Biochar: An Emerging Panacea for Remediation of Soil Contaminants from Mining, Industry and Sewage Wastes

Biochar: An Emerging Panacea for Remediation of Soil Contaminants from Mining, Industry and Sewage Wastes

Pedosphere 25(5): 654–665, 2015 ISSN 1002-0160/CN 32-1315/P c 2015 Soil Science Society of China ⃝ Published by Elsevier B.V. and Science Press Bioch...

455KB Sizes 0 Downloads 6 Views

Pedosphere 25(5): 654–665, 2015 ISSN 1002-0160/CN 32-1315/P c 2015 Soil Science Society of China ⃝ Published by Elsevier B.V. and Science Press

Biochar: An Emerging Panacea for Remediation of Soil Contaminants from Mining, Industry and Sewage Wastes Hossain M. ANAWAR1,∗ , Farjana AKTER2 , Zakaria M. SOLAIMAN1 and Vladimir STREZOV3 1 School

of Earth and Environment (M087) and UWA Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, Crawley WA 6009 (Australia) 2 Sher-e-Bangla Agricultural University, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar Dhaka-1207 (Bangladesh) 3 Department of Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Macquarie University, Sydney NSW 2109 (Australia) (Received May 13, 2015; revised July 19, 2015)

ABSTRACT Mine tailings, waste rock piles, acid mine drainage, industrial wastewater, and sewage sludge have contaminated a vast area of cultivable and fallow lands, with a consequence of deterioration of soil and water quality and watercourses due to the erosion of contaminated soils for absence of vegetative cover. High concentrations of toxic elements, organic contaminants, acidic soils, and harsh climatic conditions have made it difficult to re-establish vegetation and produce crops there. Recently, a significant body of work has focussed on the suitability and potentiality of biochar as a soil remediation tool that increases seed emergence, soil and crop productivity, above ground biomass, and vegetation cover on mine tailings, waste rock piles, and industrial and sewage wastecontaminated soils by increasing soil nutrients and water-holding capacity, amelioration of soil acidity, and stimulation of microbial diversity and functions. This review addresses: i) the functional properties of biochar, and microbial cycling of nutrients in soil; ii) bioremediation, especially phytoremediation of mine tailings, industrial waste, sewage sludge, and contaminated soil using biochar; iii) impact of biochar on reduction of acid production, acid mine drainage treatment, and geochemical dynamics in mine tailings; and iv) treatment of metal and organic contaminants in soils using biochar, and restoration of degraded land. Key Words: revegetation

acid mine drainage, contaminated soil, interaction, mine tailings, mining waste, phytoremediation, phytostabilization,

Citation: Anawar H M, Akter F, Solaiman Z M, Strezov V. 2015. Biochar: An emerging panacea for remediation of soil contaminants from mining, industry and sewage wastes. Pedosphere. 25(5): 654–665.

INTRODUCTION Soil and water quality degradation by current and abandoned mine tailings, waste rock piles, industrial wastewater, and sewage sludge are common environmental problems that contribute highly to mineralized soil and water acidification to local watercourses through the erosion of contaminated soils which are primarily due to lack of vegetative cover. A major weakness of reducing the amount of pollution from these wastes is due to the difficulty of re-establishing vegetation and active soil processes on sites that are devoid of vegetation and have adverse conditions (e.g. toxic elements, organic contaminants, acidic soils, harsh climatic conditions) hostile to plant establishment and crop production. As for example, in China, more than 2 × 107 ha of farmland have been contaminated with heavy metals (Wei and Yang, 2010), which has led to a sharp decrease in crop production and food quality in recent decades (Gu et al., 2003; Zhong and Wu, 2007). ∗ Corresponding

author. E-mail: [email protected]

Therefore, remediation of contaminated soils to reduce contamination and minimize downstream damage is essential (Powlson et al., 2011). Different strategies and approaches were employed to address soil contamination including soil washing, soil vapor extraction, farming, soil flushing, and ion exchanges (Zhou and Song, 2004; Prasad and Nakbanpote, 2015). However, these traditional methods, when applied in situ, are usually expensive and further it might create new problems, such as fertility loss and soil erosion (Khan et al., 2004; Kumpiene et al., 2008). Therefore, new approaches like phytoremediation, bioremediation, and ecological remediation are being sought (Sun et al., 2001; Kong et al., 2014). To address the challenge of revegetation at mining, industrial, and sewage waste sites, the suitability of biochar as a soil remediation tool is receiving increasing attention. When compared to seeding alone, the addition of biochar in the highly weathered acidic soil has influenced the seed germination, plant growth, vegeta-


tion cover, as well as N and P use efficiency (Zhu et al., 2014). Biochar could potentially enhance soil and crop productivity by increasing nutrient and soil moisture availability, ameliorating acidic soils, and stimulating soil microbial activity. Due to its excellent adsorption properties, biochar, alone or in combination with organic compost, have a promising prospect in industrial applications and environmental remediation, including water and wastewater treatment, and restoration and revegetation of mine tailings (Gwenzi et al., 2015). Recently, a volume of research was devoted to addressing the physical and chemical properties of biochar, its usefulness for improving soil quality, soil fertility, and crop production in harsh environments, as well as environmental applications and mine rehabilitation. However, a comprehensive review is lacking, particularly on the remediation and rehabilitation of contaminated lands using biochar. Therefore, the present review aimed at synthesising the previous works and providing an overview in relation to: i) physical and chemical properties of biochar and microbial cycling of nutrients in soils; ii) remediation of mine tailings, waste rock piles, acid mine drainage, and contaminated soil with

Fig. 1


biochar; and iii) treatment of metal, metalloid, and organics-contaminated soil and restoration of degraded and contaminated land using biochar. Functional properties of biochar Biochar is the solid product of pyrolsysis produced through heating of biomass at 300 to 500 ◦ C in absence of oxygen, that contains stable aromatic organic matter with carbon concentrations of about 70% to 80% (Lehmann et al., 2002) and mineral matter, including nutrients. Biochar has high surface area, higher porosity, variable charge, and functional groups (Fig. 1a, b) that can increase soil water-holding capacity, pH, cation exchange capacity (CEC), surface sorption capacity, base saturation, and crop resistance to disease when added to soil (Glaser et al., 2002; B´elanger et al., 2004; Keech et al., 2005; Liang et al., 2006; Tang et al., 2013). These properties vary with the pyrolysis temperature and the properties of feedstocks (Gundale and DeLuca, 2006; Bornermann et al., 2007; Chan and Xu, 2009; Singh et al., 2010). The nutrient content and availability in biochar is influenced by the biomass type, processing conditions (Singh et al., 2010),

Electron micrograph (a) (Leng et al., 2012) and molecular structure (b) of biochar (Bourke et al., 2007).

