| Literature DB >> 31141965 |
Koji Kameyama1, Teruhito Miyamoto2, Yukiyoshi Iwata3.
Abstract
Physicochemical properties of biochar, which are used as a soil amendment material in agricultural fields, are different depending on biomass feedstock and pyrolysis processes. In this study, we evaluated the influence of feedstock type and pyrolysis temperature on the water-retention related properties of biochar. Wood-chips [cedar (CE) and cypress (CY)]; moso bamboo (MB); rice husk (RH); sugarcane bagasse (SB); poultry manure (PM) and agricultural wastewater sludge (WS) were each pyrolysed at 400, 600 and 800 °C with a retention time of two hours. Scanning electron microscopy micrographs (SEM), hydrophobicity indices, pore-size distribution measured by mercury-intrusion porosimetry, water-retention curves (WRCs) and plant-available water capacities (AWCs) of the biochars were measured to evaluate their potentials as soil-amendment materials for improving soils' water-retention. As the pyrolysis temperature was increased, the hydrophobicity index decreased. On the other hand, pyrolysis temperature did not affect the distribution of micrometre-range pores, which are useful for plant-available water, of biochars. The AWCs of the biochars formed from CE, CY and SB were greater than those produced from other feedstocks, at 600 and 800 °C. Therefore, we can suggest that the biochars derived from wood-chips (CE and CY) and SB have greater potential for enhancing soils' water-retention.Entities:
Keywords: biochar; pore-size distribution; slow pyrolysis; soil amendment; waste biomass; water-retention
Year: 2019 PMID: 31141965 PMCID: PMC6601046 DOI: 10.3390/ma12111732
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Physicochemical properties of biochar samples.
| Feedstock | Pyrolysis Temperature | Biochar Yield | Volatile Matter | Ash | C | H | N | S | O | Particle Density | pH | EC | MED |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| °C | %w/w | %w/w | %w/w | %w/w | %w/w | %w/w | %w/w | %w/w | mg m−3 | – | dS m−1 | mol L−1 | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Japanese cedar (CE) | 400 | 41 | 58 | 0.1 | 72.0 | 4.2 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 22.1 | 1.30 | 7.8 | 0.2 | 2.8 |
| 600 | 28 | 26 | 1.7 | 87.7 | 2.2 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 6.0 | 1.45 | 8.8 | 0.4 | 0.7 | |
| 800 | 22 | 16 | 2.6 | 90.5 | 0.3 | 3.1 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 1.71 | 8.4 | 1.7 | 0.0 | |
| Japanese cypress (CY) | 400 | 39 | 48 | 2.1 | 71.2 | 3.2 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 22.8 | 1.40 | 5.4 | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| 600 | 28 | 20 | 2.8 | 87.3 | 1.9 | 1.6 | 0.0 | 6.4 | 1.52 | 83 | 0.4 | 0.5 | |
| 800 | 23 | 10 | 4.0 | 91.8 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 2.2 | 1.81 | 9.1 | 0.5 | 0.2 | |
| Moso bamboo (MB) | 400 | 28 | 40 | 6.1 | 73.3 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 16.6 | 1.26 | 7.4 | 1.9 | 0.3 |
| 600 | 28 | 29 | 8.3 | 83.2 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 5.2 | 1.63 | 10.3 | 3.9 | 0.0 | |
