Accepted Manuscript

Short Communication

Investigation of cracking and water availability of soil-biochar

composite syn-thesized from invasive weed water hyacinth

Sanandam Bordoloi, Ankit Garg, S. Sreedeep, Lin Peng, Guoxiong Mei

PII: S0960-8524(18)30660-6
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.011
Reference: BITE 19917

To appear in: Bioresource Technology

Received Date: 8 March 2018

Revised Date: 1 May 2018
Accepted Date: 2 May 2018

Please cite this article as: Bordoloi, S., Garg, A., Sreedeep, S., Peng, L., Mei, G., Investigation of
cracking and water availability of soil-biochar composite synthesized from invasive weed water hyacinth,
Bioresource Technology (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.05.011

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we
are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of
the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 Investigation of cracking and water availability of soil-biochar
composite synthesized from invasive weed water hyacinth

Sanandam Bordoloi, Ankit Garg*, Sreedeep S, Lin Peng and Guoxiong Mei

Name: Sanandam Bordoloi

Title: Research Student
Affiliation: Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, India.
E-mail: sanandambordoloiaec95@gmail.com

Name: Dr Ankit Garg *(Corresponding author)

Title: Associate Professor
Affiliation: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shantou University, China.
E-mail: ankit@stu.edu.cn

Name: Dr Sreedeep S
Title: Professor
Affiliation: Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, India.
E-mail: srees@iitgernet.in

Name: Dr Lin Peng

Title: Professor and Vice-Dean of College of Engineering
Affiliation: Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shantou University, China.
E-mail: plin@stu.edu.cn

Name: Dr Guoxiong Mei

Title: Professor and Changjiang Scholar
Affiliation: Department of Civil and Architecture, Shantou University, China.
E-mail: meiguox163.com
 ABSTRACT

Water hyacinth (WH), is one of the world's most intractable and invasive weed species. Recent

studies explored the efficacy of this species as a biochar (BC) in improving soil fertility and

metal adsorption. However, the soil water retention (SWR) property and crack potential of

soil-WH biochar composite has still not been studied. The major objective of this study is to

investigate the SWR property and corresponding crack intensity factor (CIF) for compacted

soil-WH BC composites. Soil-WH BC composites at five percentages (0, 2, 5, 10 and 15) was

compacted and soil parameters such as suction (ψ), water content and CIF were simultaneously

monitored for 63 days (including 9 drying-wetting cycles). Results showed that soil-WH BC

composite at all percentages retains more water (max. 19% and min. 6.53%) than bare soil at

both saturated and drought conditions. Gradual inclusion of WH BC to soil decreases the CIF

potential from 7% to 2.8%.

Keywords: Water hyacinth, Biochar, Crack intensity factor, Water retention, Suction
1. Introduction

Eichhornia crassipes, as shown in Fig.1a also popularly known as water hyacinth (WH), is one of

the world's most intractable weed species (Patel, 2012). The International Union for Conservation

of Nature (IUCN) has listed WH as one of the world’s top 10 worst weeds (Tellez et al., 2008).

WH invades water bodies of most tropical countries and reproduces at a very high rate (17.5 metric

tons/hectare/day), costing millions of dollars to control and clear the infestation (Simberloff et al.,

1997; Shoeb and Singh, 2000). WH poses a range of serious threats to the ecosystem as its

proliferation leads to destruction of native biodiversity, blocks irrigation projects and acts as

channels for greenhouse gas emissions from water bodies (Masto et al., 2013; Malik et al., 2007).

Conventional weed management strategies consist of regular removal of these waste biomass out

from the water body either physically or mechanically (Smith et al., 1984; Harley et al., 1996).

WH biomass is cellulosic in nature and if disposed in soil, the biomass carbon will decompose

readily and release to atmosphere due to degradation (Masto et al. 2013). Alternatively, conversion

of this waste biomass to biochar (BC) can enhance the stability of the carbon and assist long-term

carbon sequestration (Jeffery et al., 2011). WH, with a high biomass yield and containing abundant

plant nutrients is seen as a potential resource for soil reclamation through vegetation (Reddy and

D'angelo, 1990). The conversion of WH to BC and its use in green infrastructure and agriculture

represents a more sustainable strategy for management of this recalcitrant weed.

BC is a charred by-product of plant biomass generated during pyrolysis or gasification

(Lehman and Joseph, 2015; Das et al., 2017; De Bhowmick et al., 2017; Poulose et al., 2018).

Pyrolysis is a physiochemical process under deficit of oxygen and high temperature (200-700 ),

that results in bio-fuel after condensation and the solid residue left is the BC. BC is gaining
momentum as a sustainable soil-amendment material for improving agricultural productivity and

for environmental remediation (Xie et al., 2015; Das et al., 2016). In agriculture, BC appears to

improve soil fertility and reduce leaching of nutrients, increases water retention and improves soil

microbial activity; thereby improving crop yield in coarse-grained soils (Verheijen et al., 2010;

Uzoma et al., 2011; Das et al., 2015; Yargicoglu and Reddy, 2017; Keykha et al. 2017; Narzari et

al., 2018; Lin et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2018). In the context of environmental remediation in

engineering applications, biochar amended soil (BAS) appears to be a feasible material for

compacted landfill cover system (Wong et al., 2016; Yargicoglu and Reddy, 2017(a-b); Wong et

al., 2018; Yargicoglu and Reddy, 2018), green infrastructures (Cao et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2016)

and reclamation of mining sites (Fellet et al., 2011). These studies in engineering applications on

BAS have predominantly analyzed properties such as water retention (Abel et al., 2013;

Amoakwah et al., 2017), mechanical strength (Yargicoglu and Reddy, 2017(a-b)), nutrient

enhancement, infiltration, gas flow and contaminant control. However, there is no wholesome

study that quantifies the desiccation cracking potential of BASs. Desiccation cracks or surface

cracks occur due to evaporation from soil surface resulting in high surface suction (tensile forces)

(Gadi et al., 2017; Fasihnikoutalab et al., 2017; Bordoloi et al., 2018). Measurement of these cracks

is important as they adversely affect functioning of landfill cover system, urban green

infrastructure as well as agriculture as shown in Fig.1b. Desiccation cracks lead to high methane

gas flow and water infiltration through landfill cover, increases the probability of soil erosion

failure and also escalates nutrient loss in agricultural soil (Li et al., 2016; Yargicoglu and Reddy,

2018). Thus, the knowledge of desiccation crack potential of a BAS is essential in design of eco-

friendly infrastructures such as compacted landfill cover and green infrastructures.

 Recent studies on WH- BC have shown that its potential in improving soil fertility (Masto

et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2018) and metal adsorption (Zhang et al., 2015, 2016; Li et al., 2016; Shen

et al., 2018). However, the water retention property of soil-WH BC composite in the entire

unsaturated range has not been studied till date. Furthermore, the corresponding crack potential of

soil-WH BC composite has not been investigated. The knowledge of the soil water availability and

corresponding crack intensity factor (CIF) of compacted soil-WH BC composite gives an

understanding of its potential in large-scale engineered landfills as well as in agricultural field. In

this approach, the hitherto intractable weed-WH, then becomes a valuable resource for eco-

friendly infrastructures. The use of column experiments to measure unsaturated soil properties

such as water retention and soil cracking has been done by gauging the variations in soil-water

potential (suction), water content and desiccation cracks (Bordoloi et al. 2018).

