JOM

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11837-019-03766-4
Ó 2019 The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

SUSTAINABLE PYROMETALLURGICAL PROCESSING

Use of Biochar for Sustainable Ferrous Metallurgy

LEI YE,1 ZHIWEI PENG ,1,4 LIANCHENG WANG,1

ANTON ANZULEVICH,2 IGOR BYCHKOV,2,3 DMITRII KALGANOV,2
HUIMIN TANG,1 MINGJUN RAO,1 GUANGHUI LI,1 and
TAO JIANG1

1.—School of Minerals Processing and Bioengineering, Central South University, Changsha 410083,
Hunan, China. 2.—Chelyabinsk State University, Chelyabinsk, Russia 454001. 3.—South Ural State
University, Chelyabinsk, Russia 454080. 4.—e-mail: zwpeng@csu.edu.cn

Biochar has been extensively used in ferrous metallurgy in recent years as it

has comparable metallurgical properties to coke and coal, showing great
potential for reduction of the production cost of iron and steel with enhanced
quality and for promotion of environmental protection. This article reviewed
the main applications of biochar in the iron and steel industry, including its
use in coking, iron ore sintering, production of metallized pellets, blast furnace
ironmaking, and electric arc furnace steelmaking. The challenges of using
biochar and corresponding promising measures were also discussed for sus-
tainable development of the industry.

on the use of biochar in ferrous metallurgy are

INTRODUCTION
currently available. The aim of this article was thus
Iron and steelmaking is one of the most important to provide a detailed review of the different appli-
industrial sectors affecting global economic growth. cations of biochar in the iron and steel industry. The
Global crude steel production has increased sharply challenges to its applications and promising mea-
in recent years, reaching 1.6912 Bt in 2018, up by sures were also discussed to guide and facilitate its
4.6% compared with 2017.1 During steel manufac- use in the future.
turing, massive amounts of fossil fuels are con-
sumed and a lot of CO2 is released, causing global PHYSICOCHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
warming and other climate problems. Specifically, it OF BIOCHAR AND ITS PRODUCTION
accounts for 20% (474 exajoules) of industrial fossil
It is well known that untreated biomass, whether
fuel consumption2 and produces approximately
from crops or wood, cannot be used directly to
6.7% of total global CO2 emissions.3,4
replace traditional fossil fuels in ferrous metallurgy
The most popular technology used for steelmak-
due to its high moisture content, low carbon content,
ing is the blast furnace-basic oxygen furnace (BF-
and low calorific value.7 Depending on the attri-
BOF) process, which accounts for 64.4% of global
butes of the biomass source, biochar has relatively
iron and steel production.5 As the primary fuels and
complex physicochemical properties. Table I pre-
reducing agents in this process, coke and coal are
sents the properties of crop- and wood-derived
the major carbon sources, emitting huge amounts of
biochars in comparison with those of coke and coal
CO2 to the atmosphere. According to the statistics,
used in iron and steel industry.8–12 Obviously, in
production of 1 ton of hot-rolled coil via the BF-BOF
comparison with crop-derived biochar such as that
route is accompanied by emission of 1.8 tons of CO2,
from wheat straw, wood-derived biochars like those
as shown in Fig. 1.6
from acacia and red gum have higher contents of
In recent decades, great efforts have been made to
fixed carbon and volatile matter but much lower ash
seek efficient, environmentally friendly, and sus-
content. They also have lower contents of alkali
tainable substitutes for coke and coal. As one of the
metals (such as K and Na, which are harmful to
main products of renewable biomass in nature,
ironmaking) than wheat straw-derived biochar.
biochar has attracted much attention as a potential
Compared with coal, biochar, especially wood-
substitute due to its good combustibility and reduc-
derived biochar, exhibits many advantages, such
ing ability. However, no in-depth overviews focusing
 Ye, Peng, Wang, Anzulevich, Bychkov, Kalganov, Tang, Rao, Li, and Jiang

Fig. 1. CO2 emissions from an integrated steel mill (BF-BOF route). Reprinted with permission from Ref. 6.

Table I. Comparison between properties of biochar, coke, and coal8–12

Property Biochar Coke10–12 Coal11

Acacia8,9 Red gum9 Wheat straw10,11

Chemical analysis (wt.%)

