Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10311-020-01165-9

REVIEW

Biochar production, activation and adsorptive applications: a review

Biswa R. Patra1 · Alivia Mukherjee1 · Sonil Nanda1 · Ajay K. Dalai1

Received: 30 November 2020 / Accepted: 17 December 2020 / Published online: 17 February 2021
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG part of Springer Nature 2021

Abstract
Rising global population and urbanization are major causes of waste generation, energy demand and carbon emissions. The
atmospheric ­CO2 concentration has increased of 44% from 284 ppm in 1850 to 409 ppm in 2018. In 2017, the world energy
consumption was 582 quadrillion British thermal units (qBtu), including 495 qBtu of fossil fuels and 87 qBtu of renewable
and nuclear energy sources. Therefore, there is a need for new energies and methods of carbon sequestration, for instance by
recycling biomass into biochar. Here, we review the thermochemical valorization of waste biomass by pyrolysis, gasification,
torrefaction and carbonization to produce biochar with promising and environmental applications. We detail parameters that
control biochar yields, quality and composition. Physical and chemical routes of biochar activation are also described. We
focus on the utilization of biochar as soil amendment and for the adsorption of pollutants from wastewater. We conclude by
a discussion on the techno-economic and lifecycle assessment of biochar production technologies.

Keywords Biochar · Activated carbon · Adsorption · Soil amendment · Heavy metals · Pharmaceuticals · Dyes

Abbreviations Millimoles per kilogram Mmol/kg

Acetylene C2H2 Minutes Min
Ammonia NH3 Moles per kilogram Mol/kg
Carbon dioxide CO2 Nitrous oxide N2O
Carbon monoxide CO Oxygen O2
Cubic centimeter per min Cm3/min Phosphoric acid H3PO4
Degree Celsius °C Potassium carbonate K2CO3
Ethane C2H6 Potassium hydroxide KOH
Ethylene C2H4 Potential of hydrogen PH
Gram per hour G/h Second S
Gram per minute G/min Sodium hydroxide NaOH
Gram G Zinc chloride ZnCl2
Hour H
Hydrogen H2
Kilogram Kg Introduction
Mega joules per kilogram MJ/kg
Methane CH4 With currently 7.8 billion people, the global population
Milligram per gram Mg/g has undergone tremendous growth over the last few dec-
Milligram per liter Mg/L ades (Worldometer 2020). The rapid population growth has
Millilitre per minute ML/min driven the need for food, energy and materials. Energy is the
Millimoles per gram Mmol/g base for economic development and essential for power gen-
eration, agriculture, industry and transportation. Today, most
of the world’s energy demand is fulfilled by fossil fuels.
* Ajay K. Dalai Figure 1 reveals the trend of global energy consumption as
ajay.dalai@usask.ca fossil fuels, e.g., coal, natural gas, petroleum and other liq-
1
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering,
uid fossil fuels, renewables and nuclear sources. The global
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, energy consumption was nearly 582 quadrillion British
Canada

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
2238 Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259

Fig. 1  Global trend of primary

energy consumption. Note the
increase in total energy usage
over the years including that of
petroleum and other liquid fossil
fuels, coal, natural gas, renewa-
bles and nuclear sources. Data
source: U.S. Energy Information
Administration (2020a)

thermal units in 2017 compared to 292 quadrillion British
thermal units in 1980 (U.S. Energy Information Adminis-
tration 2020a). From the worldwide total energy consump-
tion of 582 quadrillion British thermal units in 2017, coal,
natural gas, petroleum and other fossil fuels contributed 495
quadrillion British thermal units, whereas renewable and
nuclear energy sources attributed to merely 87 quadrillion
British thermal units.
Rapid industrialization, urbanization and automation have
led to an unprecedented increase in fossil fuel consumption,
thereby deteriorating the environment due to pollution. For
the past few decades, there is a steep increase in the level
of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (­ CO2), fluori-
nated gases, nitrous oxide (­ N2O) and methane (­ CH4) among
which ­CO2 plays an immense role in global warming and
climate change (Nanda et al. 2016d). According to the U.S.
Energy Information Administration (2020b), the global total
­CO2 emissions from fossil fuel was 36,061 million metric
tonnes in 2017 compared to 18,746 million metric tonnes
in 1980 (Fig. 2). From the total C ­ O2 emissions of 36,061
million metric tonnes in 2017, coal and coke, natural gas as
well as petroleum and other liquid fossil fuels attributed to
15,657, 7268 and 13,136 million metric tonnes, respectively.
Such an alarming amplification in ­CO2 emissions from fos-
sil fuels necessitates the use of carbon–neutral alternative
energy sources.
The atmospheric C ­ O2 concentration has increased from
284 parts per million in 1850 to 409 parts per million in
2018 indicating a 44% rise within 138 years (Fig. 3) (Our
World in Data 2020a). According to the Global Monitoring

Fig. 2  Global trend of C

­ O2
emissions from fossil fuels.
Note the increase in the ­CO2
emissions from coal, coke,
natural gas, petroleum and other
liquid fuels over the years. Data
source: U.S. Energy Information
Administration (2020b)

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259 2239

Fig. 3  Global trend of atmospheric C

­ O2 concentration. Note the dra-
matic increase in ­CO2 concentration over the years. According to Our
World in Data (2020a), the ­CO2 emissions are calculated and inte-
grated from multiple sources such as the Carbon Dioxide Information
Analysis Center in the U.S. and Global Carbon Project in Australia.
Data source: Our World in Data (2020a)
Fig. 4  Global average median temperature anomaly. Note the gradual
increase in the global average temperature with years. According to
Our World in Data (2020b), temperature anomalies are calculated
based on the measurements made by the Met Office Hadley Centre
for Climate Science and Services located in the U.K. Data source:
Our World in Data (2020b)

Laboratory in Colorado, the atmospheric C ­ O2 emissions

are reported as a dry air mole fraction without water vapor
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2020b).
It is defined as the number of C
­ O2 molecules divided by the
number of all molecules in the air (along with C ­ O2) after
the removal of water vapor. The resulting mole fraction is
expressed in parts per million.
The increase in the atmospheric levels of C ­ O2 and other
greenhouse gases has resulted in global warming (Osman
et al. 2020). Figure 4 illustrates the global average median
temperature anomaly from 1850 to 2019 (Our World in Data
2020b). Temperature anomaly is defined as a deviation from
a reference value or long-term average of temperature. A posi-
tive anomaly refers to the observed temperature being warmer
than the reference value or long-term average. On the con-
trary, a negative anomaly is denoted by the observed tempera-
ture being cooler than the reference value or long-term aver-
age. The datasets typically used in calculating average global
temperature anomaly are land and sea surface temperatures
(National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2020a).
The global economy necessitates clean and alternative
Fig. 5  Common sources of waste biomass. Some abundantly availa-
sources of energy to tackle fossil fuel-related environmen- ble biomass sources across the world include lignocellulosic biomass,
tal issues. A wide variety of organic residues with promis- e.g., agricultural crop residues, forestry biomass and energy crops,
ing candidacy as resources for waste-to-energy conversion municipal solid waste, industrial effluents, sewage sludge and cattle
include lignocellulosic biomass (Nanda et al. 2013), food manure. Such organic residues have tremendous potential to be used
as precursors for waste-to-energy conversion
waste (Kosheleva et al. 2019, Nanda et al. 2016c, 2019),
municipal solid waste (Nanda and Berruti 2020a, 2021),
waste plastics (Nanda and Berruti 2020b), cattle manure organic residues have emerged as the most sustainable
(Nanda et al. 2016b), sewage sludge (Gong et al. 2017) energy resource in achieving global energy security with a
and industrial effluents (Reddy et al. 2016) (Fig. 5). Such remarkable reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

