The sorption capacity and affinity of biochar for metals are both important attributes that determine biochar’s suitability as a soil amendment for contaminant mitigation, yet few analyses have considered both characteristics simultaneously. We present a systematic review of literature published between 2010 and 2018 to test the hypothesis that sorption capacity and affinity are affected by biochar properties, attributes of the metal contaminant, and experimental conditions, in that order. We used random forest (RF) and multi-objective optimization to analyze data of 559 individual Langmuir adsorption isotherms extracted from 133 studies covering the sorption capacity (Cmax) and affinity (KL) of biochar for 17 different metals, elaborated from six different feedstock classes, three different types of feedstock pretreatment, and five types of post-pyrolysis treatment. Highest sorption values were obtained for Pb(II), Cr(IV), and Cd(II). The feedstock used was the key determinant influencing biochar’s capacity and affinity to sorb metal contaminants (first and fourth most important variable in RF models for Cmax and KL, respectively) with best results obtained for biochar elaborated from nutrient-dense feedstocks (animal biowaste, sludge, and manure). Biochars that had both high sorption capacity and affinity were the result of a longer duration of pyrolysis; they had lower C and higher N and O content, as well as lower C/N and higher O/C and H/C ratios, higher pore volumes and higher pH. Applying some form of pretreatment was better than none, whereas chemical modification was the best of the post-treatment methods analyzed. This review demonstrates clearly that multiple parameters during the preparation process influence the effectiveness of biochar to immobilize metal contaminants. Future research that focuses on mechanisms and the underlying factors for the correlations observed should allow the development of biochar formulations that are even more effective at immobilizing metal contaminants in soils and sediments.
Sorption properties of biochar for heavy metals was assessed through a literature review using random forest and multi-objective optimization analyses
Feedstock was the most important variable determining sorption capacity and affinity, with best results obtained for nutrient-dense feedstocks (animal biowaste, sludge, and manure)
The best performing biochar had lower C and higher N and O content, as well as lower C/N and higher O/C and H/C ratios, higher pore volumes, and higher pH.
Post-pyrolysis chemical treatment of biochar increased sorption properties more effectively than washing and magnetization.
The contamination of soils with metals and other inorganic contaminants is a global concern (FAO and ITPS 2015; Friberg and Vahter 1983; Selin et al. 2018), resulting in crop contamination and posing serious threats to human health and our ability to reach sustainable development goals (Montanarella et al. 2016). In addition to reducing sources of new environmental contamination, it is also important to develop and improve strategies for the remediation of already contaminated soils. While soil remediation practices have traditionally relied on the use of organic matter (Alloway 2013; Bradl 2004; Wuana and Okieimen 2014), biochar, produced by burning biomass via pyrolysis, has been gaining interest due to its potentially superior ability to sorb metals (Ahmad et al. 2013; Borchard et al. 2012; Joseph et al. 2010).
Four main mechanisms for biochar’s ability to sorb metals have been proposed: (1) electrostatic interactions between metallic ions and the charged biochar surface, (2) complexation or ionic exchange between ionizable protons on the surface of biochar and metallic ions, (3) sorptive interactions involving the delocalized π-electrons of biochar, and (4) the porous nature of biochar which may favor sorption of metals (Borchard et al. 2012; Dong et al. 2014; Vithanage et al. 2017). Regardless of the mechanisms involved, the ultimate suitability of biochar as a means to remediate metal-contaminated soils will depend on both the biochar’s affinity (ability to attract) and its capacity to absorb metals. These attributes are described by the Langmuir adsorption constant (KL) and maximum adsorption capacity (Cmax), respectively (Volesky and Holan 1995).
