Journal of Environmental Management 309 (2022) 114704

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Potential of biochar use in building materials

Maša Legan a, Andreja Žgajnar Gotvajn b, Klementina Zupan a, *
a
Chair of Occupational, Process and Fire Safety, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
b
Chair of Chemical, Biochemical and Environmental Engineering, Faculty of Chemistry and Chemical Technology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A critical review of the articles dealing with biochar in terms of the reuse of biomass waste in building materials
Biomass waste and its impact on material properties was conducted using five different electronic databases; thirteen articles
Biochar were selected for this critical review. Biochar was used as a replacement for cement and aggregate in cemen­
Building material
titious composites and as an addition in wood polypropylene composites and plasters. The biochar dosages
Properties
Carbon footprint reduction
ranged from 0.5% to 40%; in most composites, the addition of biochar increased strength and reduced thermal
conductivity and the bulk density of fresh mortars. Also, biochar dosages of 0.5–2% decreased, while dosages of
10–40% increased water absorption and penetration on cementitious composites. The selected studies mainly
introduced biochar use in building materials as a means of biomass waste reduction and its reuse for various
purposes, while carbon footprint reduction was addressed in only a few of them. Biochar-containing building
material’s capability of capturing CO2 from the air was also observed (0.033 mmol CO2 gbiochar− 1 to 0.138 mmol
CO2 gbiochar− 1). The results also showed that mortars with CO2-unsaturated biochar had better mechanical and
physical properties than mortars with CO2-saturated biochar. Selected studies showed biochar-containing
building materials have a great potential for carbon footprint reduction. However, there is a lack of compre­
hensive studies about biochar use in building materials concerning climate change mitigation.

1. Introduction
The growth of the global population in recent decades contributed to
increased amounts of waste. The largest part of the wastes are solid
wastes, especially plastic waste (Hoornweg et al., 2013), but waste
biomass also plays a significant role, including agricultural, forestry,
municipal domestic, or organic wastes, as well as sewage sludge from
wastewater treatment (Agrafioti et al., 2013; Gabhane et al., 2017;
Polprasert, 2007). As the need for food increases with population
growth, agriculture and livestock farming have become increasingly
intense. Consequently, the burden on the soil increases, leading to severe
environmental deterioration accompanied by an increasing amount of
waste biomass. A significant portion of those wastes usually is disposed
of either by incineration or dumping in the fields or disposed at landfills
(Obi et al., 2016; Tsiafouli et al., 2015). Certain types of waste biomass
can be composted and anaerobically stabilised to produce biogas or
other valuable stock material to fulfil the goals of the circular economy
(Lim et al., 2016; Mao et al., 2015; Qiao et al., 2011). It was estimated
that in European Union (EU), 87 kg of biowaste per capita was recycled
by composting and digestion in 2019, which was 34 kg more than in
2000. Also, more than 81 million tonnes of animal, mixed food, and
vegetal wastes were generated in the EU in 2016, while more than 68
million tonnes of animal and vegetal wastes were recycled and back­
filled (Eurostat, 2020). Among the different ways of treating biomass
waste, pyrolysis yields a valuable and multi-purpose by-product: bio­
char; waste biomass is the primary feedstock for biochar production
(Kloss et al., 2012).
Biochar is a porous carbon solid material produced by the thermo­
chemical conversion of biomass in the absence of oxygen at relatively
low temperatures (<700 ◦ C) (Joseph and Lehmann, 2009; Shackley
et al., 2011). The most commonly used processes for biochar production
processes are gasification, torrefaction, and pyrolysis (Tripathi et al.,
2016; Zhang et al., 2015), which is the thermal decomposition of ma­
terials in an inert atmosphere producing syngas, liquid, or bio-oil and a
solid product (char) (Manara and Zabaniotou, 2012; Ok et al., 2015;
Samolada and Zabaniotou, 2014).
Researchers’ interest in biochar and biochar production began less
than two decades ago. Agricultural residues, urban, paper, food, kitchen
and dairy waste, woody and aquatic biomass, and animal or human
excreta are the most commonly used feedstocks for biochar production

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: klementina.zupan@fkkt.uni-lj.si (K. Zupan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114704
Received 1 October 2021; Received in revised form 4 February 2022; Accepted 7 February 2022
Available online 14 February 2022
0301-4797/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Legan et al.
(Bird et al., 2011; Gabhane et al., 2017; Kloss et al., 2012; Mukome et al.,
2013).
Many benefits of biochar have been confirmed in recent years,
especially as a vital soil addition or soil conditioner (Ding et al., 2016;
Igalavithana et al., 2016; Joseph and Lehmann, 2009). The use of bio­
char as a dietary supplement in animal feeding has also been addressed
in several studies, which demonstrate that it contributes to better animal
health (Gerlach and Schmidt, 2012; Schmidt et al., 2019; Toth and Dou,
2016). Recently, many studies reported biochar use as an adsorbent in
wastewater treatment plants. Decima et al. (2021) concluded that the
high specific surface area, micropore volumes, and the presence of ar­
omatic carbon components in biochars or activated carbons were crucial
for improving the efficiency of wastewater treatments in carbamazepine
(pharmaceutical) removal. Additionally, Wang et al. (2018) highlighted
biochar’s excellent adsorption capacity for heavy metals Hg(II) and Pb
(II) in solution and biochar as a significant carrier for microorganisms to
form co-sorbents. It was found that biochar in combination with bac­
terium as a co-sorbent even improved the sorption capacity for Pb(II).
Many recent studies found that the use of biochar has enormous
potential for climate change mitigation. First, the production of biochar
itself contributes to such mitigation, because the conventional man­
agement of waste biomass would often lead to the release of methane
(CH4) or nitrous oxide (N2O) as the waste biomass decomposes (Joseph
and Lehmann, 2009; Woolf et al., 2010). Second, the addition of biochar
to the soil by sequestering carbon in soil could also contribute to the
reduction of the carbon footprint due to biochar’s slow decomposition
rate in the soil (Jha et al., 2010; Lehmann et al., 2006). Woolf et al.
(2010) estimated that all applications of biochar could reduce 1.8 Gt
CO2 equivalent per year (about 12% of anthropogenic emissions).
Marzeddu et al. (2021) made a lifecycle assessment of an
energy-biochar chain involving a gasification plant in Italy and esti­
mated that the largest contribution to climate change was from the
prevent emissions from energy production with a value of − 3141.180 kg
CO2 equivalent for electricity and heat (renewable energy), while the
contribution from the carbon sequestration capacity of biochar was
− 1513.070 kg CO2 equivalent (at a rate of 49 kg of dry matter per hour,
the amount of biochar after gasification was 5% of the weight of starting
incoming material). Furthermore, some recent studies also found the
capability of biochar capturing CO2 from the air by adsorption in pores
due to its porous structure (Creamer et al., 2014; Madzaki et al., 2016).
In some parts of the world, there is already a shortage of natural
aggregates in construction (i.e., gravel and sand) (Habert et al., 2010;
Horvath, 2004; Ioannidou et al., 2017; Peduzzi, 2014; Schneider et al.,
2011), which are crucial for the production of concrete. Different waste
materials have enormous potential for the replacement of natural ag­
gregates, including biochar. Furthermore, global cement production, as
an essential building material in construction, is found to be the
third-largest source of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions
(Andrew, 2018; Worrell et al., 2001). Many studies confirmed the
feasibility of biochar in construction as an additive in building materials,
especially in cement, to improve various properties of building materials
(e.g., low thermal conductivity, high chemical stability, and low flam­
mability) (Gupta et al., 2018a; Restuccia et al., 2020) and for climate
change mitigation with CO2 adsorption by carbon capture and seques­
tration in building materials (Akinyemi and Adesina, 2020; Gupta and
Kua, 2017; Kua et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2020).
Therefore, a critical review was conducted to research and assess
whether published studies found a potential solution for the aforemen­
tioned environmental issues in from 2015 to 2021. The results of this
review should guide researchers to give more attention to biochar use in
building materials concerning climate change mitigation. Furthermore,
more research needs to be focused on the building materials available
for actual commercial use in construction and not just for studies. The
purpose of this review was to provide details on (1) how applying bio­
char by reusing biomass waste in building materials affects their prop­
erties; and (2) carbon footprint reduction potential and climate change
2
Journal of Environmental Management 309 (2022) 114704
mitigation due to biochar addition in building materials.
2. Methods
2.1. Literature search
The primary systematic literature searches of the published articles
were conducted in five electronic databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect,
Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science. The literature search was limited
to articles published from January 2015 to May 2021. The following
keywords in different combinations were used: biochar, bio-char, con­
struction, building, material, properties, carbon, carbon footprint, CO2,
sequestration, and capture. The Boolean operators AND and OR were
used to combine keywords in all databases with advanced search op­
tions. The secondary search was conducted on the reference lists of
selected articles to identify other eligible articles for this review.
2.2. Eligibility criteria
The inclusion criteria for selection were articles: (1) available in full-
text format; (2) published in English; (3) with the main focus on waste
biomass reuse in the form of biochar in building materials and details
about changed building material properties due to biochar addition; (4)
highlights the possible association between biochar use in building
materials and carbon footprint reduction. The exclusion criteria were:
(1) review articles; (2) articles focusing only on an association between
biochar use and greenhouse gas emissions; (3) articles with no details
about feedstock and the production process of biochar.
