Abstract
Biochar provides an important pathway for the global response to climate change. The abiotic stability of biochar is important for its application in carbon capture and sequestration. To systematically illustrate the effects of pyrolysis temperature on composition, carbon fraction and abiotic stability of straw biochar, four kinds of straw biochars were prepared at pyrolysis temperatures of 300 °C, 400 °C, 500 °C, and 600 °C, respectively. The ultimate and proximate compositions, different carbon fractions and abiotic stability of prepared biochar were characterized, and their qualitative and quantitative relationships were established by Kendall correlation analysis, factor analysis and different regression analysis methods. Results showed that pyrolysis temperature influenced compositions and carbon fractions directly, which affected the abiotic stability of biochar (p < 0.01). The higher the pyrolysis temperature (up to 500 °C), the higher the abiotic stability of biochar. The different abiotic stability indicators, including thermal stability (ratios of volatile matter and fixed carbon, hydrogen and organic carbon, oxygen and organic carbon, and thermal stability index R50), dissolution stability and chemical oxidation-resistant stability of biochar, all followed exponential functions with pyrolysis temperature. Unitary and binary linear regression equations among compositions, carbon fractions and the abiotic stability evaluation indicators were established. We hope that the results are scientifically valuable for a better understanding of the inherent properties of straw biochar, and thus help simplify the screening of appropriate indicators for evaluating the properties and abiotic stability of biochar.
Graphical Abstract
Highlights
• Four kinds of straw biochars were produced at different pyrolysis temperatures.
• Composition, carbon fraction and abiotic stability of biochars were characterized.
• Quantitative effects of pyrolysis temperature on biochars were established.
• Abiotic stability evaluation indicators of biochar were exponential functions of pyrolysis temperature.
• Significant relationships among abiotic stability evaluation indicators were shown in detail.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Biochar is a kind of porous and carbon-rich organic material derived from the pyrolysis of biomass, including all kinds of crop straws, forestry residues, livestock manure and other wastes, under relatively low temperatures (300–700 °C) and restricted oxygen conditions. Applying biochar to pollution abatement on soil or water (Kim et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2019), carbon (C) emission reduction (Qian et al. 2015; Woolf et al. 2010), also C capture and sequestration (Singh et al. 2019) has exhibited a great development potential.
The whole process from production to utilization in the biochar-soil system (biochar production and its storage in soil) is regarded as a typical carbon-negative emission activity (Lehmann 2007). Biochar returning to the field is beneficial to agricultural production and climate change mitigation, which has attracted more and more attention in the international community of climate change. It is estimated that biochar can offer carbon dioxide (CO2) removal potential of 0.3 to 2 Gt per year (Hepburn et al. 2019). The world-renowned scientific journals such as Nature and Science have published feature articles emphasizing the combination of plant carbon fixation and biochar production for filed return, calling for increased research on the environmental behavior and environmental impact of biochar-soil system (Paustian et al. 2016; Sohi 2012), to provide important support for global climate change.
The stability of biochar, such as the persistence of biochar in the environment, can reflect the resistance to biotic and abiotic decomposition. The biotic stability of biochar is mainly affected by microorganism -induced the oxidative decomposition process (Ameloot et al. 2013). And the abiotic stability of biochar is mainly affected by dissolution (Lian and Xing 2017) and oxidation (chemical oxidations, oxygen and temperature) (Wang et al. 2017) of biochar in the environment. Microorganisms in soil can cause the biotic consumption of C fixed by biochar, however, the abiotic factors can influence the rate of biochar decomposition, leading overestimating the potential of C sequestration (Yu et al. 2020).
