IES - Institute for Environment and SustainabilityIspra - Italy

http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/

Joint Research Centre (JRC)

Ispra, 17th October 2009

Biochar Application to Soils

Soil Action – LMNH Unit - IESFrank Verheijen – physical geographer (SOM)Simon Jeffery – soil microbiologistIason Diafas – environmental economistLuca Montanarella – Soil Action leaderRWER Unit - IESMarijn van der Velde – physical geographer (nitrates, hydrology)

Purpose

• Update on ‘work in progress’ regarding review of the effects of biochar application to soils in Europe– ‘casting the net wide’

Anything new?

• Number of reviews – Sohi et al., 2009 (CSIRO). Biochar, Climate Change and

Soil: A Review to Guide Future Research– Lehmann and Joseph, 2009. Biochar for Environmental

Management– Collison et al., 2009. Biochar and Carbon Sequestration:

a regional perspective (East England Development Agency)

What our research brings• EU perspective• Meta-analyses (quantitative)• Soil microbiology• Biochar dust & nanoparticles• Contamination issues• Specific recommendations• Independent (objective and critical)

Motivation for applying biochar technology (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009)

Mitigation of climate change

Energy production

Soil improvement

Waste management

Motivation for applying biochar technology (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009)

Mitigation of climate change

Energy production

Soil improvement

Waste management

• Soil conditioner (not fertiliser)

• Functionally more like clay than like organic matter

To demystify

Terra Preta do Indio

Anthrosol

Hortic Anthrosol(Plagganthrepts)

‘Kitchen soil’with charcoal

Charcoal fragment from a plaggic anthrosol (Pears, 2009)

European context

Amazonian dark earth – terra preta Plaggen soils

Plaggic/hortic anthrosoils

(Toth et al., 2008)

Plaggic anthrosol• 3,500 km2

• Oldest 3,000 yr (Sylt)

• Intensified since Middle Ages

Anthrosols in Europe

Blume and Leinweber,

2004)

Plaggic anthrosol• 3,500 km2 (Toth et al., 2008)

• Oldest 3,000 yr (Sylt)

• Intensified since Middle Ages

So, what is it?

• Experiential science (utilitarian ethnopedology)• Extreme solution for an extreme environment• Why not as much charcoal in anthrosols in Europe?

– Colder climate– OM decomposes much more slowly– Wood + charcoal was needed to heat the place(!), i.e. too valuable…

• Heterogeneity

Terra Preta de Novo – adding biochar to soils• C Negative?• Soil conditioner (specific to soil-climate-crop factors)• Heterogeneity

Pyrolysis of Biomass

HEAT

Combusti

ble Gas

BiocharBiomass

Bio-OilVapour Condensation

John Edwards, Massey University

Primary biochar factors

Primary biochar factors

Mode Conditions Liquid Char Gas

Fast pyrolysis Moderate temperature,short residence time 75% 12% 13%

Slow Pyrolysis Low temperature,very long residence time 30% 35% 35%

Gasification High temperature,long residence time 5% 10% 85%

Primary biochar factors

Physicochemical

pH C N C/N P K P available

Range From 6.2 172 1.7 7 0.2 1.0 15

To 9.6 905 78.2 400 73 58 11,600

Mean 8.1 543 22.3 67 23.7 24.3

% CV 18 40 110 152 118 96

Weight percentage Component50-90% Fixed carbon

0-40% Volatile matter – e.g. Tar - blocks active sites

1-15% Moisture

0.5-5% Ash – mineral matter

Soil Conditioner

Montmorillonite

Graphene

Physicochemical properties diffuse double layer

0.5

-1.0

nm

Liming (pH)• High ash content• Time?• Variation

CEC• Low volatile content• Time?• Variation

Structure• Bulk density?

Water retention• Physical stabilisation of soil organic matter (SOM)

Associations with SOM• Physicochemical stabilisation

Physicochemical effects

Soil Organic Matter on- Farm Impact on Economics (SOMFIEs)

Very large variation in benefits by soil-climate- crop factors

Potential benefits to farmers

Biochar application rate vs plant productivity

% change in productivity0 7 30 50 80 100-17-40

Biomass vs grain

% change in productivity2 10 17 250-5

Grouped by pH change

% change in productivity-23 -5 0 13 32 50-42-60

Grouped by soil type

% change in productivity0 5 17 30 42 55-8-20

Biochar environmental risk to soil

• Pyrolysis can generate PAHs and PCDD/Fs (dioxins and furans)

– The amount depends both on pyrolysis conditions (e.g. T) and feedstock composition (e.g. Chlorine dioxins)

– Both are potentially highly dangerous Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) listed in EU Regulation 850/2004

– No evidence of dioxins and furans– Evidence of PAHs (350-600°C) but less than burned pine

[PAH] (3-16 vs 28 µg g-1)– PAHs very strongly adsorbed to biochar (planar; C=C)

• Heavy metals (biosolid, sewage & tannery sludges

• Antibiotics & their secondary metabolites (e.g. in manure or chicken beds)