The sorption capacity (Cmax) and affinity (KL) for metals may be influenced by multiple factors such as the range of feedstocks and the technologies used to manufacture biochar. Pre- and post-pyrolysis modifications of biochar may also enhance sorption properties. It is thought that such modifications may positively affect surface area, surface charge, functional groups on biochar surfaces, and pore volume, and/or improve pore size distribution in biochar (Rajapaksha et al. 2016; Sizmur et al. 2017). Approaches used so far to modify biochar surfaces include: (1) washing with water (Inyang et al. 2011) or acids (Park et al. 2013; Xu et al. 2014), (2) chemical and physical activation (Angin et al. 2013; Ippolito et al. 2012; Park et al. 2003), (3) chemical modification (Betts et al. 2013; Qian et al. 2013), and (4) magnetic polarization (Zhang et al. 2013a, b). However, despite the growing interest and understanding of the underlying mechanisms, available knowledge to predict and influence biochar’s potential for metal immobilization is still very limited.
Drawing on experimental data extracted from 133 peer-reviewed publications, we carried out an analysis to unravel how the affinity and capacity of biochar to sorb metals is influenced by (1) the processes used to prepare and modify the biochar (e.g., pyrolysis duration and maximum temperature, and pre- and post-treatment), (2) the characteristics of the biochar (e.g., feedstock type, elemental ratio, pH, and pore characteristics), (3) the characteristics of the metal contaminant (e.g., availability and ionic charge), and (4) the experimental conditions (e.g., pH, contact time, and buffer solution).
2 Material and methods
An exhaustive literature search was conducted focussing on peer-reviewed articles published between January 1st in 2010 and December 31st in 2018 using the Web of Science database (Thomson Reuters) using the term “biochar” in the “topic’ field. Of the articles retained, only those that presented the results from batch experiments conducted to assess adsorption capacity and affinity of metals on biochar were selected (n = 133). These articles reported on a total of 559 individual Langmuir adsorption isotherms which is the commonly chosen model used to study biochar sorption of metals (see Appendix 1). The biochars were categorized into one of six types based on the feedstock used (see Table 1), and studies were grouped by metal contaminant (n = 17). We used the Langmuir equation parameters KL and Cmax as dependent variables in our analysis, because the equation has proven useful for describing natural systems where rates are low (e.g., limited sorption capacity) as is assumed for tested biochar-soil solution systems (Limousin et al. 2007; Vandenbruwane et al. 2007). KL is a measure of affinity or how strongly the biochar attracts metals (L g−1) and Cmax is the maximum adsorption capacity of the biochar for the metals (g kg−1). Cmax and KL were logarithmically transformed prior to analysis to reduce the influence of outliers (Reid 2003). Because our objective was to predict adsorption of metals on biochar, we collated the information shown in Table 1 from the source articles for use as independent variables.
Meta analytical statistical approaches have dominated attempts to quantitatively synthesize data. These statistics use mean values and error measurements to obtain robust measurements of effect size, but provide little information on the interaction of the independent variables being studied (Jeffery et al. 2011). In addition, for meta-analytical statistics, there are no clear protocols for combining more than one dependent variable. In this synthesis, we have, therefore, endeavored to overcome these limitations using random forest analysis together with multi-objective optimization analysis, following the precedent set by Crane-Droesch et al. (2013) who synthesized biochar results via regression.
We developed random forest (RF) models using the cforest function in the party package for R (Strobl et al. 2007) to assess relationships between Cmax and KL as response variables and the explanatory variables shown in Table 1. Variable importance values were calculated with the varimp function and their variability was quantified by developing 20 RF models based on random selections of 80% of cases. Importance values were based on the mean decrease in model accuracy and were standardized across runs by dividing by the value of the most important variable. As a final step, the RF models were used to generate predicted values of both Cmax and KL values which were then plotted against the measured values reported in the source publications to give an indication of the accuracy (R2) of the RF predictions. RF models were run for all metals combined and for specific metals when sufficient measurements (sample size) where obtainable from the literature for meaningful statistical analyses (i.e., for Cd, Pb, and Cu).
Given that both high affinity and capacity are important qualifiers of biochar sorption ability, we additionally carried out straightforward multi-objective optimization analyses by comparing attributes of biochar preparation properties between (1) study cases whose Cmax and KL scores were both above the respective median values (target group) and (2) all other cases (other group). Given that studies did not consistently report on the same biochar preparation properties, it was not possible to perform a multi-objective multivariate modeling exercise. Comparisons were, therefore, largely based on the use of t tests.