The main objective of this communication is to investigate the soil water retention (SWR)

property and corresponding crack parameter– crack intensity factor (CIF) for compacted soil

amended with WH BC. The BC was produced in-house by slow pyrolysis of local WH plants and

uniformly mixed with soil at five different percentages (0, 2, 5, 10 and 15) at same compaction

state. Soil parameters such as soil-water potential (suction), water content, CIF were monitored on

a total of 15 soil column samples for a period of 63 days, encompassing 9 drying-wetting cycles.

The CIF was measured by developing a python code that measures surfaces cracks from images

without disturbing the samples. Based on the measured values, a simple model was developed to

predict the CIF in field conditions by knowing the SWR of the soil.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Testing materials

Soil used in the current study was collected from the campus of Indian Institute of Technology

Guwahati, India. The soil predominately constitutes of medium and fine sand (37% and 21%

respectively), followed by silt (37%) and clay (5%). Consistency limits of the soil (liquid limit

(42%) and plastic limit (26%)) showed that it is medium plastic in nature. In civil engineering

approach, the Consistency limits are defined as the water contents at which the consistency

changes from one state to the other (ASTM D4318). A gradual increase in water content causes

the soil to change from solid to semi-solid to plastic to liquid states. In engineering application,

the relation between dry density and water content of a soil is reported as compaction curve. The

maximum dry density (MDD) and optimum moisture content (OMC) of the compaction curve of

soil is found to be 15.6 kN/m3 and 16.5 %, respectively. The basic engineering properties of the

soil and their standards are given in Table 1. According to unified soil classification system

(USCS; ASTM D422-63), the soil is categorized as SC i.e. sand-clay mixture.

WH plants collected from Deepor Beel, Assam, India were initially characterized for their

biochemical composition (Table 2). The WH plant is predominantly lignocellulose in nature with

cellulose and hemicellulose being the predominant bio-polymers (67%). WH stems were air dried

and fragmented into small pieces (30-50 mm) so that they can be adequately given as feedstock,

as WH stems grow up to 100 cm. The pyrolysis was done under limited supply of air in 500 ml

cylindrical stainless steel box (11 cm x 7cm; height x dia.). The pyrolysis conditions were

maintained at 300-350 for a period of 45 minutes as per optimum conditions for WH species

(Masto et al., 2013). The TGA as shown in Fig. 2 of the WH stems was conducted previously and

it was observed to give a relatively same response as done in Masto et al., (2013) where 50%

weight loss occurs at around 350 . The coarse WH biochar obtained from pyrolysis were crushed

using an automatic crusher and sieved through 2mm sieves. The

obtained WH BC is characterized for engineering properties in Table 1. The morphology of

produced WH BC particles was compared with that of the soil using FE-SEM images. It was found

that most of the WH BC are smaller in size as compared to soil particles and range mostly as silts

(<75 micron). Its mixture with soil should naturally result in change in the pore structure of soil-

WH BC composite.

2.2 Test plan and preparation of soil column tests

The schematic test arrangement used in the study is shown in Fig. 3. All the tests were done in a

transparent enclosure with openings on opposite ends. The test series were divided into five sets-

one bare soil (BS) and four soil-WH BC composites. In the current study, the four composites are

designated as SXBC where X represents the BC weight percentage (at 2, 5, 10 and 15) with respect

to dry soil. The motive of investigating the biochar percentage from 2% to 15% is to quantitatively

gauge its effect on water retention and desiccation cracking of soil-biochar composite. The range

was explored based on previous work (Reddy et al. 2015, Wong et al. 2017) on geo-environmental

application. Both BS and SXBC soil was compacted in a cylindrical column made of Poly Vinyl

Chloride (PVC) with a diameter of 300 mm and height of 250 mm. The column dimensions are

selected as per the requisite representative elementary diameter (137.5 mm) for studying crack

development pattern (Li and Zhang, 2010). The column was provided with a perforated base plate,

where a filter paper was placed to prevent soil particle loss but provide for any drainage of water.

Three replicates were provided for each series and thus a total 15 columns were monitored in the

study. All test series were statically compacted in three layers up to 170 mm at 0.9 MDD and

OMC, as per compaction conditions in engineering projects (Li.et al., 2016). A thin layer of grease

was applied on the inner surface of the cylinder

to minimize soil-PVC friction before the compaction process. Initially, the soil was oven dried and

biochar percentage (by mass) were dry-mixed to create a soil-biochar mixture. It is important to

note that biochar added was air dried before mixing. The soil-BC mixture is sprayed with requisite

distilled water to minimize lumps during mixing. Distilled water was used throughout the

experimentation tenure to minimize the effect of any salts on suction measurements.

Each column was kept in the transparent enclosure, after preparing the compacted sample,

where the specimen was exposed to natural environment and controlled irrigation applied during

monitoring period. A sprinkler system was attached on top of the soil columns for applying

controlled irrigation (1000 ml) at an interval of 7 days from start of the experiment as shown in

Fig. 3 (a-b). This results in 9 drying-wetting cycles which encapsulates crack opening due to

repeated wetting events (Bordoloi et al., 2018). A digital camera (model: Canon SX 60HS) at the

same height was used to obtain periodic time-lapse images of the soil surface during drying cycles.

Two suction sensors ((MPS-6) with range from 10 to 100,000 kPa; Decagon devices, 2016a) and

two volumetric water content sensors ((EC-5) Decagon devices, 2016) were installed at

diametrically opposite ends during compaction at 30 mm soil depth as referred in Fig. 3 (a-b). All

sensors were connected to an EM-50 data logger system (Decagon Devices, 2016).

The monitoring period for all the 15 columns were done for 63 days. The meteorological

parameters subjected on the columns, such as solar radiation, temperature and relative humidity

were measured by a weather monitoring system as shown in Fig. 3a. The daily weather condition

and irrigation patterns during the monitoring period is consequently shown in Fig. 3b. The

irrigation pattern resulted in 9 drying cycles for the monitoring period. The average relative
humidity and temperature during the monitoring period was 83.7 ± 9% and 22.48 ± 6.80,

respectively. Average solar radiation during this period varied from 10.12 to 16.10 MJ/m2/day.

2.3 Simple model development using response surface regression

Simple models for estimating CIF as function of soil suction (ψ) and volumetric water content

(MC) for all soils including soil-WH BC composites were developed using response surface

regression (RSR). The RSR approach is commonly used to generate mathematical model based on

the given inputs (Lesch et al., 1995). The generated mathematical model is a polynomial equation

of a fixed order. It can be estimated using an orthogonal least squares method. Polynomial equation

is based on the statistical assumptions such as non-correlated residuals, normal distribution of

error, etc. The settings of RSR include the sigma-restricted parameterization and Type VI sum of

squares. The methodology was applied on the training data as shown in Fig. 4 (discussed in results

section). The univariate testing as well as fitting ability of the formulated models were then

discussed.

