CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 227Soil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFire effects on ecosystems

Greenhouse Gas Inventory Model for Biochar Additions to Soil

Open access
Woolf, Dominic, Lehmann, Johannes, Ogle, Stephen, Kishimoto-Mo, Ayaka W., McConkey, Brian, Baldock, Jeffrey·2021·Environmental Science & Technology
DOI 10.1021/acs.est.1c02425PMC PMC8567415
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Stabilizing the global climate within safe bounds will require greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to reach net zero within a few decades. Achieving this is expected to require removal of CO 2 from the atmosphere to offset some hard-to-eliminate emissions. There is, therefore, a clear need for GHG accounting protocols that quantify the mitigation impact of CO 2 removal practices, such as biochar sequestration, that have the potential to be deployed at scale. Here, we have developed a GHG accounting methodology for biochar application to mineral soils using simple parameterizations and readily accessible activity data that can be applied at a range of scales including farm, supply chain, national, or global. The method is grounded in a comprehensive analysis of current empirical data, making it a robust method that can be used for many applications including national inventories and voluntary and compliance carbon markets, among others. We show that the carbon content of biochar varies with feedstock and production conditions from as low as 7% (gasification of biosolids) to 79% (pyrolysis of wood at above 600 °C). Of this initial carbon, 63–82% will remain unmineralized in soil after 100 years at the global mean annual cropland-temperature of 14.9 °C. With this method, researchers and managers can address the long-term sequestration of C through biochar that is blended with soils through assessments such as GHG inventories and life cycle analyses.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.est.1c02425

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • HTB800 had a fixed carbon content of 76.33%.

    “The resulting FC of 76.33% aligns with woody biomass-derived biochars, consistent with the known VC-FC-H/C interdependence, where H/C organic serves as a carbon-centric stability predictor [74][75][76][77].”

    From Pilot-Scale Slow Pyrolysis, Post-Heat Treatment, and Self-Heating Performance of Biochar Fuels Derived from Construction, Renovation, and Demolition (CRD) Wood Waste (2026) · cites this paper as [74]

    Table 2 in Results and Discussion (Modeled Carbon Fraction of Biochar; page unavailable) gives a mean organic carbon fraction of 0.76 for wood-derived biochar, supporting the statement that 76.33% is broadly in line with woody biochars. It does not identify HTB800 or report its measured 76.33% value; the paper also defines FC as organic carbon fraction, not fixed carbon from proximate analysis. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • PHT at 600 °C for 30 min (HTB800) induced a second phase of dehydration, dehydrogenation, and deoxygenation, further concentrating aromatic carbon and reducing chemical instability.

    “Further, PHT at 600 • C for 30 min (HTB800) induced a second phase of dehydration, dehydrogenation, and deoxygenation, further concentrating aromatic carbon and reducing chemical instability [73][74][75][76][77].”

    From Pilot-Scale Slow Pyrolysis, Post-Heat Treatment, and Self-Heating Performance of Biochar Fuels Derived from Construction, Renovation, and Demolition (CRD) Wood Waste (2026) · cites this paper as [74]

    The Results and Discussion section on modeled permanence says higher pyrolysis temperatures increase condensation and links larger aromatic structures with persistence; the Materials and Methods section on permanence likewise says larger aromatic structures are typically more persistent. The paper does not report an HTB800 treatment at 600 °C for 30 minutes, a second processing phase, or the specified dehydration, dehydrogenation, and deoxygenation reactions. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • HTB800 had an elevated pH of 9.3.

    “The elevated pH of 9.3 reflects progressive loss of acidic surface functionalities, while the HHV of 31.49MJ/kg and surface area gain to 202.09 m 2 /g (+7.3%) reinforce suitability for energy and metallurgical applications [74][75][76][77].”

    From Pilot-Scale Slow Pyrolysis, Post-Heat Treatment, and Self-Heating Performance of Biochar Fuels Derived from Construction, Renovation, and Demolition (CRD) Wood Waste (2026) · cites this paper as [74]

    The Materials and Methods section describes the scope of a biochar greenhouse-gas inventory model, and the Results and Discussion section reports carbon content and permanence by feedstock and production conditions; page numbers are unavailable in our copy. Searches for “HTB800,” “pH 9.3,” and biochar pH found no passage identifying HTB800 or reporting its pH. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • HTB800 had an HHV of 31.49 MJ/kg.

    “The elevated pH of 9.3 reflects progressive loss of acidic surface functionalities, while the HHV of 31.49MJ/kg and surface area gain to 202.09 m 2 /g (+7.3%) reinforce suitability for energy and metallurgical applications [74][75][76][77].”

    From Pilot-Scale Slow Pyrolysis, Post-Heat Treatment, and Self-Heating Performance of Biochar Fuels Derived from Construction, Renovation, and Demolition (CRD) Wood Waste (2026) · cites this paper as [74]

    The Results and Discussion section reports modeled biochar carbon fractions and permanence, not the heating value of a sample called HTB800. Searches for “HTB800,” “31.49 MJ/kg,” and higher heating value found no passage addressing the claimed measurement. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • HTB800 had a surface area of 202.09 m2/g, a gain of 7.3%.

    “The elevated pH of 9.3 reflects progressive loss of acidic surface functionalities, while the HHV of 31.49MJ/kg and surface area gain to 202.09 m 2 /g (+7.3%) reinforce suitability for energy and metallurgical applications [74][75][76][77].”