Fixed carbon 79.6 86.3 74.80 85–88 50–55
Volatile matter 15.9 12.4 4.75 1–3 15–30
Ash 4.3 1.3 20.45 > 10 8–11
Moisture 9.59 8.1 7.5 2–4 7.25
Sulfur 0.07 0.02 0.083 0.7–1.2 0.6–0.8
Calorific value (kcal/kg) 6635 5963 6550 6500–7200 5495–9478
Ash composition
SiO2 30 42.3 30.09 40–50 46–64
CaO 46.2 23.8 4.80 2–10 0.9–4.7
Al2O3 7.2 10.2 1.67 30–35 17.4–29.9
Fe2O3 4.3 4.1 1.01 8–13 7.6–14.6
MgO 1.6 3.6 5.09 1–2 1.1–3.2
K2O 3.6 4.3 32.60 0.6 1.0–3.4
Na2O 0.69 1.7 13.24 0.4 0.2–1.0
Volume porosity (%) 54.4 43.5 – 16.6 –
Surface area (m2/g) 43 28 25.1 4.4 –
Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.79 1.53 1.68 2.01 1.72

as higher calorific value, higher fixed carbon potential to significantly mitigate the CO2 emis-
content, lower contents of impurities (e.g., S),13 sions of the iron and steelmaking industry, as the
higher surface area,14,15 and larger porosity,16,17 gas emitted from biochar is negated by the photo-
making it promising to replace coal in the iron and synthesis of the biomass during its growth cycle,
steel industry. Compared with coke, in general, resulting in zero net impact on the
biochar has relatively lower fixed carbon content environment.18,19
and calorific value. However, it contains much less The unique properties of biochar rely on its
ash and impurities such as S. Unlike coal or coke, production technology. The primary technologies
more importantly, biochar also shows the used to produce biochar include torrefaction,20,21
Use of Biochar for Sustainable Ferrous Metallurgy
slow pyrolysis,20,22 fast pyrolysis,20,23–25 gasifica-
tion,26 and hydrothermal carbonization (HTC),27,28
producing biochar with different yields and carbon
contents, as summarized in Table II. Among these
approaches, slow pyrolysis is one of the most
commonly used methods. By this technique, dried
biomass is pyrolyzed to produce biochar and syngas
with heat generation (Fig. 2)29 at  400°C and
atmospheric pressure over a broad range of time-
scales ranging from minutes to days.30 Because of
the slow heating speed and long processing time,
most of the coagulable organic compounds in the
biomass are converted into solid carbon (biochar),
light gas, and condensable liquid (mainly water,
carboxylic acid, and aldehyde).31
USE OF BIOCHAR IN FERROUS
METALLURGICAL PROCESSING
Coking
Coke is an extremely important and the most
expensive feedstock for iron and steelmaking, being
obtained from nonrenewable specific-rank coals or
blended coal using a high-temperature carboniza-
tion process (> 1100°C).31,32 It has multiple roles in
the BF during ironmaking,33,34 e.g., as an agent for
reduction of reducible oxides and carburization of
hot metals, as the source of about 80% of the heat
required by the BF for endothermic chemical reac-
tions and melting of metal and slag, as a support for
the descending burden to improve the gas distribu-
tion and permeability in the BF, etc. In recent years,
addition of biochar to blended coal to make coke
(also known as bio-coke) has become a research
hotspot.35 However, complete replacement of coals
with biochar still faces difficulties because of the
quality requirements, including high coke strength
after reaction (CSR, > 60%) and low coke reactivity
index (CRI, 20–30%), which are required to ensure
sufficient permeability in the upper part of the BF
shaft and low pressure loss in the furnace. The
study by Ng et al.36 examined partial replacement of
coking coal with hardwood-derived biochar. It was
Table II. Comparison of different biochar production technologies30
Technology Typical processing Typical
temperature residence time
Torrefaction  290°C 10–60 min
Slow pyroly-  400°C Minutes to days
sis
Fast pyroly-  500°C 1s
sis
Gasification  800°C  10–20 s
HTC  180–250°C 1–12 h
NA not available
shown that the biochar had a negative impact on the
quality of the resulting coke because of the difficult
fusion of inert biochar particles into the cell wall of
the blended coal during coking, which weakened the
connection of the resulting coke particles.30 To
enhance the use of biochar in coking, the most
extensively investigated parameters were the addi-
tion percentage and particle size.33,37–39 It has been
found that, with increasing addition of biochar, the
CSR, CRI, and fluidity index of the coke were
degraded. It is necessary to limit the addition of
biochar to less than 2% to prevent its apparent
adverse effects on the quality of the coking product.
Additionally, as the particle size of the biochar
decreased, the CSR and CRI of the coke deterio-
rated. The suitable particle size range for hardwood-
derived biochar was found to be 2.4–3.4 mm. This
finding was mainly attributed to the high ash
content and low density of biochar. Compared with
coarse materials, fine biochar particles with ash
containing alkali metals and alkaline earth metals,
in particular K, Na, and Ca,40,41 distributed more
uniformly in the coking product (Fig. 3)36 and
increased the reactivity of coke by catalyzing the
Boudouard reaction (C + CO2 = 2CO) at high tem-
peratures,41,42 thereby deteriorating the two
indexes. Moreover, because of its much higher
surface area than coking coal, biochar had a strong
physical adsorption capacity. It could adsorb the
decomposition products from coal, causing an