2.3. Screening
All selected articles were first screened and excluded due to title
eligibility and duplication in terms of the same title and keywords. The
next screening was based on the abstract eligibility of the selected ar­
ticles. Articles were excluded due to results and conclusions reported in
the abstract. The third screening included full-text versions of the arti­
cles. The full-text versions of the articles were read and excluded if they
did not adhere to the eligibility criteria.
3. Results
3.1. Literature search
After the application of the eligibility criteria from 583 identified
articles, 13 eligible full-text articles were selected for this review. Details
of the selection process are presented in Fig. 1.
3.2. Feedstock and biochar production process
In almost all eligible studies, the pyrolysis process was used for
biochar production. Two studies (Kua et al., 2017; Suarez-Riera et al.,
2020) used gasification. Pyrolysis temperatures ranged from 300 ◦ C to
800 ◦ C, while gasification process temperatures ranged from 550 ◦ C to
700 ◦ C. In normal operations, the gasification process is usually used for
the production of syngas by exposing biomass waste to high tempera­
tures (>800 ◦ C) under controlled amounts of O2 and steam. Syngas (H2,
CO, CO2, CH4) is the primary product of gasification, while liquids or
solids (char) are secondary products (Baldwin et al., 2012; Ok et al.,
2015).
The most commonly used feedstock for biochar production in
selected studies was mixed wood sawdust (Gupta et al., 2017, 2018a,
2018b). Other feedstocks were waste wood and plywood boards (Das
et al., 2015; Jeon et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2021), hazelnut shells
(Restuccia and Ferro, 2018), peanut shells (Gupta and Kashani, 2021),
mixed horticultural waste (Kua et al., 2017), rice husks (Jeon et al.,
2019; Zeidabadi et al., 2018), sugarcane bagasse (Zeidabadi et al.,
M. Legan et al.
Fig. 1. Flowchart of article selection process.
2018), food waste (Gupta et al., 2018b), and poultry litter (Praneeth
et al., 2021). Besides waste biomass and organic waste, biochar was also
used in combination with other materials, such as phase change mate­
rials (coconut oil, palm oil, palm wax, and soy wax) (Jeon et al., 2019),
wood chips (Jeon et al., 2021), wood and polypropylene composites
(Das et al., 2015; Gupta et al., 2017), and plaster pellets with biochar
coating in cavity walls (Kua et al., 2017). Details about the biochar
production process and feedstock are presented in Table 1.
3.3. Biochar addition in building materials and properties changes
Biochar was added to cementitious composites in most of the
selected studies as a key ingredient in concrete. The biochar content
ranged from 0.5% to 40% by weight of cement; in one study, it was used
as a sand replacement (Praneeth et al., 2021). In other composites, the
dosage of biochar ranged from 6% to 30% by weight of wood poly­
propylene composite (Das et al., 2015), from 2% to 10% by total weight
of wood-derived biocomposite (Jeon et al., 2021), and in polypropylene
composite consisting of polypropylene fibres, biochar, cement, and
water in a ratio of 1:3:1:2.5 (Gupta et al., 2017).
Different tests and analyses showed changes in the mechanical and
chemical properties of biochar-containing building materials. The
compressive and flexural strengths of composites were investigated in
3
Journal of Environmental Management 309 (2022) 114704
most of the studies. Other mechanical properties included tensile
strength, thermal stability, ductility, thermal conductivity, bulk density,
flowability, water absorption and penetration potential, albedo, and
impact of biochar as micro-reinforcement in building material. While
the addition of biochar improved the mechanical properties of com­
posites in most cases, in some studies, deterioration of properties was
also expressed (Das et al., 2015; Jeon et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2021;
Praneeth et al., 2021). The chemical stability and compatibility of
composites were analysed in only three studies (Das et al., 2015; Gupta
and Kashani, 2021; Jeon et al., 2019). Details about building materials’
properties changes due to biochar addition are presented in Table 2.
3.4. Reuse of waste biomass in the form of biochar and association with
climate change mitigation
All selected studies adhere to the criterion of the main focus being on
waste biomass reuse in the form of biochar in building materials. The
main objectives of the included studies were the use of biochar in
building materials for the improvement of mechanical properties to
compete with present composites in construction, carbon sequestration,
CO2 capture, and waste reduction. These objectives were directly or
indirectly associated with carbon footprint reduction and climate
change mitigation. More details about the main focuses of the studies
M. Legan et al. Journal of Environmental Management 309 (2022) 114704

Table 1 Table 1 (continued )

Biochar preparation processes and dosages in building materials in selected Selected Location Feedstock Biochar Dosage of
articles. article production biochar from
Selected Location Feedstock Biochar Dosage of process waste biomass
article production biochar from in building
process waste biomass material
in building Praneeth New Poultry litter Pyrolysis; 10%, 20% and
material et al. Zealand pyrolysis 40% of sand in
Das et al. New Waste pine Pyrolysis; 6%, 12%, 18%, (2021) temperature: cement mortar
(2015) Zealand wood pyrolysis 24%, and 30% 450 ◦ C was replaced
temperatures by weight of with biochar
400 ◦ C and composite Gupta, Australia Peanut shells Pyrolysis; 1% and 3% by
450 ◦ C (two 2021 pyrolysis weight of
biochars) temperature: cement
Restuccia Italy Hazelnut Pyrolysis; 0.5%, 0.8%, and 500 ◦ C; heating
and shells (food pyrolysis 1% by weight of rate: 10 ◦ C
Ferro waste) temperature: cement min− 1 for 1 h
(2016) 800 ◦ C; heating Jeon et al. Republic Waste wood Pyrolysis; 2%, 4%, 6%,
rate: 6 ◦ C min− 1 (2021) of Korea (spruce) pyrolysis 8%, 10% by
in a continuous temperature: total weight of
flowing of 600 ◦ C for less composite
nitrogen than 10 min
Gupta Singapore Mixed wood Pyrolysis; The ratio by Qin et al. China Waste Pyrolysis; 0.65%, 3.2%,
et al. sawdust pyrolysis weight of (2021) synthetic pyrolysis 6.5%, 9.5%, and
(2017) temperature: polypropylene eucalyptus temperature: 13.5% by
300 ◦ C; heating fiber, biochar, plywood 500 ◦ C; heating weight of
rate: 10 ◦ C cement and boards rate: 10 ◦ C cement
min− 1 for 45 min water was min− 1 for 2 h
1:3:1:2.5. (fresh
biochar and CO2
saturated
biochar)
Kua et al. Singapore Mixed Gasification; 6 g of biochar,
(2017) horticultural temperature 210 g pre-mixed and their association with climate change mitigation can be found in
waste from range: plaster, and 70 Table 3.
tree pruning 550 ◦ C− 600 ◦ C ml of water
Zeidabadi Iran Rice husk and Pyrolysis; 5%, and 10%
et al. sugarcane pyrolysis replacement
4. Discussion
(2018) bagasse temperature: levels by mass
700 ◦ C; heating of cement There were two purposes for this review. The primary purpose was to
rate: 10 ◦ C provide details on how applying biochar by reusing biomass waste in
min− 1 for 2 h, in
building materials affects the properties of the materials. The secondary
a flowing
nitrogen (N2) purpose was to provide details on carbon footprint reduction potential
environment and climate change mitigation due to biochar addition in building ma­
Gupta Singapore Food waste Pyrolysis; Biochar from terials. To our knowledge, this is the first critical review to identify
et al. (rice, noodle, pyrolysis mixed wood building material properties changes due to the addition of biochar from
(2018a) pasta, meat, temperature: sawdust and
vegetable 500 ◦ C; heating biochar from
waste biomass and, at the same time, its association with carbon foot­
matters, rate: 10 ◦ C food waste: 1%, print reduction potential and climate change mitigation.
bones) and min− 1 for 45–60 2% and 5% by
mixed wood min cement weight 4.1. Biochar preparation processes
sawdust in the mortar
Biochar from
rice waste: 2% The most commonly used feedstock for biochar production in
and 5% by selected studies was mixed wood sawdust (Gupta et al., 2017, 2018a,
cement weight 2018b). Other feedstocks used for biochar were waste wood and
Gupta Singapore Mixed wood Pyrolysis; 2% by weight of plywood boards (Das et al., 2015; Jeon et al., 2021; Qin et al., 2021),
et al. sawdust pyrolysis cement
(2018b) temperature: (unsaturated
hazelnut shells (Restuccia and Ferro, 2018), peanut shells (Gupta and
500 ◦ C; heating and CO2 Kashani, 2021), mixed horticultural waste (Kua et al., 2017), rice husks
rate: 10 ◦ C saturated (Jeon et al., 2019; Zeidabadi et al., 2018), sugarcane bagasse (Zeidabadi
min− 1 for 40 min biochar) et al., 2018), food waste (Gupta et al., 2018b), and poultry litter (Pra­
Jeon et al. Republic Rice husk Pyrolysis; Latent heat
neeth et al., 2021). In addition to waste biomass and organic waste,
(2019) of Korea pyrolysis storage
temperature: biocomposite biochar was also used in combination with other materials, such as
450 ◦ C; heating was applied to phase change materials (coconut oil, palm oil, palm wax, and soy wax)
rate: 7 ◦ C min− 1 the gypsum (Jeon et al., 2019), wood chips (Jeon et al., 2021), wood and poly­
for 2 h, in a board. propylene composites (Das et al., 2015; Gupta et al., 2017), and plaster
flowing nitrogen
(N2)
pellets with biochar coating in cavity walls (Kua et al., 2017). None of
environment the studies explained in detail the selection of feedstock for biochar
Suarez Italy Wood chips Gasification; 2% by weight of preparation. Previous studies found that characteristics of biochars
Riera temperature: cement change with feedstock type; for instance, the straw-derived biochars had
et al. 700 ◦ C
different characteristics compared with wood-derived biochars (Joseph
(2020)
and Lehmann, 2009; Kloss et al., 2012).
