Biochar Characterization and Evaluation For Their Application As A Soil Amendments

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/274712862
BIOCHAR CHARACTERIZATION AND EVALUATION FOR THEIR APPLICATION AS

A SOIL AMENDMENTS
Article in Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis · January 2014
CITATIONS READS
0 328
1 author:
Vinoth Chelladurai
University of Surrey
2 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Vinoth Chelladurai on 10 April 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis
Fo
BIOCHAR CHARACTERIZATION AND EVALUATION FOR

rP
THEIR APPLICATION
AS A SOIL AMENDMENTS
ee
Journal: Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis
Manuscript ID: Draft

rR
Manuscript Type: Original Articles
Date Submitted by the Author: n/a

ev
Complete List of Authors: SRINIVASAGAM, KRISHNAKUMAR; VANAVARAYAR INSTITUTE OF

AGRICULTURE, SOIL SCIENCE AND AGRICULTURAL CHEMISTRY
Keywords: Biochar, Pyrolysis, SEM, Raman Spectroscopy, pH, Organic carbon, CEC
ie
w
On
ly
URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/lcss Email: communsoilsci@aol.com

Page 1 of 20 Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis
1
2
3 BIOCHAR CHARACTERIZATION AND EVALUATION FOR THEIR APPLICATION
4
5 AS A SOIL AMENDMENTS
6
7 S. Krishnakumar *, A.G.Rajalakshmi1, B. Balaganesh1, P. Manikandan2, V. Rajendran1,
1
8 C. Vinoth3, N. Muthukkannan3 and K. Velmurugan3

9
1
10 Vanavarayar Institute of Agriculture, Manakkadavu, Pollachi - 642103,
11 2
12
Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore – 641003, Tamil Nadu, India.
13 3
Research Scholars, Mahalingam College of Engineering and Technology, Pollachi,
14
Fo
15 Tamil Nadu, India.
16
17
18 ABSTRACT
rP
19
20 Biochar is an organic charcoal material that is the final product of pyrolysis, or high
21 temperature burning of agricultural biomass without the presence of oxygen. The limitation of
22
oxygen in the system prevents the complete burning, instead producing the charcoal that
ee
23
24
25
captures much more of the natural carbon from the biomaterial. Such a form of carbon will not
26 only be able to capture additional carbon, but also store carbon dioxide in sinks and out of the
rR
27
28 atmosphere for thousands of years. The present studies taken up with the main objective of
29 biochar characterization and evaluation for their application as soil amendments. Biochar
30
samples were prepared from the pyrolysis process of various biological materials viz., coconut
ev
31
32
33 shell, sugarcane baggaase and prosopis wood. The biochars are characterized by surface area
34 and particle size distribution by using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM), Raman
ie
35
36 Spectroscopy and Particle size analyzer with EDAX. The carbon in the biomass is subjected to
37
w
38
easy degradation since they contain low grade carbon. But in biochar, pyrogenic carbon is
39 formed by pyrolysis. The biochars are differed much from each other in many characters based
40
On
41 on the pyrolysis temperature. The physio chemical properties of biochar showed that this is very
42
useful source of soil amendment/nutrients is one way to manage soil health and fertility. One of
43
44 the approaches for efficient utilization of biomass involves carbonization of biomass to highly
45
ly
46 stable carbon compound known as biochar and its use as a soil amendment.
47
48
49
50
51
Key words: Biochar, Pyrolysis, Physio-chemical properties, SEM, Raman Spectroscopy,
52 Particle size analyzer, soil amendments
53
54 ____________________________________________________________________________
55
* Corresponding author: E-mail: drkrishnakumar76@gmail.com; krishnakumar@via.ac.in
56
57
58
59
60
Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis Page 2 of 20
1
2
3 Introduction
4
5 It is estimated that approximately 500-550 Mt of crop residues are produced per year in
6
7 the India (IARI, 2012). The huge volume of crop residues are produced both on-farm and off-
8 farm. Efficient and sustainable disposal of organic agricultural waste remains a main issue in
9
10 rural farm areas and in urban societies. Most wastes are either burnt or end up in landfill, which
11
12
degrade the environment and also produce large amounts of green house gases. The
13 production of biochar from farm wastes and their application in farm soils offer multiple
14
Fo
15 environmental and financial benefits. Biochar use has a very promising potential for the
16 development of sustainable agricultural systems in India, and also for global climate change
17
18 mitigation.
rP
19
20 Biochar has become known as a potential option for long-term storage of carbon and its
21 defined as Biochar is the porous, carbonaceous solid produced in the thermo-chemical
22
conversion of biomass under oxygen-depleted conditions and which has physiochemical
ee
23
24
25
properties suitable for safe and long-term storage of carbon in the environment and, potentially,
26 soil improvement (Sohi et al., 2013). Lehmann and Joseph (2009) have also defined the biochar
rR
27
28 as charred organic matter, produced with the intent to deliberately apply to soils to sequester
29 carbon and improve soil properties. The maximum sustainable technical potential for carbon
30
abatement from biochar is 1.6 Gt C per year by 2050. This compares with current total
ev
31
32
33 anthropogenic carbon emission at 7.8 Gt C per year. Hence the biochar can be an important of
34 a global response to carbon abatement, though the challenges of achieving such a large-scale
ie
35
36 utilization of biochar would be considerable (Woolf et al., 2010). The only difference between
37
w
38
biochar and charcoal is in its utilitarian intention; charcoal is produced for other reasons (e.g.
39 heating, barbeque, etc.) than biochar. Characterization of any amendment is the first step to
40
On
41 understand the mechanism of action (Verheijen et al. 2010). The properties of biochar are
42
mainly governed by its physico-chemical constituents of amendments. The form and size of the
43
44 feedstock and pyrolysis product may affect the quality and potential uses of biochar (Sohi et al.,
45
ly
46 2010). The importance of biochar depends on its physical and chemical characteristics,
47 although the relationship of char properties to these applications is not well understood.
48
49 To understand the mechanism of action of biochar in soil, its proper characterization is
50
51
the first step towards unraveling the beneficial effect of biochar. The biogeochemical
52 characterization of biochar helps in determining the agronomic importance as well as impact on
53
54 soil process. It further helps in preparation of particular kind of biochar which may have higher
55
agronomic significance. It has been documented by several authors that biochar produced from
56
57 different feedstock and on different temperature and time scales has altogether different
58
59
60
1
2
3 characteristics. Okimori, et al. (2003) and Sohi et al. (2010) have reported some key properties
4
5 for the evaluation of biochar. All these properties are governed by the quality of the feed stock
6
7 that is used for the biochar production. Several techniques are used for characterization of
8 biochar/black carbon. Physical structure of biochar is generally characterized by scanning
9
10 electron microscopy (SEM). Sohi et al. (2010) reported that the macroporous structure (pores of
11
12
approximately 1 mm diameter) of biochar produced from cellulosic plant material inherits the
13 architecture of the feedstock, and is potentially important to water holding and adsorption
14
Fo
15 capacity of soil (Day et al., 2005; Ogawa et al., 2006; Yu et al., 2006). The pore structure of
16 biochar seen under SEM provided physical refuge, resulting in increased abundances of
17
18 beneficial microorganisms (Purakayastha et al., 2013).
rP
19
20 Materials and methods
21 Biochar samples were prepared from the pyrolysis of various biological materials viz.,
22
coconut shell, sugarcane bagasse and prosopis.
ee
23
24
25
Pyrolysis
26 Pyrolysis is formally defined as thermo chemical decomposition induced in organic
rR
27
28 materials by heat in the absence of oxygen. It is the fundamental chemical reaction that place
29 before Combustion and Gasification process. The by-products obtained from pyrolysis process
30
are biochar, bio-oil and syngas. Wide range of feed stocks from biomass can be used in
ev
31
32
33 pyrolysis processes. The Moisture content in the feedstock should be around 10 % since the
34 pyrolysis process is very dependent on the moisture content. Proper drying methods should be
ie
35
36 carried out for the high moisture content feedstocks before subjecting to pyrolysis. Particle size
37
w
38
of feedstock defines the efficiency and nature of pyrolysis process. Pyrolysis can be categorized
39 under slow, intermediate or fast Pyrolysis (Dinesh Mohan et al., 2006).
40
On
41 Fabrication of Pyrolysis Kiln