13
2240
Lignocellulosic biomass is generally a carbonaceous
non-edible plant residue, captures the solar energy in the
form of carbohydrates through photosynthesis. Examples of
lignocellulosic biomass include agricultural crop residues,
forestry biomass, dedicated energy crops and invasive crops
(Okolie et al. 2020a). Through suitable thermochemical and
biological conversion technologies, the stored carbohydrates
can be converted to bio-hydrocarbons such as biofuels and
biochemicals as well as bio-products such as nutraceuticals,
cosmeceuticals, flavoring agents, aromatic products, biochar,
activated carbon and other value-added compounds (Nanda
et al. 2016a; Okolie et al. 2020b; Tang et al. 2020).
Lignocellulosic biomass typically contains lignin
(10–25 wt%), hemicellulose (20–40 wt%), cellulose
(25–45 wt%) along with extractives and ash (Nanda et al.
2013). Cellulose is a hexose sugar composed of glucose
monomers connected by β (1–4) glycoside linkages. Hemi-
cellulose is made up of sugar like hexose and pentose and
sugar acids, e.g., glucuronic acid and galacturonic acid.
Hemicellulose is an amorphous heteropolymer, which
makes it more susceptible than cellulose. Lignin consists
of phenylpropane polymers that render highly branched and
phenolic structures with recalcitrant carbon–carbon link-
ages (Fougere et al. 2016). Being a source of aromatics or
beneficial phenolic by-products, lignin has a high energy
density (Spiridon et al. 2020). Extractives are generally com-
prised of non-structural water-soluble sugars and proteins,
Fig. 6  Thermochemical pathways of biomass conversion. From this
figure, it is evident that a wide variety of solid (i.e., biochar), liquid
(i.e., bio-oil and bio-crude oil) and gaseous (i.e., syngas and producer
13
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
chlorophyll, waxes, terpenes, terpenoids, resins and aromat-
ics (Nanda et al. 2013). Ash is generally composed of inor-
ganic matter in biomass, which might catalyze or retard the
conversion process, thus influencing the biofuel yield. Ash
often induces reactor fouling and slagging, thereby requiring
frequent maintenance leading to high expenditures (Zacco
et al. 2014).
Biomass conversion technologies can be divided broadly
into three routes such as physicochemical, biochemical and
thermochemical. The physicochemical conversion involves
the application of mechanical forces for the extraction of
bioactive components from biomass, whereas the thermo-
chemical conversion involves heat, pressure and catalysis
to thermally breakdown the biomass into biofuels and bio-
products. On the other hand, the biochemical conversion
involves microorganisms or enzymes for the biodegradation
of biomass to bioproducts. The biological technologies for
waste-to-energy conversion encompass anaerobic digestion,
ethanol fermentation and acetone-butanol-ethanol fermenta-
tion, dark/photo-fermentation to produce primarily biometh-
ane, bioethanol, biobutanol and biohydrogen, respectively
(Nanda et al. 2017a; Sarangi and Nanda 2020). As shown
in Fig. 6, thermochemical technologies such as pyrolysis,
liquefaction, gasification and torrefaction convert waste bio-
mass to bio-oil, producer gas, synthesis gas, tar and biochar
(Nanda et al. 2014).
gas) biofuels are generated from the thermochemical waste-to-energy
technologies
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
Biochar, a stable solid carbon-rich co-product produced
from pyrolysis and gasification of lignocellulosic biomass,
has numerous applications in wastewater treatment, car-
bon sequestration, pollution remediation, soil enrichment,
pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, catalysis, gas storage, electron-
ics and biocomposites, to name a few (Nanda et al. 2016a;
Gunarathne et al. 2019; Balajii and Niju 2019; Gopinath
et al. 2020). Biochar is a porous carbonized material com-
prising of highly stable aromatic carbon, which can be
widely applied for the adsorption of heavy metals and pol-
lutants from wastewater, soil and air, carbon sequestration
and soil conditioning for improving its physicochemical and
organic properties (Randolph et al. 2017; Azargohar et al.
2014, 2019a; Karthik et al. 2020).
There are some key parameters determining biochar
properties, which include: (1) feedstock properties includ-
ing its biopolymeric composition, elemental composition,
ash content and particle size; (2) type of conversion process
and reactor technology; (3) reaction conditions, e.g., tem-
perature, heating rate, vapor residence time, reaction time,
feed concentration, equivalence ratio and catalysts (Nanda
et al. 2016a; Okolie et al. 2019). Because of such param-
eters, there are variabilities in the elemental composition,
surface morphology and functionalities of biochar, which
affect its performance. Based on the physicochemical and
structural properties of biochar, its potential application can
be determined.
Biochar and activated biochar has exceptional abilities
in removing organic and inorganic contaminants, heavy
metals, toxic and other pollutants from wastewater and soil.
Recently, environmental remediation using biochar has
evolved as a promising area. Therefore, further studies on
biochar application in various fields are required to increase
its applicability in environmental remediation. Biochar, with
its wide range of applications, is considered a win–win sce-
nario for both waste management and environmental reme-
diation. With this objective, this article reviews the process
parameters that affect biochar yields, quality and compo-
sition during thermochemical conversion and activation of
waste biomass. Some notable applications of biochar, espe-
cially in soil amendment and wastewater reclamation are
systematically reviewed.
Thermochemical technologies for biochar
production
Torrefaction
Torrefaction, a relatively mild thermochemical process,
is often proposed as an alternate pretreatment method in
upgrading the physiochemical properties of biomass. Tor-
refaction has attracted tremendous attention because of
2241
its energy efficiency and its effectiveness to produce bio-
fuel with uniform-quality energy carriers with coal-like
properties (Barbanera and Muguerza 2020). It involves
thermal dehydration of lignocellulosic biomass under an
inert atmosphere at a moderate temperature typically in
the range of 200–300 °C with a slow to moderate heating
rate (Buratti et al. 2018). The operating conditions and
biomass composition directly affect the efficacy of tor-
refaction. During torrefaction of lignocellulosic materi-
als, hemicellulose is mostly affected due to its amorphous
nature and a lower degree of polymerization compared to
cellulose and lignin (Chen et al. 2015). Since hemicellu-
lose degrades almost completely during torrefaction, this
thermal treatment renders the properties of diverse types
of biomass more uniformly with the effects of enriching
and changing the form of inorganic species.
Torrefaction of lignocellulosic biomass results in tor-
refied biomass or char, tar and volatile gases. It results in
the production of homogeneous solid fuels with partially
reduced biopolymers (e.g., hemicellulose, cellulose and
lignin), volatile matter and moisture content and higher
carbon content. Some of the advantages of torrefaction
are: (1) lowering the moisture content of biomass, (2)
improving hydrophobicity of biomass, (3) enhancing the
energy density, (4) higher grindability, (5) higher reactiv-
ity, (6) resistance to microbial decomposition due to lower
moisture content, and (7) compacted storage and handling
(Chen et al. 2015, 2016b; Zhang et al. 2020). Furthermore,
the emission of greenhouse gas such as ­CO2 and volatile
matter from the burning of torrefied char is significantly
reduced (Sukiran et al. 2017; Olugbade and Ojo 2020).
Moreover, the torrefied char can be extruded into solid fuel
pellets through densification and pelletization (Azargohar
et al. 2019b).
Strandberg et al. (2015) studied the impact of torrefac-
tion temperature and residence time on the Norway spruce
wood. The authors found that the atomic ratios for hydro-
gen/carbon and oxygen/carbon in torrefied biomass were
reduced with increasing temperature and residence time
compared to the raw biomass. At 310 °C and 25 min of
residence time, the hydrogen/carbon atomic ratio reduced
from 1.4 to 0.86, whereas the oxygen/carbon atomic ratio
lowered from 0.64 to 0.27.
Zhang et al. (2018) investigated the impact of torrefaction
temperature at the range from 200 to 300 °C and residence
time (15–60 min) on the mass and energy yield of spent cof-
fee grounds, Chinese medicine residue and microalga resi-
due. The authors reported that the mass yield and energy
yield reduced with increasing the severity of torrefaction
temperature and time. The mass yield and energy yield were
in the range of 98.2–55.4% and 98.9–74.7% for all the pre-
cursors tested.
13
2242
The performance indices used to assess the extent of
torrefaction performance are solid yield, improvement in
calorific value and energy yield of the torrefied char in
comparison with their precursor (Zhang et al. 2018). The
solid yield of torrefied biochar represents a decreasing trend
with the increasing severity of torrefaction temperature and
vapor residence time inside the reactor. Similarly, the energy
yield lowers with increasing torrefaction severity (Chen
et al. 2015). In contrast, the calorific value of torrefied char
increases because of comparatively more carbon retained
due to dehydration and decarboxylation, which cause the
removal of hydroxyl groups, e.g., moisture, volatiles and
carboxylic acids from biomass.
Pyrolysis and carbonization
Pyrolysis of biomass is an endothermic process, which
includes the thermal degradation of solid organic matter
under an inert atmosphere into bio-oil, biochar and pro-
ducer gas (Aravind et al. 2020). Pyrolysis produces bio-oil,
biochar and non-condensable gases like C ­ O2, CO, C­ H4 and
­H2, which can be utilized for combined heat and power gen-
eration. The liquid product or bio-oil generally consists of
oxygenated hydrocarbons such as phenolic ethers, alkyls,
esters, aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acids, hydrocarbons
and a substantial amount of water. The liquid product from
pyrolysis generally possesses a calorific value of 16–28 MJ/
kg (Mohanty et al. 2013). The calorific value of biochar is
generally in the range of 25–30 MJ/kg depending on the
amount of unconverted organic fraction (Jia et al. 2017).
During the process of pyrolysis, components like cellulose
and hemicellulose mostly form volatile products, while bio-
char is formed from lignin due to its high stability to ther-
mal degradation. Biochar retains the stable carbon from the
biomass and possesses various uses such as a solid fuel, soil
amendment agent, carbon sequestration and precursor for
manufacturing value-added products of industrial and com-
mercial interest (Hansen et al. 2015).
The rate and degree of thermal decomposition of biomass
during pyrolysis depend on the variations in temperature,
heating rate, pressure, vapor residence time, reactor con-
figuration and feedstock properties (Mohanty et al. 2013).
Based on temperature, heating rate and vapor residence
time, pyrolysis can be categorized typically into slow and
fast pyrolysis (Jahirul et al. 2012). Slow heating rates (i.e.,
0.1–1 °C/s), moderate temperatures (i.e., 300–600 °C) and a
longer vapor residence time (i.e., greater than 30 min) usu-
ally categorize slow pyrolysis (Roy and Dias 2017; Senneca
et al. 2018; Safdari et al. 2019). A longer vapor residence
time results in a secondary reaction such as polymerization
to produce biochar with high carbon content (Yaashikaa
et al. 2019). Slow pyrolysis is a preferred route for biochar
production due to its high yields compared to that of bio-oil
13
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
and producer gas. On the other hand, fast pyrolysis involves
a high heating rate (i.e., 10–1000 °C/s), high temperatures
(i.e., 300–700 °C) and short vapor residence times (i.e., less
than 2 s) to thermally degrade the biomass into high yields
of bio-oil and producer gas with lower yields of biochar
(Ahmad et al. 2014; Roy and Dias 2017). The authors also
studied the effects of heating rate and as well as the resi-
dence time on the production of biochar using slow and fast
pyrolysis process.
Slow pyrolysis is also referred to as carbonization because
it leads to a higher biochar yield. The stages of carbonization
of biomass are categorized into four major steps such as (1)
dehydration, (2) thermal cracking of lighter molecules, (3)
thermal cracking of larger molecules, and (4) evolution of
aromatized and stable carbon with the removal of volatiles
(Puligundla et al. 2016). Lignite-like biochar with a high
grade of aromatization is generated from carbonization.
Hydrothermal carbonization is another emerging route for
biochar production from high-moisture containing biomass
such as algae, municipal solid wastes, invasive crops, and
sewage sludge (Smith et al. 2016; Kang et al. 2019). The
solid residue obtained because of hydrothermal carboniza-
tion of waste biomass is often termed as hydrochar because
of its generation under hydrothermal conditions. The pro-
cess involves heating the biomass material under hydro-
thermal conditions at lower temperatures, i.e., 180–260 °C
under higher pressures of, i.e., 22 MPa for longer dura-
tions (Mäkelä et al. 2015). The reaction medium in such
processes is mostly water at its subcritical conditions. Sub-
critical water exists at temperatures and pressures below the
water’s critical points, i.e., 374 °C and 22.1 MPa, respec-
tively (Nanda et al. 2017a, b). Hydrothermal carbonization
results in friable, energy-dense and hydrophobic hydrochar
with the reduction in hydrophilic moieties in the biomass
and denaturing its colloidal structures (Smith et al. 2016).
The method is relatively inexpensive and environmentally
benign because of the involvement of water as a green sol-
vent. The liquid products such as phenolic compounds and
furan derivatives can also be extracted, which could be uti-
lized for chemical or biofuel production, while the spent
water can be used in anaerobic digestion facilities to increase
the process efficiency (Oliveira et al. 2013).
Temperature plays a significant role in determining the
physicochemical, morphological and structural properties of
biochar. Temperature causes dehydration, decarboxylation,
decarbonylation and deamination of biomass, which leads
to the evolution of sticking physicochemical features in bio-
char (Kim et al. 2011). For example, a rise in temperature of
pyrolysis, gasification and carbonization leads to a decrease
in the biochar properties such as yield, moisture and volatile
contents, electrical conductivity and cation exchange capac-
ity (Nanda et al. 2016a). In contrast, a rise in temperature
causes an increase in the aromatic carbon content of biochar
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
along with its elemental or ash content, pH value, surface
area and porosity (Fig. 7). Biochar produced at low-temper-
ature pyrolysis usually possesses a lower surface area, unde-
veloped porous structures, acidic pH and low carbon con-
tent. The pores in the low-temperature biochar are usually
blocked by the formation of tar. Therefore, biochar requires
chemical or physical activation to increase its surface area
and porosity. The formation of biochar involves crosslink-
ing reactions through condensation and dehydration at low
temperatures (Heidari et al. 2019). Biochar becomes pro-
gressively more aromatic with higher carbon content as the
temperature increases by the elimination of hydroxyl, olefin,
aliphatic and carbonyl groups. At higher temperatures, the
volatile matter is released from biochar, which results in the
opening of its pore structures.
Gasification
Gasification, an endothermic process, involves the thermal
decomposition of organic materials mainly to combustible
synthesis gas or syngas and biochar under reducing con-
ditions in the presence of gasifying agents like oxygen or
steam. The gasifying agents are supplied in a sub-stoichi-
ometric amount when compared with the amount required
for complete combustion to C ­ O2 and water. The gaseous
phase contains a mixture of ­H2, ­CO2, CO and ­CH4 as well
as traces of ­C2H2, ­C2H4 and ­C2H6 (Okolie et al. 2019).
Hydrothermal gasification is also another iteration of gasi-
fication that involves supercritical water as the reaction
medium. Supercritical water is a fluid phase of water occur-
ring at temperatures and pressures beyond its critical points.
The critical temperature and critical pressure of water are
374 °C and 22.1 MPa (Reddy et al. 2014). Complex biomass
Fig. 7  Evolution of physicochemical properties of biochar with tem-
perature. Note the increasing trend for the levels of aromatic carbon,
ash, pH value, surface area and porosity of biochar at higher tempera-
tures for pyrolysis, gasification, torrefaction and carbonization. On
the contrary, at low reaction temperatures, the yield, volatile matter,
moisture content, electrical conductivity and cation exchange capac-
ity of biochar are greater
2243
is disintegrated into permanent gases and biochar during
supercritical gasification because of a series of hydrothermal
reactions such as water–gas shift, hydrogenation, methana-
tion, steam reforming and Boudouard reaction (Okolie et al.
2020c, 2020d). Supercritical water demonstrates gas-like
viscosities and liquid-like densities acting as a green sol-
vent, catalyst and reactant to decompose highly recalcitrant
organic matter (Nanda et al. 2017b). The hydrothermal gasi-
fication can also eliminate excess energy requirements for
the pre-drying of biomass feedstocks because of the aqueous
reaction medium (Correa and Kruse 2018).
In the case of conventional thermochemical gasifica-
tion, the primary oxygenated vapors and liquids comprise
of hemicellulose and cellulose-derived compounds, i.e.,
hydroxyl acetaldehyde and levoglucosan as well as methoxy
phenols derived from lignin (De Lasa et al. 2011). At around
350 °C, the aromatization process starts and continues until
higher temperatures are attained. At temperatures ranging
from 700 to 850 °C, the primary vapors and liquids are con-
verted to gaseous olefins, ­CO2, ­H2, CO, ­H2O and conden-
sable oils like phenols and aromatics. A further rise in the
temperature from 850 to 1000 °C involves the conversion of
secondary products to ­H2, ­CH4, CO, ­H2O, ­CO2, tar and bio-
char. Steam gasification of biomass has emerged as an area
of interest because of its capability in producing hydrogen-
containing gaseous fuel along with biochar of high quality.
The feedstock properties need to be taken into consid-
eration during gasification. The properties of biomass that
can affect gasification are its specific surface area, volatile
matter, moisture levels, ash content, particle size and carbon
content (Okolie et al. 2019). There are few other variables
that also considerably impact the performance of gasifica-
tion such as temperature, heating rate, pressure, equivalence
ratio, feed concentration, gasifier configuration, gasifying
agent and catalysts (Bocci et al. 2014; Jia et al. 2017).
The equivalence ratio is considered as a crucial param-
eter, which states the actual oxygen-to-biomass ratio divided
by the stoichiometric oxygen-to-biomass ratio (Bermudez
and Fidalgo 2016). The equivalence ratio affects the com-
position of gasification products. A higher equivalence ratio
lowers the concentration of H ­ 2 and CO while increasing the
content of ­CO2 (Liu et al. 2018). Thus, a higher equivalence
ratio results in gaseous products with lower heating value.
Nevertheless, a high equivalence ratio shows an advanta-
geous effect by reducing the formation of tar as the oxygen
present in the system reacts with the volatiles (Upadhyay
et al. 2019). With an increase in equivalence ratio, the gase-
ous yield also increases and biochar yield decreases. This is
because with the increase in the concentration of oxidizing
agents, the combustion rate increases, thus converting the
biomass into gaseous products (Ismail and El-salam 2017).
Moreover, the steam-to-biomass ratio possesses a higher
limit set by the stoichiometry of gasification beyond which
13
2244
the resulting gas contains a high amount of steam. Thus, in
steam gasification, the resulting issues reveal the importance
of the proper selection of steam-to-biomass ratio for attain-
ing high process competence (Jia et al. 2017).
Hansen et al. (2015) reported that reactions between bio-
char and oxygen in the combustion zone of the gasification
system played a prominent role in determining the quality of
the product gas. Other factors like tar composition, conver-
sion of biochar, gas composition, and heating value require
significant consideration as they determine the operation and
performance of gasification. The rise in gasification tem-
perature results in enhancing the content of combustible gas,
especially hydrogen along with a substantial increase in its
heating value, and the reduction in tar content (Ning et al.
2018). Furthermore, with the rising temperature, hydrogen
shows an initial increment at chemical equilibrium, reaching
maximum at a particular temperature and gradually decreas-
ing (Bocci et al. 2014; Ismail and El-salam 2017). From
an overall processing perspective, higher temperatures are
found to be suitable for biomass gasification. However, in
the biomasses with high alkaline metal concentrations, the
ash agglomeration requires a lower temperature, which may
restrict gasification at temperatures approaching 750 °C
(Kittivech and Fukuda 2019).
The gasification process usually undergoes in the pres-
ence of gasifying agents like air, steam, ­O2 and ­CO2. Usu-
ally, the gasifying agent used in the gasification governs the
calorific value and the syngas quality, i.e., ratio of ­H2/CO.
Kim et al. (2013b) reported that air as a gasifying agent
resulted in the production of syngas of low heating value.
The dilution of syngas by nitrogen present in the air was the
main reason behind its low heating value. However, Choi
et al. (2015) found that when steam or an amalgamation of
steam and oxygen was used for gasification, a mediocre calo-
rific value syngas was produced. Moreover, the combination
of steam and air for gasification produced high hydrogen
yields when compared to the use of air alone. Such prac-
tice also can lessen the energy required for the gasification
process, which is usually supplied by combusting biomass.
In the gasification process, residence time has a substan-
tial impact on the production and composition of gases, char
and tar. According to Erkiaga et al. (2014), the increase in
residence time negatively impacts the occurrence of oxygen-
containing compounds. Additionally, the yields of some of
the aromatic ring compounds (except benzene and naphtha-
lene) are reduced with increased residence time, while that
of three- and four-ring aromatic species increased. Longer
residence times enable the reduction in tar as well as biochar
production, but it increases gaseous product yield (Reddy
et al. 2014). The removal of volatiles and tar at increased
residence time enhances the biochar porosity and surface
area (Nanda et al. 2016a). Therefore, gasification is an effec-
tive thermochemical technology for production of biochar
13
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
from waste biomass along with the generation of combus-
tible syngas.
Activation of biochar
Activated carbon is a carbonaceous material containing
mostly aromatic and graphite form of carbon thermally
or physicochemically treated to have high porosity and
larger specific-surface area due to a well-built internal pore
structure (Yahya et al. 2015). Activated carbon is typically
derived from coal-based precursor or thermally stable bio-
mass-derived char to develop organized pore-structure, high
specific surface area, favorable pore size distributions, high
physiochemical stability, surface reactivity and high adsorp-
tive capacity (Danish and Ahmad 2018; Heidarinejad et al.
2020). Activated carbon can have a surface area approaching
or more than 1500 m2/g, which is almost fifty-times greater
than that of a biomass-derived char (Azargohar and Dalai
2006). The development of a larger specific surface area in
activated carbons is attributed to the presence of a greater
degree of microporosity and mesoporosity generated from
the conventional heating techniques. It should be noted that
activated carbon is a product of biochar activation through
a physical or chemical approach.
Presently, commercial activated carbons are derived from
non-renewable precursors such as coke or coal-based precur-
sors, which limits their extensive use (Baytar et al. 2018).
Although, the source of activated carbon could be non-con-
ventional and renewable sources such as lignocellulosic bio-
mass (e.g., wood, straw, husk, peel, distillery grains, kitchen
waste, shell, pith, etc.) and wastes materials such as scrap
tires (Rashidi and Yusup 2017). The non-renewable fossil
fuel-based precursors are gradually being replaced by waste
organic biomasses for the production of activated carbon
because of economically feasibility, eco-friendliness, lower
regeneration cost, high renewable carbon content, lower pro-
duction costs and energy requirements (Hesas et al. 2015;
Rashidi and Yusup 2017; Mukherjee et al. 2019).
The demand for activated carbon is escalating every
year. The global market of activated carbon reached the
U.S. $4.72 billion in 2018 with a compound annual growth
rate increase of 17.5% until 2025 (Grand View Research
2020). The growing demand for activated carbon is due to
the enormous applications in chemical processes, pharma-
ceuticals, biomedicine, environmental remediation, waste-
water treatment, gas storage and purification, electrical
devices, cosmeceuticals, personal care products, carbon
capture and sequestration, and other value-added sectors
(González-García et al. 2013; González-García 2018;
Nanda et al. 2016a; Wong et al. 2018).
The preparation of activated carbon from bio-
char through physical activation involves a dual-stage
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
mechanism where the biomass is thermally treated at
600–900 °C under an inert atmosphere to produce bio-
char for further activation at 800–1100 °C in the presence
of suitable activating or oxidizing agents (Yahya et al.
2015; Hesas et al. 2015). The commonly used oxidizing or
physical activation agents are steam, ­CO2, air or a binary
mixture of ­CO2 and ­N2. During the pyrolysis process, the
surface chemical properties of biochar undergo a series of
complex and variable changes that further facilitate the
activation process (Wang et al. 2019). Extensive research
has been conducted on C ­ O 2-based physical activation,
which is preferred over steam due to its easy handling,
the requirement of low activation temperature and car-
bon recyclability approach (Yahya et al. 2015). However,
from an industrial perspective, using a purified stream of
­CO2 can increase the process expenditures. Hence, it is
recommended to use the flue gas generated after the post-
combustion, which contains a binary mixture of ­N2 and
­CO2 (Puligundla et al. 2016). Table 1 summarizes some
recent studies on the physical activation of biochar.
Chemical activation involves impregnation of the pre-
cursor with a chemical activating agent under an inert
atmosphere typically at 450–900 °C. The chemicals agents
having the potential as a strong dehydrating agent during
activation can be categorized as: (1) acids, e.g., sulfuric acid
and phosphoric acid, (2) alkalis, e.g., potassium hydroxide,
potassium carbonate, sodium hydroxide, sodium carbon-
ate, and (3) transition metal salts, e.g., aluminum chloride,
zinc chloride and magnesium chloride (Yahya et al. 2015;
Nanda et al. 2016a). Chemical activation is considered eco-
nomically viable compared to physical activation since it
requires shorter processing time, lowers the activation tem-
perature, generates high-grade porous activated carbon, high
final carbon yields and one-step processing (Bergna et al.
2018). The technique of mixing the dehydrating agent and
precursor can significantly influence the properties of acti-
vated carbon such as the yield of solid and carbon along
with the inhibition of tar formation. Crucial developments
in the production of activated carbon have been made over
the past few years concerning the type of activating agents,
mixing techniques, activation process optimization and uti-
lization of inexpensive carbonaceous precursors (Mukherjee
et al. 2019). Table 2 summarizes some recent studies on the
chemical activation of biochar.
Tehrani et al. (2015) studied the effects of process condi-
tions like temperature as well as a physical and chemical
activating agent on the characteristics of activated carbon
produced from chemical and physical activation of coffee
extract residue. The authors used H ­ 3PO4 and steam as an
activating agent for chemical and physical activation, respec-
tively. The obtained activated carbon with a highly devel-
oped porous structure and surface area enabled its potential
application for the removal of various contaminants from a
2245
liquid and gaseous stream. The study showed that chemi-
cally activated carbon recorded the highest surface area of
696 m2/g in contrast to the activated carbon derived from
physical activation (641 m2/g).
Kumar and Jena (2018) reported high yields (38.1 wt%)
of activated carbon with a higher surface area (2869 m2/g)
and total pore volume (1.96 cm3/g) produced from Z ­ nCl2—
assisted chemical activation of Fox nutshell. However, the
use of Z
­ nCl2 has adverse impacts on the environment, which
has limited use in chemical activation processes (Azargohar
and Dalai 2008). Shahkarami et al. (2015) used whitewood
biochar as a precursor for physical and chemical activation
processes. KOH (1400 m2/g) resulted in the highest sur-
face area for the activated carbon followed by that of steam
(840 m2/g) and ­CO2 (820 m2/g).
Rambabu et al. (2015) used chemical activation agent
(i.e., KOH and N ­ H3) and physical activation agent (i.e.,
steam and ­CO2) of de-oiled canola meal. The authors found
KOH led activation of canola meal with the highest surface
area (1230 m2/g) and pore volume (0.4 cm3/g). The surface
area of the resulting activated carbon was highest in the case
of KOH (1230 m2/g) followed by steam (403 m2/g), ­CO2
(320 m2/g) and ­NH3 (19 m2/g). Muniandy et al. (2014) also
reported KOH as a superior activating agent for produc-
ing activated carbon from rice husk over NaOH. The study
reported a higher surface area of activated carbon produce
from KOH (2696 m2/g) when compared to that of NaOH
(594.9 m2/g). KOH is extensively used as a chemical acti-
vation agent for producing activated carbon with enhanced
surface area and adsorption performance. When compared
to physical activation, chemical activation tremendously
enhances the surface area and porosity of the activated
carbon.
Applications of biochar and activated
biochar
Removal of heavy metals from wastewater
Wastewater is generated from domestic, municipal and
industrial activities, which consists of harmful pollutants
such as organic substances, pharmaceuticals, hormones
and steroids, plastics, sediments, oil and grease, patho-
genic microorganisms, heavy metals, microplastics, hydro-
carbons, radioactive substances and other toxic substances
(Sun et al. 2019; Chen et al. 2019a; Nanda and Berruti
2020a). These contaminants have many adverse effects on
the environment and ecosystems by affecting the natural
habitats and metabolism of plants, animals and human
beings. The exposure or consumption of wastewater con-
taining heavy metals and other contaminants can cause
serious health ailments in human beings including cancer
13
2246 Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259