The RF model for Cmax produced an R2 = 0.63 (Fig. 1a) and the most important predictor variables were: (1) the feedstock used to make the biochar, (2) the metal contaminant under investigation, (3) the hydrogen-to-carbon atom mass ratio of biochar, and (4) the nitrogen content of the biochar (Fig. 1b). The RF model for KL produced an R2 of 0.67 (Fig. 1c), the most important predictor variables being: (1) the hydrogen-to-carbon ratio of the biochar, (2) the background solution used in the sorption experiment, (3) post-treatment of the biochar, and (4) feedstock (Fig. 1d). The RF analyses done for individual metal contaminants (Cu, Pb, and Cd) produced results very similar to those obtained when all metal contaminants were analyzed simultaneously (see Appendix S2).
One of the striking aspects of the data is the high variability reported by different studies (Figs. 2, 3). Nevertheless, it was possible to unveil some general trends: (1) biochar made from animal biowaste and manure seems to sequester metals more effectively than biochar made from woody plant residues, (2) biochar showed a better adsorption capacity for Pb(II) and Cd(II) than for As(V) and Zn(II), (3) Cmax values decrease and KL values increase as the hydrogen/carbon ratio of the biochar increases, (4) Cmax values increase as the nitrogen content of biochar increases, (5) Cmax and KL values decrease as the carbon content of the biochar increases, (6) KL values were higher in experiments that used a di-valent background solution than in experiments that use a mono-valent background solution or deionized water, (7) KL values are higher for biochars that were chemically modified, washed, or magnetized following pyrolysis, and (8) the duration of the pyrolysis process positively correlates with the sorption ability of biochar.
Results of comparisons of biochar preparation properties between study cases with KL and Cmax values above (target group) and below (other group) the medians aligned very closely with the results obtained from the RF analyses (Fig. 4). The biochars that simultaneously maximized both Cmax and KL were generally made at lower maximum temperatures and longer duration of pyrolysis and from nutrient-dense feedstocks such as animal biowaste. They tended to have low C, and high N content, as well as a low C/N and a high O/C ratio. The effectiveness of post-pyrolysis chemical treatment of biochar for metal sequestration was likewise borne out, with more than 60% of the biochars that received post-pyrolysis chemical treatment falling in the upper 50% quantiles area. Finally, analysis also suggests that alkaline biochars are best for simultaneously maximizing Cmax and KL (Fig. 4). Similar trends were found for individual metal contaminants (Cu, Pb, and Cd) (Table 2, appendix S2), although not all comparisons were statistically significant at P= 0.05 partly due to small-sample sizes.
Our results demonstrate that the sorption capacity of biochar for metals is in the range of other commonly used soil amendments that are usually more expensive than biochar (e.g., activated carbon; Table 3) (Ng et al. 2003). The best performing biochars were made from feedstocks with high nutrient levels (e.g., animal biowaste or manure) and had high aromaticity (i.e., high oxygen-to-carbon ratio) favoring electrostatic sorption of metals (Ahmad et al. 2014, 2018; Harvey et al. 2012). However, due to the number of studies that were used, for example, animal biowaste was limited (n = 23), this result needs to be interpreted with caution. On the other hand, we also found a positive relationship between biochar sorption capacity and nitrogen content which also hints at the fact that biochars made from animal-based biomasses with high nutrient content (e.g., potassium and nitrogen) may sorb metals most effectively. The biochars with the lowest capacity to sorb metals were made from wood and these had a lower Cmax than compost, which may be related to the fact that they had a higher C content, which was inversely correlated with biochar sorption ability. This adds further support to the idea that stoichiometric nutrient composition (e.g., N:K) and nutrient density of feedstock used to produce biochar is critical to the ability to sequester metals.
Several authors have suggested the modification or be-spoking of biochar to enhance their sorption capacity and affinity (Huang 2019; Wang and Liu 2018). The results obtained here strongly support this growing consensus. Post-pyrolysis chemical modifications of biochar such as washing and magnetization increased the probability that a biochar will possess high values of both Cmax and KL. Washing biochar with water or acids post-pyrolysis is often done to neutralize pH and remove alkaline elements such as ash and soluble salts (Uchimiya et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2013a, b). Our results indicate that the effectiveness of such washing is unlikely to be a pH effect, since alkaline biochars were more likely to be in the upper 50% quantile for simultaneous maximization of both Cmax and KL. More plausible explanations could be that post-pyrolysis chemical treatment may augment the effective surface area, or because of chemical reactions that induce the formation of oxygen-containing functional groups on biochar surfaces, but further study is needed to unravel the mechanistic basis of these correlations.
