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

net/publication/334596119

Production, Activation and Application of Biochar in Recent Times

Article  in  Biochar · May 2020

DOI: 10.1007/s42773-020-00047-1

CITATIONS READS

92 5,066

2 authors:

Anil Kumar Sakhiya Abhijeet Anand

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
23 PUBLICATIONS   271 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   183 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Air-Steam Gasification of lignite in fixed bed downdraft gasifier View project

Improvement of energy efficiency of an on-off controlled Hydraulic System View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anil Kumar Sakhiya on 13 May 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Biochar
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-020-00047-1

REVIEW

Production, activation, and applications of biochar in recent times

Anil Kumar Sakhiya1 · Abhijeet Anand1 · Priyanka Kaushal1

Received: 5 December 2019 / Accepted: 6 April 2020

© Shenyang Agricultural University 2020

Abstract 
Biomass is a green energy source and is available in abundance. Biochar is a carbon-rich material derived from a wide range
of biomass or organic waste through the thermochemical route. Biochar has received increasing attention because of its
distinctive properties such as high carbon content, greater specific surface area, cation exchange capacity, nutrient retention
capacity, and stable structure. This review paper extensively studies and reports the different pyrolysis processes, reactor
types, the effect of process parameters on biochar yield, and its physicochemical properties, biochar activation methods, and
applications. It also details the status of the research and development (R&D) progress in biochar production through con-
ventional and advanced technologies. The study found that unlike many products (at R&D stage) biochar has high potential
to scale up and has a direct impact on crop yield, water purification (for domestic and industrial application), alternative
fuels (clean solid fuel for cookstove), air purification, catalyst, biogas production, purification, and storage. In addition, the
paper lists the merits and challenges in the novel biochar applications like hydrogen storage, electrochemical capacitor, and
fuel cell technology.
Graphic abstract

Keywords  Biomass · Pyrolysis · Biochar · Application · Review

1 Introduction

* Priyanka Kaushal Greenhouse gas emission is the major contributor to global

Priyankak@rdat.iitd.ac.in warming, and the increased percentage of ­CO2 plays a sig-
1
nificant role in it. At present, 80% of world energy demand
Center for Rural Development and Technology, Indian
Institute of Technology-Delhi, New Delhi 110 016, India
is met through fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Biochar
(Statistical Review of World Energy 2018). Several efforts
like a replacement of fossil with renewable, carbon cap-
ture, etc. are being implemented to reduce GHG emissions
(Gallagher 2006). Biomass is a renewable and sustain-
able energy source, and it comes in many forms like forest
residue, agro-residue, municipal solid waste, urban waste,
energy crop, and animal dung (Azargohar et al. 2013).
Currently, India produces around 350 million tonnes of
agro-waste per year, 32% of which is utilized as a primary
source of heat (India Biomass Energy 2017). Biomass
has enormous potential in terms of energy; Tim Bringer
et al. (2011) developed a model and predicted that bio-
mass resources would fulfill about ~ 15–25% (0.13–0.27
ZJ/year) of the world energy demand by the year 2050;
Malins and Searle estimate that biomass has the potential
to produce about 0.06–0.12 ZJ of total primary energy
per year by 2050 (Stephanie Searle 2015). Although these
approximations may differ, it is clear that biomass is
available for multiple applications. The viable and mature
routes to extract energy from biomass are through bio-
chemical and thermochemical routes (Porpatham et al.
2012). In thermochemical conversion routes, pyrolysis
and gasification are the efficient and economical ways to
produce a range of products including bio-oil, combustible
producer gas, stable biochar, liquid fuels, and specialty
chemicals (Bridgwater 2003). Commercially, pyrolysis is
the accepted technology to produce bio-oil and biochar
with high yield and at a faster rate (Yu et al. 2017; Zhang
et al. 2019).
Pyrolysis is a thermochemical process and it can handle a
variety of biomass-based materials. It is an attractive option
for the utilization of waste biomass. Depending upon the
process parameters, pyrolysis is further classified into slow,
intermediate, and fast pyrolysis. The final products, at the
end of the pyrolysis process, are bio-oil (liquid) and bio-
char (solid). According to the International Biochar Initia-
tive (IBI), the most accepted and standardized definition of
biochar is “It is a carbon-rich solid material obtained from
biomass thermochemical conversion under oxygen-free con-
dition” (IBI 2012). Parameters such as heating rate, tempera-
ture, vapor residence time, pressure, biomass type, etc. affect
the product yields distribution. In general, it is observed that
the lower temperature and slow and prolonged heating favor
the production of char.
Of late, microwave radiation technology has evolved
as a promising technique for biomass pyrolysis because
it offers several advantages over conventional pyrolysis.
Microwave energy is efficient for a selective feedstock
because heating takes place inside the material body,
hence less energy is wasted during bulk heating of the
material. For a particular temperature, microwave pyroly-
sis can produce more solid than conventional pyrolysis
(Huang et  al. 2016a, b). Moreover, biochar obtained
13
through microwave pyrolysis has better surface properties
than those produced from conventional pyrolysis.
This review studies biochar, a co-product produced
from pyrolysis. Over the last few decades, biochar has
attracted global attention due to its high potential usage
in a wide range of areas such as wastewater treatment,
water purification, ­CO2 capture, power generation, energy
storage, and soil amelioration to improve soil fertility and
carbon sequestration, building sector, etc. (Ahmad et al.
2014a, b; Chen et al. 2015; Leng et al. 2015; Mahmood
et al. 2013; Tan et al. 2016; Oliveira et al. 2017). However,
the applications of biochar are highly dependent on its
physicochemical properties such as pH, cation exchange
capacity, surface area, pore volume, etc. The activation
of biochar can improve surface properties such as surface
area and pore characteristics. The physical and chemical
activation of biochar can produce activated carbon. The
physical activation of char can be obtained by heating
of precursor under the oxidant environment in the tem-
perature range of 700–900  °C. In chemical activation,
the precursor is impregnated in chemicals such as Z ­ nCl2,
­H3PO4, NaOH, KOH, etc. After that, impregnated mate-
rial is carbonized at elevated temperature under an inert
atmosphere, and carbonized material is washed to remove
the chemical from the surface. The effect of physical acti-
vation and chemical activation on biochar properties is
discussed later.
In most cases, biochar production is sustainable and
economical, hence, many paths breaking research related
to biochar application are currently going on (Laird et al.
2009). Elemental analysis showed that biochar primarily
has five elements—hydrogen (H), oxygen (O), nitrogen
(N), sulfur (S) and carbon (C). The elemental percent-
age in biochar may vary based on the characteristic of the
conversion process (temperature) and type of the biomass
feed (Liu et al. 2015a, b; Duku et al. 2011a, b; Kambo and
Dutta 2015). Due to its high surface area, porosity, and
mineral content, biochar is also useful as an adsorbent to
purify air and water contaminants (Ahmad et al. 2014a, b);
as a catalyst for tar removal from syngas and production
of biofuel and soil conditioner (Chen et al. 2019). In addi-
tion, biochar is claimed to improve soil nutrient-retaining
capability, water-holding ability, and sustainability to
store carbon; therefore, globally, it is a subject of research
(Duku et al. 2011a, b).
In literature, a decent amount of work has been pub-
lished on pyrolysis technology, application of pyrolysis
products, pyrolysis product upgrade, co-pyrolysis, and
catalytic pyrolysis route. However, this paper reviews
the recent development and progress in the conventional
and novel techniques with a focus on biochar production
and applications (Putun and Ozcan 1999; Tay et al. 2009;
Mamaeva et al. 2016).
Biochar
2 Physics of pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is a thermochemical decomposition technique
which converts low-energy density biomass (~ 1.5 GJ/m3)
into high-density liquid product called bio-oil (~ 22 GJ/
m3 or 17 MJ/kg), high-density solid product called biochar
(~ 158 MJ/kg) and medium calorific value gas called syn-
thesis gas (~ 5–6 MJ/kg) (Bridgwater et al. 1999). Biomass
consists of three main components lignin, cellulose, and
hemicellulose. However, on heating biomass at an elevated
temperature, there is a thermal breakdown of these three
components, and this process is known as thermochemical-
depolymerization reactions. Generally, biomass pyrolysis
takes place in an oxygen-free environment within a tem-
perature range of 300–500 °C for the production of char.
The physical and chemical reactions of pyrolysis are com-
plicated and depend on the characteristics of biomass and
process parameters (Azargohar et al. 2013; Di Blasi 2008;
Babu 2008).
3 Conventional pyrolysis technologies
Pyrolysis has been used to produce biochar (charcoal) for
thousands of years. Traditional biochar production tech-
nology such as earthen, brick, and steel kilns typically
exhaust volatiles to the atmosphere, which pollutes the air
(Namaalwa et al. 2007). Modern pyrolysis reactors are well
planned to capture this volatile matter for multiple applica-
tions like process-heat, bio-oil, etc. (Zhang et al. 2004a, b).
In general, the pyrolysis process is carried out in an oxy-
gen-deficit environment to produce biochar and bio-oil. Dif-
ferent types of feedstock (mostly solid fuels like wood, coal,
etc.) are supplied into the reactor, which is broadly converted
into bio-oils, producer gas, and char. The relative yield of
the pyrolysis product depends on the operating parameters
Table 1  Summary of different pyrolysis process condition and product yield
Pyrolysis route Process Heating rate (°C/s) Vapor residence time Biomass size
temperature
(°C)
Fast/flash 300–1000 10–1000 < 2 s
Intermediate 300–450 03-May 10 min
Slow 300–550 0.1–0.8 5–30 min
like time, temperature, heating rate, etc. The pyrolysis pro-
cess is further categorized as fast and slow. Characteristic of
the slow pyrolysis process is the low temperature (typically
around 300 °C), prolonged residence time (about 10–30 min
or 25–35 h) and low heating rate (0.1–0.8 °C/s). Fast pyroly-
sis, on the other hand, produces primarily bio-oil and the
process is carried out under a high heating rate and lower
residence time. Slow pyrolysis gives higher yields of biochar
than fast pyrolysis (Jahirul et al. 2012). Table 1 details the
various pyrolysis routes, relative product yields, etc.
Figure 1 shows the conventional pyrolysis process. First,
the biomass is selected based on various properties such as
moisture content, lignocellulosic composition, particle size,
etc. After that, biomass is heated in the reactor with differ-
ent process parameters such as temperature, heating rate,
inert gas flow rate, residence time, etc. These parameters
defined the product yield distribution (solid, liquid, and gas).
Generally, cyclone separator is used to separates the solid
yield from gases and liquid products. After separation from
the cyclone separator, the vapor stream enters the condenser
for quenching where bio-oil is separated. Non-condensable
gases that leave from the condenser are called producer gas.
The composition and yield of producer gas produced in a
different pyrolysis reactor are reported in Table 2.
The heating value of the producer gas is around 4–5 MJ/
m3, and it is often used as fuel combusted at the source
of generation to supply heat to self-sustain the pyrolysis
process, as pyrolysis is mildly endothermic in nature. In
the early days, before electricity became readily available
through the grid network, producer gas was widely used to
deliver energy for domestic space heating, cooking, street
lighting, etc. (Laird et al. 2009). In the present scenario, dif-
ferent types of catalysts are added with biomass feedstock to
improve conversion efficiency and yields (Veses et al. 2014;
Biddy et al. 2013).
The yield distribution and the physio-chemical properties
of the product widely depend on the pyrolysis reactor type
Product yield (% mass) References
Bio-oil Biochar Syngas
Finely ground 50–70 10–30 15–20 Ahmad et al. (2014a,
b), Hornung (2014)
and Bridgwater
(2012)
Corse/chopped/ 35–50 25–40 20–30 Di Blasi (2008),
finely ground Hornung (2014) and
Bridgwater (2012)
Briquette/whole 20–50 25–35 20–50 Hornung (2014),
Bridgwater (2012)
13
 Biochar

Fig. 1  Conventional pyrolysis process

Table 2  Producer gas Producer gases Reactor Yield (%) References

compositions produced in
different pyrolysis reactors CO2, ­CH4, CO, ­H2 Fixed bed 11.5–15.5 Yu et al. (2019)
CO2, ­CH4, CO, ­H2, ­C2H6, ­C2H4, ­C2H2, Rotary drum 25.8–30.7 Dhahak et al. (2019)
CO2, ­CH4, CO, ­H2, ­C2H6, ­C2H4, ­C3H8, Fixed bed 25–35 Al Arni (2018)
CO2, ­CH4, CO, ­H2, ­C2H6 Fixed bed 19.1–25.5 Crombie and Mašek (2014)
CO2, ­CH4, CO, ­H2, ­C2H6, ­C2H4, ­C3H8, ­C4H10, Freefall 24–49 Shoaib et al. (2018)
­C5H12, ­N2, ­O2
CO2, ­CH4, CO, ­H2, ­C2H6, ­C2H4, ­C3H8, ­C2H2 Auger 13.2 Nam et al. (2015)
CO2, ­CH4, CO, ­H2, ­C2H6, ­C2H4, ­C3H8, ­C2H2 Fixed bed 11.5 Nam et al. (2015)
CO2, ­CH4, CO, ­H2, ­C2H6, ­C2H4, ­C3H8, ­C2H2 Fluidized bed 23 Nam et al. (2015)
CO2, ­CH4, CO, ­H2 Auger 9–22 Nam and Capareda (2015)
CO2, ­CH4, CO, ­H2, ­C2H6, ­C2H4, ­C3H8, ­C3H6 Fixed bed 15–21 Park et al. (2014)

or design and operating parameters (Azargohar et al. 2013).
Thus, every pyrolysis process has a different application.
Globally, thousands of reactor designs are available (Patrick
2014). To study all of them is the limitation of this article.
Thus, the present paper will focus on the reactors, which are
developed in recent times for biochar production and holds
the potential for commercialization.
3.1 Slow pyrolysis
Slow pyrolysis is carried out at a slow heating rate, low tem-
perature, and longer residence time. Typically, 1 kg of wood,
when subjected to slow pyrolysis with the low heating rate
at a temperature range of 400–500 °C, will produce 30–35%
biochar, 45–50% bio-oil, and 20–25% producer gas (Jahirul
et al. 2012). Generally, biochar contains 70–80% fixed car-
bon. The char produced from biomass such as wood log
using traditional char-making reactor is called a kiln. This
reactor does not recover volatile fraction (liquid and syngas
yield) during the process. Emrich et al. (1985) classified the
slow pyrolysis reactor as a kiln, retort, and converters. The
industrial-scale reactor, which is capable of recovering bio-
char and a volatile fraction, is called retorts and converters.
The most common reactors used in slow pyrolysis are rotary
kilns, auger, and drum.
Kiln has been used for a long time and still widely used
in developing nations. The kilns are easy to construct and
suitable for heating of different types of biomass. The soil
is used as a barrier for oxygen entrance in the reactor to
avoid oxidation. The liquid and vapor derived from the reac-
tor are exposed to soil and atmosphere, respectively, which
causes pollution and greenhouse gas emission. This technol-
ogy is more suitable for the log as a feedstock and does not
require more equipment for handling (Riuji et al. 2016). The
rotary drum reactor is a very reliable system for biomass
carbonization. It is further classified as direct heating and
indirect heating. The indirect heating process, combustion
of pyrolysis gases and vapors, produces the heat required for
the carbonization process. This type of reactor can maintain
excellent stability between biochar and bio-oil.

13
Biochar

The auger reactor is used for the continuous production
of biochar. In the auger reactor, biomass is generally fed
through a hopper. A screw drives the biomass to the heated
zone of the reactor for carbonization. The solid yield is col-
lected from the end of the screw and vapors are removed
from the reactor and transferred to the condenser to get liq-
uid and gas yields (Meier et al. 2013). Product yield obtained
from different reactor configuration in slow pyrolysis is
shown in Table 3.
As seen in Table 3, the bio-oil yield obtained from auger
reactor is slightly lower than the rotary drum reactor. Rotat-
ing drum and auger reactors are more convenient for opera-
tion and it also require less energy for biochar production. It
was observed that biochar yields decline with the increase

Table 3  Types of reactors use in slow pyrolysis

Feedstock Type of reactor Capacity (kg/h) Temperature Yields (%) References
Biochar Bio-oil Gas

Aspen, USU algae, Turkey Rotary drum 0.5 500 19–51 25–62 11–30 Ralph and Tom Gardner
litter, Pine brake, Pine (2013)
shredded, Lemna, Fir fines,
Fir pallets, Pinyon-juniper
wood,
Olive stones Rotary drum – 500 26 38 35 Sanginés et al. (2015)
Oil field sludge Rotary Kiln – 480–650 54–86 8–22 2–29 Ma et al. (2014)
Rice husk, Peanut shell, Auger ­reactora 7 450 15–28 32–35 12–29 Wang et al. (2012)
Cassava stalk, switchgrass,
Corn Stover
Oak, Pinewood sawdust Auger ­reactora 1 450 18–20 49–56 – Ingram et al. (2008)
Pinewood chips Auger ­reactora 1.5 500 30 58 12 Liaw et al. (2013)
Pinewood chips Auger ­reactora 15 500 20 57 25 Puy et al. 2011)
Pinewood sawdust Auger ­reactora 7 450 19 54 – Wang et al. (2011)
Douglas fir wood Auger ­reactora 1 400 12 48 40 Liaw et al. (2012)
Eucalyptus grandis Auger ­reactorb 10 500 14–26 60.3 – Joubert et al. (2015)
Wheat straw Auger ­reactorb 500 500 23–28 50–55 22 Pfitzer et al. (2016)
Wheat straw, Wheat bran, Auger ­reactorb 10 500 15–24 51–69 16–24 Henrich et al. (2016)
Softwood, hardwood
Rice husk Fixed bed 0.18 100–500 42–48 28–35 – Tsai et al. (2007)
Switch grass Fixed bed (100 psi) – 400–600 42 27 10 Imam and Capareda (2012)
Pine chips, Aspen poplar, Fixed bed (vacuum) 1.4–15 500 28–31 45–54 18–27 Westerhof et al. (2012)
White birch, white spruce,
Balsam fir, Larch
Sugarcane bagasse Fixed bed (vacuum) 20 (pilot) 530 26 51 22 Westerhof et al. (2012)
Fixed bed (vacuum) 0.08 (laboratory) 500 19 62 18 Garcı̀a-Pèrez et al. (2002)
Palm oil decanter cake Fixed bed (vacuum) 500 39 41 20 Dewayanto et al. (2014)
Rice husk, Rice straw, Empty Fixed bed (vacuum) 0.01 500 26–38 47–54 13–20 Fukuda (2015)
fruit bunch
Douglas fir, Red oak Fixed bed (vacuum) 0.0008 500 22–24 66–67 8 Le Brech et al. (2016)
Pine, Pine sawdust Fixed bed (vacuum) 0.5 500 20 50–52 25–30 Xu et al. (2013a, b)
Camphorwood sawdust, Fixed bed (vacuum) 0.01 500 26–30 51–62 12–19 Fan et al. (2015)
eucalyptus, teng wood, rub-
ber wood
Rice straw, Corn con, Sugar Fluidized bed 0.06 500 20–31 53–67 15–17 Phan et al. (2014)
can bagasse
Switch grass Fluidized bed 1 510 19 60 16 Greenhalf et al. (2013)
Pitch pine, Japanese cedar Fluidized bed – 500 13–16 64–66 21–22 Kim et al. (2013a, b)
Woodchips Fluidized bed 1 500 18 59 23 Chang et al. (2013)
Poplar sawdust Fluidized bed 0.1 504 12 77 11 Scott et al. (1999)
a
 Without heat carrier
b
 With heat carrier