Previous studies have shown that the abiotic stability of biochar is closely related to its composition properties and environmental applications (De la Rosa et al. 2018; Leng et al. 2019). Pyrolysis temperature and feedstock have a direct influence on the composition properties of biochar (Das et al. 2021; Hassan et al. 2020; Kim et al. 2020; Wu et al. 2022; Xu et al. 2021; Zhang et al. 2020). Biochar applied into soil will be affected by severval abiotic factors, such as rainfall (Wang et al. 2022), temperature changes (Liu and Chen 2022), and environmental oxidation (Wang et al. 2021a). For example, rainfall can cause biochar to release soluble organic matter or mineral components by dissolution (Wang et al. 2021b). Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) is an important component of soluble organic matter, which will flow into the water environment through surface runoff (Jaffe et al. 2013) or infiltrate into the soil and then be used by microorganisms (Quan et al. 2020), decreasing the capacity of C sequestration. Furthermore, the surface properties of biochar will undergo chemical oxidation under soil oxides or light conditions, which will make the C in biochar thermodynamically unstable under aerobic conditions (Wang et al. 2021a).
The abiotic stability of biochar has been evaluated by extensive studies (Liu et al. 2020a, 2020b; Pariyar et al. 2020; Wei et al. 2019; Zornoza et al. 2016). Most studies only focused on the single or multi-composition changes related to the above influencing factors, however, universal methods that can directly or indirectly evaluate the abiotic stability of biochar are missing (Leng and Huang 2018; Leng et al. 2019), causing difficulties in the practical evaluation of biochar stability. For instance, the ratio of volatile matter (VM) to fixed carbon (FC) (Aller et al. 2017) and the thermal stability index R50 (calculated as the ratio of temperatures at which half weight loss occurs during calcination of biochar and graphite, respectively) (Gómez et al. 2016) can be used to evaluate the thermal stability of biochar. International Biochar Initiative (IBI) and European Biochar Foundation (EBC) recommended using the atomic ratios of hydrogen (H) and organic carbon (Corg) or oxygen (O) and Corg to assess the stability of the carbon structure in biochar (Leng et al. 2019). DOC was used to evaluate the dissolution stability of biochar (Han et al. 2020); the chemical oxidation-resistant carbon (Coxidation) could reflect the oxidation-resistance of biochar (Liu et al. 2020a, b), and the ratio of Coxidation and C can reflect the chemical oxidation-resistant stability of biochar (Calvelo-Pereira et al. 2011).
Given the above mentioned examples, the abiotic stability of biochar is not only affected by feedstocks, process parameters, and composition characteristics, but is also closely related to the methods for stability evaluation. Therefore, four kinds of straws (wheat straw, corn straw, rape straw and rice straw) were used because of their large production and wide distribution. The objective of this study is to systematically illustrate the effects of pyrolysis temperature on composition, carbon fraction and the abiotic stability of straw biochar, and to establish the relationship between pyrolysis temperature, composition, carbon fraction and abiotic stability of straw biochar. The results are expected to be valuable for a scinetific comprehension of the inherent properties of straw biochar, and thus help simplify the screening of appropriate indicators for evaluating the properties and abiotic stability of biochar.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Biochar samples
Four kinds of straws (wheat straw, corn straw, rape straw, and rice straw) were used to produce biochar, and the detailed information about the biochar preparation was presented in author’s previous research (Zhang et al. 2020). In brief, the feedstocks were crushed and dried, and then pyrolyzed in a tube furnace (GSL-1100X, Hefei Kejing Materials Technology Co. Ltd., China) under nitrogen (N2) atmosphere (all straw samples without pyrolysis treatment were marked as CK). Since 300–600 °C was an important temperature range for weight loss of straw (Zhang et al. 2020), four pyrolysis temperatures, 300 °C, 400 °C, 500 °C, and 600 °C were chosen for biochar preparation. The heating rate was 10 °C/min and the pyrolysis process was held for 1 h at the final temperature.
2.2 Lab analysis of biochar characteristics
The elemental composition of straw feedstocks and biochar samples were analyzed by the elemental analyzer (Vario Macro Elementar, Germany).
