See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/288128922

Effect of pyrolysis temperature on the biochar nutrient and water retention

capacity

Article · January 2012

CITATIONS READS

28 966

5 authors, including:

Amran Salleh Lek Hang Lau

Universiti Putra Malaysia Universiti Putra Malaysia
120 PUBLICATIONS   3,439 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   76 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Md. Mukhlesur Rahman Wan Azlina Wan Ab Karim Ghani

Bangladesh Agricultural University Universiti Putra Malaysia
50 PUBLICATIONS   667 CITATIONS    84 PUBLICATIONS   2,552 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Characteristics of poultry manure biochar View project

Engineering Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Md. Mukhlesur Rahman on 13 May 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

Effect of pyrolysis temperature on the Article Info

biochar nutrient and water retention
capacity Received:10th May 2012
Accepted: 25th July 2012
Published online: 1st August 2012

Siti Thaiyiba Shafie1, Mohamad Amran Mohd.

Salleh*1, 2, Lau Lek Hang1,4, Md. Mukhlesur
Rahman 2, 3, Wan Azlina Wan Abdul Karim Ghani1
1
Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering,
University Putra Malaysia, UPM 43400, Serdang, Selangor,
Malaysia
2
Institute of Advanced Technology, University Putra Malaysia,
UPM 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
3
Department of Animal Science, Bangladesh Agricultural
University, Mymensingh-2002, Bangladesh
4
Nasmech Technology Sdn Bhd, Lot 4, Jalan BK 1/15,Kinrara
Industrial Park, Bandar Kinrara,47100 Puchong, Selangor,
Malaysia

asalleh@eng.upm.edu.my

ISSN: 2232-1179 © 2012 Design for Scientific Renaissance All rights reserved

ABSTRACT

Empty fruit bunch (EFB) is a convenient source of biomass in Malaysia that might be transformed into
biochar for soil fertility. EFB were pyrolized in rotary drum chamber at 3 different temperatures, such as
300, 350 and 400°C for 3 hours with a heating rate of 3°C/min and 0.5 rotations per minute (RPM) to
determine the effect of pyrolysis temperature on the quality of biochar. Yield of EFB biochars were 21.5,
19.5 and 18.0 wt% in case of 300, 350 and 400°C pyrolysis temperature, respectively. Water retention
was found highest in biochar that produced from 400°C in each cases of 100g sandy soil + 100 ml water +
1g biochar, 50g sandy soil + 50 ml water + 0.5g biochar, 25g sandy soil + 25 ml water + 0.25g biochar.
Phosphorus (P) concentration was more or less similar in all biochars, but there was a clear variation
found in case of potassium (K) content at different temperatures of biochar produced. The K content was
0.604, 0.840, 1.080 and 1.220 ppm in case of without biochar, biochar of 300, 350 and 400°C
respectively, after 15 days of biochar & fertilizer addition to the soil.
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

Keywords: biochar, nutrient retention, water retention, soil fertility

1. Introduction

Biochar is a pyrolytic product of organic materials (Antal and Gronli, 2003) which is
beneficial for crop growth and yield through its versatile characteristics. Pyrolysis is one of the
promising technologies that can convert biomass into higher value products such as bio-oil,
syngas, biochar, and chemicals in the absence of oxygen. The production of biochar is quite
similar with production of charcoal which is one of the most ancient industrial technologies
developed by mankind (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). But, they are differing to each other by the
fact that the production of biochar is to be used in soil in order to improve soil productivity,
carbon storage and filtration of percolating soil water. Recently, biochar was produced from
different organic materials such as plant tissues (Preston and Schmidt 2006; Knicker 2007),
anthropogenic sources (Warnock et al., 2007), forage plant biomass (Husk and Major, 2011),
woody debris, corn stalks, macadamia shell, etc. (Berek et al., 2011), sewage biosolids (Knowles
et al., 2011), pine chip and poultry litter (Liesch et al, 2010) and papermill wastes (Zwieten et al.,
2010).
Due to its molecular structure, biochar is chemically and biologically more stable than the
original carbon form, from where it comes. It is more difficult to be converted back to CO 2
again, means it is a good way of carbon sequestration. Global warming is a burning issue at the
recent world and researchers & scientists are trying to overcome this problem. The production of
biochar is one of the methods that come out to decrease the production of gases that can
contribute to global warming (Laird, 2008). Due to its beneficial characteristics, it is used as a
soil conditioner or amendment that is very promising in agricultural production. Increasing
atmospheric greenhouse gases from organic decomposition, especially CO2, and their effects on
global temperature have led to interest in the possibility of carbon storage in terrestrial
environments (Kuzyakov et al., 2009). It is quite different from charcoal in the sense that its
primary use is not for fuel but for biosequestration or atmospheric carbon capture and storage
(Berek et al., 2011). Soil organic carbon (SOC) pool declines due to cultivation but, the more
resistant carbon fraction of biochar increases the total carbon pool in the soil (Skjemstad et al.
2002), which increases the soil fertility. Brazilian researcher had transformed their most infertile
soils into one of the most productive ones in the Amazon area, termed as Terra Preta de Indio.
Deposition of nutrient-rich materials and charcoal within the zone of habitation and associated
garden areas created these dark soils (Kwapinski, et al., 2010). Biochar is a complex compound
because the yield and the quality of the pyrolysis products are depends on the biomass species,
chemical and structural composition of biomass, operating temperature, heating rate, types of
reactor etc. Temperature is one of the crucial parameter in controlling the biomass pyrolysis
performance, particularly on the yield distribution of solid, liquid and gas products.