Table 1  Recent studies on the physical activation of biochar precursors

Feedstock Physical Activation Reac- Key attrib- BET Total pore Average Yield (wt%) References
agent temperature tion time utes surface area volume pore size
(°C) (min) ­(m2/g) ­(cm3/g) (nm)

Almond shell Steam 950 60 Steam 1261 – – 50 Nazem et al.

flow rate: (2020)
130 cm3/
min
Canola meal Steam 800 90 Steam flow 403 0.18 2.07 69.5 Rambabu et al.
rate: 8 g/h (2015)
CO2 700 120 CO2 flow 320 0.30 3.67 –
rate:
24 mL/min
Coconut CO2 850 60 CO2 flow 1152 0.72 – 2.6 Tsai and Jiang
shell rate: (2018)
50 cm3/
min
Coffee resi- Steam 700 120 Steam/N2 641 0.33 2.06 13.4 Tehrani et al.
due ratio: 1:2 (2015)
Pine nutshell Steam 850 80 Steam/bio- 1058 – – 31.2 Chen et al.
mass ratio: (2016a)
1.5:1
Pistachio Steam 950 30 Steam 1196 – – 41.7 Nazem et al.
shell flow rate: (2020)
130 cm3/
min
Sewage CO2 700 60 CO2/N2 240 0.39 6.46 – Zhang et al.
sludge ratio: 1:3 (2019)
Spruce, fir, Steam 900 60 – 1025 0.77 3.0 8 Bardestani and
and pine Kaliaguine
stem (2018)
Tea waste Steam 800 30 Steam 995 0.68 2.73 22.42 Zhou et al.
flow rate: (2018)
0.075 g/
min
Walnut shell Steam 950 60 Steam 1248 – – 45.8 Nazem et al.
flow rate: (2020)
130 cm3/
min
Whitewood Steam 700 100 Steam/car- 840 0.55 – 59 Shahkarami
bon ratio: et al. (2015)
1:1.06
CO2 890 100 CO2 flow 820 0.45 – 55
rate:
130 mL/
min
Wood chips CO2 800 180 CO2 flow 590 0.34 3.44 – Kilpimaa et al.
rate: (2015)
90 cm3/
min

and cardiovascular, neurological and pulmonary disorders
(Guo et al. 2016). The treatment of wastewater is often
found to be inefficient to complete removal of the toxic
compounds, micro-contaminants and nanoparticles. There-
fore, advanced treatments are required specific to particu-
lar contaminants in the wastewater for its reclamation.
Many studies have reported that a wide range of biochar
can be used effectively in removing different contaminants
(Mohan et al. 2014; Inyang and Dickenson 2015; Cha et al.
2016). Biochar is considered a promising absorbent that can
remove contaminants like heavy metal and organic matter
present in water and soil. Biochar and activated carbons
have a high surface area, microporosity and surface-active

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259 2247

Table 2  Recent studies on the chemical activation of biochar precursors

Feedstock Chemical Activation Reac- Impregnation ratio BET sur- Total pore Average Yield References
agent temperature tion time (Chemical:feedstock) face area volume pore size (wt%)
(°C) (min) or Chemical concen- ­(m2/g) ­(cm3/g) (nm)
tration

Canola KOH 800 120 3:1 1230 0.46 1.51 – Rambabu

meal et al.
(2015)
Coffee H3PO4 600 60 40% 696 0.59 3.37 34.9 Tehrani et al.
residue (2015)
Fox nut- ZnCl2 600 60 2:1 2869 1.96 2.73 38.1 Kumar and
shell Jena (2015)
Golden K2CO3 800 240 1:1 1413 0.66 1.86 57.7 Tran et al.
shower (2018)
Pinewood ZnCl2 580 120 1:1 1081 0.37 0.57 28.8 Ahmed et al.
KOH 580 120 1:4 1185 0.35 0.52 19.5 (2019)
Pinewood H3PO4 600 120 2:1 1547 1.17 – 43.3 Cao et al.
sawdust (2018)
Pumpkin ZnCl2 500 60 3:1 1564 0.965 24.7 18.6 Demiral et al.
seed shell (2015)
Rice husk KOH 850 60 1:5 2696 1.29 2.63 17.1 Muniandy
NaOH 750 60 1:2 595 0.34 8.41 18.2 et al.
(2014)
Sewage KOH 700 60 2:1 908 0.83 3.68 – Zhang et al.
sludge (2019)
Whitewood KOH 775 120 0.81:1 1400 0.62 – 35 Shahkarami
et al.
(2015)

functional groups, which make them effective adsorbents
to remove heavy metals from the environment. The adsorp-
tion capability of biochar depends upon the properties of
the precursor biomass, conversion technology and process
condition employed.
Ahmad et al. (2014) reported that increasing pyrolysis
temperature increases the specific surface area, carbon con-
tent, microporosity and development of the oxygen-oriented
functional group in biochar, which enhances the adsorption
capacity of the contaminants. It was evident from many
studies that biochar produced at elevated temperature, i.e.,
more than 400 °C developed enhanced surface area and
microporosity to act as superior adsorbent (Jin et al. 2014;
Tan et al. 2015). Biochar can effectively remove heavy met-
als (e.g., arsenic, aluminum, cadmium, chromium, copper,
lead, mercury, nickel, uranium and zinc), organic pollutants
(e.g., pesticides, herbicides, antibiotics and dyes), and other
pollutants (e.g., ammonium, nitrate, phosphate, fluoride and
perchlorate) from aqueous solutions, thus preventing the risk
of water contamination (Tan et al. 2015; Zou et al. 2018;
Chen et al. 2019b; Xu et al. 2019).
Table 3 summarizes some recent studies on the adsorption
of heavy metals by biochars derived from a wide variety of
waste resources. Agrafioti et al. (2014) studied the removal
of contaminants like arsenic and chromium using biochar
produced from feedstocks like rice husk, sewage sludge and
the organic waste of municipal solid waste using slow pyrol-
ysis. Their study also showed optimum adsorbent dose to
remove heavy metals like chromium(III), chromium(VI) and
arsenic(V). Sewage sludge derived biochar showed the high-
est removal of arsenic(V), chromium(III) and chromium(VI)
as 13.4 mg/g, 94.3 mg/g and 64.1 mg/g, respectively at 25 °C
and pH 7 compared to other biochars.
According to Xu et al. (2013), biochar produced from rice
husks and feces showed effective results in removing heavy
metals such as cadmium, copper and zinc. When compared
to rice husk biochar, the feces-derived biochar showed bet-
ter removal rates. In feces-derived biochar, heavy metals
were adsorbed on oxygenated functional groups, whereas
in the case of rice husk-derived biochar, the adsorption took
place on phenolic functional groups. From this study, it was
evident that the functional groups, especially the ones that
are oxygenated play an immense role in the adsorption of
heavy metals.
Park et al. (2016) investigated the removal of heavy met-
als using biochar produced from slow pyrolysis of sesame
straw at temperature 700 °C. The adsorption capacities of
heavy metals like lead (i.e., 11.8 and 2.8 mg/g), cadmium
(i.e., 9.7 and 1.2 mg/g), chromium (8.4 and 1.8 mg/g), copper
(6 and 2.4 mg/g), zinc (3.7 and 1.4 mg/g) were determined

13
2248 Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259

Table 3  Adsorption characteristics of heavy metals by biochar

Feedstock Conversion Conversion Target contami- Adsorption Adsorption Adsorption Isotherm References
technology temperature nant temperature capacity pH
(°C) (°C) (mg/g)

Sewage sludge Pyrolysis 300 Arsenic(V) 25 13.4 7 Langmuir Agrafioti et al.