increase of the softening temperature of the coal,
which eventually inhibited fluidity development
and coke making.43,44 It is clear that controlling
the addition and properties of biochar is of great
importance for increasing its use in metallurgical
coke production.
Iron Ore Sintering
Iron ore sintering is a vital process that produces
sinter, a major iron-bearing burden (70–80%) for BF
ironmaking,45,46 with many advantages over lump
iron ore. It can contribute to higher productivity,
Typical biochar yield on dry Typical carbon
feedstock basis content of biochar
61–84% 51–55%
 30% 95%
12–26% 74%
 10% NA
< 66% < 70%
 Ye, Peng, Wang, Anzulevich, Bychkov, Kalganov, Tang, Rao, Li, and Jiang
Fig. 2. Simplified process flowchart of biochar production via slow pyrolysis with heat generation. Reprinted with permission from Ref. 29.
Fig. 3. Optical microscopy images of coke prepared with addition of (a) 5% fine biochar (< 0.07 mm) and (b) 5% coarse biochar (2.4–3.4 mm).
Reprinted with permission from Ref. 36.
lower coke consumption, and enhanced flexibility in
adjusting slag basicity.47,48 In this process, iron ore
and auxiliary materials, including fluxes (dolomite,
limestone, and quicklime), return fines (< 5 mm),
and solid fuels (e.g., coke breeze), are mixed,
granulated, and then sintered at high tempera-
tures.49 The sintering process accounts for 9–12% of
the total energy consumption in iron and steel
production, which is mainly provided by coke
breeze,50 and for about 12% of the greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from iron and steelmaking
plants,51 as well as other pollutants including SOx,
NOx, dioxins, and fine dust.52 In recent years,
substitution of biochar for coke breeze in iron ore
sintering has become increasingly attractive due to
its potential to reduce production costs and to
relieve environmental pressure.9 Gan et al.15
reported that partial replacement of coke breeze
with biochar led to a higher concentration of COx
but lower concentrations of SOx and NOx in the off-
gas, as shown in Fig. 4.15 The higher concentrations
of CO and CO2 in the off-gas were attributed to the
larger biochar addition than coke breeze under the
requirement of the return sinter fines balance and
sinter quality. The addition of biochar had to
increase from 3.62% to 4.17%, due to its higher
reactivity compared with that of coke breeze, with a
corresponding percentage of biochar replacement
from 0% to 50%.53 However, the COx emissions were
reduced because of the carbon neutrality of biochar.
Moreover, the emissions of SOx and NOx during
sintering were decreased due to the much lower S
and N contents of biochar. With a suitable replace-
ment percentage of biochar (40%), the emissions of
COx, SOx, and NOx could be reduced by 18.65%,
38.15%, and 26.76%, respectively.15 The above-
mentioned benefits in reducing emissions of gaseous
pollutants were also accompanied by higher sinter-
ing productivity but weaker strength of sinter. This
finding was partly attributed to the more porous
structure of biochar, which would sustain more
moisture than coke breeze and thus demand more
moisture in the granulation of sintering materials
before sintering (8.5% versus 7.1%). Consequently,
there was a higher H2O (g) concentration in the off-
gas of sintering, which would decrease the maxi-
mum sintering temperature and deteriorate the
sintering bed permeability, thereby reducing the
sinter quality.54 Another reason was associated
with the burning speed of the solid fuel, which
would increase as the biochar replacement
increased because of the much higher reactivity of
biochar than coke at high temperatures (700–
800°C). It was found that, by replacing over 40%
coke breeze with biochar, there was an inconsistent
speed of the flame front and heat front during
sintering that reduced the combustion efficiency.15
The study by Cheng et al.55 showed that the flame
front speed increased with increasing replacement
of biochar due to its higher specific surface area and
higher intrinsic reactivity than coke breeze. In fact,
the effect of the replacement percentage of biochar
Use of Biochar for Sustainable Ferrous Metallurgy
Fig. 4. Effects of replacing coke breeze with biochar on the concentrations of pollutants in the sintering off-gas: (a) CO2, (b) CO, (c) SO2, and (d)
NO. Reprinted with permission from Ref. 15.
on the strength of sinter was also proved by
examination of two indexes, namely the duration
time of melting temperature (DTMT) and melting
quality index (MQI). It was revealed that they
reached their peak values at a replacement per-
centage of biochar of 60%. When the replacement
exceeded 60%, both indexes decreased sharply,
indicating serious deterioration of the sinter
strength. The results of these studies indicate that
replacing coke breeze with biochar for iron ore
sintering is highly promising in terms of environ-
mental and economic benefits, despite minor nega-
tive impacts on the sinter strength. In order to
substitute more biochar for coke breeze in the
sintering process, it is necessary to modify the
properties of the biochar, such as its microstructure
and chemical reactivity.
Production of Metallized Pellets
In addition to traditional BF ironmaking, which
employs sinter and oxidized pellets as main feed
