Biochar Application to

Ispra, 17th October 2009

Joint Research Centre (JRC)

Soil Action – LMNH Unit - IES Frank Verheijen – physical geographer (SOM) Simon Jeffery – microbiologist Iason Diafas – environmental economist Luca Montanarella – Soil Action leader RWER Unit - IES Marijn van der Velde – physical geographer (nitrates, hydrology)

IES - Institute for Environment and Sustainability Ispra - Italy http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ http://www.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ Purpose

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

• Number of reviews – Sohi et al., 2009 (CSIRO). Biochar, Climate Change and Soil: A Review to Guide Future Research – Lehmann and Joseph, 2009. Biochar for Environmental Management – Collison et al., 2009. Biochar and Carbon Sequestration: a regional perspective (East Development Agency) What our research brings • EU perspective • Meta-analyses (quantitative) • • Biochar dust & nanoparticles • Contamination issues • Specific recommendations • Independent (objective and critical) Motivation for applying biochar technology (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009)

Mitigation of climate change

Waste Energy management production

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

Mitigation of climate change

Waste Energy management production

Soil improvement

• Soil conditioner (not fertiliser) • Functionally more like than like organic matter To demystify

Terra Preta do Indio

Anthrosol

Hortic Anthrosol (Plagganthrepts)

Charcoal fragment from a ‘Kitchen soil’ plaggic anthrosol (Pears, 2009) with charcoal European context

Plaggic/hortic anthrosoils

Amazonian dark earth – Plaggen soils Plaggic anthrosol • 3,500 km2 • Oldest 3,000 yr (Sylt) • Intensified since Middle Ages

(Toth et al., 2008) Anthrosols in Europe

Plaggic anthrosol • 3,500 km2 (Toth et al., 2008) • Oldest 3,000 yr (Sylt) • Intensified since Middle Ages

Blume and Leinweber, 2004) So, what is it?

• Experiential science (utilitarian ethnopedology) • Extreme solution for an extreme environment • Why not as much charcoal in anthrosols in Europe? – Colder climate – OM decomposes much more slowly – Wood + charcoal was needed to heat the place(!), i.e. too valuable… • Heterogeneity

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

Pyrolysis of Biomass

as G HEAT le ib st u b om C Bio-Oil Vapour Condensation

B Biomass iochar

John Edwards, Massey University Primary biochar factors Primary biochar factors

Mode Conditions Liquid Char Gas

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

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

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

Weight percentage Component 50-90% Fixed carbon

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

1-15% Moisture

0.5-5% Ash – mineral matter

pH C N C/N P K P available Range From 6.2 172 1.7 7 0.2 1.0 15

To 9.6 905 78.2 400 73 58 11,600

Mean 8.1 543 22.3 67 23.7 24.3

% CV 18 40 110 152 118 96 Soil Conditioner

Physicochemical properties diffuse double layer

Graphene

Montmorillonite 0.5 - 1.0 nm Physicochemical effects

Liming (pH) • High ash content • Time? • Variation CEC • Low volatile content • Time? • Variation Structure • Bulk density? Water retention • Physical stabilisation of soil organic matter (SOM) Associations with SOM • Physicochemical stabilisation Potential benefits to farmers

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

Very large variation in benefits by soil-climate- crop factors Biochar application rate vs plant productivity

-40 -17 0 7 30 50 80 100 % change in productivity Biomass vs grain

-5 0 2 10 17 25 % change in productivity Grouped by pH change

-60 -42 -23 -5 0 13 32 50 % change in productivity Grouped by soil type

-20 -8 0 5 17 30 42 55 % change in productivity Biochar environmental risk to soil

• Pyrolysis can generate PAHs and PCDD/Fs (dioxins and furans) – The amount depends both on pyrolysis conditions (e.g. T) and feedstock composition (e.g. Chlorine Æ dioxins) – Both are potentially highly dangerous Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) listed in EU Regulation 850/2004 – No evidence of dioxins and furans – Evidence of PAHs (350-600°C) Æbut less than burned pine [PAH] (3-16 vs 28 µg g-1) – PAHs very strongly adsorbed to biochar (planar; C=C) • Heavy metals (biosolid, sewage & tannery sludges • Antibiotics & their secondary metabolites (e.g. in manure or chicken beds) • Nanoparticles Research Priorities

• Historical sites – “A wide variety of ‘field experiments’ is already there, waiting to be sampled and analysed” (Pulleman et al., 2000) • Experiments – Integrated lab and field experiments for a range of representative soils, crops and source materials – Biochar properties ƒ Range of pyrolysis conditions ƒ Range of biomass types and conditions (moisture content) – Biochar application rates ƒ Yearly, cyclical, one-off – Biochar contaminants ƒ PAHs, dioxins, heavy metals, nanoparticles