Chromium(III) 94.3 (2014)
Chromium(VI) 64.1
Miscanthus Pyrolysis 300 Cadmium(II) 25 11.4 7 Langmuir Kim et al.
sacchariflo- 400 12.0 (2013a)
rus
500 13.2
600 13.0
Soybean straw Pyrolysis 400 Copper(II) 25 ± 1 0.83 mol/kg 5 Langmuir Tong et al.
(2011)
Sugar beet Pyrolysis 300 Chromium(VI) 22 ± 0.5 123 2 Langmuir Dong et al.
tailing (2011)
Hardwood Pyrolysis 450 Copper(II) 22 ± 2 6.8 5 Langmuir Chen et al.
Zinc(II) 4.5 (2011)
Corn Straw 600 Copper(II) 12.5
Zinc(II) 11
Rapeseed Pyrolysis 500 Lead(II) 25 ± 2 184.1 5 Langmuir Gao et al.
(2019)
Orchard prun- Pyrolysis 500 Lead(II) 20 108.2 mmol/ 4.5 Langmuir Caporale et al.
ing kg (2014)
Chromium(III) 98.3 mmol/kg
Copper(II) 46.5 mmol/kg
Pig manure Carbonization 600 Lead(II) 60 230.7 6 Langmuir Kołodyńska
Zinc(II) 79.6 5 et al. (2012)
Cadmium(II) 117 6
Cow manure Copper(II) 88.5 5
Lead(II) 219.3 6
Zinc(II) 61.9 5
Cadmium(II) 118.4 6
Anaerobic Pyrolysis 600 Lead(II) 25 51.2 6 Langmuir Ho et al. (2017)
digestion
sludge
Sesame straw Pyrolysis 700 Lead(II) 25 102 7 Langmuir Park et al.
Cadmium(II) 86 (2016)
Chromium(III) 65
Copper(II) 55
Zinc(II) 34
Loofah Pyrolysis 700 Chromium(VI) 30 30.1 3 Freundlich Xiao et al.
Sponges Copper(II) 30 54.7 7 (2019)
Pine dust Pyrolysis 700 Copper(II) 25 8.9 5.5 Langmuir Poo et al.
Cadmium(II) 5 (2018)
Zinc(II) 5.2
Saccharina Pyrolysis 500 Copper(II) 25 98.6 11.3 Langmuir Poo et al.
japonica 700 Cadmium(II) 60.7 10.9 (2018)
(Kelp)
Zinc(II) 84.3
Sargassum Pyrolysis 600 Copper(II) 25 94.1 9.7 Langmuir Poo et al.
fusiform 700 Cadmium(II) 37.2 11.2 (2018)
(Hijikia)
Zinc(II) 43

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259 2249

by using Freundlich isotherms under mono-metal and multi-
metal conditions. They found that the adsorption capacity of
sesame straw produced biochar showed better results when
compared to other adsorbents like zeolite, sawdust and acti-
vated carbons.
Caporale et al. (2014) studied the removal of heavy metals
like lead, chromium and copper from water using pruning-
derived biochar produced through slow pyrolysis at 500 °C.
The biochar having an average specific surface area of
410 ± 6 m2/g and functional groups like hydroxyl, carboxyl
and amino groups was found to be effective in the removal of
heavy metals. The authors found the adsorption capacities of
lead (108.2 mmol/kg) and chromium (98.3 mmol/kg) to be
quite similar as both the heavy metals showed a higher affin-
ity toward biochar surface. However, copper (46.5 mmol/
kg) showed lesser affinity. The highest adsorption of lead
metal at pH 4.5 was due to electrostatic attraction. The study
also explored the role of pH in the adsorption process and
reported that the acidic conditions played a vital role in
the adsorption of metal. The researcher adopted a fast field
cycling nuclear magnetic resonance relaxometry method to
study the essence of the bonds at the solid–liquid interface
of the biochar and metal.
Gao et al. (2019) used rape straw-derived biochar pyro-
lyzed at 500 °C for removing lead(II) from water. The max-
imum adsorption capacity with the Langmuir model was
found to be 184.1 mg/g at room temperature, i.e., 25 ± 2 °C
with pH 5. Similarly, Ho et al. (2017) studied the removal
of lead(II) from wastewater by using pyrolyzed anaerobic
digestion sludge-derived biochar. The adsorption capacity of
lead(II) determined by the Langmuir model was 51.2 mg/g.
Removal of dyes from wastewater
The discharge of wastewater and effluents from dye indus-
tries poses numerous threats to the ecosystems as they
contain toxic chemicals, organics, acids, bases and other
impurities. Textile dyes often show stability to the oxidiz-
ing agent and withstand aerobic digestion, which makes their
removal difficult (Mohan et al. 2014). Several researchers
have used various biochar samples derived from biomass
for the removal of dyes such as methylene blue, methyl vio-
let, Remazole orange and reactive red 141 (Xu et al. 2011;
Acemioğlu 2019; Gokulan et al. 2019). Table 4 summarizes
some notable studies on the adsorption of organic contami-
nants by biochars produced from several organic residues.
Sun et al. (2013) used various biochar samples produced
from pyrolysis of Eucalyptus, anaerobic digestion residues
(or municipal organic waste) and palm bark at 400 °C to
study the adsorption of methylene blue dye. The efficien-
cies for methylene blue removal by biochars derived from
anaerobic digestion residues, palm bark and Eucalyptus were

Table 4  Adsorption characteristics of dyes by biochar

Feedstock Conversion Conversion Target con- Adsorption Adsorption Adsorption pH Isotherm References
technology temperature taminant temperature capacity
(°C) (°C) (mg/g)

Rice husk Liquefaction 340 Malachite 30 67.6 9 Freundlich Leng et al.

green (2015)
Peanut straw Pyrolysis 350 Methyl violet 25 256.4 mmol/g 9.4 Langmuir Xu et al. (2011)
Soybean straw 178.6 mmol/g 8.4
Rice hull 123.5 mmol/g 8.3
Eucalyptus Pyrolysis 400 Methylene 40 2.1 7 Langmuir Sun et al.
Municipal blue dye 9.5 (2013)
organic
waste
Palm bark 2.7
Blue-green Pyrolysis 450 Congo red 30 51.3 2 Langmuir Nautiyal et al.
algae (2016)
(Spirulina
platensis)
Sugarcane Pyrolysis 800 Malachite 60 3000 mg/L 7.5 – Vyavahare et
bagasse green al. (2018)
Wood waste Gasification 700 Indosol Black 28 185 2 Langmuir Kelm et al.
­NF1200 (2019)
Green algae Pyrolysis 800 Malachite 35 5306.2 12.3 Freundlich Chen et al.
(Ulothrix green (2018)
zonata) Crystal violet 1222.5
Congo red 345.2

13
2250
found to be 99.5%, 99.3% and 86.1%, respectively, at opti-
mum conditions, i.e., 40 °C, 5 mg/L concentration and pH
7. The municipal organic waste-derived biochar showed a
maximum adsorption capacity of 9.5 mg/g.
Leng et al. (2015) also studied the adsorption of mala-
chite green using biochar produced from the liquefaction of
rice husk using ethanol as a solvent. The adsorption capac-
ity of malachite green was found to be between 32.5 and
67.6 mg/g. Vyavahare et al. (2018) studied the removal of
malachite green dye using biochar produced from differ-
ent biomasses such as paper waste, cotton waste, rice husk,
sugarcane bagasse and groundnut shells. Among varying
pyrolysis temperatures studied, the authors found that pyrol-
ysis of sugarcane bagasse at 800 °C for 60 min showed better
performance resulting in maximum sorption of malachite
green, i.e., 3000 mg/L.
Nautiyal et al. (2016) used Spirulina platensis algae as
a feedstock for producing biochar for dye removal. The
researcher explored the use of algae residues after in situ
transesterification from biodiesel industries to examine the
adsorption of Congo red dye from its resulting biochar.
The authors reported that algae biochar showed 76.6% dye
removal with an adsorption dosage of 0.2 g per 100 mL.
The study ascertained that biochar derived from algae pos-
sesses a high adsorption capacity to treat wastewater from
dye industries.
Chen et al. (2018) used pyrolyzed microalgae (Ulothrix
zonata) derived biochar for the adsorption of various dyes
from wastewater. The study also investigated the influence of
different pyrolysis temperatures of biochar on the adsorption
of dyes. The target dyes were crystal violet, Congo red and
malachite green. Microalgae-derived biochar showed highly
porous structures and thermal stability with developed surface
chemical characteristics, which resulted in the removal of the
aforementioned dyes from the aqueous solution. The optimum
adsorption capacity achieved for the removal of malachite
green dye was 5306.2 mg/g with biochar produced at 800 °C
while for crystal violet and Congo red, the maximum adsorp-
tion capacities were 1222.5 and 345.2 mg/g, respectively.
Kelm et al. (2019) used biochar produced from the gasi-
fication of wood waste to remove azo dye (Indosol Black
­NF1200) from an aqueous solution. The batch adsorption
was performed at 28 °C for 3 h at a speed of 200 rpm. The
study showed that at lower pH, the experimental adsorption
efficiency was found to be 185 mg/g using the Freundlich
model. Thus, wood waste-derived biochar was reported as
an efficient adsorbent from the removal of individual azo dye
contaminated wastewater.
Removal of pharmaceutical drugs from wastewater
For many years, water bodies are constantly getting con-
taminated with pharmaceutical and personal care products
13
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
(Rajapaksha et al. 2019; Shi et al. 2020). Such wastes com-
prise a wide range of organic chemicals, which include anti-
biotics, therapeutic drugs, contraceptive pills, natural and
synthetic hormones, cosmetics, nutraceuticals, veterinary
drugs, health supplements and other complex organic prod-
ucts. Among the many hazardous and carcinogenic contami-
nants, endocrine-disrupting chemicals are one of the emerg-
ing concerns. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals adversely affect
the physiological and metabolic pathways of humans, animals
and plants by causing disorders in hormonal development and
reproduction (Wang et al. 2015; Adeel et al. 2017).
Steroid estrogen is a natural or synthetic hormone,
which acts as an endocrine-disrupting chemical. It includes
estriol, estrone and estradiol, which have adverse impacts on
humans and animals once they end up in soil and water bod-
ies. It is estimated that approximately 30,000 kg and 700 kg
of natural estrogen and synthetic estrogens are annually dis-
charged into the environment, respectively, at a global scale
(Adeel et al. 2017). The synthetic estrogen comes mainly
from birth control pills. Natural estrogens from both human
and animal waste results in adverse risks to the environ-
ment. Estrogen in the form of estradiol is found predomi-
nantly in wastewater, which biomagnifies in aquatic plants
and animals and eventually enters the human food chain.
Both drinking water and seafood (e.g., fish and aquatic plant-
based foods) consumed by humans could contain estrogen,
thus affecting puberty and fertility (Gonsioroski et al. 2020).
Estrogen exposure also impairs fertility in fishes (Spivey
2004). Estrogen, endocrine-disrupting chemicals and many
other pharmaceutical drugs are unregulated compounds in
most developing and developed countries.
Many researchers have reported biomass-derived biochar
to be an effective adsorbent for the removal of such potent
pharmaceutically active compounds from wastewater (Petrie
et al. 2015; Fernandez et al. 2015; Ahmed et al. 2016; Sophia
and Lima 2018), a few of which have been summarized in
Table 5. Ahmed et al. (2018) investigated the removal of
phenolic endocrine-disrupting chemicals using functional-
ized biochar. The functionalized biochar produced from the
pyrolysis of Eucalyptus was used to investigate the adsorp-
tion of six phenolic endocrine-disrupting chemicals such as
estriol, estrone, estradiol, 4-tert-butylphenol, bisphenol and
17α-ethynylestradiol. The researchers reported that at a pH
range of 3–3.5, the hydrogen bond formation and electron-
donor acceptor interaction are predominant, thus leading to
maximum sorption of endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The
study showed that the composition of water played a signifi-
cant role in the sorption capacity of endocrine-disrupting
chemicals. Estrone was found to have the highest sorption,
while estriol had the least sorption. The complete removal
of estrone in sewage effluent was observed at 300 mg/L of
biochar dosage, while other compounds were removed at a
dosage of 400 mg/L.
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259 2251

Table 5  Adsorption characteristics of pharmaceutical compounds by biochar

Feedstock Conversion Conversion Target con- Adsorption Adsorption Adsorption Isotherm References
technology temperature taminant temperature capacity pH
(°C) (°C) (mg/g)