H. M. ANAWAR et al.


and type of bonds associated with the elements involved (DeLuca et al., 2009; Yao et al., 2010). Biochar application to soil is widely advocated for a variety of reasons related to sustainability (Jeffery et al., 2015). The most often claimed benefits of biochar include: 1) carbon sequestration; 2) soil fertility improvement; 3) pollutant immobilization; and 4) waste management. Biochar additions to soil can alter soil microbial diversity, shift functional groups (Pietik¨ainen et al., 2000), and reduce soil bulk density (Gundale and DeLuca, 2006). Biochar strongly sorbs salts and ameliorates salt stress effects on plants in agricultural, urban, and contaminated soils (Thomas et al., 2013). Additions of biochar to soil have increased the availability of P and Zn, and the total N concentrations (Glaser et al., 2002; Lehmann et al., 2003). The biochar should be applied with fertilisers to maximise the benefit on plant growth and nutrition as well as soil biology improvement (Solaiman et al., 2010). Biochar additions can increase crop yields at lower rates of fertiliser use (Blackwell et al., 2010). Banding of biochar in soil can minimise wind erosion risk and place biochar close to crop roots. Microbial cycling of nutrients in soils Biochar amendment to soil could change microbial community composition, increase microbial species richness, and enhance microbial diversity involved in N, P or S nutrient transformations (Pietik¨ainen et al., 2000; Thies and Suzuki, 2003). It has the capacity to support the presence of bacteria (Pietik¨ainen et al., 2000; Rivera-Utrilla et al., 2001), with which the organisms may influence soil processes. The fungi, identified to colonize the soil which was amended with biochar, were both saprophytic and mycorrhizal (Saito and Marumoto, 2002). Mycorrhizal colonisation increased in wheat when biochar was added to soil (1.5–6 t ha−1 ) (Solaiman et al., 2010) and was inoculated with spores of Glomus etunicatum that improved the yields of onion (Matsubara et al., 1995). Interactions of biochar with soil microorganisms are complex (Lehmann and Rondon, 2006) and depend on the amount and type of biochar present in or added to soil. Soil microbial diversity and population size as well as population composition and activity that have significant influences on nutrient cycles and nutrient availability to plants, are affected by biochar application. Due to higher surface area and surface hydrophobicity of both the microorganisms and the biochar, the soil amended with biochar results in better retention of the microorganisms and higher microbial activity and diversity (Rivera-Utrilla et al., 2001; Mills, 2003).

Interactions of biochar in soil It has been reported that the interactions between biochar, soil, microbes, and plant roots might occur within a short period after application to the soil (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). The extent, rates, and implications of these interactions are yet to be explored. Joseph et al. (2010) reviewed the properties of biochar and suggested possible reactions that may occur after the addition of biochar to soil (e.g., adsorption-desorption, precipitation-dissolution, acidbase and redox reactions). Other studies (Steiner et al., 2007; Bruun et al., 2008; Singh and Cowie, 2008; Kuzyakov et al., 2009) suggested that the types and rates of interactions that take place in the soil depended on: 1) feedstock composition, particularly mineral fraction; 2) pyrolysis conditions; 3) biochar particle size and delivery system; and 4) soil properties and local environmental conditions. Low-temperature biochar, which has a less-condensed ‘C’ structure and higher nutrients content, is expected to have a greater reactivity in soils than higher-temperature biochar and a better contribution to soil fertility (Steinbeiss et al., 2009). The aging of biochar, after incorporation into soil, is partly governed by conditions of moisture and temperature prevailing in soil (Nguyen and Lehmann, 2009). Water has a major role in processes such as dissolution, hydrolysis, carbonation and decarbonation, hydration, and redox reactions, affecting biochar decomposition in soil, as well as interactions with soil biota. The rates at which these reactions occur depend on the nature of the reactions, type of biochar, and pedoclimatic conditions. REMEDIATION OF MINE TAILINGS, WASTES AND CONTAMINATED SOILS Mining activities remove the top soil, disturb soil structure and change soil biology and vegetation, resulting in extensive soil degradation. The contaminated soil after mining, tailings, and the waste rock piles become devoid of vegetation due to metal toxicity and high acidity (Kelly et al., 2014). Remediation and rehabilitation of these contaminated soil and hazardous waste can be achieved by phytostabilization, a longterm and cost-effective rehabilitation strategy, through promoting the revegetation to reduce the risk of pollutant transfer and ecological restoration (Fellet et al., 2011), although these are difficult without proper soil amendments (Reverchon et al., 2015). The biochar addition to contaminated soil and waste rock piles may increase soil pH, water holding capacity, and soil fertility, reduce the mobility of plant-available pollutant,


and promote revegetation (Fellet et al., 2014; Kelly et al., 2014). However, fertilisation (NPK fertiliser) is required along with biochar amendment to significantly increase plant biomass production (Beesley et al., 2013). Phytostabilization of mine tailings with biochar The addition of biochar prepared from orchard prune residues and manure pellets at four doses (0%, 1%, 5%, and 10% biochar in the mine tailings) showed the significant benefits of biochar use on mining wastes to revegetate the plant species of Anthyllis vulneraria subsp. polyphylla (Dc.) Nyman, Noccaea rotundifolium (L.) Moench subsp. cepaeifolium, and Poa alpine L. subsp. alpina in phytostabilization of mining waste (Fellet et al., 2011, 2014). Effects of biochar application at different doses on phytostabilization of mine tailings are summarised in Table I. The pH, nutrient retention, cation exchange capacity, and water-holding capacity of mine tailings increased, and the bioavailability of Cd, Pb, and Zn decreased proportionally with the increase of biochar content (Fellet et al., 2011, 2014). Biochar, alone or in combination with compost, incorporated into acidic mining waste increased soil pH from 3.33 to 3.63 and 4.07 to 4.77, respectively, as well as organic matter content, base cations, and nitrate availability, but decreased bulk density, extractable metal content (Al, Cd, Cu, Pb, Ni, and Zn), and extreme soil acidity (Beesley et al., 2014; Kelly et al., 2014; Reverchon et al., 2015; Rodr´ıguez-Vila et al., 2014, 2015). However, the dissolved organic carbon initially released from biochar and compost applied to soil may increase the phytotoxicity to plants, bioavailable Pb, Cu, and As, as well as the electrical conductivity (Beesley et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2014). The addition of biochar compost prepared from Rhododendron ponticum and poultry litter biochar to large colliery spoil-impacted areas (high in As and Cu) and other