materials, preparation of iron ore–carbon composite
pellets for production of metallized pellets, one of
the typical types of direct reduced iron (DRI), for
EAF steelmaking is also attractive because of its
simple route and great environmental benefits.
Usually, these composite pellets are prepared by
pelletizing a mixture of iron ore concentrates, non-
coke carbonaceous materials (e.g., coal), and binder.
It was found that the composite pellets had a higher
reduction degree than the ordinary burden materi-
als in the BF.56 They could act as microreactors57 at
high temperature because the iron ore and carbon
particles are in close contact and the CO produced
could not escape easily, enhancing the reduction
process.58 Recently, biochar has also been applied to
replace coal in such pellets. Because biochar is a
hydrophobic substance, the mechanical strength of
green and dry biochar-containing iron ore pellets
was found to be slightly lower than that without
addition of biochar. However, the gasification of
biochar in the pellets was reported to be dozens of
times faster.59 The studies by Matsui et al.59 and Ye
et al.60 demonstrated that good-quality metallized
pellets could be obtained with high reduction effi-
ciencies by using biochar as the main carbon source
in the composite pellets. In particular, according to
 Ye, Peng, Wang, Anzulevich, Bychkov, Kalganov, Tang, Rao, Li, and Jiang
Ye et al.,60 oak-derived biochar could be used to
replace coal completely, and superior iron ore–
biochar green composite pellets with drop number
of 3.6 times/0.5 m, compressive strength of 11.1 N/p,
and decrepitation temperature of 410°C were
obtained under the optimal pelletizing conditions.
After microwave reduction at 1050°C for only
30 min in neutral atmosphere, the composite pellets
were successfully converted to metallized pellets
with total iron content of 89.15% and metallization
degree of 95.52%, which served as a good burden for
steelmaking. These findings show that the use of
biochar for production of metallized pellets as DRI is
viable from the perspectives of energy conservation
and environmental protection.
BF Ironmaking
In recent years, biochar has been used directly in
BF ironmaking as a fuel to replace coke and
pulverized coal (PC).61 It has been found that there
is no apparent technological barrier to use of up to
200 kg biochar/tHM in BF (HM-hot metal).62 As
shown in Fig. 5,63 203 kg O2/tHM and 890 kg CO2/
tHM can be released and captured, respectively, if
biochar is used for ironmaking. The biochar can be
introduced into the BF by tuyeres injection or top
charging (Fig. 6).64 Tuyeres injection provides a
flexible choice for biochar utilization in large mod-
ern BFs. In this case, the mechanical strength of the
biochar is not important. According to simulations
of biochar injection into BF based on proper models
(Fig. 7),65 166.7 kg biochar/tHM could fully replace
155 kg PC/tHM with a potential energy saving of
50.2 GWh/year.66 The maximum injection rate of
biochar was in the range of 200–220 kg/tHM, show-
ing the potential to reduce the net CO2 emissions by
40%. Compared with tuyeres injection, however, top
charging of biochar is limited (20%),67,68 due to its
higher contents of K, Na, and Ca compared with
coke and pulverized coal (Table I).69–71 This is
Fig. 5. CO2 and O2 emissions in biochar-based ironmaking.
especially true for sustaining smooth and efficient
operation of large modern BFs (> 4000 m3), in
which the biochar replacing coke should possess
good cold and hot strengths to ensure the perme-
ability of the shaft, process stability, production
efficiency, and hot metal quality. Hanrot et al.72
reported that top charging of 20 kg/tHM of lump
biochar with high reactivity could reduce the coke
consumption in the BF by 30 kg/tHM via decreasing
the thermal reserve zone temperature. In fact,
decreasing the thermal reserve zone temperature
by 100°C can save up to 19 kg of coke/tHM,56,73,74
thereby reducing the CO2 emissions. On the other
hand, it may also have a negative effect on the
productivity of BF.72 It was found that, when the
reserve zone temperature decreased to 850°C, 9%
CO2 mitigation was achieved with only 4% loss of
BF productivity. Further decrease of the tempera-
ture to 750°C, however, would achieve 12% CO2
mitigation with up to 14% loss of the productivity.
Obviously, injecting/charging biochar into BF
changes the mass and heat transfers, temperature
profile, and gas distribution in the BF, directly
influencing the ironmaking process. Hence, the
usage of biochar should be carefully controlled to
optimize performance.
EAF Steelmaking
Over the past two decades, production of EAF
steel has increased dramatically, partly because of
the low CO2 emissions of the short EAF route (0.4 t
CO2/t crude steel),75 less than a quarter of that
typical for the BF-BOF route.76 Coke and anthracite
coal are traditionally used as the carbon source for
EAF steelmaking due to their high fixed carbon
contents.77 They mainly play three roles at different
stages of the EAF steelmaking process: (1) as a fuel,
to provide heat and to consume excessive oxygen
during the melting period; (2) as a slag foaming
agent, formed by reaction between the carbonaceous
Use of Biochar for Sustainable Ferrous Metallurgy

