—An introduction to pyrolysis and catalytic pyrolysis:
versatile techniques for biomass conversion. In: Suib SL (ed)
New and future developments in catalysis. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp 173–208
97. Libra JA, Ro KS, Kammann C, et al (2011) Hydrothermal car-
bonization of biomass residuals: a comparative review of the
chemistry, processes and applications of wet and dry pyrolysis
98. Antal MJ, Grønli M (2003) The art, science, and technology of
charcoal production. Ind Eng Chem Res 42:1619–1640. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1021/​ie020​7919
99. Demirbas A, Arin G (2002) An overview of biomass pyroly-
sis. Energy Sources 24:471–482. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00908​
31025​28899​79
100. Yanik J, Kornmayer C, Saglam M, Yüksel M (2007) Fast pyroly-
sis of agricultural wastes: characterization of pyrolysis products.
Fuel Process Technol 88:942–947. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
fuproc.​2007.​05.​002
101. Demirbaş A (2001) Biomass resource facilities and biomass
conversion processing for fuels and chemicals. Energy Convers
Manag 42:1357–1378. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0196-​8904(00)​
00137-0
102. Gerçel HF (2002) Production and characterization of pyroly-
sis liquids from sunflower-pressed bagasse. Bioresour Technol
85:113–117. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​s0960-​8524(02)​00101-3
103. Zhang L, Xu CC, Champagne P (2010) Overview of recent
advances in thermo-chemical conversion of biomass. Energy
Convers Manage 51:969–982. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​encon​
man.​2009.​11.​038
104. Hagemann N, Spokas K, Schmidt H-P et al (2018) Activated
carbon, biochar and charcoal: linkages and synergies across
pyrogenic carbon’s ABCs. Water 10:182. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.3​ 390/​
w1002​0182
105. Pan YG, Velo E, Roca X et al (2000) Fluidized-bed co-gasifica-
tion of residual biomass/poor coal blends for fuel gas production.
Fuel 79:1317–1326. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0016-​2361(99)​
00258-6
106. Rousset P, Macedo L, Commandré J-M, Moreira A (2012) Bio-
mass torrefaction under different oxygen concentrations and its
effect on the composition of the solid by-product. J Anal Appl
Pyrol 96:86–91. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jaap.​2012.​03.​009
107. Behrendt F, Neubauer Y, Oevermann M et al (2008) Direct liq-
uefaction of biomass. Chem Eng Technol 31:667–677. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ceat.​20080​0077
108. Lam SS, Liew RK, Jusoh A et al (2016) Progress in waste oil to
sustainable energy, with emphasis on pyrolysis techniques. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 53:741–753. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​
2015.​09.​005
109. Lam SS, Liew RK, Wong YM et al (2017) Microwave-assisted
pyrolysis with chemical activation, an innovative method to con-
vert orange peel into activated carbon with improved properties
as dye adsorbent. J Clean Prod 162:1376–1387. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2017.​06.​131
110. Lam SS, Liew RK, Cheng CK, Chase HA (2015) Catalytic micro-
wave pyrolysis of waste engine oil using metallic pyrolysis char.
Appl Catal B 176–177:601–617. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.a​ pcatb.​
2015.​04.​014
111. Liew RK, Azwar E, Yek PNY et al (2018) Microwave pyrolysis
with KOH/NaOH mixture activation: a new approach to produce
micro-mesoporous activated carbon for textile dye adsorption.
Biores Technol 266:1–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​
2018.​06.​051
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
112. de Jongh WA, Carrier M, Knoetze JHH (2011) Vacuum pyroly-
sis of intruder plant biomasses. J Anal Appl Pyrol 92:184–193.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jaap.​2011.​05.​015
113. Nam WL, Phang XY, Su MH et al (2018) Production of bio-
fertilizer from microwave vacuum pyrolysis of palm kernel shell
for cultivation of Oyster mushroom (Pleurotus ostreatus). Sci
Total Environ 624:9–16. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.s​ citot​ env.2​ 017.​
12.​108
114. Roy C, Pakdel H, Brouillard D (1990) The role of extractives
during vacuum pyrolysis of wood. J Appl Polym Sci 41:337–348.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​app.​1990.​07041​0126
115. Chen Z, Niu B, Zhang L, Xu Z (2018) Vacuum pyrolysis charac-
teristics and parameter optimization of recycling organic materi-
als from waste tantalum capacitors. J Hazard Mater 342:192–
200. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​2017.​08.​021
116. Lopez G, Aguado R, Olazar M et al (2009) Kinetics of scrap tyre
pyrolysis under vacuum conditions. Waste Manag 29:2649–2655.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2009.​06.​005
117. Yek PNY, Liew RK, Osman MS et al (2017) Microwave pyrolysis
using self-generated pyrolysis gas as activating agent: an innova-
tive single-step approach to convert waste palm shell into acti-
vated carbon. E3S Web Conf 22:00195. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1051/​
e3sco​nf/​20172​200195
118. Zeng K, Gauthier D, Soria J et al (2017) Solar pyrolysis of car-
bonaceous feedstocks: a review. Sol Energy 156:73–92. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​solen​er.​2017.​05.​033
119. Salema AA, Ani FN (2012) Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of oil
palm shell biomass using an overhead stirrer. J Anal Appl Pyrol
96:162–172. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jaap.​2012.​03.​018
120. Branca C, Di Blasi C, Mango C, Hrablay I (2013) Products and
kinetics of Glucomannan pyrolysis. Ind Eng Chem Res 52:5030–
5039. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​ie400​155x
121. Wang S, Guo X, Wang K, Luo Z (2011) Influence of the interac-
tion of components on the pyrolysis behavior of biomass. J Anal
Appl Pyrol 91:183–189. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jaap.​2011.​02.​
006
122. Wang Z, McDonald AG, Westerhof RJM et al (2013) Effect of
cellulose crystallinity on the formation of a liquid intermediate
and on product distribution during pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol
100:56–66. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jaap.​2012.​11.​017
123. Ferrara F, Orsini A, Plaisant A, Pettinau A (2014) Pyrolysis of