Pyrolysis was the most commonly used process for biochar prepa­
ration in the abovementioned papers; only two studies (Kua et al., 2017;

4
M. Legan et al.
Table 2
Building material properties changes due to biochar addition.
Selected Building material properties
article changes
Das et al. − Composite with 24% of
(2015) biochar had similar tensile
strength as a composite with
no biochar addition and the
highest between biochar-
containing composites.
− Composite with 12% of
biochar had the highest
percentage of elongation but
lower than composite with no
biochar addition.
− The highest flexural strength
among all the composites was
had by composite with 24% of
biochar.
− The addition of 6% of biochar
to composite had no difference
in mechanical, chemical, or
thermal properties of the
composite.
− Composite with 18% content
of biochar was the most
thermally stable, while other
composites and composite
with no biochar addition were
less thermally stable.
Restuccia and − Biochar improved the
Ferro mechanical properties,
(2016) especially the strength,
toughness, and ductility,
compared to plain cement.
− Biochar particles changed the
path and the growth of micro-
cracks.
− Mechanical properties
improved the specific content
of biochar (0.8% by weight of
cement).
Gupta et al. − Biochar coating increased the
(2017) surface roughness of fibers and
resulted in higher compressive
and flexural strength
compared to plain mortar and
mortar with uncoated fibers.
− Polypropylene fibers coated
with fresh biochar had higher
peak strength compared to
fibers coated with CO2
saturated biochar.
− CO2-saturated and fresh
biochar-coated fibers had
higher residual strength and
better post-cracking ductility.
− Biochar coating reduced the
permeability of mortar,
reflected by reducting water
penetration depth and initial
sorptivity.
Kua et al. − Biochar-coated pellets
(2017) increased rates of CO2
adsorption.
− Doubling the width of the wall
cavities increased the CO2
adsorption rate fivefold.
− Biochar coated pellets could
absorb CO2 at the rate of
8–4000 ppm min− 1 and
recorded CO2 adsorption of
0.033 mmol g− 1 of biochar,
while wall plasters with
sprayed biochar powder and
wall plaster with pre-mixed
biochar CO2 absorption were
Table 2 (continued )
Biochar-containing building
material
Wood polypropylene biochar
composite in the form of
pressed strips
Cementitious-based
composites with biochar
addition
Polypropylene fibers coated
with biochar cement mortar
paste
Plaster pellets with biochar
coating in cavity walls
5
Journal of Environmental Management 309 (2022) 114704
Selected Building material properties Biochar-containing building
article changes material
0.138 mmol g− 1 and 0.055
mmol g− 1 of biochar.
− Spray-on biochar plaster
adsorbed CO2 faster than pre-
mixed biochar plaster and
plaster pellets without biochar
coating.
Zeidabadi − Biochar addition increased the Biochar in concrete
et al. (2018) compressive strength of
concrete by more than 20%.
− Concrete samples with bagasse
biochar had more compressive
and tensile strength than
samples with rice husk
biochar.
− The addition of 10% biochar
decreased tensile strength,
while 5% increased tensile
strength compared to 10%
addition.
− The addition of 5% rice husk
biochar and 5% bagasse
biochar resulted to the highest
compressive strength of
concrete.
− Difference between the control
concrete and concrete with the
highest strength containing 5%
bagasse biochar was 19.62
MPa (55%).
Gupta et al. − Addition of food waste biochar Biochar in cement mortar
(2018a) by up to 5% by weight of
cement increased the air
content of fresh mix by more
than 10% and reduced fresh
density.
− Biochar from food waste,
mixed wood sawdust and rice
waste reduced the flowability
of mortar paste.
− Addition of 1–2% biochar from
food waste and mixed sawdust
increased compressive
strength of mortar.
− Addition of biochar reduced
flexural strength of mortar.
− Samples with mixed wood
sawdust biochar had higher
compressive strengths than
samples with food waste
biochar.
− Addition of mixed wood
sawdust and food waste
biochar at 1–2% by weight of
cement can improve ductility
of mortar.
− Mix of 1% food waste biochar
and up to 2% biochar from
sawdust and rice waste
reduced capillary water
absorption and water
penetration in mortar.
Gupta et al. − Biochar content of 2% by Biochar in cement mortar
(2018b) weight of cement slightly
reduced fresh density and
hardened density of mortar.
− Addition of unsaturated
biochar and biochar with
adsorbed CO2 significantly
increased compressive
strength of mortar. Saturated
biochar decreased 28-day
strength of mortar compared
to mortar with unsaturated
biochar.
(continued on next page)
M. Legan et al.
Table 2 (continued )
Selected Building material properties
article changes
− More calcium hydroxide in
cement pastes was confirmed
after biochar addition
(improved hydration).
− The post-cracking behaviour of
mortar changed under flexure.
− Biochar in unsaturated form
reduced sorptivity and water
penetration in mortar, while
biochar in saturated form
increased sorptivity.
Jeon et al. − Latent heat storage
(2019) biocomposites (mixture of
biochar and phase change
material) resulted in high
thermal performance, good
thermal and exudation
stability, and chemical
compatibility.
− Thermal conductivity was
similar to gypsum board.
Suarez Riera − Addition of biochar mostly
et al. (2020) decreased the flexural strength
of cement paste by up to 60%
and mortar specimens by up to
2%.
− Biochar generated a ductile
behavior.
− Biochar acted as a micro-
reinforcement and to deflected
the trajectory of the fracture.
− Biochar significantly increased
fracture energy of cement
pastes up to 150% and mortars
up to 40%.
Praneeth et al. − Addition of biochar showed a
(2021) significant decrease in the
compressive strength for all
the mixes. The least
compressive strength was the
sample with 40% of biochar.
− Addition of biochar caused the
increase in the flexural
strength for mixes with 10%
and 20% of biochar. The
highest flexural strength was
the mix with 20% biochar,
which is 26% higher than plain
cement mortar. Composite
with 40% biochar had lesser
flexural strength than plain
cement mortar.
− An increase in biochar
percentage increased water
absorption and voids in
composites. Composite with
40% biochar showed the
highest water absorption and
voids with 21.3% and 29.4%
higher than plain cement
mortar.
− Biochar addition showed
decrease in the bulk density of
the all composites.
− Composite with 10% of
biochar had the lowest thermal
conductivity with 0.47 W
mK− 1, which was 26.2% less
than plain cement mortar.
Gupta, 2021 Degree of hydration enhanced
−
by 15–23% due to the addition
of 3% of biochar.
− Compressive strength
increased by 18–20%
compared to plain mortar.
Journal of Environmental Management 309 (2022) 114704
Table 2 (continued )
Biochar-containing building Selected Building material properties Biochar-containing building
material article changes material
− Composite with 3 wt% biochar
had a faster rate of setting time
and shorter final setting time
by up to 1–1.50 h compared to
control,
− Addition of 1% and 3% biochar
increased the drying shrinkage
under sealed conditions
compared to plain mortar due
to high salt content in biochar.
Jeon et al. − Addition of biochar reduced Wood-derived biocomposite
Bio-based phase change (2021) thermal conductivity by up to (wood particles and biochar)
material vacuum 10% compare to composite
impregnated into rice husk with no biochar.
biochar − The biochar content decreased
the bending strength by up to
60% and increased the
porosity by up to 73%.
Qin et al. − Biochar dosages from 0.65% to Biochar in pervious concrete
(2021) 6.5% increased the water
absorption of the concrete by
Biochar in cement-based more than 70%.
material (as filler or − The addition of 0.65–6.5% of
substitute) biochar resulted in the
increase of compressive
strength compared to concrete
to which no biochar was
added. Compressive strength
increased by 35.2% at 6.5%
biochar dosage.
− Biochar dosage of 13.5%
reduced the compressive
strength by 31.7% compared
to concrete with no biochar.
− The addition of 0.65% of
Biochar in cement mortar as biochar resulted in the
sand replacement increase of 7-day splitting ten­
sile strength compared to con­
crete for which no biochar was
added, while biochar dosages
of more than 0.65% decreased
7-day splitting tensile strength.
− Biochar increased 28-day
splitting tensile strengths of
samples.
− Biochar addition reduced the
albedo of samples from 0.168
to 0.119 compared to concrete
without biochar.