3. Measurement of cracks using non-intrusive imaging technique

Images were taken at regular interval from the same height and location to capture the crack

parameter- crack intensity factor (CIF) for the entire suction range of the study. CIF represents the

percentage ratio of crack area divided by the total soil area studied (Gadi et al. 2017). This was

enabled by calculating the pixels that encompass the targeted area. Surface cracks appear darker

than the remaining soil in digitized images (Yesiller et al., 2000). This color contrast between

surface cracks and soil for the same photographic condition is used to analyze CIF. A
code was developed in Python language (refer appendix) to measure the CIF of all test series by

following a simple algorithm that executed the following steps (refer Fig. 3c).

1. Image is cropped to account for the soil surface.

2. Image is transformed into greyscale and bilateral filter is applied.

3. The image is converted to a black and white pixels. Image is contoured thereafter.

4. Removal of noise by erosion function to only account for cracks. Crack pixels are calculated.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Effect of WH biochar on soil water retention curve

The SWR property which represents the change in volumetric water content (θ) with increasing

suction (ψ) for all studied test series is depicted in Fig. 4. θ is simply the ratio of water volume to

soil volume and ψ is defined as the negative pressure in the pore water (or the pressure below

atmospheric) by which water is retained in a soil mass (Fredlund and Rahardjo 1993). In general,

at lower suctions where there is no change in water content, the soil is mostly saturated with soil

voids being almost filled with water. This water content is called saturated water content (Pham

and Fredlund, 2008) or maximum water retained by the soil/soil-biochar composite (Fig. 4). It is

seen that the saturated water content or the water retention capacity of soil increases with addition

of WH BC. The water retention capacity of BS is (29.5± 0.89) %, and with addition of 15%WH

BC to soil it increases to (48.45± 0.59) %. This increase of water retention capacity is proportional

to the WH BC percentage added to the soil (Fig. 4). Evaporation of water from soil results in the

water content decrease with increasing suction and this phase represents the unsaturated phase of

soil. Unsaturated soil means that soil has turned in to a three phase medium-
soil, water and air. The tension in the air-water menisci induces tensile stresses on the soil particles

which is represented by the suction forces (Li et al., 2011). The soil ultimately reaches a residual

water content for very high suction beyond which there is no change in water content due to drying

(Leong and Rahardjo, 1997). In the current study, the soil cannot be said to have reached that stage

as the drying period (7 day) may not be enough to evaporate all the water for all series. Hence, the

minimum available water content (Fig.5) is used to indicate and compare the water available at

the current drought conditions for all test series. The minimum available water content increases

from 9.97% to 21.48% for BS and S15BC respectively. For WH BC inclusion from 2% to 10%,

the minimum available water content ranges from 16.5% to 18%. This increases in minimum

available water content (by at least 6.53%) is particularly crucial during critical drought period

expected for agricultural fields (de Melo Carvalho et al., 2014). The increase in water retention by

SXBC as compared to BS at both saturated and drought range can be discussed in two aspects.

The particle size distribution of soil in Table 1 clearly shows that the WH BC is fine grained as

compared to the coarse grained particles of BS. The inclusion of WH BC particles decreases the

inter-particle void spaces. The decrease in inter-particle spaces by fine grained BC increases the

capillary action of holding water as compared to BS (Ng and Menzies, 2007). Another aspect that

is widely known for biochar’s ability to retain water is because of its porous structure (de Melo

Carvalho et al., 2014; Ulyett et al., 2014; Ajayi, and Rainer, 2017). The WH BC also showcased

this highly porous structure as shown in Fig.1a which makes the material conducive to store and

retain water.

4.2 Effect of WH biochar on crack intensity factor

The CIF variation with corresponding suction and water content along with the standard error of

mean from three replicates are presented in Fig.5. Cracks form on the surface when the tensile

forces generated by air-water menisci increases than the soil tensile strength (Shin and

Santamarina, 2011). The CIF variation with the SWR property of soil is generally divided in to

three stages (Li and Zhang, 2010). Firstly, the soil surface does not showcase any cracks when it

is saturated at the surface. This behavior is shown in all test series tested in the current study (refer

Fig.5). In the second stage, cracks start to appear on the surface due to evaporation of water and

increases in size when the air-water interface develops in the unsaturated phase during drying. This

increase in crack aperture is accompanied by soil contraction which is inherent to the cohesive

nature of the soil (Cordero et al., 2017). Cracks ultimately increases and becomes constant in the

third stage at very high suctions as the tensile forces cannot induce further contraction of particles

due to drying (Yesiller et al., 2000). This is the maximum crack potential of the soil and shown by

the peak CIF in the current study (Fig.5). The inclusion of WH BC, the peak CIF decreases from

7% to 2.8% for BS and S15BC respectively as seen in Fig. 5a. WH BC inclusions even at 5%

reduces the peak CIF by half as compared to BS. This decreases in surface cracks can be discussed

by two reasons. First, as the SXBC composites retain more water than BS, naturally the cracking

will be less as air present in the three phase medium will be lesser than BS. Secondly, even though

inclusion of BC increases the finer content in soil (Table 1), but these particles possess less

cohesion than BS particles as reported in previous literature (Zong et al., 2014). Hence, the SXBC

composites shrink less than BS resulting in reduced CIF values.

4.3 Model developed for CIF estimation

A simple model was developed in C+ language (refer appendix) based on the measured values of

corresponding CIF, ψ and water content (WC) using Response surface regression (RSR). In RSR

approach, the polynomial equation is assumed and its coefficients are computed using the least

squares method (Myers et al., 2016). The response surface equation for estimating CIF as function

of Ψ and MC for BS, S2BC, S5BC, S10BC and S15BC are given in equations (1), (2), (3), (4) and

(5) respectively.

CIF = 2.56-(0.19*WC) + (0.01*WC2) + (0.004*ψ) – (1.28*10-6 ψ2) + (0.01*WC*ψ) – (1)

CIF = (8*WC) + (0.001*WC2) - (0.001*ψ) – (5.32*10-8 *ψ2) + (9.27*10-5 *WC*ψ) – (2)

CIF = -1.68 + (0.16*WC) - (0.003*WC2) + (0.002*ψ) – (3.7*10-7*ψ2) + (5.79*10-6*WC*ψ) – (3)

CIF = 11.19 – (0.57*WC) + (0.01*WC2) – (0.002*ψ) – (5.16*10-9*ψ2) + (0.001*WC*ψ) – (4)

CIF = (4.76-0.18*WC) + (0.001*WC2) – (0.001*ψ) – (6.65*10-9*ψ2) + (5.7*10-5*WC*ψ) – (5)

The univariate tests were conducted on the above equations for computing the significance of

terms. Table 3 summarizes the significance of various terms in RSR models for BS and SXBC

composites. It can be seen that for bare soil, ψ and ψ2 are significant based on the p value. Similar

is the case for S5BC. However, for higher percentage of biochar (i.e., S10 and S15 BC), terms

containing water content (WC) are also significant. The prediction ability of the RSR models for

bare and SXBC composites against the measured data was shown in Fig 6 in terms of CIF. It can

be observed that the accuracy of models to predict CIF is reasonable (R2= 0.94 for
bare soil and R2 = 0.88-0.93 for SXBC composites). Nevertheless, these are simple models that

can be utilized with caution (given test boundary conditions subjected to drought) for estimating

CIF of soils with given suction and water content. Further work taking into account advanced

artificial intelligence approaches (Garg et al., 2017a;b;c) for developing model in this email.