mines improve the growth of grass, lettuce (Lactuca sativa), rye (Secale cereal), and birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), compared with unamended colliery spoil and mine soil (McDonald et al., 2014; Ryan et al., 2014). The technosol and biochar mixture increased the shoot biomass from 0.74 to 2.95 g pot−1 and generally reduced the metal concentrations in plant species of Brassica juncea L. when grown for phytostabilization of mine soils (Rodr´ıguez-Vila et al., 2015). The green waste compost amendment reduced the pore water and ryegrass (Lolium perenne L. var. Cadix) shoot Pb concentrations, while biochar application reduced Cu content in pore water and ryegrass shoot, indicating the metal specific suitability of these amendments for treating a heavily Cu- and Pb-contaminated soil from a former copper mine (Karami et al., 2011). Reverchon et al. (2015) reported that jarrah biochar soil amendment (37 and 74 t ha−1 ) increased soil C/N ratio, photosynthetic N use efficiency, and biological N fixation rates of a native legume (Acacia tetragonophylla) grown in a mixture of topsoil and mine rejects, indicating positive effects on soil properties and plant nutritional status. However, Kelly et al. (2014) could not find any changes in microbial population or activity in mining waste upon biochar application. Therefore, the characteristics of the substrate to be treated are crucial for the biochar selection. Biochar has turned a wasteland enriched with As, Cd, Pb, and Zn on a steep mountainside into a haven for natural grasses and wildflowers that have stabilized the slope and almost diminished the risk of heavy metal leaching into the city’s main water supply around Hope Mine (Fig. 2). Impact of biochar on acid production and acid mine drainage treatment Jain et al. (2014) revealed that incorporation of biochar into high sulphur mining wastes inhibited the

Fig. 2 Abandoned Hope silver mine landscape at Aspen, Colorado, USA before (a) and after (b) biochar application to topsoil in July 2010 and August 2011 (ACES, 2011), respectively.

Mining waste rock

0%, 10%, 20%, and 30%





Enhanced activities of soil microbial C, phosphatise and dehydrogenase; lowered mobile Cd, Cu and Zn concentrations

Increased soil pH from 2.83 to 6.18 and shoot biomass from 0.74 to 2.95 g; reduced metal concentration in plant Increased soil pH, C content, C/N ratio, and biological N fixation rates; decreased soil δ 13 C Increased pH, C and TN concentration in soil; decreased extractable Co, Cu, Ni and soil acidity Salt effects on seed germination at lowest biochar treatment (0.5% weight/weight); increased productivity of vegetation and forage yield (40%) Increased vegetation cover

Proportional increase of pH, CEC, and waterholding capacity; decreased bioavailability of Cd, Pb, and Zn Change in pH, EC, and CEC; reduced shoot Cd and Pb concentration Increase in soil pH, OM, and NO− 3 concentration; low bulk density and extractable Al, Cd, Cu, Pb, and Zn content in mining waste Reduced pore water Cu and Pb concentration


= not available. = cation exchange capacity; EC = electrical conductivity; OM = organic matter; TN = total nitrogen.

b) CEC

a) NA

Mine soil


Poultry litter biochar

Abandoned mining site Mining sites

Cu mine settling pond soil

20%, 40%, 80%, and 100%

Spent mine sites

Mine soil

20%, 40%, 80%, and 100%

37 and 74 t ha−1

Mine Soil


Biochar mixed with compost

Jarrah biochar

Biochar derived from British Oak, Ash, Sycamore, and Birch Technosol and biochar

Mine tailing

0%, 1.5%, and 3%

Biochar from pruning residues manure Biochar from pine wood

Mine tailing

0%, 1%, 5%, and 10%

Biochar from orchard prune residues

Waste type

Biochar dose


Effects of biochar application at different doses on phytostabilization of mine tailings


Karami et al., 2011

Rodr´ıguez-Vila et al., 2015

Phytostabilization by Brassica juncea L.


Revegetation by various plants

Phytostabilization by lettuce, rye, and birdsfoot trefoil

Hanauer et al., 2012

ACES, 2011

McDonald et al., 2014

Reverchon et al., 2015 Rodr´ıguez-Vila et al., 2014

Kelly et al., 2014

Phytostabilization by Spinacia oleracea, Brassica napus and Triticum aestivum Phytostabilization by ryegrass

Phytostabilization by Acacia tetragonophylla Phytostabilization by Brassica juncea L.

Fellet et al., 2014

Fellet et al., 2011




Remediation type

658 H. M. ANAWAR et al.


acid production rate from 10.4 to 3.8 kg Mt−1 h−1 and enhanced the alkali consumption from 9.7 to 13.9 kg Mt−1 h−1 , resulting in neutralization of all the acid produced (Table II). The efficiency of biochar to reduce the rate of acid production may be due to either the reduction in Fe3+ concentration or production of reduced S compounds in reducing conditions of biochar or reduced availability of oxygen due to competition between biochar and oxygen that accelerate the sulphide oxidation and acid generation. The spent coffee grounds biochar, sewage sludge biochar, and aromatic spent biochar applied to acid mine drainage decreased the heavy metal (Cd, Cr, Cu, and Pb) concentrations and phytotoxicity to bok choy (Brassica campestris L. ssp. chinensis Jusl.) by increasing the pH (Lu et al., 2012; Khare et al., 2013; Kim et al., 2014). The Pb sorption primarily involved the coordination with organic hydroxyl and carboxyl functional groups as well as the co-precipitation on mineral surfaces. The Gracilaria modified biochar, generated from the waste after the commercial extraction of agar from cultivated seaweeds with ferric chloride (FeCl3 ), immediately removed 98% of the selenate (SeO2− 4 , hereafter SeVI ) from the prepared Se solution, but higher concentrations of SO2− reduced the uptake of SeVI 4 from acid mine effluents from coal mines and coal-fired power stations (Johansson et al., 2015). The biocharimpregnated sediment showed nearly 3 times more attenuation capacity for cyanide than non-amended sediment, thus indicating possibility of using biochar


to cleanse cyanide from effluent discharges from gold mining and processing activities (Sawaraba and Rajashekhar Rao, 2015). Impact of biochar on geochemical dynamics in mine tailings The addition of fresh biomass, such as woodchips, caused dynamic hydrogeochemical changes in Cu-Au tailings leachate, increased the load of salts and metals in tailing pore water, and affected seepage water quality (Table II). In contrast, biochar with highly stable C may help alleviate geochemical environment in the tailings (Li et al., 2013). At medium pH (7–8), addition of greenwaste biochar increased adsorption capacity, enhanced adsorption of NH+ 4 -N/NH3 -N and lowered NH3 volatilization in bauxite-processing residue amended with di-ammonium phosphate, while at high pH (9), the majority of NH+ 4 -N/NH3 -N pools was lost via NH3 volatilization due to the strong acid-base reaction at this pH (Chen et al., 2013). Impact of biochar on arsenic mobility and uptake from mining wastes An orchard prune residue biochar significantly increased As concentrations in pore water (500–2 000 µg L−1 ), whilst root and shoot As concentrations of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) plantlets were significantly reduced compared to the control without biochar (Beesley et al., 2013), and toxicity-transfer risk was negligible (< 3 µg kg−1 ). However, Gregory et al.