324
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

The presence of biochar in the soil mixture give significant effect to the physical nature of
the system, influencing depth, texture, structure, porosity and consistency through changing the
bulk surface area, pore-size distribution, particle-size distribution, density and packing. In
addition, biochar’s effect on soil physical properties may then have a direct impact upon plant
growth because the penetration depth and availability of air and water within the root zone is
determined largely by the physical make-up of soil horizons (Chan et al., 2008). The presence of
biochar will directly affect the soil’s response to water, its aggregation, workability during soil
preparation, swelling-shrinking dynamics and permeability, as well as its capacity to retain
cations and its response to ambient temperature changes (Brady and Weil, 2008).
Chemically, biochar may increase cation and anion exchange capacity (CEC & AEC) of soil
(Liang et al., 2006; Singh et al., 2010), and increase the soil pH (Cheng et al., 2006). Moreover,
pyrolyzed products are protected from rapid microbial degradation, and able to securely
sequester carbon, offering substantial potential for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions
(Lehmann et al., 2006). Addition of biochar to soil increases the soil properties through raising
its pH, increasing total N & P, encourages greater root development, improves cation exchange
capacity and decreases available aluminium (Chan et al., 2008). Moreover, biochar have the
ability to mitigate drought by increasing soil moisture, while decreasing soil erosion and nutrient
leaching (Lorenz, 2007). Increased moisture retention and water bioavailability is thought to be a
critical factor for greater yields with biochar amended fields. On the other hand, the surface of
biochar can contain many chemically reactive groups, such as COOH, OH, ketone, that give
biochar a great potential to adsorb toxic substances, such as aluminum (Al) and manganese (Mn)
in acid soils, and arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), copper (Cu), nickel (Ni) and lead (Pb) in heavy
metal contaminated soils (Berek et al., 2011; Uchimiya et al., 2010).
Malaysia has an abundant source of biomass in EFB conveniently collected and available for
exploitation in all palm oil mills, which is becoming a popular source of fuel for renewable
energy and biochar production. When the EFB is converted into biochar in the most efficient
manner, it will be used as most alternative sustainable source of soil fertility for the century.
Heavy accumulation of EFB creates several problems if not manage properly such as, heavy
traffic causing damage to field roads and harvesting paths requiring frequent upgrading which
can be costly; field inaccessibility to light vehicles during rainy months; mulching field close to
worker’s quarters can encourage breeding of flies. When placed in heaps at road sides besides
causing breeding of rhinoceros beetle, there is leaching of potassium returned from the heaps;
insufficient vehicles during peak cropping months due to vehicle breakdowns causes total
neglect of EFB evacuation as the vehicles are given priority for FFB evacuation from the field
(Menon et al., 2003).
Production of biochar from EFB and its utilization will open a new era in soil fertility
conservation and crop production in Malaysia. It also simultaneously helps in minimizing the
public sufferings and environmental pollution from heavy accumulation of EFB. Keeping these
points into account, we designed the experiment to investigate the quality of EFB biochar based
on pyrolysis temperature. Therefore, this study was carried out with the following objectives:

325
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

i. To produce biochar from EFB with different temperatures.

ii. To investigate the water retention percentage of biochars produced at different
temperatures.
iii. To investigate the ability of P and K retention of biochars produced at different
temperatures.