coal, biomass and their blends: performance assessment by ther-
mogravimetric analysis. Bioresour Technol 171:433–441. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2014.​08.​104
124. Hossain MK, Strezov V, Chan KY et al (2011) Influence of pyrol-
ysis temperature on production and nutrient properties of waste-
water sludge biochar. J Environ Manage 92:223–228. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2010.​09.​008
125. Zhang H, Voroney RP, Price GW (2015) Effects of temperature
and processing conditions on biochar chemical properties and
their influence on soil C and N transformations. Soil Biol Bio-
chem 83:19–28. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soilb​io.​2015.​01.​006
126. Zhang Y, Wang J, Feng Y (2021) The effects of biochar addi-
tion on soil physicochemical properties: a review. Catena
202:105284. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​catena.​2021.​105284
127. Cao X, Harris W (2010) Properties of dairy-manure-derived
biochar pertinent to its potential use in remediation. Bioresour
Technol 101:5222–5228. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.b​ iorte​ ch.2​ 010.​
02.​052
128. Robertson SJ, Rutherford PM, López-Gutiérrez JC, Massicotte
HB (2012) Biochar enhances seedling growth and alters root
symbioses and properties of sub-boreal forest soils. Can J Soil
Sci 92:329–340. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4141/​cjss2​011-​066
129. Mukherjee A, Zimmerman AR (2013) Organic carbon and nutri-
ent release from a range of laboratory-produced biochars and
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
biochar–soil mixtures. Geoderma 193–194:122–130. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​geode​rma.​2012.​10.​002
130. Bonelli PR, Buonomo EL, Cukierman AL (2007) Pyrolysis of
sugarcane bagasse and co-pyrolysis with an Argentinean subbitu-
minous coal. Energy Sources Part A Recover Utilization Environ
Eff 29:731–740. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​00908​31050​02812​47
131. Katyal S, Thambimuthu K, Valix M (2003) Carbonisation of
bagasse in a fixed bed reactor: influence of process variables
on char yield and characteristics. Renew Energy 28:713–725.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S0960-​1481(02)​00112-X
132. Ghani WAWAK, Mohd A, da Silva G et al (2013) Biochar pro-
duction from waste rubber-wood-sawdust and its potential use
in C sequestration: chemical and physical characterization. Ind
Crops Prod 44:18–24. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.i​ ndcro​ p.2​ 012.1​ 0.​
017
133. Rafiq MK, Bachmann RT, Rafiq MT et al (2016) Influence of
pyrolysis temperature on physico-chemical properties of corn
stover (Zea mays L.) biochar and feasibility for carbon capture
and energy balance. PloS One 11:e0156894. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1371/​journ​al.​pone.​01568​94
134. Ahmad M, Ok YS, Kim B-Y et al (2016) Impact of soybean stover-
and pine needle-derived biochars on Pb and As mobility, microbial
community, and carbon stability in a contaminated agricultural soil.
J Environ Manag 166:131–139. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​
2015.​10.​006
135. Uchimiya M, Wartelle LH, Klasson KT et al (2011) Influence
of pyrolysis temperature on biochar property and function as a
heavy metal sorbent in soil. J Agric Food Chem 59:2501–2510.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​jf104​206c
136. Lehmann J (2007) A handful of carbon. Nature 447:143–144.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​44714​3a
137. Chia CH, Downie A, Munroe P (2015) Characteristics of biochar:
physical and structural properties. Biochar for Environmental
Management 89–109
138. Behl K, Sinha S, Sharma M et al (2019) One-time cultivation
of Chlorella pyrenoidosa in aqueous dye solution supplemented
with biochar for microalgal growth, dye decolorization and lipid
production. Chem Eng J 364:552–561. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
cej.​2019.​01.​180
139. Al-Wabel MI, Al-Omran A, El-Naggar AH et al (2013) Pyroly-
sis temperature induced changes in characteristics and chemical
composition of biochar produced from conocarpus wastes. Biores
Technol 131:374–379. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2012.​
12.​165
140. El-Naggar A, Lee SS, Rinklebe J et al (2019) Biochar application
to low fertility soils: a review of current status, and future pros-
pects. Geoderma 337:536–554. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​geode​
rma.​2018.​09.​034
141. Hassan M, Liu Y, Naidu R et al (2020) Influences of feedstock
sources and pyrolysis temperature on the properties of biochar
and functionality as adsorbents: a meta-analysis. Sci Total Envi-
ron 744:140714. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.s​ citot​ env.2​ 020.1​ 40714
142. Harvey OR, Herbert BE, Kuo L-J, Louchouarn P (2012) General-
ized two-dimensional perturbation correlation infrared spectros-
copy reveals mechanisms for the development of surface charge
and recalcitrance in plant-derived biochars. Environ Sci Technol
46:10641–10650. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es302​971d
143. Sun Y, Xiong X, He M et al (2021) Roles of biochar-derived
dissolved organic matter in soil amendment and environmental
remediation: a critical review. Chem Eng J 424:130387. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cej.​2021.​130387
144. Song Y, Tahmasebi A, Yu J (2014) Co-pyrolysis of pine sawdust
and lignite in a thermogravimetric analyzer and a fixed-bed reactor.
Bioresour Technol 174:204–211. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​
2014.​10.​027
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
145. Van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Morris S et al (2010) Effects of bio-
char from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic per-
formance and soil fertility. Plant Soil 327:235–246. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11104-​009-​0050-x
146. Pan J, Jiang J, Xu R (2013) Adsorption of Cr(III) from acidic
solutions by crop straw derived biochars. J Environ Sci 25:1957–
1965. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1001-​0742(12)​60305-2
147. Lago BC, Silva CA, Melo LCA, de Morais EG (2021) Predicting
biochar cation exchange capacity using Fourier transform infra-
red spectroscopy combined with partial least square regression.
