pp 1–19 | Cite as

Physico-hydraulic properties of sugarcane bagasse-derived biochar: the role of pyrolysis temperature

  • Farzad Moradi-Choghamarani
  • Ali Akbar MoosaviEmail author
  • Ali Reza Sepaskhah
  • Majid Baghernejad
Original Research


The study of biochar properties has received increasing attention by the scientific community in recent years. This study aimed to identify the most environmentally-relevant physico-hydraulic characteristics of slow-pyrolysis sugarcane bagasse-derived biochar prepared at temperatures of 300 (BC300), 400 (BC400), 500 (BC500), and 600 °C (BC600) and comparing the properties to those of the sugarcane bagasse (BG). The real density (RD) of biochar samples significantly increased from 1.42 to 1.64 g cm−3 as pyrolysis temperature increased from 300 to 600 °C. BG and BC600 showed the lowest and the highest N2 adsorption, specific surface area, total pore volume, microporosity, and adsorption energy, respectively. The average pore diameter of resultant biochars decreased with increasing pyrolysis temperature. The adsorption behavior of biochars was more like mesoporous materials, and the hysteresis effect increased with raising the pyrolysis temperature. Biochars were hydrophilic and were able to immediately absorb water, while BG showed hydrophobic properties with contact-angle (θ) of 107.6°, ninety-degree surface tension (γ90°) of 35.0 mN m−1 and solid–air surface tension (γs) of 8.7 mN m−1. The pore-size-distribution (PSD) curve based on water adsorption data gives clearly better results about large PSD responsible for water and solute transport than N2 adsorption. Thereby, it seems that high RD biochars may have high residency time and be more suitable for carbon-sequestration purposes. Biochar produced at low temperature (BC300) may improve nutrient-availability and crop productivity in acidic/alkaline soils, whereas high-temperature (BC600) may enhance long-term soil carbon-sequestration. Biochars produced at intermediate temperature (BC400 and MC500) seems be better in improvement of soil hydraulic properties associated with plant growth.

Graphic abstract


Biochar Hydrophobicity Methylene blue adsorption Pore size distribution Wettability 



The authors acknowledge financial support from Shiraz University. The authors also would like to thank Editor in Chief Prof. Alfred D. French and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments.