| 800 | 25 | 26 | 6.7 | 88.1 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 1.65 | 9.7 | 7.0 | 0.0 | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Rice husk (RH) | 400 | 59 | 38 | 47.9 | 37.2 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 12.4 | 1.60 | 6.7 | 0.7 | 0.2 |
| 600 | 48 | 27 | 54.9 | 39.5 | 0.3 | 1.9 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 1.69 | 10.2 | 1.0 | 0.2 | |
| 800 | 39 | 11 | 57.7 | 39.0 | 0.3 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 1.74 | 10.4 | 1.6 | 0.0 | |
| Sugarcane bagasse (SB) | 400 | 38 | 56 | 12.4 | 65.4 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 1.3 | 16.3 | 1.16 | 5.0 | 0.2 | 3.3 |
| 600 | 22 | 34 | 18.6 | 75.3 | 1.7 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 3.8 | 1.36 | 7.8 | 0.2 | 1.2 | |
| 800 | 19 | 22 | 16.1 | 79.4 | 0.4 | 0.7 | 0.0 | 3.6 | 1.41 | 9.8 | 0.2 | 1.5 | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Poultry manure (PM) | 400 | 68 | 28 | 48.4 | 34.3 | 1.5 | 5.1 | 0.0 | 10.7 | 1.71 | 10.8 | 10.2 | 1.3 |
| 600 | 62 | 17 | 56.7 | 33.8 | 0.3 | 3.7 | 0.0 | 5.5 | 1.73 | 12.0 | 18.8 | 0.0 | |
| 800 | 47 | 12 | 68.2 | 23.9 | 0.3 | 2.2 | 0.0 | 5.4 | 1.78 | 12.2 | 26.5 | 0.0 | |
|
| |||||||||||||
| Agricultural wastewater | 400 | 54 | 35 | 37.1 | 42.7 | 3.4 | 8.1 | 0.6 | 8.1 | 1.53 | 7.3 | 0.2 | 4.9 |
| Sludge (WS) | 600 | 46 | 11 | 52.0 | 38.6 | 1.2 | 5.8 | 0.0 | 2.4 | 1.89 | 8.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 |
| 800 | 43 | 5 | 57.0 | 37.9 | 0.3 | 3.4 | 0.0 | 1.4 | 2.09 | 8.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | |
Figure 1van Krevelin diagram of biochar samples (data taken from Table 1).
Figure 2SEM micrographs of biochar samples formed at 600 °C. (a) Japanese cedar (CE); (b) Japanese cypress (CY); (c) moso bamboo (MB); (d) rice husk (RH); (e) sugarcane bagasse (SB); (f) poultry manure (PM); (g) agricultural wastewater sludge (WS).
Figure 3Pore size distribution (PSD) of biochar samples, measured by mercury-intrusion porosimetry (MIP). (a) Japanese cedar (CE); (b) Japanese cypress (CY); (c) moso bamboo (MB); (d) rice husk (RH); (e) sugarcane bagasse (SB); (f) poultry manure (PM); (g) agricultural wastewater sludge (WS).
Volumes of different pore size and pores corresponding to available water capacity (AWC) of biochar samples, estimated from pore-size distribution (PSD) measured by mercury-intrusion porosimetry (MIP) method.
| Feedstock | Pyrolysis Temperature | Total Volume | Macropores (> 75 μm) | Mesopores (30–75 μm) | Micropores (5–30 μm) | Ultra-Micropores (0.1–5 μm) | Cyptopores (<0.1 μm) | Pores Corresponds to Available Water Capacity (0.2–9 μm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| °C | (cm3 g−1) | (cm3 g−1) | (cm3 g−1) | (cm3 g−1) | (cm3 g−1) | (cm3 g−1) | (cm3 g−1) | |
|
| ||||||||
| Japanese cedar (CE) | 400 | 4.09 | 0.43 | 0.88 | 2.51 | 0.22 | 0.06 | 0.50 |
| 600 | 1.63 | 0.03 | 0.16 | 1.16 | 0.22 | 0.05 | 0.50 | |
| 800 | 1.85 | 0.27 | 0.25 | 0.95 | 0.36 | 0.03 | 0.90 | |
| Japanese cypress | 400 | 2.67 | 0.35 | 0.42 | 1.65 | 0.19 | 0.06 | 0.49 |