Sci Total Environ 794:148762. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​
tenv.​2021.​148762
148. Anto S, Sudhakar MP, Shan Ahamed T et al (2021) Activation
strategies for biochar to use as an efficient catalyst in various
applications. Fuel 285:119205. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fuel.​
2020.​119205
149. Gargiulo V, Gomis-Berenguer A, Giudicianni P et al (2018)
Assessing the potential of biochars prepared by steam-assisted
slow pyrolysis for CO2 adsorption and separation. Energy Fuels
32:10218–10227. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​energ​yfuels.​8b010​
58
150. Rostamian R, Heidarpour M, Mousavi SF, Afyuni M (2015)
Characterization and sodium sorption capacity of biochar and
activated carbon prepared from rice husk. J Agric Sci Technol
17:1057–1069
151. Zhang H, Voroney RP, Price GW (2017) Effects of temperature
and activation on biochar chemical properties and their impact
on ammonium, nitrate, and phosphate sorption. J Environ Qual
46:889–896. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2134/​jeq20​17.​02.​0043
152. Shim T, Yoo J, Ryu C et al (2015) Effect of steam activation of
biochar produced from a giant Miscanthus on copper sorption
and toxicity. Bioresour Technol 197:85–90. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​biort​ech.​2015.​08.​055
153. Contescu CI, Adhikari SP, Gallego NC, et al (2018) Activated
carbons derived from high-temperature pyrolysis of lignocel-
lulosic biomass. C 4:51. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​c4030​051
154. Shahkarami S, Azargohar R, Dalai AK, Soltan J (2015) Break-
through ­CO2 adsorption in bio-based activated carbons. J Envi-
ron Sci (China) 34:68–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jes.​2015.​
03.​008
155. Ao W, Fu J, Mao X et al (2018) Microwave assisted preparation
of activated carbon from biomass: a review. Renew Sustain
Energy Rev 92:958–979. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2018.​
04.​051
156. Zainal NH, Aziz AA, Idris J et al (2017) Microwave-assisted
pre-carbonisation of palm kernel shell produced charcoal with
high heating value and low gaseous emission. J Clean Prod
142:2945–2949. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2016.​10.​176
157. Norouzi S, Heidari M, Alipour V et al (2018) Preparation,
characterization and Cr(VI) adsorption evaluation of NaOH-
activated carbon produced from Date Press Cake; an agro-
industrial waste. Biores Technol 258:48–56. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2018.​02.​106
158. Yang K, Zhu L, Yang J, Lin D (2018) Adsorption and correla-
tions of selected aromatic compounds on a KOH-activated car-
bon with large surface area. Sci Total Environ 618:1677–1684.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2017.​10.​018
159. Dawei L, Yu W, Jiaojiao Z et al (2018) Drying before micro-
wave-assisted H3PO4 activation to produce highly mesoporous
activated carbons. Mater Lett 230:61–63. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​matlet.​2018.​07.​070
160. Zyoud A, Nassar HNI, El-Hamouz A, Hilal HS (2015) Solid
olive waste in environmental cleanup: enhanced nitrite ion
removal by ZnCl2-activated carbon. J Environ Manage
152:27–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2015.​01.​001
13

161. Yue L, Xia Q, Wang L et al (2018) CO2 adsorption at nitrogen-
doped carbons prepared by K2CO3 activation of urea-modified
coconut shell. J Colloid Interface Sci 511:259–267. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jcis.​2017.​09.​040
162. Zhang J, Zhang W, Zhang H et al (2017) Facile preparation of
water soluble phenol formaldehyde resin-derived activated car-
bon by Na2CO3 activation for high performance supercapacitors.
Mater Lett 206:67–70. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​matlet.​2017.​06.​
091
163. Li D, Li C, Tian Y, et al (2015) Influences of impregnation ratio
and activation time on ultramicropores of peanut shell active
carbons. Materials Letters C:340–343. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
matlet.​2014.​11.​042
164. Okman I, Karagöz S, Tay T, Erdem M (2014) Activated carbons
from grape seeds by chemical activation with potassium carbon-
ate and potassium hydroxide. Appl Surf Sci 293:138–142. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apsusc.​2013.​12.​117
165. Üner O, Bayrak Y (2018) The effect of carbonization tempera-
ture, carbonization time and impregnation ratio on the properties
of activated carbon produced from Arundo donax. Microporous
Mesoporous Mater 268:225–234. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.m​ icro​
meso.​2018.​04.​037
166. Vyrides I, Conteras PA, Stuckey DC (2010) Post-treatment of
a submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactor (SAMBR) saline
effluent using powdered activated carbon (PAC). J Hazard Mater
177:836–841. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​2009.​12.​109
167. Julkapli NM, Bagheri S (2015) Graphene supported heterogene-
ous catalysts: an overview. Int J Hydrogen Energy 40:948–979.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijhyd​ene.​2014.​10.​129
168. Matos I, Bernardo M, Fonseca I (2017) Porous carbon: a versatile
material for catalysis. Catal Today 285:194–203. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​cattod.​2017.​01.​039
169. Li X, Jiang L, Zhou C et al (2015) Integrating large specific
surface area and high conductivity in hydrogenated NiCo 2 O 4
double-shell hollow spheres to improve supercapacitors. NPG
Asia Mater 7:e165–e165. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​am.​2015.​11
170. Yu K, Zhu H, Qi H, Liang C (2018) High surface area carbon
materials derived from corn stalk core as electrode for superca-
pacitor. Diam Relat Mater 88:18–22. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
diamo​nd.​2018.​06.​018
171. Abioye AM, Ani FN (2015) Recent development in the produc-
tion of activated carbon electrodes from agricultural waste bio-
mass for supercapacitors: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
52:1282–1293. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​rser.​2015.​07.​129
172. Severa G, Bethune K, Rocheleau R, Higgins S (2015) SO2 sorp-
tion by activated carbon supported ionic liquids under simulated
atmospheric conditions. Chem Eng J 265:249–258. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​cej.​2014.​12.​051
173. Monkman S, MacDonald M (2017) On carbon dioxide utiliza-
tion as a means to improve the sustainability of ready-mixed
concrete. J Clean Prod 167:365–375. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jclep​ro.​2017.​08.​194
174. Demirbas A (2011) Biodiesel from oilgae, biofixation of carbon
dioxide by microalgae: a solution to pollution problems. Appl
Energy 88:3541–3547. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​apene​rgy.​2010.​
12.​050
175. Alvarez J, Lopez G, Amutio M et al (2016) Preparation of adsor-
bents from sewage sludge pyrolytic char by carbon dioxide acti-
vation. Process Saf Environ Prot 103:76–86. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​psep.​2016.​06.​035
176. Alvarez J, Lopez G, Amutio M et al (2015) Physical activation of
rice husk pyrolysis char for the production of high surface area
activated carbons. Ind Eng Chem Res 54:7241–7250. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1021/​acs.​iecr.​5b015​89
177. Chang C-F, Chang C-Y, Tsai W-T (2000) Effects of burn-off and
activation temperature on preparation of activated carbon from
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
corn cob agrowaste by CO2 and steam. J Colloid Interface Sci
232:45–49. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1006/​jcis.​2000.​7171
178. Hameed BH, El-Khaiary MI (2008) Kinetics and equilibrium
studies of malachite green adsorption on rice straw-derived char.