42
The preparation of Biochar from biomass has been confined through the process of
43
44 Pyrolysis, we go for the development of a Pyrolysis kiln. The design specifications of lab scale
45
ly
46 pilot plant for biochar production are clearly shown in the Fig. 1 viz., 1. Diameter of the
47 Combustion chamber - 24 inches; 2. Height of the Combustion chamber - 2 feet; 3. Diameter of
48
49 the carbonization chamber - 16 inches; 4. Height of the Combustion chamber – 1.5 feet.
50
51
Process of Pyrolysis
52 The solid works model of biochar pilot plant was shown in Fig. 2. The combustion
53
54 chamber is filled with organic materials known as biomass. The waste material is placed in the
55
Gasifier space (space between combustion chamber and outer chamber). A rag soaked with
56
57 kerosene is used as a fire starter. The lid is placed on the stove, when the fire is started burning.
58
59
60
1
2
3 This process can be completed within 2 hr and the stove should be cooled down after 1 hr. At
4
5 the end of the process all the biomass will be turned into char. Biochar is made from pyrolysis
6
7 temperature of 350-400°C.
8 The construction of the Biochar maker is shown in Fig. 3. A certain weight of feedstock
9
10 (the biomass or agriculture waste sourced in and around Pollachi) was placed into the
11
12
carbonization chamber which was inverted inside the combustion chamber so that an
13 incomplete seal was formed at the base. A temperature sensor was placed in the middle of the
14
Fo
15 feedstock mass inside the carbonization chamber, and linked to a data logger, which logged
16 temperature every 15 minutes throughout the heating period. K-type thermocouple with a
17
18 temperature range of 400–1200 °C has been used.
rP
19
20 Separating the combustion process from the carbonization process allows any
21 flammable products generated in the burning of the biomass, such as volatile hydrocarbons and
22
hydrogen, to be burnt as they pass into the combustion chamber producing little soot and
ee
23
24
25
smoke. Predominantly, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and water vapor are released to the
26 atmosphere during most of the burn. Once the feedstock and carbonization chamber were in
rR
27
28 place, the combustion chamber was filled with firewood which acted as the combustion fuel. The
29 fuel was lit from the top at various points around the diameter of the combustion chamber to
30
achieve an even burn. A steel lid with a hole in the centre was placed on top of the drum and
ev
31
32
33 after a few minutes a chimney was placed on the top of the hole in the lid to achieve sufficient
34 draft for a clean burn.
ie
35
36
37
w
38
Characterization of Biochar
39
40
On
41 The Biochar samples were collected from the pyrolysis stove sieved (< 0.25 mm) and
42
their important characteristics were analysed.
43
44 Particle size analyzer
45
ly
46 Laser particle size analyzer works according to the optic properties, particularly to laser
47 such as monochromaticity, collimation, easily caused diffraction and scattering. In case beam
48
49 illuminates the particles distributed in the liquid, the diffraction and scattering phenomenon take
50
51
place. When the diffracted or scattered light passed through Furier lens, a series of light rings
52 emerge on the focal plane, radius of which are related to the size of the particles; the density of
53
54 light is determined by number of particles. By circular array of photo-detectors on focal plane,
55
diffraction and scattering signals from the particles in different diameters are received. Then the
56
57 signals are transferred to the computer through A/D conversion or other ways, being processed
58
59
60
1
2
3 according to Frauhofer diffraction or Mie scattering theory. The particle size distribution of the
4
5 sample is thus obtained.
6
7 Raman spectrometry
8 Raman signal is collected by a detector and a computer creates a graph showing the
9
10 intensity of light at each wave number. The change in energy is observed in terms of
11
12
"Raman shift" with respect to excitation frequency of the incident beam, while the magnitude of
13 the shift itself is independent of the excitation frequency. This Raman shift is therefore an
14
Fo
15 intrinsic property of the sample. In general, only some excitations of a given sample are "Raman
16 active," that is, only some may take part in the Raman scattering process. The peaks in the
17
18 intensity occur at the frequencies of the Raman active modes. For a transition to be Raman
rP
19
20 active there must be a change in polarizability of the molecule.
21 Scanning Electron Microscopy
22
The primary electron beam interacts with the sample in a number of key ways: a)
ee
23
24
25
Primary electrons generate low energy secondary electrons, which tend to emphasise the
26 topographic nature of the specimen, b) Primary electrons can be backscattered which produces
rR
27
28 images with a high degree of atomic number (Z) contrast, c) Ionized atoms can relax by electron
29 shell-to-shell transitions, which lead to either X-ray emission or Auger electron ejection. The X-
30
rays emitted are characteristic of the elements in the top few µm of the sample and are
ev
31
32
33 measured by the EDX detector. The user can obtain high magnification images, with a good
34 depth of field, and can also analyse individual crystals or other features. A high-resolution SEM
ie
35
36 image can show detail down to 25 Angstroms, or better. When used in conjunction with the
37
w
38
closely-related technique of energy-dispersive X-ray microanalysis (EDX, EDS and EDAX), the
39 composition of individual crystals or features can be determined.
40
On
41 Laboratory Incubation experiment