Suarez-Riera et al., 2020) used gasification. Temperatures for biochar
production in studies ranged from 300 ◦ C to 800 ◦ C. Several studies
found that product distribution and quality strongly depend upon the
process parameters, such as temperature, heating rate, and residence
time (Kloss et al., 2012; Tripathi et al., 2016). A few studies in this re­
view reported residence time, while pyrolysis temperatures and heating
rates were listed for all preparation processes. No details on the type of
pyrolysis process were presented; nevertheless, it can be assumed from
the listed temperatures and heating rates in the range of 6–10 ◦ C min− 1
that it was slow pyrolysis (Demirbas and Arin, 2002; Li et al., 2013;
Tripathi et al., 2016). In studies with mixed sawdust and waste plywood
boards as feedstock, the raw material was pre-dried before the biochar
preparation process. Additionally, one prominent process of biochar
production is torrefaction, which involves heating the feedstock to
temperatures of 200 ◦ C–300 ◦ C in an inert or limited oxygen environ­
Biochar in cement mortar
ment and is often presented as modified pyrolysis (Ok et al., 2015).
Nhuchhen et al. (2014) suggested that torrefaction can provide a suit­
able alternative to the traditional biochar production processes due to its
low operating temperature (200–300 ◦ C), leading to a larger fraction of
biomass char retained in solid form.
6
M. Legan et al.
Table 3
Main focus of selected and carbon footprint reduction potential.
Selected Main focus of the article
article
Das et al. Biomass waste utilization (a
(2015) value-added organic waste)
and addition of biochar in
conventional biocomposites
and potential to compete with
present composites.
Restuccia and The use of food waste as
Ferro “green”, inert into the
(2016) cementitious-based
composites in construction.
Gupta et al. Use of biochar for CO2
(2017) sequestration and physical
improvement of mortar.
Kua et al. Use of biochar in wall plaster
(2017) and pellets as carbon
sequestering material.
Zeidabadi Agricultural waste ash as
et al. replacement of Portland
(2018) cement in concrete
production.
Gupta et al. Feasibility of using biochar
(2018a) derived from mixed food and
wood waste.
Gupta et al. Waste recycling with biochar
(2018b) as a carbon-sequestering
admixture for cementitious
mortar.
Jeon et al. Feasibility of latent heat
(2019) storage biocomposites from
bio-based phase change
material and biochar from rice
husk as a building material.
Use of biochar in cementitious
materials in terms of waste
Carbon footprint reduction
potential and climate change
mitigation
Reduction of landfill gas
emission by utilization of
organic wastes into biochar.
Contribution to producing
concrete in a more sustainable
way and inducing a reduction of
energy consumption and
reduction of CO2 emissions in
construction due to improved
properties of building materials.
Use of biochar as carbon
sequestration method for carbon
footprint reduction.
Average CO2 adsorption
capacity was about 1.67 mmol
g− 1 of biochar.
Potential of biochar as a carbon
sequestration material for
regulating indoor CO2 level as
either a plastering material or in
the form of pellets contained in
cavity walls. Direct.
Biochar coated pellets recorded
CO2 adsorption of 0.033 mmol g-
1 of biochar,
Wall plasters with sprayed
biochar powder recorded CO2
adsorption of 0.138 mmol g-1 of
biochar.
Wall plasters with pre-mixed
biochar recorded CO2
absorption of 0.055 mmol g-1 of
biochar.
Biochar coated pellets
significantly increased rates of
CO2 adsorption from the indoor
air.
Biochar from rice husk and
bagasse biochars are favorable
substitutes for use in concrete
without any effect on the
environment and can contribute
to reducing the impact of cement
production on the environment.
Study indicated biochar as an
appropriate candidate for the
production of green concrete.
Average CO2 adsorption
capacity was about 1.67 mmol
g− 1 of biochar.
Pyrolysis technology to process
wood waste reduces the
environmental impacts
compared to current
incineration process.
Biochar in saturated or
unsaturated form is associated
with net negative global
warming potential.
Reduction of building energy
consumption and consequently
CO2 emissions.
Application of biocomposite to
the interior of the building’s
outer wall reduced the building
energy consumption by 531.31
kWh per year.
Possibility of carbon footprint
reduction by biochar production
7
Journal of Environmental Management 309 (2022) 114704
Table 3 (continued )
Selected Main focus of the article Carbon footprint reduction
article potential and climate change
mitigation
Suarez Riera reduction and environmental and use in cementitious
et al. sustainability. composites.
(2020)
Praneeth Promotion of biomass waste to Biochar as partial sand
et al. carbon-rich biochar and replacement in cement mortar
(2021) utilization as filler material to showed reduction in the CO2
replace the sand. emissions.
Emission calculations from the
usage of the raw materials
showed a 20% reduction in the
CO2 emissions when comparing
plain cement mortar and
composite with 40% of biochar.
Gupta, 2021 Utilization of biochar from Biochar as cement replacement
food waste in cementitious for reducing cement
building materials. consumption and production in
relation to CO2 emissions.
Jeon et al. Biomass reuse in Possibility of using biochar in
(2021) biocomposites for wood-derived biocomposites
environmental sustainability. (environmentally friendly
materials) to improve thermal
insulation performance and
water stability in association
with reduction of CO2 emissions
and energy consumption.
Qin et al. Biochar as cement Biochar use as CO2 sequestration
(2021) replacement in cementitious method and for the reduction of
building materials for CO2 cement production.
sequestration.
Most of the biochar was prepared using laboratory equipment: a
hermetically sealed reactor, electric furnace, and muffle furnace, while
some used prepared biochar from different producers (Das et al., 2015;
Gupta et al., 2018b; Restuccia and Ferro, 2016; Zeidabadi et al., 2018).
Pilot equipment was used for saturation of biochar with CO2 in tightly
sealed tanks (Gupta et al., 2017, 2018a, 2018b). The size of biochar
particles was also a key factor in composites; after grinding, their sizes
were 5–200 μm. A significant portion of these particles (almost 50%)
was finer than cement particles that ranged 4–50 μm (Gupta et al., 2017,
2018a, 2018b; Praneeth et al., 2021).
4.2. Properties of biochar-containing building materials
4.2.1. Mechanical properties
The dosage of biochar ranged from 0.5% to 40% by weight of various
composites and played the most important role in the findings of the
mechanical properties of biochar-containing building materials. Results
showed that the addition of biochar increased compressive strength by
12–35% (up to 55 MPa) (Gupta et al., 2017, 2018b; Gupta and Kashani,
2021; Qin et al., 2021; Restuccia and Ferro, 2016; Zeidabadi et al.,
2018), flexural strength by 11–26% (up to 49 MPa) (Das et al., 2015;
Gupta et al., 2017; Jeon et al., 2021; Praneeth et al., 2021; Restuccia and
Ferro, 2016; Suarez-Riera et al., 2020) and tensile strength by 3–50%
(up to 23 MPa) (Gupta et al., 2018b; Qin et al., 2021; Restuccia and
Ferro, 2016; Zeidabadi et al., 2018) in composites with biochar contents
up to 24%. At the same time, the content of biochar up to 40% decreased
flexural strength, which was 4.4% lower than the cement mortar
without biochar addition (Praneeth et al., 2021). Several earlier studies
reported similar findings on increased compressive and flexural strength
(Akhtar and Sarmah, 2018; Gupta and Kua, 2018). Contradictory results
were found by Praneeth et al. (2021): different dosages of biochar
replacing sand in concrete resulted in decreased compressive strength
from 21% to almost 42% in all mixed composites compared to com­
posites without biochar.
Additionally, accelerated cement hydration was reported as the main
reason for increased strength in cementitious composites after the
M. Legan et al.
addition of biochar (Gupta et al., 2018a; Gupta and Kashani, 2021; Qin
et al., 2021). The biochar increased the amount of hydration products
and contributed to the development of the strength of cementitious
materials (Gupta and Kashani, 2021; Qin et al., 2021) because biochar
has a smaller particle size and greater specific surface area compared to
cement (Wang et al., 2019). Those hydration products were calcium
hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) and calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) (Gupta et al.,
2018a; Gupta and Kashani, 2021; Qin et al., 2021).
Some other studies also used waste materials as a replacement for
cement or aggregate in similar dosages in cementitious composites
where waste plastic was used. They showed that compressive, flexural,
and tensile strength decreased by 15–50% with an increase in plastic
content that ranged from 5–40% compared to cementitious composites
without plastic addition (Ismail and Al-Hashmi, 2008; Siddique et al.,
2008).
4.2.2. Physical and chemical properties
Three studies (Gupta et al., 2018a, 2018b; Praneeth et al., 2021)
reported reduced bulk density of composites after biochar addition from
2% to 40%. Compared to cementitious composites without biochar, bulk
density decreased from 5% to 20%. Brewer et al. (2014) reported that a
decrease in the bulk density could be related to an increase in the voids;
as the envelope density of biochar lies between 0.25 and 0.60 g cm− 3,
which is less than cement (1.44 g cm− 3) and sand, the overall bulk
density of biochar-containing composite decreased. Similar findings
were also found in cementitious composites with waste plastic. Bulk
density decreased from 2.5% to 13% with increases in plastic content of
10–50% (Al-Manaseer and Dalal, 1997; Siddique et al., 2008).
Decreased flowability of mortar paste from 9% to 13% due to biochar
addition from food waste, mixed wood sawdust, and rice waste was
reported by Gupta et al. (2018). Also, increased ductility was reported in
three studies (Gupta et al., 2017, 2018b; Suarez-Riera et al., 2020) with
biochar dosage from 1% to 5% due to an increase in fracture energy by
30–40%. Several studies also confirmed the increase in fracture energy
from 40% to more than 68% in biochar-containing composites (Cama­
cho et al., 2016; Cosentino et al., 2019).