  1. Ahiduzzaman MD, Islam AKMS (2016) Preparation of porous bio-char and activated carbon from rice husk by leaching ash and chemical activation. SpringerPlus 5:12–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmad M, Rajapaksha AU, Lim JF, 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. Chemos 99:19–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ajayi AE, Holthusen D, Horn R (2016) Changes in microstructural behavior and hydraulic functions of biochar amended soils. Soil Tillage Res 155:166–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alaoui A, Lipiec J, Gerke HH (2011) A review of the changes in the soil pore system due to soil deformation: a hydrodynamic perspective. Soil Tillage Res 115:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ardizzone S, Gabrielli G, Lazzari P (1993) Adsorption of methylene blue at solid/liquid and water/air interfaces. Colloids Surf A Physicochem Eng Asp 16:149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ASTM D422-63 (2002) Standard test method for particle–size analysis of soilsGoogle Scholar
  7. ASTM D6838-02 (2008) Standard test methods for the soil-water characteristic curve for desorption using hanging column, pressure extractor, chilled mirror hygrometer, or centrifugeGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrett EP, Joyner LG, Halenda PP (1951) The determination of pore volume and area distributions in porous substances. I. Computations from nitrogen isotherms. J Am Chem Soc 73:373–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bernardino CAR, Mahler CF, Veloso MCC, Omeiro GA (2016) Preparation of biochar from sugarcane by-product filter mud by slow pyrolysis and its use like adsorbent. Waste Biomass Valoriz 8:2511–2521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cassaro FAM, Borkowski AK, Pires LF, Rosa JA, Saab SDC (2011) Characterization of a Brazilian clayey soil submitted to conventional and no-tillage management practices using pore size distribution analysis. Soil Tillage Res 111:175–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cassie ABD, Baxter S (1944) Wettability of porous surfaces. Trans Faraday Soc 40:546–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chagovets VV, Kosevich MV, Stepanian SG, Boryak OA, Shelkovsky VS, Orlov VV, Leontiev VS, Pokrovskiy VA et al (2012) Noncovalent interaction of methylene blue with carbon nanotubes: theoretical and mass spectrometry characterization. J Phys Chem C 116:20579–20590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chakraborty P, Show S, Banerjee S, Halder G (2018) Mechanistic insight into sorptive elimination of ibuprofen employing bidirectional activated biochar from sugarcane bagasse: performance evaluation and cost estimation. J Environ Chem Eng 6:5287–5300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen X, Chen G, Chen L, Chen Y, Lehmann J, McBride MB, Hay AG (2011) Adsorption of copper and zinc by biochars produced from pyrolysis of hardwood and corn straw in aqueous solution. Bioresour Technol 102:8877–8884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen Z, Chen B, Chiou CT (2012) Fast and slow rates of naphthalene sorption to biochars produced at different temperatures. Environ Sci Technol 46:11104–11111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Das O, Sarmah AK (2015) The love-hate relationship of pyrolysis biochar and water: a perspective. Sci Total Environ 512:682–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. David GF, Perez VH, Justo OR, Garcia-Perez M (2017) Effect of acid additives on sugarcane bagasse pyrolysis: production of high yields of sugars. Bioresour Technol 223:74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dekker LW, Jungerius PD (1990) Water repellency in the dunes with special reference to the Netherlands. Catena Suppl 18:173–183Google Scholar
  19. Ding W, Dong X, Ime IM, Gao B, Ma LQ (2014) Pyrolytic temperatures impact lead sorption mechanisms by bagasse biochars. Chemosphere 105:68–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Downie A, Crosky A, Munroe P (2009) Physical properties of biochar. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for environmental management science and technology. Earthscans, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. EBC (2015) European biochar certificate: guidelines for a sustainable production of biochar. Arbaz, European Biochar FoundationGoogle Scholar
  22. Gavili E, Moosavi AA, Moradi Choghamarani F (2018) Cattle manure biochar potential for ameliorating soil physical characteristics and spinach response under drought. Arch Agron Soil Sci 64:1714–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gavili E, Moosavi AA, Kamgar Haghighi AA (2019a) Does biochar mitigate the adverse effects of drought on the agronomic traits and yield components of soybean? Ind Crops Prod 128:445–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gavili E, Moosavi AA, Zahedifar M (2019b) Integrated effects of cattle manure-derived biochar and soil moisture conditions on soil chemical characteristics and soybean yield. Arch Agron Soil Sci.  