4.4 Simple cost analysis of biochar

The cost evaluation equation for wood based biochar production by Ahmed et al. (2016) is adopted

for conducting the analysis in the revised manuscript for 1 ton of water hyacinth biochar. The

prices are assigned as per Indian conditions

CBC = CSTUMPAGE + CWH PRODUCTION + CWH TRANSPORT + CBC PRODUCTION - (6)

Where CBC is unit cost of BC per ton; CSTUMPAGE is the price per ton a private firm pays for the right

to harvest WH from a given land base; CWH PRODUCTION is the production cost per ton of WH chips

(cutting, and overheads); CWH TRANSPORT is the transportation cost per ton from resource to

production center; CBC PRODUCTION is the cost per ton for production of pyrolysis.

The stumpage cost is around 0.05 US dollar per kg as per cheap labor cost in India and WH

being an invasive waste (17.5 metric tons/hectare/day; Shoeb and Singh, 2000) for water bodies.

The production cost per kg is 0.1 US dollar required for drying, cutting and packing the feedstock.

The transportation cost per kg is around 0.1 US dollar based on transportation rate per 20 km. It is

important to note that India having plenty of water bodies the weed is easily available throughout

the country. The production cost for slow pyrolysis is 0.2 US dollars per kg. Thus, the final unit

cost of biochar per kg in Indian conditions would be about 0.45 US dollars i.e. 408 US dollars per

ton. The cost for water hyacinth biochar in USD per ton as compared to
other biochar is relatively less than in North America (≥640 (Yoder et al. 2011, Pratt and Moran

2010)), Europe (≥670 (Meyer et al. 2011, Roberts et al. 2009)) and United Kingdom (≥5668

(Fornes et al. 2015)). However, a proper cost based analysis based on proper industrial (Mohan et

al. 2014, Inyang et al. 2016) and agricultural survey (Galinato et al. 2011) is needed to understand

its economic significance. This has been kept as a future scope of the work to ascertain the

applicability of WH biochar in agriculture and geo-environment applications (Vu et al. 2017,

Ahmed et al. 2017, Ahmed et al. 2018, Wei et al. 2018).

5. Conclusions

The results show that water retention capacity increases from 29.5± 0.89 % to 48.45± 0.59 % for

BS and S15BC respectively and the increase is proportional with WH BC percentage. Minimum

available water content increases from 9.97% to 21.48% for BS and S15BC respectively. This

hydrophilic nature of WH BC amended soils can be attributed to the fine grained nature of WH

BC and also due to its porous structure as seen from the particle size distribution of soil. Inclusion

of WH BC results in a gradual decrease of CIF from 7% to 2.8%.

Compliance with ethical standards

The authors would like to state that they have no conflict of interest, and there was no human nor

animal participants in this research.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Shantou University Scientific Research Fund

(NTF17007).

REFERENCES

Abel, S., Peters, A., Trinks, S., Schonsky, H., Facklam, M. and Wessolek, G., 2013. Impact of

biochar and hydrochar addition on water retention and water repellency of sandy soil.

Geoderma, 202, pp.183-191.

Amoakwah, E., Frimpong, K.A., Okae-Anti, D. and Arthur, E., 2017. Soil water retention, air flow

and pore structure characteristics after corn cob biochar application to a tropical sandy

loam. Geoderma, 307, pp.189-197.

Ahmed, M.B., Zhou, J.L., Ngo, H.H. and Guo, W., 2016. Insight into biochar properties and its

cost analysis. Biomass Bioener., 84, 76-86.

Ahmed, M.B., Zhou, J.L., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Johir, M.A.H. and Belhaj, D., 2017. Competitive

sorption affinity of sulfonamides and chloramphenicol antibiotics toward functionalized

biochar for water and wastewater treatment. Bioresour. Technol., 238, 306-312.

Ahmed, M.B., Zhou, J.L., Ngo, H.H., Johir, M.A.H. and Sornalingam, K., 2018. Sorptive removal

of phenolic endocrine disruptors by functionalized biochar: Competitive interaction

mechanism, removal efficacy and application in wastewater. Chem. Eng. J., 335, 801-811.

Ajayi, A.E., Rainer, H.O.R.N., 2017. Biochar-induced changes in soil resilience: Effects of soil

texture and biochar dosage. Pedosphere, 27(2), 236-247.

ASTM D422-63, 2007. Standard Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils. ASTM

International, West Conshohocken, PA

ASTM D4318, 2010. Standard Test Methods for Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index

of Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

ASTM D4972, 2013. Standard Test Method for pH of Soils. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA

ASTM D698, 2012. Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil

Using Standard Effort (12 400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 kN-m/m3)). ASTM International, West

Conshohocken, PA

ASTM D854, 2010. Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water

Pycnometer. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA

ASTM E1755-01, 2007. Standard method for the determination of ash in biomass.2003 Annual

Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 11.05. ASTM International, Philadelphia, PA

Bordoloi, S., Hussain, R., Gadi, V.K., Bora, H., Sahoo, L., Karangat, R., Garg, A. and Sreedeep,

S., 2018. Monitoring soil cracking and plant parameters for mixed grass species. Géotech.

Lett., pp.1-21.

Cao, C.T., Farrell, C., Kristiansen, P.E., Rayner, J.P., 2014. Biochar makes green roof substrates

lighter and improves water supply to plants. Ecol. Eng., 71, 368-374.

Chen, X.W., Wong, J.T.F., Ng, C.W.W., Wong, M.H., 2016. Feasibility of biochar application on

a landfill final cover—a review on balancing ecology and shallow slope stability. Environ.

Sci. Poll. Res., 23(8), 7111-7125.

 Cordero, J.A., Useche, G., Prat, P.C., Ledesma, A., Santamarina, J.C., 2017. Soil desiccation

cracks as a suction–contraction process. Géotech. Lett., 1-7.

Das, O., Kim, N.K., Kalamkarov, A.L., Sarmah, A.K. and Bhattacharyya, D., 2017. Biochar to the
rescue: Balancing the fire performance and mechanical properties of polypropylene

composites. Polym. Degrad. Stabil., 144, pp.485-496.

Das, O., Sarmah, A.K. and Bhattacharyya, D., 2015. A novel approach in organic waste utilization

through biochar addition in wood/polypropylene composites. Waste Manage., 38, pp.132-

140.

Das, O., Sarmah, A.K. and Bhattacharyya, D., 2016. Biocomposites from waste derived biochars:

mechanical, thermal, chemical, and morphological properties. Waste Manage., 49, pp.560-

570.

De Bhowmick, G., Sarmah, A.K. and Sen, R., 2018. Lignocellulosic biorefinery as a model for

sustainable development of biofuels and value added products. Bioresource Technol., 247,

1144-1154

de Melo Carvalho, M.T., Maia, A.D.H.N., Madari, B.E., Bastiaans, L., Van Oort, P.A.J.,

Heinemann, A.B., da Silva, M.S., Petter, F.A., Marimon Jr, B.H. and Meinke, H., 2014.

Biochar increases plant-available water in a sandy loam soil under an aerobic rice crop

system. Solid Earth, 5(2), 939.

Decagon devices, 2016. MPS-2 & MPS-6 dielectric water potential sensors operator’s manual.

Decagon Devices, Pullman, WA.

Fasihnikoutalab, M.H., Asadi, A., Unluer, C., Huat, B.K., Ball, R.J. and Pourakbar, S., 2017.