42
The effect of different levels of biochar on carbon and nutrient dynamics in soil was
43
44 examined through a laboratory incubation experiment. 500 grams of air-dried soil (< 2 mm) were
45
ly
46 weighed in plastic containers and the biochar was added at the rate of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 % and
47 thoroughly mixed with soil. Required quantity of water was added to achieve final moisture
48
49 content equivalent to field capacity. After adding the biochar the plastic containers were covered
50
51
with polyethylene bags containing small pin-sized holes to permit aeration. Three replicates of
52 each treatment were randomly placed and incubated in the laboratory at room temperature (25
53
54 ± 2oC) for 90 days. At the end of 30, 60, 90 days the samples were removed and analysed for
55
the pH, organic carbon and cation exchange capacity.
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Result and Discussion
4
5 Particle Size analysis of biochar
6
7 Plant samples pyrolysed under 350 °C were finely ground particles of coconut shell,
8 sugarcane bagasse and prosopis hardwoods were 1160,900 and 968 nm respectively. Fig.4
9
10 clearly explained that particle size varies with all the substrate due to the kiln resident time and
11
12
milling time and revolution speed (rpm). Demirbas (2004) reported that the pyrolysis
13 temperature increased the bio-char yield decreased. The bio-char yield increased with
14
Fo
15 increasing particle size of the sample. The Physico-chemical properties of biochars are
16 influenced by the properties of the feedstock and by pyrolysis conditions such as highest
17
18 treatment temperature (HTT) and furnace residence time (Downie et al., 2009). Char in larger
rP
19
20 particle sizes (250 to 2000 µm) will be more physically and chemically stable than char in
21 smaller particle sizes (63 to 250 µm) because of the decrease in surface area. The oxidation of
22
chars made at low temperatures (370°C and stove char) was not affected by particle size. The
ee
23
24
25
size of the particles affects the heating rate. The heat flux and the heating rate are higher in
26 small particles than in large particles. The higher heating rate favors a decrease of the char
rR
27
28 yield (Zanzi, 2001).
29 Raman shifts (cm-1) of slow pyrolysed biochar of coconut shell, sugarcane bagasse and
30
prosopis hardwood. Peaks observed at 187, 797, 1359, 1692, 1744, 1781, 1885 cm-1 for
ev
31
32
33 coconut shell and 187,289,797,1646,1692,1742,1781,1885,1960 cm-1 for sugarcane bagasse
34 .The peaks observed at 187,651,795,924,1320,1646,1692,1742,1781,1827,1890,1965,2043
ie
35
36 and 2079 cm-1 for prosopis hardwood. The similar functional groups of all the pyrolysed biomass
37
w
38
were observed (Fig. 5). Raman spectra provide "fingerprints" of the molecular structure and, as
39 such, permit qualitative analysis of individual compounds, either by direct comparison of the
40
On
41 spectra of the known and unknown materials run consecutively, or by comparison of the
42
spectrum of the unknown compound with catalogues of reference spectra. By comparisons with
43
44 the spectra of a considerable number of compounds of known structure, it may be possible to
45
ly
46 recognize bands at specific positions in the spectrum, which can be identified as "characteristic
47 group frequencies" associated with the presence of a particular molecular structure, such as
48
49 methyl, carbonyl, or hydroxyl groups.
50
51
Pores were presented in all the biochar with varying size (small-high), shape with
52 disorderedness and scatter in nature under different magnifications. The sizes of surface pores
53
54 are 4-155 µm, 933 nm-33µm, 2-28 µm of coconut shell, sugarcane bagasse and prosopis
55
hardwood respectively (Fig. 6). Number of pores were medium, low and high of coconut shell,
56
57 sugarcane bagasse and prosopis hardwood respectively. Fifty percent pores are ellipsoidal and
58
59
60
1
2
3 circular. The size and structure of pores depends on the substrate, moisture, temperature of
4
5 pyrolysis and milling speed and carbon content. The results were corroborate with porous
6
7 carbons size and structure of castor oil plant wood, bagasse and babool wood of Manocha
8 (2003).
9
10 Quantitative compositions of biochar are depicted in Fig 4. Boron was observed in all
11
12
biochar and Carbon content varies with all the biochars 66.5, 83.8 and 74.7%. The Carbon and
13 oxygen ratio 66.5:1 ,8.9:1 and 12.8:1. The ratio depends on the dehydration and source of
14
Fo
15 biomass (Fig. 7). Some of research work revealed that feedstocks differ in their composition
16 concerning elemental composition; the presence of soil and dust particles; moisture content;