TABLE II Impact of biochar on acid mine drainage and geochemical dynamics in mine tailings Biochar

Waste type



Biochar prepared from lemongrass (Cymbopogon flexuosus) Spent coffee grounds biochar Sewage sludge biochar

Sulphidic waste

Inhibited acid production rate; enhanced alkali consumption; neutralized acidity

Jain et al., 2014

Acid mine drainage, mine soil Acid mine drainage

Kim et al., 2014

Fe-treated seaweed biochar

Coal mine effluents

Decreased heavy metal concentrations and phytotoxicity to bok choy; increased pH Removed Pb from acidic solution with capacities of 16–31 mg g−1 at pH 2–5 Removed 98% of the SeVI from the prepared solution, but only 3% from mine effluent; reduced uptake of SeVI by high concentrations of SO2− 4

Biochar-impregnated sediment

Gold mining effluent

Timber biochar

Cu-Au tailing leachate

Sawaraba and Rajashekhar Rao, 2015 Li et al., 2013

Greenwaste biochar

Rehabilitated bauxite residue sand

3 times more attenuation capacity for cyanide than non-amended sediment, indicating biochar use to cleanse cyanide from spills No substantial changes in most examined properties of leachate except for reduction in DOC and NO− 2 with biochar amendment but with reduced leachate pH under the tree woodchip treatment Losses of NH+ 4 -N/NH3 -N pools at low (5) and high pH (9) from residue via NH3 volatilization; lowered NH3 volatilization at medium pH (7, 8)

Lu et al., 2012 Johansson et al., 2015

Chen et al., 2013


(2014) reported that at increasing dose rates of biochar from willow feedstock (Salix sp.) amendment from 30 to 60 t ha−1 , shoot tissue of ryegrass extracted significantly higher (P < 0.05) concentrations of As. The Al(III)-modified biochar, prepared from the straws of rice, soybean, and peanut, had greater sorption capacity for As(V) under acidic conditions compared with corresponding unmodified biochars, increased with decreasing suspension pH, and could substitute Fe/Al oxides used for water purification under acidic conditions at pH > 4.0 (Qian et al., 2013). Biochar treatment of metal, metalloid and organicscontaminated soils It is difficult to remediate sites contaminated with mixtures of metals, metalloids, and organics, because each contaminant type may require a different treatment (Sneath et al., 2013). Biochar can remediate soil with both heavy metal and organic pollutants such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and terbuthylazine (herbicides for vegetation management) (Wang et al., 2010; Chen and Yuan, 2011; Tang et al., 2013) through electrostatic interaction and precipitation of heavy metals, and the surface adsorption, partition and sequestration of organic contaminants (Zhang X et al., 2013). Neither biochar treatment (1%, weight/weight) nor iron treatment could successfully reduce both Cu and As leaching, but iron treatment negatively impacted soil structure and sunflower plant mortality. In contrast, the mixture of biochar and iron reduced both Cu and As leaching, increased phenanthrene degradation, and enabled sunflower growth, suggesting this as a useful approach for treating co-contaminated mining sites (Sneath et al., 2013). Biochar was more effective than greenwaste compost at reducing bioavailable fractions of phytotoxic Cd and Zn as well as the heavier, more toxicologically relevant PAHs (Beesley et al., 2010). Biochar could promote bioremediation of PAHs contaminated soil as microbial carriers of immobilized-microorganism technique. However, it is vital to select an appropriate biochar as an immobilized carrier to stimulate biodegradation (Chen et al., 2012). The removal efficiencies of two- to four-ring PAHs were higher than those of five- and six-ring PAHs in contaminated soil amended with biochar (Liu et al., 2015). Biochar addition to soil could stimulate PAH-metabolizing bacterial activity by enhancing the number of gene copies related to PAH degradation and changing the structure of soil microbial community. However, in the case of agriculture, it is reported that application of biochar decreased efficacy of pesti-

H. M. ANAWAR et al.

cides, which indicates a trade-off between the potentially promising effect of biochar on pesticide remediation and its negative effects on pesticide efficacy (Tang et al., 2013; Evangelou et al., 2015). Therefore, further research is needed before biochar application is widely implemented in crop farming. Restoration of degraded and contaminated land using biochar The adequate restoration of the degraded and contaminated environment requires cooperation, integration, and assimilation of different biotechnological advances along with traditional and ethical sense to unravel the science of the emerging field of bioremediation, especially the mechanisms of phytoremediation of heavy metals (Mani and Kumar, 2014). Success in restoration and reclamation is dependent on the physico-chemical soil characteristics and soil community complexity. Soil amendments by compost, biochar, and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi may facilitate grassland recovery in severely degraded habitats and the promotion of grassland ecosystem sustainability (Ohsowski et al., 2012). Biochar has potential impacts on restoration of degraded and contaminated land (Table III). Biochar amendment significantly improved root traits, particularly root mass density and root length density, enhanced root establishment in contaminated soils, and reduced Cu uptake to plants compared to the control soil (Brennan et al., 2014). Although biochar addition increased extractable Ca, K, P, Cu, Zn, and Mn, CEC, mesoporosity, and water-holding capacity in fly ash (an inorganic waste of coal-fired power generation), it had a little or no stimulatory effect on the size of the soil microbial community, N fertility, or plant growth during revegetation on fly ash. This might be attributable to the lack of metabolizable C and an insignificant N-supplying capacity (Belyaeva and Haynes, 2012). Biochars immobilized soil Cd in industrial wastewater treatment, but did not improve growth of the emerging wetland plant species (Juncus subsecundus) at the early growth stage, probably due to the interaction between biochars and waterlogged environment (Zhang Z et al., 2013). Further study is needed to elucidate the underlying mechanisms. BIOCHAR PRODUCTION FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTES Biochar (maize-derived) increased biomass production of oat (Avena sativa L.) and reduced Zn and Cd uptake by plants grown on wastewater-irrigated soil or sewage-field soil (Wagner and Kaupenjohann, 2014). In