Utilization of alkali-activated olivine in soil stabilization and the effect of carbonation on

unconfined compressive strength and microstructure. J. Mater. Civil Eng., 29(6),

p.06017002.

Fellet, G., Marchiol, L., Delle Vedove, G., Peressotti, A., 2011. Application of biochar on mine

tailings: effects and perspectives for land reclamation. Chemosphere, 83(9), 1262-1267.

Fornes, F., Belda, R.M. and Lidón, A., 2015. Analysis of two biochars and one hydrochar from

different feedstock: focus set on environmental, nutritional and horticultural

considerations. J. Clean. Product., 86, 40-48.

Fredlund, D.G. and Rahardjo, H., 1993. Soil mechanics for unsaturated soils. John Wiley & Sons.

Gadi, V.K., Bordoloi, S., Garg, A., Sahoo, L., Berretta, C., Sekharan, S., 2017. Effect of Shoot

Parameters on Cracking in Vegetated Soil. Environ. Geotech., pp.1-31.

Galinato, S.P., Yoder, J.K. and Granatstein, D., 2011. The economic value of biochar in crop

production and carbon sequestration. Energy Policy, 39(10), 6344-6350.

Garg, A., Li, J., Berretta, C. and Garg, A., 2017a. A New Computational Approach for Estimation

of Wilting Point for Green Infrastructure. Journal of Measurement, Elsevier. (In press)

doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.07.026

Garg, A., Vijayaraghavan, V., Zhang, J., and Lam, J. S. L., 2017b. Robust model design for

evaluation of power characteristics of the cleaner energy system. Renewable Energy, 112,

302-313.
Garg, A., Vijayaraghavan, V., Zhang, J., Li, S. and Liang, X., 2017c. Design of robust battery

capacity model for electric vehicle by incorporation of uncertainties. International Journal

of Energy Research. DOI: 10.1002/er.3723

Goering, H.K., Van Soest, P.J., 1970. Forage fiber analyses (apparatus, reagents, procedures, and

some applications). In: USDA Agricultural Handbook.

Harley, K.L.S., Julien, M.H. and Wright, A.D., 1996. Water hyacinth: a tropical worldwide

problem and methods for its control. In 2. International Weed Control Congress,

Copenhagen (Denmark), 25-28 Jun 1996. SP.

Inyang, M.I., Gao, B., Yao, Y., Xue, Y., Zimmerman, A., Mosa, A., Pullammanappallil, P., Ok,

Y.S. and Cao, X., 2016. A review of biochar as a low-cost adsorbent for aqueous heavy

metal removal. Critical Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol., 46(4), 406-433.

Jeffery, S., Verheijen, F.G., Van Der Velde, M., Bastos, A.C., 2011. A quantitative review of the

effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agr.

Ecosys. Environ., 144(1), 175-187.

Jenkins, S.H., 1930. The determination of cellulose in straws. Biochem. J. 24 (5), 1428.

Keykha, H.A., Asadi, A. and Zareian, M., 2017. Environmental Factors Affecting the Compressive

Strength of Microbiologically Induced Calcite Precipitation-Treated Soil. Geomicrob. J.,

pp.1-6.

Lehmann, J., Joseph, S. eds., 2015. Biochar for environmental management: science, technology

and implementation. Routledge.

Leong, E.C., Rahardjo, H., 1997. Review of soil-water characteristic curve equations. J. Geotech.

Geoenviron. Eng., 123(12), 1106-1117.

Lesch, SM, Strauss, DJ, Rhoades, JD. 1995. Spatial prediction of soil salinity using

electromagnetic induction techniques: 2. An efficient spatial sampling algorithm suitable

for multiple linear regression model identification and estimation. Water Resour. Res.,

31(2), 387-398

Li, F., Shen, K., Long, X., Wen, J., Xie, X., Zeng, X., Liang, Y., Wei, Y., Lin, Z., Huang, W.,

Zhong, R., 2016b. Preparation and characterization of biochars from Eichornia crassipes

for cadmium removal in aqueous solutions. PloS one, 11(2), 0148132.

Li, J.H., Li, L., Chen, R., Li, D.Q., 2016a. Cracking and vertical preferential flow through landfill

clay liners. Eng. Geol., 206, 33-41.

Li, J.H., Zhang, L.M., 2010. Geometric parameters and REV of a crack network in soil. Comp.

Geotech., 37(4), 466-475.

Li, J.H., Zhang, L.M., Li, X., 2011. Soil-water characteristic curve and permeability function for

unsaturated cracked soil. Can. Geotech. J., 48(7), 1010-1031.

Lin, Y.C., Ho, S.H., Zhou, Y. and Ren, N.Q., 2018. Highly efficient adsorption of dyes by biochar

derived from pigments-extracted macroalgae pyrolyzed at different temperature. Biores.

Technol., 259, pp.104-110.

Liu, Z., Zhang, F., Liu, H., Ba, F., Yan, S. and Hu, J., 2018. Pyrolysis/gasification of pine sawdust

biomass briquettes under carbon dioxide atmosphere: Study on carbon dioxide

 reduction (utilization) and biochar briquettes physicochemical properties. Bioresource

Technol., 249, pp.983-991.

Malik, A. 2007. Environmental challenge vis a vis opportunity: the case of water hyacinth.

Environ. Int. 33, No. 1, 122-138.

Masto, R.E., Kumar, S., Rout, T.K., Sarkar, P., George, J., Ram, L.C., 2013. Biochar from water

hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes) and its impact on soil biological activity. Catena, 111, 64-

71.

Methacanon, P., Weerawatsophon, U., Sumransin, N., Prahsarn, C., Bergado, D.T., 2010.

Properties and potential application of the selected natural fibers as limited life geotextiles.

Carbohydr. Polym. 82 (4), 1090–1096

Meyer, S., Glaser, B. and Quicker, P., 2011. Technical, economical, and climate-related aspects of

biochar production technologies: a literature review. Environ. Sci. technol., 45(22), 9473-

9483.

Mohan, D., Sarswat, A., Ok, Y.S. and Pittman Jr, C.U., 2014. Organic and inorganic contaminants

removal from water with biochar, a renewable, low cost and sustainable adsorbent–a

critical review. Bioresour. Technol., 160, 191-202.

Myers, R.H., Montgomery, D.C. and Anderson-Cook, C.M., 2016. Response surface

methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. John Wiley

& Sons.
Narzari, R., Bordoloi, N., Sarma, B., Gogoi, L., Gogoi, N., Borkotoki, B. and Kataki, R., 2017.

Fabrication of biochars obtained from valorization of biowaste and evaluation of its

physicochemical properties. Bioresource Technol., 242, pp.324-328.

Ng, C.W. and Menzies, B., 2007. Advanced unsaturated soil mechanics and engineering. CRC

Press.

Patel, S., 2012. Threats, management and envisaged utilizations of aquatic weed Eichhornia

crassipes: an overview. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio/Tech., 11(3), 249-259.

Pham, H.Q., Fredlund, D.G., 2008. Equations for the entire soil-water characteristic curve of a

volume change soil. Can. Geotech. J., 45(4), 443-453.