Peanut shells Pyrolysis 300 Trichloroeth- 25 12.1 7.7 Langmuir Ahmad et al.
Soybean ylene 12.5 7.2 (2012)
stover
Peanut shells 700 31.7 11.3
Soybean 32 10.5
Stover
Maize straw Pyrolysis 300 Oxytetracy- 25 ± 0.5 759.4 5.5 Freundlich Jia et al. (2013)
cline
Oil palm fiber Pyrolysis 500 Ethylparaben 25 349.7 6 Langmuir Zhou et al.
(2019)
Bagasse Pyrolysis 600 Sulfamethoxa- 25 54.4 6 Langmuir Yao et al. (2018)
zole
Sulfapyridine 8.6 8.4
Pomelo peels Pyrolysis 700 Paracetamol 25 147 7 Langmuir Tran et al.
waste (2020)
Pure glucose 900 286
Wood waste Gasification 900 Rhodamine B 25 189.8 7 Langmuir Maneerung
et al. (2016)

Zhou et al. (2019) used oil palm fiber-derived activated
biochar to study the adsorption of ethylparaben. Ethylpara-
ben, an endocrine-disrupting compound, was adsorbed onto
activated biochar with an adsorption capacity of 349.7 mg/g
at room temperature. To et al. (2017) used palm kernel shell-
derived activated carbon for the adsorption of pharmaceu-
tical drugs like atenolol, carbamazepine and acetobutolol
with the maximum adsorption capacities of 0.69 mmol/g,
0.72 mmol/g and 0.72 mmol/g, respectively.
Tran et al. (2020) used spherical and non-spherical bio-
char derived from pure glucose and pomelo peel wastes,
respectively, for removing pharmaceutical pollutants from
water. The researcher pyrolyzed pomelo peel wastes at
700 °C to generate non-spherical biochar and used hydro-
thermal carbonization of glucose at 190 °C, followed by
pyrolysis at 900 °C to produce spherical biochar. Both the
biochar was used to study the adsorption of paracetamol.
The adsorption capacities for spherical and non-spherical
biochar samples were 286 mg/g and 147 mg/g, respectively,
at 25 °C and pH 7.
Soil amendment
The agricultural crop production has been gradually rising to
meet the overwhelming demand of the growing population.
Moreover, the usage of chemical fertilizers and agricultural
products has put the soil at risk, leading to soil degrada-
tion and subsequent reduction in crop production (Karthik
et al. 2020). The conventional agricultural practices of using
chemical fertilizers could result in the loss of soil organic
matter, altered soil structure, reduced water holding capac-
ity, high heavy metal content, fluctuating soil pH and salin-
ity as well as lower nutrient retention capacity of the soil
(Randolph et al. 2017). The enhancement of the soil quality
and augmentation of organic matter can lower the exposure
and susceptibility of the crops to drought and soil infertility.
Windeatt et al. (2014) reported soil application of biochar
derived from crop residues as one of the prominent advan-
tageous tools available for enhancing soil organic matter.
Sohi et al. (2009) reported that biochar has the potential in
enhancing the organic carbon content of the soil, thus bene-
fiting the environment and soil quality. According to Hansen
et al. (2015), the conversion of organic residues via gasi-
fication could produce environmentally benign bioenergy
along with biochar as a by-product for soil amendment and
carbon sequestration. The authors reported that gasification
biochar has extensive potential for increasing the production
of crops in coarse sandy soils. Crop production is enhanced
due to increased water retention capacity of the soil and the
development of root systems. It was suggested that depend-
ing on the precursors and the conversion technology used,
biochar could comprise 60% carbon with demonstrated sta-
bility toward microbial degradation. The post-soil applica-
tion can enable the soil carbon pool to sustain for decades.
Brewer et al. (2009) prepared several biochar samples
from pyrolysis and gasification of different biomasses such
as corn stover, switchgrass, and wood biomass. The obtained
biochar was then subjected to an eight-week soil incuba-
tion field trial for studying the improvement in the treated
soil as well as for measuring the plant growth. The authors

13
2252
reported that biochar properties and their impacts on soil
vary extensively with various biochar feedstocks and oper-
ating conditions. They also found that gasification-derived
biochar showed favorable results in terms of carbon stability
indicators, determining the pH and cation exchange capacity
of the soil.
Shaaban et al. (2018) reviewed the application of bio-
char in enhancing soil properties and mitigation of environ-
mental pollutions. The review demonstrated the economic
and agronomic importance of biochar application to soil.
According to the authors, the biochar plays an indispensable
role in enhancing soil pH by reducing metal toxicity. The
increased soil pH enables the retention of essential elements
by enhancing its anion exchange capacity. Because of the
enhanced cation exchange capacity of the soil, the water and
nutrients retention capacities can be improved significantly.
Biochar produced from different biomass and varied tem-
peratures could show broadly developed surface functional
groups, which help in the retention of nitrate compounds.
The researchers also reported that biochar also has a positive
impact on soil fertility by improving the macro-elements
(e.g., nitrogen, potassium, magnesium, calcium, phospho-
rous and sulfur) and microelements (e.g., zinc, manganese,
boron, iron, bromine, copper, cobalt and molybdenum) in
the soil. Biochar has a significant application in alleviating
soil pollution as the carbonaceous product can reduce the
soil’s metal toxicity and remediate heavy metals content.
The study showed that biochar restricts the bioavailability of
previously mentioned heavy metals and can enhance nitro-
gen fixation and microbial activity to make the soil suitable
for high crop production.
Techno‑economic analysis
of thermochemical conversion
Biomass-derived biofuels are evolving as a potential
replacement for fossil fuel. The recent trend in biomass
utilization for the production of biochar followed by acti-
vation for various valuable applications is also gaining
wide attention. However, the diverse utilization of biochar
as a fuel, adsorbent, catalyst, soil conditioner and electro-
catalytic precursor material is dependent on its cost com-
petitiveness, energy efficiency and marketability. Techno-
economic analysis can help in determining the energy
input and output as well as the production cost of biofuels,
biochemicals and value-added bioproducts (Borugadda
et al. 2020). The economic and financial performances
of the biomass processing plants can also be determined
by developing discounted cash flow rate models through
techno-economic analysis.
Bridgwater et al. (2002) performed a comparative
techno-economic analysis of thermochemical conversion
13
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
technologies such as combustion, pyrolysis and gasification
for power generation. The researchers developed an equa-
tion for evaluating operating cost and capital cost for all the
conversion technologies. The assessment was performed
starting from feedstock processing to its conversion for
electricity generation using dual-fuel diesel engines. Fast
pyrolysis showed better performance for power generation
in diesel engines among other technologies. The technol-
ogy was also deemed profitable by involving low initial
investment for plant setup. Profitability in the long- or
short-term is dependent on several factors, which include:
1. Transportation majorly affects the product cost of
biofuels. Therefore, biorefineries established near the
agricultural farms or forested areas could significantly
reduce the cost of biomass transportation and storage.
The location of the biorefinery is also dependent on the
local market demand and existing competitors (Parker
et al. 2010; Ulonska et al. 2018).
2. The integration of different processing plants for the
utilization of co-products or intermediate products can
reduce the overall process expenditure. For example,
biological and thermochemical technologies could be
consolidated to reduce waste generation, enhance recy-
cling of materials, improve cogeneration and promote a
circular economy (Nanda and Berruti 2020b; Wu et al.
2021).
3. Determination of the potential market for every product
(Ulonska et al. 2018).
4. Recycling of wastewater generated during biorefinery
processing to recover value-added products can bring
profit and contribute toward establishing a clean envi-
ronment (Tobin et al. 2020).
5. Evaluation of different subsidy and incentive schemes by
the government for bioproduct generation could reduce
the operational cost of biorefineries and low-cost prod-
uct development (Kangas et al. 2011; Pérez et al. 2017).
It is, therefore, evident that techno-economic analysis of
a biomass conversion technology could play a prodigious
role in governing its commercialization and directing the
market value of the co-products.
Lifecycle assessment
The anthropogenic activities have emerged as a burden
for the environment, which can be assessed by analyz-
ing the consumed resources and energy during the life-
time of a product and the resulting pollution and waste
emissions. Lifecycle assessment is a method to assess the
qualitative and quantitative environmental impacts of the
end-products at different stages of their life (Lozano and
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
Lozano 2018). Lifecycle studies are used to analyze the
lifecycle of a product from the cradle to the grave, which
starts with the extraction and processing of raw materials
or feedstocks followed by manufacturing, distribution and
supply, and ending with consumption (Nanda et al. 2015).
In lifecycle analysis, overall priority is given to enhance
the process involved or its product and involves mainly
four stages (Li and Mupondwa 2014). In the first stage, it
explains the goal and scope of the assessment. In the next
step, inventory analysis is done, which gives a constructive
explanation of the product system and about the material
and energy flows. Furthermore, it also sheds light on their
interactions with the environment. The third step involves
the assessment of the impact, which is performed by nor-
malization and by weighting. The final stage involves the
critical review, sensitivity analysis and presentation of the
outcomes.
Biochar and other value-added products from biomass
conversion technologies have emerged as an effective way to
mitigate various environmental challenges. Many research-
ers have extended their research on the lifecycle assessment
of biochar production technologies to explore their environ-
mental risks and impacts. Dutta and Raghavan (2014) stud-
ied lifecycle assessment for biochar systems using agricul-
tural and forestry residues as feedstocks to determine their
environmental impacts. The results showed a reduction in
the emission of greenhouse gases when both agricultural
and forestry residues were used as feedstocks for biorefinery.
The reduction in gaseous carbon emissions, i.e., C ­ O2, CO
and ­CH4 was mainly because of the formation of stable solid
carbon, i.e., biochar. The authors also reported that biochar
production from biomass pyrolysis is more suitable for car-
bon sequestration rather than for solid fuel applications.
Ibarrola et al. (2012) studied the generation of bio-
char and bioenergy through the different thermochemical
conversions of biodegradable wastes. The study showed
slow pyrolysis as the optimal process based on carbon
abatement (0.07 to 1.25 tons of C ­ O2 equivalent per ton of
precursor treated), while the gasification method showed
better performance based on electricity generation (i.e.,
0.9 megawatt-hours per ton of precursor).
Alhashimi and Aktas (2017) studied the performance
as well as the lifecycle and economic assessment of bio-
char and activated carbon using meta-analysis. The energy
demands for biochar and activated carbon were 6.1 MJ/
kg and 9.7 MJ/kg, respectively. On the other hand, the
average greenhouse gas emissions from biochar and acti-
vated carbon were 0.9 kg C ­ O2 equivalent/kg and 6.6 kg
­CO2 equivalent/kg, respectively. The adsorption capacity
of zinc and chromium showed biochar as the least energy-
consuming agent with reduced global warming potential
when compared to activated carbon.
2253
Conclusion
The anthropogenic activities have caused irreversible deterio-
ration of the environment. Biochar is a thermally stable and
inexpensive carbon product, which can be synthesized from
different waste organic residues through thermochemical
technology such as pyrolysis, carbonization, gasification and
torrefaction. The processing conditions such as temperature,
heating rate, pressure, reaction time, vapor residence time,
equivalence ration, feedstock concentration, inherent feed-
stock properties, catalysts and reactor configuration largely
influence the operation of the conversion technology as well
as product yield and composition. Biochar can be activated
to produce activated carbon for several value-added indus-
trial and environmental applications. Compared to physical
activation, chemical activation is cost-effective and produces
activated carbon with greater solid yield, higher carbon con-
tent, larger specific surface area and well-developed porosity.
Biochar and activated carbon have a wide range of appli-
cations, which help in mitigating several environmental
challenges. The potential applications of biochar include its
usage for preparing activated carbon, enhancing soil qual-
ity and removing pollutants from soil, air and wastewater,
developing catalyst supports, carbon sequestration and
manufacturing numerous carbon-based specialty materials
such as biocomposites, electrochemical devices, biomedical
products and cosmeceuticals.
It is noteworthy that the usage of biochar depends on its
physicochemical properties and economic feasibility. There-
fore, techno-economic and lifecycle analyses are key tools in
estimating the market value of biochar along with major co-
products of thermochemical conversion technologies such
as bio-oil, producer gas and syngas. All the main products
of interest along with the co-products generated during bio-
mass conversion have their discrete importance and market
value. Therefore, biochar production for various applications
like wastewater treatment, soil amendment, solid fuels and
carbon sequestration can be profitable when bio-oil and gas
products are utilized within a biorefinery framework.
Funding The authors would like to thank the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Canada Research
Chairs (CRC) Program, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)
and BioFuelNet Canada for funding this bioenergy research.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest None declared.
Consent for publication All authors agree to publish this article in
Environmental Chemistry Letters.
Human or animal rights No conflicts, informed consent, and human or
animal rights applicable.
13
2254 Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259