TABLE III Impact of biochar on restoration of degraded and contaminated land Biochar

Waste typea)




Heavy metal-contaminated ecosystems

Mani and Kumar, 2014


PAH and toxic element-contaminated soil

Biochar Biochar

Degraded and contaminated land Wasteland, mine soil, landfills

Viable, sustainable and eco-friendly bioremediation technologies, especially phytoremediation of heavy metals Decreased PAHs bioavailability, with less effects on reducing metal mobility by biochar, in contrast to increased PAHs and metal bioavailability by Eisenia fetida Grassland recovery in severely degraded habitats


Contaminated soils


Metal and PAH-polluted soils


Heavy metals and organic pollutants PAH-contaminated soils


Biochar from dairy manure and rice hull Biochar

PAH-contaminated soils

Biochar of pine needle

PAH-contaminated soils


Herbicides in forest soils


Contaminated coal colliery sites

a) PAHs


Enhanced nutrient availability, organic matter addition, microbial stimulation and pH buffering; decreased bioavailability of toxic metals Phytostabilization by maize; improved root mass and root length density; decreased Cu and As uptake; enhanced root establishment in soil More effective ability of biochar at reducing bioavailable fractions of Cd and Zn as well as PAHs than greenwaste compost Increased soil pH and contribution to stabilization of heavy metals; remediation of contaminated soils Promotion of bioremediation of contaminated soil as microbial carriers of immobilized-microorganism technique Higher removal efficiencies of two-ring to four-ring PAHs than five- and six-ring PAHs in soil Reduced Cd accumulation; no improvement of the growth of Juncus subsecundus plant Enhanced sorption of PAHs to soil mitigating PAHscontaminated soils Enhanced soil sorption of terbuthylazine and reduced possibility of hydrophobic herbicide leaching to groundwater Improved grass growth

Gomez-Eyles et al., 2011

Ohsowski et al., 2012 Ram and Masto, 2014 Brennan et al., 2014 Beesley et al., 2010 Zhang et al., 2013 Chen et al., 2012 Liu et al., 2015 Zhang et al., 2013 Chen and Yuan, 2011 Wang et al., 2010 Ryan et al., 2014

= polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

contrast, metal concentrations in soil leachate increased, possibly due to colloidal transport of Zn precipitates and Cu transport in the dissolved fraction. However, hydrochar (poplar-derived) is not suitable for metal immobilization. Conversion of sewage sludge into biochar is a potential way to manage these wastes, because the use of sewage sludge biochar and sewage sludge may have different effects on soil biochemical properties as indicators of soil quality (Hossain et al., 2010). Microbial biomass C, soil respiration, net N mineralization, and enzyme activities showed a different response to the treatments of sewage sludge biochar and unpyrolyzed sewage sludge with higher quality after sewage sludge biochar treatment (PazFerreiro et al., 2012). ENERGY AND BIOCHAR FROM PLANTS GROWN ON CONTAMINATED SOIL Pyrolysis or combustion of waste wood can pro-

vide a renewable source of energy and produce biochar which can be used to land amelioration. Jones and Quilliam (2014) concluded that low levels of contamination from Cu-treated wood (preservative-treated timber) should pose minimal environmental risk to biochar and ash destined for land application. The root biomass of ryegrass (Lolium perenne var. Calibra) treated with biochar from birch (Betula pendula) wood produced on trace element-contaminated soil was lower than that of the non-amended plants, while that of the shoot was higher (Evangelou et al., 2014). The biochar addition to metal-contaminated soils can cultivate bioenergy crops, rapeseed (Brassica napus L.), without encroaching on agricultural lands that in turn be used as feedstock for pyrolysis to produce both bioenergy and new biochar (Houben et al., 2013). CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Biochar amendment can increase soil water-holding

H. M. ANAWAR et al.


capacity, pH, CEC, and surface sorption capacity due to its high surface area, porosity, variable charge, and functional groups, which are controlled by the temperature of biochar formation and various source materials. Addition of biochar to soil enhances microbial diversity and species richness that are involved in N, P or S nutrient transformations. Biochar undergoes multiple reactions including adsorptiondesorption, precipitation-dissolution, acid-base, and redox reactions when it is added to soils. The conditions of soil moisture and temperature control the ageing, dissolution, hydrolysis, carbonation, decarbonation, hydration, and redox reactions affecting biochar weathering in soils. The addition of biochar shows the significant benefits to revegetate and rehabilitate mining waste, tailings, and waste rock pile. It increases the shoot biomass and generally reduces the concentrations of toxic metals in plant species when grown for phytostabilization of mining wastes. Addition of biochar to sulphidic mining waste, tailings, and acid mine drainage decreases the acid production rate and enhances the alkalinity, resulting in neutralization of produced acid and decrease in heavy metal concentrations and phytotoxicity to plant species. Biochar can remediate contamination of heavy metals through electrostatic interaction and precipitation, and organic contaminants (PAHs, herbicides, etc.) through surface adsorption, partition, and sequestration. Soil amendments by biochar and compost may facilitate grassland recovery and revegetation in severely degraded habitats, mining waste, waste rock, and contaminated soil. The production of biochar from sewage sludge has greater effect on soil quality than direct sewage sludge application. The biochar addition to mining, industrial, and sewage-contaminated soils can cultivate bioenergy crops that in turn be used to produce both bioenergy and new biochar. Biochar decreases organic pollutants significantly; however, it is less effective to reduce mobility of potentially toxic elements and shows differential effects depending on the type of metals. Therefore, further research is needed to understand the effects of biochar on dynamics of heavy metals in mining waste and contaminated soil. The effects of biochar additions on the accumulation of C in mine tailings and waste over the long term should be studied in details. There is a need to overcome multiple risks and constraints such as lack of finance, socio-economic constraints including negative perceptions and attitudes of both researchers and consumers, and environmental and public health risks.