J Hazard Mater 153:701–708. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​
2007.​09.​019
179. Liu W-J, Zeng F-X, Jiang H, Zhang X-S (2011) Preparation of
high adsorption capacity bio-chars from waste biomass. Biores
Technol 102:8247–8252. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.b​ iorte​ ch.2​ 011.​
06.​014
180. He L, Zhong H, Liu G et al (2019) Remediation of heavy metal
contaminated soils by biochar: mechanisms, potential risks and
applications in China. Environ Pollut 252:846–855. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​envpol.​2019.​05.​151
181. Qi F, Kuppusamy S, Naidu R et al (2017) Pyrogenic carbon and
its role in contaminant immobilization in soils. Crit Rev Envi-
ron Sci Technol 47:795–876. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10643​389.​
2017.​13289​18
182. Yang W, Wang Y, Shang J et al (2017) Antagonistic effect of
humic acid and naphthalene on biochar colloid transport in satu-
rated porous media. Chemosphere 189:556–564. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2017.​09.​060
183. Lu K, Yang X, Gielen G et al (2017) Effect of bamboo and rice
straw biochars on the mobility and redistribution of heavy met-
als (Cd, Cu, Pb and Zn) in contaminated soil. J Environ Manag
186:285–292. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2016.​05.​068
184. Meng J, Tao M, Wang L et al (2018) Changes in heavy metal
bioavailability and speciation from a Pb-Zn mining soil
amended with biochars from co-pyrolysis of rice straw and
swine manure. Sci Total Environ 633:300–307. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2018.​03.​199
185. Yang X, Liu J, McGrouther K et al (2016) Effect of biochar
on the extractability of heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn) and
enzyme activity in soil. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:974–984.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​015-​4233-0
186. Ahmad Z, Gao B, Mosa A, et al (2018) Removal of Cu(II),
Cd(II) and Pb(II) ions from aqueous solutions by biochars
derived from potassium-rich biomass. Journal of cleaner
production
187. He P, Liu Y, Shao L et al (2018) Particle size dependence
of the physicochemical properties of biochar. Chemosphere
212:385–392. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2018.​08.​
106
188. Cho H-H, Wepasnick K, Smith BA et al (2010) Sorption of
aqueous Zn[II] and Cd[II] by multiwall carbon nanotubes: the
relative roles of oxygen-containing functional groups and gra-
phenic carbon. Langmuir 26:967–981. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​
la902​440u
189. Faria PCC, Orfão JJM, Pereira MFR (2004) Adsorption of
anionic and cationic dyes on activated carbons with different
surface chemistries. Water Res 38:2043–2052. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​watres.​2004.​01.​034
190. XueJiao T, JiuYu L, JinHua Y, RenKou X (2011) Adsorption
of Cu(II) by biochars generated from three crop straws. Chem
Eng J 172:828–834
191. Li M, Lou Z, Wang Y et al (2015) Alkali and alkaline earth
metallic (AAEM) species leaching and Cu(II) sorption by bio-
char. Chemosphere 119:778–785. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​
chemo​sphere.​2014.​08.​033
192. Tang J, Zhu W, Kookana R, Katayama A (2013) Characteristics
of biochar and its application in remediation of contaminated
soil. J Biosci Bioeng 116:653–659. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jbiosc.​2013.​05.​035
193. Lei S, Shi Y, Qiu Y et al (2019) Performance and mechanisms
of emerging animal-derived biochars for immobilization of
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
heavy metals. Sci Total Environ 646:1281–1289. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2018.​07.​374
194. Huang J-H, Hsu S-H, Wang S-L (2011) Effects of rice straw
ash amendment on Cu solubility and distribution in flooded
rice paddy soils. J Hazard Mater 186:1801–1807. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​2010.​12.​066
195. Qian L, Chen B (2013) Dual role of biochars as adsorbents
for aluminum: the effects of oxygen-containing organic com-
ponents and the scattering of silicate particles. Environ Sci
Technol 47:8759–8768. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es401​756h
196. Xu X, Zhao Y, Sima J et al (2017) Indispensable role of bio-
char-inherent mineral constituents in its environmental applica-
tions: a review. Biores Technol 241:887–899. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2017.​06.​023
197. Dai Z, Zhang X, Tang C et al (2017) Potential role of biochars
in decreasing soil acidification—a critical review. Sci Total
Environ 581–582:601–611. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​
2016.​12.​169
198. Yu M, Meng J, Yu L et al (2019) Changes in nitrogen related
functional genes along soil pH, C and nutrient gradients in the
charosphere. Sci Total Environ 650:626–632. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2018.​08.​372
199. Duan R, Hu H-Q, Fu Q-L, Kou C-L (2017) Remediation of
Cd/Ni contaminated soil by biochar and oxalic acid activated
phosphate rock. Huan Jing Ke Xue 38:4836–4843. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​13227/j.​hjkx.​20170​4028
200. Kloss S, Zehetner F, Dellantonio A et al (2012) Characteriza-
tion of slow pyrolysis biochars: effects of feedstocks and pyroly-
sis temperature on biochar properties. J Environ Qual 41:990.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2134/​jeq20​11.​0070
201. Zackrisson O, Nilsson M, Wardle D (1996) Key ecological func-
tion of charcoal from wildfire in the Boreal forest. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​2307/​35455​80
202. Cantrell KB, Hunt PG, Uchimiya M et al (2012) Impact of
pyrolysis temperature and manure source on physicochemical
characteristics of biochar. Biores Technol 107:419–428. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2011.​11.​084
203. Chen H, Zhou Y, Zhao H, Li Q (2018) A comparative study on
behavior of heavy metals in pyrochar and hydrochar from sewage
sludge. Energy Sources Part A Recover Utilization Environ Eff
40:565–571. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15567​036.​2017.​13991​73
204. Pituello C, Ferro ND, Francioso O et al (2018) Effects of biochar
on the dynamics of aggregate stability in clay and sandy loam
soils. Eur J Soil Sci 69:827–842. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​ejss.​
12676