Even when we consider biochar manufactured from a single feedstock, the variance in the ability to sequester metals is significant, i.e., Cmax values ranged from 0.01 to 980.39 mg g−1 for biochars made from non-wood plant residues. This demonstrates that we still need additional studies to be able to make clear recommendations about biochar manufacture for specific purposes. Variables such as cation-exchange capacity are rarely reported and probably should be included more frequently in metal adsorption studies (Shackley and Sohi 2010; Shen et al. 2017). Finally, the results analyzed here from lab studies, together with theoretical studies, are providing important clues as to how we can best optimize biochar, so that it is fit for purpose, in this specific case, for the immobilization of metals (Dieguez-Alonso et al. 2019; Hagemann et al. 2017; Joseph et al. 2018). However, these conclusions need to be tested in the field where variations in water availability, temperatures, soil mineralogy, etc. may influence the effectiveness of biochar in addressing different challenges (Table 3).
The rapid growth in biochar research and funding witnessed over the last decade is a clear indication that both scientists and natural resource managers see potential in biochar for addressing environmental challenges. An especially attractive aspect of biochar is its potential to offset significant amounts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emission (Werner et al. 2018; Woolf et al. 2010), and to facilitate efforts to achieve a more circular economy, in which waste streams are reutilized to support production (Carus and Dammer 2018). However, for biochar to help in climate mitigation and contribute to the resolution of environmental problems more generally, biochar needs to be used at scale. To date, the economic value proposition of biochar has not been clear (Bach et al. 2017). While our results clearly demonstrate the need for future biochar research to address chemo-technical engineering challenges, demonstrating that biochar can immobilize metals, it is an important step forward in providing the motivation needed to fast forward research that would allow for scaling up. To conclude, the collective progress inherent in the data compiled here demonstrates that biochar has the potential to play an important role in remediation of contaminated soils and to help with the move towards a more circular economy.
Ahmad M, Lee SS, Rajapaksha AU, Vithanage M, Zhang M, Cho JS, Lee S-E, Ok YS (2013) Trichloroethylene adsorption by pine needle biochars produced at various pyrolysis temperatures. Biores Technol 143:615–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.06.033
Ahmad M, Rajapaksha AU, Lim JE, Zhang M, Bolan N, Mohan D, Vithanage M, Lee SS, Ok YS (2014) Biochar as a sorbent for contaminant management in soil and water: a review. Chemosphere 99:19–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.071
Ahmad Z, Gao B, Mosa A, Yu H, Yin X, Bashir A, Ghoveisi H, Wang S (2018) Removal of Cu(II), Cd(II) and Pb(II) ions from aqueous solutions by biochars derived from potassium-rich biomass. J Clean Prod 180:437–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.133
Alloway BJ (2013) Heavy metals in soils: trace metals and metalloids in soils and their bioavailability. Choice Rev Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.50-3862
Álvarez-Merino MA, López-Ramón V, Moreno-Castilla C (2005) A study of the static and dynamic adsorption of Zn (II) ions on carbon materials from aqueous solutions. J colloid Interface Sci 288(2):335–341
Anastopoulos I, Kyzas GZ (2015) Composts as biosorbents for decontamination of various pollutants: a review. Water Air Soil Pollut 226(3):61
Angin D, Altintig E, Köse TE (2013) Influence of process parameters on the surface and chemical properties of activated carbon obtained from biochar by chemical activation. Biores Technol 148:542–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2013.08.164
Bach M, Wilske B, Breuer L (2017) Response to commentary on “Current economic obstacles to biochar use in agriculture and climate change mitigation”. Carbon Manag 8:219–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/17583004.2017.1328253