Poulose, A.M., Elnour, A.Y., Anis, A., Shaikh, H., Al-Zahrani, S.M., George, J., Al-Wabel, M.I.,

Usman, A.R., Ok, Y.S., Tsang, D.C. and Sarmah, A.K., 2018. Date palm biochar-polymer

composites: An investigation of electrical, mechanical, thermal and rheological

characteristics. Sci. Total Environ., 619, pp.311-318.

Pratt, K. and Moran, D., 2010. Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of global biochar mitigation

potential. Biomass bioenergy, 34(8), 1149-1158.

Reddy, K.R., D'angelo, E.M., 1990. Biomass yield and nutrient removal by water hyacinth

(Eichhornia crassipes) as influenced by harvesting frequency. Biomass, 21(1), 27-42.

Reddy, K.R., Yaghoubi, P. and Yukselen-Aksoy, Y., 2015. Effects of biochar amendment on

geotechnical properties of landfill cover soil. Waste Management & Research, 33(6), 524-

532.
Roberts, K.G., Gloy, B.A., Joseph, S., Scott, N.R. and Lehmann, J., 2009. Life cycle assessment

of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic, and climate change potential.

Environmental science & technology, 44(2), 827-833.

Shen, Y., Zhu, W., Li, H., Ho, S.H., Chen, J., Xie, Y. and Shi, X., 2018. Enhancing cadmium

bioremediation by a complex of water-hyacinth derived pellets immobilized with Chlorella

sp. Bioresource Technol.

Shin, H., Santamarina, J.C., 2011. Desiccation cracks in saturated fine-grained soils: particle-level

phenomena and effective-stress analysis. Géotechnique, 61(11), 961-972.

Shoeb, F. and Singh, H.J., 2002. Kinetic studies of biogas evolved from water hyacinth 2nd

International Symposium on New Technologies for Environmental Monitoring and Agro

Applications.

Simberloff, D., Schmitz, D.C., Brown, T.C. eds. 1997. Strangers in paradise: impact and

management of nonindigenous species in Florida. Island press.

Smith, L.W., Shaw, M., Williams, R.E., Green, K.R., 1984. water hyacinth eradication campaign

in New South Wales, Australia. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Water

Hyacinth: Hyderabad, India, February 7-11, 1983/Editor: G. Thyagarajan. Nairobi,

[Kenya]: United Nations Environment Programme, c1984.

Sun, W., Gu, J., Wang, X., Qian, X. and Tuo, X., 2018. Impacts of biochar on the environmental

risk of antibiotic resistance genes and mobile genetic elements during anaerobic digestion

of cattle farm wastewater. Bioresource Technol.

TAPPI Test Methods, 1996. TAPPI T222 om-88 klason lignin

Téllez, T.R., López, E.M.D.R., Granado, G.L., Pérez, E.A., López, R.M., Guzmán, J.M.S., 2008.

The water hyacinth, Eichhornia crassipes: an invasive plant in the Guadiana River Basin

(Spain). Aquatic Invasions, 3(1), 42-53.

Ulyett, J., Sakrabani, R., Kibblewhite, M., Hann, M., 2014. Impact of biochar addition on water

retention, nitrification and carbon dioxide evolution from two sandy loam soils. Eur J. Soil

Sci., 65(1), 96-104.

Uzoma, K.C., Inoue, M., Andry, H., Fujimaki, H., Zahoor, A., Nishihara, E., 2011. Effect of cow

manure biochar on maize productivity under sandy soil condition. Soil use manage, 27(2),

205-212.

Verheijen, F., Jeffery, S., Bastos, A.C., Van der Velde, M., Diafas, I., 2010. Biochar application

to soils. A critical scientific review of effects on soil properties, processes, and functions.

EUR, 24099, p.162.

Vu, T.M., Doan, D.P., Van, H.T., Nguyen, T.V., Vigneswaran, S. and Ngo, H.H., 2017. Removing

ammonium from water using modified corncob-biochar. Sci. Tot. Environ., 579, 612-619

Wei, D., Ngo, H.H., Guo, W., Xu, W., Du, B., Khan, M.S. and Wei, Q., 2018. Biosorption

performance evaluation of heavy metal onto aerobic granular sludge-derived biochar in the

presence of effluent organic matter via batch and fluorescence approaches. Bioresource

technology, 249, 410-416.

Wong, J.T.F., Chen, Z., Chen, X., Ng, C.W.W. and Wong, M.H., 2017. Soil-water retention

behavior of compacted biochar-amended clay: a novel landfill final cover material. J. soils

Sedim., 17(3), 590-598.

Xie, T., Reddy, K.R., Wang, C., Yargicoglu, E., Spokas, K., 2015. Characteristics and

applications of biochar for environmental remediation: a review. Crit. Rev. Environ Sci.

Technol., 45(9), 939-969.

Yargicoglu, E.N., Reddy, K.R., 2017. Microbial Abundance and Activity in Biochar-Amended

Landfill Cover Soils: Evidence from Large-Scale Column and Field Experiments. J.

Environ. Eng., 143(9), 04017058.

Yesiller, N., Miller, C.J., Inci, G., Yaldo, K., 2000. Desiccation and cracking behavior of three

compacted landfill liner soils. Eng. Geol., 57(1), 105-121.

Yoder, J., Galinato, S., Granatstein, D. and Garcia-Perez, M., 2011. Economic tradeoff between

biochar and bio-oil production via pyrolysis. Biomass Bioenerg., 35(5), 1851-1862.

Zhang, F., Wang, X., Xionghui, J., Ma, L., 2016. Efficient arsenate removal by magnetite-modified

water hyacinth biochar. Environ. Poll., 216, 575-583.

Zhang, F., Wang, X., Yin, D., Peng, B., Tan, C., Liu, Y., Tan, X. and Wu, S., 2015. Efficiency and

mechanisms of Cd removal from aqueous solution by biochar derived from water hyacinth

(Eichornia crassipes). J. Environ. Manage., 153, 68-73.

Zhang, X., Lv, L., Qin, Y., Xu, M., Jia, X. and Chen, Z., 2018. Removal of aqueous Cr (VI) by a

magnetic biochar derived from Melia azedarach wood. Bioresource technol., 256, 1-10.

Zong, Y., Chen, D., Lu, S., 2014. Impact of biochars on swell–shrinkage behavior, mechanical

strength, and surface cracking of clayey soil. J. Plant Nutri. Soil Sci., 177(6), 920-926.