The proximate composition was determined by a thermogravimetric analyzer (SDTQ600, TA Instruments, USA) using the method described in ref. (Crombie et al. 2013). The sample placed into the crucible was heated to 105 °C under N2 for 10 min to obtain the moisture (MC) content, and then was heated at 25 °C/min to 900 °C where kept for a further 10 min to remove VM. Introduced the air into test system, the sample was combusted at 750 °C (the test temperature was set according to ASTM D5142–09) for 15 min, and the residual weight was ash content. The content of FC was calculated by difference (FC = 100-MC-VM-ash).
Corg was measured by total organic C analyzer (Elemental Vario TOC select, Germany). The sample was weighted into a silver boat and acidified using 1 M HCl solution; the acidified sample was dried at 100 °C for 1 h to remove inorganic C such as carbonate in biochar, and then were packed for analysis (Enders et al. 2012).
DOC was also determined by total organic C analyzer (Elemental Vario TOC select, Germany). The sample and deionized water were mixed at 1:20 (wt/v) and after shaking (150 rpm) for 2 hours, the treated sample was centrifuged at 10000 rpm for 10 min (Wu et al. 2019). Then, the filtrate used for final DOC analysis was obtained by supernatants through a 0.45 μm filter.
Potassium dichromate (K2Cr2O7) has strong oxidation ability which can be used to determine carbon components that are not easy to decompose and oxidate potentially decomposable carbon structures (Calvelo-Pereira et al. 2011). The K2Cr2O7 oxidation method was used for Coxidation determination. The sample containing 0.1 g C (±0.0001 g) was weighted into a 50 ml centrifuge tube with 40 ml of 0.1 M K2Cr2O7/2 M H2SO4 solution, and the chemical oxidation was performed at 55 °C for heating for 60 h (Yang et al. 2018). In order to ensure complete reaction, the oxidation solution was replaced for once after 30 h-reaction during the oxidation process. After the test, the solid phase was separated by centrifugation and then weighted after drying. The C content remained in solid phase was determined by the elemental analyzer (Vario Macro Elementar, Germany). The content of Coxidation in sample was calculated as follows:
Where Wbefore and Wafter were the mass (g) of the sample before and after oxidation, and Cafter was the C content (%) of the sample after oxidation.
The temperature programmed oxidation (TPO) curves of samples, were measured by a thermogravimetric analyzer (SDTQ600, TA Instruments, USA). Samples were placed in an aluminum crucible and heated to 1000 °C at a heating rate of 10 °C/min under air atmosphere. Then, the TPO curves were corrected following the method described in previous study (Harvey et al. 2012).
2.3 Calculation for the abiotic stability evaluation of biochar
VM/FC and atomic ratios (H/Corg and O/Corg) were calculated from the results of chemical analysis to evaluate the thermal stability of straw biochar.
R 50 is also used for the evaluation of thermal stability. It was calculated as follows (Harvey et al. 2012):
Where, T50x and T50 graphite were the temperature (°C) of biochar and graphite where the mass loss was 50%. T50x was obtained from the corrected TPO curves of samples, and T50 graphite was 886 °C, which was taken from Harvey et al. (2012).
The dissolution stability was calculated by the percentage of DOC content in C content, expressed as DOC/C (%).
The oxidation resistant stability was calculated by the percentage of Coxidation content in C content expressed as Coxidation/C (%).
All tests were replicated three times.
2.4 Statistical analysis
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kendall correlation analysis were conducted using the software SPSS (IBM SPSS statistics 25), and the Turkey’s HSD post-hoc tests (p < 0.01) (Jing et al. 2022) were used to identify significant differences among different biochars. All characteristics of samples were analyzed by SPSS using the factor analysis. Unitary and binary regression methods were performed with the software Origin (Origin lab 2018) and the correlation coefficient (R2) was chosen to evaluate the goodness of fit.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Effects of pyrolysis temperature on biochar composition and carbon fraction
The composition and carbon fraction related to abiotic stability of four kinds of straw feedstocks and their corresponding biochars at different pyrolysis temperatures are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 shows that the feedstock had no significant influence on H, FC, VM and Coxidation (p ≥ 0.01), but had a significant influence on C, DOC, Corg, and ash (p < 0.01). Wheat straw had the highest content of Corg. Corn straw and rape straw had the highest content of C and the lowest content of ash. In contrast, the rice straw had the lowest ash content and the highest C content.