The dosage of biochar up to 2% by weight of cement decreased water
absorption and water penetration (Gupta et al., 2017, 2018a, 2018b),
while biochar dosage from 10% to 40% increased water absorption in
cementitious composites from 21% to 124%. The depth of water pene­
tration in composites with biochar dosage up to 2% ranged 5–13 mm,
while it ranged 15–21 mm in composites without biochar. However, Qin
et al. (2021) reported increased water absorption when the biochar
dosages in pervious concrete were lower than 6.5% in comparison with
pervious concrete with no biochar addition. Seifan et al. (2020) reported
that water absorption and water penetration are essential factors in the
durability of cement-based composites.
After biochar addition, different tests showed that biochar particles
acted as micro-reinforcement to change the path (the trajectory of the
fracture) and the growth of micro-cracks in composites (Restuccia and
Ferro, 2016; Suarez-Riera et al., 2020). Ahmad et al. (2015) also found
that biochar addition successfully modifies the fracture surface of the
cementitious composites and improves fracture properties. Similar
findings were also reported for biochar addition to asphalt mixtures,
where 10% addition of biochar increased the cracking resistance by
bridging the cracks and arresting crack propagation (Zhao et al., 2014).
Furthermore, in a study in which sand and cement were replaced by
waste rubber, fracture properties were investigated. It was observed that
the replacement of sand by fine crumb and crumb rubber enhanced the
fracture properties of concrete. (Al-Tayeb et al., 2012).
Decreased albedo after biochar addition in cementitious composites
was reported by Qin et al. (2021) due to the dark colour of biochar. It
was found that biochar content of 6.5% reduced the albedo to 0.119,
compared to concrete with no biochar with albedo 0.168 Under sun­
light, this albedo decrease could make biochar-containing concrete
about 1.0 ◦ C hotter than concrete without biochar addition (Pomerantz
8
Journal of Environmental Management 309 (2022) 114704
et al., 2003; Qin et al., 2021).
In some studies, the thermal stability and conductivity of mixed
composites were determined (Jeon et al., 2019, 2021; Praneeth et al.,
2021). The lowest thermal conductivity was seen in a composite with
10% biochar as a sand replacement with 0.47 W mK− 1 and more than
26% less than composite without biochar. Jeon et al. (2019) reported
that the lowest thermal conductivity at 0.11 W mK− 1 was comparable to
the typical thermal conductivity of a gypsum board of 0.18–0.21 W
mK− 1 (Yu and Brouwers, 2012) and much lower than standard concrete,
which is usually from 0.62 to 3.3 W mK− 1 (Yun et al., 2013). The
thermal conductivity of composites with biochar dosage up to 10%
ranged 0.11–0.47 W mK− 1, while composites without biochar or with
biochar dosage more than 10% had higher thermal conductivity:
0.23–6375 mK− 1. Furthermore, Jeon et al. (2021) reported even lower
thermal conductivity for wood-derived biocomposites. The thermal
conductivity of wood-derived biocomposites with 10% biochar content
was almost 8% lower (0.09301 W mK− 1) than in biocomposites with no
biochar (0.10108 W mK− 1).
Several recent studies found that decreasing thermal conductivity in
composites could be attributed to the addition of less thermally
conductive material, such as biochar, for which particles enhanced the
porosity of the cement-based mixes (Berardi and Naldi, 2017; Cuth­
bertson et al., 2019). Also, in one of the selected studies, the addition of
biochar from 2% to 10% increased the porosity of wood-derived bio­
composite by up to 82.14%.
Decreased thermal conductivity was not found only in cementitious
composites. Yang et al. (2019) found that biochar-red clay composites
also resulted in the decrease of thermal conductivity after the addition of
biochar: a composite with 10% of biochar had a thermal conductivity of
0.123 W mK− 1 (Yang et al., 2019), similar to reported findings in one of
the selected studies in which a wood-biochar composite with highest
biochar content of 10% had a thermal conductivity of 0.09301 W mK− 1
(Jeon et al., 2021). Other waste materials were also used in cementitious
composites as cement or aggregate replacement. It was found that
recycled waste plastic as aggregate replacement in concrete influenced
thermal conductivity. The thermal conductivity of concrete with recy­
cled waste plastic was around 0.5–1.1 W mK− 1, which is higher than
biochar-containing cement composites.
The low thermal conductivity of building materials is also important
from the aspect of energy consumption reduction for heating or cooling
of buildings by maintaining the temperature inside of buildings (Brewer
et al., 2014; Gupta and Kua, 2017; Jeon et al., 2019, 2021), which is
important because electricity and heat generation are one of the most
significant sources of greenhouse gas emissions (Amponsah et al., 2014;
Dones et al., 2004). According to some studies, fossil fuels account for
68% of world electricity generation and represent approximately
two-thirds of CO2 emissions that come from the production and con­
sumption of fossil fuels (Liddle and Sadorsky, 2017).
4.3. Carbon footprint reduction potential
4.3.1. Indirect carbon footprint reduction
When biomass waste reuse in the form of biochar in building mate­
rials is considered, all selected studies focus mainly on improving the
mechanical and chemical properties of biochar-containing building
materials accompanied by a reduction of carbon footprint. Using biochar
in all reviewed studies was due to biomass waste reduction and its reuse
for various purposes. Das et al. (2015) pointed out the use of biomass
waste for biochar production instead of its disposal on the landfills
where organic waste decomposition often leads to the release of CH4
(Joseph and Lehmann, 2009; Kiyasudeen et al., 2016; Woolf et al.,
2010). Furthermore, the pyrolysis of wood waste compared to the
incineration process also reduces the volume of wastes (Gupta et al.,
2018a); however, incineration greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, NOx)
and emissions of toxic dioxins can occur (Baldasano and Soriano, 2000;
Gupta et al., 2018a). Different studies concluded that the use of pyrolysis
M. Legan et al.
or gasification reduces the environmental impact compared to inciner­
ation due to low operating temperatures and the absence of oxygen,
being the primary causes for the generation of dioxins. Lower temper­
atures are also beneficial for the absence of heavy metals in the pyrolysis
gas because they remain trapped in the resulting solid product (char,
biochar) (Conesa et al., 2009; Menendez et al., 2002; Samolada and
Zabaniotou, 2014).
Calculations of CO2 emissions from the usage of the raw materials
were made by Praneeth et al. (2021) for the replacement of sand with
different dosages of biochar. The results revealed a 20% reduction of net
CO2 emissions for cement mortar; 40% of biochar replaced sand as
compared to mortar without biochar. However, the results also revealed
that biochar dosage of 40% caused deterioration of mechanical prop­
erties, where bulk density, flexural strength, compressive strength
decreased by 20%, 4.4%, 49%, respectively, and thermal conductivity
and water absorption increased by 10% and 21.3%, respectively,
compared to composite without biochar (Praneeth et al., 2021).
Consequently, its suitability as a building material, with worse me­
chanical properties than cementitious composites, was questioned.
Gupta and Kashani (2021) also calculated CO2 emissions. It was re­
ported that biochar use in cementitious composites for cement
replacement for biochar dosages of 3% could reduce CO2-equivalent
emission, related to the net sequestration of carbon in the biochar.
Replacement of sand or cement with biochar in cementitious com­
posites is also important due to the shortage of natural aggregates in
construction (Habert et al., 2010; Horvath, 2004; Ioannidou et al., 2017;
Schneider et al., 2011) and for the reduction of cement production,
which is one of the largest sources of anthropogenic CO2 emissions
(Andrew, 2018; Worrell et al., 2001) representing approximately 5–7%
of all anthropogenic emitted CO2 (Gao et al., 2015).
4.3.2. Direct carbon footprint reduction
Gupta et al. (2017) and Gupta et al. (2018b) found differences in
characteristics of mortar with the addition of unsaturated or CO2 satu­
rated biochar. Calculated biochar CO2 adsorption was around 1.67
mmol g− 1 of biochar (Gupta et al., 2017, 2018b). The results also
showed that mortar with unsaturated biochar performed better than
mortar with CO2 saturated biochar. A mortar with unsaturated biochar
had 10% higher compressive and flexural strength than one with CO2.
However, CO2-saturated biochar had better results than plain mortar
and was made to adsorb CO2 before its deployment in building material,
which could additionally reduce the carbon footprint associated with
cement-based building materials. A recently conducted study by Wang
et al. (2020) confirmed that unsaturated biochar and CO2 saturated
biochar improved the properties of composites: the 1% content of
CO2-saturated biochar increased the compressive strength of composites
by almost 9%.
Huang et al. (2015) reported that CO2 adsorption capacity was
significantly correlated with the specific surface area of biochar. Addi­
tionally, biochar’s high surface area and micropores could lead to a very
high CO2 physisorption capacity (5.0 mmol g− 1 of biochar at 1 bar and
25 ◦ C) (Jung et al., 2019). The best correlation between adsorbed CO2
and pore volume was observed in the pore diameter range from 0.33 to
0.82 nm (Gupta and Kua, 2017). Plaza et al. (2014) observed that the
treatment of biochar with low oxygen concentration in the range of
3–5% at the temperature range of 550–650 ◦ C could produce micropores
conducive to CO2 capture under ambient conditions. Furthermore,
higher surface areas could be achieved with activation of biochar, which
can be physical (with oxidising gases) or chemical (with chemical
agents). Activation causes a higher fraction of micropores and meso­
pores, enhancing the total surface area of biochar (Gupta and Kua,
2017).