205. Singh B, Singh BP, Cowie AL (2010) Characterisation and evalu-
ation of biochars for their application as a soil amendment. Soil
Res 48:516. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1071/​SR100​58
206. Zhou J, Ma H, Gao M et al (2018) Changes of chromium spe-
ciation and organic matter during low-temperature pyrolysis of
tannery sludge. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 25:2495–2505. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11356-​017-​0271-0
207. Zhang W, Tong L, Yuan Y et al (2010) Influence of soil washing
with a chelator on subsequent chemical immobilization of heavy
metals in a contaminated soil. J Hazard Mater 178:578–587.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​2010.​01.​124
208. Shu R, Dang F, Zhong H (2016) Effects of incorporating differ-
ently-treated rice straw on phytoavailability of methylmercury in
soil. Chemosphere 145:457–463. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.c​ hemo​
sphere.​2015.​11.​037
209. Wang Y, Dang F, Zheng X, Zhong H (2019) Biochar amendment
to further reduce methylmercury accumulation in rice grown in
selenium-amended paddy soil. J Hazard Mater 365:590–596.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​2018.​11.​052
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
210. Zhang Y, Liu Y-R, Lei P et al (2018) Biochar and nitrate reduce
risk of methylmercury in soils under straw amendment. Sci Total
Environ 619–620:384–390. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​
2017.​11.​106
211. Li Z, Deng H, Yang L et al (2018) Influence of potassium hydrox-
ide activation on characteristics and environmental risk of heavy
metals in chars derived from municipal sewage sludge. Bioresour
Technol 256:216–223. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2018.​
02.​013
212. Wang J, Xia K, Waigi MG et al (2018) Application of biochar to
soils may result in plant contamination and human cancer risk
due to exposure of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Environ
Int 121:169–177. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envint.​2018.​09.​010
213. Galbally DrP, Ryan T, Finnan J, et al (2014) Biosolids and distill-
ery effluent amendments to Irish Miscanthus plantations: impacts
on overland flow and surface water quality. Sustain Water Qual
Ecol 3–4:. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​swaqe.​2014.​11.​003
214. Oleszczuk P, Jośko I, Kuśmierz M (2013) Biochar properties
regarding to contaminants content and ecotoxicological assess-
ment. J Hazard Mater 260:375–382. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jhazm​at.​2013.​05.​044
215. von Gunten K, Alam MdS, Hubmann M et al (2017) Modified
sequential extraction for biochar and petroleum coke: metal
release potential and its environmental implications. Biores
Technol 236:106–110. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2017.​
03.​162
216. Devi P, Saroha AK (2014) Risk analysis of pyrolyzed biochar
made from paper mill effluent treatment plant sludge for bio-
availability and eco-toxicity of heavy metals. Bioresour Technol
162:308–315. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2014.​03.​093
217. Zheng L, Wang W, Shi Y (2010) The effects of alkaline dosage
and Si/Al ratio on the immobilization of heavy metals in munici-
pal solid waste incineration fly ash-based geopolymer. Chemos-
phere 79:665–671. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2010.​
02.​018
218. Hale SE, Lehmann J, Rutherford D et al (2012) Quantifying the
total and bioavailable polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and
dioxins in biochars. Environ Sci Technol 46:2830–2838. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es203​984k
219. Xiang L, Liu S, Ye S et al (2021) Potential hazards of biochar:
the negative environmental impacts of biochar applications. J
Hazard Mater 420:126611. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhazm​at.​
2021.​126611
220. Rombolà AG, Fabbri D, Baronti S et al (2019) Changes in the
pattern of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in soil treated
with biochar from a multiyear field experiment. Chemosphere
219:662–670. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2018.​11.​
178
221. Quilliam RS, Rangecroft S, Emmett BA et al (2013) Is biochar a
source or sink for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) com-
pounds in agricultural soils? GCB Bioenergy 5:96–103. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1111/​gcbb.​12007
222. Sørmo E, Silvani L, Thune G et al (2020) Waste timber pyrolysis
in a medium-scale unit: emission budgets and biochar quality.
Sci Total Environ 718:137335. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​
tenv.​2020.​137335
223. Assaf NW, Altarawneh M, Oluwoye I et al (2016) Formation of
environmentally persistent free radicals on α-Al2O3. Environ Sci
Technol 50:11094–11102. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​est.​6b026​
01
224. Zhang K, Mao J, Chen B (2019) Reconsideration of heterostruc-
tures of biochars: morphology, particle size, elemental composi-
tion, reactivity and toxicity. Environ Pollut 254:113017. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envpol.​2019.​113017
13

225. Liao S, Pan B, Li H et al (2014) Detecting free radicals in bio-
chars and determining their ability to inhibit the germination and
growth of corn, wheat and rice seedlings. Environ Sci Technol
48:8581–8587. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es404​250a
226. Choppala G, Bolan N, Kunhikrishnan A, Bush R (2016) Dif-
ferential effect of biochar upon reduction-induced mobility and
bioavailability of arsenate and chromate. Chemosphere 144:374–
381. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​chemo​sphere.​2015.​08.​043
227. Mia S, Singh B, Dijkstra FA (2017) Aged biochar affects gross
nitrogen mineralization and recovery: a 15N study in two con-
trasting soils. GCB Bioenergy 9:1196–1206. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1111/​gcbb.​12430
228. Liu G, Chen L, Jiang Z et al (2017) Aging impacts of low
molecular weight organic acids (LMWOAs) on furfural produc-
tion residue-derived biochars: porosity, functional properties,
and inorganic minerals. Sci Total Environ 607–608:1428–1436.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2017.​07.​046
229. Li H, Yu Y, Chen Y et al (2019) Biochar reduced soil extract-
able Cd but increased its accumulation in rice (Oryza sativa L.)