• Nanoparticles

Research Priorities

• Historical sites– “A wide variety of ‘field experiments’ is already there, waiting to

be sampled and analysed” (Pulleman et al., 2000)• Experiments

– Integrated lab and field experiments for a range of representative soils, crops and source materials

– Biochar propertiesRange of pyrolysis conditionsRange of biomass types and conditions (moisture content)

– Biochar application ratesYearly, cyclical, one-off

– Biochar contaminantsPAHs, dioxins, heavy metals, nanoparticles

– Binding NO3 Interactions with soil biota– Agronomic benefits

Summary

• Concept of char as a soil conditioner is sound– Extensive in Terra Preta– Possibly also historically in Europe– Mechanisms still poorly understood– Risks to soil are identified, but not quantified

• Biochar is VERY heterogeneous– Pyrolysis duration– Pyrolysis temperature (rate of increase)– Steam– Feedstock

• Biochar can be applied in combination– Inorganic NPK fertiliser– Compost

• Benefits • To farming are likely to be VERY heterogeneous (soils, climate, crops and at

small scale)• To the environment are partly identified but wholly un-quantified

• Application to soils would need to be specific (policy) – Different types of biochar for different soil-climate-crop conditions (tillage?)– Different application rates– Mixed with different amounts of fertiliser/compost

• Many policy options require more research• Alternative option is to char and dump

Acknowledgements

Thank you for your attentionQuestions/discussion?

The JRC Biochar ‘Working Group’

Frank VerheijenSimon JefferyIason DiafasMarijn van der Velde

Luca Montanarella (Soil Action leader)

References

Alvarez-Puebla, R. A., Goulet, P. J. G., and Garrido, J. J. (2005). Characterization of the porous structure of different humic fractions. Colloids and Surfaces a-Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 256, 129-135

Blume H.P. and Leinweber, P. (2004). Plaggen SoilsL landscape history, properties, and classification. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 167, 319-327.

Christopher, T. B. S. (1996). Aggregate stability: its relation to organic matter constituents and other soil propertiesEdwards, J. (2009). Massey University:

http://energy.massey.ac.nz/Documents/conference/2008/Conference%20Presentations/John%20Edwardsl.ppt.Giani, L., Chertov, O., Gebhardt, C., Kalinina, O., Nadporozhhskaya, M. and Tolkdorf-Lienemann, E. (2004). Plagganthrepts

in northwest Russia? Genesis, propoerties and classification. Geoderma 121, 113-122.Kononova, M. M. (1958). "Die Humusstoffe des Bodens, Ergebnisse und Probleme der Humusforschung," Deutscher

Verlag der Wissenschaften, BerlinMacCarthy, P. (2001). The principles of humic substances: an introduction to the first principle. In "Humic Sunstances:

Structures, Models and Functions" (A. a. D. Ghabbour, G., ed.), pp. 19-30Nelson, P., 2007. Trace metal emissions in fine particles from coal combustion. Energy and Fuels 21, 477-484Nisho, M. and Okano, S. (1991) Stimulation of the growth of alfalfa and infection of mycorrhizal fungi by the application of

charcol. Bulletin of the National Grassland Research Institute, 45, 61-71Ogawa M. (1994) Symbiosis of people and nature in the tropics. Farming Japan, 28, 10-34Painter T.J. (2001) Carbohydrate polymers in food preservation: An integrated view of the Maillard reaction with special

reference to the discoveries of preserved foods in Sphagnum dominated peat bogs. Carbohydrate Polymers, 36, 335- 347

Parton, W. J. (1996). The CENTURY model. NATO ASI Series 138, 283-291Poland, G.A., Duffin, R., Kinloch, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W.A.H., Seaton, A., Stone, V., Brown, S., MacNee, W. &

Donaldson, K., 2008. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology, Published online: 20 May 2008, doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.111

Pears, B. (2009). http://www.sbes.stir.ac.uk/people/postgrads/pears.htmlPulleman, M. M., Bouma, J., van Essen, E. A., and Meijles, E. W. (2000). Soil organic matter content as a function of

different land use history. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64, 689-693Rondon M., Lehmann, J., Ramirez, J. and Hurtado, M. (2007) Biological nitrogen fixation by common beans (Phaseolus

vulgaris L.) increases with bio-char additions. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 43, 699-708Steiner C., Rodrigues de Arruda, M., Teixeira, W. G. and Zech, W. (2008) Soil respiration curves as soil fertility indicators

in perennial central Amazonian plantations treated with charcoal, and mineral or organic fertilisers. Tropical Science, Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ts.216 Accessed 16/4/2009

Tóth, G., Montanarella, L., Stolbovoy, V., Máté, F., Bódis, K., Jones, A. and Panagos, P. (2008). Soil of the European Union. ISBN 978-92-79-09530-6, Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, pp 100.

Warnock D.D., Lehmann, J., Kuyper, T. W. and Rillig, M. C. (2007) Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in soils - concepts and mechanisms. Plant and Soil, 300, 9-20

Zackrisson O., Nilsson, M. C. and Wardle, D. A. (1996) Key ecological function of charcoal from wildfires in the Boreal forest. Oikos, 77, 10-19