Sevilla and Fuertes (2012) found that char activated with potassium
hydroxide (KOH) showed high selectivity for CO2. Also, the adsorption
of CO2 decreased at higher activation temperature due to reduced pore
filling, where pores larger or smaller than the kinetic diameter of CO2
9
Journal of Environmental Management 309 (2022) 114704
(0.33 nm) caused a reduction in CO2 adsorption (Wei et al., 2012).
The capability of biochar CO2 capture in building materials from the
air was also tested for the regulation of indoor CO2 levels (Kua et al.,
2017). Biochar coated pellets could absorb CO2 at the rate of 8–4000
ppm min− 1 and recorded CO2 adsorption of 0.033 mmol g− 1 of biochar,
while wall plasters with sprayed biochar powder and wall plaster with
pre-mixed biochar CO2 absorption were 0.138 mmol g− 1 and 0.055
mmol g− 1 of biochar Kua et al. (2017). Similar findings were found by
Liu et al. (2020) that biochar addition improved the ability of building
materials to capture CO2, and more CO2 can be captured with an in­
crease in the dosage and size of the biochar. Despite the CO2 capture and
adsorption capability of biochar in building materials, several studies
found that this property may not be useful in the long term due to
reached saturation in a relatively short time and low biochar content in
these materials (Gupta and Kua, 2017; Liu et al., 2020). Gupta et al.
(2018b) determined the CO2 saturation point of biochar as when the
pores of biochar were completely occupied by CO2 molecules (or other
pollutants in the environment), and no further drop in CO2 concentra­
tion appeared over a 4-h period in the glass tank used for the
experiment.
Most of the selected studies indicated biochar use in building mate­
rials for carbon sequestration in cementitious materials that store and fix
carbon in its stable form. Several studies also found a similar way of
carbon sequestration with the addition of biochar to the soil (Roberts
et al., 2010; Smith, 2016) and relation to climate change mitigation.
Furthermore, it was calculated that if 1% of biochar (by weight of
concrete) is incorporated in concrete, approximately 0.5 Gt of CO2
would be sequestered per year, representing about 20% of the total CO2
emissions generated by the cement industry (Di Tommaso and Bor­
donzotti, 2016). Additional emissions of about 300 kg CO2 equivalent
per tonne dry feedstock can be reduced if biochar is made to absorb CO2
before its addition to cementitious materials (Wei et al., 2012).
4.4. Limitations
Various limitations were found in this review. One of the key limi­
tations was that only studies in the English language were included. As a
result, some studies may have been missed despite a very detailed search
in different databases. Additionally, the keywords used in the database
search have only been used for the last few years, which also contributed
to the final number of selected studies. In some studies, the reliability
and validity of instruments used for the determination of mechanical
and chemical properties of materials were not assessed, which could
lead to discrepancies in results. Also, measured values of composites in
some studies were based on different standards or methods, while not all
studies stated which standards or methods were used, which made it
impossible to compare results between individual studies.
Interestingly, no results are presented about the required quality of
the biochar used as an additive in concrete or composites to prevent
possible leaching and hazardous environmental impact in selected
studies. Several studies found that construction and demolition wastes
on landfills, which are mainly composed of concrete, showed leaching
behaviour concerning different conditions in different environments
(Roussat et al., 2008; Saca et al., 2017). Saca et al. (2015) showed that
the analysed leachates contained different concentrations of heavy
metals. Also, some studies assessed the leaching behaviour of cementi­
tious composites with ash from incineration of various types of waste as
a partial cement replacement. It was found that composites with medical
waste bottom ash in an acidic environment (pH value of 4.93 ± 0.05)
had leaching behaviour (Akyıldız et al., 2017). Leachate of medical
waste bottom ash contained high concentrations of chromium (29.8299
mg L− 1), copper (38.9681 mg L− 1), and zinc (13.2559 mg L− 1), while
leachate of composite with ash addition contained more than 70% lower
concentrations of heavy metals (Akyıldız et al., 2017). Shi and Kan
(2009) confirmed that leachate of municipal solid waste incineration fly
ash-cement paste also contained heavy metals. All mentioned
M. Legan et al.
concentrations were below the legal limit values and confirmed the
immobilisation of heavy metals of waste incineration ashes by
cement-based solidification process. Despite low concentrations of
heavy metals, their presence in leachates causes concern.
5. Conclusion
The use of biochar in building materials appeared to positively affect
building material properties and improve the durability of composites.
However, it turned out to be very important what biochar dosage was
used. The main findings of material properties changes were drawn as
follows:
− Biochar dosage 0.5–24% by weight of cement increased strength of
cementitious materials;
− Higher content of biochar up to 40% decreased flexural strength;
− Biochar replacing sand in concrete resulted in decreased compressive
strength;
− Biochar dosage 2–40% reduced the bulk density of fresh mortar;
− Biochar dosage 0.5–2% decreased water absorption and water
penetration.
Improved properties indicate biochar-containing building materials
would be comparable or even better than those with no biochar addi­
tion. Also, biochar use in building materials can directly or indirectly
impact carbon footprint reduction and climate change mitigation.
Biochar’s capability of carbon sequestration in its stable form and
direct CO2 capture from the air in building materials, as well as adding
CO2-saturated biochar, is an important topic that needs more attention.
However, despite the lack of studies about this topic, it can be concluded
that biochar-containing building materials have great potential in car­
bon footprint reduction and climate change mitigation, but more
detailed research needs to be done to be able to provide more certain and
precise results and conclusions.
Funding sources
Funding: This work was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency
ARRS Research programmes: Chemical Engineering [P2-0191] and
Separation and Other Processes for a Low-Carbon, Bio and Circular
Economy and Sustainable Development [P2-0346].
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author, upon reasonable request.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr Predrag Korica for providing data
about the amount of various wastes and waste treatment statistics in the
European Union.
References
Agrafioti, E., Bouras, G., Kalderis, D., Diamadopoulos, E., 2013. Biochar production by
sewage sludge pyrolysis. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 101, 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jaap.2013.02.010.
Ahmad, S., Tulliani, J.M., Ferro, G.A., Khushnood, R.A., Restuccia, L., Jagdale, P., 2015.
Crack path and fracture surface modifications in cement composites. Frat. Ed.
Integrità Strutt. 9 (34).
10
Journal of Environmental Management 309 (2022) 114704
Akinyemi, B.A., Adesina, A., 2020. Recent advancements in the use of biochar for
cementitious applications: a review. J. Build. Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jobe.2020.101705, 101705.
Akhtar, A., Sarmah, A.K., 2018. Novel biochar-concrete composites: manufacturing,
characterisation and evaluation of the mechanical properties. Sci. Total Environ.
616, 408–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.319.
Akyıldız, A., Köse, E.T., Yıldız, A., 2017. Compressive strength and heavy metal leaching
of concrete containing medical waste incineration ash. Construct. Build. Mater. 138,
326–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.017.
Al-Manaseer, A.A., Dalal, T.R., 1997. Concrete containing plastic aggregates. Concr. Int.
19 (8), 47–52.
Al-Tayeb, M.M., Abu Bakar, B.H., Akil, H.M., Ismail, H., 2012. Effect of partial
replacements of sand and cement by waste rubber on the fracture characteristics of
concrete. Polym. Plast. Technol. Eng. 51 (6), 583–589. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03602559.2012.659307.
Amponsah, N.Y., Troldborg, M., Kington, B., Aalders, I., Hough, R.L., 2014. Greenhouse
gas emissions from renewable energy sources: a review of lifecycle considerations.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 39, 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
rser.2014.07.087.
Andrew, R.M., 2018. Global CO 2 emissions from cement production. Earth Syst. Sci.
Data 10 (1), 195. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-10-195-2018.
Baldasano, J.M., Soriano, C., 2000. Emission of greenhouse gases from anaerobic
digestion processes: comparison with other municipal solid waste treatments. Water
Sci. Technol. 41 (3), 275–282. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2000.0081.
Baldwin, R.M., Magrini-Bair, K.A., Nimlos, M.R., Pepiot, P., Donohoe, B.S., Hensley, J.E.,
Phillips, S.D., 2012. Current research on thermochemical conversion of biomass at
the national renewable energy laboratory. Appl. Catal. B Environ. 115, 320–329.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apcatb.2011.10.033.
Berardi, U., Naldi, M., 2017. The impact of the temperature dependent thermal
conductivity of insulating materials on the effective building envelope performance.
Energy Build. 144, 262–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.03.052.
Bird, M.I., Wurster, C.M., de Paula Silva, P.H., Bass, A.M., De Nys, R., 2011. Algal
biochar–production and properties. Bioresour. Technol. 102 (2), 1886–1891.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2010.07.106.
Brewer, C.E., Chuang, V.J., Masiello, C.A., Gonnermann, H., Gao, X., Dugan, B.,
Davies, C.A., 2014. New approaches to measuring biochar density and porosity.
Biomass Bioenergy 66, 176–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.03.059.
Camacho, Y.S., Bensaid, S., Ruggeri, B., Restuccia, L., Ferro, G., Mancini, G., Fino, D.,
2016. Valorisation of by-products/waste of agro-food industry by the pyrolysis
process. Journal of Advanced Catalysis Science and Technology 3, 1–11.