2. Materials and methods

2.1 Collection of EFB and preparation of samples

In order to produce biochar, EFB biomass was collected from Seri Ulu Langat Palm Oil
Mill, Dengkil, Selangor. The EFB were kept in cold room right after received from the company.
Sandy soil used in this study was obtained from Pantai Kuala Ibai, Terengganu Darul Iman.
Meanwhile, NPK fertilizer was bought from Serdang market to add in soil as control purpose in
this study. The EFB samples were heated at 102°C in an oven (UNB200, Mermet Germany) at
least 3 hours, or until getting constant weight. Finally, a standard method of moisture estimation
(ASTM D 3173) was applied to compute the moisture content of EFB according to Asadullah et
al. (2008).

2.2 Pyrolysis of EFB

Electrically heated rotating pyrolysis reactor made by Nasmech Technology Sdn Bhd was
used to produce biochar from empty fruit bunch. Initially, a bunch of EFB was segregated into
small pieces in order to transfer the EFB more easily into the reactor. After that, the EFB was
weight into 1 kg, which particle size was not more than 1 cm, put into the reactor before heating
process was started. The sample was heated up to 300°C for 3 hours at heating rate 3°C/ min
with 0.5 RPM. When the process was completed, the biochar produced was cooled down before
collected. The biochar yield was weighted and recorded. The experiment was repeated for
another two samples with same amount of EFB but different pyrolysis temperatures, such as
350°C and 400°C respectively.

2.3 Pore size analysis of biochar

Scanning electron microscope (SEM) (Hitachi, S-3400N) was used to view macroporosity of
biochar and sandy soil. Before viewing, the sample was attached to an aluminum stub. The stub
was then placed in a sputter coater to coat the sample with gold thus providing a conductive
layer. The coating was performed in vacuum condition (0.1 mbar) for 3 minutes and current of
35 mA. After that, the stub was placed in the sample holder of SEM before viewing the images
displayed by the connecting monitor.

2.4 Analysis of water retention ability of different biochars

Oven dried and cooled soil and biochar samples were prepared in different combination and
ratios to observe the water retention ability of biochars. For this purpose, 12 beakers were

326
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

prepared with different combinations. After that, initial height of water of each beaker was
recorded in order to find the initial weight of all samples based on density of water and diameter
of beaker. Then all beakers were placed at room temperature. The height of water for each
beaker was determined every day until no water left in the beaker and percentages of water
retention of different beakers were calculated based on the weight difference.

2.5 Analysis of P and K retention ability of different biochars

In order to investigate the retention of P and K, 10 g well mixed dry sandy soil was mixed
with different types (300, 350 and 400°C) of 0.5 g biochar each. For the standardization of
fertilizer, 0.5 g of NPK fertilizer was mixed well in all cases. For extraction of P and K from the
biochar mixed sample, Mehlich 1 method (Mehlich, 1984) was chosen for digestion. The
solution prepared by mixing 162ml 0.05M HCl with 28ml 0.0125M H2SO4 in a 250ml beaker.
After the extracting solution was prepared, 1g of sample and 4ml of solution was poured into a
50ml beaker then was shaken for 5 minutes with 250 rpm. After filtration, the filtrate was further
analyzed by Inductive Coupled Plasma (ICP-OES, Optima, 7300 DV) to get P and K
concentration. For this purpose, 12 samples were prepared with 3 replications at different
combinations.

3. Results and discussion

3.1 Characterization of Empty Fruit Bunch (EFB)

Before the pyrolysis was started, the moisture content of EFB was tested by using the normal
oven and was calculated by using equation 1. The characterization of EFB is essential since it
may have crucial impact on the consumption of fuel during pyrolysis process. The higher the
moisture content, more fuel will be consumed (Asadullah et al., 2008). Thus, the average
moisture content was 53.78 wt%. This indicates that water is one of the most significant
components of EFB that result in the emission of white smoke during incineration of this
biomass. It may be due to the loss of some of moisture content of biomass while transferring
process occurred from the factory to the laboratory. So, it is very important to keep the biomass
in cold room to conserve its moisture content. Other researchers were found a little higher
moisture content in the biomass for pyrolysis, such as 64.01 wt% (Chiaramonti et al., 2007),
65.00 wt% (Menon et al., 2003).