17
18 and lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose content, which, in turn, affect the properties of the
rP
19
20 respective biochars after pyrolysis (Ubbelohde and Lewis, 1960; Boehm, 1994; Alexis et al.,
21 2007; Yip et al., 2007).
22
Chemical properties of biochar
ee
23
24
25
The physio-chemical properties of different feed stocks like coconut shell, prosopis wood
26 and sugarcane bagasse were studied and given in the Table 1. The pH of the prosopis wood,
rR
27
28 coconut shell and sugarcane bagasse biochars were 7.95, 9.05 and 7.20 respectively. The
29 sugarcane bagasse biochar had the lowest pH value of 7.20 compared to prosopis and coconut
30
shell biochars. Due to this reason the biochars may be used as soil amendments to rectify the
ev
31
32
33 acidity problems. The total carbon content of the prosopis and coconut shell biochars were 95
34 per cent and 91 per cent respectively. The C: N ratio of both biochars were also high. The
ie
35
36 results are in coordinate with Shenbagavalli and Mahimairaja (2012), the pH measured in 1:5
37
w
38
solid: water suspension, varied from 7.57 to 9.68. Wide variation in EC was also observed as
39 the values vary from 0.16 to 1.25 dS m-1 was obtained. Similar results were also reported by
40
On
41 Barzee and Gao (2013), Quirk et al. (2010) and Carrier et al. (2010) for the sugarcane baggase.
42
Gaunt and Lehmann (2008) reported that the terra preta soils suggest that biochar can have
43
44 carbon storage permanence in the soil for many hundreds to thousands of years. Large
45
ly
46 amounts of carbon in biochar may be sequestered in the soil for long periods estimated to be
47 hundreds to thousands of years (Lehmann et al. 2006; Ogawa et al. 2006; Woolf, 2008;
48
49 Bracmort, 2010). As the soil carbon pool declines due to cultivation, the more resistant biochar
50
51
fraction increases as a portion of the total carbon pool (Zech and Guggenberger (1996);
52 Skjemstad (2001) and Skjemstad et al. (2002)) and may constitute up to 35 percent of the total
53
54 (Skjemstad et al., 2002). Carbon dating of charcoal has shown some to be over 1500 years old,
55
fairly stable, and a permanent form of carbon sequestration (Lal, 2003).
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 The results showed the Cation exchange capacity of Biochar ranged between 5.7 and
4
5 18 cmol (p+) kg-1 and the highest CEC was with prosopis-Biochar. The increased cation
6
7 exchange capacity was observed in those biochars and the similar observation was made by
8 Shenbagavalli and Mahimairaja (2012) and their results are shown that Cation exchange
9
10 capacity of Biochar ranged between 3.2 and 16 cmol (p+) kg-1 and the highest CEC was with
11
12
prosopis-Biochar. Biochar application to soil leads to several interactions mainly with soil matrix,
13 soil microbes, and plant roots (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). The types and rates of interactions
14
Fo
15 depend on different factors like composition of biomass as well as biochar, methods of biochar
16 preparation, physical aspect of biochar and soil environmental condition mainly soil temperature
17
18 and moisture. Biochar can act as a soil conditioner by improving the physical and biological
rP
19
20 properties of soils such as water holding capacity and soil nutrients retention, and also
21 enhancing plant growth (Sohi et al., 2010).
22
Effect of biochar on pH, Organic carbon and CEC
ee
23
24
25
The initial soil pH value was 6.95. Due to prosopis biochar addition the pH was increased at
26 all days of incubation in proportion to rate of application. At the end of 90 days, the pH increase
rR
27
28 was found to 7.36 in soil with the application of biochar at the rate of 10%. The increased pH of
29 soil might be due to the reason alkaline nature of biochar with pH of 7.95. Because of this
30
property, the biochar can be used as amendments for rectifying the acid soil (Table 2).
ev
31
32
33 The application of different rates of biochar had the positive effect on soil organic carbon
34 (SOC) content (Table 3). Initially the experimental soil had only 0.40 per cent. Irrespective of
ie
35
36 treatments, the SOC increased markedly during the incubation period, due to biochar
37
w
38
application. The increase ranged from 2.1 to 12.5 per cent, whereas the SOC was found to
39 decreased in control soil (without addition of biochar) after 30 days. At the end of the incubation
40
On
41 period the control soil had only 0.30 per cent of SOC, whereas the soils with biochar had SOC
42
ranged between 5.1 to 17.8 per cent. The highest SOC was recorded in soil amended with 10%
43
44 biochar. The high carbon content of prosopis biochar might have enriched the soil with organic