  25. Giles CH (1983) Adsorption of dyes. In: Parfitt ED, Rochester CH (eds) Adsorption from solution at the solid-liquid interface. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Gray M, Johnson MG, Dragila MI, Kleber M (2014) Water uptake in biochars: the roles of porosity and hydrophobicity. Biomass Bioenergy 61:196–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greathouse JA, Geatches DL, Pike DQ, Greenwell HC, Johnston CT, Wilcox J, Cygan RT (2015) Methylene blue adsorption on the basal surfaces of kaolinite: structure and thermodynamics from quantum and classical molecular simulation. Clays Clay Miner 63:185–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gupta M, Yang J, Roy C (2002) Density of softwood bark and softwood char: procedural calibration and measurement by water soaking and kerosene immersion method. Fuel 81:1379–1384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hafshejani LD, Hooshmand A, Naseri AA, Mohammadi AS, Abbasi F, Bhatnagar A (2016) Removal of nitrate from aqueous solution by modified sugarcane bagasse biochar. Ecol Eng 95:101–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hyvaluoma J, Kulju S, Hannula M, Wikberg H, Kalli A, Rasa K (2018) Quantitative characterization of pore structure of several biochars with 3D imaging. Environ Sci Pollut Res 2018:25648–25658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ibarra J, Munoz E, Moliner R (1996) FTIR study of the evolution of coal structure during the coalification process. Org Geochem 24:725–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. IBI (2015) Standardized product definition and product testing guidelines for biochar that is used in soil. International Biochar Initiative, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  33. Kadioglu Y, Varamaz M (2003) The effect of moisture content and air-drying on spontaneous combustion characteristics of two Turkish lignites. Fuel 82:1685–1693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kar HS, Mundhara GL, Sharma RM, Tiwari JS (1991) Sorption–desorption studies of cationic dyes on silica gel pretreated with alkalis in relation to chromatography. Colloids Surf 55:23–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kercher AK, Nagle DC (2002) Evaluation of carbonized medium-density fiberboard forelectrical applications. Carbon 40:1321–1330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Khanmohammadi Z, Afyuni M, Mosaddeghi MR (2015) Effect of pyrolysis temperature on chemical and physical properties of sewage sludge biochar. Waste Manag Res 33:275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. King PM (1981) Comparison of methods for measuring severity of water repellence of sandy soils and assessment of some factors that affect its measurement. Aust J Soil Res 19:275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kinney TJ, Masiello CA, Dugan B, Hockaday WC, Dean MR, Zygourakis K, Barnes RT (2012) Hydrologic properties of biochars produced at different temperatures. Biomass Bioenergy 41:34–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lang T, Jensen AD, Jensen PA (2005) Retention of organic elements during solid fuel pyrolysis with emphasis on the peculiar behavior of nitrogen. Energy fuel 19(4):1631–1643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Leelamanie DAL, Karube J, Yoshida A (2008) Characterizing water repellency indices: contact angle and water drop penetration time of hydrophobized sand. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 54:179–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lehmann J, Joseph S (2015) Biochar for environmental management: an introduction. In: Lehmann J, Joseph S (eds) Biochar for environmental management science and technology. Earthscans, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. Leng L, Huang H (2018) An overview of the effect of pyrolysis process parameters on biochar stability. Bioresour Technol 270:627–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Leng L, Huang H, Li H, Li J, Zhou W (2019) Biochar stability assessment methods: a review. Sci Total Environ 647:210–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lenton TM, Vaughan NE (2013) Geoengineering responses to climate change. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Letey J, Carrillo MLK, Pang XP (2000) Approaches to characterize the degree of water repellency. J Hydrol 231:61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Li H, Mahyoub SAA, Liao W, Xia S, Zhao H, Guo M, Ma P (2017) Effect of pyrolysis temperature on characteristics and aromatic contaminants adsorption behavior of magnetic biochar derived from pyrolysis oil distillation residue. Bioresour Technol 223:20–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Li S, Harris S, Anandhi A, Chen G (2019) Predicting biochar properties and functions based on feedstock and pyrolysis temperature: a review and data syntheses. J Clean Prod 215:890–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Liu WJ, Jiang H, Yu HQ (2015) Development of biochar-based functional materials: toward a sustainable platform carbon material. Chem Rev 115(22):12251–12285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Liu X, Mao P, Li L, Ma J (2019) Impact of biochar application on yield-scaled greenhouse gas intensity: a meta-analysis. Sci Total Environ 656:969–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lowell S, Shields JE, Thomas MA, Thommes M (2004) Characterization of porous solids and powders: surface area, pore size and density. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lu X, Vassallo A, Johnson W (1997) Thermal stability of humic substances and their metal forms: an investigation using FTIR emission spectroscopy. J Anal Appl Pyrolysis 43(2):103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Marshall TJ (1956) Relation between water and soil. Technical communication no. 50, Commonwealth Bureau of Soils, Farenham Royal, Bucks, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  53. Mazumdar BK (1988) Aromaticity of coal: a reappraisal of the graphical-densimetric approach. Fuel Proc Technol 19:179–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moradi-Choghamarani F, Moosavi AA, Baghernejad M (2019) Determining organo-chemical composition of sugarcane bagasse-derived biochar as a function of pyrolysis temperature using proximate and Fourier transform infrared analyses. J Therm Anal Calorim.