13
 Biochar
in reactor temperature because high temperature triggers the
combustion of organic materials (if oxygen is present). Simi-
larly, heating rates have a significant role in the production
of biochar. For high biochar yield, lower heating rate and
lower temperatures are preferable (Fig. 2).
3.2 Fast pyrolysis
In fast pyrolysis, biomass decomposition takes place with
the rapid heating rate (10–100  °C/s) in the oxygen-free
environment and short residence time (0.5–2 s). The polym-
erization and fragmentation process of biomass produces
pyrolysis vapor (oil and gases) and solid residue (char).
Pyrolysis vapor includes aerosol, non-condensable gases,
and condensable gases. The condensation of condensable
gases produces bio-oil which is the primary yield of fast
pyrolysis and it is ranging from 65 to 80%, on a dry basis
(Jones et al. 2009).
In the fluidized bed reactor, the literature suggests that
biomass particle size of 2–3 mm with fast pyrolysis process
condition gives high liquid yield because of uniform heat
transfer inside the reactor. The combination of convection
and conduction heat transfer takes place from hot sand to the
feedstock. The pyrolysis gas (by-product) produced during
the process was utilized in process of heating and some-
times used as a carrier gas in the fluidized bed. The gas has
a poor conductivity of heat transfer, and hence a low rate
of heat transfer occurs between the bed and product gases
(100–200 ­Wm−2 K−1). Table 3 shows the pyrolysis yields
of grasses, agriculture residues, softwood, and hardwood in
100
Augerreactor(feedstock:Arborpellet)
Rotaryreactor(feedstock:Douglarfirwood)
80
Biochar yield (%)
60
40
20
0
300 350 400 450 500 550
Temperature ( C)
o
Fig. 2  Products’ yields obtained in auger and rotary drum pyrolysis
reactor
13
fluidized bed reactors. Softwood species resulted in 64–66%
bio-oil yield where hardwood species produced 59–77% bio-
oil yield. The lower bio-oil yield obtained from agriculture
residues and grasses is in the range of 53–67% because of
high ash content in the material.
In ablative pyrolysis, as shown in Fig. 3, wood is pressed
on the heated surface and removed quickly from hot surface,
it generates an oil film on that heated surface which evapo-
rates. Heat supplied to the reactor is the limiting factor and
a large size of wood pellets was used in the present method.
These reactors are compact and it processes the bulk quan-
tity of biomass (Greenhalf et al. 2013).
4 Microwave pyrolysis
Microwave-assisted pyrolysis is a promising technique
over a conventional pyrolysis process. Microwave pyrolysis
offers several advantages over traditional pyrolysis such as
fast heating rate, volumetric heating, no physical contact
of heat, selective space heating, and ease of operation with
high safety and automation (Yu et al. 2014). The bulk heat-
ing of feedstock through microwave energy is more efficient
than conventional as no energy is wasted in the surrounding
(Jones et al. 2002). Microwave pyrolysis is shown in Fig. 4.
Microwave energy has been proved at the pilot scale and
industrial scale for the manufacturing of different products.
Microwave heating shows the distinct benefits which lead to
higher production rate and lower cost. Therefore, microwave
energy has found general and commercial applications in
food pasteurization, sterilization, different drying process,
rubber manufacturing, etc.
In the conventional pyrolysis process, heat is transferred
directly from the pyrolysis oven to the particle’s outer sur-
face through natural or forced convection. Further heat trans-
fer was taking place from the outer surface to inside the
particle through conduction. The diffusion of volatile matter
from inside to outside surface was occurring due to the tem-
perature gradient (Zhang et al. 2017a, b, c). Microwaves are
electromagnetic radiation which causes molecular motion
by the relocation of ionic species or induce polar molecules
to rotate and generate thermal energy due to the friction in
inter molecules. The microwave radiation wavelength was
ranging from 1 m to 1 mm and frequency from 300 MHz to
300 GHz. Material that can absorb energy is called absorber
or dielectric and this process is also called dielectric heating
(Jones et al. 2002). Biomass is a small microwave absorber
(MWA). Biomass contains high moisture and inorganic
600 650 matter, which can improve biomass absorption capacity.
The microwave pyrolysis has been studied with and with-
out microwave absorbers. The benefit of MWAs with low
microwave frequency is that it can adjust the pyrolysis pro-
cess temperature. In MWAs, the biomass particle is heated
Biochar
Fig. 3  Ablative pyrolysis
Fig. 4  Microwave pyrolysis
indirectly and this greatly influences the product yield and
quality. Moreover, MWAs with the catalyst can regulate
product distribution or improve product yield and make the
process energy efficient.
Wang et al. (2009) compared the microwave and con-
ventional pyrolysis process concerning biochar yield
(Fig. 5). They reported that char yield decreased with an
increase in the temperature from 400 to 700 °C. It can be
noted that biochar yield from microwave pyrolysis is lower
than that of conventional pyrolysis at the same tempera-
ture. It is because the heating rate of microwave pyrolysis
was higher than traditional heating. Subsequently, pyroly-
sis char absorbed microwave heat, which stimulated the
pyrolysis process and resulted in lower char yield. Also,
there was a robust self-gasification reaction between C
­ O2
and char during microwave pyrolysis, which leads to a
reduction in char yield (Menéndez et al. 2007). The self-
gasification is described as (Table 4):
C(s) + CO2 → 2CO ΔH298K = 173 kJ mol−1 (1)
( )
13
 Biochar
34
32
Conventional pyrolysis
Microwave pyrolysis
30
28
Biochar yield (%)
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
400 500 600 700 800
Temperature (oC)
Fig. 5  Effect of process temperature on biochar yield with microwave
and conventional pyrolysis (Wang et al. 2009)
The biochar produced by microwave pyrolysis can be
different than conventional pyrolysis with respect to the
surface properties. It was observed that char produced by
conventional pyrolysis has heterogeneous pore size distri-
bution, whereas char obtained by microwave pyrolysis has
an identical size and round shape on its surface (Guo and
Lua 2000). Miura et al. (2004) investigated the difference
in pore characteristic and carbon-like adhesive material
in the biochar matrix during conventional and microwave
pyrolysis. It was observed that the carbon particle was
deposited in the micropores of biochar during conven-
tional pyrolysis; this is because the rate at which the vola-
tiles escaped from the biomass was slow during pyrolysis.
In contrast, clean and more open porous structures were
found in microwave pyrolysis, primarily because of the
high escaping rate of volatile matter.
Microwave pyrolysis has many advantages over con-
ventional pyrolysis; still, it suffers from many challenges.
It was observed that bio-oil yield obtained by microwave
pyrolysis is less compared to conventional pyrolysis, espe-
cially in a fluidized bed (Ren et al. 2012a). In addition,
electromagnetic radiation inside the microwave furnace is
not uniformly distributed which causes non-homogeneous
heating. Therefore, it changes the dielectric properties of
products and as a result, microwave process control is a
challenge (Namazi et al. 2015). Microwave pyrolysis is a
new technology and researchers across the globe have a
mixed opinion about its suitability for pyrolysis product
yield and quality of the produce (Nomanbhay et al. 2018;
Prakash et al. 2015; Yu et al. 2010).
13
5 Process parameters and biochar
production
The following section reports the impact of various process
parameters on the biochar yields.
5.1 Process temperature
The reaction temperature is a crucial parameter that controls
the biochar yield and properties compared to residence time,
particle size, and heating rate. The increase in the pyrolysis
temperature affects the biochar yield adversely, because at
high temperature thermal cracking of heavy hydrocarbon
occurs, which leads to an increase in liquid and gas product
and decrease in solid product. Approximately, 10% and 17%
reduction in biochar yield is reported during pyrolysis of
hazelnut shell and sesame stalk, when the temperature was
varied from 400 to 700 °C, respectively. It was also observed
that at higher temperature biochar yield decreased but pH,
specific surface area, and ash content increased (Pu and Pu
1999; Ateş et al. 2004).
At high temperature, energy given to biomass may exceed
the bond cessation, which favors the release of a volatile
constituent from the biomass. This volatile component is
further divided into liquid and gas components resulting in
limited (less) biochar yield. Hence, it can be concluded that
low temperature is more suitable for biochar production.
Though many researchers are studying the effect of tempera-
ture on biochar yield, it is a very challenging task to report
the optimal temperature for biochar production because it
depends on biomass nature, composition, etc.; for example,
in case of wood pyrolysis, the increase of process tempera-
ture from 250 to 700 °C resulted in positive effect on bio-
char surface area (10–500 m ­ 2/g) but with further increase in
reaction temperature (800 °C) the surface area significantly
reduced (150 ­m2/g) (Schimmelpfennig and Glaser 2012).
5.2 Heating rates
The heating rate is a sensitive and prime factor that catego-
rizes pyrolysis such as fast, flash, slow, and intermediate.
The heating rate affects the physicochemical properties
of the biochar and yield of the biochar too. Higher heat-
ing rate and reaction temperature result in higher bio-oil
and gas production, whereas slow heating rate and lower
temperature result in higher biochar yield. The heating rate
also influences the morphological properties of biochar
such as surface area, pore volume, etc. The formation of
pores in the biochar matrix is highly dependent on process
temperature and the heating rate during the volatilization
of organic matters from biomass. In the case of safflower
Biochar

Table 4  Characteristics of microwave-assisted pyrolysis

Feedstock Process factors Yield (%) References
Biochar Bio-oil Gas

Cylindrical wood blocks, Larch Size: 60–300 mm, MW: 1.5–3 kW, 18.2–49.7 – – Miura et al. (2004)
heating rate: 7.5 °C/min, Temp.:
110–260 °C
Pine sawdust Size: 150–300 µm, MW: < 2 kW, 20.2–35.27 20–33.18 42.48–59.8 Mamaeva et al. (2016)
heating rate: 10–15 °C/min,
Temp.: 300–600 °C
Pine sawdust MW: 2 kW, heating rate: 10 °C/min, 13–26 – – Wang et al. (2009)
Temp.: 400–800 °C
Douglas fir sawdust pallets Size: 60 mm, MW: 700 W, heat- 31–61 31.4–53.9 7.9–15 Ren et al. (2012b)
ing time: 10–20 min, Tempe.:
300–500 °C
Aspen wood, corn stover Size: 4.8–6.2 mm, MW: 875 W, 25–31 35–42 – Wan et al. (2009)
Temp.: 450–550 °C
Willow chips Size: 50 mm, MW: 1.2 kW, heating 27.3–33.7 28.7–42.2 30.5–37.6 Budarin et al. (2013)
rate: 5 °C/min, Temp.: 200–350 °C
Wheat straw Size: < 90 µm, MW: 3 kW, heating 46.5–56 25–30.5 17.5–21 Xiqiang et al. (2012)
rate: 60 °C/min, Temp.: 400–
600 °C
Corn straw bale Size: 1 × 0.6 × 0.6 m, MW: 34 32.5 29 Zhao et al. (2011)
0.668 kW, heating time: 30 min,
Temp.: 200–600 °C
Corn Stover, sugar cane, rice straw Size: 0.297 mm, MW: 500 W, 18–22 42–46 32–40 Huang et al. (2016a, b)
heating rate: 98 °C/min, Temp.:
489–595 °C
Peanut shell Size: 150–300 µm, MW: < 2 kW, 31.25–37.2 13.56–22.01 40.22–51.85 Miura et al. 2004)
heating rate: 10–15 °C/min,
Temp.: 300–600 °C
Sewage sludge MW: 1 kW, heating rate: 5 °C/min, 10–13 2.2–4.0 16–27 Menéndez et al. (2007)
Temp.: 1000 °C, heating time:
6 min
Waste oil MW: 5 kW, heating rate: 60 °C/min, 5–13 67–72 15–28 Shiung et al. (2012)
Temp.: 250–700 °C
Pinewood sawdust, Peanut shell, Size: 0.5–1.0 mm, MW: 300–800 W, 15.2–30.5 22.6–69.9 15–19 Zhang et al. (2017a, b, c)
Maize stalk Temp.: 500 °C

pyrolysis, where reaction temperature increased from 400
to 600 °C at the heating rate of 10–15 °C/min, it resulted
in the reduction of the surface area of biochar (Angin
2013). It is because the high heating rate and high reaction
temperatures lead to the melting of the cell structure and
therefore, a reduction in specific surface area and porosity
is observed. The char yield is considerably reduced when
the thermochemical conversion of the biomass is under
a high heating rate. In the case of gasification and fast
pyrolysis, the typical process temperature is above 600 °C
and the heating rate about 50 °C/min; this typically leads
to a char yield of 10–30% (by wt). However, very high
heating rate and temperature lead to de-volatilization or
condensation, which destroys the fine porous structure by
clogging the pores and results in reduced surface area of
the biochar (Kloss et al. 2012).
5.3 Vapor residence time
Generally, longer vapor residence time favors biochar pro-
duction; this is due to the lower removal rate of organic
matter, which triggers the secondary reaction. To maximize
the decomposition and coking of the tar, low temperature
and high residence time are suitable (Olukcu et al. 2002).
The vapor residence time of a few minutes to few hours is
frequently recommended to achieve optimum biochar yield
through pyrolysis. However, at high residence time, heat
transfer and reaction time on the surface of the particles
increase, which leads to an improvement in biochar yield.
The vapor residence time must be shorter than residence
time for biomass decomposition to obtain high biomass
conversion and yield. Scott et al. (1999) observed the effect
of vapor residence time during pyrolysis of raw bagasse at

13
 Biochar
525 °C, increase of vapor residence time from 0.2 to 0.9 s,
biochar and gas yield increase and bio-oil yield decrease.
Optimization of residence time, considering a broad range
of parameters, may help to obtain the quality of biochar.
Standard parameters which are controlled to optimize resi-
dence time are particle size, temperature control, heating
rate, flow rate, etc.
5.4 Biomass type
Biomass consist of three major components such as lignin,
cellulose, hemicellulose, and some amount of inorganic
matter. The mass ratio of both organic and inorganic com-
pounds varies based on the biomass type. Similarly, the yield
of pyrolysis products is also highly dependent on biomass
composition. Feedstock type and its form have a significant
influence on biochar yield, and its physical properties such
as pore structure, pH, EC, CEC, surface area, and chemi-
cal properties (Gaskin et al. 2008; Amonette and Jospeh
2009; Lehmann 2007). The decomposition of hemicellulose
occurs at 200–260 °C, cellulose at 240–350 °C and lignin
at 280–350 °C (Lehmann and Joseph 2012). The pyrolysis
of cellulose and hemicellulose contributes more liquid yield
(bio-oil), and lignin provides a stable yield (biochar) (Akhtar
et al. 2012). Therefore, higher lignin content biomass is suit-
able for biochar production. The mineral matter present in
raw biomass acts as a catalyst during biomass pyrolysis;
hence, they also influence the properties and product yield
of pyrolysis (Fahmi 2008).
5.5 Particle size
Biomass particle size is an essential parameter that affects
the pyrolysis product yield. Biomass is not a good conduc-
tor of heat and hence limits the heat transfer rate during
the pyrolysis process (Varol 2007). The effect of particle
size on pyrolysis product distribution often determines
the particle residence time inside the reactor. The smaller
particle size is heated uniformly and releases more vola-
tile matter, which leads to higher bio-oil and gas yield
(Akhtar et al. 2012). It is also observed that large particle
size has a steep temperature gradient inside the particle
which leads to a lower average temperature of the particle
which favors higher biochar yield. Larger particles need
high superficial activation energy, which can be endorsed
to heat transfer limitation (Haykiri-Acma 2006). Yorgun
and Yıldız (2015) analyzed the effect of different particle
sizes of paulownia wood on biochar production rate. The
experiment was carried out in a particle diameter range of
0.224–0.425, 0.425–1, 1–1.8, and > 1.8 mm at a constant
temperature of 773 K and a heating rate of 50 K min−1. The
highest yield of biochar was obtained for the particle size
of 0.224–0.425 mm. Septien et al. (2012) carried out wood
13
pyrolysis at 800 °C with a particle size of 0.35–0.8 mm; they
observed that the higher char yield was obtained at 0.8 mm
particle size. Demiral and Şensöz (2006) have conducted
an experiment on hazelnut bagasse and varied particle size
from 0.224 mm < Dp < 0.425 mm to 0.85 mm < Dp < 1.8 mm
at 500 °C with a heating rate of 10 °C/min. Biochar yield
(27.90%) was maximum for particle size 0.425 mm with
bio-oil yield 33.19%.
6 Biochar activation methods
In recent times, agriculture and forestry industries have
been transforming bio-waste into biochar for the manage-
ment of the bio-waste generated on a daily basis. This bio-
char is then used as a soil conditioner and energy genera-
tion (Hu et al. 2015). Biochar contains higher oxygenated
surface functional groups (phenolic, carboxylic, carbonyl)
and fixed carbon than biomass and hence, has been used as
catalyst, adsorbent and carbon electrode in catalyst process
and water adsorption (Ahmad et al. 2014a, b), electrochemi-
cal capacitor and supercapacitor (Ellis and Dehkhoda 2016).
It was observed that the biochar obtained through biomass
pyrolysis has a relatively low specific surface area, deprived
porosity and lean surface functional group (Liu et al. 2015a,
b). Some of the applications are limited because of the low
specific surface area (< 200 m­ 2/g) and porosimetry. Activa-
tion is a technique to increase the physical characteristics
and absorption capacity of biochar (Harry Marsh 2006). The
process of increasing specific surface area and pore density
is called activation. In general, there are two types of activa-
tion techniques, i.e. physical and chemical.
6.1 Physical activation
The char derived from biomass through the thermochemi-
cal process is auto-gasified due to the presence of steam,
carbon dioxide, etc. at a temperature of about 700–900 °C.
This loss of mass in the form of gas and volatiles from the
solid biomass makes the solid product, i.e., biochar more
porous. The method, where the increase in porosity is initi-
ated due to high temperature in an oxidative environment, is
called physical activation or thermal activation (Prauchner
and Rodríguez Reinoso 2012). Most volatile carbon por-
tions of carbonize precursors can be removed by physical
activation and the closed pores in the biochar matrix can be
opened and diffused with other pores (Liu et al. 2015a, b).
As a consequence, the specific surface area of physically
activated biochar can be substantially enhanced and a robust
microporous structure with a low intensity of mesopores
can be observed in the physically activated biochar matrix.
Physical activation is highly dependent on temperature,
the degree of activation, type of precursor and activation
Biochar

Table 5  Physical activation of Medium Chemical reaction Energy balance References

carbonaceous material using a
different medium Steam/H2O C + H2 O → CO + H2 Endothermic Rio et al. (2006) and Mestre et al. (2007)
2C + H2 → 2C(H)1
CO2 C + CO2 → C(O) + (CO)1 Endothermic Veksha et al. (2016) and Aworn et al. (2008)
C(O) → CO
C + CO2 → 2CO
Air/O2 C + O2 → CO2 Exothermic Singh et al. (2008) and Toles et al. (2000)

Table 6  Characteristics of physical activation method

Feedstock Activation agent Tem- Holding time (min) BET surface Pore volume ­(cm3/g) Ave. pore References
perature area ­(m2/g) diameter
(°C) (nm)