The pyrolysis temperature had a similar effect on the composition and carbon fraction of different straw biochars. As the pyrolysis temperature increased, the content of H, O and VM significantly decreased (p < 0.01) and the content of FC and ash increased. The content of C and Coxidation significantly increased (p < 0.01) and the Corg content increased with increases in temperature, but the DOC content significantly decreased (p < 0.01). At 500–600 °C, the FC, VM and DOC content became steady (p ≥ 0.01), probably due to the lignocellulosic components’ decomposition and volatilization at this temperature range (Zhang et al. 2020). Significant differences were found among the content of ash, C and Coxidation of different straw biochars (p < 0.01). At the same pyrolysis temperature, rice straw biochar showed the lowest ash content and the highest C content, which may be related to the content of intrinsic compositions in rice straw (Table 1). The content of Coxidation in wheat straw biochar was much higher than that in other straw biochars.
Therefore, compared with feedstock, pyrolysis temperature may have a more important effect on compositions and carbon fractions of straw biochar, as verified by the results of Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy of straw biochars (Zhang et al. 2020).
3.2 Effects of pyrolysis temperature on biochar abiotic stability
The results of the abiotic stability evaluation indicators of straw biochar derived at different pyrolysis temperatures are shown in Table 2. It can be seen from Table 2 that the pyrolysis temperature had a significant effect on the abiotic stability evaluation indicators of straw biochar (p < 0.01). With the increase of pyrolysis temperature, VM/FC, H/Corg, O/Corg and DOC/C ratios decreased, however, R50 and Coxidation/C ratio increased. Although there were differences among the compositions and carbon fractions of different straw feedstocks, the results of the abiotic stability evaluation indicators were similar among different straw biochars above 500 °C. Especially for H/Corg, O/Corg and DOC/C ratios, there was no significant difference among different straw biochars (p ≥ 0.01). This indicated that pyrolysis temperature is the main factor affecting the abiotic stability of straw biochars.
The fitting results of the abiotic stability of straw biochars prepared at different pyrolysis temperatures are shown in Fig. 1. As can be seen in Fig. 1, all abiotic stability evaluation indicators increased exponentially with the increasing temperature. However, different stability evaluation indicators showed different exponential function changes, which can be expressed as following formulas:
As depicted in Fig. 1 (a, b, and c), the VM/FC, H/Corg and O/Corg ratios exponentially decreased as the pyrolysis temperature increased and became steady over 500 °C. This might due to the breakage of weaker chemical bonds in feedstock at low temperatures (Imam and Capareda 2012), leading to the depolymerization of lignocellulose. However, the R50 exponentially increased as pyrolysis temperature increased from 300 to 500 °C, and reached the maximum value at 500 °C (Wang et al. 2021b). Straw biochar derived at 500 and 600 °C had the similar R50 value, which was consistent with the change rule of corrected TPO curves measured (Fig. 2).
The pyrolysis temperature had an obvious exponential function relationship with DOC/C ratio (Fig. 1e). When the pyrolysis temperature was higher than 500 °C, the DOC/C ratio was close to zero.
The straw and biochar samples at 300 °C had no chemical oxidation-resistance, indicating that the stable C structure may have not formed. When the pyrolysis temperature exceeded 300 °C, the Coxidation/C ratio had an exponential function relationship with the pyrolysis temperature. With the increase in the pyrolysis temperature, the chemical oxidation-resistant stability increased, which was consistent with the results of previous study (Chen et al. 2016). The Coxidation /C ratio gradually stabilized over 500 °C, which might due to the disappearance of unstable components (aliphatic containing C and H, alkane groups) and the formation of chemical oxidation-resistant C structures which were not easily oxidized by chemical reagents (Han et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2020).