References Balajii M, Niju S (2019) Biochar-derived heterogeneous catalysts for

biodiesel production. Environ Chem Lett 17:1447–1469. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s1031​1-019-00885​-x
Acemioğlu B (2019) Removal of a reactive dye using NaOH-acti-
Barbanera M, Muguerza IF (2020) Effect of the temperature on
vated biochar prepared from peanut shell by pyrolysis pro-
the spent coffee grounds torrefaction process in a continuous
cess. Int J Coal Preparat Utiliz. https​://doi.org/10.1080/19392​
pilot-scale reactor. Fuel 262:116493. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
699.2019.16443​26
fuel.2019.11649​3
Adeel M, Song X, Wang Y, Francis D, Yang Y (2017) Environmental
Bardestani R, Kaliaguine S (2018) Steam activation and mild air oxida-
impact of estrogens on human, animal and plant life: a critical
tion of vacuum pyrolysis biochar. Biomass Bioenergy 108:101–
review. Environ Int 99:107–119. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.envin​
112. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomb​ioe.2017.10.011
t.2016.12.010
Baytar O, Şahin Ö, Saka C (2018) Sequential application of microwave
Agrafioti E, Kalderis D, Diamadopoulos E (2014) Arsenic and chro-
and conventional heating methods for preparation of activated
mium removal from water using biochars derived from rice
carbon from biomass and its methylene blue adsorption. Appl
husk, organic solid wastes and sewage sludge. J Environ Manag
Ther Eng 138:542–551. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.applt​herma​
133:309–314. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​an.2013.12.007
leng.2018.04.039
Ahmad M, Lee SS, Dou X, Mohan D, Sung JK, Yang JE, Ok YS (2012)
Bergna D, Varila T, Romar H, Lassi U (2018) Comparison of the prop-
Effects of pyrolysis temperature on soybean stover- and peanut
erties of activated carbons produced in one-stage and two-stage
shell-derived biochar properties and TCE adsorption in water.
processes. J Carbon Res 4:41. https​://doi.org/10.3390/c4030​041
Bioresour Technol 118:536–544. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
Bermudez JM, Fidalgo B (2016) Production of bio-syngas and bio-
ech.2012.05.042
hydrogen via gasification. In: Luque R, Lin CSK, Wilson K,
Ahmad M, Rajapaksha AU, Lim JE, Zhang M, Bolan N, Mohan D,
Clark J (eds) Handbook of biofuels production: processes and
Vithanage M, Lee SS, Ok YS (2014) Biochar as a sorbent for
technologies, 2nd edn. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge, pp
contaminant management in soil and water: a review. Che-
431–494. https​://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-10045​5-5.00015​-1
mosphere 99:19–33. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.chemo ​ s pher​
Bocci E, Sisinni M, Moneti M, Vecchione L, Di Carlo A, Villarini M
e.2013.10.071
(2014) State of art of small scale biomass gasification power sys-
Ahmed MB, Zhou JL, Ngo HH, Guo W, Chen M (2016) Progress
tems: a review of the different typologies. Energy Proc 45:247–
in the preparation and application of modified biochar for
256. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypr​o.2014.01.027
improved contaminant removal from water and wastewater.
Borugadda VB, Kamath G, Dalai AK (2020) Techno-economic and
Bioresour Technol 214:836–851. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
life-cycle assessment of integrated Fischer-Tropsch process in
ech.2016.05.057
ethanol industry for bio-diesel and bio-gasoline production.
Ahmed MB, Zhou JL, Ngo HH, Johir MAH, Sornalingam K (2018)
Energy 195:116985. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.energy​ .2020.11698​
Sorptive removal of phenolic endocrine disruptors by functional-
5
ized biochar: competitive interaction mechanism, removal effi-
Brewer C, Schmidt-Rohr K, Satrio J, Brown R (2009) Characterization
cacy and application in wastewater. Chem Eng J 335:801–811.
of biochar from fast pyrolysis and gasification systems. Envi-
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2017.11.041
ron Prog Sustain Energy 28:386–396. https​://doi.org/10.1002/
Ahmed MB, Johir MAH, Zhou JL, Ngo HH, Nghiem LD, Richardson
ep.10378​
C, Moni MA, Bryant MR (2019) Activated carbon preparation
Bridgwater AV, Toft AJ, Brammer JG (2002) A techno-economic
from biomass feedstock: clean production and carbon dioxide
comparison of power production by biomass fast pyrolysis with
adsorption. J Clean Prod 225:405–413. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
gasification and combustion. Renew Sust Energy Rev 6:181–246.
jclep​ro.2019.03.342
https​://doi.org/10.1016/S1364​-0321(01)00010​-7
Alhashimi HA, Aktas CB (2017) Life cycle environmental and eco-
Buratti C, Barbanera M, Lascaro E, Cotana F (2018) Optimization of
nomic performance of biochar compared with activated carbon:
torrefaction conditions of coffee industry residues using desir-
a meta-analysis. Resour, Conserv Recycl 118:13–26. https​://doi.
ability function approach. Waste Manag 73:523–534. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1016/j.resco​nrec.2016.11.016
org/10.1016/j.wasma​n.2017.04.012
Aravind S, Kumar PS, Kumar NS, Siddarth N (2020) Conversion
Cao L, Iris KM, Tsang DC, Zhang S, Ok YS, Kwon EE, Song H,
of green algal biomass into bioenergy by pyrolysis. A review.
Poon CS (2018) Phosphoric acid-activated wood biochar for
Environ Chem Lett 18:829–849. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1031​
catalytic conversion of starch-rich food waste into glucose and
1-020-00990​-2
5-hydroxymethylfurfural. Bioresour Technol 267:242–248. https​
Azargohar R, Dalai AK (2006) Biochar as a precursor of activated
://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2018.07.048
carbon. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 129–132:762–773. https:​ //doi.
Caporale AG, Pigna M, Sommella A, Conte P (2014) Effect of prun-
org/10.1385/ABAB:131:1:762
ing-derived biochar on heavy metals removal and water dynam-
Azargohar R, Nanda S, Kozinski JA, Dalai AK, Sutarto R (2014)
ics. Biol Fertil Soil 50:1211–1222. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
Effects of temperature on the physicochemical characteristics of
s0037​4-014-0960-5
fast pyrolysis bio-chars derived from Canadian waste biomass.
Cha JS, Park SH, Jung SC, Ryu C, Jeon JK, Shin MC, Park YK
Fuel 125:90–100. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2014.01.083
(2016) Production and utilization of biochar: a review. J Ind
Azargohar R, Nanda S, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA (2019a) Physico-
Eng Chem 40:1–15. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2016.06.002
chemistry of biochars produced through steam gasification and
Chen X, Chen G, Chen L, Chen Y, Lehmann Y, McBride MB, Hay
hydro-thermal gasification of canola hull and canola meal pel-
AG (2011) Adsorption of copper and zinc by biochars pro-
lets. Biomass Bioenergy 120:458–470. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
duced from pyrolysis of hardwood and corn straw in aque-
biomb​ioe.2018.12.011
ous solution. Bioresour Technol 102:8877–8884. https​://doi.
Azargohar R, Nanda S, Kang K, Bond T, Karunakaran C, Dalai AK,
org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2011.06.078
Kozinski JA (2019b) Effects of bio-additives on the physico-
Chen WH, Peng J, Bi XT (2015) A state-of-the-art review of biomass
chemical properties and mechanical behavior of canola hull fuel
torrefaction, densification and applications. Renew Sust Energy
pellets. Renew Energy 132:296–307. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Rev 44:847–866. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.039
renen​e.2018.08.003
Chen D, Chen X, Sun J, Zheng Z, Fu K (2016a) Pyrolysis poly-
generation of pine nut shell: quality of pyrolysis products and