cultivated on contaminated soils. J Soils Sediments 19:862–871.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11368-​018-​2072-6
230. Khan S, Chao C, Waqas M et al (2013) Sewage sludge biochar
influence upon rice (Oryza sativa L) yield, metal bioaccumula-
tion and greenhouse gas emissions from acidic paddy soil. Envi-
ron Sci Technol 47:8624–8632. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es400​
554x
231. Cui H, Li D, Liu X et al (2021) Dry-wet and freeze-thaw aging
activate endogenous copper and cadmium in biochar. J Clean
Prod 288:125605. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/j.​j clep​r o.​2 020.​
125605
232. Kim H-B, Kim S-H, Jeon E-K et al (2018) Effect of dissolved
organic carbon from sludge, rice straw and spent coffee ground
biochar on the mobility of arsenic in soil. Sci Total Environ
636:1241–1248. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2018.​04.​
406
233. Liu G, Zheng H, Jiang Z et al (2018) Formation and physico-
chemical characteristics of nano biochar: insight into chemical
and colloidal stability. Environ Sci Technol 52:10369–10379.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​acs.​est.​8b014​81
234. Wang D, Zhang W, Zhou D (2013) Antagonistic effects of humic
acid and iron oxyhydroxide grain-coating on biochar nanoparticle
transport in saturated sand. Environ Sci Technol 47:5154–5161.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es305​337r
235. Song B, Chen M, Zhao L et al (2019) Physicochemical prop-
erty and colloidal stability of micron- and nano-particle biochar
derived from a variety of feedstock sources. Sci Total Environ
661:685–695. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2019.​01.​193
236. Brewer CE, Unger R, Schmidt-Rohr K, Brown RC (2011) Crite-
ria to select biochars for field studies based on biochar chemical
properties. Bioenerg Res 4:312–323. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s12155-​011-​9133-7
237. Xie T, Reddy KR, Wang C et al (2015) Characteristics and appli-
cations of biochar for environmental remediation: a review. Crit
Rev Environ Sci Technol 45:939–969. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​
10643​389.​2014.​924180
238. Obia A, Cornelissen G, Mulder J, et al (2017) Effect of bio-
char on crust formation, penetration resistance and hydraulic
properties of two coarse-textured tropical soils. Soil & tillage
research. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​still.​2017.​03.​009
239. Palansooriya KN, Wong JTF, Hashimoto Y et al (2019)
Response of microbial communities to biochar-amended soils:
a critical review. Biochar 1:3–22. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 007/​
s42773-​019-​00009-2
240. Singh V, Srivastava VC (2020) Self-engineered iron oxide nano-
particle incorporated on mesoporous biochar derived from tex-
tile mill sludge for the removal of an emerging pharmaceutical
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
pollutant. Environ Pollut 259:113822. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
envpol.​2019.​113822
241. Chen J, Li S, Liang C et al (2017) Response of microbial com-
munity structure and function to short-term biochar amendment
in an intensively managed bamboo (Phyllostachys praecox) plan-
tation soil: effect of particle size and addition rate. Sci Total
Environ 574:24–33. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2016.​08.​
190
242. Sun H, Hockaday WC, Masiello CA, Zygourakis K (2012) Mul-
tiple controls on the chemical and physical structure of biochars.
Ind Eng Chem Res 51:3587–3597. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​ie201​
309r
243. Valenzuela-Calahorro C, Bernalte-Garcia A, Gómez-Serrano V,
Bernalte-García MJ (1987) Influence of particle size and pyroly-
sis conditions on yield, density and some textural parameters of
chars prepared from holm-oak wood. J Anal Appl Pyrol 12:61–
70. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0165-​2370(87)​80015-3
244. Liu Z, Dugan B, Masiello CA, Gonnermann HM (2017) Biochar
particle size, shape, and porosity act together to influence soil
water properties. PLoS One 12:e0179079. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1371/​journ​al.​pone.​01790​79
245. Liang C, Gascó G, Fu S et al (2016) Biochar from pruning
residues as a soil amendment: effects of pyrolysis temperature
and particle size. Soil Tillage Res 164:3–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​still.​2015.​10.​002
246. Brown RA, Kercher AK, Nguyen TH et al (2006) Production and
characterization of synthetic wood chars for use as surrogates for
natural sorbents. Org Geochem 37:321–333. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​orgge​ochem.​2005.​10.​008
247. Oguntunde PG, Abiodun BJ, Ajayi AE, van de Giesen N (2008)
Effects of charcoal production on soil physical properties in
Ghana. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 171:591–596. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1002/​jpln.​20062​5185
248. Pratiwi EPA, Shinogi Y (2016) Rice husk biochar application
to paddy soil and its effects on soil physical properties, plant
growth, and methane emission. Paddy Water Environ 14:521–
532. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10333-​015-​0521-z
249. Laird DA, Fleming P, Davis DD et al (2010) Impact of biochar
amendments on the quality of a typical Midwestern agricultural
soil. Geoderma 158:443–449. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​geode​
rma.​2010.​05.​013
250. Gluba Ł, Rafalska-Przysucha A, Szewczak K et al (2021) Effect
of fine size-fractionated sunflower husk biochar on water reten-
tion properties of arable sandy soil. Materials 14:1335. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ma140​61335
251. Patwa D, Chandra A, Ravi K, Sreedeep S (2021) Influence of
biochar particle size fractions on thermal and mechanical prop-
erties of biochar-amended soil. J Mater Civ Eng 33:04021236.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(ASCE)​MT.​1943-​5533.​00039​15
252. Ajayi AE, Horn R (2016) Modification of chemical and hydro-
physical properties of two texturally differentiated soils due to
varying magnitudes of added biochar. Soil Tillage Res 164:34–
44. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​still.​2016.​01.​011
253. Liao W, Thomas S (2019) Biochar particle size and post-pyroly-
sis mechanical processing affect soil pH, water retention capac-
ity, and plant performance. Soil Syst 3:14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
3390/​soils​ystem​s3010​014
254. Zhang X, Wang K, Sun C, et al (2022) Differences in soil physi-
cal properties caused by applying three organic amendments to
loamy clay soil under field conditions. J Soils Sediments 22:.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11368-​021-​03049-z
255. Kameyama K, Miyamoto T, Shiono T, Shinogi Y (2012) Influ-
ence of sugarcane bagasse-derived biochar application on nitrate
leaching in calcaric dark red soil. J Environ Qual 41:1131–1137.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2134/​jeq20​10.​0453
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
256. Bird MI, Wurster CM, de Paula Silva PH et al (2011) Algal bio-
char—production and properties. Bioresour Technol 102:1886–
1891. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2010.​07.​106
257. Keiluweit M, Nico PS, Johnson MG, Kleber M (2010) Dynamic
molecular structure of plant biomass-derived black carbon (Bio-
char). Environ Sci Technol 44:1247–1253. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1021/​es903​1419
258. Zhang J, Amonette JE, Flury M (2021) Effect of biochar and
biochar particle size on plant-available water of sand, silt loam,
and clay soil. Soil Tillage Res 212:104992. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​still.​2021.​104992
259. Rasa K, Heikkinen J, Hannula M et al (2018) How and why
does willow biochar increase a clay soil water retention capacity?