REFERENCES ACES (Aspen Center for Environmental Studies). 2011. Hope Mine Biochar Project. July 2010–August 2011, Aspen, Colorado, USA. Beesley L, Inneh O S, Norton G J, Moreno-Jimenez E, Pardo T, Clemente R, Dawson J J C. 2014. Assessing the influence of compost and biochar amendments on the mobility and toxicity of metals and arsenic in a naturally contaminated mine soil. Environ Pollut. 186: 195–202. Beesley L, Marmiroli M, Pagano L, Pigoni V, Fellet G, Fresno T, Vamerali T, Bandiera M, Marmiroli N. 2013. Biochar addition to an arsenic contaminated soil increases arsenic concentrations in the pore water but reduces uptake to tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Sci Total Environ. 454– 455: 598–603. Beesley L, Moreno-Jim´ enez E, Gomez-Eyles J L. 2010. Effects of biochar and greenwaste compost amendments on mobility, bioavailability and toxicity of inorganic and organic contaminants in a multi-element polluted soil. Environ Pollut. 158: 2282–2287. B´ elanger N, Cˆ ot´ e B, Fyles J W, Chourchesne F, Hendershot W H. 2004. Forest regrowth as the controlling factor of soil nutrient availability 75 years after fire in a deciduous forest of Southern Quebec. Plant Soil. 262: 363–372. Belyaeva O N, Haynes R J. 2012. Comparison of the effects of conventional organic amendments and biochar on the chemical, physical and microbial properties of coal fly ash as a plant growth medium. Environ Earth Sci. 66: 1987–1997. Blackwell P, Krull E, Butler G, Herbert A, Solaiman Z. 2010. Effect of banded biochar on dryland wheat production and fertiliser use in south-western Australia: an agronomic and economic perspective. Aust J Soil Res. 48: 531–545. Bornermann L C, Kookana R S, Welp G. 2007. Differential sorption behaviour of aromatic hydrocarbons on charcoals prepared at different temperatures from grass and wood. Chemosphere. 67: 1033–1042. Bourke J, Manley-Harris M, Fushimi C, Dowaki K, Nunoura T, Antal M J. 2007. Do all carbonized charcoals have the same chemical structure? 2. A model of the chemical structure of carbonized charcoal. Ind Eng Chem Res. 46: 5954–5967. Brennan A, Jim´ enez E M, Puschenreiter M, Alburquerque J A, Switzer C. 2014. Effects of biochar amendment on root traits and contaminant availability of maize plants in a copper and arsenic impacted soil. Plant Soil. 379: 351–360. Bruun S, Jensen E S, Jensen L S. 2008. Microbial mineralization and assimilation of black carbon: dependency on degree of thermal alteration. Org Geochem. 39: 839–845. Chan K Y, Xu Z H. 2009. Biochar: nutrient properties and their enhancement. In Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds.) Biochar for Environmental Management. Science and Technology. Earthscan, London. pp. 67–84. Chen B L, Yuan M X. 2011. Enhanced sorption of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by soil amended with biochar. J Soil Sediment. 11: 62–71. Chen B L, Yuan M X, Qian L B. 2012. Enhanced bioremediation of PAH-contaminated soil by immobilized bacteria with plant residue and biochar as carriers. J Soil Sediment. 12: 1350–1359. Chen C R, Phillips I R, Condron L M, Goloran J, Xu Z H, Chan K Y. 2013. Impacts of greenwaste biochar on ammonia volatilisation from bauxite processing residue sand. Plant Soil. 367: 301–312. DeLuca T H, MacKenzie M D, Gundale M J. 2009. Biochar effects on soil nutrient transformations. In Lehmann J, Joseph


S (eds.) Biochar for Environmental Management. Science and Technology. Earthscan, London. pp. 251–270. Evangelou M W H, Brem A, Ugolini F, Abiven S, Schulin R. 2014. Soil application of biochar produced from biomass grown on trace element contaminated land. J Environ Manage. 146: 100–106. Evangelou M W H, Fellet G, Ji R, Schulin R. 2015. Phytoremediation and biochar application as an amendment. In Ansari A A, Gill S S, Gill R, Lanza G R, Newman L (eds.) Phytoremediation. Management of Environmental Contaminants. Volume 1. Springer International Publishing, Cham. pp. 253–263. Fellet G, Marchiol L, Delle Vedove G, Peressotti A. 2011. Application of biochar on mine tailings: effects and perspectives for land reclamation. Chemosphere. 83: 1262–1267. Fellet G, Marmiroli M, Marchiol L. 2014. Elements uptake by metal accumulator species grown on mine tailings amended with three types of biochar. Sci Total Environ. 468–469: 598–608. Glaser B, Lehmann J, Zech W. 2002. Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with charcoal—a review. Biol Fert Soils. 35: 219–230. Gomez-Eyles J L, Sizmur T, Collins C D, Hodson M E. 2011. Effects of biochar and the earthworm Eisenia fetida on the bioavailability of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and potentially toxic elements. Environ Pollut. 159: 616–622. Gregory S J, Anderson C W N, Camps Arbestain M, McManus M T. 2014. Response of plant and soil microbes to biochar amendment of an arsenic-contaminated soil. Agr Ecosyst Environ. 191: 133–141. Gu J G, Zhou Q X, Wang X. 2003. Reused path of heavy metal pollution in soils and its research advance. J Basic Sci Eng. 11: 143–151. Gundale M J, DeLuca T H. 2006. Temperature and source material influence ecological attributes of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir charcoal. Forest Ecol Manag. 231: 86–93. Gwenzi W, Chaukura N, Mukome F N D, Machado S, Nyamasoka B. 2015. Biochar production and applications in subSaharan Africa: Opportunities, constraints, risks and uncertainties. J Environ Manage. 150: 250–261. Hanauer T, Jung S, Felix-Henningsen P, Schnell S, Steffens D. 2012. Suitability of inorganic and organic amendments for in situ immobilization of Cd, Cu, and Zn in a strongly contaminated Kastanozem of the Mashavera valley, SE Georgia. I. Effect of amendments on metal mobility and microbial activity in soil. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci. 175: 708–720. Hossain M K, Strezov V, Chan K Y, Nelson P F. 2010. Agronomic properties of wastewater sludge biochar and bioavailability of metals in production of cherry tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Chemosphere. 78: 1167–1171. Houben D, Evrard L, Sonnet P. 2013. Beneficial effects of biochar application to contaminated soils on the bioavailability of Cd, Pb and Zn and the biomass production of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Biomass Bioenerg. 57: 196–204. Jain S, Baruah B P, Khare P. 2014. Kinetic leaching of high sulphur mine rejects amended with biochar: buffering implication. Ecol Eng. 71: 703–709. Jeffery S, Martijn Bezemer T, Cornelissen G, Kuyper T W, Lehmann J, Mommer L, Sohi S P, van de Voorde T F J, Wardle D A, van Groenigen J W. 2015. The way forward in biochar research: targeting trade-offs between the potential wins. GCB Bioenerg. 7: 1–13. Johansson C L, Paul N A, de Nys R, Roberts D A. 2015. The complexity of biosorption treatments for oxyanions in


