Quantifying biochar content in a field soil with varying organic matter content using a two-temperature loss on ignition method

Nakhli, Seyyed Ali Akbar; Panta, Sriya; Brown, Julia; Tian, Jing; Imhoff, Paul T.

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.174

Cited by 25 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The [ O ] and nitrogen mass fraction ([ N ]) of the biochar surface were 0.354 ± 0.014 SE and 0.034 ± 0.004 SE g/g carbon , respectively. The [ O ] at the biochar surface was significantly higher than the measured oxygen content for bulk biochar (0.127 ± 0.009 SE g/g carbon ) obtained by elemental analysis (Nakhli et al, 2019), which might be due to redistribution of oxygen atoms from the interior to the biochar surface during high temperature pyrolysis (Lian & Xing, 2017) or to oxidation of the biochar surface exposed to air (Lodewyckx et al, 2013).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 70%

“…Biochar was rinsed with deionized water and then oven‐dried, steps shown to remove its transient hydrophobicity (Yi et al, 2015). The detailed rinsing and oven‐drying procedure is described elsewhere (Imhoff & Nakhli, 2017; Nakhli et al, 2019). Three natural soils, silt loam (39°40′11.5″N, 75°45′07.9″W), sandy loam (39°31′52.0″N, 75°44′12.8″W), and loamy sand (39°40′20.2″N, 75°44′32.5″W), and one uniform sand (30/35 Accusand, Unimin Co., Le Sueur, MN, USA) were selected for this study.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…where subscript m means mixture of biochar and soil and M s (kg) and M b (kg) are the dry mass of soil and biochar. Using Equation 7 requires that the biochar content is known or can be quantified experimentally (Nakhli et al, 2019). Using the biochar-amended soil bulk density, ρ bulk (kg/m 3 ), the gravimetric water content can be converted to the volumetric water content, VWC m (m 3 /m 3 )…”

Section: Biochar-amended Soilmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Particle size distributions for soils and biochar were determined following ASTM D422-63 (ASTM, 2007), although the dispersing agent was not used for biochar. Biochar and soil organic matter content were measured by loss on ignition at 550°C for 12 h (Nakhli et al, 2019). The CEC at pH 7.0 was determined by ammonium saturation with 1N ammonium acetate buffered at pH 7.0 (Ross & Ketterings, 1995) and performed by the University of Delaware Soil Testing Laboratory (Newark, DE, USA).…”

Section: Related Soil Biochar and Biochar-amended Soil Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All analyses were performed in duplicate. Other related properties of soils, biochar, and biochar-amended soils are either presented in Tables S4 and S5 or can be found elsewhere (Nakhli et al, 2019).…”

Section: Related Soil Biochar and Biochar-amended Soil Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Models for Predicting Water Retention in Pyrogenic Carbon (Biochar) and Biochar‐Amended Soil at Low Water Contents

Nakhli

Imhoff

2020

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The dry end of the soil water retention curve (WRC) plays an important role in various hydrologic, solute transport, plant, and microbial processes. Despite increasing application of biochar as a soil amendment, knowledge about water retention in biochars and biochar-amended soils under dry conditions is lacking. Mechanistic models are presented to predict the WRC for biochars and biochar-amended soils at matric potential (ψ) <~−1 MPa. For biochars, the amount of water retained is linked to biochar surficial oxygen content and pore volume and surface area distributions. The WRC for soils at dry conditions is predicted using specific surface area. The WRC model for biochar-amended soils is the sum of the contributions of models for biochar and soil. The model's utility was examined for three natural soils and a uniform sand, a wood-based biochar, and 10 different combinations of these soils and biochar. The accuracy of the model for biochars was further tested for six other pyrogenic carbonaceous materials (PCMs). The models agreed well with experimental data: for the biochar and PCMs, soils, and biochar-amended soils, the root mean square error normalized to the range of water content was almost always <10%. The line of best fit for predicted versus measured gravimetric water content at permanent wilting point had slope of 0.935 ± 0.013 and a coefficient of determination of 0.997. The applicability of these models for different biochars, soils, and their mixtures is discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 70%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Biochar-amended Soilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Soil Biochar and Biochar-amended Soil Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Soil Biochar and Biochar-amended Soil Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Models for Predicting Water Retention in Pyrogenic Carbon (Biochar) and Biochar‐Amended Soil at Low Water Contents

Nakhli

Imhoff

2020

Water Resources Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Low rates of sugarcane bagasse‐derived biochar have limited effects on soil properties and sugarcane crop yield

White,

Ellsworth,

Lima

2023

Agrosystems Geosci & Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) represents the most valuable row crop in Louisiana. High levels of biomass production and extensive tillage have degraded portions of the state's alluvial soils used to grow sugarcane. In addition to sucrose, processing the crop generates excess bagasse each year, which can represent a disposal problem for sugar factories. However, converting the bagasse to biochar at nearby pyrolysis facilities may prove to be an economical means of improving degraded soils. The objective was to determine the impacts of low rates of biochar (<3.2 mt ha−1) on soil physical, chemical, and biological properties. Plant available nutrient levels were marginally impacted by biochar additions as the biochar exhibited a relatively low surface area and neutral pH. Bagasse‐derived biochar did not affect soil nitrate retention or leaching, and overall recovery was >86%. Biochar did not increase soil CO2 evolution, indicating its stability as a soil carbon amendment. However, adding biochar with mineral nitrogen decreased CO2 evolution, compared to biochar alone, indicating a negative priming effect. Soil moisture retention was minimally impacted by biochar. Cane yield, sucrose content, and sucrose yield were not statistically affected by applying biochar with or without starter fertilizer at planting. Overall, the results indicate that lower levels of bagasse‐derived biochar minimally impacted soil properties and crop yield; however, the biochar was stable in soil and may find utility as a carbon‐rich amendment should carbon credits prove to be an additional source of grower or land‐owner revenue.

show abstract

Impact of the nature of organic matter and/or its organo-mineral interaction on microbial activity in dam sediment

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantifying biochar content in a field soil with varying organic matter content using a two-temperature loss on ignition method

Cited by 25 publications

References 39 publications

Models for Predicting Water Retention in Pyrogenic Carbon (Biochar) and Biochar‐Amended Soil at Low Water Contents

Models for Predicting Water Retention in Pyrogenic Carbon (Biochar) and Biochar‐Amended Soil at Low Water Contents

Low rates of sugarcane bagasse‐derived biochar have limited effects on soil properties and sugarcane crop yield

Impact of the nature of organic matter and/or its organo-mineral interaction on microbial activity in dam sediment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About