Biomass Bioenerg 119:346–353. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 016/j.b​ iomb​
ioe.​2018.​10.​004
260. Wang Y (2019) Heavy metal pollution in soil and agricultural
products on roadside of highway in seasonally frozen soil area.
undefined
261. Herath HMSK, Camps-Arbestain M, Hedley M (2013) Effect of
biochar on soil physical properties in two contrasting soils: an
Alfisol and an Andisol. Geoderma 209–210:188–197. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​geode​rma.​2013.​06.​016
262. Kelly CN, Benjamin J, Calderón FC et al (2017) Incorporation of
biochar carbon into stable soil aggregates: the role of clay min-
eralogy and other soil characteristics. Pedosphere 27:694–704.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1002-​0160(17)​60399-0
263. Curaqueo G, Meier S, Khan N et al (2014) Use of biochar on two
volcanic soils: effects on soil properties and barley yield. J Soil
Sci Plant Nutr 14:911–924. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.4​ 067/S ​ 0718-9​ 5162​
01400​50000​72
264. Dong X, Guan T, Li G et al (2016) Long-term effects of bio-
char amount on the content and composition of organic matter
in soil aggregates under field conditions. J Soils Sediments
16:1481–1497. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11368-​015-​1338-5
265. Moragues-Saitua L, Arias-González A, Gartzia-Bengoetxea
N (2017) Effects of biochar and wood ash on soil hydraulic
properties: a field experiment involving contrasting temperate
soils. Geoderma 305:144–152. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​geode​
rma.​2017.​05.​041
266. Głąb T, Palmowska J, Zaleski T, Gondek K (2016) Effect of
biochar application on soil hydrological properties and physi-
cal quality of sandy soil. Geoderma 281:11–20. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​geode​r ma.​2016.​06.​028
267. Major J, Lehmann J, Rondon M, Goodale C (2010) Fate of
soil-applied black carbon: downward migration, leaching and
soil respiration. Glob Change Biol 16:1366–1379. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1111/j.​1365-​2486.​2009.​02044.x
268. Uzoma KC, Inoue M, Andry H et al (2011) Influence of biochar
application on sandy soil hydraulic properties and nutrient reten-
tion. J Food Agric Environ 9:1137–1143
269. Zhang J, Chen Q, You C (2016) Biochar effect on water evapo-
ration and hydraulic conductivity in sandy soil. Pedosphere
26:265–272. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​S1002-​0160(15)​60041-8
270. Barnes RT, Gallagher ME, Masiello CA et al (2014) Biochar-
induced changes in soil hydraulic conductivity and dissolved
nutrient fluxes constrained by laboratory experiments. PLoS One
9:e108340. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​01083​40
271. Brockhoff SR, Christians NE, Killorn RJ et al (2010) Physical
and mineral-nutrition properties of sand-based turfgrass root
zones amended with biochar. Agron J 102:1627–1631. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​2134/​agron​j2010.​0188
272. Githinji L (2014) Effect of biochar application rate on soil physi-
cal and hydraulic properties of a sandy loam. Arch Agron Soil
Sci 60:457–470. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/0​ 36503​ 40.2​ 013.8​ 21698
273. Uzoma KC, Inoue M, Andry H et al (2011) Effect of cow manure
biochar on maize productivity under sandy soil condition. Soil
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Use Manag 27:205–212. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1475-​2743.​
2011.​00340.x
274. Rogovska N, Laird DA, Rathke SJ, Karlen DL (2014) Biochar
impact on Midwestern Mollisols and maize nutrient availability.
Geoderma 230–231:340–347. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​geode​
rma.​2014.​04.​009
275. Khademalrasoul A, Naveed M, Heckrath G et al (2014) Biochar
effects on soil aggregate properties under no-till maize. Soil Sci
179:273–283. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​SS.​00000​00000​000069
276. Zhang Q, Wang Y, Wu Y et al (2013) Effects of biochar amend-
ment on soil thermal conductivity, reflectance, and temperature.