Betts AR, Chen N, Hamilton JG, Peak D (2013) Rates and mechanisms of Zn2+ adsorption on a meat and bonemeal biochar. Environ Sci Technol 47:14350–14357. https://doi.org/10.1021/es4032198
Borchard N, Prost K, Kautz T, Moeller A, Siemens J (2012) Sorption of copper (II) and sulphate to different biochars before and after composting with farmyard manure. Eur J Soil Sci 63:399–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2389.2012.01446.x
Bradl HB (2004) Adsorption of heavy metal ions on soils and soils constituents. J Colloid Interface Sci 277:1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcis.2004.04.005
Brunauer S, Emmett PH, Teller E (1938) Adsorption of gases in multimolecular layers. J Am Chem Soc 60:309–319. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja01269a023
Carus M, Dammer L (2018) The circular bioeconomy—concepts, opportunities, and limitations. Ind Biotechnol 14:83–91. https://doi.org/10.1089/ind.2018.29121.mca
Crane-Droesch A, Abiven S, Jeffery S, Torn MS (2013) Heterogeneous global crop yield response to biochar: a meta-regression analysis. Environ Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/4/044049
Dieguez-Alonso A, Anca-Couce A, Frišták V, Moreno-Jiménez E, Bacher M, Bucheli TD, Cimò G, Conte P, Hagemann N, Haller A, Hilber I, Husson O, Kammann CI, Kienzl N, Leifeld J, Rosenau T, Soja G, Schmidt H-PP (2019) Designing biochar properties through the blending of biomass feedstock with metals: Impact on oxyanions adsorption behavior. Chemosphere 214:743–753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.09.091
Dong X, Ma LQ, Gress J, Harris W, Li Y (2014) Enhanced Cr(VI) reduction and As(III) oxidation in ice phase: important role of dissolved organic matter from biochar. J Hazard Mater 267:62–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.12.027
FAO, ITPS (2015) Status of the world’s soil resources (SWSR)—main report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils, Rome
Friberg L, Vahter M (1983) Assessment of exposure to lead and cadmium through biological monitoring: results of a UNEP/WHO global study. Environ Res 30:95–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-9351(83)90171-8
Goldschmidt V (1954) Geochemistry. LWW 78(2):156
Gomez-Serrano V, Macias-Garcia A, Espinosa-Mansilla A, Valenzuela-Calahorro C (1998) Adsorption of mercury, cadmium and lead from aqueous solution on heat-treated and sulphurized activated carbon. Water Res 32(1):1–4
Hagemann N, Joseph S, Schmidt H-PP, Kammann CI, Harter J, Borch T, Young RB, Varga K, Taherymoosavi S, Elliott KW, McKenna A, Albu M, Mayrhofer C, Obst M, Conte P, Dieguez-Alonso A, Orsetti S, Subdiaga E, Behrens S, Kappler A (2017) Organic coating on biochar explains its nutrient retention and stimulation of soil fertility. Nat Commun 8:1089. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-017-01123-0
Harvey OR, Kuo L-JJ, 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 46:1415–1421. https://doi.org/10.1021/es2040398
Huang YD (2019) Comments on “Enhanced removal of Cr(VӀ) from aqueous solution by supported ZnO nanoparticles on biochar derived from waste water hyacinth”. Chemosphere 233:993–994. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.11.062
Inyang M, Gao B, Ding W, Pullammanappallil P, Zimmerman AR, Cao X (2011) Enhanced lead sorption by biochar derived from anaerobically digested sugarcane bagasse. Sep Sci Technol 46:1950–1956. https://doi.org/10.1080/01496395.2011.584604
Ippolito JA, Strawn DG, Scheckel KG, Novak JM, Ahmedna M, Niandou MAS (2012) Macroscopic and molecular investigations of copper sorption by a steam-activated biochar. J Environ Qual 41:1150. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2011.0113
Jeffery S, Verheijen FGAA, van der Velde M, Bastos AC (2011) A quantitative review of the effects of biochar application to soils on crop productivity using meta-analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 144:175–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.08.015
