Risk assessment of low-temperature biochar used as soil amendment on soil mesofauna
Open accessAbstract
Biochar as a carbon-rich highly porous substance has been proposed for use in agriculture and horticulture as a soil amendment. One of the main concerns of this application of biochar is its potential contamination with heavy metals (HMs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. The aim of this research was to access the environmental risk of biochar used as a soil amendment on soil mesofauna (mites and springtails). We conducted both field and laboratory experiments with the use of wood-chip biochar from low-temperature (300 °C) flash pyrolysis. Biochar was free from polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), and the concentration of all tested toxic compounds was very low or even under the level of detection. Both the results of field and laboratory studies show no toxic effects on soil mesofauna. In the field studies, the biochar application of 50 t/ha in maize and oilseed rape crops significantly increased the mean number of mesofauna. This change probably resulted from improved soil chemical properties (in particular organic carbon content and cation exchange capacity) upon biochar addition. The results of the avoidance test with the use of springtail species Folsomia candida showed the possible short-term toxicity risk from a dose of 5%. The results of the reproduction test indicate the negative response of F. candida from the rate of 25% (higher than the field dose, which corresponds to 10% in laboratory tests). The reason for the short-term toxicity might be the considerable increase in soil pH after biochar addition. To our knowledge, this is the first study that has looked so widely into the effect of biochar on soil mesofauna. We encourage further studies into the risk assessment of biochar on soil organisms in both a controlled laboratory environment and in the open field.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
A review of biochar and its use and function in soil
Sohi, S. P., Krull, E., Lopez-Capel, E., & Bol, R. (2010) · Advances in Agronomy · doi:10.1016/s0065-2113(10)05002-9 · Cited by 2,240 · see citing works
Black Carbon Increases Cation Exchange Capacity in Soils
Liang, B., Lehmann, J., Solomon, D., Kinyangi, J., Grossman, J., O'Neill, B., Skjemstad, J. O., Thies, J., Luizão, F. J., Petersen, J., et al. (2006) · Soil Science Society of America Journal · doi:10.2136/sssaj2005.0383 · Cited by 2,191 · see citing works
Characteristics and applications of biochar for environmental remediation: a review
Xie, T., Reddy, K. R., Wang, C., Yargicoglu, E., & Spokas, K. (2015) · Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology · doi:10.1080/10643389.2014.924180 · Cited by 527 · see citing works
Domene, X., Mattana, S., Hanley, K., Enders, A., & Lehmann, J. (2014) · Soil Biology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.01.035 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
McCormack, S. A., Ostle, N., Bardgett, R. D., Hopkins, D. W., & Vanbergen, A. J. (2013) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12046 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
Nature of water-biochar interface interactions
Conte, P., Marsala, V., De Pasquale, C., Bubici, S., Valagussa, M., Pozzi, A., & Alonzo, G. (2013) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12009 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Gruss, I., Twardowski, J. P., Latawiec, A., Medyńska-Juraszek, A., & Królczyk, J.
- Affiliations
- Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences (PL)
- Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro (BR)
- Opole University of Technology (PL)
- Corresponding author
- Gruss, Iwona
- Venue
- Environmental Science and Pollution Research
- Published
- 2019-04-30
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 18230-18239
- ISSN
- 0944-1344 (ISSN-L)
- 1614-7499
- PMC
- PMC6570670
- OpenAlex
- W2943425711
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 2.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Environmental Science and Pollution Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Wroclaw University of Environmental and Life Sciences
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Pesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
- Keywords
- biochar, low-temperature pyrolysis, soil amendment, soil mesofauna, mites, Collembola, Folsomia candida, ecotoxicity, environmental risk assessment, soil pH, soil organic carbon, cation exchange capacity, maize, oilseed rape
- MeSH terms
- Agriculture, Animals, Arthropods, Charcoal, Cold Temperature, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Soil, Soil Pollutants, Temperature, Wood, Agrochemicals, Risk Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review