3.2 Yield of biochar from pyrolysis process at different temperatures

Carbonization of EFBs were conducted in three different pyrolysis temperatures such as 300,
350, and 400°C with same residence time (3 hours) at Nasmech Technology Sdn Bhd. Amount
of biochar was higher (21.5 wt%) in the lowest pyrolysis temperature (300°C) and lower (18.0
wt%) in the highest temperature (400°C). There found a negative linear relationship between
biochar produced and temperature adopted (Figure 1). Total yield decreases with the increasing
of pyrolysis temperature. Here 3 hours heating at the rate of 3°C/min with 0.5 RPM was also

327
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

maximized the biochar production than other two higher temperatures. Besides that, there is a
possibility that an intermediate reaction occurred during the pyrolysis process which converted
EFB into large amount of others product (liquid and gases) rather than totally transformed into
solid (char) product. Paul and Serpil (1996) stated that a huge amount of gases were produced
during pyrolysis. Yields of liquid products are maximized in conditions of low temperature, high
heating rate, and a short gas residence time, whereas a high temperature, low heating rate and
long gas residence time would maximize yields of fuel gas. Kwapinski, et al. (2010) also showed
that the low operational temperatures and low heating rates give maximum yields of biochar.
Higher pyrolysis temperatures resulted in lower biochar mass recovery, greater surface areas,
elevated pH, higher ash contents and minimal total surface charge (Novak et al., 2009a).

22 21.5

21

20 19.5
Yield (wt%)

19
18
18

17

16
Biochar 300° C Biochar 350° C Biochar 400° C

Figure 1 Yield of biochar at different pyrolysis temperature

3.3 Water retention ability at different ratio of soil, biochar and tap water
Three different ratios of soil, biochar and water were designed to observe the water retention
ability such as, ratio 1: (100 g soil with 1 g of biochar in 100 ml tap water), ratio 2: (50 g soil
with 0.5 g of biochar in 50 ml tap water), and ratio 3: (25 g soil with 0.25 g of biochar in 25 ml
tap water). Height, volume and weight of 12 different samples for water retention were displayed
in Table 1. It was revealed from the result that the percentage of water retention was decreased
with the increasing of retention period. Ratio 1 showed the highest water retention ability
whereas, ratio 2 was intermediate and ratio 3 had showed the lowest ability. Among the same

328
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

ratio group, biochar from highest temperature showed the highest water holding capacity (Figure
1).
According to the Figure 2, a sharp decrease in percent of water retention from 14 % (day 12)
to 5 % (day 13) was observed in Beaker A, compared to B, C and D. Among the biochar
containing beakers, beaker D shows the highest percentage of water retention. The lowest water
retention occurred in Beaker C which contains biochar of 350°C. No water was observed after
day 14. Meanwhile, water retention with 0.5 g of biochar and 50 g of soil in 50 ml of water,
beaker F (biochar of 300°C) appeared as the lowest percentage of water retained when compare
to other beakers. Beaker F was able to retain water up to 8 days only while water in the beaker E,
G, and H can prolong the time of retention up to 9 days. It can be said that the loss of water
content in beaker F was caused by high evaporation process. However, biochar obtained from
400°C was able to retain more water (25%) at 9th day compared to biochar 350°C (20%), and
biochar 300°C. In case of lower soil-biochar-water ratio, the water retention was not very
different to each other in day 1 and day 2. At the 4th day, the highest water retention was
observed in biochar 400°C (50%) compared to biochar 350°C (43%) and than biochar 300°C
(38%). After four days, no water was available in any beakers might be due to the lower ratio of
soil, biochar and tap water.
Biochar from 400°C at higher biochar-soil-water ratio (100 g of soil with 100 ml of water) in
beaker D showed the highest tendency to retain more water when it left for few days. It was
revealed from this plot analysis that the water retention ability was proportional to pyrolysis
temperature. Therefore, the types and quality of biochar that applied to soil would play an
important role in water retention ability. Novak et al. (2009a) have studied the water holding
capacity of peanut hull & pecan shell biochar produced from different pyrolysis temperatures
and found a higher water holding capacity in higher temperature biochar.

Table 1 Initial height, volume, and weight of water

Beaker Height, m Volume, m3 Weight, g
A 0.0210 0.000081 80.8280
B 0.0190 0.000073 73.1301
C 0.0210 0.000081 80.8280
D 0.0200 0.000077 76.9790
E 0.0100 0.000038 38.4895
F 0.0110 0.000042 42.3385
G 0.0100 0.000038 38.4895
H 0.0100 0.000038 38.4895
I 0.0080 0.000031 30.7916
J 0.0080 0.000031 30.7916
K 0.0070 0.000027 26.9427
L 0.0080 0.000031 30.7916

329
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

100 g soil, 1 g
100 A
biochar, 100 B
ml water C
50 g soil, 0.5 D
80
g biochar, 50
Water retention %
E
ml water F
60 G
H
I
40 J
K
L
25 g soil, 0.25
20
g biochar, 25
ml water
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Retention time (days)
Figure 2 Water retention ability of different biochars and Soils