APPENDIX
Python program for calculating CIF of soil
import numpy as np
import cv2
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
import sys
# Read the Image
im = cv2.imread(sys.argv[1])
height, width, channels = im.shape
#Convert to Gray Scale
im = cv2.cvtColor(im, cv2.COLOR_BGR2GRAY)
#Blur it a bit to remove noise
#im = cv2.medianBlur(im,3)
im = cv2.bilateralFilter(im,5,75,75)
#Draw edge
#im = cv2.Canny(im, 80,200)
#Threshold color
#ret, thresh = cv2.threshold(im, 100,255,0)
##ret, img = cv2.threshold(im, 100,255,0)
#ret, thresh = cv2.threshold(imgray, 0,255, cv2.THRESH_BINARY+cv2.THRESH_OTSU)
img = cv2.adaptiveThreshold(im,255, cv2.ADAPTIVE_THRESH_GAUSSIAN_C,
cv2.THRESH_BINARY,11,7)
#thresh = cv2.adaptiveThreshold(imgray, 255, cv2.ADAPTIVE_THRESH_GAUSSIAN_C,
cv2.THRESH_BINARY, 11, 20)
#Find Contours
img, contours, hierarchy = cv2.findContours(img, cv2.RETR_TREE,
cv2.CHAIN_APPROX_SIMPLE)
#Draw Contours
img = cv2.drawContours(img, contours, -1, (0,255,0), 1)
#Save the image
cv2.imwrite(sys.argv[2],img)
#Calculating the area
total_pixels = img.size
print ("Total Number Of Pixels: ", total_pixels)
#print (cnt_area)
white_pixels = cv2.countNonZero(img)
black_pixels = total_pixels-white_pixels
print ("Total Black Pixels: ", black_pixels)
print ("Total White Pixels: ", white_pixels, '\n')
print ("CIF:", black_pixels/total_pixels)
#print ("Ratio_2:", (img_area-black_area)/img_area)
cv2.imshow("Image", img)
cv2.waitKey(0)
cv2.destroyAllWindows()

C+ program for correlating CIF of soil with ψ and MC

#include <memory.h>
#include <math.h>
double DeploymentCase(
int K,
double * Rnr)
{

int NTCols=7;
int NETot=7;
int NEffec=6;
int NECons=1;
int NFacts=3;
int NNonFa=3;
int NConst=1;
int NCovar=2;
int NCateg=0;
int NDepva=1;
int IDepvar[1] = {1};
int ICovar[2] = {2,3};
int Expo[18] =
{1,0,0,1,1,0,1,2,0,1,0,1,1,0,2,1,1,1}; int CStart[7] =
{0,1,2,3,4,5,6}; int CEnd[7] = {0,1,2,3,4,5,6};
int SIndex[7] = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7};
int QualFlag[7] = {1,0,0,0,0,0,0};
int Lastgood[3] = {0,0,0};
int SLevels[18] = {1,0,0,1,1,0,1,2,0,1,0,1,1,0,2,1,1,1};
int Lvali[3] = {0,0,0};
int Factori[3] = {0,0,0};
double DVals[7];
double Vals[7];
double Rnr2[7];
 double Coef[1][6] = { {2.54747165416468e+000,-1.87824347836496e-
001,3.01965470835180e-003,4.46238502624854e-003,-1.28893910869327e-
006,1.14058091102322e-004}};
double ret,DTemp;
int icol,II,JJ,KK,nfact0,JJJ;
icol = 0;
for(II=0;II<NConst;II++) {
Rnr2[icol] = 0;
icol++;
}
for(II=0;II<NCovar;II++) {
Rnr2[icol] = Rnr[ICovar[II]];
icol++;
}
for(II=0;II<NDepva;II++) {
Rnr2[icol] = Rnr[IDepvar[II]];
icol++;
}
for(II=0;II<NETot;II++) {
Vals[II] = 1.0;
if (II >= NEffec) {
Vals[II] = Rnr[IDepvar[II-NEffec]];
}
else {
nfact0 = 0;
memset(Lvali,0,sizeof(Lvali));
memset(Factori,0,sizeof(Factori));
for(JJ=NECons;JJ<NFacts;JJ++) {
if (Expo[JJ+(II)*NFacts] > 0) {
if (JJ >= NConst && JJ < NNonFa) {

Vals[II]*=pow(Rnr2[JJ],(double)Expo[JJ+(II)*NFacts]);
}
else {
if ((int)Rnr2[JJ] == Lastgood[JJ] - 1) {
Lvali[nfact0]=-1;
}
else {
Lvali[nfact0]=(int)Rnr2[JJ]+1;
}
 Factori[nfact0]=JJ;
nfact0=nfact0+1;
}
}
}
}
for(JJ=CStart[II];JJ<CEnd[II]+1;JJ++) {
if (SIndex[JJ] > 0) {
JJJ = SIndex[JJ]-1;
DVals[JJJ] = Vals[II];
if (II > 0 && II<NEffec && QualFlag[II] > 0) {
for(KK=nfact0-1;KK>=0;KK--) {
if (Lvali[KK] == -1) {
DVals[JJJ] *= -1;
}
else if (Lvali[KK] !=
SLevels[(JJJ)*NFacts+Factori[KK]]) {
DVals[JJJ] = 0;
goto Computeit;
}
}
}
Computeit:;
}
}
}
DTemp=0;
for(KK=0;KK<NTCols-NDepva;KK++) {
DTemp=DTemp+DVals[KK]*Coef[K][KK];
}
ret = DTemp;
return ret;
}
 PRETREATMENT
(Dried and fragmented in
small pieces)

Pyrolysis condition: (300-350)0C;

Water hyacinth infestation in Stems of water hyacinth prepared 40-45 minutes
Deepor Beel, India for Biochar preparation
Condensation

BIOFUEL

PYROLYSIS

Residual heat
BIOCHAR
WH Biochar
Porous surface WH Biochar Simple representation of WH
(a) particle (at 50KX magnification) pyrolysis for Biochar production

Radiant energy Evaporation Infiltration Desiccation crack

Precipitation
Precipitation Precipitation Precipitation

Bio-engineered slope Green

roof

Urban green infrastructures Cover material Mining site

(b) for landfill system

Fig.1 Schematic representation of (a) Conversion of waste weed WH in to sustainable Biochar;

(b) Potential Biochar applications in engineered infrastructure, agriculture land and
mine reclamation sites.
 110.0

900.0
200.0
100.0

800.0 180.0
90.0

700.0 160.0
80.0
140.0
600.0
70.0
120.0
DTG ug/min

500.

G %
uV 0 60.0
D

A
T

T
100.0

400.0 50.0
80.0

300.0 60.0 40.0

40.0 30.0
200.0

20.0 20.0
100.0

0.0 10.0

0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0

Temp Cel

Fig.2 Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) of water hyacinth used in the current study
 (a) Transparent plastic sheet (Curved)
Top-view of
300 mm soil column
Setup for
conducting
Sprinkler system
tests on soil
columns
500 mm
300 mm Digital camera with 80 mm

1000 mm 110 mm
Soil sample
Perforated base plate
Weather monitoring
System (temperature,

relative humidity 250 mm and solar radiation MPS6 suction sensor

Front view of soil
PVC mold with filtered column
and perforated base plate

300 mm
EC-5 volumetric water
content sensor Data logger Computer

(c) Final image after erosion

Averagesolarrad
Averagerelativehumidity(%)

Averagetemperature(

iation(MJ//day)
100 50 Original image
90 45 STEP 1 STEP 4
80 40

C)
70 35
60 30
50 25
40 20
30 15
20 10 Greyscale image Threshold
10 5 STEP 2 STEP 3 image
0 0
(b) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time (Days) Irrigation event

Fig.3 Schematic representation of (a) setup for conducting tests on soil columns; (b) Local daily environmental conditions of test
for 62 days; and (c) Procedure for measuring cracks from original image as per developed algorithm to calculate CIF
 50 BS 8 50 8
45
7 45 S2BC 7
40 6 40 6

CIF, (%)
35

(%)
5 35

CIF(%)
5
θ, (%)

30 30 4
4
25 25

θ,
3 20 3
20
15 2 2
15
10 1
10 1
5 0 5 0
10
100 ψ (kPa) 1000 10000 10 100 ψ, (kPa)1000 10000
50 50 8
45 S5BC 78 45 S10BC 7
40 6 40 6