The above results showed that the pyrolysis temperature was an important factor affecting the abiotic stability of straw biochar. The higher the pyrolysis temperature is, the better the abiotic stability of straw biochar is. The abiotic stability of straw biochar tended to be steady over 500 °C.
3.3 Correlations among composition, carbon fraction and abiotic stability evaluation indicator of straw biochar
3.3.1 Kendall correlation analysis and factor analysis
The correlation analysis showed that the composition, carbon fraction and abiotic stability of straw biochar were significantly correlated with the pyrolysis temperature (p < 0.01), but had no significant correlations with the types of feedstocks (p ≥ 0.01) (Table 3). This was consistent with the analysis results in 3.1 and 3.2. Furthermore, there were significant correlations among different stability evaluation indicators (p < 0.01).
For further analysis, factor analysis was performed based on the varimax-rotation method (Fig. 3). All characteristics of straw biochars can be divided into two groups. The first group was H, O, VM, DOC, H/Corg, O/Corg, DOC/C, and VM/FC, and the second group was C, FC, Corg, Coxidation, ash, R50 and Coxidation/C. Within the same group, there was a positive relationship between any two characteristics. And there was a negative correlation between any two characteristics from different groups. Except for R50, the rest of thermal stability evaluation indicators were clustered into the same group with dissolution stability evaluation indicators, and the others including R50 were clustered into another group. This indicated the close relationship among H/Corg, O/Corg, DOC/C, and VM/FC, as well as R50 and Coxidation/C. Thus, it is necessary to further study the quantitative relationships among different abiotic stability evaluation indicators of straw biochar.
3.3.2 Quantitative relationships of abiotic stability evaluation indicators of straw biochar
The linear correlations among different abiotic stability evaluation indicators of straw biochar are shown in Fig. 4. The significance of model test was 0.000, indicating that the results of fitting analysis were effective. The linearity of different abiotic stability evaluation indicators varied.
Among the evaluation indicators of thermal stability, VM/FC and R50, O/Corg and R50, as well as VM/FC and O/Corg, showed a strong linear relationship (R2 > 0.90). Therefore, VM/FC, O/Corg and R50 can replace each other in evaluating the thermal stability of biochar. In addition, there was a high linear relationship between H/Corg and O/Corg (R2 = 0.81), which may be related to the high linear relationship between H and O in straw biochar (R2 = 0.83) (Zhang et al. 2020). There was a high correlation between H/Corg and DOC/C (R2 = 0.81) (Fig. 4b). Both VM/FC and O/Corg showed a linear correlation with DOC/C (R2 = 0.74 and R2 = 0.77, respectively). There was no linear relationship between the indicators of dissolution stability and chemical oxidation-resistant stability, indicating that there were differences between them. In Fig. 4c, Coxidation/C showed a high linear correlation with H/Corg (R2 = 0.81). It is suggested that H/Corg can be selected as an alternative evaluation indicator for the evaluation of dissolution stability and chemical oxidation-resistant stability. In view of these results, it can be considered that the thermal stability evaluation indicators, especially H/Corg, are of great significance for the evaluation of abiotic stability.
3.3.3 Multivariate analysis of composition, carbon fraction and abiotic stability of straw biochar
A multivariate analysis of the composition, carbon fraction and abiotic stability of straw biochar is needed to simplify the evaluation of abiotic stability for practical application. The results of binary linear regression analysis are shown in Fig. 5. Both VM/FC and DOC/C were affected by the interactive effects of H and O. Comparing with DOC/C. There was a better binary linear relationship among VM/FC, H and O, which indicated that the VM/FC ratio could be calculated by H and O content. C, Corg, and FC were respectively selected to fit R50 with ash. Compared with FC and Corg, there was a better fitting effect of C and ash on R50 (R2 = 0.90), which demonstrated that the content of C and ash can be used for evaluating R50. And compared with R50, there were worse results when Coxidation/C was fitted with C and ash, Corg and ash, as well as FC and ash. This demonstrated that chemical oxidation-resistant stability may be affected by other factors, in addition to these interactions.