(A: 100 g of dry sandy soil with 100 ml of tap water; B: 100 g of dry sandy soil with 1 g of
biochar 300°C and 100 ml of tap water; C: 100 g of dry sandy soil with 1 g of biochar 350°C and
100 ml of tap water; D: 100 g of dry sandy soil with 1 g of biochar 400°C and 100 ml of tap
water; E: 50 g of dry sandy soil with 50 ml of tap water; F: 50 g of dry sandy soil with 0.5 g of
biochar 300°C and 50 ml of tap water; G: 50 g of dry sandy soil with 0.5 g of biochar 350°C and
50 ml of tap water; H: 50 g of dry sandy soil with 0.5 g of biochar 400°C and 50 ml of tap water;
I: 25 g of dry sandy soil with 25 ml of tap water; J: 25 g of dry sandy soil with 0.25 g of biochar
300°C and 25 ml of tap water; K: 25 g of dry sandy soil with 0.25 g of biochar 350°C and 25 ml
of tap water; L: 25 g of dry sandy soil with 0.25 g of biochar 400°C and 25 ml of tap water).

330
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

Figure 3 SEM of biochar (left) and sandy dry soil (right) at 500X Magnification

In this study, the existence of biochar in dry sandy soil makes the water to retain more
efficiently with long period of time. There are a few reasons that will support this statement.
First, the limited capacity of sandy soil to store water is partly related to the relatively small
surface area of its soil particles (Troeh and Thompson, 2005). In this case, biochar specific
surfaces, being generally higher than sand and comparable to capable of retaining more water.
Second, porosity of biochar which is less than 30 µm will hold water in place (Lehmann, 2007).
Hence, the structure of biochar was observed under high magnification (500X) of SEM and
found the pore diameter of biochar was 5-6 µm and the membrane thickness was 2.3 µm to 2.66
µm which is shown in Figure 3. It was also found from figure that dry soil couldn’t retain water
due to less porous characteristics. Here, pore size was less than 30 µm, so that the biochar
showed the higher tendency to retain water. Biochar enhances of soil physical properties such as
soil water retention, saturated hydraulic conductivity and porosity (Waters et al. 2011) and thus
ensuring a greater potential for efficient water utilization and improved soil productivity (Asai et
al. 2009). Zwieten et al. (2010a) found the pore diameter was rages from 5 to 10 µm and the
micropore area was (329m2/g) in green waste biochar which was pyrolized at 600° C. Surface
area of biochar was contributed by its micropore area and it has a significant effect on water
adsorption capacity. Glaser et al. (2002) also reported an 18% increase in field capacity for high
black carbon (BC) containing soils compared to low BC soils, and attributed this to the increased
surface area and porous structure of the char particle. Asai et al. (2009) also found improved soil
water permeability and soil water holding capacity and thereby plant water availability in rice
plantations after biochar amendments. This was also found in temperate soils but might depend
on soil properties such as clay content (Glaser et al. 2002). A 2% switch grass biochar addition to
a sandy Norfolk soil in the southeastern U.S. could significantly improve soil water retention
(Novak et al. 2009) and was also found in the Midwestern soil by Laird (2008).

331
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

3.4 P & K retention ability at different ratio of soil & biochar

Besides retention of water in dry sandy soil, this research also examined the ability of biochar
to retain P and K in dry sandy soil. For this purpose, 3 different types of biochars and dry sandy
soil with control group were studied with 3 replications. Samples were left at room temperature
(25°C-27°C) for 15 days. Among 12 samples, the concentration of P and K kept in different
beakers were analyzed and compared.
The concentration of P in four different samples was graphically shown in Figure 4. After 15
days of retention period, the soil containing biochar of 300°C showed the highest (0.224 ppm) P,
followed by control soil (0.188 ppm), soil containing biochar of 400°C (0.176 ppm), and soil
containing biochar of 350°C (0.144 ppm). There were no significant differences found in P
retention among different types of biochar treated groups. Some researchers have reported that P
molecule has binding capacity with clay particle and with other chemicals involved in P fixation
such as Al, Fe and Ca (Sharpley, 1995; Elliott et al., 2002; Chen et al., 2006). Moreover, P may
consumed by phosphate accumulating organisms or other microorganisms that existed in the
sandy soil (Yang et al. 2010). As a consequence, P concentration found irregular and lower after
15 days of experiment. According to Uzoma et al., 2010, biochar produced at 500°C and mixed
at 20 Mg/ha rate had the highest retention of phosphorus while that produced at 400°C and
mixed at 10 Mg/ha rate retained the least amount of phosphorus. Zwieten et al. (2010a) found a
higher P and Na retention rate in the biochars produced from higher pyrolysis temperature.