– Binding NO3 Interactions with soil biota – Agronomic benefits Summary

• Concept of char as a soil conditioner is sound – Extensive in Terra Preta – Possibly also historically in Europe – Mechanisms still poorly understood – Risks to soil are identified, but not quantified • Biochar is VERY heterogeneous – Pyrolysis duration – Pyrolysis temperature (rate of increase) – Steam – Feedstock • Biochar can be applied in combination – Inorganic NPK fertiliser – Compost • Benefits • To farming are likely to be VERY heterogeneous (soils, climate, crops and at small scale) • To the environment are partly identified but wholly un-quantified • Application to soils would need to be specific (policy) – Different types of biochar for different soil-climate-crop conditions (tillage?) – Different application rates – Mixed with different amounts of fertiliser/compost • Many policy options require more research • Alternative option is to char and dump Acknowledgements

Thank you for your attention Questions/discussion?

The JRC Biochar ‘Working Group’

Frank Verheijen Simon Jeffery Iason Diafas Marijn van der Velde

Luca Montanarella (Soil Action leader) References

Alvarez-Puebla, R. A., Goulet, P. J. G., and Garrido, J. J. (2005). Characterization of the porous structure of different humic fractions. Colloids and Surfaces a-Physicochemical and Engineering Aspects 256, 129-135 Blume H.P. and Leinweber, P. (2004). Plaggen SoilsL landscape history, properties, and classification. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil Science 167, 319-327. Christopher, T. B. S. (1996). Aggregate stability: its relation to organic matter constituents and other soil properties Edwards, J. (2009). Massey University: http://energy.massey.ac.nz/Documents/conference/2008/Conference%20Presentations/John%20Edwardsl.ppt. Giani, L., Chertov, O., Gebhardt, C., Kalinina, O., Nadporozhhskaya, M. and Tolkdorf-Lienemann, E. (2004). Plagganthrepts in northwest Russia? Genesis, propoerties and classification. Geoderma 121, 113-122. Kononova, M. M. (1958). "Die Humusstoffe des Bodens, Ergebnisse und Probleme der Humusforschung," Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin MacCarthy, P. (2001). The principles of humic substances: an introduction to the first principle. In "Humic Sunstances: Structures, Models and Functions" (A. a. D. Ghabbour, G., ed.), pp. 19-30 Nelson, P., 2007. Trace metal emissions in fine particles from coal combustion. Energy and Fuels 21, 477-484 Nisho, M. and Okano, S. (1991) Stimulation of the growth of alfalfa and infection of mycorrhizal fungi by the application of charcol. Bulletin of the National Grassland Research Institute, 45, 61-71 Ogawa M. (1994) Symbiosis of people and nature in the tropics. Farming Japan, 28, 10-34 Painter T.J. (2001) Carbohydrate polymers in food preservation: An integrated view of the Maillard reaction with special reference to the discoveries of preserved foods in Sphagnum dominated peat bogs. Carbohydrate Polymers, 36, 335- 347 Parton, W. J. (1996). The CENTURY model. NATO ASI Series 138, 283-291 Poland, G.A., Duffin, R., Kinloch, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W.A.H., Seaton, A., Stone, V., Brown, S., MacNee, W. & Donaldson, K., 2008. Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study. Nature Nanotechnology, Published online: 20 May 2008, doi:10.1038/nnano.2008.111 Pears, B. (2009). http://www.sbes.stir.ac.uk/people/postgrads/pears.html Pulleman, M. M., Bouma, J., van Essen, E. A., and Meijles, E. W. (2000). Soil organic matter content as a function of different land use history. Soil Science Society of America Journal 64, 689-693 Rondon M., Lehmann, J., Ramirez, J. and Hurtado, M. (2007) Biological nitrogen fixation by common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) increases with bio-char additions. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 43, 699-708 Steiner C., Rodrigues de Arruda, M., Teixeira, W. G. and Zech, W. (2008) Soil respiration curves as soil fertility indicators in perennial central Amazonian plantations treated with charcoal, and mineral or organic fertilisers. Tropical Science, Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ts.216 Accessed 16/4/2009 Tóth, G., Montanarella, L., Stolbovoy, V., Máté, F., Bódis, K., Jones, A. and Panagos, P. (2008). Soil of the European Union. ISBN 978-92-79-09530-6, Luxembourg: Office for the Official Publications of the European Communities, pp 100. Warnock D.D., Lehmann, J., Kuyper, T. W. and Rillig, M. C. (2007) Mycorrhizal responses to biochar in soils - concepts and mechanisms. Plant and Soil, 300, 9-20 Zackrisson O., Nilsson, M. C. and Wardle, D. A. (1996) Key ecological function of charcoal from wildfires in the Boreal forest. Oikos, 77, 10-19