13
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
study on the preparation of activated carbon from biochar.
Bioresour Technol 216:629–636. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.
biort​ech.2016.05.107
Chen H, Chen X, Qiao Z, Liu H (2016b) Release and transforma-
tion characteristics of K and Cl during straw torrefaction and
mild pyrolysis. Fuel 167:31–39. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2015.11.059
Chen YD, Lin YC, Ho SH, Zhou Y, Ren NQ (2018) Highly efficient
adsorption of dyes by biochar derived from pigments-extracted
macroalgae pyrolyzed at different temperature. Bioresour Tech-
nol 259:104–110. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.biorte​ ch.2018.02.094
Chen J, Liu YS, Deng WJ, Ying GG (2019a) Removal of steroid hor-
mones and biocides from rural wastewater by an integrated con-
structed wetland. Sci Total Environ 660:358–365. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2019.01.049
Chen L, Li F, Wei Y, Li G, Shen K, He HJ (2019b) High cadmium
adsorption on nanoscale zero-valent iron coated Eichhornia
crassipes biochar. Environ Chem Lett 17:589–594. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1031​1-018-0811-y
Choi YK, Cho MH, Kim JS (2015) Steam/oxygen gasification of
dried sewage sludge in a two-stage gasifier: effects of the steam
to fuel ratio and ash of the activated carbon on the production
of hydrogen and tar removal. Energy 91:160–167. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2015.08.027
Correa CR, Kruse A (2018) Supercritical water gasification of biomass
for hydrogen production – review. J Supercrit Fluids 133:573–
590. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.supfl​u.2017.09.019
Danish M, Ahmad T (2018) A review on utilization of wood bio-
mass as a sustainable precursor for activated carbon production
and application. Renew Sust Energy Rev 87:1–21. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.02.003
De Lasa H, Salaices E, Mazumder J, Lucky R (2011) Catalytic steam
gasification of biomass: catalysts, thermodynamics and kinetics.
Chem Rev 111:5404–5433. https​://doi.org/10.1021/cr200​024w
Demiral I, Şamdan CA, Demiral H (2015) Production and characteriza-
tion of activated carbons from pumpkin seed shell by chemical
activation with Z­ nCl2. Desalin Water Treat 57:2446–2454. https​
://doi.org/10.1080/19443​994.2015.10272​76
Dong X, Ma LQ, Li Y (2011) Characteristics and mechanisms of hexa-
valent chromium removal by biochar from sugar beet tailing.
J Hazard Mater 190:909–915. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazm​
at.2011.04.008
Dutta B, Raghavan V (2014) A life cycle assessment of environmental
and economic balance of biochar systems in Quebec. Int J Energy
Environ Eng 5:106. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4009​5-014-0106-4
Erkiaga A, Lopez G, Amutio M, Bilbao J, Olazar M (2014) Influence
of operating conditions on the steam gasification of biomass in a
conical spouted bed reactor. Chem Eng J 237:259–267. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2013.10.018
Fernandez ME, Ledesma B, Román S, Bonelli PR, Cukierman AL
(2015) Development and characterization of activated hydro-
chars from orange peels as potential adsorbents for emerging
organic contaminants. Bioresour Technol 183:221–228. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2015.02.035
Fougere D, Nanda S, Clarke K, Kozinski JA, Li K (2016) Effect of
acidic pretreatment on the chemistry and distribution of lignin
in aspen wood and wheat straw substrates. Biomass Bioenergy
91:56–68. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomb​ioe.2016.03.027
Gao R, Fu Q, Hu H, Wang Q, Liu Y, Zhu J (2019) Highly-effective
removal of Pb by co-pyrolysis biochar derived from rape straw
and orthophosphate. J Hazard Mater 371:191–197. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazm​at.2019.02.079
Gokulan R, Prabhu GG, Jegan J (2019) Remediation of complex rema-
zol effluent using biochar derived from green seaweed biomass.
Int J Phytoremed 21:1179–1189. https​://doi.org/10.1080/15226​
514.2019.16128​45
2255
Gong M, Nanda S, Romero MJ, Zhu W, Kozinski JA (2017) Subcriti-
cal and supercritical water gasification of humic acid as a model
compound of humic substances in sewage sludge. J Supercrit Flu-
ids 119:130–138. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.supfl​u.2016.08.018
Gonsioroski A, Mourikes VE, Flaws JA (2020) Endocrine disruptors
in water and their effects on the reproductive system. Int J Mol
Sci 21:1929. https​://doi.org/10.3390/ijms2​10619​29
González-García P (2018) Activated carbon from lignocellulosics pre-
cursors: a review of the synthesis methods, characterization tech-
niques and applications. Renew Sust Energy Rev 82:1393–1414.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.04.117
González-García P, Centeno TA, Urones-Garrote E, Ávila-Brande D,
Otero-Díaz LC (2013) Microstructure and surface properties of
lignocellulosic-based activated carbons. Appl Surf Sci 265:731–
737. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsus​c.2012.11.092
Gopinath KP, Vo DVN, Prakash DG, Joseph AA, Viswanathan S, Arun
J (2020) Environmental applications of carbon-based materials: a
review. Environ Chem Lett. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s10311​ -020-
01084​-9
Grand View Research (2020) Activated carbon market size, share &
trends analysis report by product (Powdered, Granular), by appli-
cation (Liquid, Gas), by end use (Water Treatment, Air Purifi-
cation), by region, and segment forecasts, 2019–2025. https​://
www.grand​viewr​esear​ch.com/indus​try-analy​sis/activ​ated-carbo​
n-marke​t#:~:text=The%20glo​bal%20act​ivate​d%20car​bon%20
mar​ket,be%20a%20key​%20gro​wth%20dri​ver. Accessed 29 Oct
2020
Gunarathne V, Ashiq A, Ramanayaka S, Wijekoon P, Vithanage M
(2019) Biochar from municipal solid waste for resource recovery
and pollution remediation. Environ Chem Lett 17:1225–1235.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1031​1-019-00866​-0
Guo X, Yang Z, Dong H, Guan X, Ren Q, Lv X, Jin X (2016) Simple
combination of oxidants with zero-valent-iron (ZVI) achieved
very rapid and highly efficient removal of heavy metals from
water. Water Res 88:671–680. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.watre​
s.2015.10.045
Hansen V, Müller-Stöver D, Ahrenfeldt J, Holm JK, Henriksen UB,
Hauggaard-Nielsen H (2015) Gasification biochar as a valuable
by-product for carbon sequestration and soil amendment. Bio-
mass Bioenergy 72:300–308. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomb​
ioe.2014.10.013
Heidari M, Dutta A, Acharya B, Mahmud S (2019) A review of the
current knowledge and challenges of hydrothermal carbonization
for biomass conversion. J Energy Inst 92:1779–1799. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.joei.2018.12.003
Heidarinejad Z, Dehghani MH, Heidari M, Javedan G, Ali I, Sillanpää
M (2020) Methods for preparation and activation of activated
carbon: a review. Environ Chem Lett 18:393–415. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1031​1-019-00955​-0
Hesas RH, Arami-Niya A, Daud WMAW, Sahu JN (2015) Microwave-
assisted production of activated carbons from oil palm shell in
the presence of C ­ O2 or N
­ 2 for ­CO2 adsorption. J Ind Eng Chem
24:196–205. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.09.029
Ho SH, Chen YD, Yang ZK, Nagarajan D, Chang JS, Ren NQ (2017)
High-efficiency removal of lead from wastewater by biochar
derived from anaerobic digestion sludge. Bioresour Technol
246:142–149. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2017.08.025
Ibarrola R, Shackley S, Hammond J (2012) Pyrolysis biochar sys-
tems for recovering biodegradable materials: a life cycle carbon
assessment. Waste Manag 32:859–868. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasma​n.2011.10.005
Inyang M, Dickenson E (2015) The potential role of biochar in the
removal of organic and microbial contaminants from potable and
reuse water: a review. Chemosphere 134:232–240. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chemo​spher​e.2015.03.072
13
2256
Ismail TM, El-Salam MA (2017) Parametric studies on biomass gasi-
fication process on updraft gasifier high temperature air gasifica-
tion. Appl Ther Eng 112:1460–1473. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
applt​herma​leng.2016.10.026
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
Jia M, Wang F, Bian Y, Jin X, Song Y, Kengara FO, Xu R, Jiang X
(2013) Effects of pH and metal ions on oxytetracycline sorption
to maize-straw-derived biochar. Bioresour Technol 136:87–93.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2013.02.098
Jia S, Ying H, Sun Y, Sun N, Xu W, Ning S (2017) Co-processing
methanol and ethanol in bio-char steam gasification for hydro-
gen-rich gas production. Int J Hydrogen Energy 42:18844–
18852. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhyd​ene.2017.05.008
Jin H, Capareda S, Chang Z, Gao J, Xu Y, Zhang J (2014) Biochar
pyrolytically produced from municipal solid wastes for aqueous
As(V) removal: adsorption property and its improvement with
KOH activation. Bioresour Technol 169:622–629. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2014.06.103
Kang K, Nanda S, Sun G, Qiu L, Gu Y, Zhang T, Zhu M, Sun R (2019)
Microwave-assisted hydrothermal carbonization of corn stalk for
solid biofuel production: optimization of process parameters and
characterization of hydrochar. Energy 186:115795. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2019.07.125
Kangas HL, Lintunen J, Pohjola J, Hetemäki L, Uusivuori J (2011)
Investments into forest biorefineries under different price and
policy structures. Energy Econ 33:1165–1176. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/j.eneco​.2011.04.008
Karthik V, Kumar PS, Vo DVN, Sindhu J, Sneka D, Subhashini B,
Saravanan K, Jeyanthi J (2020) Hydrothermal production of algal
biochar for environmental and fertilizer applications: a review.
Environ Chem Lett. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s10311​ -020-01139-​ x
Kelm MAP, da Silva Júnior MJ, de Barros Holanda SH, de Araujo
CMB, de Assis Filho RB, Freitas EJ, dos Santos DR, da Motta
Sobrinho MA (2019) Removal of azo dye from water via adsorp-
tion on biochar produced by the gasification of wood wastes.
Environ Sci Pollut Res 26:28558–28573. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/
s1135​6-018-3833-x
Kilpimaa S, Runtti H, Kangas T, Lassi U, Kuokkanen T (2015) Physi-
cal activation of carbon residue from biomass gasification:
Novel sorbent for the removal of phosphates and nitrates from
aqueous solution. J Ind Eng Chem 21:1354–1364. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jiec.2014.06.006
Kim P, Johnson A, Edmunds CW, Radosevich M, Vogt F, Rials TG,
Labbe N (2011) Surface functionality and carbon structures in
lignocellulosic-derived biochars produced by fast pyrolysis.
Energy Fuels 25:4693–4703. https​://doi.org/10.1021/ef200​915s
Kim WK, Shim T, Kim YS, Hyun S, Ryu C, Park YK, Jung J (2013a)
Characterization of cadmium removal from aqueous solution
by biochar produced from a giant Miscanthus at different pyro-
lytic temperatures. Bioresour Technol 138:266–270. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2013.03.186
Kim YD, Yang CW, Kim BJ, Kim KS, Lee JW, Moon JH, Yang W, Yu
TU, Lee UD (2013b) Air-blown gasification of woody biomass
in a bubbling fluidized bed gasifier. Appl Energy 112:414–420.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apene​rgy.2013.03.072
Kittivech T, Fukuda S (2020) Investigating agglomeration tendency of
co-gasification between high alkali biomass and woody biomass
in a bubbling fluidized bed system. Energies 13:56. https​://doi.
org/10.3390/en130​10056​
Kołodyńska D, Wnetrzak R, Leahy JJ, Hayes MHB, Kwapiński W,
Hubicki Z (2012) Kinetic and adsorptive characterization of bio-
char in metal ions removal. Chem Eng J 197:295–305. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2012.05.025
13
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
Kosheleva RI, Mitropoulos AC, Kyzas GZ (2019) Synthesis of acti-
vated carbon from food waste. Environ Chem Lett 17:429–438.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1031​1-018-0817-5
Kumar A, Jena HM (2015) High surface area microporous activated
carbons prepared from Fox nut (Euryale ferox) shell by zinc
chloride activation. Appl Surf Sci 356:753–761. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apsus​c.2015.08.074
Leng L, Yuan X, Zeng G, Shao J, Chen X, Wu Z, Wang H, Peng X
(2015) Surface characterization of rice husk bio-char produced
by liquefaction and application for cationic dye (malachite
green) adsorption. Fuel 155:77–85. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2015.04.019
Li X, Mupondwa E (2014) Life cycle assessment of camelina oil
derived biodiesel and jet fuel in the Canadian Prairies. Sci
Total Environ 481:17–26. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​
tenv.2014.02.003
Liu C, Huang Y, Niu M, Pei H, Liu L, Wang Y, Dong L, Xu L (2018)
Influences of equivalence ratio, oxygen concentration and fluidi-
zation velocity on the characteristics of oxygen-enriched gasifi-
cation products from biomass in a pilot-scale fluidized bed. Int
J Hydrogen Energy 43:14214–14225. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhyd​ene.2018.05.154
Lozano FJ, Lozano R (2018) Assessing the potential sustainability
benefits of agricultural residues: biomass conversion to syngas
for energy generation or to chemicals production. J Clean Prod
172:4162–4169. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2017.01.037
Mäkelä M, Benavente V, Fullana A (2015) Hydrothermal carboniza-
tion of lignocellulosic biomass: effect of process conditions on
hydrochar properties. Appl Energy 155:576–584. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apene​rgy.2015.06.022
Maneerung T, Liew J, Dai Y, Kawi S, Chong C, Wang CH (2016)
Activated carbon derived from carbon residue from biomass gasi-
fication and its application for dye adsorption: kinetics, isotherms
and thermodynamic studies. Bioresour Technol 200:350–359.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2015.10.047
Mohan D, Sarswat A, Ok YS, Pittman CU (2014) Organic and inor-
ganic contaminants removal from water with biochar, a renew-
able, low cost and sustainable adsorbent - a critical review.
Bioresour Technol 160:191–202. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2014.01.120
Mohanty P, Nanda S, Pant KK, Naik S, Kozinski JA, Dalai AK (2013)
Evaluation of the physiochemical development of biochars
obtained from pyrolysis of wheat straw, timothy grass and pine-
wood: effects of heating rate. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 104:485–
493. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2013.05.022
Mukherjee A, Okolie JA, Abdelrasoul A, Niu C, Dalai AK (2019)
Review of post-combustion carbon dioxide capture technolo-
gies using activated carbon. J Environ Sci 83:46–63. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1016/j.jes.2019.03.014
Muniandy L, Adam F, Mohamed AR, Ng EP (2014) The synthesis and
characterization of high purity mixed microporous/mesoporous
activated carbon from rice husk using chemical activation with
NaOH and KOH. Micropor Mesopor Mater 197:316–323. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.micro​meso.2014.06.020
Nanda S, Berruti F (2020a) Municipal solid waste management and
landfilling technologies: a review. Environ Chem Lett. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s1031​1-020-01100​-y
Nanda S, Berruti F (2020b) Thermochemical conversion of plas-
tic waste to fuels: a review. Environ Chem Lett. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1031​1-020-01094​-7
Nanda S, Berruti F (2021) A technical review of bioenergy and
resource recovery from municipal solid waste. J Hazard Mater
403:123970. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazm​at.2020.12397​0
Nanda S, Mohanty P, Pant KK, Naik S, Kozinski JA, Dalai AK (2013)
Characterization of north American lignocellulosic biomass
and biochars in terms of their candidacy for alternate renewable
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
fuels. Bioenergy Res 6:663–677. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1215​
5-012-9281-4
Nanda S, Mohammad J, Reddy SN, Kozinski JA, Dalai AK (2014)
Pathways of lignocellulosic biomass conversion to renewable
fuels. Biomass Conv Bioref 4:157–191. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1339​9-013-0097-z
Nanda S, Azargohar R, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA (2015) An assessment
on the sustainability of lignocellulosic biomass for biorefining.
Renew Sust Energy Rev 50:925–941. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2015.05.058
Nanda S, Dalai AK, Berruti F, Kozinski JA (2016a) Biochar as an
exceptional bioresource for energy, agronomy, carbon sequestra-
tion, activated carbon and specialty materials. Waste Biomass
Valor 7:201–235. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1264​9-015-9459-z
Nanda S, Dalai AK, Gökalp I, Kozinski JA (2016b) Valorization of
horse manure through catalytic supercritical water gasification.
Waste Manag 52:147–158. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasma​
n.2016.03.049
Nanda S, Isen J, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA (2016c) Gasification of fruit
wastes and agro-food residues in supercritical water. Energy
Convers Manag 110:296–306. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.encon​
man.2015.11.060
Nanda S, Reddy SN, Mitra SK, Kozinski JA (2016d) The progres-
sive routes for carbon capture and sequestration. Energy Sci Eng
4:99–122. https​://doi.org/10.1002/ese3.117
Nanda S, Golemi-Kotra D, McDermott JC, Dalai AK, Gökalp I, Kozin-
ski JA (2017a) Fermentative production of butanol: perspectives
on synthetic biology. New Biotechnol 37:210–221. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.nbt.2017.02.006
Nanda S, Gong M, Hunter HN, Dalai AK, Gökalp I, Kozinski JA
(2017b) An assessment of pinecone gasification in subcriti-
cal, near-critical and supercritical water. Fuel Process Technol
168:84–96. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fupro​c.2017.08.017
Nanda S, Rana R, Hunter HN, Fang Z, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA (2019)
Hydrothermal catalytic processing of waste cooking oil for
hydrogen-rich syngas production. Chem Eng Sci 195:935–945.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2018.10.039
Nautiyal P, Subramanian KA, Dastidar MG (2016) Adsorptive removal
of dye using biochar derived from residual algae after in-situ
transesterification: alternate use of waste of biodiesel industry.
J Environ Manag 182:187–197. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​
an.2016.07.063
Nazem MA, Zare MH, Shirazian S (2020) Preparation and optimization
of activated nano-carbon production using physical activation by
water steam from agricultural wastes. RSC Adv 10:1463–1475.