a multi-element mine effluent. J Environ Manage. 151: 386– 392. Jones D L, Quilliam R S. 2014. Metal contaminated biochar and wood ash negatively affect plant growth and soil quality after land application. J Hazard Mater. 276: 362–370. Joseph S D, Camps-Arbestain M, Lin Y, Munroe P, Chia C H, Hook J, van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Cowie A, Singh B P, Lehmann J, Foidl N, Smernik R J, Amonette J E. 2010. An investigation into the reactions of biochar in soil. Aust J Soil Res. 48: 501–515. Karami N, Clemente R, Moreno-Jim´ enez E, Lepp N W, Beesley L. 2011. Efficiency of green waste compost and biochar soil amendments for reducing lead and copper mobility and uptake to ryegrass. J Hazard Mater. 191: 41–48. Keech O, Carcaillet C, Nilsson M C. 2005. Adsorption of allelopathic compounds by wood-derived charcoal: the role of wood porosity. Plant Soil. 272: 291–300. Kelly C N, Peltz C D, Stanton M, Rutherford D W, Rostad C E. 2014. Biochar application to hardrock mine tailings: soil quality, microbial activity, and toxic element sorption. Appl Geochem. 43: 35–48. Khan F I, Husain T, Hejazi R. 2004. An overview and analysis of site remediation technologies. J Environ Manage. 71: 95–122. Khare P, Dilshad U, Rout P K, Yadav V, Jain S. 2013. Plant refuses driven biochar: application as metal adsorbent from acidic solutions. Arab J Chem. Doi:10.1016/j.arabjc.2013.11. 047. Kim M S, Min H G, Koo N, Park J, Lee S H, Bak G I, Kim J G. 2014. The effectiveness of spent coffee grounds and its biochar on the amelioration of heavy metals-contaminated water and soil using chemical and biological assessments. J Environ Manage. 146: 124–130. Kong L L, Liu W T, Zhou Q X. 2014. Biochar: an effective amendment for remediating contaminated soil. Rev Environ Contam T. 228: 83–99. Kumpiene J, Lagerkvist A, Maurice C. 2008. Stabilization of As, Cr, Cu, Pb and Zn in soil using amendments—a review. Waste Manage. 28: 215–225. Kuzyakov Y, Subbotina I, Chen H, Bogomolova I, Xu X. 2009. Black carbon decomposition and incorporation into soil microbial biomass estimated by 14 C labeling. Soil Biol Biochem. 41: 210–219. Lehmann J, da Silva Jr. J P, Rondon M, da Silva C M, Greenwood J, Nehls T, Steiner C, Glaser B. 2002. Slash-and-char: a feasible alternative for soil fertility management in the Central Amazon? In Vanlauwe B (ed.) Organic Matter Management in the Humid Tropics. Proceedings of 17th World Congress of Soil Science. Paper no. 449. Bangkok. pp. 12. Lehmann J, da Silva Jr. J P, Steiner C, Nehls T, Zech W, Glaser B. 2003. Nutrient availability and leaching in an archaeological Anthrosol and a Ferralsol of the Central Amazon basin: fertilizer, manure and charcoal amendments. Plant Soil. 249: 343–357. Lehmann J, Joseph S. 2009. Biochar for Environmental Management. Science and Technology. Earthscan, London. Lehmann J, Rondon M. 2006. Bio-Char soil management on highly weathered soils in the humid tropics. In Uphoff N, Ball A S, Fernandes E, Herren H, Husson O, Laing M, Palm C, Prettty J, Sanchez P, Sanginga N, Thies J (eds.) Biological Approaches to Sustainable Soil Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton. pp. 518–530. Leng R A, Preston T R, Inthapanya S. 2012. Biochar reduces enteric methane and improves growth and feed conversion in local “Yellow” cattle fed cassava root chips and fresh cassava


foliage. Livest Res Rural Devvelop. 24. Available online at: Li X, You F, Huang L, Strounina E, Edraki M. 2013. Dynamics in leachate chemistry of Cu-Au tailings in response to biochar and woodchip amendments: a column leaching study. Environ Sci Eur. 25: 32, doi:10.1186/2190-4715-25-32. Liang B, Lehmann J, Solomon D, Kinyangi J, Grossman J, O’Neill B, Skjemstad J O, Thies J, Luiz˜ ao F J, Petersen J, Neves E G. 2006. Black carbon increases cation exchange capacity in soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J. 70: 1719–1730. Liu L, Chen P, Sun M X, Shen G Q, Shang G F. 2015. Effect of biochar amendment on PAH dissipation and indigenous degradation bacteria in contaminated soil. J Soil Sediment. 15: 313–322. Lu H L, Zhang W H, Yang Y X, Huang X F, Wang S Z, Qiu R L. 2012. Relative distribution of Pb2+ sorption mechanisms by sludge-derived biochar. Water Res. 46: 854–862. Mani D, Kumar C. 2014. Biotechnological advances in bioremediation of heavy metals contaminated ecosystems: an overview with special reference to phytoremediation. Int J Env Sci Tec. 11: 843–872. Matsubara Y I, Harada T, Yakuwa T. 1995. Effect of inoculation density of vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal spores and addition of carbonized material to bed soil on growth of Welsh onion seedlings. J Jpn Soc Hortic Sci. 64: 549–554. McDonald L M, Skousen J G, Cook J L, Acharya S P. 2014. Poultry Litter Biochar to Promote Reclamation of Surface Mine Soils. ASA, CSSA, & SSA International Annual Meeting, Novomber 2–5, Long Beach. Mills A L. 2003. Keeping in touch: microbial life on soil particle surfaces. Adv Agron. 78: 1–43. Nguyen B T, Lehmann J. 2009. Black carbon decomposition under varying water regimes. Org Geochem. 40: 846–853. Ohsowski B M, Klironomos J N, Dunfield K E, Hart M M. 2012. The potential of soil amendments for restoring severely disturbed grasslands. Appl Soil Ecol. 60: 77–83. Paz-Ferreiro J, Gasc´ o G, Guti´ errez B, M´ endez A. 2012. Soil biochemical activities and the geometric mean of enzyme activities after application of sewage sludge and sewage sludge biochar to soil. Biol Fert Soils. 48: 511–517. Pietik¨ ainen J, Kiikkil¨ a O, Fritze H. 2000. Charcoal as a habitat for microbes and its effect on the microbial community of the underlying humus. Oikos. 89: 231–242. Powlson D S, Gregory P J, Whalley W R, Quinton J N, Hopkins D W, Whitmore A P, Hirsch P R, Goulding K W T. 2011. Soil management in relation to sustainable agriculture and ecosystem services. Food Policy. 36: S72–S87. Prasad M N V, Nakbanpote W. 2015. Integrated management of mine waste using biogeotechnologies focusing Thai mines. Environ Sustain, doi: 10.1007/978-81-322-2056-5 14. Qian W, Zhao A Z, Xu R K. 2013. Sorption of As(V) by aluminum-modified crop straw-derived biochars. Water Air Soil Poll. 224: 1610, doi: 10.1007/s11270-013-1610-5. Ram L C, Masto R E. 2014. Fly ash for soil amelioration: a review on the influence of ash blending with inorganic and organic amendments. Earth-Sci Rev. 128: 52–74. Reverchon F, Yang H, Ho T Y, Yan G, Wang J, Xu Z, Chen C, Zhang D. 2015. A preliminary assessment of the potential of using an acacia-biochar system for spent mine site rehabilitation. Environ Sci Pollut R. 22: 2138–2144. Rivera-Utrilla J, Bautista-Toledo I, Ferro-Garc´ıa M A, MorenoCastilla C. 2001. Activated carbon surface modifcations by adsoption of bacteria and their effect on aqueous lead adsorption. J Chem Technol Biot. 76: 1209–1215.