Coconut shell CO2 750 240 613 0.437 2.85 Guo et al. (2009)
800 240 860 0.590 2.74
850 240 1305 0.689 2.63
900 240 1391 0.838 2.41
950 240 1323 0.878 2.66
Furfural residue Pyrolysis gas 800 20 167 0.134 – Yin et al. (2018)
800 40 257 0.186 –
800 60 384 0.281 –
800 120 567 0.380 –
700 60 328 0.202 –
600 60 263 0.121 –
900 60 334 0.232 –
Burcucumber Steam 300 45 1.22 0.003 0.541 Upamali et al. (2015)
700 45 7.10 0.038 0.839
Wheat straw 800 78 246.2 0.158 0.975 Hilber et al. (2016)
Coconut 800 78 626.8 0.336 0.425 Hilber et al. (2016)
Willow 800 78 840.6 0.576 0.545 Hilber et al. (2016)
Wood 600 0.5–5 389 0.161 – Zhu et al. (2018a, b)
700 0.5–5 586 0.168 – Zhu et al. (2018a, b)
800 0.5–5 672 0.212 – Zhu et al. (2018a, b)
Oak CO2 700 60–120 642–644 0.411–0.404 – Zhang et al. (2004a, b)
800 60–120 845–985 0.601–0.640 – Zhang et al. (2004a, b)
Corn hulls CO2 700 60–120 902–977 0.328–0.335 – Zhang et al. (2004a, b)
800 60–120 975–1010 0.680–0.834 – Zhang et al. (2004a, b)
Corn stover CO2 700 60–120 432–660 0.332–0.487 – Zhang et al. (2004a, b)
800 60–120 616–712 0.422–0.549 – Zhang et al. (2004a, b)
Macro-algae Steam 700 60 57.9 0.02 1.25 Jung et al. (2013)

agent (if any) which is represented in Tables 5 and 6. The
general trend reported in the literature is the higher the acti-
vation temperature and time are, the superior is the porosity
growth. However, it also leads to enlarged pore size distri-
bution. If air is used as an activation agent, then it is a chal-
lenge to control the activation process because with air and
char (rich in carbon), the reaction will tend to shift toward
combustion if not regulated, leading to excessive ash forma-
tion and decreased activated carbon yield. However, it is
still a favored route for the activation of biochar as oxygen
present in the air requires less activation energy compared
to ­CO2 and steam and hence the overall activation process
becomes economical (Prauchner and Rodríguez Reinoso
2012; Dawson et al. 2003).
Lima et al. produced biochar from broiler litter through
fast pyrolysis and activated it by steam. Later, the effect
specific surface area, porosimetry, and adsorption of heavy
metal ion ­(Cu2+, ­Cd2+, ­Zn2+, and ­Ni2+) were examined. Due

13
 Biochar
to the steam activation (800 °C and 45 min), the specific
surface area and pore volume increased from 136 to 789
­m2/g and 0.052 to 0.344 c­ m3/g, respectively. Besides, it was
observed that metal ions’ adsorption performance enhanced
due to the developed surface area and porosity (Lima et al.
2010). Koltowaski prepared activated biochar in fluidized
bed reactor (at a heating rate of 10 °C/min and temperature:
800 °C) under steam and ­CO2 atmosphere and studied the
effect of activated biochar on soil toxicity reduction. The
specific surface area and pore volume increase from 11.4
to 512 m­ 2/g and 0.002–0.169 c­ m3/g in C­ O2 and 11.4–840
­m /g and 0.002–0.225 ­cm3/g in steam, respectively. It was
2
also observed that the increase in the surface area leads to a
decrease in the toxicity of water leachates (Kołtowski et al.
2017).
On the other hand, Nabais et  al. (2008) used cof-
fee endocarp biochar for steam and ­CO2 activation. The
­CO2-activated biochar showed the higher surface area and
pore volume than steam-activated biochar with the same
bun-off value. Therefore, it was concluded that this incon-
sistency is due to the different physical and chemical proper-
ties of biomass.
6.2 Chemical activation
Chemical activation is a heat treatment process in which
raw biochar reacts with the chemical activating agent in the
temperature range of 450–900 °C. The chemical activation
process is still unclear with respect to physical activation.
Two types of reactions, dehydration and oxidation, take
place inside the biochar and they lead to the microspores
formation. The advantages of chemical activation over the
physical activation are (1) lower temperature, (2) greater
carbon yield, (3) high surface area (~ 3600 m­ 2/g), (4) quali-
tative and quantitative micro-porosity (well developed and
controlled), and (5) higher efficiency. However, chemical
activation does harm equipment due to chemical corrosion.
The corrosiveness of this chemical agent can be intense at
high temperatures. These chemicals are however suppressing
the tar formation, and removing partial carbon molecules
from biochar structure and volatile compounds (Azargohar
and Dalai 2008).
Acid, alkali, and oxidation treatment are additionally
done on biochar to enhance the physicochemical properties
of biochar. The acids such as HCl, ­ZnCl2, ­MgCl3, ­HNO3,
­H2SO4 and H ­ 3PO4; an alkali such as KOH, NaOH and
­K2CO3; and oxidants like H ­ 2O2 and K­ MnO4 are often used
in chemical activation of biochar. The KOH activation of
biochar expands the carbon lattice by metallic potassium (K)
intercalation which leads to an increase in surface area and
porosity (Liu et al. 2015a, b). Overall, the chemical activa-
tion efficiency is higher than physical activation. However,
the efficiency of chemical activation is sensitive to activation
13
temperature, type, and concentration of activation agent,
feedstock types, etc. and these in turn influence the physical
characteristics of the activated biochar structure.
However, ­ZnCl2, ­H3PO4, and KOH are commonly used at
an industrial scale (Strobel et al. 2006; Gogotsi et al. 2009).
The degree of impregnation (material to agent ratios) is
generally in the series of 1:0.5 to 1:3 based on dry content.
However, the effect of chemical activation depends on the
type of chemical used, the intensity of mixing, temperature,
and period of successive activation (Harry Marsh 2006). It
was also observed that pore volume shrinked at high chemi-
cal concentration; this is because at higher chemical concen-
tration, the carbon structure physically collapsed. After the
chemical activation, the activated biochar must be washed
to remove the activation agent from the surface, and it can
be recycled. Thus, chemical activation at the industrial scale
demands substantial effort in the washing process to reduce
the environmental impact, which in turn increases activa-
tion cost (Smisek and Cerny 1970). Dehkhoda et al. (2014)
examined the influence of KOH activation temperature (675
and 1000 °C) on the surface area, pores size distribution,
porosity, and electrosorption capacity of woody biochar. It
was observed that physical properties such as surface area
(1.66–990 ­m2/g), pore size (1.28–3.22 nm) and pore volume
(0.3–0.9 ­cm3/g) increase by KOH activation at 675 °C. In
contrast, KOH activation at 1000 °C resulted in decrease
of the surface area, pore volume, and pore size due to the
burn-off effect; collapses the micropores present in the bio-
char matrix and promotes the expansion of the graphite-like
structure in biochar. Moreover, electrosorption capacity of
activated biochar at 675 °C is two times higher than that of
higher temperatures because of its higher porosimetry and
oxygenated functional groups present on the surface. The
effect of biochar material, activation agent, and temperature
on activated biochar is shown in Table 7.
7 Biochar applications
7.1 Adsorbent for water pollutants
Biochar has an abundant surface area, porosity, and high
affinity of functional groups to adsorb heavy metal ions and
aromatic compounds on its surface and hence removes con-
taminants from wastewater and soil. The pollutant adsorp-
tion capacity of biochars depends on specific surface area
and aromaticity (Sulaymon et al. 2012). Biochar is also used
for adsorption of heavy metal, organic contaminants, nitro-
gen and phosphorus contaminates, and other pollutants from
aqueous solutions. It is also reported that biochar adsorp-
tion capacity is superior or similar compared to activated
carbon (Karakoyun et al. 2011). Table 8 shows the effect of
Biochar

Table 7  Characteristics of chemical activation method

Feedstock Activation agent Tem- Hold- BET surface area Pore volume Ave. pore References
perature ing time ­(m2/g) ­(cm3/g) diameter
(°C) (min) (nm)

Rice straw Char/KOH = 0.1 700 2 772.3 0.422 2.18 Cha et al. (2010)
Sludge char Char/KOH = 0.1 700 2 782.6 0.606 3.09 Cha et al. (2010)
Coconut shell Char/H3PO4 = 0.3 500 2 – 0.652 – Prauchner and
Rodríguez-rei-
noso (2012)
Char/ZnCl2 = 0.4 500 2 – 0.625 – Prauchner and
Rodríguez-rei-
noso (2012)
Olive stones Char/ZnCl2 = 0.15 500 7 750 0.31 – Nakagawa (2007)
Char/H3PO4 = 1.2 450 2 1500 0.630 – Nakagawa (2007)
Sunflower seed Char/ZnCl2 = 0.25 600 1 249.3 0.151 2.42 Angin et al. (2013)
press cake
700 1 491.9 0.249 2.02 Angin et al. (2013)
800 1 772.0 0.358 1.85 Angin et al. (2013)
900 1 801.5 0.393 1.96 Angin et al. (2013)
Char/ZnCl2 = 0.33– 900 1 619.3–719.8 0.330–0.370 1.94–2.33 Angin et al. (2013)
1
Soybean oil cake K2CO3 600 1 643.54 0.336 1.04 Tay et al. (2009)
800 1 1352.6 0.680 1.01 Tay et al. (2009)
KOH 600 1 600.05 0.299 0.99 Tay et al. (2009)
800 1 618.54 0.291 0.94 Tay et al. (2009)
Organic sewage H2SO4 650 1 408 0.523 5.21 Zhang et al. (2005)
sludge
H3PO4 650 1 289 0.436 2.65 Zhang et al. (2005)
ZnCl2 650 1 555 0.752 2.26 Zhang et al. (2005)

different feedstock and pyrolysis conditions on water pollut-
ant adsorption characteristics.
The abundance of an oxygenated group such as –COOH
and OH on biochar surface has shown a strong affinity for
heavy metals which can be verified by high metal adsorp-
tion rate. Xu et al. (2013a, b) removed heavy metals such
as Pb, Cu, Zn, and Cd from water solution using rice husk
and feces char. It was observed that feces char has higher
metal removal efficiency than rice husk char. The feces
char absorbed heavy metal on ionized hydroxyl-O-1 groups
whereas rice husk char adsorbed the only O-groups and
hence, mineral compound and oxygen-functional group play
a significant role in sorption of heavy metal on biochar sur-
face. Goswami et al. (2016) produced biochar from Ipomoea
fistulosa at 350–550 °C, which is being used to remove cad-
mium (Cd) from aqueous solution. The biochar activated by
KOH solution to enhance surface area led to an improved Cd
removal efficiency. Liu et al (2012) produced biochar from
green macroalga through slow pyrolysis. Steam activation
increased cation exchange capacity and specific surface area
and hence upsurge in copper removal efficiency.
Similarly, KOH-activated biochar leads to an increase in
pore fraction and surface area, but it reduces cation exchange
capacity and thus, copper removal efficiency. She-bardan
et al. (2014) produced biochar from oil palm empty fruit
bunches and compared physiochemical properties. The
result illustrates that empty fruit bunches biochar have
lower surface area than rice husk biochar, but the previous
one adsorbed more Zn, Pb, and Cu than rice husk biochar.
Their study concluded that the oxygen-containing functional
group, polarity index, and molar ratio of O/C were more
important than surface area for adsorbing heavy metal. Sun
et al. (2015) produced biochar from eucalyptus sawdust and
activated it with tartaric, acetic, and citric acid. The acti-
vated biochar was later used to remove methylene blue from
aqueous solution. The experimental results showed that cit-
ric acid-activated biochar had a higher absorption capacity
for methylene blue than tartaric and acetic acid. The Fourier
transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) also showed that cit-
ric acid-activated biochar contained a higher carboxyl group
(COOH) than others.
Approximately 844 million people of the global popu-
lation lack clean and safe drinking water facility, of these
about 159 million people are still reliant on surface water
such as a river, pond, lakes, etc. The poor sanitation, contam-
inated water coupled with the spread of the disease, causes

13
 Biochar

Table 8  The different metal adsorption by different biochar

Biochar Pyrolysis Contaminates Residence time Adsorption pH Adsorption Qmax (mg ­g−1) References
temperature temperature
(°C) (°C)

Cattle manure 100–700 Al 6 h 4.3 25 0.242–0.296 Qian and Chen

(2013)
Corn straw 600 Cu, Zn 2 h 5 22 11–12.52 Chen and Chen
(2009)
Canola straw 400 Cu 3.75 h 5 25 0.59 Tong et al. (2011)
Miscanthus sac- 300–600 Cd 1 h 7 25 11.40–13.24 Kim et al. (2013a, b)
chariflorus
Rise husk 300 Pb 20 min - 25 1.84 Liu and Zhang
(2009)
Hardwood 450 Zn, Cu < 5 s 5 22 4.54–6.79 Chen and Chen
(2009)
Peanut straw 400 Cu 3.75 h 5 25 1.40 Tong et al. (2011)
Pine needles 200 U 16 h - 25 62.7 Zhang and Gao
(2013)
Pinewood 300 Pb 20 min 25 3.89 Liu and Zhang
(2009)
Rice straw 100–700 Al 6 h 4.3 25 0.130–0.397 Qian and Chen
(2013)
Switchgrass 300 U 25 min 3.9 25 2.12 Kumar et al. (2011)
Sludge 400–550 Pb, Cr 2 h 5 25 – Zhang et al. (2012a,
b)
Soybean straw 400 Cu 3.75 h 5 25 0.83 Tong et al. (2011)
Spartina alterni- 400 Cu 2 h 6 25 48.49 Li et al. (2013)
flora
Sugar beet tailing 300 Cr 2 h 3.9 25 2.12 Dong et al. (2011)
Wastewater sludge 550 Fluoroquinolone 1 h 4.2 25 19.8 Sun et al. (2013)
antibiotics
Soybean Stover 700 Trichloroethylene 2 h 7 25 31.24 Ahmad et al. (2012)
Wine manure 400 Parquet – 6.5 25 14.79 Sun et al. (2013)
Eucalyptus 400 Methylene blue 2 h 7 40 2 Yao et al. (2013)
dye
Woodchips 500 Cu 10 min 3–10 28 22 Safari et al. (2019)
Algal biomass 450 Methylene blue 3 h 2–10 30 57.80 Nautiyal et al.
(2017)

0.5 million deaths each year [7 Feb. 2018, WHO]. Access
to safe, inexpensive and reliable drinking water is a must for
public health among poor societies. The production of bio-
char from agriculture residues, forest residues or other bio-
mass may be a useful tool to treat water. Literature suggests
that biochar and its derivatives can remove impurities such
as pathogenic bacteria (Lalander et al. 2013), organics (Cao
et al. 2009), inorganics, arsenic, and phosphate and nitrate.
7.2 The adsorbent in air purification
The amount of harmful chemicals in the atmosphere is
increasing day by day due to natural and anthropogenic
activities and it is adversely affecting human health. Lee
et al. (2011) produced biochar from sewage sludge through
pyrolysis at 700 °C. The char was first physically activated
with steam and then chemically activated by KOH (KOH/
char = 0.5). Moreover, the nitrogen functional groups in bio-
char are obtained through ammonia activation at 350 °C.
The activated char was then used for adsorption of low con-
centration formaldehyde in indoor pollution. It was observed
that chars shown better performance than activated carbon.
Carbon dioxide plays an essential role in global warming,
but there is no significant effect on human health. Adsorp-
tion is the most effective process for carbon dioxide capture
and storage. The carbon-based materials are widely used as
adsorbents including activated carbon, carbon nanotube, car-
bon molecular sieves, zeolite, etc. Creamer et al. (2014) pro-
duced biochar from sugarcane bagasse and hickory wood at
a different temperature such as 300, 450 and 600 °C through

13
Biochar
slow pyrolysis. The adsorption of ­CO2 was analyzed at room
temperature. It was observed that biochar produced at higher
temperatures had better sorption capacity, this is because at
higher temperatures the surface area was enhanced. Bio-
char derived from sugarcane bagasse at 600 °C had higher
adsorption of ­CO2 (73.55 mg/g at 25 °C). They report that
carbon dioxide softly bounded on the surface of biochar
through physisorption; hence, the availability of surface
area was a substantial factor for ­CO2 adsorption. In another
experiment, Creamer et al. (2016) treated cottonwood bio-
mass with different metal ions, including ­AlCl3, ­FeCl3, and
­MgCl3. Later, they produced biochar-based composites
using one-step pyrolysis at 600 °C. The process converted
metal ions into metal oxy-hydroxide nanoparticles onto the
carbon surface with the biochar matrix.
The ­Fe2O3–biochar had the largest surface area, and
AlOOH–biochar indicated significant sorption capacity.
Thus, ­CO2 capture capacity depends on surface area and
oxy-hydroxides. The AlOOH–biochar showed maximum
adsorption capacity and was more economical than com-
mercial adsorbent. Huang et al. (2015) derived biochar from
rice straw by microwave pyrolysis at 300 °C and the same
was applied for the ­CO2 adsorption process. The surface
area of biochar was profoundly affected by C ­ O2 adsorption
capacity. In the conventional pyrolysis process, biochar pro-
duced at 500 °C indicated optimal ­CO2 capture efficiency,
but still it was lower than that of biochar produced by micro-
wave pyrolysis. The low activation energy shows that ­CO2
adsorption on the biochar is locking up molecules in biochar
Fig. 6  Transesterification of tri-
glyceride to biodiesel (FAMEs)
(Sheehan et al. 1998)
Table 9  Biochar application in biodiesel production
Feedstock Biochar catalyst
Canola oil Wood mixture
Waste vegetable oil, canola oil Hardwood
A mixture of palmitic, stearic acid, and soybean Peanut hull
oil
A mixture of oleic acid and canola oil Commercial biochar
Waste cooking oil Rice husk
Sunflower oil Palm kernel shell
surface. Moreover, microwave pyrolysis is more energy effi-
cient and cost and time effective than conventional pyrolysis
for producing biochar.
7.3 Biochar as a catalyst
Biodiesel is a renewable substitute which is derived from
the reaction between fat or oil and alcohol in the presence
of a catalyst. Triglyceride present in fat reacts with alcohol
in the presence of the catalyst and produces a mixture of
methyl ester, which is known as biodiesel and a high-value
by-product called glycerol, as shown in Fig. 6.
Li et  al. (2014) produced solid biochar-catalyst from
pyrolysis of rice husk with concentrated ­H2SO4. The pre-
pared catalyst was used in the transesterification and esteri-
fication process of waste cooking oil for biodiesel produc-
tion. The product (methyl ester) yield declined from 87.5 to
80.2% after five cycles because of sulfur poisoning of the
catalyst. High catalytic reactivity and selectivity were found
during the process which showed potential as a heterogene-
ous catalyst for the production of biodiesel (Fu et al. 2012).
The biodiesel production depends significantly on catalyst
surface area and acid density. The catalyst with higher sur-
face area and high acid density led to the higher production
of biodiesel. It was observed that the molar ratio of alcohol
to oil (A:O) at 18:1, reaction time 3 h with catalyst loading
5 wt%, achieved better results (Stamenkovic et al. 2015).
Table 9 shows the effect of biochar as a catalyst on biodiesel
production.
Product yield (%) References
44 Yu et al. (2011)
81.5–88 Dehkhoda et al. (2010)
70 Kastner et al. (2012)
48 Dehkhoda and Ellis (2013)
88 Li et al. (2014)
99 Stamenkovic et al. (2015)
13
 Biochar
Syngas is used to generate heat, power, and other
value-added products. Biomass gasification is a well-
known process for mass production of syngas. During
gasification, some amount of heavyweight, cyclic, and
aromatic hydrocarbons are produced. They are collec-
tively known as tar, and tar is a problem in most of the
syngas applications. The main component of tar is tolu-
ene, naphthalene, phenol, styrene, and other polycyclic
aromatic hydrocarbons. Generally, tar can deposit on
the surface of the pipeline, which leads to blockage of
downstream application; hence, tar removal is an essential
treatment for syngas application (Asadullah et al. 2002).
The catalytic tar cracking was being conducted at a tem-
perature between 550 and 900 °C using dolomite, olivine,
and metal-based catalyst, which is expensive and catalysts
are often being poisoned and clogged. Literature reports
that biochar is an inexpensive and eco-friendly catalyst
for the cracking and reduction of tar in the syngas (Shen
2015). Table 10 compares the performance of the biochar
as catalysts on tar cracking and the table also reports the
removal efficiency of different tar compunds present in
syngas.
Chen et al. (2009) analyzed different types of biochar
along with varying kinds of particle sizes (100–150 µm).
They investigated that tar removal efficiency depends
mainly on biochar particle size and is independent of the
source of biochar. Literature reports that tar removal effi-
ciency declined by reducing the particle size (because the
surface area was decreased) (Norouzi et al. 2016). Apart
from syngas production, biochar was also used in the Fis-
cher–Tropsch synthesis process as a catalyst. Yan et al.
(2013) used pinewood-based biochar for the synthesis of
carbon-encapsulated iron (Fe) particles.
Ido et al. (2019) investigated the upgradation of algal
crude oil over nickel-based biochar (produced from rice
husk) catalyst. The biochar was later chemically activated
with sulfuric acid and potassium hydroxide and then
impregnated with nickel (20 wt%). It resulted in a 69.4%
yield at 246.89 °C and 6 h processing time.
Table 10  Comparison of Catalyst Tar compound
biochar-based catalyst and
another catalyst
Pine-bark biochar Toluene
Fe/pine-bark biochar Toluene
Switchgrass Biochar Toluene
Niu/olivine Toluene
Commercial biochar Phenol
Dolomite Phenol
Pinewood biochar Naphthalene
Olivine Naphthalene
13
7.4 Biochar in soil amendment
Biochar is recommended as a soil additive to enhance its fer-
tility and to hold water for a longer time hence reducing the
frequency of irrigation in the field (Singh et al. 2019). Due
to its organic nature, higher surface area and functionality
biochar have been utilized to enhance soil properties. When
biochar is mixed with soil, it significantly affects the soil
parameters such as texture, porosity, bulk density, particle
density, surface area, pore size distribution, etc.
Biochar affects the physio-chemical properties of soil
such as cation exchange capacity (CEC), pH, water-hold-
ing capacity, etc., which directly influence the sustainable
plant growth (Lehmann and Rondon 2006). The literature
suggests that black carbon derived from biomass influ-
ences the soil biogeochemistry and microbial community
which has a direct impact on crop yield. Generally, biochar
contains elements such as carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen, and
some lower nutrient elements including Na, K, Ca, and Mg
(Zhang et al. 2015). Biochar also enhances soil fertility by
increasing potassium and phosphorus content in it, and it
also increases the pH value; therefore, the application of
biochar can alleviate soil acidity. Biochar, when added to
the soil, improves the cation and anion exchange capacity
of the soil (Chan et al. 2008). The acidity of the soil is being
moderated because of the following factors in the biochar:
(a) functional group on biochar surface, (b) alkalinity, (c)
silicon, and (d) high pH-buffering capacity (Yuan 2011).
Biochar is also used as a remediation agent to remove heavy
metals from contaminated soil. The biochar with large pore
volume, surface area, and the functional group have demon-
strated to have excellent sorption capacity of heavy metals
(Ahmad et al. 2018) (Table 11).
Biochar, when mixed with soil, reduces the bulk density
of the soil with an increase in soil porosity and water hold-
ing capacity—this improves soil health and plant growth.
Zhang et  al. (2012a, b) found that biochar (rice straw)
amendment in the soil at 40 t/ha reduced the bulk density
from 0.1 to 0.06  g/cm3 in 2009 and 2010, respectively,
and the rice yield increased from 9 to12% and 9 to 28% in
Reaction condition Tar removal References
efficiency (%)
900 °C; ­H2O 94 Mani et al. (2013)
800 °C; ­H2O 100 Kastner et al. (2015)
800 °C 84 Bhandari et al. (2014)
560–850 °C; ­H2O 30–100 Libs et al. (2007)
900 °C; ­H2O and C
­ O2 55 El-rub et al. (2008)
700 °C; ­H2O and C
­ O2 90 El-rub et al. (2008)
900 °C; ­H2O and C
­ O2 94 El-rub et al. 2008)
900 °C; ­H2O and C
­ O2 55 El-rub et al. (2008)
Biochar