Soil Sci Soc Am J 77:1478–1487. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2136/​sssaj​
2012.​0180
277. Kumar H, Cai W, Lai J et al (2020) Influence of in-house pro-
duced biochars on cracks and retained water during drying-wet-
ting cycles: comparison between conventional plant, animal, and
nano-biochars. J Soils Sediments 20:1983–1996. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s11368-​020-​02573-8
278. Sadasivam BY, Reddy KR (2015) Engineering properties of
waste wood-derived biochars and biochar-amended soils. Int J
Geotech Eng 9:521–535. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1179/​19397​87915Y.​
00000​00004
279. Pardo GS, Sarmah AK, Orense RP (2018) Mechanism of
improvement of biochar on shear strength and liquefaction resist-
ance of sand. Géotechnique 69:471–480. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 680/​
jgeot.​17.P.​040
280. Naik SP, Choudhury B, Garg A (2021) Laboratory investigations
of liquefaction mitigation of Ganga sand using stable carbon
material: a case study. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 7:89. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40891-​021-​00333-3
281. Mei G, Kumar H, Huang H et al (2020) Desiccation cracks miti-
gation using biomass derived carbon produced from aquatic spe-
cies in South China Sea. Waste Biomass Valor. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1007/​s12649-​020-​01057-7
282. Bazargan A, Rough SL, McKay G (2014) Compaction of palm
kernel shell biochars for application as solid fuel. Biomass Bio-
energ 70:489–497. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biomb​ioe.​2014.​08.​
015
283. Lamprinakos R, Manahiloh KN (2019) Evaluating the compac-
tion behavior of soils with biochar amendment. 141–147. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1061/​97807​84482​117.​013
284. Sudhakar A, Remya N, Varghese GK (2017) Estimation of effect
of sugarcane bagasse biochar amendment in landfill soil cover on
geotechnical properties and landfill gas emission. Environ Qual
Manage 27:33–39. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​tqem.​21528
285. Xu K, Yang B, Wang J, Wu M (2020) Improvement of mechani-
cal properties of clay in landfill lines with biochar additive. Arab
J Geosci 13:584. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12517-​020-​05622-1
286. Sarkar A, Pattanayak S, Guharay A et al (2020) Influence of in-
house produced biochar on geotechnical properties of expansive
clay. IOP Conf Series Earth Environ Sci 463:012072. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1088/​1755-​1315/​463/1/​012072
287. Jyoti Bora M, Bordoloi S, Kumar H, et al (2020) Influence of
biochar from animal and plant origin on the compressive strength
characteristics of degraded landfill surface soils. Int J Damage
Mech 1056789520925524. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10567​89520​
925524
288. Ruan X, Sun Y, Du W et al (2019) Formation, characteristics,
and applications of environmentally persistent free radicals in
biochars: a review. Bioresour Technol 281:457–468. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2019.​02.​105
289. Wang L, Chen L, Tsang DCW et al (2020) Biochar as green addi-
tives in cement-based composites with carbon dioxide curing. J
Clean Prod 258:120678. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​
120678
13

290. Gupta S, Kua HW, Tan Cynthia SY (2017) Use of biochar-
coated polypropylene fibers for carbon sequestration and physi-
cal improvement of mortar. Cement Concr Compos 83:171–187.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cemco​ncomp.​2017.​07.​012
291. Matalkah F, Darsanasiri AGND, Abideen S et al (2017) Alkali-
activation of non-wood biomass ash: effects of ash characteristics
on concrete performance. Civil Eng J 3:365–371. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​28991/​cej-​2017-​00000​097
292. Wulandari M, Tavio T, Raka IGP, Puryanto P (2018) Compres-
sive strength of steel-fiber concrete with artificial lightweight
aggregate (ALWA). Civil Eng J 4:2011–2022. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​28991/​cej-​03091​134
293. Wang W, Wen C, Li C et al (2019) Emission reduction of par-
ticulate matter from the combustion of biochar via thermal
pre-treatment of torrefaction, slow pyrolysis or hydrothermal
carbonisation and its co-combustion with pulverized coal. Fuel
240:278–288. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​fuel.​2018.​11.​117
294. Li H-D, Tang C-S, Cheng Q et al (2019) Tensile strength of
clayey soil and the strain analysis based on image processing
techniques. Eng Geol 253:137–148. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
enggeo.​2019.​03.​017
295. Garg A, Reddy NG, Huang H, Buragohain P, Kushvaha V (2020)
Modelling contaminant transport in fly ash–bentonite compos-
ite landfill liner: mechanism of different types of ions. Sci Rep
10(1). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41598-​020-​68198-6
296. Ahmed MB, Zhou JL, Ngo HH, Guo W (2016) Insight into bio-
char properties and its cost analysis
297. Rajabi Hamedani S, Kuppens T, Malina R et al (2019) Life cycle
assessment and environmental valuation of biochar production:
two case studies in Belgium. Energies 12:2166. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​3390/​en121​12166
298. Bordoloi S, Garg A, Sreedeep S et al (2018) Investigation of
cracking and water availability of soil-biochar composite syn-
thesized from invasive weed water hyacinth. Biores Technol
263:665–677. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biort​ech.​2018.​05.​011
299. Yoder J, Galinato S, Granatstein D, Garcia-Pérez M (2011)
Economic tradeoff between biochar and bio-oil production via
pyrolysis. Biomass Bioenerg 35:1851–1862. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​biomb​ioe.​2011.​01.​026
300. Pratt K, Moran D (2010) Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of
global biochar mitigation potential. Biomass Bioenerg 34:1149–
1158. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​biomb​ioe.​2010.​03.​004
301. Meyer S, Glaser B, Quicker P (2011) Technical, economical,
and climate-related aspects of biochar production technologies:
a literature review. Environ Sci Technol 45:9473–9483. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es201​792c
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Biomass Conversion and Biorefinery
302. Roberts KG, Gloy BA, Joseph S et al (2010) Life cycle assess-
ment of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic,
and climate change potential. Environ Sci Technol 44:827–833.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es902​266r
303. Fornes F, Belda RM, Lidón A (2015) Analysis of two biochars
and one hydrochar from different feedstock: focus set on envi-
ronmental, nutritional and horticultural considerations. J Clean
Prod 86:40–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2014.​08.​057
304. Li S, Chen G (2018) Thermogravimetric, thermochemical,
and infrared spectral characterization of feedstocks and bio-
char derived at different pyrolysis temperatures. Waste Manag
78:198–207. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​wasman.​2018.​05.​048
305. Chen M, Alim N, Zhang Y et al (2018) Contrasting effects of bio-
char nanoparticles on the retention and transport of phosphorus
in acidic and alkaline soils. Environ Pollut 239:562–570. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envpol.​2018.​04.​050
306. Wang D, Zhang W, Hao X, Zhou D (2013) Transport of bio-
char particles in saturated granular media: effects of pyrolysis
temperature and particle size. Environ Sci Technol 47:821–828.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1021/​es303​794d
307. Joseph S, Camps-Arbestain M, Lin Y, et al (2010) An investiga-
tion into the reactions of biochar in soil. C S I R O Publishing
308. El-Naggar A, Lee M-H, Hur J et al (2020) Biochar-induced metal
immobilization and soil biogeochemical process: an integrated
mechanistic approach. Sci Total Environ 698:134112. https://d​ oi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2019.​134112
309. Lehmann J, Rillig MC, Thies J et al (2011) Biochar effects on
soil biota—a review. Soil Biol Biochem 43:1812–1836. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​soilb​io.​2011.​04.​022
310. Zhu X, Chen B, Zhu L, Xing B (2017) Effects and mechanisms of
biochar-microbe interactions in soil improvement and pollution
remediation: a review. Environ Pollut 227:98–115. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​envpol.​2017.​04.​032
311. Gondek K, Mierzwa-Hersztek M, Baran A et al (2017) The effect
of low-temperature conversion of plant materials on the chemical
composition and ecotoxicity of biochars. Waste Biomass Valor
8:599–609. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12649-​016-​9621-2
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com