P concentration (ppm) K concentration (ppm)

1.4
1.22
1.2
P & K concentration (ppm)

1.08
1
0.84
0.8
0.604
0.6

0.4
0.188 0.224
0.144 0.176
0.2

0
Soil only + NPK Soil+biochar 300° C Soil+biochar 350° C Soil+biochar 400° C
fertilizer + NPK fertilizer + NPK fertilizer + NPK fertilizer

Figure 4 Concentration of P & K in dry sandy soil at different types of biochar

332
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

Apart from phosphorus, there found a clear difference in K retention among different biochar
treated groups. The concentrations of K after 15 days of retention period were 0.604, 0.840,
1.080 and 1.220 ppm in case of control soil (no biochar), soil containing biochar of 300°C, soil
containing biochar of 350°C and soil containing biochar of 400°C, respectively (Figure 5). There
found a gradual higher concentration of K in soil containing without biochar, biochar 300, 350
and 400°C after 15 days of retention period. It might be stated from the experiment that pyrolysis
temperature during biochar production has a great influence on K retention.
Elements such as Ca, K, and P entrained within the biochar, bones, and other refuse materials
and increase soil nutrient levels that promote plant growth (Glaser et al., 2002). Poly-condensed
aromatic structures were obtained by pyrolyzing organic feedstocks at a higher temperature
(more than 400 up to 700ºC) (Glaser et al., 2002; Baldock and Smernik, 2002; Hamer et al.,
2004), but also have fewer ion exchange functional groups due to dehydration and
decarboxylation (Glaser et al., 2002; Baldock and Smernik, 2002; Hammes, K. and Schmidt,
2009), potentially limiting its usefulness in retaining soil nutrients. On the other hand, biochars
produced at lower temperatures (250 to 400ºC) have higher yield recoveries and contain more
C=O and C-H functional groups that can serve as nutrient exchange sites after oxidation. Hence,
nutrients are able to retain in the soil with addition of biochar (Water et al., 2011). Thus, it helps
to increase the uptake of nutrient such as N, P and P from fertilizer by plant. Zwieten et al.
(2010a) studied pyrolysis of green waste at temperature 250-750oC and found that at higher
temperature especially above 400oC the functional groups increasingly lost together with the
volatiles. Decrease of functional groups in biochar reduces its ability to retain nutrients.

4. Conclusion

The quality of biochar produced from different temperatures was determined through water,
P and K retention in dry sandy soil. Biochar obtained from slow pyrolysis process at 400°C
showed the highest percentage of water, P and K retention compared to those biochar produced
at 300°C and 350°C. The retention of water also depends on the amount of water and biochar
added to the soil. More water retained in the soil when higher amount of water and biochar were
added. Overall, the retention of water and nutrient by biochar showed increasing trend as the
biochar production temperature increase, however it was known that at higher temperature the
retention ability will decrease. Most workers in this area more or less have agreed that 400oC is
the appropriate temperature to produce quality biochar as demonstrated in this study.

References

Asai, H., Samson, B. K., Stephan, H. M., Songyikhangsuthor, K., Homma, K., Kiyono, Y.,
Inoue, Y., Shiraiwa, T. and Horie, T., (2009), Biochar amendment techniques for upland rice
production in Northern Laos 1. Soil physical properties, leaf SPAD and grain yield. Field. Crops.
Res., 111, 81-84.

333
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

Baldock, J. A. and Smernik, R. J., (2002), Chemical composition and bioavailability of