Fig. 6. Tuyeres injection and top charging of biochar into BF. Reprinted with permission from Ref. 64.

Fig. 7. Different submodels, zone-specific reactions, as well as inlet and outlet streams in BF. Reprinted with permission from Ref. 65.

materials and residual oxygen, which protects the
equipment by covering the arcs with electricity
conservation; and (3) as a steel recarburizer, to
modify the carbon content in the steel.78 In recent
years, replacement of coke and anthracite with
biochar for EAF steelmaking has been a research
hotspot due to its great potential for reducing
carbon consumption and CO2 emissions.78 Fidalgo
et al.77 studied the thermochemical properties and
reactivities of grape seed-derived and pumpkin
seed-derived biochar in EAF steelmaking. It was
found that these crop-derived biochars could obtain
reactivities comparable to those of coal employed in
the EAF steelmaking process. Besides, grape seed-
derived biochar was regarded as a more suitable slag
foaming promoter due to its high volatile content.
Yunos et al.79 also reported that, compared with
conventional coke, more violent carbon–slag
 Ye, Peng, Wang, Anzulevich, Bychkov, Kalganov, Tang, Rao, Li, and Jiang
interactions occurred when palm shell-derived
biochar was used in EAF steelmaking, as demon-
strated by the higher CO concentration in its gases.
However, the relatively high content of ash in
biochar may limit its application in EAF steelmak-
ing, because alkali metals, such as K and Na, in the
ash can promote the reaction between C and O,
leading to unfavorable burn-off behavior in EAF
steelmaking. Furthermore, because of their high
specific surface area, biochar fines usually show
high reactivity. To improve their use in EAF
steelmaking, pretreatment, such as agglomeration,
is believed to be necessary for control of the
reactivity.80
CHALLENGES TO USE OF BIOCHAR
AND CORRESPONDING MEASURES
The challenges to use of biochar in the iron and
steel industry are primarily related to eco-
nomics.34,81,82 Currently, the price of biochar varies
from 130.1 to 236.4 USD/t. In terms of price alone,
biochar cannot compete with coal. However, its
competitiveness could be improved by implementa-
tion of carbon taxes or application of advanced
biochar production technologies.
The implementation of carbon taxes is regarded
as the most advantageous measure at the moment
because of the carbon neutrality of biochar. Carbon
taxes in the range of 47.1–198.7 USD/t-CO2 may
apply, depending on the country,83 exceeding the
value of 30–35 USD/t-CO2 required to ensure
roughly equal overall costs of biochar and coal.68
In addition, as high-quality metallurgical coke and
coal are continuously consumed, the price difference
between biochar and traditional carbon sources will
decrease.
From the perspective of technology, reducing
biochar production costs by employing advanced
biomass pyrolysis techniques, instead of the tradi-
tion method of pyrolysis in a kiln,8 is another option
for enhancing utilization of biochar in ferrous
metallurgy. Flash carbonization, for example, is a
novel technology that has emerged in recent years.
It was reported that rapid pyrolysis of biomass
(< 30 min) can be achieved by flash carbonization
technology at 300°C to 600°C at inner reactor
pressure of 1–2 MPa, with typical carbon content
and biochar yield of  85% and 37%, respectively.84
It was estimated that a flash carbonization demon-
stration reactor (U1.73 m 9 H2.74 m) with output
of 8.4 t/d of fixed carbon will have a very short
payback period of 1.3 years, indicating a good
economic profit. Besides flash carbonization, micro-
wave pyrolysis is also considered to be a promising
technology. A comparison between conventional and
microwave pyrolysis of biomass to biochar was
carried out by Gronnow et al.85 The energy con-
sumption of conventional pyrolysis is about three
times that of microwave pyrolysis. Additionally,
microwave pyrolysis of biomass can produce