45
ly
46 carbon content (Table 3). As biochar “ageing” results in the formation of negatively-charged
47 organic functional groups on biochar surfaces (Lin et al. 2012 and Cheng et al. 2006), this may
48
49 enhance interactions of biochar with native organic matter and clay minerals, e.g. through ligand
50
51
exchange or cation bridging mechanisms. These interactions would then cause stabilization of
52 native SOC and biochar in mineral soil (Fang et al. 2013; Keith et al. 2011; Lin et al. 2012;
53
54 Singh et al. 2013) and may result in negative priming, which would enhance the C sequestration
55
potential of biochar in the soil.
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 The cation exchange capacity (CEC) is an important characteristic of soil which determines
4
5 nutrients adsorption/ desorption and thus their availability in soil. Initially the soil cation
6
7 exchange capacity was only 15.5 cmol (+) kg-1. During the incubation it was increased up to
8 17.89 cmol (+) kg-1 with the application of biochar @ 10 t ha-1. The biochar being highly porous
9
10 with high surface area and variable charge of organic material, would have possibly increased
11
12
the soil water holding capacity, CEC, surface sorption capacity and base saturation when added
13 to the soil (Table 4). Liang et al. (2006) reported that additionally, a high specific surface area
14
Fo
15 was attributable to the presence of biochar, which may contribute to the high CEC found in soils
16 that are rich in biochar. Cheng et al. (2008) also concluded that as biochar ages, the positive
17
18 exchange sites on biochar surfaces decline and negative charge sites develop.
rP
19
20 Conclusion
21 In conclusion, the short-term incubation experiment was effective to highlight differences
22
in decomposition dynamics between the biochar substrate and soil components, and confirmed
ee
23
24
25
the efficacy of the charring process to increase the stability of organic substrates in soil. Due to
26 alkaline property of biochars this can be very effectively utilized for the acid soil reclamation.
rR
27
28 Fire speed up the carbon cycle and biochar slow down the carbon cycle. If biochar is made from
29 re-growing waste biomass as an alternative to burning and used as soil amendment it can
30
enhance biomass buildup by improving soil fertility. Efficient use of biomass can be achieved by
ev
31
32
33 converting it as soil amendment/nutrients are one way to manage soil health and fertility. One of
34 the approaches for efficient utilization of biomass involves carbonization of biomass to highly
ie
35
36 stable carbon compound known as biochar and its use as a soil amendment.
37
w
38
Acknowledgement
39 Authors are sincerely thankful to Department of Science and Technology, New Delhi for
40
On
41 sanctioning this precious project to Vanavarayar Institute of Agriculture, Pollachi, India. The
42
author also wishes to thank the Mahalingam College of Engineering & Technology, Pollachi,
43
44 India for providing materials for the research work.
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 References
4
5 Barzee T, Gao B (2013). Physiochemical and Adsorptive Properties of Bamboo, Hickory, and
6
7 Sugarcane Bagasse Biochars Produced by Microwave-Induced Pyrolysis. University of
8 Florida, Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering.
9
10 Boehm HP (1994). Some aspects of the surface chemistry of carbon blacks and other carbons.
11
12
Carbon 32:759–769. doi:10.1016/0008- 223(94)90031-0.
13 Bracmort K (2010). Biochar: examination of an emerging concept to mitigate climate change,
14
Fo
15 February 1, 2010. Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, R40186, Congressional
16 Research Service (CRS), Report for congress, prepared for members and committees of
17
18 congress.
rP
19
20 Carrier M, Hardie A, Uras U, Gorgens J, Knoetze J (2010). Vacuum pyrolysis of sugar cane
21 bagasse and its applications Department of Process Engineering, University of
22
Stellenbosch, Private Bag X1 Matieland, 7602, South Africa
ee
23
24
25
Cheng, C. H., Lehmann, J., Thies, J. E., Burton, S. D., Engelhard, M. H. 2006. Oxidation of
26 black carbon by biotic and abiotic processes. Org. Geochem. 37, 1477–1488.
rR
27
28
29 Day D, Evans RJ, Lee JW, Reicosky D (2005). Economical CO2, SOx, and NOx capture from
30 fossil–fuel utilization with combined renewable hydrogen production and large-scale
ev
31
32 carbon sequestration. Energy, 30: 2558-2579.
33
34
Demirbas A (2004). Effects of temperature and particle size on bio-char yield from pyrolysis of
ie
35 agricultural residues. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 72 (2004) 243–248.