Table 11  Soil contaminant removal using biochar Raw biomass, when used as fuel, has a reduced efficiency in
Biochar Contaminant Removal References
power generation due to high moisture content, low energy
rate (mg density, high bulk density, and hygroscopic nature (Tsai
­g−1) et al. 2012). The better way is to pyrolyze the biomass at
elevated temperatures to obtain energy-rich and value-added
Rice straw Al3+ 0.450 Linbo and Chen
(2013) products. Many researchers produced biochar from different
Sugar beet tailing Cr3+ 123 Dong et al. (2011) agriculture residues for fuel applications. The heating value
Sludge Pb2+ 30.88 Lu et al. (2011) of biochars produced at a different temperature such as 250,
Hickory wood Cu2+ 15.5 Ding et al. (2016) 350, and 450 °C was 23, 23.64, and 23.08 MJ/kg, respec-
Pb2+ 17.8 tively. For any given feedstock, the heating value of biochar
Zn2+ 1.5 (16–35 MJ/kg) is comparable to, or almost two times greater
Ni2+ 0.8 than, that of its raw biomass and many low-grade coals
Poplar catkins U6+ 71.85 Liu et al. (2017a, b) (Mullen et al. 2010; Sohi et al. 2009; Sukiran 2011). Gao
Co2+ 110.17 et al. (2011) produced six types of biochars from mallee bark
Rice straw Cd2+ 6.34 Wu et al. (2018) using slow and fast pyrolysis process at 400–550 °C, respec-
tively. Under that pyrolysis condition, biochar yields were
in the range of 26.7–37.0%. The raw biomass and produced
the year 2009 and 2010, respectively. Biochar contains a biochar were combusted in the lab-scale drop-tube furnace
high amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, calcium, and potas- at 1300 °C to examine the emission rate and characteristics
sium, which provide nutrients to microorganisms for plant of particulate matter ­(PM1) and PM with an aerodynamic
development. The application of biochar in soil amendment diameter less than 10 µm (­ PM10). The raw biomass combus-
increases pore fraction in soil. Higher pore fraction in the tion has a bilateral size distribution and biochar combustion
soil improves air quality, moisture, and residence time of shows unilateral placement. In contrast to biomass combus-
nutrients that enhance the microbial activities and increases tion, the biochar combustion leads to a significant reduction
the plant growth rate. Each pore provides enough space for in the emission of ­PM1 because of removal of volatile and Cl
the growth of microorganisms. Due to this high pore volume from the raw biomass during the pyrolysis process (for the
in biochar, the soil with biochar holds water for a longer time production of biochar). The burning of the volatile present
and reduces the irrigation need of the soil. The positive and in the material during the combustion is responsible for the
negative effect of biochar on soil microbial community may emission of the ­PM1.
depend on biochar and soil structure. Sometimes, organic Zhu et al. (2015) experimentally investigated the ignition
pyrolytic products such as phenolics and polyphenolics are and combustion behavior of single-droplet biochar slurry
present on biochar surface which are harmful to microor- produced from the coconut shell. The mud of the fuel pre-
ganisms. Warnock et al. (2007) studied the effect of biochar pared had water content, in the range of 50–70%, and bio-
on soil microorganisms and the result indicates that total char particle diameter approximately at 10 µm. They report
microbial biomass decreased after the addition of biochar. that the burning rate of the residual biochar was better when
Fischer et al. (2019) developed a model to access the the droplet size was smaller. At present, coal is used in the
impact of biochar on water fluxes. They observed that bio- steel industry, and it produces ­CO2 emission and increases
char addition in the soil increases water retention capacity of the carbon footprint of the steel industry. Instead of coal, the
the soil; also, biochar upsurges evapotranspiration rates and charcoal (biochar) produced from the biomass with pulver-
therefore improves plant’s water accessibility. ized particle size injected in the blast furnace tuyeres is an
attractive alternative in terms of environmental and metal-
7.5 Biochar as fuel alternatives lurgical point of view. The impacts of biochar substitution
in blast furnace show the potential for an 18–40% mitigation
The recycling of renewable bio-resources for energy genera- of ­CO2 (Feliciano-Bruzual 2014).
tion by retrofitting it into the existing fossil-based energy Globally, about three billion people depend on traditional
systems has gained significant impetus (Nizami et al. 2017). stoves such as three stone and open fires to fulfill the cook-
Biochar produced from pyrolysis process has high calorific ing requirement. These types of cookstove produce harmful
value, is rich in carbon content, and therefore can be used emissions and are the cause of 4 million deaths annually
for electricity generation and other heat applications (Balat (Dalberg Global Development Advisors 2013). Biochar-
2007). fired cookstove used for heat and cooking applications can
Biomass such as plant residues or agroforest residues has reduce carbon and other harmful gas emissions in cook-
high energy value due to the presence of high lignocellu- stoves (Birzer et al. 2014).
lose compounds such as lignin, cellulose, and hemicellulose.

13
 Biochar
7.6 Biochar in the biogas upgradation process
The biochemical or thermochemical conversion is a prom-
ising way to enhance the energy density of solid biomass
waste through liquid or gaseous yields (Luz et al. 2017).
Biochar produced through slow pyrolysis has the potential to
be used as a clean solid fuel, as a co-fuel in coal-fired power
plant, as a carbon mitigation tool to reduce greenhouse gas
emission, and as a soil conditioner.
Biochar addition in the soil can reduce nitrogen and car-
bon loss (Yoshizawa et al. 2006). One interesting applica-
tion of biochar is as an additive in the anaerobic digestion
process for biogas production. Typically, biogas contains
­CH4 (50–70%), ­CO2 (30–45%) and other gas including
­H2S (0.1–2.0%) and N ­ 2 (< 1%); biogas is used as a fuel;
however, hydrogen sulfide ­(H2S) present in the biogas is a
significant problem (Rasi et al. 2007). Removal of ­H2S is
essential to enhance biogas quality and suitability. Numer-
ous methods exist for desulphurization such as adsorption,
absorption, biological process, and catalytic oxidations.
Activated carbon has been utilized as an adsorbent for H ­ 2S
removal. However, the literature suggests that biochar-based
­H2S adsorbent is eco-friendly and cheap compared to com-
mercially available activated carbon. Sahota et al. (2018)
produced biochar from leafy waste at 200, 300, and 400 °C
through carbonization. The biochar used for ­H2S removal
from biogas was produced via anaerobic digestion process.
They report that biochar prepared at 400 °C showed the
highest ­H2S removal, and the H ­ 2S percentage was reduced
from 1254 to 201 ppm. It was also observed that the specific
surface area ­(m2/g) and pore volume played a critical role
in ­H2S removal. Biochar with higher surface area and pore
volume shows higher ­H2S adsorption ability.
Shang et al. (2016) described ­H2S removal from biogas
using a column-packed system with different biochar derived
from rice hull, camphor, and bamboo. The rice hull showed
the highest adsorption capacity (382 mg H ­ 2S/g) in com-
parison of camphor biochar (109 mg H ­ 2S/g) and bamboo
biochar (336 mg H ­ 2S/g). Luz et al. (2018) produced biochar
from Ampelodesmos mauritanicus through intermediate
pyrolysis process at 450, 500, and 550 °C, and checked its
efficacy for methane potential in anaerobic digestion. It was
observed that biochar produced from intermediate pyrolysis
enhances bioavailability and microbial activity. The methane
peak value was obtained 62%, 67%, and 70% at biochar pro-
duction temperature of 450 °C, 500 °C, and 550 °C, respec-
tively. Moreover, biomass to biogas energy conversion study
implied a decrease in efficiency with the biochar production
temperature growth.
At present, the current research focus is to improve the
overall system efficiency in terms of economic and ecologi-
cal point of view which means integrating thermochemical
conversion with the anaerobic digestion process. Inthapanya
13
et al. (2012) added 1% and 3% pyrolytic rice husk biochar in
the anaerobic digestion process. It was observed that the gas
production rate was increased 31% by the addition of just 1%
of biochar; however, when the percentage was increased to
3% it showed no improvement. Sunyoto et al. (2016) studied
the influence of biochar adding on gas production rate in
two-phase anaerobic digestion of food waste. They report
that biochar addition increased the hydrogen percentage
from 32.5 to 41.6% and methane by 10.0%.
7.7 Biochar as an additive in compositing
The rapid growth of the human population and lifestyle shift
has resulted in a massive generation of solid waste. In addi-
tion, the animal farm industry is also growing, which has its
own specific challenges. One of the most compelling chal-
lenges is the management of municipal solid waste (MSW)
and animal waste. In China, biochar has been proposed as
an additive in compost regulation; that is to accelerate the
composting process by improving water storage capacity,
improving aeration, and reducing gas emission (Jindo et al.
2012; Liu et al. 2019a, b). Yoshizawa et al. (2006) studied
the effects of bamboo-based and corncob-based biochar on
soil microorganisms; it was observed that the biochar addi-
tion favored the organisms by serving as a source of nutri-
ents and shielding them from dehydration (Jindo et al. 2012).
Similarly, in the composting process, biochar stimulated the
microbial activity by enabling the aeration of compost mix,
this is because the microspore present in the structure of
biochar improves the micro-aeration (Sanchez-Monedero
et al. 2018).
Many researchers examined the biochar addition rate
from 3 to 50% and it was concluded that the excess addition
of biochar (> 10%) caused critical effects such as water loss
and heat dissipation which can negate the effect in compost-
ing process (Liu et al. 2017a, b). It is recommended to add
5% to a maximum of 10% of biochar in composting studies
(Table 12).
The inhibition of ammonia emission from compost piles
has many benefits such as the reduction of GHG emission
and nitrogen saving. Materials such as zeolite, alum, and
peats are used for the decline in ammonia emissions. Bio-
char is a modern and effective solution to minimize nitrogen
losses (Awasthi et al. 2018). Literature reports that biochar
adsorbs compounds like ­NH3 and ­NH4+ on its surface, which
reduces ­NH3 losses. Janczak et al. (2017) observed that the
biochar addition of 5% and 10% reduces ammonia emis-
sion by 30% and 40%, respectively. An anaerobic process
offers a conducive environment for C ­ H4 generation, but
biochar addition minimizes the development of anaerobic
pockets within compost pile and hence, less C ­ H4 produc-
tion. Chowdhury et al. (2014) examined the effect of soft
and hardwood biochar on GHG emission from composting
 Table 12  Effect of biochar used in livestock and poultry waste composting
Biochar
Green waste and poultry litter
(550 °C, 5–10 °C/min)
Bamboo charcoal (600 °C)
Hardwood (80%) and softwood (20%)  ~ 28% dry basis
(500–700 °C)
Woodchips
Bamboo biochar
Holm oak wood (650 °C)
Commercial wood (500–600 °C)
Date, leaves (50%), ornamental
plant waste (20%), grass clippings
(20%) and coconut leaves (20%)
(350–450 °C)
13
Biochar
Addition rate Scale Compost material Impact on the composting process References
10% w/w (dry basis) Field Co-feeding of poultry litter and Decreased total loss of N (51%) and Agyarko-Mintah et al. (2017)
sugarcane straw (1:5), (C:N ­NH3 (60%)
ratio—10:1) Enriched fertilizer value of com-
posted litter
3%, 6% and 9% Field Pig manure, sawdust, matured Total N loss was decreased (70%) at Liu et al. (2015a, b)
pig manure compost (6.6:1.3:1) 3% biochar addition
(C:N—17:1) Shortened the time to enter the ther-
mophilic stage
Mobility of Cu and Zn was reduced
by 35% and 39% at 9% biochar
addition
Lab scale Hen manure + Barley straw Total GHG emissions were reduced Chowdhury et al. (2014)
(3.5:1:1.7) (C/N—5.1:55) by 27–32% by adding biochar at a
high and low flow rate
Low flow rate reduced ­NH3 losses
without a change in N ­ 2O emission
5% and 10% wet basis Lab scale Poultry manure + wheat straw Max. temperature (72.1 °C) was Czekała et al. (2016)
(1:0.12) (C/N—10.5:90.2) achieved on 2 days at 10% biochar
addition with compost material
Increased C-CO2 emission by
6.9–7.4%
2%, 6%, 8% and 10% dry basis Pilot level Chicken manure + wheat straw (6.8:1) The rising rate of biochar increased Duan et al. (2019)
(C/N—25:1) relative abundance but decreased
the fungal activity
The correlations of temperature, pH,
and C/N ratio with the fungal com-
munity were observed
4% Field Sheep manure (54%) + olive mill Biochar addition increased the López-Cano et al. (2016)
waste (46%) (C/N—17:1) concentration of ­NO3− (137.7–
323.7 mg kg−1) and reduced N loss
by 3.2 kg
It did not affect the GHG emission
6%, 12% and 18% Lab scale Sludge (80%) + paddy straw (20%) Biochar addition increases oxygen Zhang et al. (2014)
(C/N—9.8:1.5) uptake rate
Humidification and atomization
degree have been improved at
12–18% biochar addition
10% and 15% Lab scale Food waste + cow manure (1:0.1) Biochar addition causes rapid tem- Waqas et al. (2018)
perature rise, high organic matter
decomposition, and ash content
accumulation
High nitrogen concentration was
observed at 15% biochar addition
 Biochar

of hen manure and cattle slurry and observed that biochar

addition reduced total GHG emission ­(CO2e) by 32–27%.
He et al. (2019) studied the effect of granular and powder
biochar and observed that granular biochar is more effective
than powder biochar in terms of ­CH4 emission reduction.
Tu et al. (2019)
References

7.8 Biochar in the building sector

The proliferate industrialization and urbanization in recent

times has led to an increase in the demand for concrete for
prolonged the duration of the ther-
Temperature increased rapidly and

Biochar improves nitrogen conser-

Impact on the composting process

vation by reduction of ammonia

construction purposes. The construction sector has been

identified as one of the significant proponents of C­ O2 emis-
sion, with an estimated 7% contribution of the GHG released
to the atmosphere (Gupta et al. 2018; Ali et al. 2011; Ben-
helal et al. 2013). This has driven the researchers worldwide
mophilic phase

to experiment for possible substitution of cement by other

volatilization

materials (Akhtar and Sarmah 2018).

The properties possessed by biochar such as low thermal
conductivity, low flammability, and high chemical stability
makes it a suitable material for construction (Gupta and Kua
2017). The property of low thermal conductivity which is
Pig manure + sawdust + microbial

directly affected by the presence of a wide range of pores

present on the biochar is mostly dependent on the operating
temperature and type of biomass used (Brewer et al. 2014).
The property of low flammability of the biochar is
inoculant + biochar

achieved due to the reduction in the biochar surface area

Compost material

by slow pyrolysis which effectively reduces the carbon free

radicals, and thus resulting in low char flammability (Zhao
et al. 2014).
The high chemical stability of the biochar is achieved
when the pyrolysis is carried out at a high temperature. Dur-
ing this process, the active oxygen functional groups are
Scale
Field

completely extracted from the biochar chemical structure

which leads to the reduction of active energy sites making
the biochar less likely to produce harmful reactions when it
is added to concrete mixtures (Cross and Sohi 2013).
The biochar has the property to isolate carbon from its
structure. It can lock the stable carbon in its structure for
decades in the concrete structures which can act as a system
Addition rate

for storage of C­ O2. However, at present very little research

on the viability of applying biochar in cement mortar for
0.5%

construction purposes is available (Belletti et al. 2019).

Table 13 shows some of the vital research outcomes from
experiments on biochar application as a material for con-
struction in the building sector.

7.9 Application of biochar in lithium‑

Bamboo (450–500 °C)

and sodium‑ion batteries
Table 12  (continued)

Lithium/sodium-ion batteries are one of the most com-

mercially successful power-storing devices, with very high
Biochar

energy efficiency and higher storage for energy. The appli-

cations of Li-ion batteries range from electric vehicles to

13
 Table 13  Performance characteristics of biochar in the building sector
Biomass Pyrolysis condition
Shell of Hazelnut At pyrolysis temp 800 °C
Heating rate 6 °C/min
Hazelnut and peanut shell At pyrolysis temp 800 °C
Pressure 0.2 bar
Not specified Not available
Hardwood Slow pyrolysis between
300–800 °C
Wood waste from deciduous Initially pyrolyzed at
trees 200–500 °C
Gasification temp 1000 °C
13
Biochar
Proportion Application Performance References
Added in 1% by cement weight Additive in reinforce cement For 0.8% addition of pyrolyzed Restuccia and Ferro (2016)
composition hazelnut shells, there is a sig-
nificant increase of about 130%
in fracture energy as compared
to the plane cement
For 0.8% addition of pyrolyzed
hazelnut shells, improvement in
the flexural strength by 30% is
observed at 7th and 28th day
The cement composition mixed
with char particles showed
higher ductility than the refer-
ence
Added in 0.025, 0.05, 0.08, Additive in reinforce cement At 1% biochar by cement weight, Khushnood et al. (2016)
0.2, 0.5, and 1% by cement composition increase in toughness and
weight strength was observed due to
carbonized materials resisting
crack
Biochar mixed with clay and -Daub the inner walls of build- Improved indoor air quality Schmidt (2013)
sand mixture at 30–50% by ings Humidity control 45–70%
weight -Cement and biochar bricks Due to its low thermal con-
ductivity and porous biochar
structure, it is an excellent
insulating material
The mixture of cement and Additive in reinforce cement Biochar-mixed mortar showed Choi et al. (2012)
sand with biochar composition better water retention capacity
The addition of biochar up to
a level of 5% replacement
resulted in improved hydration
even under dry conditions,
and no significant reduction
in compressive strength was
observed
Biochar mixed in 1% by weight Biochar-added mortar as a Reported increased ductility Belletti et al. (2019)
of cement building material and toughness when biochar is
added in low dose
The presence of porous and
fine particles results in
product hydration leading to
an increase in compressive
strength with curing age
 Biochar

portable devices (Bachman et al. 2016; Cheng et al. 2017).