condensable and gaseous co-products (bio-oil and
syngas, respectively) with higher calorific value,
which can be used to produce electricity for driving
relevant processes. There is no doubt that large-
scale application of these new technologies will help
to reduce the cost of biochar production, contribut-
ing to its broader application in ferrous metallurgy.
CONCLUSION
This article has reviewed the main uses of biochar
in iron and steel metallurgy, mainly including
coking, iron ore sintering, production of metallized
pellets, BF ironmaking, and EAF steelmaking.
Biochar can be used to partially replace blended
coal when its addition and properties are strictly
controlled. In the sintering process, the replacement
percentage of biochar for coke breeze may reach
60%, significantly reducing COx, SOx, and NOx
emissions. For production of metallized pellets, full
replacement of coal with biochar in iron ore–carbon
composite pellets is achievable, as the prepared
composite pellets can be converted to qualified
metallized pellets for direct steelmaking at low
temperatures within a short period of time. In BF
ironmaking, biochar can be used to replace tradi-
tional carbonaceous materials via tuyeres injection,
having great potential for energy saving and reduc-
tion of net CO2 emissions by up to 40%. In EAF
steelmaking, biochar may play multiple roles, e.g.,
as a fuel, slag foaming agent, and steel recarburizer,
thereby improving the steelmaking process. To
overcome the economic barriers restricting the
application of biochar in iron and steel industry,
implementation of carbon taxes and use of advanced
pyrolysis techniques, such as flash carbonization
and microwave pyrolysis, are deemed most effective.
It is believed that, with the support of policy and
new technological advances, biochar will have wider
and more efficient applications in ferrous metal-
lurgy in the future.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was partially supported by the Na-
tional Natural Science Foundation of China under
Grants 51811530108, 51504297, 51881340420, and
51774337, the Natural Science Foundation of Hu-
nan Province, China under Grant 2017JJ3383, the
Co-Innovation Center for Clean and Efficient
Utilization of Strategic Metal Mineral Resources
under Grant 2014-405, the Guangdong Guangqing
Metal Technology Co. Ltd. under Grant 738010210,
the Innovation-Driven Program of Central South
University under Grant 2016CXS021, the Shen-
ghua Lieying Program of Central South University
under Grant 502035001, the Fundamental Re-
search Funds for the Central Universities of Central
South University under Grants 2018zzts798,
2018zzts779, 2018zzts220, 2018zzts222, 2019zzt-
s174, and 2019zzts706, the Russian Foundation for
Basic Research under Grants 18-58-53055 GFENa
Use of Biochar for Sustainable Ferrous Metallurgy
and 16-29-14045 ofim, and Act 211 of the Govern-
ment of the Russian Federation (contract no.
02.A03.21.0011).
REFERENCES
1. https://www.worldsteel.org/media-centre/press-releases/201
9/Global-crude-steel-output-increases-by-4.6–in-2018.html.
Accessed 9 Feb 2019.
2. E. Abdelaziz, R. Saidur, and S. Mekhilef, Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 15, 150 (2011).
3. https://www.worldsteel.org. Accessed 22 Mar 2019.
4. T. Brown, A. Gambhir, N. Florin, and P. Fennell, Briefing
Paper 7 (2012).
5. https://www.worldsteel.org/. Accessed 27 Feb 2019.
6. http://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/sites/default/files/publicati
ons/15671/global-technology-roadmap-ccs-%20industry-stee
l-sectoral-report.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2019.
7. J.G. Mathieson, M.A. Somerville, A. Deev, and S. Jahan-
shahi, Iron Ore 34, 581 (2015).
8. K. Isnugroho, D.C. Birawidha, and Y. Hendronursito, in
Conference on Fundamental & Applied Science for Advanced
Technology (2016).
9. R. Lovel, K. Vining, and M. Dell’Amico, Miner. Process. Extr.