36
37 Dinesh Mohan, Charles U Pittman Jr, Philip H Steele (2006). Pyrolysis of Wood/Biomass for
w
38 Bio-oil: A Critical Review. Energy & Fuels, 20: 848-889

39
40 Downie A, Crosky A, Munroe P (2009). Physical properties of biochar. p. 13–32. In J. Lehmann
On
41
42 and S. Joseph (ed.) Biochar for environmental management: Science and technology.
43 Earthscan, London.
44
45 Fang, Y., Singh, B., Singh, B. P. & Krull E. 2013. Biochar carbon stability in four contrasting
ly
46
47
soils. Eur. J. Soil Sci. doi:10.1111/ejss.12094.
48
49 IARI (2012). Crop residues management with conservation agriculture: Potential, constraints
50
51 and policy needs. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, 32 p.
52 Keith, A., Singh, B. & Singh, B. P. 2011. Interactive priming of biochar and labile organic matter
53
54 mineralization in a smectite-rich soil. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 9611–9618.
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Lal R (2003). Global Potential of Soil Carbon Sequestration to Mitigate the Greenhouse Effect.
4
5 Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 22:151-184.
6
7 Lehmann J, Gaunt J, Rondon M (2006). Biochar sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems—a
8 review. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11: 403- 427.
9
10 Lehmann J, Joseph S (2009). Biochar systems. In: Biochar for environmental management (J.
11
12
Lehmann and S. Joseph eds.), Science and Technology, Earthscan, London. pp 147-
13 168.
14
Fo
15 Lin, Y., Munroe, P., Joseph, S., Kimber, S. & Van Zwieten, L. Nanoscale. 2012. organo-mineral
16 reactions of biochars in ferrosol: an investigation using microscopy. Plant Soil 357, 369–
17
18 380.
rP
19
20
21 Lützow, M.V., Kögel-Knabner, I, Ekschmitt, K., Matzner, E., Guggenberger, G., Marschner, B.,
22
Flessa, H. 2006. Stabilization of organic matter in temperate soils: mechanisms and their
ee
23
24 relevance under different soil conditions – a review. Euro. J. Soil Sci. 57, 426–445.
25
26
rR
27 Manocha SM (2003). Porous carbons. Sadhana, 8 (1 & 2), 335–348.