Conesa, J.A., Font, R., Fullana, A., Martín-Gullón, I., Aracil, I., Gálvez, A., Gómez-
Rico, M.F., 2009. Comparison between emissions from the pyrolysis and combustion
of different wastes. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 84 (1), 95–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jaap.2008.11.022.
Cosentino, I., Restuccia, L., Ferro, G.A., Tulliani, J.M., 2019. Type of materials, pyrolysis
conditions, carbon content and size dimensions: the parameters that influence the
mechanical properties of biochar cement-based composites. Theor. Appl. Fract.
Mech. 103, 102261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tafmec.2019.102261.
Creamer, A.E., Gao, B., Zhang, M., 2014. Carbon dioxide capture using biochar produced
from sugarcane bagasse and hickory wood. Chem. Eng. J. 249, 174–179. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cej.2014.03.105.
Cuthbertson, D., Berardi, U., Briens, C., Berruti, F., 2019. Biochar from residual biomass
as a concrete filler for improved thermal and acoustic properties. Biomass Bioenergy
120, 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.11.007.
Das, O., Sarmah, A.K., Bhattacharyya, D., 2015. A novel approach in organic waste
utilisation through biochar addition in wood/polypropylene composites. Waste
Manag. 38, 132–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2015.01.015.
Demirbas, A., Arin, G., 2002. An overview of biomass pyrolysis. Energy Sources 24 (5),
471–482. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908310252889979.
Décima, M.A., Marzeddu, S., Barchiesi, M., Di Marcantonio, C., Chiavola, A., Boni, M.R.,
2021. A review on the removal of carbamazepine from aqueous solution by using
activated carbon and biochar. Sustainability 13 (21), 11760. https://doi.org/
10.3390/su132111760.
Ding, Y., Liu, Y., Liu, S., Li, Z., Tan, X., Huang, X., Zheng, B., 2016. Biochar to improve
soil fertility. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 36 (2), 36. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s13593-016-0372-z.
Di Tommaso, M., Bordonzotti, I., 2016. NOx adsorption, fire resistance and CO2
sequestration of high performance, high durability concrete containing activated
carbon. In: Book of Abstracts, vol. 192. June).
Dones, R., Heck, T., Hirschberg, S., 2004. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Energy
Systems: Comparison and Overview (No. CH–0401).
Eurostat, 2020. European commission. Available online Data Browser. accessed on 22
January 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/CEI_WM030/defa
ult/table.
Gao, T., Shen, L., Shen, M., Chen, F., Liu, L., Gao, L., 2015. Analysis on differences of
carbon dioxide emission from cement production and their major determinants.
J. Clean. Prod. 103, 160–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.11.026.
Gerlach, H., Schmidt, H.P., 2012. Biochar in poultry farming. Ithaka Journal 2012 (1),
262-4pp.
Gupta, S., Kua, H.W., 2017. Factors determining the potential of biochar as a carbon
capturing and sequestering construction material: critical review. J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
29 (9) https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001924, 04017086.
Gupta, S., Kua, H.W., Cynthia, S.Y.T., 2017. Use of biochar-coated polypropylene fibers
for carbon sequestration and physical improvement of mortar. Cement Concr.
Compos. 83, 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.07.012.
M. Legan et al.
Gupta, S., Kua, H.W., 2018. Effect of water entrainment by pre-soaked biochar particles
on strength and permeability of cement mortar. Construct. Build. Mater. 159,
107–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.10.095.
Gupta, S., Kua, H.W., Koh, H.J., 2018a. Application of biochar from food and wood waste
as green admixture for cement mortar. Sci. Total Environ. 619, 419–435. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.044.
Gupta, S., Kua, H.W., Low, C.Y., 2018b. Use of biochar as carbon sequestering additive in
cement mortar. Cement Concr. Compos. 87, 110–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cemconcomp.2017.12.009.
Gupta, S., Kashani, A., 2021. Utilisation of biochar from unwashed peanut shell in
cementitious building materials–Effect on early age properties and environmental
benefits. Fuel Process. Technol. 218, 106841.
Habert, G., Bouzidi, Y., Chen, C., Jullien, A., 2010. Development of a depletion indicator
for natural resources used in concrete. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54 (6), 364–376.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.09.002.
Hoornweg, D., Bhada-Tata, P., Kennedy, C., 2013. Environment: waste production must
peak this century. Nature 502 (7473), 615–617. https://doi.org/10.1038/502615a.
Horvath, A., 2004. Construction materials and the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 29, 181–204.
Huang, Y.F., Chiueh, P.T., Shih, C.H., Lo, S.L., Sun, L., Zhong, Y., Qiu, C., 2015.
Microwave pyrolysis of rice straw to produce biochar as an adsorbent for CO2
capture. Energy 84, 75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.02.026.
Igalavithana, A.D., Ok, Y.S., Usman, A.R., Al-Wabel, M.I., Oleszczuk, P., Lee, S.S., 2016.
The effects of biochar amendment on soil fertility. Agricultural and Environmental
Applications of Biochar: Advances and Barriers 63, 123–144. https://doi.org/
10.2136/sssaspecpub63.2014.0040.
Ioannidou, D., Meylan, G., Sonnemann, G., Habert, G., 2017. Is gravel becoming scarce?
Evaluating the local criticality of construction aggregates. Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
126, 25–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.07.016.
Ismail, Z.Z., Al-Hashmi, E.A., 2008. Use of waste plastic in concrete mixture as aggregate
replacement. Waste Manag. 28 (11), 2041–2047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2007.08.023.
Jeon, J., Park, J.H., Wi, S., Yang, S., Ok, Y.S., Kim, S., 2019. Latent heat storage
biocomposites of phase change material-biochar as feasible eco-friendly building
materials. Environ. Res. 172, 637–648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envres.2019.01.058.
Jeon, J., Park, J.H., Yuk, H., Kim, Y.U., Yun, B.Y., Wi, S., Kim, S., 2021. Evaluation of
hygrothermal performance of wood-derived biocomposite with biochar in response
to climate change. Environ. Res. 193, 110359.
Jha, P., Biswas, A.K., Lakaria, B.L., Rao, A.S., 2010. Biochar in agriculture–prospects and
related implications. Curr. Sci. 1218–1225.
Joseph, S., Lehmann, J., 2009. Biochar for Environmental Management: Science and
Technology (No. 631.422 B615bi. Earthscan, London, GB.
Jung, S., Park, Y.K., Kwon, E.E., 2019. Strategic use of biochar for CO2 capture and
sequestration. J. CO2 Util. 32, 128–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jcou.2019.04.012.
Kiyasudeen, K., Ibrahim, M.H., Quaik, S., Ismail, S.A., 2016. An Introduction to
Anaerobic Digestion of Organic Wastes. Prospects of Organic Waste Management
and the Significance of Earthworms, pp. 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-
24708-3_2.
Kloss, S., Zehetner, F., Dellantonio, A., Hamid, R., Ottner, F., Liedtke, V., Soja, G., 2012.
Characterisation of slow pyrolysis biochars: effects of feedstocks and pyrolysis
temperature on biochar properties. J. Environ. Qual. 41 (4), 990–1000. https://doi.
org/10.2134/jeq2011.0070.
Kua, H.W., Ng, M.S., Ong, K., 2017. Innovative uses of biochar as carbon sequestering
building materials in wall plaster and pellets. Academic Journal of Civil Engineering
35 (2), 575–580. https://doi.org/10.26168/icbbm2017.87.
Kua, H.W., Pedapati, C., Lee, R.V., Kawi, S., 2019. Effect of indoor contamination on
carbon dioxide adsorption of wood-based biochar–Lessons for direct air capture.
J. Clean. Prod. 210, 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.206.
Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J., Rondon, M., 2006. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial
ecosystems–a review. Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change 11 (2), 403–427.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5.
Li, L., Rowbotham, J.S., Greenwell, C.H., Dyer, P.W., 2013. An Introduction to Pyrolysis
and Catalytic Pyrolysis: Versatile Techniques for Biomass Conversion. New And
Future Developments in Catalysis : Catalytic Biomass Conversion. Elsevier, Amsterdam,
pp. 173–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53878-9.00009-6.
Liddle, B., Sadorsky, P., 2017. How much does increasing non-fossil fuels in electricity
generation reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Appl. Energy 197, 212–221. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.04.025.
Lim, S.L., Lee, L.H., Wu, T.Y., 2016. Sustainability of using composting and
vermicomposting technologies for organic solid waste biotransformation: recent
overview, greenhouse gases emissions and economic analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 111,
262–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.08.083.
Liu, R., Xiao, H., Guan, S., Zhang, J., Yao, D., 2020. Technology and method for applying
biochar in building materials to evidently improve the carbon capture ability.
J. Clean. Prod. 273, 123154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123154.
Madzaki, H., KarimGhani, W.A., 2016. Carbon dioxide adsorption on sawdust biochar.
Procedia Eng. 148, 718–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.591.
Manara, P., Zabaniotou, A., 2012. Towards sewage sludge based biofuels via
thermochemical conversion–A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (5),
2566–2582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.01.074.
Mao, C., Feng, Y., Wang, X., Ren, G., 2015. Review on research achievements of biogas
from anaerobic digestion. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45, 540–555. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.02.032.
11
Journal of Environmental Management 309 (2022) 114704
Marzeddu, S., Cappelli, A., Ambrosio, A., Décima, M.A., Viotti, P., Boni, M.R., 2021.