Metall. 116, 85 (2007).
10. X. Fan, Z. Ji, M. Gan, X. Chen, and T. Jiang, Fuel Process.
Technol. 150, 1 (2016).
11. C. Luan, C. You, and D. Zhang, Energy 69, 562 (2014).
12. H. Meyers and R.F. Jennings, SEAISI Q. 38 (1979).
13. J. Ren, F. Li, Q. Li, and Z. Qiu, in Proceedings of the 9th
Asia-Pacific International Symposium on Combustion and
Energy Utilization (2007).
14. A. Babich, D. Senk, and M. Fernandez, ISIJ Int. 50, 81
(2010).
15. M. Gan, X. Fan, X. Chen, Z. Ji, Y. Wang, Z. Yu, and T. Jiang,
ISIJ Int. 52, 1574 (2012).
16. M. Ahmad, A.U. Rajapaksha, J.E. Lim, M. Zhang, N. Bolan,
D. Mohan, M. Vithanage, S.S. Lee, and Y.S. Ok, Chemo-
sphere 99, 19 (2014).
17. M. Li, Y. Tang, N. Ren, Z. Zhang, and Y. Cao, J. Clean. Prod.
172, 3342 (2018).
18. D. Woolf, J.E. Amonette, F.A. Street-Perrott, J. Lehmann,
and S. Joseph, Nat. Commun. 1, 1 (2010).
19. H. Konishi, K. Ichikawa, and T. Usui, ISIJ Int. 50, 386
(2010).
20. A.V. Bridgwater, Int. J. Glob. Energy Issues 27, 160 (2007).
21. W. Yan, T.C. Acharjee, C.J. Coronella, and V.R. Vasquez,
Environ. Prog. Sustain. 28, 435 (2009).
22. M.J. Antal and M. Gronli, Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 42, 1619
(2003).
23. http://www.pyne.co.uk/?_id = 76. Accessed 6 Mar 2019.
24. W.J. Desisto, I.N. Hill, S.H. Beis, S. Mukkamala, J. Joseph,
C. Baker, T.-H. Ong, E.A. Stemmler, M.C. Wheeler, B.G.
Frederick, and A.V. Heiningen, Energy Fuels 24, 2642
(2010).
25. A. Repo, M. Tuomi, and J. Liski, GCB Bioenergy 3, 107
(2011).
26. E.J. Luoga, E.T.F. Witkowski, and K. Balkwill, Ecol. Econ.
35, 243 (2000).
27. J.A. Libra, K.S. Ro, C. Kammann, A. Funke, N.D. Berge, Y.
Neubauer, M.M. Titirici, C. Fuhner, O. Bens, J. Kern, and
K.H. Emmerich, Biofuels 2, 71 (2011).
28. H. Tsukashi, Bull. Chem. Soc. Jpn. 39, 460 (1966).
29. T.R. Brown, M.M. Wright, and R.C. Brown, Biofuels Bio-
prod. Biorefin. 5, 54 (2011).
30. S. Meyer, B. Glaser, and P. Quicker, Environ. Sci. Technol.
45, 9473 (2011).
31. H. Kamyab, S. Chelliapan, R. Shahbazian-Yassar, M.F.M.
Din, T. Khademi, A. Kumar, and S. Rezania, JOM 69, 1361
(2017).
32. B.D. Flores, I.V. Flores, A. Guerrero, D.R. Orellana, J.G.
Pohlmann, M.A. Diez, A.G. Borrego, E. Osório, and A.C.F.
Vilela, Fuel Process. Technol. 155, 97 (2017).
33. M.A. Dı́ez, R. Alvarez, and C. Barriocanal, Int. J. Coal Geol.
50, 389 (2002).
34. E. Mousa, C. Wang, J. Riesbeck, and M. Larsson, Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 65, 1247 (2016).
35. J.A. Macphee, J.F. Gransden, L. Giroux, and J.T. Price, Fuel
Process. Technol. 90, 16 (2009).
36. K.W. Ng, L. Giroux, T. MacPhee, and T. Todoschuk, in
AISTech 2012: Proceedings of the Iron & Steel Technology
Conference (2012).
37. T. Kawaguchi and M. Hara, ISIJ Int. 53, 1599 (2013).
38. X. Xing, H. Rogers, G. Zhang, K. Hockings, P. Zulli, A. Deev,
J. Mathieson, and O. Ostrovski, Fuel Process. Technol. 157,
42 (2017).
39. H. Suopajärvi, E. Dahl, A. Kemppainen, S. Gornostayev, A.
Koskela, and T. Fabritius, Energies 10, 1850 (2017).
40. K. Li, J. Zhang, M. Barati, R. Khanna, Z. Liu, J. Zhong, X.
Ning, S. Ren, T. Yang, and V. Sahajwalla, Fuel 145, 202
(2015).
41. K.W. Ng, J.A. MacPhee, L. Giroux, and T. Todoschuk, Fuel
Process. Technol. 92, 801 (2011).
42. M.A. Diez and A.G. Borrego, Fuel 113, 59 (2013).
43. M.A. Diez, R. Alvarez, and M. Fernandez, Fuel 96, 306 (2012).
44. A. Guerrero, M.A. Diez, and A.G. Borrego, Int. J. Coal Geol.
147–148, 105 (2015).
45. M. Zandi, M. Martinez-Pacheco, and T.A.T. Fray, Miner.
Eng. 23, 1139 (2010).
46. R.P. Bahgat, U.S. Chattoraj, and S.K. Sil, ISIJ Int. 46, 1728
(2006).
47. H. Kokubu, T. Kodama, H. Itaya, and Y. Oguchi, ISIJ Int.
26, 182 (1986).
48. K. Higuchi and R. Heerema, Miner. Eng. 16, 463 (2003).
49. L. Xiong, Z. Peng, F. Gu, L. Ye, L. Wang, M. Rao, Y. Zhang,
G. Li, and T. Jiang, Powder Technol. 340, 131 (2018).
50. X. Fan, J. Meng, X. Chen, J. Zhuang, Y. Li, and L. Yuan, J.
Cent. South Univ. 39, 1125 (2008).
51. G.C. Abreu, J.A.D. Carvalho, B.E.C.D. Silva, and R.H.