Joseph SD, Camps-Arbestain M, Lin Y, Munroe P, Chia CH, Hook J, van Zwieten L, Kimber S, Cowie A, Singh BP, Lehmann J, Foidl N, Smernik RJ, Amonette JE (2010) An investigation into the reactions of biochar in soil. Aust J Soil Res 48:501–515. https://doi.org/10.1071/SR10009
Joseph S, Kammann CI, Shepherd JG, Conte P, Schmidt HP, Hagemann N, Rich AM, Marjo CE, Allen J, Munroe P, Mitchell DRG, Donne S, Spokas K, Graber ER (2018) Microstructural and associated chemical changes during the composting of a high temperature biochar: mechanisms for nitrate, phosphate and other nutrient retention and release. Sci Total Environ 618:1210–1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.09.200
Limousin G, Gaudet JP, Charlet L, Szenknect S, Barthès V, Krimissa M (2007) Sorption isotherms: a review on physical bases, modeling and measurement. Appl Geochem 22:249–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2006.09.010
Mckay G, Blair HS (1989) Equilibrium studies for the sorption of metal ions onto chitosan. Ind J Chem. 28A:356–360
Monser L, Adhoum N (2002) Modified activated carbon for the removal of copper, zinc, chromium and cyanide from wastewater. Sep Purif Tech 26(2–3):137–146
Montanarella L, Jon Pennock D, McKenzie N, Badraoui M, Chude V, Baptista I, Mamo T, Yemefack M, Singh Aulakh M, Yagi K, Young Hong S, Vijarnsorn P, Zhang G-L, Arrouays D, Black H, Krasilnikov P, Sobocká J, Alegre J, Roberto Henriquez C, de Lourdes Mendonça-Santos M, Taboada M, Espinosa-Victoria D, Al Shankiti A, Kazem Alavi Panah S, Ahmed El Mustafa Elsheikh E, Hempel J, Camps Arbestain M, Nachtergaele F, Vargas R (2016) World’s soils are under threat. Soil 2:79–82. https://doi.org/10.5194/soil-2-79-2016
Ng C, Marshall WE, Rao RM, Bansode RR, Losso JN (2003) Activated carbon from pecan shell: process description and economic analysis. Ind Crops Prod 17:209–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0926-6690(03)00002-5
Park SJ, Jang YS, Shim JW, Ryu SK (2003) Studies on pore structures and surface functional groups of pitch-based activated carbon fibers. J Colloid Interface Sci 260:259–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9797(02)00081-4
Park JH, Choppala G, Lee SJ, Bolan N, Chung JW, Edraki M (2013) Comparative sorption of Pb and Cd by biochars and its implication for metal immobilization in soils. Water Air Soil Pollut. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-013-1711-1
Qian W, Zhao A, Xu R (2013) Sorption of As(V) by aluminum-modified crop straw-derived biochars. Water Air Soil Pollut 224:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-013-1610-5
Railsback LB (2015) Some fundamentals of mineralogy and geochemistry basics of geochemistry abundance and speciation of the University of Georgia, Athens
Rajapaksha AU, Chen SS, Tsang DCW, Zhang M, Vithanage M, Mandal S, Gao B, Bolan NS, Ok YS (2016) Engineered/designer biochar for contaminant removal/immobilization from soil and water: potential and implication of biochar modification. Chemosphere 148:276–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.01.043
Reid JRW (2003) Experimental design and data analysis for biologists, Austral Ecology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-9993.2003.01318.x
Sarkar B, Taylor D (2010) Radionuclides in the environment, heavy metals in the environment. Springer International Publishing, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203909300.ch4
Scott KM, Pain CF (2019) Regolith Science. CSIRO Publishing, Clayton. https://doi.org/10.1071/9780643098268
Selin H, Keane SE, Wang S, Selin NE, Davis K, Bally D (2018) Linking science and policy to support the implementation of the Minamata Convention on Mercury. Ambio 47:198–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-017-1003-x
Shackley S, Sohi S (2010) An assessment of the benfits and issues associated with the application of biochar to soil: a report commissioned by the United Kingdom Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and Department of Energy and Climate Change, Assessment, Edinburgh
Shen Z, Zhang Y, McMillan O, Jin F, Al-Tabbaa A (2017) Characteristics and mechanisms of nickel adsorption on biochars produced from wheat straw pellets and rice husk. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:12809–12819. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-8847-2