thermally altered Pinus resinosa (Red pine) wood. Org. Geochem., 33, 1093-1109.
Beesley, L., Jimenez, E. M. and Eyles, J. L., (2010), Effects of biochar and greenwaste
compost amendments on mobility, bioavailability and toxicity of inorganic and organic
contaminants in a multi-element polluted soil. Environ. Pollution., 158, 2282-2287.
Berek, A. K., Hue, N. and Ahmad, A., (2011), Beneficial use of biochar to correct soil
acidity. The Food Provider, September – November, 2011, 1-3.
Brady, N. C. and Weil, R. R., (2008), An Introduction to .the Nature and Properties of Soils.
14th edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
Chan, K. Y., Zwieten, L. V., Meszaros, I., Downie, A. and Joseph, S., (2008), Using poultry
litter biochars as soil amendments. Aust. J. Soil Res., 46, 437-444.
Chen, G. C., He, Z. L., Stoffella, P. J., Yang, X. E., Yu, S. and Calvert, D., (2006), Use of
dolomite phosphate rock (DPR) fertilizers to reduce phosphorus leaching from sandy soil.
Environ. Pollution, 139, 176–182.
Cheng, C. H., Lehmann, J., Thies, J. E., Burton, S. D. and Engelhard, M. H., (2006),
Oxidation of black carbon by biotic and abiotic processes. Org Geochem., 37, 1477–88.
Chiaramonti D, Oasmaa, A. and Solantausta Y., (2007), Power generation using fast
pyrolysis liquids from biomass. Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev., 11, 1056–1086.
Elliott, H. A., O’Connor, G. A. and Brinton, S., (2002), Phosphorus leaching from
Biosolidsamended sandy soils. J. Environ. Quality, 31, 681–689.
Glaser, B., Lehmann, J. and 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.
Hamer, U., Marschner, B., Brodowski, S. and Amelung, W., (2004), Interactive priming of
black carbon and glucose mineralisation. Org. Geochem., 35, 823–830.
Hammes, K. and Schmidt, M. W. I., (2009), Changes of biochar in soil. In: Lehmann J. and
Joseph, S. (Eds.) Biochar for environmental management, Science and Technology, London,
UK.
Husk, B. and Major, J., (2009), Effects of Biochar on Forage Plant Biomass Quantity,
Quality and Milk Production. (Note: This report is an addendum to a detailed report produced
after the second field season in 2009, available at: http://www.blue-leaf.ca/main-
en/report_a3.php.
Knicker, H., (2007), How does fire affect the nature and stability of soil organic nitrogen and
carbon? A review. Biogeochemistry, 85, 91–118.
Knowles, O. A., Robinson, B. H., Contangelo, A. and Clucas, L., (2011), Biochar for the
mitigation of nitrate leaching from soil amended with biosolids. Science of the total
Environment, 409, 3206-3210.
Kuzyakov, Y., Subbotina, I., Chen, H., Bogomolova, I. and Xu, X., (2009), Black carbon
decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial biomass estimated by 14C labeling. Soil
Biol. Biochem, 41, 210-219.

334
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

Kwapinski, W., Byrne, C. M. P., Kryachko, E., Wolfram, P., Adley, C., Leahy, J.J., Novotny,
E. and Hayes, M. H. B., (2010), Biochar from Biomass and Waste. Waste Biomass Valor., 1,
177-189.
Laird, D. A., (2008), The charcoal vision: A win-win-win scenario for simultaneously
producing bioenergy, permanently sequestering carbon, while improving soil and water quality.
Agron. J., 100, 178-181.
Lehmann, J., (2007), Bio-energy in the black. Front Ecol. Environ., 5(7), 381–387.
Lehmann, J. and Joseph, S., (2009), Biochar for Environmental Management. Science and
Technology (Eds), biochar for environmental management: an introduction, pp.1-12. Earthscan
Publishers Ltd, London.
Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J. and Rondon, M., (2006), Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial
ecosystems—A review. Mitig. Adapt. Strategies of Global Change, 11, 403–427
Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Kinyangi, J., Grossman, J.and O'Neill, B., (2006),
Black Carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J., 70, 1719–30.
Liesch, A. M., Weyers, S. L., Gaskin, J. W. and Das, K. C., (2010), Impact of two different
biochars on earthworm growth and survival. Annals of Environmental Science, 4, 1-9
Lorenz, K., (2007), Strengthening the soil organic carbon pool by increasing contributions
from recalcitrant aliphatic bio(macro)molecules. Geoderma, 142, 1-10.
McBeath, A. V. and Smernik, R. J., (2009), Variation in the degree of aromatic condensation
of chars. Org. Geochem., 40, 1161-1168
Mehlich, A., (1984), Mehlich 3 soil test extractant: A modification of Mehlich 2 extractant.
Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Annals.
Menon, N. R., Rahman, Z. A. and Bakar, N. A., (2003), Empty fruit bunches evaluation:
Mulch in plantation vs. fuel for electricity generation. Oil palm industry economic journal, 3, 15-
20.
Nguyen, B. T. and Lehmann, J., (2009), Black carbon decomposition under varying water
regimes. Org. Geochem., 40, 846-853.
Nguyen, B. T., Lehmann, J., Hockaday, W. C., Joseph, S. and Masiello, C. A., (2010),
Temperature sensitivity of black carbon decomposition and oxidation. Environ. Sci. Technol.,
44, 3324-3331.
Novak, J. M., Busscher, W. J., Laird, D. L., Ahmedna, M., Watts, D. W. and Niandou, M. A.
S., (2009), Impact of biochar amendment on fertility of a Southeastern coastal plain soil. Soil
Sci., 174, 105-112.
Novak, J. M., Lima, I., Xing, B., Gaskin, J. W., Steiner, C., Das, K. C., Ahmedna, M.,
Rehrah, D., Watts, D. W., Busscher, W. J. and Schomberg, H., (2009a), Characterization of
designer biochar produced at different temperatures and their effects on a loamy sand. Annals of
Environmental Science, 3, 195-206.
Paul W. T. and Serpil B., (1996), The influence of temperature and heating rate on the slow
pyrolysis of biomass. Renewable Energy, 7, 233‐250.