H. M. ANAWAR et al.

Rodr´ıguez-Vila A, Covelo E F, Forj´ an R, Asensio V. 2014. Phytoremediating a copper mine soil with Brassica juncea L., compost and biochar. Environ Sci Pollut R. 21: 11293– 11304. Rodr´ıguez-Vila A, Covelo E F, Forj´ an R, Asensio V. 2015. Recovering a copper mine soil using organic amendments and phytomanagement with Brassica juncea L. J Environ Manage. 147: 73–80. Ryan A, Street-Perrott A, Eastwood D, Brackenbury S. 2014. The use of sustainable ‘biochar compost’ for remediation of contaminated land. In Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 16, EGU2014-13173-1. European Geosciences Union General Assembly 2014, 27 April–02 May 2014, Vienna, Austria. Saito M, Marumoto T. 2002. Inoculation with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi: the status quo in Japan and the future prospects. Plant Soil. 244: 273–279. Sawaraba I, Rajashekhar Rao B K. 2015. Monitoring of river water for free cyanide pollution from mining activity in Papua New Guinea and attenuation of cyanide by biochar. Environ Monit Assess. 187: 4181, doi: 10.1007/s10661-014-4181-z. Singh B P, Cowie A L. 2008. A novel approach, using 13 C natural abundance, for measuring decomposition of biochars in soil. In Currie L D, Yates L J (eds.) Carbon and Nutrient Management in Agriculture. Occasional Report No. 21. Fertilizer and Lime Research Centre, Massey University, Palmerston North. pp. 549 Singh B, Singh B P, Cowie A L. 2010. Characterisation and evaluation of biochars for their application as a soil amendment. Aust J Soil Res. 48: 516–525. Sneath H E, Hutchings T R, de Leij F A A M. 2013. Assessment of biochar and iron filing amendments for the remediation of a metal, arsenic and phenanthrene co-contaminated spoil. Environ Pollut. 178: 361–366. Solaiman Z M, Blackwell P, Abbott L K, Storer P. 2010. Direct and residual effect of biochar application on mycorrhizal root colonisation, growth and nutrition of wheat. Aust J Soil Res. 48: 546–554. Steinbeiss S, Gleixner G, Antonietti M. 2009. Effect of biochar amendment on soil carbon balance and soil microbial activity. Soil Biol Biochem. 41: 1301–1310. Steiner C, Teixeira W G, Lehmann J, Nehls T, Luis Vasconcelos de Macˆ edo J, Blum W E H, Zech W. 2007. Long term effects of manure, charcoal and mineral fertilization on crop production and fertility on a highly weathered Central Amazonian upland soil. Plant Soil. 291: 275–290. Sun T H, Zhou Q X, Li P J. 2001. Pollution Ecology (in Chinese). Science Press, Beijing. Tang J, Zhu W, Kookana R, Katayama A. 2013. Characteristics of biochar and its application in remediation of contaminated soil. J Biosci Bioeng. 116: 653–659. Thies J, Suzuki K. 2003. Amazonian dark earths: biological measurements. In Lehmann J, Kern D G, Glaser B, Woods W I (eds.) Amazonian Dark Earths: Origin, Properties, Management. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. pp. 287–332. Thomas S C, Frye S, Gale N, Garmon M, Launchbury R, Machado N, Melamed S, Murray J, Petroff A, Winsborough C. 2013. Biochar mitigates negative effects of salt additions on two herbaceous plant species. J Environ Manage. 129: 62–68. Wagner A, Kaupenjohann M. 2014. Suitability of biochars (pyroand hydrochars) for metal immobilization on former sewagefield soils. Eur J Soil Sci. 65: 139–148. Wang H, Lin K, Hou Z, Richardson B, Gan J. 2010. Sorption of the herbicide terbuthylazine in two New Zealand forest soils amended with biosolids and biochars. J Soil Sediment. 10: 283–289.


Wei B G, Yang L S. 2010. A review of heavy metal contaminations in urban soils, urban road dusts and agricultural soils from China. Microchem J. 94: 99–107. Yao F X, Camps Arbestain M, Virgel S, Blanco F, Arostegui J, Maci´ a-Agull´ o J A, Mac´ıas F. 2010. Simulated geochemical weathering of a mineral ash-rich biochar in a modified Soxhlet reactor. Chemosphere. 80: 724–732. Zhang Z, Solaiman Z M, Meney K, Murphy D V, Rengel Z. 2013. Biochars immobilize soil cadmium, but do not improve growth of emergent wetland species Juncus subsecundus in cadmium-contaminated soil. J Soil Sediment. 13: 140–151. Zhang X, Wang H, He L, Lu K, Sarmah A, Li J, Bolan N S, Pei J, Huang H. 2013. Using biochar for remediation of soils


contaminated with heavy metals and organic pollutants. Environ Sci Pollut R. 20: 8472–8483. Zhong X M, Wu X P. 2007. Present status, existing problems and counter measures of farmland pollution and quality and safety of agricultural products in China. Chinese J Agric Resour Reg Plan (in Chinese). 28: 27–32. Zhou Q X, Song Y F. 2004. Contaminated Soil Remediation: Principles and Methods (in Chinese). Science Press, Beijing. 568pp. Zhu Q H, Peng X H, Huang T Q, Xie Z B, Holden N M. 2014. Effect of biochar addition on maize growth and nitrogen use efficiency in acidic red soils. Pedosphere. 24: 699–708.