28
29
Ogawa M, Okimori Y, Takahashi F (2006). Carbon sequestration by carbonization of biomass
30 and forestation: Three case studies. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
ev
31
32 Change, 11: 429-444.
33
Okimori Y, Ogawa M Takahashi F (2003). Potential of CO2 emission reductions by carbonizing
34
ie
35 biomass waste from industrial tree plantation in Sumatra, Indonesia. Mitigation and
36
37 Adaptation. Strategies for Global Change, (September 2003). pp 261- 280.
w
38 Purakayastha TJ, Pathak H, Savita K (2013). Effect of feedstock on characteristics of biochar

39
40 and its impact on carbon sequaestration in soil. In: Proc. National seminar on current
On
41
42 environmental challenges and possible solutions, University of Delhi, during Feb. 15-16,
43 2013. pp 74-75.
44
45 Quirk RG, Zwieten LV, Kimber S, Downie A, Morris S, Connell A, Rust J, Petty S (2010). The
ly
46
role of biochar in management of sugarcane proc. Int. Soc. Sugar cane technol., vol. 27,
47
48 2010.
49
50 Shenbagavalli S, Mahimairaja S (2012). Production and characterization of biochar from
51 different biological wastes. International Journal of Plant, Animal and Environmental
52
53 Sciences 2(1): 197-201.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3 Singh, N., Abiven, S., Maestrini, B., Jeffrey A. Bird, Margaret S. Torn and Michael W. I. 2013.
4
5 Schmidt Transformation and stabilization of pyrogenic organic matter in a temperate
6
7 forest field experiment. Glob. Change Biol. doi:10.1111/gcb.12459.
8
9
Skjemstad J (2001). Charcoal and other resistant materials. Pages 116-119 in Net Ecosystem
10
11 Exchange Workshop Proceedings. Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse
12
13 Accounting, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia.
14 Skjemstad JO, Reicosky DC, Wilts AR, McGowan JA (2002). Charcoal carbon in US
Fo
15
16 agricultural soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 66:1249-1255.
17
18 Sohi S, Gaunt J, Atwood J (2013). Biochar in growing media: A sustainability and feasibility
rP
19 assessment; A project commissioned for the Sustainable Growing Media Task Force
20
21 (Defra project ref. SP1213).
22
Sohi S, Krull E, Lopez-Capel E, Bol R (2010). A review of biochar and its use and function in
ee
23
24 soil. Advances in Agronomy, 105: 47-82.
25
26 Ubbelohde AR, Lewis FA (1960). Graphite and its crystal compounds. Clarendon Press, Oxford,
rR
27 UK. Alexis, M.A., D.P. Rasse, C. Rumpel, G. Bardoux, N. Pechot, P. Schmalzer, B.

28
29 Drake, and A. Mariotti. 2007. Fire impact on C and N losses and charcoal production in a
30
scrub oak ecosystem. Biogeochemistry 82:201–216. doi:10.1007/s10533-006-9063-1.
ev
31
32 Woolf D (2008). Biochar as a soil amendment: A review of the environmental implications.
33
34 (Accessed online at http://orgprints.org/13268/1/Biochar_as_a_soil_amendment_-
ie
35
_a_review.pdf).
36
37 Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S (2010). Sustainable biochar to
w
38
39 mitigate global climate change. Nature Communications, 1: 1-9.
40 Yip K, Wu H, Zhang DK (2007). Eff ect of inherent moisture in collie coal during pyrolysis due to
On
41
42 in-situ steam gasifi cation. Energy Fuels 21:2883–2891. doi:10.1021/ef7002443
43
44 Yu XY, Ying GG, Kookana RS (2006). Sorption and desorption behaviors of diuron in soils
45
ly
amended with charcoal. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 54: 8545-8550.
46
47 Zanzi R (2001). Pyrolysis of biomass, dissertation, Royal Institute of Technology, Department of
48
Chemical Engineering and Technology, Stockholm.
49
50 Zech W, Guggenberger G (1996). Organc matter dynamics in forest soils of temperate and
51
52 tropical ecosystems.in A. Piccolo, editor. Humic substances in terrestrial ecosystems.
53 Elsevier.
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5 Table 1. Basic characteristics of Biochar from different Biomass
6
7 Sl.No. Characters Prosopis Cocounut Sugarcane
8 wood Shell bagasse
9 1. pH (1: 10 solid water suspension) 7.95 9.05 7.20
10
2. EC (dSm-1) (1: 10 solid water extract) 1.25 0.38 0.16
11
12
3. Total organic carbon (%) 95 91 6.5
13 4. Total Nitrogen (%) 1.15 0.93 0.12
14 5. C:N Ratio 82.6 97.9 54.2
Fo
15 6. Cation Exchange Capacity (cmol (p+) kg-1) 18.0 12.2 5.7
16 7. Total Phosphorus (%) 0.11 0.3 0.06
17 8. Total Potassium (%) 2.75 1.0 0.37
18
rP
19
20 Table 2. Effect of different levels of Biochar on pH of soil
21
22
Incubation period (days)
ee
23 Treatments Mean
24 0 30 60 90
25 T1 - Control 6.95 6.93 6.91 6.90 6.92
26 T2 - Soil + Biochar (2%) 7.30 7.28 7.19 7.05 7.21
rR
27 T3 - Soil + Biochar (4%) 7.37 7.33 7.20 7.10 7.25

28 T4 - Soil + Biochar (6%) 7.43 7.40 7.29 7.17 7.32
29 T5 - Soil + Biochar (8%) 7.50 7.45 7.32 7.25 7.38
30
T6 - Soil + Biochar (10%) 7.64 7.60 7.54 7.36 7.54
ev
31
32 Mean 7.37 7.33 7.24 7.14
33 SEd CD (0.05)
34 Incubation 0.004 0.011**
ie
35 Treatment NS NS
36 IXT NS NS
37
w
38
39 Table 3. Effect of different levels of Biochar on organic carbon (%) of soil
40
On
41
Incubation period (days)
42 Treatments Mean
43 0 30 60 90
44 T1 - Control 0.40 0.38 0.35 0.30 0.36
45 T2 - Soil + Biochar (2%) 2.10 2.70 3.90 5.10 3.45
ly
46 T3 - Soil + Biochar (4%) 5.20 5.90 6.90 7.50 6.38