4 Conclusion
It can be concluded that pyrolysis temperature influenced the compositions and carbon fractions directly, which affected the abiotic stability of biochar (p < 0.01). The higher the pyrolysis temperature (up to 500 °C), the higher the abiotic stability of biochar.
The exponential functions of stability indicators with pyrolysis temperature are as follows:
The established unitary and binary linear regressions equations among compositions, carbon fractions and the abiotic stability indicators are valuable for simplifying the screening of appropriate indicators for evaluating the properties and abiotic stability of biochar, which will be beneficial to the effective utilization of straw biochar, especially in the scope of carbon capturing and sequestering application.
Availability of data and materials
The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Aller D, Bakshi S, Laird DA (2017) Modified method for proximate analysis of biochars. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 124:335–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2017.01.012
Ameloot N, Graber ER, Verheijen FGA, De Neve S (2013) Interactions between biochar stability and soil organisms: review and research needs. Eur J Soil Sci 64(4):379–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejss.12064
Calvelo-Pereira R, Kaal J, Camps Arbestain M, Pardo Lorenzo R, Aitkenhead W, Hedley M, Macias F, Hindmarsh J, Macia-Agullo JA (2011) Contribution to characterisation of biochar to estimate the labile fraction of carbon. Org Geochem 42(11):1331–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orggeochem.2011.09.002
Chen D, Yu X, Song C, Pang X, Huang J, Li Y (2016) Effect of pyrolysis temperature on the chemical oxidation stability of bamboo biochar. Bioresour Technol 218:1303–1306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2016.07.112
Crombie K, Mašek O, Sohi SP, Brownsort P, Cross A (2013) The effect of pyrolysis conditions on biochar stability as determined by three methods. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 5(2):122–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12030
Das SK, Ghosh GK, Avasthe RK, Sinha K (2021) Compositional heterogeneity of different biochar: effect of pyrolysis temperature and feedstocks. J Environ Manage 278:111501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111501
De la Rosa JM, Rosado M, Paneque M, Miller AZ, Knicker H (2018) Effects of aging under field conditions on biochar structure and composition: implications for biochar stability in soils. Sci Total Environ 613-614:969–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.124
Enders A, Hanley K, Whitman T, Joseph S, Lehmann J (2012) Characterization of biochars to evaluate recalcitrance and agronomic performance. Bioresour Technol 114:644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.03.022
Gómez N, Rosas JG, Singh S, Ross AB, Sánchez ME, Cara J (2016) Development of a gained stability index for describing biochar stability: relation of high recalcitrance index (R50) with accelerated ageing tests. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 120:37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2016.04.007
Han L, Ro KS, Wang Y, Sun K, Sun H, Libra JA, Xing B (2018) Oxidation resistance of biochars as a function of feedstock and pyrolysis condition. Sci Total Environ 616-617:335–344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.014
Han L, Sun K, Yang Y, Xia X, Li F, Yang Z, Xing B (2020) Biochar's stability and effect on the content, composition and turnover of soil organic carbon. Geoderma 364:114184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2020.114184
Harvey OR, Kuo L, Zimmerman AR, Louchouarn P, Amonette JE, Herbert BE (2012) An index-based approach to assessing recalcitrance and soil carbon sequestration potential of engineered black carbons (biochars). Environ Sci Technol 46(3):1415–1421. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2040398
Hassan M, Liu Y, Naidu R, Parikh SJ, Du J, Qi F, Willett IR (2020) Influences of feedstock sources and pyrolysis temperature on the properties of biochar and functionality as adsorbents: a meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 744:140714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.140714
Hepburn C, Adlen E, Beddington J, Carter EA, Fuss S, Mac Dowell N, Minx JC, Smith P, Williams CK (2019) The technological and economic prospects for CO2 utilization and removal. Nature 575(7781):87–97. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1681-6