Akhtar and Sarmah (2018)

Ion diffusion takes place in charging and discharging cycles;
hence, bigger surface area is not considered suitable for
Li-ion batteries for safety purposes (Rui et al. 2014). The
Gupta et al. (2018)

moderate surface area of biochar material is desirable for

lithium-ion batteries for the large gap of electrolyte, and
References

hence, it can be beneficial for electrochemical reactions in

Li-ion battery to increase the diffusion on Li-ion (Wang
et al. 2016).

compressive strength, i.e., 10%.

while samples from MFBC and
40 MPa after 7 days which was
16% stronger than plain mortar

Biochar-based materials are a suitable source for amor-

1% mixture WWBC mortar pro-
duced compressive strength of

RWBC showed lower strength

decreased with the increase in

resulted in highest increase of

observed in poultry litter and

Rice husk biochar composite

and 20% increase in flexural

The paper mill sludge biochar

rice husk biochar composite

phous carbons, which are widely applied for making of

in tensile strength at 0.1%

The fresh density of mortar

had a slight improvement

strength of concrete was

anodes in silicon ion batteries (Yao and Wu 2015). Materi-
als based on biochar are cost-effective and sustainable; in
addition, they have higher specific capacity than conven-
biochar dosage

development

tional graphite material. Zhou et al. (2016) have demon-

Performance

strated that highly graphitic carbon nanosheets (HGCNS)

can be synthesized by hydrothermal and graphitization
processes of wheat stalk biomass. The HGCNS syntheti-
zation results in an interconnected two-dimensional (2D)
Biochar mixed in concrete for

nanostructure of thickness in the range of 1.0–2.0 nm and

Biochar-added mortar as a

can accommodate about 2–6 single layers of graphene; this

type of nanostructures has the capability to provide Li-ion
building material

storage in multiple sites. In addition, the 2D nanostructure

construction

promotes rapid transport to the Li + ions and the electrons

Application

(Liu et al. 2019a, b). The applications of biochar-derived

from various biomass resources, used for sodium-ion bat-
teries and lithium-ion batteries, have been tabulated in
Table 14.
and 5% by cement weight in

binder (cement and biochar)

mortar and RWBC mixed at
WWBC were mixed at 1, 2,

cured for 7, 14, and 28 days

in 0.1–1% and the water-to-

ratio was 0.32 and samples

Poultry litter (PL), paper mill PL biomass at slow pyrolysis The biochar was mixed with
the total concrete volume
Biochars from MFBC and

7.10 Other modern applications

Researchers are looking for novel devices for electrical

energy storage and they are also upgrading the existing
2 and 5%
Proportion

options such as batteries and supercapacitors. The biochar

produced from biomass has demonstrated itself as a sorb-
ent for heavy metal removal from air and water. After this
process, the disposal of biochar loaded with heavy metal
high-temp gasifier and RH

is a challenging task. It was observed that the physical and

Pyrolysis was conducted at

biochar at slow pyrolysis

250–500 °C in a muffle

temp 450 °C PP sludge

electrochemical properties of biochar depend on the pro-

furnace at 10 °C/min

biochar at 500 °C by

duction process, source, and activation method. Voluminous

Pyrolysis condition

experiments have been carried out to study the performance

of microbial fuel cells with electrode prepared from car-
bonaceous materials such as activated carbon and carbon
500 °C

nanomaterials (Logan et al. 2007; Frackowiak and Béguin

2001). Kouchachvili and Entchev (2017) produced biochar
from sewage sludge and dairy manure; exposed it to adsorb
sludge (PP), and rice husk
waste (MFBC), rice waste
(RWBC), and wood waste

Ni from aqua solution; and later subjected it (Ni-loaded bio-

Biochar from mixed food

char) to microwave treatment to produce a supercapacitor

Table 13  (continued)

out of it. It was observed that the properties of the super-

capacitor increased with Ni loading. As compared to the
(WWBC)

original biochar capacitor, Ni-loaded biochar capacitors have

Biomass

significantly higher capacitance. Lia et al. produced biochar

(RH)

from ash tree residue at 700 °C through carbonization; later,

13
Biochar

the biochar was chemically activated in the A ­ g2SO4/HNO3
solution. The Ag–biochar showed advance performance and
stability as compared to the same biochar activated through
­HNO3.
Biochar activation plays a significant role in achieving
high capacitance. In the conventional process, the biochar is
mixed with a strong base and is heated at a very high temper-
ature (> 900 °C) (Jin et al. 2013). However, this process con-
sumes more time and energy. Gupta et al. (2015) developed
a low-temperature plasma activation method, which they
tested on pine biochar, which is energy efficient. The high
capacitance was achieved by low-temperature plasma activa-
tion (171.4 F/g) in comparison of chemical activated (99.5
F/g) and untreated biochar (60.4 F/g). Thins et al. (2017)
produced magnetic biochar in the presence of three differ-
ent metallic salts. The magnetic biochar was implanted with
polypyrrole (PPY) through the polymerization process with
enhanced specific capacitance (572 F/g) related to PPY and
magnetic char. This material can be used in the future for
the application of low-cost supercapacitors commercially.
Hydrogen is a clean and sustainable energy source which
has the potential to replace the existing fossil fuel-based
technology in the various sectors. The energy efficiency
of hydrogen (60%) is higher than gasoline (22%) or diesel
(45%) and will improve for future energy use (Borgschulte
2008). The bottleneck in the hydrogen as fuel sector is the
safe and economical storage; so far, finding the cost-effective
method for hydrogen storage remains a challenge. There
are many methods for hydrogen storage such as molecular

Table 14  Performance characteristics form application of various biochar in lithium- and sodium-ion batteries
Biomass Pyrolysis parameters SiBs/LiBs Results References
Temperature (°C) Duration (h) Rate capacities Cycle capacities

Coconut shell 600 2 LiBs 1230, 951, 682, 491 and 517 mA h/g was retained Cheng et al. (2017)
343 mAh/g at 1, 2, 5, at 2.0 C even after 400
10, 20 A/g; cycles
Lotus stems 1200–1600 5 SiBs 350 mAh/g at 100 mA/g 94% after 450 cycles at Zhang et al. (2018)
100 mA/g
Apple and celery 500 3 LiBs Apple biochar: 1600, Apple biochar: Niu et al. (2017)
1470, 1260, 1070 1050 mA h/g
and 1000 mA h/g at Celery biochar:
0.074, 0.185, 0.37, 990 mA h/g at
0.74 and 1.11 A/g, 100 mA/g after 200
celery biochar: 1620, cycles
1288, 1024, 930 and
850 mA h/g at 0.074,
0.185, 0.37, 0.74 and
1.11 A/g
Cattle bone 600–1200 2 LiBs 1230, 951, 682, 491 and 1488 mA h/g after 250 Hao et al. (2018)
343 mA h/g at 1, 2, 5, cycles at 1 A/ g, and
10, 20 A/g 661 mA h/g after 1500
cycles at 10 A/g
Apricot shells 900–1500 2 SiBs 400 mA h/g with 338 mA h/g after 300 Zhu et al. (2018a, b)
Coulombic efficiency cycles
of 79%
Corn stalks 300 3 LiBs 1862.1 mA h/g at 0.2 C 783.8 mA h/g after 100 Li et al. (2018)
of discharge cycles
Medium-density 500 0.5 LiBs 307 mA h/g at 0.1 C;  > 90% obtained after Gomez-Martin et al.
fiberboard 200 cycles (2018)
wood
Dandelion 800–1400 5 SiBs 361 mAh/g at 50 mA/g 354.3 mA h/g at Zhu et al. (2018a, b)
50 mA/g after 10
Cycles
Pinecone 500 2 SiBs 370 mA h/g at 30 mA/g 334 mA h/g after 450 Zhang et al. (2017a, b, c)
cycles at 100 mA/g
Rapeseed pollen 500 15 LiBs 756.5 mA h/g at 513.0 mA h/g, ~ 95.16% Chen et al. (2017)
100 mA/g of the initial revers-
ible capacity, after 400
cycles at 300 mA/g