47 T4 - Soil + Biochar (6%) 9.40 10.00 11.50 12.60 10.88
48 T5 - Soil + Biochar (8%) 11.80 12.40 13.50 14.20 12.98
49 T6 - Soil + Biochar (10%) 12.50 14.70 15.50 17.80 15.13
50
Mean 6.90 7.68 8.61 9.58
51
52 SEd CD (0.05)
53 Incubation 0.059 0.146**
54 Treatment 0.377 0.762**
55 IXT 0.691 1.399*
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
Table 4. Effect of different levels of Biochar on CEC (cmol (+) kg-1) of soil
6
7
8
9
10 Incubation period (days)
Treatments Mean
11 0 30 60 90
12 T1 - Control 15.50 15.40 15.38 15.30 15.40
13 T2 - Soil + Biochar (2%) 15.60 15.72 15.90 16.21 15.86
14 T3 - Soil + Biochar (4%) 15.74 16.20 16.42 16.50 16.22
Fo
15 T4 - Soil + Biochar (6%) 15.88 16.30 16.95 17.20 16.58
16
T5 - Soil + Biochar (8%) 16.50 16.90 17.50 17.85 17.19
17
18 T6 - Soil + Biochar (10%) 16.60 16.92 17.51 17.89 17.23
rP
19 Mean 15.97 16.24 16.61 16.83
20 SEd CD (0.05)
21 Incubation 0.018 0.045**
22 Treatment 0.620 1.253*
ee
23 IXT NS NS
24
25
26
Table 5. Effect of biochar and mycorrhiza on growth of Maize
rR
27
28
29
30
Plant height (cm) Root length (cm)
ev
31
32 Treatments
Vegetative Tasseling Vegetative Tasseling
33
34
T1 85.3 154.5 8.2 15.3
ie
35
36 T2 95.4 159.0 9.3 15.5
37
w
38 T3 99.0 161.8 9.4 15.6

39 T4 101.7 163.9 9.3 15.6
40
On
41 T5 101.0 164.4 9.6 15.6

42 T6 103.3 165.3 9.5 15.8
43
44 T7 104.9 167.6 9.8 15.8
45
ly
T8 105.9 171.2 10.1 16.1

46
47 T9 105.6 170.0 10.0 16.2
48
49
SEd 0.53 0.48 NS 0.17
50 CD (p=0.05) 1.13 1.02 NS 0.36
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27 Fig. 1. Lab Scale Pilot Plant for Biochar Production

28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52 Fig. 2. Solid works model of Biochar Pilot Plant
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
Fig. 3. Construction View of Biochar pilot Plant
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26 Figure 4. Particle size distribution (nm) of biochar a) Coconut shell; b) Sugarcane bagasse;
rR
27 c) Prosopis hardwood
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 a b c
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27 Figure 5. Raman shifts (cm-1) of biochar a) Coconut shell; b) Sugarcane bagasse;

28 c) Prosopis hardwood
29
30
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6 a e
7
i
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15 b
16 f j
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24 g
c k
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30
ev
31
32
33 d h l
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41 Figure 6. Scanning Electron microscope (SEM) images of biochar a-d) Coconut shell;
42 e-h) Sugarcane bagasse; i-l) Prosopis hardwood
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Fo
15
16
17
18
rP
19
20
21
22
ee
23
24
25
26
rR
27
28
29
30 Figure 7. Quantitative composition of biochar (EDAX) a) Coconut shell;
b) Sugarcane bagasse; c) Prosopis hardwood
ev
31
32
33
34
ie
35
36
37
w
38
39
40
On
41
42
43
44
45
ly
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
View publication stats

Biochar Characterization and Evaluation For Their Application As A Soil Amendments

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Biochar Characterization and Evaluation For Their Application As A Soil Amendments

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

BIOCHAR CHARACTERIZATION AND EVALUATION FOR THEIR APPLICATION AS

Article in Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis · January 2014

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

BIOCHAR CHARACTERIZATION AND EVALUATION FOR

Journal: Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis

Manuscript ID: Draft

Manuscript Type: Original Articles

Date Submitted by the Author: n/a

Complete List of Authors: SRINIVASAGAM, KRISHNAKUMAR; VANAVARAYAR INSTITUTE OF

URL: http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/lcss Email: communsoilsci@aol.com

8 C. Vinoth3, N. Muthukkannan3 and K. Velmurugan3

41 Fabrication of Pyrolysis Kiln

41 Laboratory Incubation experiment

35 agricultural residues. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 72 (2004) 243–248.

38 Bio-oil: A Critical Review. Energy & Fuels, 20: 848-889

27 Manocha SM (2003). Porous carbons. Sadhana, 8 (1 & 2), 335–348.

38 Purakayastha TJ, Pathak H, Savita K (2013). Effect of feedstock on characteristics of biochar

27 UK. Alexis, M.A., D.P. Rasse, C. Rumpel, G. Bardoux, N. Pechot, P. Schmalzer, B.

27 T3 - Soil + Biochar (4%) 7.37 7.33 7.20 7.10 7.25

46 T3 - Soil + Biochar (4%) 5.20 5.90 6.90 7.50 6.38

38 T3 99.0 161.8 9.4 15.6

41 T5 101.0 164.4 9.6 15.6

T8 105.9 171.2 10.1 16.1

27 Fig. 1. Lab Scale Pilot Plant for Biochar Production

27 Figure 5. Raman shifts (cm-1) of biochar a) Coconut shell; b) Sugarcane bagasse;

View publication stats

You might also like