  55. Morais L, Maia A, Guandique M, Rosa AH (2017) Pyrolysis and combustion of sugarcane bagasse. J Therm Anal Calorim 129(3):1813–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Nguyen C, Do DD (2001) The Dubinin–Radushkevich equation and the underlying microscopic adsorption description. Carbon 39:1327–1336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Novak JM, Busscher WJ, Watts DW, Amonette JE, Ippolito JA, Lima IM, Gaskin J, Das KC, Steiner C, Ahmedna M, Rehrah D, Schomberg H (2012) Biochars impact on soil-moisture storage in an Ultisols and two Aridisols. Soil Sci 177:310–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Potgieter JH, Strydom CA (1999) Determination of the clay index of limestone with methylene blue adsorption using a UV–vis spectrophotometric method. Cem Concrete Res 29:1815–1817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Qadeer R, Hanif J, Saleem MA, Afzal M (1994) Characterization of activated charcoal. J Chem Soc Pak 16:229–235Google Scholar
  60. Rajkovich S, Enders A, Hanley K, Hyland C, Zimmerman AR, Lehmann J (2012) Corn growth and nitrogen nutrition after additions of biochars with varying properties to a temperate soil. Biol Fertil Soils 48:271–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Roy JL, McGill WB (2002) Assessing soil water repellency using the molarity of ethanol droplet (MED) test. Soil Sci 167:83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Royal Society (2009) Geoengineering the climate: science, governance, and uncertainty. Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  63. Santamarina JC, Klein KA, Wang YH, Prencke E (2002) Specific surface: determination and relevance. Can Geotech J 39:233–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schimmelpfennig S, Glaser B (2012) One step forward toward characterization: some important material properties to distinguish biochars. J Environ Qual 41:1001–1013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith P, Martino D, Cai Z, Gwary D, Janzen H, Kumar P, McCarl B, Ogle S, O’Mara F, Rice C, Scholes B, Sirotenko O, Howden M, McAllister T, Pan G, Romanenkov V, Schneider U, Towprayoon S, Wattenbach M, Smith J (2008) Greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc B 363:789–813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith KL, Smoot LD, Fletcher TH, Pugmire RJ (2013) The structure and reaction processes of coal. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  67. Spokas KA (2010) Review of the stability of biochar in soils: predictability of O: C molar ratios. Carbon Manag 1(2):289–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tan X, Liu Y, Zeng G, Wang X, Hu X, Gu Y, Yang Z (2015) Application of biochar for the removal of pollutants from aqueous solutions. Chemosphere 125:70–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tatzber M, Klepsch S, Soja G, Reichenauer T, Spiegel H, Gerzabek MH (2015) Determination of soil organic matter features of extractable fractions using capillary electrophoresis: an organic matter stabilization study in a carbon-14-labeled long-term field experiment. In: He Z, Wu F (eds) Labile organic matter—chemical compositions, function, and significance in soil and the environment. SSSA Spec. Publ. 62. SSSA, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  70. Thommes M, Kaneko K, Neimark AV, Olivier JP, Rodriguez-Reinoso F, Rouquerol J, Sing KSW (2015) Physisorption of gases, with special reference to the evaluation of surface area and pore size distribution (IUPAC technical report). Pure Appl Chem. Google Scholar
  71. van Krevelen D (1993) Coal: typology–physics–chemistry–constitution (coal science & technology). Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  72. Vermeulen SJ, Campbell BM, Ingram JSI (2012) Climate change and food systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:195–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Villarroel-Rocha J, Barrera D, Blanco AAG, Jalil MER, Sapag K (2013) Importance of the α-plot method in the characterization of nanoporous materials. Adsorp Sci Technol 31:165–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Xie KC (2015) Structure and reactivity of coal: a survey of selected chinese coals. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yang G, Wu L, Xian Q, Shen F, Wu J, Zhang Y (2016) Removal of congo red and methylene blue from aqueous solutions by vermicompost-derived biochars. PLoS ONE 11:e0154562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zahedifar M (2017) Sequential extraction of zinc in the soils of different land use types as influenced by wheat straw derived biochar. J Geochem Explor 182:22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zahedifar M, Moosavi AA (2017) Modeling desorption kinetics of the native and applied zinc in biochar-amended calcareous soils of different land uses. Environ Earth Sci 76:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Zahedifar M, Najafian S (2017) Ocimum basilicum L. growth and nutrient status as influenced by biochar and potassium-nano chelate fertilizers. Arch Agron Soil Sci 63:638–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zhang T, Walawender WP, Fan LT, Fan M, Daugaard D, Brown RC (2004) Preparation of activated carbon from forest and agricultural residues through CO2 activation. Chem Eng J 105:53–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farzad Moradi-Choghamarani
    • 1
  • Ali Akbar Moosavi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ali Reza Sepaskhah
    • 2
  • Majid Baghernejad
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Soil Science, College of AgricultureShiraz UniversityShirazIran
  2. 2.Department of Water Engineering, College of AgricultureShiraz UniversityShirazIran

Personalised recommendations