LiBs lithium-ion batteries, SiBs sodium-ion batteries

13
 Biochar
adsorption, diffusion, chemical bonding, Van der Wall
attraction, and dissociation (Niaz et al. 2015). Among all
these methods, adsorption on carbon-based material is more
suitable because of its chemical stability, reversibility, and
cost-effectiveness (Choi and Park 2015). The activated car-
bon is a promising route for hydrogen storage. The interac-
tion between hydrogen and activated carbon is being studied
by many researchers (Carptis 1980; Dillon and Heben 2001).
Ramesh et al. (2015) produced biochar from tamarind
seeds by conventional and microwave pyrolysis. The pro-
duced biochar was then activated by chemical activation
(KOH) and later tested for hydrogen storage. They analyzed
various parameters such as KOH concentration, pyrolysis
condition, and hydrogen adsorption condition to enhance
high hydrogen storage capacity. They report that microwave
pyrolysis produced biochar with higher micro-pore volume,
whereas conventional pyrolysis produced biochar with
higher amounts of mesopores. They concluded that hydro-
gen storage capacity highly depends on surface area and pore
volume. Samantaray et al. (2019) produced biochar from
Palmera sprout through pyrolysis in the tubular furnace at
350 °C with a heating rate of 5 °C/min. The chemical activa-
tion of biochar was done in the KOH solution. They report
a maximum of ~ 1.06 wt% of hydrogen uptake at 15 bar
equilibrium hydrogen pressure at room temperature using
activated biochar.
Biochar shows excellent adsorption capacity for removal
of heavy metal from aqua solution but it is a challenge to
separate fine biochar from a liquid medium, for example,
when biochar was used in water purification (Chen et al.
2011). Thus, it requires the filtration or centrifugation pro-
cess to separate the biochar particle from the aqua solution
which is not economical. To minimize cost, magnetic bio-
char can be used to adsorb the heavy metal from the aqua
solution. Magnetic biochar can be prepared by the inclu-
sion of iron particles in the biochar matrix (Zhang et al.
2012a, b). The magnetic biochar particle can be separated
from the aqua solution by an external magnetic field. Spinel
ferrite ­AFe2SO4 (A = Zn, Co, Mn, Ni, Na, etc.) combined
with biochar are likely to improve the structural stability
and magnetic properties. Many researchers investigate the
effect of magnetic biochar (­ FeSO4 with N­ aBH4) on adsorp-
tion of Cu(II) ions from wastewater. It was observed that
sorption capacity was increased from 9.45 to 31.08 mg/g
for the concentration of 50–200 mg/dm3. They report quick
equilibrium and higher sorption at concentration of 50 mg/
dm−3 (Kołodyńska and Bąk 2018). Yang et al. (2017) studied
the effect of magnetic biochar on the removal of Cr(VI) from
aqua solution. The magnetic biochar was prepared by direct
mixing of iron salt (Fe(NO3)3·9H2O) into pinewood saw-
dust and pyrolyzed at 700 °C. The comparison of magnetic
biochar and biochar was investigated. It was observed that
13
the adsorption capacity of magnetic biochar was 1.7 times
higher than those of non-magnetic biochar.
8 Conclusion and future perspective
This paper reviewed the numerous pyrolysis processes and
reactor designs that are presently practiced or are recently
developed for biochar production. The paper also discusses
the conventional, modern, and upcoming applications of
biochar such as water and air purification, catalyst, soil
amendment, fuel alternative, anaerobic digestion, additives,
and modern solicitation such as supercapacitor, fuel cell,
hydrogen storage, etc. The study found that the suitability of
biochar for any particular application is highly dependent on
its physical and surface properties such as specific surface
area, pore volume, surface functional groups, etc. Therefore,
biochar is subjected to different types of physical and chemi-
cal activation methods to improve its surface properties.
The study found that biochar adsorption technology is
more economical and efficient than many of the conventional
methods to remove the contaminants from aqueous solu-
tions. Hence, wastewater treatment through biochar can be
scaleable. As a novel material, activated biochar is increas-
ingly used in the cosmetic industry. In many nations, char-
coal is widely used to clean teeth. Thus, activated biochar
has an excellent market in cosmetic and dental industries.
Some of the other emerging fields of biochar application
are as a carrier for active pharmaceutical integrant, thermal
insulation for functional clothing, deodorants for shoe soles,
the bad-odor adsorbent in the food industry, shields against
electromagnetic radiation, humidity regulation in build-
ing sectors, etc. Globally, there are many success stories
around biochar technology; however, large-scale diffusion
of the technology and its application are yet to be realized.
The impact of biochar in various applications are well estab-
lished, and the need of the hour is to establish a continuous
supply chain to commercialize the application of biochar
in these areas. In addition, to strengthen the candidacy of
biochar as a sustainable commodity, life cycle assessment
and costing will give a major boost to the sector.
Acknowledgements  Authors would like to thank the Center for Rural
Development and Technology (CRDT) at the Indian Institute of Tech-
nology (IIT) Delhi for the support to carry out the work. The authors
would like to express their sincere appreciation to Mr. Ujjiban Kakati
and Ms. Imli Songla Aier for helping during the study.
References
Agyarko-Mintah E, Cowie A, Van Zwieten L, Singh BP, Smil-
lie R, Harden S, Fornasier F (2017) Biochar lowers ammo-
nia emission and improves nitrogen retention in poultry
Biochar
litter composting. Waste Manage 61:129–137. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2016.12.009
Ahmad M, Rajapaksha A, Lim U, Jung E, Zhang M, Bolan N, Mohan
D, Ok YS (2014a) Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant man-
agement in soil and water: a review. Chemosphere 99:19–33.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemo​spher​e.2013.10.071
Ahmad M, Rajapaksha AU, Lim JE, Zhang M, Bolan N, Mohan D,
Ok YS (2014b) Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant manage-
ment in soil and water: a review. Chemosphere 99:19–33. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemo​spher​e.2013.10.071
Ahmad M, Soo S, Dou X, Mohan D, Sung J, Yang JE, Sik Y (2012)
Effects of pyrolysis temperature on soybean stover- and peanut
shell-derived biochar properties and TCE adsorption in water.
Biores Technol 118:536–544. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2012.05.042
Ahmad Z, Gao B, Mosa A, Yu H, Yin X, Bashir A, Wang S (2018)
Removal of Cu (II), Cd (II) and Pb (II) ions from aqueous
solutions by biochars derived from potassium-rich biomass.
J Clean Prod 180:437–449. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​
ro.2018.01.133
Akhtar A, Sarmah AK (2018) Novel biochar-concrete composites:
manufacturing, characterization and evaluation of the mechani-
cal properties. Sci Total Environ 616–617:408–416. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2017.10.319
Akhtar J, Saidina N, Wood P (2012) A review on operating param-
eters for optimum liquid oil yield in biomass pyrolysis. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 16(7):5101–5109. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2012.05.033
Al Arni S (2018) Comparison of slow and fast pyrolysis for convert-
ing biomass into fuel. Renew Energy 124:197–201. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2017.04.060
Ali MB, Saidur R, Hossain MS (2011) A review on emission analysis
in cement industries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(5):2252–
2261. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.02.014
Amonette JE, Jospeh S (2009) Characteristics of biochar: micro-
chemical properties. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for
environmental management science and technology. Routledge,
London
Angin D (2013) Effect of pyrolysis temperature and heating rate on
biochar obtained from pyrolysis of safflower seed press cake.
Biores Technol 128:593–597. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2012.10.150
Angin D, Altintig E, Köse TE (2013) Influence of process parame-
ters on the surface and chemical properties of activated carbon
obtained from biochar by chemical activation. Biores Technol
148:542–549. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2013.08.164
Asadullah M, Ito S, Kunimori K, Yamada M, Tomishige K (2002)
Biomass gasification to hydrogen and syngas at low tempera-
ture: novel catalytic system using fluidized-bed reactor. J Catal
259(2002):255–259. https​://doi.org/10.1006/jcat.2002.3575
Ateş F, Pütün E, Pütün AE (2004) Fast pyrolysis of sesame stalk: yields
and structural analysis of bio-oil. J Anal Appl Pyrol 71(2):779–
790. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2003.11.001
Awasthi MK, Wang Q, Chen H, Wang M, Awasthi SK, Ren X, Zhang Z
(2018) In-vessel co-composting of biosolid: focusing on mitiga-
tion of greenhouse gases emissions and nutrients conservation.
Renew Energy 129:814–823. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​
e.2017.02.068
Aworn A, Thiravetyan P, Nakbanpote W (2008) Preparation and
characteristics of agricultural waste activated carbon by physi-
cal activation having micro- and mesopores. J Anal Appl Pyrol
82(2):279–285. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2008.04.007
Azargohar R, Dalai AK (2008) Steam and KOH activation of biochar:
experimental and modeling studies. Microporous Mesoporous
Mater 110(2–3):413–421. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.micro​
meso.2007.06.047
Azargohar R, Jacobson KL, Powell EE, Dalai AK (2013) Evaluation
of properties of fast pyrolysis products obtained, from Canadian
waste biomass. J Anal Appl Pyrol. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaap.2013.06.016
Babu BV (2008) Biomass pyrolysis: a state-of-the-art review. Biofuels
Bioprod Biorefin 2(5):393–414. https​://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.92
Bachman JC, Muy S, Grimaud A, Chang HH, Pour N, Lux SF, Shao-
Horn Y (2016) Inorganic solid-state electrolytes for lithium bat-
teries: mechanisms and properties governing ion conduction.
Chem Rev 116(1):140–162. https​://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemr​
ev.5b005​63
Balat M (2007) Influence of Coal as an energy source on environmen-
tal pollution. Energy Sour Part A Recov Util Environ Effects
29(7):581–589. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15567​03070​12252​60
Belletti B, Bernardi P, Malcevschi A, Sirico A (2019) Experimenal
research on mechanical properties of biochar-added cementitious
mortars.In: Innovations in Materials, Design and Structures: Pro-
ceedings of the Fib Synopsium 2019 Held in Krakow
Benhelal E, Zahedi G, Shamsaei E, Bahadori A (2013) Global strat-
egies and potentials to curb C ­ O2 emissions in cement indus-
try. J Clean Prod 51:142–161. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​
ro.2012.10.049
Beringer T, Lucht W, Schaphoff S (2011) Bioenergy production poten-
tial of global biomass plantations under environmental and agri-
cultural constraints. GCB Bioenergy 3(4):299–312. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01088​.x
Bhandari PN, Kumar A, Bellmer DD, Huhnke RL (2014) Synthesis
and evaluation of biochar-derived catalysts for removal of toluene
(model tar) from biomass-generated producer gas. Renew Energy
66:346–353. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​e.2013.12.017
Biddy M, Dutta A, Biddy M, Dutta A (2013) Ex-situ catalytic fast
pyrolysis technology pathway ex-situ catalytic fast pyrolysis
technology pathway. NREL/TP-51 NREL
Birzer C, Medwell P, MacFarlane G, Read M, Wilkey J, Higgins M,
West T (2014) A biochar-producing, dung-burning Cookstove
for humanitarian purposes. Proc Eng 78:243–249. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.proen​g.2014.07.063
Borgschulte LS, Zuttel A, Schlapbach L (2008) Hydrogen as a future
energy carrier. J Appl Electrochem 38(10):1483–1483. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s1080​0-008-9585-4
Brewer CE, Chuang VJ, Masiello CA, Gonnermann H, Gao X, Dugan
B, Davies CA (2014) New approaches to measuring biochar
density and porosity. Biomass Bioenerg 66:176–185. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biomb​ioe.2014.03.059
Bridgwater AV (2003) Renewable fuels and chemicals by thermal pro-
cessing of biomass. Chem Eng J 91(2–3):87–102. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/S1385​-8947(02)00142​-0
Bridgwater AV (2012) Review of fast pyrolysis of biomass and product
upgrading. Biomass Bioenergy 38:68–94
Bridgwater AV, Meier D, Radlein D (1999) An overview of fast pyrol-
ysis of biomass. Org Geochem 30(12):1479–1493. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/S0146​-6380(99)00120​-5
Budarin V, Gronnow M, Crombie K, Brownsort P, Fitzpatrick E, Hurst
P (2013) Microwave and slow pyrolysis biochar: comparison of
physical and functional properties. J Anal Appl Pyrol 100:41–48.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2012.11.015
Cao X, Ma L, Gao B, Harris W (2009) Dairy-manure derived bio-
char effectively sorbs lead and atrazine. Environ Sci Technol
43(9):3285–3291. https​://doi.org/10.1021/es803​092k
Carpetis C, Peschka W (1980) A study on hydrogen storage by use of
cryoadsorbents. Int J Hydrogen Energy 5(5):539–554. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/0360-3199(80)90061​-0
Cha JS, Choi JC, Ko JH, Park YK, Park SH, Jeong KE, Jeon JK (2010)
The low-temperature SCR of NO over rice straw and sewage
sludge derived char. Chem Eng J 156(2):321–327. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cej.2009.10.027
13
 Biochar
Chan KY, Van Zwieten L, Meszaros I, Downie A, Joseph S (2008)
Using poultry litter biochars as soil amendments. Aust J Soil Res
46(5):437–444. https​://doi.org/10.1071/SR080​36
Chang S, Zhao Z, Zheng A, Li X, Wang X, Huang Z, Li H (2013)
Effect of hydrothermal pretreatment on properties of bio-oil pro-
duced from fast pyrolysis of eucalyptus wood in a fluidized bed
reactor. Biores Technol 138:321–328. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biort​ech.2013.03.170
Chen B, Chen Z (2009) Sorption of naphthalene and 1-naphthol by
biochars of orange peels with different pyrolytic temperatures.
Chemosphere 76(1):127–133. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemo​
spher​e.2009.02.004
Chen Y, Luo YH, Wu WG, Su Y (2009) Experimental investigation
on tar formation and destruction in a lab-scale two-stage reac-
tor. Energy Fuels 23(9):4659–4667. https​://doi.org/10.1021/
ef900​623n
Chen B, Chen Z, Lv S (2011) A novel magnetic biochar efficiently
sorbs organic pollutants and phosphate. Biores Technol
102(2):716–723. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2010.08.067
Chen LF, Ma SX, Lu S, Feng Y, Zhang J, Xin S, Yu SH (2017) Biotem-
plated synthesis of three-dimensional porous MnO/C-N nano-
composites from renewable rapeseed pollen: an anode mate-
rial for lithium-ion batteries. Nano Res 10(1):1–11. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1227​4-016-1283-7
Chen M, Zeng G, Zhang J, Xu P, Chen A, Lu L (2015) Global land-
scape of total organic carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus in lake
water. Sci Rep 5:1. https​://doi.org/10.1038/srep1​5043
Chen W, Meng J, Han X, Lan Y, Zhang W (2019) Past, present, and
future of biochar. Biochar 1:75–87. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s4277​
3-019-00008​-3
Cheng XB, Zhang R, Zhao CZ, Zhang Q (2017) Toward safe lith-
ium metal anode in rechargeable batteries: a review. Chem
Rev 117(15):10403–10473. https​://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemr​
ev.7b001​15
Choi WC, Yun HD, Lee JY (2012) Mechanical properties of mortar
containing bio-char from pyrolysis. J Korea Inst Struct Main-
tenance Inspect 16(3):67–74. https​://doi.org/10.11112​/jksmi​
.2012.16.3.067
Choi Y-K, Park S-J (2015) Hydrogen storage capacity of highly porous
carbons synthesized from biomass-derived aerogels. Carbon Lett
16(2):127–131. https​://doi.org/10.5714/CL.2015.16.2.127
Chowdhury MA, de Neergaard A, Jensen LS (2014) Potential of aera-
tion flow rate and bio-char addition to reduce greenhouse gas and
ammonia emissions during manure composting. Chemosphere
97:16–25. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemo​spher​e.2013.10.030
Creamer AE, Gao B, Wang S (2016) Carbon dioxide capture using
various metal oxyhydroxide: biochar composites. Chem Eng J
283:826–832. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2015.08.037
Creamer AE, Gao B, Zhang M (2014) Carbon dioxide capture
using biochar produced from sugarcane bagasse and hickory
wood. Chem Eng J 249:174–179. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2014.03.105
Crombie K, Mašek O (2014) Investigating the potential for a self-
sustaining slow pyrolysis system under varying operating con-
ditions. Biores Technol 162:148–156. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biort​ech.2014.03.134
Cross A, Sohi SP (2013) A method for screening the relative long-term
stability of biochar. GCB Bioenergy 5(2):215–220. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/gcbb.12035​
Czekała W, Malińska K, Cáceres R, Janczak D, Dach J, Lewicki A
(2016) Co-composting of poultry manure mixtures amended with
biochar: the effect of biochar on temperature and C-CO2 emis-
sion. Biores Technol 200:921–927. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2015.11.019
13
Dalberg Global Development Advisors (2013) Global alliance for clean
cookstoves protocol. Retrieved from https​://www.clean​cooki​
ngall​iance​.org/binar​y-data/RESOU​RCE/file/000/000/161-1.pdf
Dawson EA, Parkes GMB, Barnes PA, Chinn MJ (2003) An investiga-
tion of the porosity of carbons prepared by constant rate activa-
tion in air. Carbon 41(3):571–578. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/S0008​
-6223(02)00366​-4
Dehkhoda AM, Ellis N (2013) Biochar-based catalyst for simultaneous
reactions of esterification and transesterification. Catal Today
207:86–92. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.catto​d.2012.05.034
Dehkhoda AM, Ellis N, Gyenge E (2014) Electrosorption on activated
biochar: effect of thermo-chemical activation treatment on the
electric double layer capacitance. J Appl Electrochem 44(1):141–
157. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1080​0-013-0616-4
Dehkhoda AM, West AH, Ellis N (2010) Biochar based solid acid cata-
lyst for biodiesel production. Appl Catal A Gen 382(2):197–204.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcat​a.2010.04.051
Demiral İ, Şensöz S (2006) Environmental effects fixed-bed pyrolysis
of hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) Bagasse: influence of pyroly-
sis parameters on product yields fixed-bed pyrolysis of hazelnut
(Corylus avellana L.) Bagasse: influence of pyrolysis parameters.
Energy Sources 7036:1149–1158. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/00908​
31909​66126​
Dewayanto N, Isha R, Ridzuan M (2014) Use of palm oil decanter
cake as a new substrate for the production of bio-oil by vacuum
pyrolysis. Energy Convers Manage 86:226–232. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.encon​man.2014.04.078
Dhahak A, Hild G, Rouaud M, Mauviel G, Burkle-Vitzthum V (2019)
Slow pyrolysis of polyethylene terephthalate: online monitoring
of gas production and quantitative analysis of waxy products.
J Anal Appl Pyrol. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2019.10466​4
Di Blasi C (2008) Modeling chemical and physical processes of wood
and biomass pyrolysis. Prog Energy Combust Sci 34(1):47–90.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.pecs.2006.12.001
Dillon AC, Heben MJ (2001) Hydrogen storage using carbon adsor-
bents: past, present and future. Appl Phys A Mater Sci Process
72(2):133–142. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0033​90100​788
Ding Z, Hu X, Wan Y, Wang S, Gao B (2016) Removal of lead,
copper, cadmium, zinc, and nickel from aqueous solutions by
alkali-modified biochar: batch and column tests. J Ind Eng Chem
33:239–245. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2015.10.007
Dong X, Ma LQ, Li Y (2011) Characteristics and mechanisms of hexa-
valent chromium removal by biochar from sugar beet tailing. J
Hazard Mater 190(1–3):909–915. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazm​
at.2011.04.008
Duan Y, Awasthi SK, Chen H, Liu T, Zhang Z, Zhang L, Taherzadeh
MJ (2019) Evaluating the impact of bamboo biochar on the fun-
gal community succession during chicken manure composting.
Biores Technol 272:308–314. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2018.10.045
Duku MH, Gu S, Hagan EB (2011a) A comprehensive review of
biomass resources and biofuels potential in Ghana. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 15(1):404–415. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2010.09.033
Duku MH, Gu S, Hagan EB (2011b) Biochar production potential in
Ghana: a review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 15(8):3539–3551.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2011.05.010
El-rub ZA, Bramer EA, Brem G (2008) Experimental comparison
of biomass chars with other catalysts for tar reduction. Fuel
87:2243–2252. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2008.01.004
Ellis N, Dehkhoda AM (2016) A novel method to tailor the porous
structure of KOH-activated biochar and its application in
capacitive deionization and energy storage. Biomass Bioenergy
J 87:107–121. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomb​ioe.2016.02.023
Emrich W (1985) Handbook of charcoal making. In: Handbook of char-
coal making, 1st edn. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0450-2
Biochar
Fahmi R (2008) The effect of lignin and inorganic species in biomass
on pyrolysis oil yields, quality and stability. Fuel 87(2008):1230–
1240. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2007.07.026
Fan YS, Cai YX, Li XH, Yu N, Chen L (2015) Comparison of the
products in vacuum pyrolysis vapors derived from non-
catalytic and catalytic upgrading of camphorwood sawdust.
Chem Indus For Prod 35(1):70–76. https​://doi.org/10.3969/j.
issn.0253-2417.2015.01.011
Feliciano-Bruzual C (2014) Charcoal injection in blast furnaces
(Bio-PCI): ­CO2 reduction potential and economic prospects.
J Mater Res Technol 3(3):233–243. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jmrt.2014.06.001
Fischer BMC, Manzoni S, Morillas L, Garcia M, Johnson MS, Lyon
SW (2019) Improving agricultural water use ef fi ciency with
biochar: a synthesis of biochar effects on water storage and fl
uxes across scales. Sci Total Environ 657:853–862. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2018.11.312
Frackowiak E, Béguin F (2001) Carbon materials for the electro-
chemical storage of energy in capacitors. Carbon 39(6):937–
950. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0008​-6223(00)00183​-4
Fu Z, Wan H, Hu X, Cui Q (2012) Preparation and catalytic perfor-
mance of a carbon-based solid acid catalyst with high specific
surface area. Reac Kinet Mech Cat 107(2012):203–213. https​
://doi.org/10.1007/s1114​4-012-0466-9
Fukuda S (2015) Pyrolysis investigation for bio-oil production from
various biomass feedstocks in Thailand pyrolysis investiga-
tion for bio-oil production from various biomass feedstocks
in Thailand. Int J Green Energy 12(00):215–224. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/15435​075.2014.89151​9
Gallagher KS, Gallagher KS, Holdren JP, Sagar AD (2006) Energy-
technology innovation. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:193–237.
https​://doi.org/10.1146/annur​ev.energ​y.30.05050​4.14432​1
Gao X, Wu H (2011) Biochar as a fuel: 4. Emission behavior and
characteristics of PM 1 and PM 10 from the combustion
of pulverized biochar in a drop-tube furnace. Energy Fuels
25(6):2702–2710. https​://doi.org/10.1021/ef200​296u