A life cycle assessment of an energy-biochar chain involving a gasification plant in
Italy. Land 10 (11), 1256. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111256.
Menéndez, J.A., Inguanzo, M., Pis, J.J., 2002. Microwave-induced pyrolysis of sewage
sludge. Water Res. 36 (13), 3261–3264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0043-1354(02)
00017-9.
Mukome, F.N., Zhang, X., Silva, L.C., Six, J., Parikh, S.J., 2013. Use of chemical and
physical characteristics to investigate trends in biochar feedstocks. J. Agric. Food
Chem. 61 (9), 2196–2204. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf3049142.
Nhuchhen, D.R., Basu, P., Acharya, B., 2014. A comprehensive review on biomass
torrefaction. International Journal of Renewable Energy & Biofuels 1–56, 2014.
Obi, F.O., Ugwuishiwu, B.O., Nwakaire, J.N., 2016. Agricultural waste concept,
generation, utilisation and management. Nigerian Journal of Technology 35 (4),
957–964.
Ok, Y.S., Uchimiya, S.M., Chang, S.X., Bolan, N. (Eds.), 2015. Biochar: Production,
Characterisation, and Applications. CRC press.
Peduzzi, P., 2014. Sand, rarer than one thinks. Environmental Development 11,
208–218.
Plaza, M.G., González, A.S., Pis, J.J., Rubiera, F., Pevida, C., 2014. Production of
microporous biochars by single-step oxidation: effect of activation conditions on
CO2 capture. Appl. Energy 114, 551–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2013.09.058.
Polprasert, C., 2007. Organic Waste Recycling: Technology and Management. IWA
publishing.
Pomerantz, M., Akbari, H., Chang, S.C., Levinson, R., Pon, B., 2003. Examples of Cooler
Reflective Streets Fro Urban Heat-Island Mitigation: Portland Cement Concrete and
Chip Seals. LBNL, Berkeley, CA, pp. 1–24, 2003, Paper LBNL-49283.
Praneeth, S., Saavedra, L., Zeng, M., Dubey, B.K., Sarmah, A.K., 2021. Biochar
admixtured lightweight, porous and tougher cement mortars: mechanical, durability
and micro computed tomography analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 750, 142327. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142327.
Qiao, W., Yan, X., Ye, J., Sun, Y., Wang, W., Zhang, Z., 2011. Evaluation of biogas
production from different biomass wastes with/without hydrothermal pretreatment.
Renew. Energy 36 (12), 3313–3318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.05.002.
Qin, Y., Pang, X., Tan, K., Bao, T., 2021. Evaluation of pervious concrete performance
with pulverised biochar as cement replacement. Cement Concr. Compos. 119,
104022.
Restuccia, L., Ferro, G.A., 2016. Nanoparticles from food waste: a “green” future for
traditional building materials. In: 9th International Conference on Fracture
Mechanics of Concrete and Concrete Structures (FraMCoS-9), pp. 1–7. May,
(Berkeley, USA).
Restuccia, L., Ferro, G.A., Suarez-Riera, D., Sirico, A., Bernardi, P., Belletti, B.,
Malcevschi, A., 2020. Mechanical characterisation of different biochar-based cement
composites. Procedia Structural Integrity 25, 226–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
prostr.2020.04.027.
Roberts, K.G., Gloy, B.A., Joseph, S., Scott, N.R., Lehmann, J., 2010. Life cycle
assessment of biochar systems: estimating the energetic, economic, and climate
change potential. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2), 827–833. https://doi.org/10.1021/
es902266r.
Roussat, N., Méhu, J., Abdelghafour, M., Brula, P., 2008. Leaching behaviour of
hazardous demolition waste. Waste Manag. 28 (11), 2032–2040. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.wasman.2007.10.019.
Saca, N., Dimache, A., Radu, L.R., Iancu, I., 2017. Leaching behavior of some demolition
wastes. J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag. 19 (2), 623–630. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10163-015-0459-7.
Samolada, M.C., Zabaniotou, A.A., 2014. Comparative assessment of municipal sewage
sludge incineration, gasification and pyrolysis for a sustainable sludge-to-energy
management in Greece. Waste Manag. 34 (2), 411–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wasman.2013.11.003.
Schmidt, H.P., Hagemann, N., Draper, K., Kammann, C., 2019. The use of biochar in
animal feeding. PeerJ 7, e7373. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7373.
Schneider, M., Romer, M., Tschudin, M., Bolio, H., 2011. Sustainable cement
production—present and future. Cement Concr. Res. 41 (7), 642–650. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2011.03.019.
Seifan, M., Mendoza, S., Berenjian, A., 2020. Mechanical properties and durability
performance of fly ash based mortar containing nano-and micro-silica additives.
Construct. Build. Mater. 252, 119121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.119121.
Shackley, S., Hammond, J., Gaunt, J., Ibarrola, R., 2011. The feasibility and costs of
biochar deployment in the UK. Carbon Manag. 2 (3), 335–356. https://doi.org/
10.4155/cmt.11.22.
Shi, H.S., Kan, L.L., 2009. Leaching behavior of heavy metals from municipal solid wastes
incineration (MSWI) fly ash used in concrete. J. Hazard Mater. 164 (2–3), 750–754.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.08.077.
Siddique, R., Khatib, J., Kaur, I., 2008. Use of recycled plastic in concrete: a review.
Waste Manag. 28, 1835–1852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2007.09.011.
Smith, P., 2016. Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies.
Global Change Biol. 22 (3), 1315–1324. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13178.
Suarez-Riera, D., Restuccia, L., Ferro, G.A., 2020. The use of Biochar to reduce the carbon
footprint of cement-based materials. Procedia Structural Integrity 26, 199–210.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr.2020.06.023.
Toth, J.D., Dou, Z., 2016. Use and impact of biochar and charcoal in animal production
systems. Agricultural and Environmental Applications of Biochar: Advances and
Barriers 63, 199–224. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaspecpub63.2014.0043.5.
M. Legan et al.
Tripathi, M., Sahu, J.N., Ganesan, P., 2016. Effect of process parameters on production of
biochar from biomass waste through pyrolysis: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 55, 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.122.
Tsiafouli, M.A., Thébault, E., Sgardelis, S.P., De Ruiter, P.C., Van Der Putten, W.H.,
Birkhofer, K., et al., 2015. Intensive agriculture reduces soil biodiversity across
Europe. Global Change Biol. 21 (2), 973–985. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12752.
Wang, T., Sun, H., Ren, X., Li, B., Mao, H., 2018. Adsorption of heavy metals from
aqueous solution by UV-mutant Bacillus subtilis loaded on biochars derived from
different stock materials. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 148, 285–292. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ecoenv.2017.10.039.
Wang, L., Chen, L., Tsang, D.C.W., Kua, H.W., Yang, J., Ok, Y.S., Ding, S., Hou, D.,
Poon, C.S., 2019. The roles of biochar as green admixture for sediment-based
construction products. Cement Concr. Compos. 104, 103348.
Wang, L., Chen, L., Tsang, D.C., Guo, B., Yang, J., Shen, Z., et al., 2020. Biochar as green
additives in cement-based composites with carbon dioxide curing. J. Clean. Prod.
258, 120678. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120678.
Wei, H., Deng, S., Hu, B., Chen, Z., Wang, B., Huang, J., Yu, G., 2012. Granular bamboo-
derived activated carbon for high CO2 adsorption: the dominant role of narrow
micropores. ChemSusChem 5 (12), 2354–2360. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cssc.201200570.
Woolf, D., Amonette, J.E., Street-Perrott, F.A., Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2010. Sustainable
biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun. 1 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/
10.1038/ncomms1053.
12
Journal of Environmental Management 309 (2022) 114704
Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., Hendriks, C., Meida, L.O., 2001. Carbon dioxide
emissions from the global cement industry. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 26 (1),
303–329. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.26.1.303.
Yang, S., Wi, S., Lee, J., Lee, H., Kim, S., 2019. Biochar-red clay composites for energy
efficiency as eco-friendly building materials: thermal and mechanical performance.
J. Hazard Mater. 373, 844–855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.03.079.
Yu, Q.L., Brouwers, H.J.H., 2012. Thermal properties and microstructure of gypsum
board and its dehydration products: a theoretical and experimental investigation.
Fire Mater. 36 (7), 575–589. https://doi.org/10.1002/fam.1117.
Yun, T.S., Jeong, Y.J., Han, T.S., Youm, K.S., 2013. Evaluation of thermal conductivity
for thermally insulated concretes. Energy Build. 61, 125–132. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.01.043.
Zeidabadi, Z.A., Bakhtiari, S., Abbaslou, H., Ghanizadeh, A.R., 2018. Synthesis,
characterisation and evaluation of biochar from agricultural waste biomass for use in
building materials. Construct. Build. Mater. 181, 301–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2018.05.271.
Zhang, H., Voroney, R.P., Price, G.W., 2015. Effects of temperature and processing
conditions on biochar chemical properties and their influence on soil C and N
transformations. Soil Biol. Biochem. 83, 19–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
soilbio.2015.01.006.
Zhao, S., Huang, B., Shu, X., Ye, P., 2014. Laboratory investigation of biochar-modified
asphalt mixture. Transport. Res. Rec. 2445 (1), 56–63. https://doi.org/10.3141/
2445-07.