https​://doi.org/10.1039/C9RA0​7409K​
Ning S, Jiaa S, Ying S, Sun Y, Xu W, Yin H (2018) Hydrogen-rich
syngas produced by catalytic steam gasification of corncob char.
Biomass Bioenergy 117:131–136. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
biomb​ioe.2018.07.003
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (2020a). Global sur-
face temperature anomalies. national centers for environmental
information. https​://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monit​oring​-refer​ences​
/faq/anoma​lies.php. Accessed 15 Dec 2020
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (2020b). Trends in
atmospheric carbon dioxide. Earth system research laboratories
- global monitoring laboratory. https​://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/
ccgg/trends​ /#:~:text=Data%20are% ​ 20repo​ rted%
​ 20as%20a,is%20
exp​resse​d%20as%20400​%20ppm​. Accessed 15 Dec 2020
Okolie JA, Rana R, Nanda S, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA (2019) Super-
critical water gasification of biomass: a state-of-the-art review of
process parameters, reaction mechanisms and catalysis. Sustain
Energy Fuels 3:578–598. https​://doi.org/10.1039/C8SE0​0565F​
Okolie JA, Nanda S, Dalai AK, Berruti F, Kozinski JA (2020) A review
on subcritical and supercritical water gasification of biogenic,
2257
polymeric and petroleum wastes to hydrogen-rich synthesis gas.
Renew Sust Energy Rev 119:109546. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2019.10954​6
Okolie JA, Nanda S, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA (2020) Hydrothermal
gasification of soybean straw and flax straw for hydrogen-rich
syngas production: experimental and thermodynamic modeling.
Energy Convers Manag 208:112545. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
encon​man.2020.11254​5
Okolie JA, Nanda S, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA (2020) Optimization and
modeling of process parameters during hydrothermal gasifica-
tion of biomass model compounds to generate hydrogen-rich gas
products. Int J Hydrogen Energy 45:18275–18288. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijhyd​ene.2019.05.132
Okolie JA, Nanda S, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA (2020) Chemistry and spe-
cialty industrial applications of lignocellulosic biomass. Waste
Biomass Valor. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1264​9-020-01123​-0
Oliveira I, Blöhse D, Ramke HG (2013) Hydrothermal carbonization
of agricultural residues. Bioresour Technol 142:138–146. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2013.04.125
Olugbade TO, Ojo OT (2020) Biomass torrefaction for the production
of high-grade solid biofuels: a review. Bioenergy Res. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1007/s1215​5-020-10138​-3
Osman AI, Hefny M, Maksoud MIAA, Elgarahy AM, Rooney DW
(2020) Recent advances in carbon capture storage and utilisa-
tion technologies: a review. Environ Chem Lett. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1031​1-020-01133​-3
Our World in Data (2020a) Average temperature anomaly, global. https​
://ourwo​rldin​data.org/co2-and-other​-green​house​-gas-emiss​ions.
Accessed 24 Oct 2020
Our World in Data (2020b) C ­ O2 and greenhouse gas emissions. https​
://ourwo​rldin​data.org/co2-and-other​-green​house​-gas-emiss​ions.
Accessed 24 Oct 2020
Park JH, Ok YS, Kim SH, Cho JS, Heo JS, Delaune RD, Seo DC (2016)
Competitive adsorption of heavy metals onto sesame straw bio-
char in aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 142:77–83. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chemo​spher​e.2015.05.093
Parker N, Tittmann P, Hart Q, Nelson R, Skog K, Schmidt A, Gray E,
Jenkins B (2010) Development of a biorefinery optimized biofuel
supply curve for the Western United States. Biomass Bioenergy
34:1597–1607. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomb​ioe.2010.06.007
Pérez ATE, Camargo M, Rincón PCN, Marchant MA (2017) Key
challenges and requirements for sustainable and industrialized
biorefinery supply chain design and management: a biblio-
graphic analysis. Renew Sust Energy Rev 69:350–359. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.084
Petrie B, Barden R, Kasprzyk-Hordern B (2015) A review on emerg-
ing contaminants in wastewaters and the environment: current
knowledge, understudied areas and recommendations for future
monitoring. Water Res 72:3–27. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.watre​
s.2014.08.053
Poo KM, Son EB, Chang JS, Ren X, Choi YJ, Chae KJ (2018) Bio-
chars derived from wasted marine macro-algae (Saccharina
japonica and Sargassum fusiforme) and their potential for
heavy metal removal in aqueous solution. J Environ Manag
206:364–372. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​an.2017.10.056
Puligundla P, Oh SE, Mok C (2016) Microwave-assisted pretreat-
ment technologies for the conversion of lignocellulosic bio-
mass to sugars and ethanol: a review. Carbon Lett 17:1–10.
https​://doi.org/10.5714/CL.2016.17.1.001
Rajapaksha AU, Premarathna KSD, Gunarathne V, Ahmed A,
Vithanage M (2019) Sorptive removal of pharmaceutical and
personal care products from water and wastewater. In: Prasad
MNV, Vithanage M, Kapley A (eds) Pharmaceuticals and per-
sonal care products: waste management and treatment technol-
ogy emerging contaminants and micro pollutants. Elsevier Inc.,
13
2258
Amsterdam, pp 213–238. https​://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-
81618​9-0.00009​-3
Rambabu N, Rao BVSK, Surisetty VR, Das U, Dalai AK (2015) Pro-
duction, characterization, and evaluation of activated carbons
from de-oiled canola meal for environmental applications.
Ind Crop Prod 65:572–581. https​: //doi.org/10.1016/j.indcr​
op.2014.09.046
Randolph P, Bansode RR, Hassan OA, Rehrah D, Ravella R, Reddy
MR, Watts DW, Novak JM, Ahmedna M (2017) Effect of bio-
chars produced from solid organic municipal waste on soil
quality parameters. J Environ Manag 192:271–280. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvm​an.2017.01.061
Rashidi NA, Yusup S (2017) A review on recent technological
advancement in the activated carbon production from oil palm
wastes. Chem Eng J 314:277–290. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cej.2016.11.059
Reddy SN, Nanda S, Dalai AK, Kozinski JA (2014) Supercritical
water gasification of biomass for hydrogen production. Int J
Hydrogen Energy 39:6912–6926. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhyd​
ene.2014.02.125
Reddy SN, Nanda S, Kozinski JA (2016) Supercritical water gasifica-
tion of glycerol and methanol mixtures as model waste residues
from biodiesel refinery. Chem Eng Res Des 113:17–27. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cherd​.2016.07.005
Roy P, Dias G (2017) Prospects for pyrolysis technologies in the bio-
energy sector: a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev 77:59–69. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.136
Safdari MS, Amini E, Weise DR, Fletcher TH (2019) Heating rate
and temperature effects on pyrolysis products from live wild-
land fuels. Fuel 242:295–304. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.
fuel.2019.01.040
Sarangi PK, Nanda S (2020) Biohydrogen production through dark
fermentation. Chem Eng Technol 43:601–612. https​: //doi.
org/10.1002/ceat.20190​0452
Senneca O, Cerciello F, Heuer S, Ammendola P (2018) Slow pyrolysis
of walnut shells in nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Fuel 225:419–
425. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2018.03.094
Shaaban M, Van Zwieten L, Bashir S, Younas A, Núñez-Delgado
A, Chhajro MA, Kubar KA, Ali U, Rana MS, Mehmood MA,
Hu R (2018) A concise review of biochar application to agri-
cultural soils to improve soil conditions and fight pollution. J
Environ Manag 228:429–440. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​
an.2018.09.006
Shahkarami S, Azargohar R, Dalai AK, Soltan J (2015) Breakthrough
­CO2 adsorption in bio-based activated carbons. J Environ Sci
34:68–76. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2015.03.008
Shi H, Ni J, Zheng T, Wang X, Wu C, Wang Q (2020) Remediation of
wastewater contaminated by antibiotics. A review. Environ Chem
Lett 18:345–360. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1031​1-019-00945​-2
Smith AM, Singh S, Ross AB (2016) Fate of inorganic material during
hydrothermal carbonisation of biomass: influence of feedstock
on combustion behaviour of hydrochar. Fuel 169:135–145. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2015.12.006
Sohi S, Lopez-Capel E, Krull E, Bol R (2009) Biochar, climate change
and soil: a review to guide future research. CSIRO Land Water
Sci Rep 5:17–31. https​://doi.org/10.4225/08/58597​219a1​99a
Sophia AC, Lima EC (2018) Removal of emerging contaminants from
the environment by adsorption. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 150:1–
17. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoen​v.2017.12.026
Spiridon I (2020) Extraction of lignin and therapeutic applications
of lignin-derived compounds. A review Environ. Chem Lett
18:771–785. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1031​1-020-00981​-3
Spivey A (2004) Roe, interrupted: estrogen exposure impairs fish fer-
tility. Environ Health Perspect 112:A1010–A1011. https​://doi.
org/10.1289/ehp.112-a1010​b
13
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
Strandberg M, Olofsson I, Pommer L, Wiklund-Lindström S, Åberg
K, Nordin A (2015) Effects of temperature and residence time
on continuous torrefaction of spruce wood. Fuel Process Technol
134:387–398. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fupro​c.2015.02.021
Sukiran MA, Abnisa F, Daud WMAW, Bakar NA, Loh SK (2017)
A review of torrefaction of oil palm solid wastes for biofuel
production. Energy Convers Manag 149:101–120. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.encon​man.2017.07.011
Sun L, Wan S, Luo W (2013) Biochars prepared from anaerobic
digestion residue, palm bark, and eucalyptus for adsorption of
cationic methylene blue dye: characterization, equilibrium, and
kinetic studies. Bioresour Technol 140:406–413. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2013.04.116
Sun J, Dai X, Wang Q, van Loosdrecht MCM, Ni BJ (2019) Micro-
plastics in wastewater treatment plants: detection, occurrence and
removal. Water Res 152:21–37. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.watre​
s.2018.12.050
Tan X, Liu Y, Zeng G, Wang X, Hu X, Gu Y, Yang Z (2015) Applica-
tion of biochar for the removal of pollutants from aqueous solu-
tions. Chemosphere 125:70–85. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemo​
spher​e.2014.12.058
Tang DYY, Yew GY, Koyande AK, Chew JW, Vo DVN, Show PL
(2020) Green technology for the industrial production of biofu-
els and bioproducts from microalgae: a review. Environ Chem
Lett 18:1967–1985. https:​ //doi.org/10.1007/s10311​ -020-01052-​ 3
Tehrani NF, Aznar JS, Kiros Y (2015) Coffee extract residue for pro-
duction of ethanol and activated carbons. J Clean Prod 91:64–70.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2014.12.031
To MH, Hadi P, Hui CW, Lin CSK, McKay G (2017) Mechanistic
study of atenolol, acebutolol and carbamazepine adsorption on
waste biomass derived activated carbon. J Mol Liquids 241:386–
398. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.molli​q.2017.05.037
Tobin T, Gustafson R, Bura R, Gough HL (2020) Integration of waste-
water treatment into process design of lignocellulosic biorefiner-
ies for improved economic viability. Biotechnol Biofuels 13:24.
https​://doi.org/10.1186/s1306​8-020-1657-7
Tong XJ, Li JY, Yuan JH, Xu RK (2011) Adsorption of Cu(II) by
biochars generated from three crop straws. Chem Eng J 172:828–
834. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2011.06.069
Tran HN, Chao HP, You SJ (2018) Activated carbons from golden
shower upon different chemical activation methods: synthesis
and characterizations. Adsorp Sci Technol 36:95–113. https​://
doi.org/10.1177/02636​17416​68483​7
Tran HN, Tomul F, Ha NTH, Nguyen DT, Lima EC, Le GT, Chang
CT, Masindi V, Woo SH (2020) Innovative spherical biochar
for pharmaceutical removal from water: insight into adsorp-
tion mechanism. J Hazard Mater 394:122255. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhazm​at.2020.12225​5
Tsai WT, Jiang TJ (2018) Mesoporous activated carbon produced from
coconut shell using a single-step physical activation process.
Biomass Conv Bioref 8:711–718. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1339​
9-018-0322-x
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2020a) Primary energy. https​
://www.eia.gov/inter​natio​nal/overv​iew/world​. Accessed 22 Oct
2020
U.S. Energy Information Administration (2020b) Emissions. https​://
www.eia.gov/inter​natio​nal/overv​iew/world​. Accessed 22 Oct
2020
Ulonska K, König A, Klatt M, Mitsos M, Mitsos A (2018) Optimiza-
tion of multiproduct biorefinery processes under consideration
of biomass supply chain management and market developments.
Ind Eng Chem Res 57:6980–6991. https​://doi.org/10.1021/acs.
iecr.8b002​45
Upadhyay DS, Sakhiya AK, Panchal K, Patel AH, Patel RN (2019)
Effect of equivalence ratio on the performance of the downdraft
Environmental Chemistry Letters (2021) 19:2237–2259
gasifier–an experimental and modelling approach. Energy
168:833–846. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.energ​y.2018.11.133
Vyavahare GD, Gurav RG, Jadhav PP, Patil RR, Aware CB, Jadhav
JP (2018) Response surface methodology optimization for sorp-
tion of malachite green dye on sugarcane bagasse biochar and
evaluating the residual dye for phyto and cytogenotoxicity. Che-
mosphere 194:306–315. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemo​spher​
e.2017.11.180
Wang S, Wang L, Hua W, Zhou M, Wang Q, Zhou Q, Huang X (2015)
Effects of Bisphenol A, an environmental endocrine disruptor,
on the endogenous hormones of plants. Environ Sci Pollut Res
22:17653–17662. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1135​6-015-4972-y
Wang L, Wang Y, Ma F, Tankpa V, Bai S, Guo X, Wang X (2019)
Mechanisms and reutilization of modified biochar used for
removal of heavy metals from wastewater: a review. Sci
Total Environ 668:1298–1309. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​
tenv.2019.03.011
Windeatt JH, Ross AB, Williams PT, Forster PM, Nahil MA, Singh S
(2014) Characteristics of biochars from crop residues: potential
for carbon sequestration and soil amendment. J Environ Manag
146:189–197. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​an.2014.08.003
Wong S, Ngadi N, Inuwa IM, Hassan O (2018) Recent advances in
applications of activated carbon from biowaste for wastewater
treatment: a short review. J Clean Prod 175:361–375. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclep​ro.2017.12.059
Worldometer (2020) Current world population. https​://www.world​
omete​rs.info/world​-popul​ation​/. Accessed 22 Oct 2020
Wu B, Lin R, O’Shea R, Deng C, Rajendran K, Murphy JD (2021)
Production of advanced fuels through integration of biological,
thermo-chemical and power to gas technologies in a circular cas-
cading bio-based system. Renew Sust Energy Rev 135:110371.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.11037​1
Xiao F, Cheng J, Cao W, Yang C, Chen J, Luo Z (2019) Removal of
heavy metals from aqueous solution using chitosan-combined
magnetic biochars. J Colloid Interface Sci 540:579–584. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2019.01.068
Xu RK, Xiao SC, Yuan JH, Zhao AZ (2011) Adsorption of methyl
violet from aqueous solutions by the biochars derived from
crop residues. Bioresour Technol 102:10293–10298. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.biort​ech.2011.08.089
Xu X, Cao X, Zhao L (2013) Comparison of rice husk- and dairy
manure-derived biochars for simultaneously removing heavy
metals from aqueous solutions: role of mineral components in
biochars. Chemosphere 92:955–961. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chemo​spher​e.2013.03.009
Xu M, Wu J, Yang G, Zhang X, Peng H, Yu X, Xiao Y, Qi H
(2019) Biochar addition to soil highly increases P retention
and decreases the risk of phosphate contamination of waters.
2259
Environ Chem Lett 17:533–541. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1031​
1-018-0802-z
Yaashikaa PR, Kumar PS, Varjani SJ, Saravanan A (2019) Advances
in production and application of biochar from lignocellu-
losic feedstocks for remediation of environmental pollutants.
Bioresour Technol 292:122030. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.biort​
ech.2019.12203​0
Yahya MA, Al-Qodah Z, Ngah CWZ (2015) Agricultural bio-waste
materials as potential sustainable precursors used for activated
carbon production: a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev 46:218–
235. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.051
Yao Y, Zhang Y, Gao B, Chen R, Wu F (2018) Removal of sulfameth-
oxazole (SMX) and sulfapyridine (SPY) from aqueous solutions
by biochars derived from anaerobically digested bagasse. Environ
Sci Pollut Res 25:25659–25667. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1135​
6-017-8849-0
Zacco A, Borgese L, Gianoncelli A, Struis RPWJ, Depero LE,
Bontempi E (2014) Review of fly ash inertisation treatments
and recycling. Environ Chem Lett 12:153–175. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1031​1-014-0454-6
Zhang C, Ho SH, Chen WH, Xie Y, Liu Z, Chang JS (2018) Tor-
refaction performance and energy usage of biomass wastes and
their correlations with torrefaction severity index. Appl Energy
220:598–604. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apene​rgy.2018.03.129
Zhang J, Shao J, Jin Q, Li Z, Zhang X, Chen Y, Zhang S, Chen H (2019)
Sludge-based biochar activation to enhance Pb (II) adsorption.
Fuel 252:101–108. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.04.096
Zhang S, Su Y, Xiong Y, Zhang H (2020) Physicochemical structure
and reactivity of char from torrefied rice husk: effects of inor-
ganic species and torrefaction temperature. Fuel 262:116667.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2019.11666​7
Zhou J, Luo A, Zhao Y (2018) Preparation and characterisation of
activated carbon from waste tea by physical activation using
steam. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 68:1269–1277. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/10962​247.2018.14602​82
Zhou X, Zhou J, Liu Y, He Y, Ren J, Guo J (2019) Adsorption of
endocrine disrupting ethylparaben from aqueous solution by
chemically activated biochar developed from oil palm fibre.
Separat Sci Technol 54:683–695. https​://doi.org/10.1080/01496​
395.2018.15207​23
Zou Q, An W, Wu C, Li W, Fu A, Xiao R, Chen H, Xue S (2018)
Red mud-modified biochar reduces soil arsenic availability and
changes bacterial composition. Environ Chem Lett 16:615–622.
https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1031​1-017-0688-1
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
13