CIF, (%)
35 35
(%)
CIF, (%)
5
θ, (%)

5
30 30 4
4
25 25
θ,
3 20 3
20
15 2 2
15
10 1
10 1
5 0 5 0
10
100 1000
100 ψ, (kPa)1000 10 ψ, (kPa) 10000
10000

50
45 S15BC 8 θ- Volumetric water content (%)
7
40 6 CIF- Crack Intensity Factor (%)
35 ψ- Suction (kPa)
θ, (%)

5
CIF, (%

30
4 Maximum water
25
3 retained by composite
)

20
15
2 Minimum water
1 retained by composite
10
Peak CIF of composite
5 0
10
100 ψ, (kPa)1000 10000

Fig. 4 Measured soil water retention (SWR) and soil desiccation characteristics (SDCC) for bare
soil and soil-BC composites
 (A)

(B)

BS S2BC S5BC S10BC S15BC

Fig. 5 Variation of (a) maximum, minimum water retention and (a-b) peak CIF with percentage weight inclusion of WH Biochar.
 Predicted CIF Predicted CIF

BS S2BC

Measured CIF Measured CIF

Predicted CIF Predicted

CIF

S5BC S10BC

Measured CIF Measured CIF

Predicted CIF

S15BC

Measured CIF

Fig. 6 Measured and predicted values of the model developed by RSR for the soil types

36
Table. 1 Basic properties of soil and WH BC
Soil properties Standard Soil WH
BC
Particle size distribution ASTM D
422
Coarse Sand (2 – 4.75 mm) 0 0.00
Medium Sand (0.425 - 2 mm) 37 000
Fine Sand (0.075 – 0.425 mm) 21 30.48
Silt (<0.075 mm) 37 68.52
Clay (<0.002 mm 5 1
Atterberg limits ASTM D
4318
Liquid limit (LL) 42.4 31.3
Plastic limit (PL) 26.0 19.8
Plastic Index (PI) 16.4 11.5
Max. Dry Density (kN/m3) ASTM D 15.6 ND
698
OMC (%) ASTM D 16.5 ND
698
Specific gravity ASTM D 2.63 0.8
854
pH ASTM D 6.7 7.69
4972
ND-Not determined

Table 2 Biochemical composition, ash and natural moisture content of Water hyacinth plant

Properties Method Water Hyacinth

Cellulose (%) Jenkins, (1930) 45.58 ±1.8
Lignin (%) TAPPI Test Methods, (1996) 11.3 ±1.78
Hemicellulose (%) Goering and Van Soest, (1970) 21 ±1.23
Ash (%) ASTM E1755-01, (2007) 11.20 ±3.12
Natural moisture content Methacanon et al., (2010)
12.46 ±1.56
(%)

37
Table. 3 Univariate test results on equations (1-5) for computing significance of terms
Effect Degree of SS MS F p
freedom
BS
Intercept 1 0.0626 0.062627 1.11399 0.296003
WC 1 0.0502 0.050199 0.89293 0.348973
WC2 1 0.0318 0.031784 0.56535 0.455437
ψ 1 0.4643 0.464327 8.25929 0.005822
ψ2 1 1.9223 1.922313 34.19343 0.000000
WC*ψ 1 0.1590 0.159002 2.82827 0.098502
Error 53 2.9796 0.056219
Total 58 324.9499
S2BC
Intercept 1 0.4048 0.404787 1.028561 0.315104
WC 1 0.0809 0.080852 0.205446 0.652211
WC2 1 0.0005 0.000466 0.001183 0.972687
ψ 1 0.2678 0.267790 0.680453 0.413128
ψ2 1 0.7874 0.787353 2.000660 0.163079
WC*ψ 1 1.5016 1.501628 3.815630 0.056064
Error 53 20.8580 0.393547
Total 58 209.3391
S5BC
Intercept 1 0.04148 0.041476 0.72879 0.397119
WC 1 0.08030 0.080297 1.41092 0.240201
WC2 1 0.12466 0.124661 2.19045 0.144789
ψ 1 0.79112 0.791121 13.90103 0.000470
ψ2 1 3.40847 3.408473 59.89135 0.000000
WC*ψ 1 0.00359 0.003594 0.06315 0.802555
Error 53 3.01628 0.056911
Total 58 87.04044
S10BC
Intercept 1 2.13024 2.130236 27.14310 0.000003
WC 1 1.44035 1.440354 18.35275 0.000078
WC2 1 0.99776 0.997763 12.71332 0.000779
ψ 1 1.06696 1.066957 13.59498 0.000535
ψ2 1 0.00600 0.006001 0.07646 0.783225
WC*ψ 1 2.38699 2.386986 30.41456 0.000001
Error 53 4.15953 0.078482
Total 58 88.59000
S15BC
Intercept 1 0.38548 0.385480 7.00112 0.010699

38
 WC 1 0.13806 0.138055 2.50737 0.119265
WC2 1 0.03817 0.038166 0.69317 0.408823
ψ 1 0.28570 0.285704 5.18899 0.026790
ψ2 1 0.00998 0.009979 0.18124 0.672032
WC*ψ 1 0.75605 0.756047 13.73141 0.000505
Error 53 2.91817 0.055060
Total 58 48.21725

Where SS= Sum of squares, MS = Mean of squares, WC = Volumetric water content, ψ

= Suction

39
Table 4. Overall ANOVA results (test of SS Whole Model vs SS residual)

Multiple Multiple Adjusted SS df MS SS df MS

2 2 F p
R R R Model Model Model Residual Residual Residual

BS
0.995 0.990 0.989 321.97 5 64.394 2.97 53 0.056 1145.419 0.00
S2BC
0.948 0.900 0.890 188.481 5 37.696 20.857 53 0.393 95.785 0.00
S5BC
0.982 0.965 0.962 84.024 5 16.804 3.016 53 0.056 295.283 0.00
S10BC
0.976 0.953 0.948 84.430 5 16.886 4.159 53 0.078 215.159 0.00
S15BC
0.981 0.963 0.960 46.463 5 9.292 1.754 53 0.033 280.790 0.00
Where, SS= Sum of squares, df = degree of freedom, MS = Mean of squares

40
Highlights

  Study investigates biochar (BC) from water hyacinth (WH) weed as soil amendement
  BC as soil amendment material is found to suppress crack and enhance water retention
  Gradual increase in water retention with WH BC addition.
 Inclusion of biochar decreases the desiccation crack in soils.

41
 BAS

Eichhornia crassipes infestation inWH Biochar Biochar amended soil (BAS) as

India cover material for landfill system Maximum c
(Soil + 10% W
50 8 θ - Volumetric water content 50

45 BS 7 ψ – Soil suction 45
40 CIF – Crack Intensity Factor 40
6

CIF (%)
35 35
(%)

θ, (%)
30 4 30
25 25
θ,

20 3
20
15 2
15
10 1 10
5 0 5

10 100 ψ (kPa) 1000 10000

10 100
ψ, (kPa
Soil water retention in Maximum crack in Soil water re
Bare Soil Bare Soil (Soil + 10% W

Biochar produced from weed Eichhornia crassipes increases water retention and reduces
surface cracks

42