| (CY) | 600 | 1.71 | 0.02 | 0.12 | 1.32 | 0.21 | 0.05 | 0.51 |
| 800 | 1.74 | 0.32 | 0.26 | 0.49 | 0.65 | 0.02 | 0.89 | |
| Moso bamboo (MB) | 400 | 0.99 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.22 | 0.54 | 0.15 | 0.52 |
| 600 | 0.99 | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.20 | 0.54 | 0.18 | 0.54 | |
| 800 | 1.30 | 0.17 | 0.24 | 0.20 | 0.25 | 0.44 | 0.43 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Rice husk (RH) | 400 | 0.84 | 0.15 | 0.16 | 0.13 | 0.33 | 0.08 | 0.32 |
| 600 | 0.57 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.08 | 0.33 | 0.08 | 0.33 | |
| 800 | 0.87 | 0.20 | 0.18 | 0.12 | 0.31 | 0.07 | 0.30 | |
| Sugarcane bagasse | 400 | 3.23 | 0.22 | 0.53 | 1.23 | 1.15 | 0.11 | 1.61 |
| (SB) | 600 | 2.91 | 0.19 | 0.41 | 1.04 | 1.12 | 0.14 | 1.48 |
| 800 | 2.71 | 0.38 | 0.35 | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.17 | 1.32 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Poultry manure (PM) | 400 | 1.07 | 0.25 | 0.37 | 0.21 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 0.17 |
| 600 | 1.11 | 0.12 | 0.52 | 0.23 | 0.16 | 0.08 | 0.18 | |
| 800 | 1.12 | 0.18 | 0.34 | 0.32 | 0.17 | 0.11 | 0.19 | |
|
| ||||||||
| Agricultural | 400 | 0.49 | 0.10 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.05 |
| wastewater | 600 | 0.26 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.10 | 0.04 |
| Sludge (WS) | 800 | 0.52 | 0.06 | 0.27 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 0.09 | 0.04 |
Figure 4Water retention curves (WRCs) of biochar samples. (a) Japanese cedar (CE); (b) Japanese cypress (CY); (c) moso bamboo (MB); (d) rice husk (RH); (e) sugarcane bagasse (SB); (f) poultry manure (PM); (g) agricultural wastewater sludge (WS).
Available water capacity (AWC) estimated from water retention curves (WRC) of biochar samples.
| Feedstock | Pyrolysis Temperature | Available Water Capacity (AWC) |
|---|---|---|
| °C | (g g−1) | |
|
| ||
| Japanese cedar (CE) | 400 | 0.12 (0.03) efg |
| 600 | 0.18 (0.03) defg | |
| 800 | 0.38 (0.10) bc | |
| Japanese cypress (CY) | 400 | 0.28 (0.07) bcdef |
| 600 | 0.28 (0.00) bcdef | |
| 800 | 0.34 (0.11) bcd | |
| Moso bamboo (MB) | 400 | 0.08 (0.01) g |
| 600 | 0.10 (0.03) efg | |
| 800 | 0.12 (0.03) efg | |
|
| ||
| Rice husk (RH) | 400 | 0.11 (0.06) defg |
| 600 | 0.07 (0.00) g | |
| 800 | 0.03 (0.01) g | |
| Sugarcane bagasse (SB) | 400 | 0.28 (0.02) cde |
| 600 | 0.71 (0.43) a | |
| 800 | 0.49 (0.15) b | |
|
| ||
| Poultry manure (PM) | 400 | 0.10 (0.03) fg |
| 600 | 0.07 (0.01) g | |
| 800 | 0.06 (0.01) g | |
|
| ||
| Agricultural wastewater | 400 | 0.01 (0.00) g |
| Sludge (WS) | 600 | 0.01 (0.01) g |
| 800 | 0.04 (0.00) g | |
Values are means (standard deviation) (n = 3). Means with the same letter are not significantly different from each other (P < 0.05).
Figure 5Relationship between volumes for pore sizes from 0.2 to 9 µm, estimated from pore size distribution (PSD) measured by the mercury intrusion porosimetry (MIP) method, and available water capacity, estimated from water retention curves (WRCs), of biochar samples.