Garcia-Perez M, Chaala A, Roy C (2002) Vacuum pyrolysis of sug-
arcane bagasse. J Anal Appl Pyrol 65:111–136. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/S0165​-2370(01)00184​-X
Gogotsi Y, Portet C, Osswald S, Simmons JM, Yildirim T, Laud-
isio G, Fischer JE (2009) Importance of pore size in high-
pressure hydrogen storage by porous carbons. Int J Hydrogen
Energy 34(15):6314–6319. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhyd​
ene.2009.05.073
Gomez-Martin A, Martinez-Fernandez J, Ruttert M, Heckmann A,
Winter M, Placke T, Ramirez-Rico J (2018) Iron-Catalyzed
graphitic carbon materials from biomass resources as anodes
for lithium-ion batteries. Chemsuschem 11(16):2776–2787.
https​://doi.org/10.1002/cssc.20180​0831
Goswami R, Shim J, Deka S, Kumari D, Kataki R (2016) Char-
acterization of cadmium removal from aqueous solution by
biochar produced from Ipomoea fistulosa at different pyrolytic
temperatures. Ecol Eng 97:444–451. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecole​ng.2016.10.007
Greenhalf CE, Nowakowski DJ, Harms AB, Titiloye JO, Bridgwater
AV (2013) A comparative study of straw, perennial grasses and
hardwoods in terms of fast pyrolysis products. Fuel 108:216–
230. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2013.01.075
Guo J, Lua AC (2000) Preparation of activated carbons from oil-
palm-stone chars by microwave-induced carbon dioxide activa-
tion. Carbon 38(14):1985–1993. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0008​
-6223(00)00046​-4
Guo S, Peng J, Li W, Yang K, Zhang L, Zhang S, Xia H (2009)
Effects of C­ O2 activation on porous structures of coconut shell-
based activated carbons. Appl Surf Sci J 255:8443–8449. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsus​c.2009.05.150
Gupta RK, Dubey M, Kharel P, Gu Z, Fan QH (2015) Biochar
activated by oxygen plasma for supercapacitors. J Power
Sources 274:1300–1305. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.jpows​
our.2014.10.169
Gupta S, Kua HW (2017) Factors determining the potential of biochar
as a carbon capturing and sequestering construction material:
critical review. J Mater Civ Eng 29(9):04017086. https​://doi.
org/10.1061/(asce)mt.1943-5533.00019​24
Gupta S, Kua HW, Koh HJ (2018) Application of biochar from food
and wood waste as green admixture for cement mortar. Sci
Total Environ 619–620:419–435. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​
tenv.2017.11.044
Hao J, Wang Y, Chi C, Wang J, Guo Q, Yang Y, Zhao J (2018)
Enhanced storage capability by biomass-derived porous carbon
for lithium-ion and sodium-ion battery anodes. Sustain Energy
Fuels 2(10):2358–2365. https​://doi.org/10.1039/c8se0​0353j​
Harry Marsh FRR (2006) Acknowledgments. In: Activated carbon, 1st
edn. P xvii. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-008044463-5/50014-5
Haykiri-Acma H (2006) The role of particle size in the non-isothermal
pyrolysis of hazelnut shell. J Anal Appl Pyrol 75:211–216. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2005.06.002
He X, Yin H, Han L, Cui R, Fang C, Huang G (2019) Effects of biochar
size and type on gaseous emissions during pig manure/wheat
straw aerobic composting: Insights into multivariate-microscale
characterization and microbial mechanism. Biores Technol
271:375–382. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2018.09.104
Henrich E, Dahmen N, Weirich F, Reimert R, Kornmayer C (2016)
Fast pyrolysis of lignocellulosics in a twin screw mixer reactor.
Fuel Process Technol 143:151–161. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fupro​c.2015.11.003
Hilber I, Bucheli TD, Oleszczuk P (2016) Effect of steam activated
biochar application to industrially contaminated soils on bio-
availability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and ecotox-
icity of soils. Sci Total Environ 567:1023–1031. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2016.05.114
Hornung A (2014) Transformation of biomass: theory to practice.
Wiley, United Kingdom
Hu Q, Shao J, Yang H, Yao D, Wang X, Chen H (2015) Effects of bind-
ers on the properties of bio-char pellets. Appl Energy 157:508–
516. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apene​rgy.2015.05.019
Huang Y, Chiueh P, Kuan W, Lo S (2016a) Microwave pyrolysis of
lignocellulosic biomass: heating performance and reaction
kinetics. Energy 100:137–144. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​
y.2016.01.088
Huang Y, Chiueh P, Shih C, Lo S, Sun L (2015) Microwave pyrolysis
of rice straw to produce biochar as an adsorbent for ­CO2 capture.
Energy 84:75–82. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2015.02.026
Huang YF, Chiueh PT, Lo SL (2016b) A review on microwave pyroly-
sis of lignocellulosic biomass. Sustain Environ Res 26(3):103–
109. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.serj.2016.04.012
IBI (2012) Standardized product definition and product testing guide-
lines for biochar that is used in soil. Washington
Ido AL, Daniel M, Luna GD, Ong DC, Capareda SC (2019) Upgrading
of Scenedesmus obliquus oil to high-quality liquid-phase biofuel
by nickel-impregnated biochar catalyst. J Clean Prod 209:1052–
1060. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2018.10.028
Imam T, Capareda S (2012) Characterization of bio-oil, syn-gas
and bio-char from switchgrass pyrolysis at various tempera-
tures. J Anal Appl Pyrol 93:170–177. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaap.2011.11.010
India Biomass Energy (2017) Retrieved from EAI : catalyzing, clean-
tech and Sustainability website: https​://www.eai.in/ref/ae/bio/
bio.html
Ingram L, Mohan D, Bricka M, Steele P, Strobel D, Crocker D, Pitt-
man CU (2008) Pyrolysis of wood and bark in an auger reactor:
13
 Biochar
physical properties and chemical analysis of the produced bio-
oils. Energy Fuels 22(1):614–625. https​://doi.org/10.1021/ef700​
335k
Inthapanya S, Preston TR, Leng RA (2012) Biochar increases biogas
production in a batch digester charged with cattle manure. Live-
stock Res Rural Dev 24(12). Retrieved from https​://www.lrrd.
org/.../sang2​4212.htm
Gaskin JW, Steiner C, Harris K, Das KC, Bibens B (2008) Effect of
low-temperature pyrolysis conditions on biochar for agricultural
use. Trans ASABE 51(6):2061–2069. https​://doi.org/10.13031​
/2013.25409​
Jahirul MI, Rasul MG, Chowdhury AA, Ashwath N (2012) Biofuels
production through biomass pyrolysis: a technological review.
Energies 5:4952–5001. https​://doi.org/10.3390/en512​4952
Janczak D, Malińska K, Czekała W, Cáceres R, Lewicki A, Dach J
(2017) Biochar to reduce ammonia emissions in gaseous and
liquid phase during composting of poultry manure with wheat
straw. Waste Manage 66:36–45. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasma​n.2017.04.033
Jin H, Wang X, Gu Z, Polin J (2013) Carbon materials from high
ash biochar for supercapacitor and improvement of capacitance
with HNO3 surface oxidation. J Power Sources 236:285–292.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpows​our.2013.02.088
Jindo K, Sánchez-Monedero MA, Hernández T, García C, Furu-
kawa T, Matsumoto K, Bastida F (2012) Biochar influences
the microbial community structure during manure composting
with agricultural wastes. Sci Total Environ 416:476–481. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2011.12.009
Jones DA, Lelyveld TP, Mavrofidis SD, Kingman SW, Miles NJ
(2002) Microwave heating applications in environmental engi-
neering: a review. Resour Conserv Recycl 34(2):75–90. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/S0921​-3449(01)00088​-X
Jones SB, Valkenburg C, Walton CW, Elliott DC, Holladay JE,
Stevens DJ, Czernik S (2009) Production of gasoline and
diesel from biomass via fast pyrolysis. A design case. In
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Hydrotreating and
Hydrocracking
Joubert J, Carrier M, Dahmen N, Stahl R, Hansie J (2015) Inherent
process variations between fast pyrolysis technologies: a case
study on Eucalyptus grandis. Fuel Process Technol 131:389–395.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fupro​c.2014.12.012
Jung H, Baek K, Jeon J, Hoon S, Jin D, Park Y (2013) Removal char-
acteristics of copper by marine macro-algae-derived chars. Chem
Eng J 217:205–211. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.11.123
Kambo HS, Dutta A (2015) A comparative review of biochar and
hydrochar in terms of production, physico-chemical properties
and applications. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 45:359–378. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.050
Karakoyun N, Kubilay S, Aktas N, Turhan O, Kasimoglu M, Yilmaz
S, Sahiner N (2011) Hydrogel-Biochar composites for effective
organic contaminant removal from aqueous media. Desalination
280(1–3):319–325. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal​.2011.07.014
Kastner JR, Mani S, Juneja A (2015) Catalytic decomposition of tar
using iron supported biochar. Fuel Process Technol 130:31–37.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fupro​c.2014.09.038
Kastner JR, Miller J, Geller DP, Locklin J, Keith LH, Johnson T (2012)
Catalytic esterification of fatty acids using solid acid catalysts
generated from biochar and activated carbon. Catal Today
190(1):122–132. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.catto​d.2012.02.006
Khushnood RA, Ahmad S, Restuccia L, Spoto C, Jagdale P, Tul-
liani JM, Ferro GA (2016) Carbonized nano/microparticles for
enhanced mechanical properties and electromagnetic interfer-
ence shielding of cementitious materials. Front Struct Civ Eng
10(2):209–213. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1170​9-016-0330-5
Kim KH, Kim TS, Lee SM, Choi D, Yeo H, Choi IG, Choi JW (2013a)
Comparison of physicochemical features of biooils and biochars
13
produced from various woody biomasses by fast pyrolysis.
Renew Energy 50:188–195. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.renen​
e.2012.06.030
Kim W, Shim T, Kim Y, Hyun S, Ryu C, Park Y, Jung J (2013b)
Characterization of cadmium removal from aqueous solution
by biochar produced from a giant Miscanthus at different pyro-
lytic temperatures. Biores Technol 138:266–270. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2013.03.186
Kloss S, Zehetner F, Dellantonio A, Hamid R, Ottner F, Liedtke V, Soja
G (2012) Characterization of slow pyrolysis biochars: effects of
feedstocks and pyrolysis temperature on biochar properties. J
Environ Qual 41(4):990. https​://doi.org/10.2134/jeq20​11.0070
Kołodyńska D, Bąk J (2018) Use of three types of magnetic biochar in
the removal of copper(II) ions from wastewaters. Sep Sci Technol
(Philadelphia) 53(7):1045–1057. https​://doi.org/10.1080/01496​
395.2017.13459​44
Kołtowski M, Charmas B, Skubiszewska-Zięba J, Oleszczuk P (2017)
Effect of biochar activation by different methods on toxicity of
soil contaminated by industrial activity. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf
136:119–125. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoen​v.2016.10.033
Kouchachvili L, Entchev E (2017) Ag/Biochar composite for superca-
pacitor electrodes. Mater Today Energy 6:136–145. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.mtene​r.2017.09.002
Kumar S, Loganathan VA, Gupta RB, Barnett MO (2011) An
assessment of U ( VI ) removal from groundwater using bio-
char produced from hydrothermal carbonization. J Environ
Manage 92(10):2504–2512. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​
an.2011.05.013
Laird DA, Brown RC, Amonette JE, Lehmann J (2009) Review of the
pyrolysis platform for coproducing bio-oil and biochar. Biofuels
Bioprod Biorefin 3(5):547–562. https​://doi.org/10.1002/bbb.169
Lalander C, Dalahmeh S, Jönsson H, Vinnerås B (2013) Hygienic qual-
ity of artificial greywater subjected to aerobic treatment: a com-
parison of three filter media at increasing organic loading rates.
Environ Technol 18:2657–2662. https​://doi.org/10.1080/09593​
330.2013.78360​3
Le Brech Y, Jia L, Cissé S, Mauviel G, Brosse N, Dufour A (2016)
Mechanisms of biomass pyrolysis studied by combining a fixed
bed reactor with advanced gas analysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol
117:334–346. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2015.10.013
Lee JY, Park SH, Jeon J, Yoo K, Kim S, Park Y (2011) The removal of
low concentration formaldehyde over sewage sludge char treated
using various methods. Korean J Chem Eng 28(7):1556–1560.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1181​4-011-0007-7
Lehmann J (2007) Bio-energy in the black. Front Ecol Environ
5(7):381–387. https​://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvbc​d2st.33
Lehmann J, Joseph S (2012) Biochar for environmental management:
science and technology. Biochar Environ Manag Sci Technol.
https​://doi.org/10.4324/97818​49770​552
Lehmann J, Rondon M (2006) Bio-char soil management on highly
weathered soils in the humid tropics. Biol Approch Sustain Soil
Syst 1:517–529. https​://doi.org/10.1201/97814​20017​113.ch36
Leng L, Yuan X, Huang H, Shao J, Wang H (2015) Applied Surface
Science Bio-char derived from sewage sludge by liquefaction:
characterization and application for dye adsorption. Appl Surf
Sci 346:223–231. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsus​c.2015.04.014
Li M, Liu Q, Guo L, Zhang Y, Lou Z, Wang Y, Qian G (2013) Cu(II)
removal from aqueous solution by Spartina alterniflora derived
biochar. Biores Technol 141:83–88. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biort​ech.2012.12.096
Li M, Zheng Y, Chen Y, Zhu X (2014) Biodiesel production from waste
cooking oil using a heterogeneous catalyst from pyrolyzed rice
husk. Biores Technol 154:345–348. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biort​ech.2013.12.070
Li Y, Li C, Qi H, Yu K, Li X (2018) Formation mechanism and char-
acterization of porous biomass carbon for excellent performance
Biochar
lithium-ion batteries. RSC Adv 8(23):12666–12671. https​://doi.
org/10.1039/c8ra0​2002g​
Liaw S, Wang Z, Ndegwa P, Frear C, Ha S, Li C, Garcia-perez M
(2012) Effect of pyrolysis temperature on the yield and proper-
ties of bio-oils obtained from the auger pyrolysis of Douglas
Fir wood. J Anal Appl Pyrol 93:52–62. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaap.2011.09.011
Liaw S, Zhou S, Wu H, Garcia-perez M (2013) Effect of pretreatment
temperature on the yield and properties of bio-oils obtained from
the auger pyrolysis of Douglas fir wood. Fuel 103:672–682. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.08.016
Libs S, Courson C, Kiennemann A (2007) Steam reforming of tar from
a biomass gasification process over Ni / olivine catalyst using
toluene as a model compound. Appl Catal B 74:211–222. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcat​b.2007.01.017
Lima IM, Boateng AA, Klasson KT (2010) Physicochemical and
adsorptive properties of fast-pyrolysis bio-chars and their steam
activated counterparts. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 85(11):1515–
1521. https​://doi.org/10.1002/jctb.2461
Linbo Q, Chen B (2013) Interactions of aluminum with biochars and
oxidized biochars: implications for the biochar aging process.
J Agric Food Chem 62:373–380. https​://doi.org/10.1021/jf404​
624h
Liu H, Wang L, Lei M (2019a) Positive impact of biochar amendment
on thermal balance during swine manure composting at relatively
low ambient temperature. Biores Technol 273:25–33. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2018.10.033
Liu N, Charrua AB, Weng CH, Yuan X, Ding F (2015a) Characteriza-
tion of biochars derived from agriculture wastes and their adsorp-
tive removal of atrazine from aqueous solution: a comparative
study. Biores Technol 198:55–62. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2015.08.129
Liu N, Zhou J, Han L, Ma S, Sun X, Huang G (2017a) Role and multi-
scale characterization of bamboo biochar during poultry manure
aerobic composting. Biores Technol 241:190–199. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2017.03.144
Liu P, Liu W, Jiang H, Chen J, Li W, Yu H (2012) Modification of bio-
char derived from fast pyrolysis of biomass and its application in
removal of tetracycline from aqueous solution. Biores Technol
121:235–240. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2012.06.085
Liu WJ, Jiang H, Yu HQ (2015b) Development of biochar-based func-
tional materials: toward a sustainable platform carbon material.
Chem Rev 115(22):12251–12285. https​://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
chemr​ev.5b001​95
Liu WJ, Jiang H, Yu HQ (2019b) Emerging applications of biochar-
based materials for energy storage and conversion. Energy Envi-
ron Sci 12(6):1751–1779. https​://doi.org/10.1039/c9ee0​0206e​
Liu X, Sun J, Duan S, Wang Y, Hayat T, Alsaedi A (2017b) A valuable
biochar from poplar catkins with high adsorption capacity for
both organic pollutants and inorganic heavy metal ions. Sci Rep
1:1–12. https​://doi.org/10.1038/s4159​8-017-09446​-0
Liu Z, Zhang F (2009) Removal of lead from water using biochars pre-
pared from hydrothermal liquefaction of biomass. J Hazard Mater
167:933–939. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazm​at.2009.01.085
Logan B, Cheng S, Watson V, Estadt G (2007) Graphite fiber brush
anodes for increased power production in air-cathode microbial
fuel cells. Environ Sci Technol 41(9):3341–3346. https​://doi.
org/10.1021/es062​644y
López-Cano I, Roig A, Cayuela ML, Alburquerque JA, Sánchez-
Monedero MA (2016) Biochar improves N cycling during com-
posting of olive mill wastes and sheep manure. Waste Manage
49:553–559. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2015.12.031
Lu H, Zhang W, Yang Y, Huang X, Wang S, Qiu R (2011) Relative
distribution of Pb 2 D sorption mechanisms by sludge-derived
biochar. Water Res 46(3):854–862. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
watre​s.2011.11.058
Luz FC, Cordiner S, Manni A, Mulone V, Rocco V (2017) Anaerobic
digestion of coffee grounds soluble fraction at laboratory scale:
evaluation of the biomethane potential. Appl Energy 207:166–
175. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apene​rgy.2017.06.042
Luz FC, Cordiner S, Manni A, Mulone V, Rocco V, Braglia R, Canini A
(2018) Ampelodesmos mauritanicus pyrolysis biochar in anaer-
obic digestion process: evaluation of the biogas yield. Energy
161:663–669. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2018.07.196
Ma Z, Gao N, Xie L, Li A (2014) Study of the fast pyrolysis of oil-
field sludge with solid heat carrier in a rotary kiln for pyrolytic
oil production. J Anal Appl Pyrol 105:183–190. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jaap.2013.11.003
Mahmood ASN, Brammer JG, Hornung A, Steele A, Poulston S (2013)
The intermediate pyrolysis and catalytic steam reforming of
Brewers spent grain. J Anal Appl Pyrol 103:328–342. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2012.09.009
Mamaeva A, Tahmasebi A, Tian L, Yu J (2016) Microwave-assisted
catalytic pyrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass for production of
phenolic-rich bio-oil. Biores Technol 211:382–389. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2016.03.120
Mani S, Kastner JR, Juneja A (2013) Catalytic decomposition of
toluene using a biomass derived catalyst. Fuel Process Technol
114:118–125. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fupro​c.2013.03.015
Meier D, Van De Beld B, Bridgwater AV, Elliott DC, Oasmaa A, Preto
F (2013) State-of-the-art of fast pyrolysis in IEA bioenergy mem-
ber countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 20:619–641. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.061
Menéndez JA, Domínguez A, Fernández Y, Pis JJ (2007) Evidence of
self-gasification during the microwave-induced pyrolysis of cof-
fee hulls. Energy Fuels 21(1):373–378. https​://doi.org/10.1021/
ef060​331i
Mestre AS, Pires J, Nogueira JMF, Carvalho AP (2007) Activated
carbons for the adsorption of ibuprofen. Carbon 45:1979–1988.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbo​n.2007.06.005
Miura M, Kaga H, Sakurai A, Kakuchi T, Takahashi K (2004) Rapid
pyrolysis of wood block by microwave heating. J Anal Appl Pyrol
71:187–199. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0165​-2370(03)00087​-1
Mullen CA, Boateng AA, Goldberg NM, Lima IM, Laird DA, Hicks
KB (2010) Bio-oil and bio-char production from corn cobs and
stover by fast pyrolysis. Biomass Bioenerg 34(1):67–74. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biomb​ioe.2009.09.012
Nabais JMV, Nunes P, Carrott PJM, Ribeiro Carrott MML, García AM,
Díaz-Díez MA (2008) Production of activated carbons from cof-
fee endocarp by ­CO2 and steam activation. Fuel Process Technol
89(3):262–268. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fupro​c.2007.11.030
Nakagawa Y (2007) Modification of the porous structure along the
preparation of activated carbon monoliths with H 3 PO 4 and
ZnCl 2. Microporous Mesoporous Mater 103:29–34. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.micro​meso.2007.01.029
Nam H, Capareda S (2015) Experimental investigation of torrefaction
of two agricultural wastes of different composition using RSM
(response surface methodology). Energy 91:507–516. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2015.08.064
Nam H, Capareda SC, Ashwath N, Kongkasawan J (2015) Experi-
mental investigation of pyrolysis of rice straw using bench-scale
auger, batch and fluidized bed reactors. Energy 93:2384–2394.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2015.10.028
Namaalwa J, Sankhayan PL, Hofstad O (2007) A dynamic bio-eco-
nomic model for analyzing deforestation and degradation: an
application to woodlands in Uganda. Forest Policy and Econom-
ics 9(5):479–495. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpo​l.2006.01.001
13
 Biochar
Namazi AB, Allen DG, Jia CQ (2015) Microwave-assisted pyrolysis
and activation ofpulp mill sludge. Biomass Bioenerg 73:217–
224. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomb​ioe.2014.12.023
Nautiyal P, Subramanian KA, Dastidar MG (2017) Experimental
investigation on adsorption properties of biochar derived from
algae biomass residue of biodiesel production. Environ Process
4(Suppl 1):179–193. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s40710​ -017-0230-2
Niaz S, Manzoor T, Pandith AH (2015) Hydrogen storage: Materials,
methods and perspectives. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 50:457–
469. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.05.011
Niu J, Shao R, Liang J, Dou M, Li Z, Huang Y, Wang F (2017) Bio-
mass-derived mesopore-dominant porous carbons with large spe-
cific surface area and high defect density as high performance
electrode materials for Li-ion batteries and supercapacitors. Nano
Energy 36(February):322–330. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoe​
n.2017.04.042
Nizami AS, Shahzad K, Rehan M, Ouda OKM, Khan MZ, Ismail
IMI, Demirbas A (2017) Developing waste biorefinery in
Makkah: a way forward to convert urban waste into renewable
energy. Appl Energy 186:189–196. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apene​rgy.2016.04.116
Nomanbhay S, Hussein R, Ong MY (2018) Sustainability of bio-
diesel production in Malaysia by production of bio-oil from
crude glycerol using microwave pyrolysis: a review. Green
Chem Lett Rev 11(2):135–157. https​://doi.org/10.1080/17518​
253.2018.14447​95
Norouzi O, Jafarian S, Safari F, Tavasoli A, Nejati B (2016) Promo-
tion of hydrogen-rich gas and phenolic-rich bio-oil production
from green macroalgae Cladophora glomerata via pyrolysis over
its. Biores Technol 219:643–651. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2016.08.017
Oliveira FR, Patel AK, Jaisi DP, Adhikari S, Lu H, Khanal SK (2017)
Environmental application of biochar: current status and per-
spectives. Biores Technol 246(August):110–122. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2017.08.122
Olukcu N, Yanik J, Saglam M, Yuksel M (2002) Liquefaction of bey-
pazari oil shale by pyrolysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol 64(1):29–41.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0165​-2370(01)00168​-1