Imam T, Capareda S (2012) Characterization of bio-oil, syn-gas and bio-char from switchgrass pyrolysis at various temperatures. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 93:170–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaap.2011.11.010
Jaffe R, Ding Y, Niggemann J, Vahatalo AV, Stubbins A, Spencer RGM, Campbell J, Dittmar T (2013) Global charcoal mobilization from soils via dissolution and riverine transport to the oceans. Sci (Am Assoc Adv Sci) 340(6130):345–347. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1231476
Jing F, Sun Y, Liu Y, Wan Z, Chen J, Tsang D (2022) Interactions between biochar and clay minerals in changing biochar carbon stability. Sci Total Environ 809:151124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151124
Kim H, Kim J, Kim T, Alessi DS, Baek K (2021) Interaction of biochar stability and abiotic aging: influences of pyrolysis reaction medium and temperature. Chem Eng 411:128441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cej.2021.128441
Kim J, Oh S, Park Y (2020) Overview of biochar production from preservative-treated wood with detailed analysis of biochar characteristics, heavy metals behaviors, and their ecotoxicity. J Hazard Mater 384:121356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121356
Lehmann J (2007) A handful of carbon. Nature 447(7141):143–144. https://doi.org/10.1038/447143a
Leng L, Huang H (2018) An overview of the effect of pyrolysis process parameters on biochar stability. Bioresour Technol 270:627–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2018.09.030
Leng L, Huang H, Li H, Li J, Zhou W (2019) Biochar stability assessment methods: a review. Sci Total Environ 647:210–222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.07.402
Lian F, Xing B (2017) Black carbon (biochar) in water/soil environments: molecular structure, sorption, stability, and potential risk. Environ Sci Technol 51(23):13517–13532. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b02528
Liu B, Liu Q, Wang X, Bei Q, Zhang Y, Lin Z, Liu G, Zhu J, Hu T, Jin H, Wang H, Sun X, Lin X, Xie Z (2020a) A fast chemical oxidation method for predicting the long-term mineralization of biochar in soils. Sci Total Environ 718:137390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137390
Liu G, Pan X, Ma X, Xin S, Xin Y (2020b) Effects of feedstock and inherent mineral components on oxidation resistance of biochars. Sci Total Environ 726:138672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138672
Liu Y, Chen J (2022) Effect of ageing on biochar properties and pollutant management. Chemosphere 292:133427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2021.133427
Pariyar P, Kumari K, Jain MK, Jadhao PS (2020) Evaluation of change in biochar properties derived from different feedstock and pyrolysis temperature for environmental and agricultural application. Sci Total Environ 713:136433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136433
Paustian K, Lehmann J, Ogle S, Reay D, Robertson GP, Smith P (2016) Climate-smart soils. Nature 532(7597):49–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17174
Qian K, Kumar A, Zhang H, Bellmer D, Huhnke R (2015) Recent advances in utilization of biochar. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 42:1055–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.074
Quan G, Fan Q, Zimmerman AR, Sun J, Cui L, Wang H, Gao B, Yan J (2020) Effects of laboratory biotic aging on the characteristics of biochar and its water-soluble organic products. J Hazard Mater 382:121071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.121071
Singh G, Lakhi KS, Sil S, Bhosale SV, Kim I, Albahily K, Vinu A (2019) Biomass derived porous carbon for CO2 capture. Carbon 148:164–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2019.03.050
Sohi SP (2012) Carbon storage with benefits. Science 338(6110):1034–1035. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225987
Wang H, Nan Q, Waqas M, Wu W (2022) Stability of biochar in mineral soils: assessment methods, influencing factors and potential problems. Sci Total Environ 806:150789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.150789
Wang J, Shi L, Zhai L, Zhang H, Wang S, Zou J, Shen Z, Lian C, Chen Y (2021a) Analysis of the long-term effectiveness of biochar immobilization remediation on heavy metal contaminated soil and the potential environmental factors weakening the remediation effect: a review. Ecotoxi Environ Safe 207:111261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.111261