335
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

Preston, C. M., Schmidt and M. W. I., (2006), Black (pyrogenic) carbon: A synthesis of
current knowledge and uncertainties with special consideration of boreal regions.
Biogeosciences, 3, 397–420.
Sharpley, A. N., (1995), Soil phosphorus dynamics: agronomic and environmental Impacts.
Ecol. Eng., 5, 261–279.
Singh, B. P. and Cowie, A. L., (2008), A novel approach, using 13C natural abundance, for
measuring decomposition of biochars in soil. In: Currie, L., Yates, L. (eds) Carbon and nutrient
management in agriculture, fertilizer and lime research centre workshop proceedings. Massey
University, Palmerston North, NZ, p 549.
Singh, B. P. and Cowie, A., (2010), The mean turnover time of biochar in soil varies
depending on biomass source and pyrolysis temperature. In: 19th world congress of soil science,
soil solutions for a changing world, Brisbane, Australia, 1–6 Aug 2010.
http://www.iuss.org/19th%20WCSS/symposium/pdf/0326.pdf. Accessed 1 Dec 2010
Singh, B. P., Hatton, B. J., Singh, B., Cowie, A. L. and Kathuria, A., (2010), Influence of
biochars on nitrous oxide emission and nitrogen leaching from two contrasting soils. J Environ
Qual., 39, 1224–35.
Skjemstad, J. O., Reicosky, D. C., Wilts, A. R. and McGowan J. A., (2002), Charcoal carbon
in US agricultural soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal, 66, 1249-1255.
Troeh, F. R. and Thompson, L. M., (2005), Soils and Soil Fertility. Blackwell Publishing,
Iowa, USA.
Uchimiya, M., Lima, I. M., Klasson, K. T., Chang, S., Wartelle, L. H. and Rodgers, J. E.,
(2010), Immobilization of Heavy Metal Ions (CuII, CdII, NiII, and PbII) by Broiler Litter-
Derived Biochars in Water and Soil. J. Agric. Food Chem., 58, 5538–5544.
Uzoma, K. C., Andry, H., Inoue, M. and Nishihara, E., (2010), Impact of biochar amendment
on the hydraulic and nutrient retention properties of a sandy soil. http://a-c-
s.confex.com/crops/2010am/webprogram, Assessed on 16 April 2011.
Warnock, D. D., Lehmann, J., Kuyper, T. W. and Rillig, M. C., (2007), Mycorrhizal
responses to biochar in soil – concepts and mechanisms. Plant Soil, 300, 9–20.
Waters, D., Zwieten, L. V., Singh, B. P., Downie, A., Cowie, A. L. and Lehmann, J., (2011),
Biochar in Soil for Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. B. P. Singh et al. (eds.), Soil
Health and Climate Change, Soil Biology 29, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-20256-8_15, # Springer-
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
Yang, J., Yuan, L., Xu, S., Zhu, D., Ni, Y., Yuan, Y., Liu, D. and Yang, J., (2010),
Identification of a high phosphate-accumulating organisms and study of its poly-phosphate
characteristics. In: the proceedings of 4th International Conference on Bioinformatics and
Biomedical Engineering (iCBBE), 18-20 June, 2010, Chengdu, China.
Zimmerman, A. R., (2010), Abiotic and microbial oxidation of laboratory-produced black
carbon (biochar). Environ. Sci. Technol., 44, 1295-1301.

336
 Journal of Purity, Utility Reaction and Environment Vol.1 No.6, July 2012, 323-337

Zwieten, L. V., Kimber, S., Downie, A., Morris, S., Petty, S., Rust, J., and Chan, K. Y.,
(2010), A glasshouse study on the interaction of low mineral ash biochar with nitrogen in a
sandy soil. Australian Journal of Soil Research, 48, 569–576.
Zwieten, L. V., Kimber, S., Morris, S., Chan, K. Y., Downie, A., Rust, J., Joseph, S. and
Cowie, A., (2010a), Effects of biochar from slow pyrolysis of papermill waste on agronomic
performance and soil fertility. Plant Soil, 327, 235–246.

337

View publication stats