Sizmur T, Fresno T, Akgül G, Frost H, Moreno-Jiménez E (2017) Biochar modification to enhance sorption of inorganics from water. Biores Technol 246:34–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2017.07.082
Srivastava SK, Tyagi R, Pant N (1989) Adsorption of heavy metal ions on carbonaceous material developed from the waste slurry generated in local fertilizer plants. Water Res 23(9):1161–1165
Srivastava SK, Singh AK, Sharma A (1994) Studies on the uptake of lead and zinc by lignin obtained from black liquor–a paper industry waste material. Environ Tech 15(4):353–361
Strobl C, Boulesteix A-L, Zeileis A, Hothorn T (2007) Bias in random forest variable importance measures: illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinform 8:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-25
Uchimiya M, Wartelle LH, Lima IM, Klasson KT (2010) Sorption of deisopropylatrazine on broiler litter biochars. J Agric Food Chem 58:12350–12356. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf102152q
Udaybhaskar P, Iyengar L, Rao AP (1990) Hexavalent chromium interaction with chitosan. J Appl Polym Sci 39(3):739–747
Vandenbruwane J, De Neve S, Qualls RG, Sleutel S, Hofman G (2007) Comparison of different isotherm models for dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and nitrogen (DON) sorption to mineral soil. Geoderma 139:144–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoderma.2007.01.012
Vithanage M, Herath I, Joseph S, Bundschuh J, Bolan N, Ok YS, Kirkham MB, Rinklebe J (2017) Interaction of arsenic with biochar in soil and water: a critical review. Carbon 113:219–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2016.11.032
Volesky B, Holan ZR (1995) Biosorption of heavy metals. Biotechnol Prog 11:235–250. https://doi.org/10.1021/bp00033a001
Wang Y, Liu R (2018) H2O2 treatment enhanced the heavy metals removal by manure biochar in aqueous solutions. Sci Total Environ 628–629:1139–1148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.137
Werner C, Schmidt HP, Gerten D, Lucht W, Kammann C (2018) Biogeochemical potential of biomass pyrolysis systems for limiting global warming to 1.5 °C. Environ Res Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aabb0e
Woolf D, Amonette JE, Street-Perrott FA, Lehmann J, Joseph S (2010) Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change: supplementary information. Nat Commun 1:56. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms1053
Wuana RA, Okieimen FE (2014) Heavy metals in contaminated soils: a review of sources, chemistry, risks, and best available strategies for remediation. Heavy Metal Contam Water Soil Anal Assess Remediat Strateg 2011:1–50. https://doi.org/10.1201/b16566
Xu D, Zhao Y, Sun K, Gao B, Wang Z, Jin J, Zhang Z, Wang S, Yan Y, Liu X, Wu F (2014) Cadmium adsorption on plant- and manure-derived biochar and biochar-amended sandy soils: impact of bulk and surface properties. Chemosphere 111:320–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2014.04.043
Yang Y, Chun Y, Shang G, Huang M (2004) pH-dependence of pesticide adsorption by wheat-residue-derived black carbon. Langmuir 20:6736–6741. https://doi.org/10.1021/la049363t
Zhang M, Gao B, Varnoosfaderani S, Hebard A, Yao Y, Inyang M (2013a) Preparation and characterization of a novel magnetic biochar for arsenic removal. Biores Technol 130:457–462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2012.11.132
Zhang P, Sun H, Yu L, Sun T (2013b) Adsorption and catalytic hydrolysis of carbaryl and atrazine on pig manure-derived biochars: impact of structural properties of biochars. J Hazard Mater 244–245:217–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2012.11.046
Open access funding provided by Natural Resources Institute Finland (LUKE). Evert Thomas and Rachel Atkinson are supported by the CGIAR Fund donors.
About this article
Cite this article
Thomas, E., Borchard, N., Sarmiento, C. et al. Key factors determining biochar sorption capacity for metal contaminants: a literature synthesis. Biochar 2, 151–163 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42773-020-00053-3