Pedrini, J. Clean. Prod. 101, 387 (2015).
52. X. Fan, Z. Ji, M. Gan, X. Chen, L. Yin, and T. Jiang, ISIJ
Int. 55, 521 (2015).
53. L. Lu, M. Adam, M. Kilburn, S. Hapugoda, M. Somerville, S.
Jahanshahi, and J.G. Mathieson, ISIJ Int. 53, 1607 (2013).
54. X. Chen, Y. Huang, M. Gan, X. Fan, Z. Yu, and L. Yuan, J.
Iron Steel Res. Int. 22, 1107 (2015).
55. Z. Cheng, Y. Jian, Z. Lang, Y. Liu, Z. Guo, and Q. Wang,
Energy Convers. Manag. 125, 254 (2016).
56. T. Ariyama, R. Murai, and M. Sato, ISIJ Int. 10, 1371 (2005).
57. S. Ueda, K. Watanabe, K. Yanagiya, T. Murakami, R. Inoue,
and T. Ariyama, ISIJ Int. 10, 1505 (2009).
58. H. Mizoguchi, H. Suzuki, and S. Hayashi, ISIJ Int. 8, 1247
(2011).
59. Y. Zhang, D. Duan, Z. You, G. Li, X. Fan, and T. Jiang, in
4th International Symposium on High-Temperature Metal-
lurgical Processing (2013).
60. L. Ye, Z. Peng, L. Wang, A. Anzulevich, I. Bychkov, H. Tang,
M. Rao, Y. Zhang, G. Li, and T. Jiang, Powder Technol. 338,
365 (2018).
61. J.G. Mathieson, H. Rogers, M.A. Somerville, and S. Jahan-
shahi, ISIJ Int. 52, 1489 (2012).
62. P.L. Hooey, A. Bodén, C. Wang, C.E. Grip, and B. Jansson,
ISIJ Int. 50, 924 (2010).
63. J.H. Noldin, in Proceeding of 6th European Coke and Iron-
making Congress (2011).
64. H. Suopajärvi, K. Umeki, E. Mousa, A. Hedayati, H. Romar,
A. Kemppainen, C. Wang, A. Phounglamcheik, S. Tuomi-
koski, N. Norberg, A. Andefors, M. Öhman, U. Lassi, and T.
Fabritius, Appl. Energy 213, 384 (2018).
65. C. Wang, P. Mellin, J. Lövgren, L. Nilsson, W. Yang, H.
Salman, A. Hultgren, and M. Larsson, Energy Convers.
Manag. 102, 217 (2015).
66. C. Feliciano-Bruzual and J.A. Mathews, Rev. Metal. Ma-
drid. 49, 458 (2013).
67. G. Fick, O. Mirgaux, P. Neau, and F. Patisson, Waste Bio-
mass Valoriz. 5, 43 (2014).
 Ye, Peng, Wang, Anzulevich, Bychkov, Kalganov, Tang, Rao, Li, and Jiang
68. T. Norgate and D. Langberg, ISIJ Int. 49, 587 (2009).
69. A. Cores, A. Babich, M. Muniz, A. Isidro, S. Ferreira, and R.
Martin, Ironmak. Steelmak. 34, 231 (2007).
70. J.G.M.S. Machado, E. Osório, and C.F. Vilela, Mater. Res.
13, 287 (2010).
71. http://www.ieabcc.nl/publications/IEA_Bioenergy_T32_Tor
refaction_review.pdf. Assessed 20 Mar 2019.
72. F. Hanrot, D. Sert, J. Delinchant, R. Pietruck, T. Bürgler, A.
Babich, M. Fernández, R. Alvarez, and M.A. Diez, in Pro-
ceeding of 1st Spanish National Conference on Advances in
Materials Recycling and Eco-Energy (2009).
73. A. Kasai and Y. Matsui, ISIJ Int. 44, 2073 (2004).
74. Y. Ujisawa, K. Nakano, Y. Matsukura, K. Sunahara, S.
Komatsu, and T. Yamamoto, ISIJ Int. 45, 1379 (2005).
75. V. Zaharia and R. Sahajwalla, ISIJ Int. 49, 1513 (2009).
76. https://www.iea-coal.org/co2-abatement-in-the-iron-and-ste
el-industry-ccc-193/ Assessed 20 May 2019.
77. B. Fidalgo, C. Berrueco, and M. Millan, J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol.
113, 274 (2015).
78. J. Mathieson, H. Rogers, M. Somerville, P. Ridgeway, and S.
Jahanshahi, in Proceedings of 1st International Conference
on Energy Efficiency and CO2 Reduction in the Steel
Industry (2011).
79. N.F.M. Yunos, M. Zaharia, M.A. Idris, D. Nath, R. Khanna,
and V. Sahajwalla, Energy Fuels 26, 278 (2012).
80. D. Thorsten, R. Tim, S. Marc, E. Thomas, and P. Herbert,
Ironmak. Steelmak. 43, 564 (2016).
81. H. Suopajärvi, E. Pongrácz, and T. Fabritius, Renew. Sus-
tain. Energy Rev. 25, 511 (2013).
82. H. Suopajärvi, A. Kemppainen, J. Haapakangas, and T.
Fabritius, J. Clean. Prod. 148, 709 (2017).
83. C. Feliciano-Bruzual, J. Mater. Res. Technol. 3, 233 (2014).
84. M.J. Antal, K. Mochidzuki, and L.S. Paredes, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 42, 3690 (2003).
85. M.J. Gronnow, V.L. Budarin, O. Mašek, K.N. Crombie, P.A.
Brownsort, P.S. Shuttleworth, P.R. Hurst, and J.H. Clark,
GCB Bioenergy 5, 144 (2013).
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with re-
gard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional
affiliations.