Park J, Lee Y, Ryu C, Park YK (2014) Slow pyrolysis of rice straw:
analysis of products properties, carbon and energy yields.
Biores Technol 155:63–70. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2013.12.084
Patrick R (2014) From biomass to fuel, power and chemicals Brazil-
ian charcoal-based pig iron. Retrieved from https:​ //agritr​ op.cirad​
.fr/57883​6/1/taiwa​nnov2​014ve​r2OK.pdf
Pfitzer C, Dahmen N, Troeger N, Sauer J, Günther A, Müller-hage-
dorn M (2016) Fast pyrolysis of wheat straw. Energy Fuels
30(10):8047–8054. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1021/acs.energ ​ y fuel​
s.6b014​12
Phan BMQ, Duong LT, Nguyen VD, Tran TB, Nguyen MHH, Nguyen
LH, Luu LC (2014) Evaluation of the production potential of
bio-oil from Vietnamese biomass resources by fast pyrolysis.
Biomass Bioenerg 62:74–81. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomb​
ioe.2014.01.012
Porpatham E, Ramesh A, Nagalingam B (2012) Effect of compression
ratio on the performance and combustion of a biogas fuelled
spark ignition engine. Fuel 95:247–256. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2011.10.059
Prakash P, Kamble L, Sheeba KN (2015) Experimental studies on
biomass pyrolysis using microwave radiation. Energy Sour Part
A Recov Util Environ Effects 37(24):2675–2683. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/15567​036.2012.71307​9
Prauchner MJ, Rodríguez-reinoso F (2012) Chemical versus physical
activation of coconut shell: a comparative study. Microporous
Mesoporous Mater 152:163–171. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.micro​
meso.2011.11.040
13
Prauchner MJ, Rodríguezreinoso F (2012) Chemical versus physical
activation of coconut shell: a comparative study. Microporous
Mesoporous Mater 152:163–171. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.micro​
meso.2011.11.040
Pütün AE, Özean A, Pütün E (1999) Pyrolysis of hazelnut shells in a
fixed-bed tubular reactor: yields and structural analysis of bio-oil.
J Anal Appl Pyrol 52(1):33–49. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0165​
-2370(99)00044​-3
Puy N, Murillo R, Navarro MV, López JM, Rieradevall J, Fowler G,
Mastral AM (2011) Valorisation of forestry waste by pyrolysis
in an auger reactor. Waste Manage 31(6):1339–1349. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2011.01.020
Qian L, Chen B (2013) Dual role of biochars as adsorbents for alu-
minum: the effects of oxygen-containing organic components
and the scattering of silicate particles. Environ Sci Technol
47:8759–8768. https​://doi.org/10.1021/es401​756h
Ralph C, Tom Gardner EE (2013) Mobile pyrolysis process for conver-
sion of biomass into energy products. North American Biochar
Symposium 18
Ramesh T, Rajalakshmi N, Dhathathreyan KS (2015) Activated car-
bons derived from tamarind seeds for hydrogen storage. J Energy
Stor 4:89–95. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2015.09.005
Rasi S, Veijanen A, Rintala J (2007) Trace compounds of biogas from
different biogas production plants. Energy 32(8):1375–1380.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2006.10.018
Ren S, Lei H, Wang L, Bu Q, Chen S, Wu J, Ruan R (2012a) Bio-
fuel production and kinetics analysis for microwave pyrolysis of
Douglas fir sawdust pellet. J Anal Appl Pyrol 94:163–169. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2011.12.004
Ren S, Lei H, Wang L, Bu Q, Chen S, Wu J, Ruan R (2012b) Bio-
fuel production and kinetics analysis for microwave pyrolysis of
Douglas fir sawdust pellet. J Anal Appl Pyrol 94:163–169. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2011.12.004
Restuccia L, Ferro GA (2016) Nanoparticles from food waste: a
“green” future for traditional building materials. https://doi.
org/10.21012/fc9.276
Rio S, Coq LLE, Faur C, Lecomte D, Cloirec PLE (2006) Prepara-
tion of adsorbents from sewage sludge. Process Saf Environ Prot
84(B4):258–264. https​://doi.org/10.1205/psep.05161​
Riuji C, Mtoro H, Sweeney DJ, Zurbrügg C (2016) Char fuel produc-
tion in developing countries: a review of urban biowaste carboni-
zation. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 59:1514–1530. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.01.088
Rui X, Tan H, Yan Q (2014) Nanostructured metal sulfides for energy
storage. Nanoscale 6(17):9889–9924. https​://doi.org/10.1039/
c4nr0​3057e​
Safari S, Gunten KV, Alam S, Hubmann M, Blewett TA (2019) Biochar
colloids and their use in contaminants removal. Biochar 1:1–12.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4277​3-019-00014​-5
Sahota S, Vijay VK, Subbarao PMV, Chandra R, Ghosh P, Shah G,
Thakur IS (2018) Characterization of leaf waste based bio-
char for cost effective hydrogen sulphide removal from biogas.
Biores Technol 250:635–641. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2017.11.093
Samantaray SS, Mangisetti SR, Ramaprabhu S (2019) Investigation of
room temperature hydrogen storage in biomass derived activated
carbon. J Alloy Compd 789:800–804. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jallc​om.2019.03.110
Sanchez-Monedero MA, Cayuela ML, Roig A, Jindo K, Mondini
C, Bolan N (2018) Role of biochar as an additive in organic
waste composting. Biores Technol 247:1155–1164. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2017.09.193
Sanginés P, Domínguez MP, Sánchez F, San Miguel G (2015) Slow
pyrolysis of olive stones in a rotary kiln: chemical and energy
characterization of solid, gas, and condensable products. J Renew
Sustain Energy 7(4):043–103. https:​ //doi.org/10.1063/1.492344​ 2
Biochar
Schimmelpfennig S, Glaser B (2012) One step forward toward char-
acterization: some important material properties to distinguish
biochars. J Environ Qual 41(4):1001. https​://doi.org/10.2134/
jeq20​11.0146
Schmidt H (2013) Novel uses of biochar. USBI North American Bio-
char Symposium
Scott DS, Majerski P, Piskorz J, Radlein D (1999) Second look at
fast pyrolysis of biomass—the RTI process. J Anal Appl Pyrol
51(1):23–37. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0165​-2370(99)00006​-6
Seh-bardan AWSFSBJ (2014) Characterization of biochars produced
from oil palm and rice husks and their adsorption capacities for
heavy metals. Int J Environ Sci Technol 11:967–976. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1376​2-013-0291-3
Septien S, Valin S, Dupont C, Peyrot M, Salvador S (2012) Effect of
particle size and temperature on woody biomass fast pyrolysis at
high temperature (1000–1400 °C). Fuel 97:202–210. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fuel.2012.01.049
Shang G, Li Q, Liu L, Chen P, Huang X (2016) Adsorption of hydro-
gen sulfide by biochars derived from pyrolysis of different agri-
cultural/forestry wastes. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 66(1):8–16.
https​://doi.org/10.1080/10962​247.2015.10944​29
Sheehan J, Dunhay T, Benemann J, Roessler P (1998) A Look Back
at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Aquatic Species Program-
Biodiesel from Algae. In: NREL, vol 72. Retrieved from https​
://www.nrel.gov/docs/legos​ti/fy98/24190​.pdf
Shen Y (2015) Chars as carbonaceous adsorbents/catalysts for tar
elimination during biomass pyrolysis or gasi fi cation. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 43:281–295. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2014.11.061
Shiung S, Russell AD, Leing C, Chase HA (2012) Microwave-heated
pyrolysis of waste automotive engine oil : Influence of opera-
tion parameters on the yield, composition, and fuel properties
of pyrolysis oil. Fuel 92(1):327–339. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2011.07.027
Shoaib AM, El-Adly RA, Hassanean MHM, Youssry A, Bhran AA
(2018) Developing a free-fall reactor for rice straw fast pyrol-
ysis to produce bio-products. Egypt J Pet 27(4):1305–1311.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpe.2018.08.002
Singh KP, Malik A, Sinha S, Ojha P (2008) Liquid-phase adsorp-
tion of phenols using activated carbons derived from agricul-
tural waste material. J Hazard Mater 150:626–641. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazm​at.2007.05.017
Singh R, Pardeep S, Hema S (2019) Impact of sole and combined
application of biochar, organic and chemical fertilizers on
wheat crop yield and water productivity in a dry tropical agro:
ecosystem. Biochar. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4277​3-019-00013​
-6
Smisek M, Cerny S (1970) Active carbon: manufacture, properties and
applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Sohi S, Lopez-capel E, Krull E, Bol R (2009) Biochar, climate change
and soil: a review to guide future research. Csiro. https​://doi.
org/10.1139/Z03-132
Stamenkovic OS, Veljkovic VB, Mckay G, Bazargan A, Kostic MD
(2015) A calcium oxide-based catalyst derived from palm kernel
shell gasification residues for biodiesel production 150:519–525.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.02.046
Statistical Review of World Energy 2018 (2018) Retrieved from https:​ //
www.bp.com/conten​ t/dam/bp/busine​ ss-sites/​ en/global​ /corpor​ ate/
pdfs/energ​y-econo​mics/stati​stica​l-revie​w/bp-stats​-revie​w-2018-
full-repor​t.pdf
Stephanie Searle CM (2015) A reassessment of global bioenergy
potential in 2050. GCB Bioenergy 7(2015):328–336. https​://
doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12141​
Ströbel R, Garche J, Moseley PT, Jörissen L, Wolf G (2006) Hydrogen
storage by carbon materials. J Power Sources 159(2):781–801.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpows​our.2006.03.047
Sukiran A (2011) Production and characterization of bio-char from the
pyrolysis of empty fruit bunches. Am J Appl Sci 8(10):984–988.
https​://doi.org/10.3844/ajass​p.2011.984.988
Sulaymon AH, Mohammed TJ, Al-najar J (2012) Equilibrium and
kinetics studies of adsorption of heavy metals onto activated
carbon. Can J Chem Eng Technol 3(4):86–92
Sun L, Chen D, Wan S, Yu Z (2015) Performance, kinetics, and equi-
librium of methylene blue adsorption on biochar derived from
eucalyptus saw dust modified with citric, tartaric, and acetic
acids. Biores Technol 198:300–308. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biort​ech.2015.09.026
Sun L, Wan S, Luo W (2013) Biochars prepared from anaerobic diges-
tion residue, palm bark, and eucalyptus for adsorption of cationic
methylene blue dye: characterization, equilibrium, and kinetic
studies. Biores Technol 140:406–413. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biort​ech.2013.04.116
Sunyoto NMS, Zhu M, Zhang Z, Zhang D (2016) Effect of biochar
addition on hydrogen and methane production in two-phase
anaerobic digestion of aqueous carbohydrates food waste.
Biores Technol 219:29–36. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2016.07.089
Tan X, Liu Y, Gu Y, Xu Y, Zeng G, Hu X (2016) Biochar-based nano-
composites for the decontamination of wastewater: a review.
Biores Technol 212:318–333. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2016.04.093
Tay T, Ucar S, Karagöz S (2009) Preparation and characterization of
activated carbon from waste biomass. J Hazard Mater 165(1–
3):481–485. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazm​at.2008.10.011
Thines KR, Abdullah EC, Mubarak NM, Ruthiraan M (2017) In-situ
polymerization of magnetic biochar: polypyrrole composite: a
novel application in supercapacitor. Biomass Bioenerg 98:95–
111. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomb​ioe.2017.01.019
Toles CA, Marshall WE, Johns MM, Wartelle LH, McAloon A (2000)
Acid-activated carbons from almond shells: physical, chemi-
cal and adsorptive properties and estimated cost of production.
Biores Technol 71(1):87–92. https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0960​
-8524(99)00029​-2
Tong X, Li J, Yuan J, Xu R (2011) Adsorption of Cu ( II ) by biochars
generated from three crop straws. Chem Eng J 172(2–3):828–
834. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.06.069
Tsai W, Liu SC, Chen HR, Chang YM, Tsai YL (2012) Textural and
chemical properties of swine-manure-derived biochar pertinent to
its potential use as a soil amendment. Chemosphere 89(2):198–
203. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemo​spher​e.2012.05.085
Tsai WT, Lee MK, Chang YM (2007) Fast pyrolysis of rice husk:
product yields and compositions. Biores Technol 98:22–28. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2005.12.005
Tu Z, Ren X, Zhao J, Kumar S, Quan A, Mukesh W, Awasthi K (2019)
Synergistic effects of biochar/microbial inoculation on the
enhancement of pig manure composting. Biochar 1:127–137.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4277​3-019-00003​-8
Upamali A, Vithanage M, Ahmad M, Seo D, Cho J, Lee S, Sik Y
(2015) Enhanced sulfamethazine removal by steam-activated
invasive plant-derived biochar. J Hazard Mater 290:43–50. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazm​at.2015.02.046
Varol EA (2007) Rapid and slow pyrolysis of pistachio shell: effect of
pyrolysis conditions on the product yields and characterization
of the liquid product. Int J Energy Res 31:506–514
Veksha A, Bhuiyan TI, Hill JM (2016) Activation of aspen wood with
carbon dioxide and phosphoric acid for removal of total organic
carbon from oil sands produced water : increasing the yield with
bio-oil recycling. Materials 9:20. https​://doi.org/10.3390/ma901​
0020
Veses A, Aznar M, Martínez I, Martínez JD, López JM, Navarro MV,
García T (2014) Bioresource technology catalytic pyrolysis of
wood biomass in an auger reactor using calcium-based catalysts.
13
 Biochar
Biores Technol 162:250–258. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2014.03.146
Wan Y, Chen P, Zhang B, Yang C, Liu Y, Lin X, Ruan R (2009)
Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of biomass: catalysts to improve
product selectivity. J Anal Appl Pyrol J 86:161–167. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jaap.2009.05.006
Wang H, Yu W, Shi J, Mao N, Chen S, Liu W (2016) Biomass derived
hierarchical porous carbons as high-performance anodes for
sodium-ion batteries. Electrochim Acta 188:103–110. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.elect​acta.2015.12.002
Wang H, Srinivasan R, Yu F, Steele P, Li Q, Mitchell B (2011) Effect of
acid, alkali, and steam explosion pretreatments on characteristics
of bio-oil produced from pinewood. Energy Fuels 25(8):3758–
3764. https​://doi.org/10.1021/ef200​4909
Wang H, Srinivasan R, Yu F, Steele P, Li Q, Mitchell B, Samala A
(2012) Effect of acid, steam explosion, and size reduction pre-
treatments on bio-oil production from sweetgum, switchgrass,
and corn stover. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 167(2):285–297. https​
://doi.org/10.1007/s1201​0-012-9678-8
Wang XH, Chen HP, Ding XJ, Yang HP, Zhang SH, Shen YQ (2009)
Properties of gas and char from microwave pyrolysis of pine
sawdust. BioResources 4(3):946–959. https​://doi.org/10.15376​
/biore​s.4.3.946-959
Waqas M, Nizami AS, Aburiazaiza AS, Barakat MA, Ismail IMI,
Rashid MI (2018) Optimization of food waste compost with
the use of biochar. J Environ Manage 216:70–81. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvm​an.2017.06.015
Warnock DD, Lehmann J, Kuyper TW, Rillig MC, Lehmann J,
Kuyper TW (2007) Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in soil
– concepts and mechanisms. Plant Soil 300:9–20. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1110​4-007-9391-5
Westerhof RJM, Brilman DWF, Garcia-Perez M, Wang Z, Ouden-
hoven SRG, Kersten SRA (2012) Stepwise fast pyrolysis of
pine wood. Energy Fuels 26(12):7263–7273. https​: //doi.
org/10.1021/ef301​319t
Wu J, Huang D, Liu X, Meng J, Tang C, Xu J (2018) Remediation
of As (III) and Cd (II) co-contamination and its mechanism in
aqueous systems by a novel calcium-based magnetic biochar.
J Hazard Mater 348:10–19. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazm​
at.2018.01.011
Xiqiang Z, Min W, Hongzhen L, Longzhi L, Chunyuan Ma, Song Z
(2012) A microwave reactor for characterization of pyrolyzed
biomass. Biores Technol 104:673–678. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
biort​ech.2011.09.137
Xu X, Cao X, Zhao L (2013a) Comparison of rice husk- and dairy
manure-derived biochars for simultaneously removing heavy
metals from aqueous solutions : Role of mineral components in
biochars. Chemosphere 92(8):955–961. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemo​spher​e.2013.03.009
Xu Y, Wang T, Ma L, Zhang Q, Chen G (2013b) Technology of
bio-oil preparation by vacuum pyrolysis of pine straw. Trans
Chin Soc Agric Eng 29(1):196–201. https​://doi.org/10.3969/j.
issn.1002-6819.2013.01.026
Yan Q, Wan C, Liu J, Gao J, Yu F, Zhang J, Cai Z (2013) Iron nano-
particles in situ encapsulated in biochar-based carbon as an
effective catalyst for the conversion of biomass-derived syngas
to liquid hydrocarbons. Green Chem 15(6):1631–1640. https​://
doi.org/10.1039/c3gc3​7107g​
Yang P, Guo D, Chen Z, Cui B, Xiao B, Liu S, Hu M (2017)
Removal of Cr (VI) from aqueous solution using magnetic
biochar synthesized by a single step method. J Dispersion Sci
Technol 38(11):1665–1674. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1080/01932​
691.2016.12720​58
Yao H, Lu J, Wu J, Lu Z (2013) Adsorption of fluoroquinolone anti-
biotics by wastewater sludge biochar: role of the sludge source.
13
Water Air Soil Pollut 224:1370. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1127​
0-012-1370-7
Yao Y, Wu F (2015) Naturally derived nanostructured materials from
biomass for rechargeable lithium/sodium batteries. Nano Energy
17:91–103. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.nanoe​n.2015.08.004
Yin Y, Gao Y, Li A (2018) Self-activation of biochar from furfural
residues by recycled pyrolysis gas. Waste Manage 77:312–321.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2018.04.014
Yorgun S, Yıldız D (2015) Slow pyrolysis of paulownia wood: effects
of pyrolysis parameters on product yields and bio-oil characteri-
zation. J Anal Appl Pyrol 114:68–78. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaap.2015.05.003
Yoshizawa S, Tanaka S, Ohata M, Mineki S, Goto S, Fujioka K,
Kokubun T (2006) Promotion effect of various charcoals on
the proliferation of composting microorganisms. TANSO
2006(224):261–265. https​://doi.org/10.7209/tanso​.2006.261
Yu F, Steele PH, Ruan R (2010) Microwave pyrolysis of corn cob
and characteristics of the pyrolytic chars. Energy Sour Part
A Recov Util Environ Effects 32(5):475–484. https​: //doi.
org/10.1080/15567​03080​26124​40
Yu JT, Dehkhoda AM, Ellis N (2011) Development of Biochar-based
catalyst for transesterification of Canola oil. Energy Fuels
25:337–344. https​://doi.org/10.1021/ef100​977d
Yu KL, Lau BF, Show PL, Ong HC, Ling TC, Chen WH, Chang JS
(2017) Recent developments on algal biochar production and
characterization. Biores Technol 246(June):2–11. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2017.08.009
Yu S, Park J, Kim M, Ryu C, Park J (2019) Characterization of biochar
and byproducts from slow pyrolysis of hinoki cypress. Biore-
sour Technol Rep 6:217–222. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biteb​
.2019.03.009
Yu Y, Yu J, Sun B, Yan Z (2014) Pyrolysis influence of catalyst types on
the microwave-induced pyrolysis of sewage sludge. J Anal Appl
Pyrol 106:86–91. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2014.01.003
Yuan JH (2011) The amelioration effects of low temperature bio-
char generated from nine crop residues on an acidic Ulti-
sol. Soil Use Manag 27:110–115. https ​ : //doi.org/10.111
1/j.1475-2743.2010.00317​.x
Zhang A, Bian R, Pan G, Cui L, Hussain Q, Li L (2012a) Effects of
biochar amendment on soil quality, crop yield and greenhouse
gas emission in a Chinese rice paddy: a field study of 2 consecu-
tive rice growing cycles. Field Crops Res 127:153–160. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2011.11.020
Zhang F, Nriagu JO, Itoh H (2005) Mercury removal from water using
activated carbons derived from organic sewage sludge. Water
Res 39:389–395. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.watre​s.2004.09.027
Zhang H, Voroney RP, Price GW (2015) Effects of temperature and
processing conditions on biochar chemical properties and their
influence on soil C and N transformations. Soil Biol Biochem
83:19–28. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilb​io.2015.01.006
Zhang JW, Zhang C, Zhou N, Chen W (2017a) The influence of micro-
wave drying on leather properties. Energy Fuels 22(1):189–194.
https​://doi.org/10.24264​/icams​-2016.i.29
Zhang J, Zhang J, Wang M, Wu S, Wang H, Niazi NK, Wong MH
(2019) Effect of tobacco stem-derived biochar on soil metal
immobilization and the cultivation of tobacco plant. J Soils
Sediments 19(5):2313–2321. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1136​
8-018-02226​-x
Zhang J, Lü F, Shao L, He P (2014) The use of biochar-amended com-
posting to improve the humification and degradation of sewage
sludge. Biores Technol 168:252–258. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biort​ech.2014.02.080
Zhang M, Gao B (2013) Removal of arsenic, methylene blue, and phos-
phate by biochar/AlOOH nanocomposite. Chem Eng J 226:286–
292. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.04.077
Biochar
Zhang M, Gao B, Yao Y, Xue Y, Inyang M (2012b) Synthesis of porous
MgO-biochar nanocomposites for removal of phosphate and
nitrate from aqueous solutions. Chem Eng J 210:26–32. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.08.052
Zhang N, Liu Q, Chen W, Wan M, Li X, Wang L, Zhang W (2018)
High capacity hard carbon derived from lotus stem as anode for
sodium ion batteries. J Power Sour 378:331–337. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jpows​our.2017.12.054
Zhang T, Mao J, Liu X, Xuan M, Bi K, Zhang XL, Shao G (2017b)
Pinecone biomass-derived hard carbon anodes for high-perfor-
mance sodium-ion batteries. RSC Adv 7(66):41504–41511. https​
://doi.org/10.1039/c7ra0​7231g​
Zhang T, Walawender WP, Fan LT, Fan M, Daugaard D, Brown RC
(2004a) Erratum: preparation of activated carbon from forest
and agricultural residues through ­CO2 activation. Chem Eng J
105:53–59. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2005.01.002
Zhang T, Walawender WP, Fan LT, Fan M, Daugaard D (2004b) Prepa-
ration of activated carbon from forest and agricultural residues
through ­CO2 activation. Chem Eng J 105:53–59. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cej.2004.06.011
Zhang Y, Li B, Chen P, Liu S, Peng P, Min M, Lei H (2017c) Effects
of feedstock characteristics on microwave-assisted pyrolysis: a
review. Biores Technol 230:143–151. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biort​ech.2017.01.046
View publication stats
Zhao MY, Enders A, Lehmann J (2014) Short- and long-term flam-
mability of biochars. Biomass Bioenerg 69:183–191. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biomb​ioe.2014.07.017
Zhao X, Zhang J, Song Z, Liu H, Li L, Ma C (2011) Microwave pyroly-
sis of straw bale and energy balance analysis. J Anal Appl Pyrol
92(1):43–49. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2011.04.004
Zhou X, Chen F, Bai T, Long B, Liao Q, Ren Y, Yang J (2016) Inter-
connected highly graphitic carbon nanosheets derived from
wheat stalk as high performance anode materials for lithium ion
batteries. Green Chem 18(7):2078–2088. https:​ //doi.org/10.1039/
c5gc0​2122g​
Zhu M, Zhang Z, Chan YL, Yani S, Zhang D (2015) An experimental
investigation into the ignition and combustion characteristics of
single droplets of biochar slurry fuels. Energy Proc 75:180–185.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypr​o.2015.07.286
Zhu X, Li C, Li J, Xie B, Lü J, Li Y (2018a) Thermal treatment of
biochar in the air/nitrogen atmosphere for developed mesopo-
rosity and enhanced adsorption to tetracycline. Biores Technol
263:475–482. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2018.05.041
Zhu Y, Chen M, Li Q, Yuan C, Wang C (2018b) A porous biomass-
derived anode for high-performance sodium-ion batteries. Car-
bon 129:695–701. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbo​n.2017.12.103
13