Wang R, Gibson CD, Berry TD, Jiang Y, Bird JA, Filley TR (2017) Photooxidation of pyrogenic organic matter reduces its reactive, labile C pool and the apparent soil oxidative microbial enzyme response. Geoderma 293: 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2017.01.011
Wang W, Bai J, Lu Q, Zhang G, Wang D, Jia J, Guan Y, Yu L (2021b) Pyrolysis temperature and feedstock alter the functional groups and carbon sequestration potential of Phragmites australis- and Spartina alterniflora-derived biochars. Glob Change Biol Bioenergy 13(3):493–506. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12795
Wei S, Zhu M, Fan X, Song J, Peng P, Li K, Jia W, Song H (2019) Influence of pyrolysis temperature and feedstock on carbon fractions of biochar produced from pyrolysis of rice straw, pine wood, pig manure and sewage sludge. Chemosphere 218:624–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.11.177
Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S (2010) Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat Commun 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1053
Wu H, Qi Y, Dong L, Zhao X, Liu H (2019) Revealing the impact of pyrolysis temperature on dissolved organic matter released from the biochar prepared from Typha orientalis. Chemosphere 228:264–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.143
Wu L, Ni J, Zhang H, Yu S, Wei R, Qian W, Chen W, Qi Z (2022) The composition, energy, and carbon stability characteristics of biochars derived from thermo-conversion of biomass in air-limitation, CO2, and N2 at different temperatures. Waste Manag 141:136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2022.01.038
Xu Z, He M, Xu X, Cao X, Tsang DCW (2021) Impacts of different activation processes on the carbon stability of biochar for oxidation resistance. Bioresour Technol 338:125555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125555
Yang F, Xu Z, Yu L, Gao B, Xu X, Zhao L, Cao X (2018) Kaolinite Enhances the Stability of the Dissolvable and Undissolvable Fractions of Biochar via Different Mechanisms. Environ Sci Technol 52(15): 8321-8329. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b00306
Yu Z, Ling L, Singh BP, Luo Y, Xu J (2020) Gain in carbon: deciphering the abiotic and biotic mechanisms of biochar-induced negative priming effects in contrasting soils. Sci Total Environ 746:141057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141057
Zhang P, Li Y, Cao Y, Han L (2019) Characteristics of tetracycline adsorption by cow manure biochar prepared at different pyrolysis temperatures. Bioresour Technol 285:121348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.121348
Zhang X, Zhang P, Yuan X, Li Y, Han L (2020) Effect of pyrolysis temperature and correlation analysis on the yield and physicochemical properties of crop residue biochar. Bioresour Technol 296:122318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2019.122318
Zornoza R, Moreno-Barriga F, Acosta JA, Muñoz MA, Faz A (2016) Stability, nutrient availability and hydrophobicity of biochars derived from manure, crop residues, and municipal solid waste for their use as soil amendments. Chemosphere 144:122–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.08.046
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the financial support of the earmarked fund for CARS (CARS-36) and Innovative Research Team in University of Education Ministry of China (IRT_17R105).
Funding
The study was funded by China Agriculture Research System (CARS-36) and Innovative Research Team in University of Education Ministry of China (IRT_17R105).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Conceptualization: Lujia Han; Investigation: Xiaoxiao Zhang, Xueqi Yang; Methodology: Xiaoxiao Zhang, Sicong Tian, Hehu Zhang; Formal analysis and data curation: Xiaoxiao Zhang, Xinlei Wang; Validation: Xueqi Yang, Xinlei Wang, Hehu Zhang; Writing – original draft: Xiaoxiao Zhang; Writing – review and editing: Xiangru Yuan, Sicong Tian, Lujia Han. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
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 manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhang, X., Yang, X., Yuan, X. et al. Effect of pyrolysis temperature on composition, carbon fraction and abiotic stability of straw biochars: correlation and quantitative analysis. carbon res 1, 17 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44246-022-00017-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s44246-022-00017-1