    From Pilot-Scale Slow Pyrolysis, Post-Heat Treatment, and Self-Heating Performance of Biochar Fuels Derived from Construction, Renovation, and Demolition (CRD) Wood Waste (2026) · cites this paper as [74]

    The Results and Discussion section reports modeled biochar carbon fractions by feedstock and production temperature, not surface-area measurements for HTB800. Searches for HTB800, 202.09 m²/g, and a 7.3% surface-area gain found no passage addressing the attributed measurement in our copy (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Lehmann J. A handful of carbon. Nature 2007, 447, 143– 144. 10.1038/447143a. 17495905 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Sombroek W. G.; Nachtergaele F. O.; Hebel A. Amounts, dynamics and sequestering of carbon in tropical and subtropical soils. Ambio 1993, 22, 417– 426. PMC8116452 33713291
  3. National Academies of Sciences. Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda; National Academies Press, 2018. 31120708
  4. Field J. L.; Keske C. M. H.; Birch G. L.; DeFoort M. W.; Cotrufo M. F. Distributed biochar and bioenergy coproduction: a regionally specific case study of environmental benefits and economic impacts. GCB Bioenergy 2013, 5, 177– 191. 10.1111/gcbb.12032. · DOI
  5. Matuštík J.; Hnátková T.; Kočí V. Life cycle assessment of biochar-to-soil systems: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120998 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120998. · DOI
  6. Bai X.; Huang Y.; Ren W.; Coyne M.; Jacinthe P. A.; Tao B.; Hui D.; Yang J.; Matocha C. Responses of soil carbon sequestration to climate-smart agriculture practices: A meta-analysis. Global Change Biol. 2019, 25, 2591– 2606. 10.1111/gcb.14658. 31002465 · DOI
  7. Griscom B. W.; Adams J.; Ellis P. W.; Houghton R. A.; Lomax G.; Miteva D. A.; Schlesinger W. H.; Shoch D.; Siikamäki J. V.; Smith P.; et al. Natural climate solutions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2017, 114, 11645– 11650. 10.1073/pnas.1710465114. 29078344 PMC5676916 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Fargione J. E.; Bassett S.; Boucher T.; Bridgham S. D.; Conant R. T.; Cook-Patton S. C.; Ellis P. W.; Falcucci A.; Fourqurean J. W.; Gopalakrishna T.; et al. Natural climate solutions for the United States. Sci. Adv. 2018, 4, eaat1869 10.1126/sciadv.aat1869. 30443593 PMC6235523 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Kammann C.; Ratering S.; Eckhard C.; Müller C. Biochar and hydrochar effects on greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane) fluxes from soils. J. Environ. Qual. 2012, 41, 1052– 1066. 10.2134/jeq2011.0132. 22751047 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Libra J. A.; Ro K. S.; Kammann C.; Funke A.; Berge N. D.; Neubauer Y.; Titirici M.-M.; Fühner C.; Bens O.; Kern J.; Emmerich K.-H. Hydrothermal carbonization of biomass residuals: a comparative review of the chemistry, processes and applications of wet and dry pyrolysis. Biofuels 2011, 2, 71– 106. 10.4155/bfs.10.81. · DOI · Paper page
  11. Whitman T.; Scholz S. M.; Lehmann J. Biochar projects for mitigating climate change: an investigation of critical methodology issues for carbon accounting. Carbon Manag. 2010, 1, 89– 107. 10.4155/cmt.10.4. · DOI
  12. Cowie A.; Woolf D.; Gaunt J.; Brandão M.; Anaya de la Rosa R.; Cowie A.; Lehmann J.; Joseph S. Biochar, carbon accounting and climate change. Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation; Routledge, 2015; pp 763– 794.
  13. Fowles M. Black carbon sequestration as an alternative to bioenergy. Biomass Bioenergy 2007, 31, 426– 432. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2007.01.012. · DOI
  14. Gaunt J. L.; Lehmann J. Energy balance and emissions associated with biochar sequestration and pyrolysis bioenergy production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008, 42, 4152– 4158. 10.1021/es071361i. 18589980 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Jeffery S.; Verheijen F. G. A.; Kammann C.; Abalos D. Biochar effects on methane emissions from soils: A meta-analysis. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2016, 101, 251– 258. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2016.07.021. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Jeffery S.; Abalos D.; Spokas K. A.; Verheijen F. G. Biochar effects on crop yield. Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation; Routledge, 2015; p 2.
  17. Whitman T.; Enders A.; Lehmann J. Pyrogenic carbon additions to soil counteract positive priming of soil carbon mineralization by plants. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2014, 73, 33– 41. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2014.02.009. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Zimmerman A. R.; Gao B.; Ahn M.-Y. Positive and negative carbon mineralization priming effects among a variety of biochar-amended soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2011, 43, 1169– 1179. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.02.005. · DOI · Paper page
  19. Shackley S.; Carter S.; Knowles T.; Middelink E.; Haefele S.; Sohi S.; Cross A.; Haszeldine S. Sustainable gasification–biochar systems? A case-study of rice-husk gasification in Cambodia, Part I: Context, chemical properties, environmental and health and safety issues. Energy Pol. 2012, 42, 49– 58. 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.11.026. · DOI
  20. Woolf D.; Lehmann J.; Lee D. R. Optimal bioenergy power generation for climate change mitigation with or without carbon sequestration. Nat. Commun. 2016, 7, 13160 10.1038/ncomms13160. 27767177 PMC5477486 · DOI
  21. Di Blasi C.; Signorelli G.; Di Russo C.; Rea G. Product distribution from pyrolysis of wood and agricultural residues. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 1999, 38, 2216– 2224. 10.1021/ie980711u. · DOI
  22. Woolf D.; Lehmann J.; Joseph S.; Campbell C.; Christo F. C.; Angenent L. T. An open-source biomass pyrolysis reactor. Biofuels, Bioprod. Biorefin. 2017, 11, 945– 954. 10.1002/bbb.1814. · DOI
  23. Cornelissen G.; Pandit N. R.; Taylor P.; Pandit B. H.; Sparrevik M.; Schmidt H. P. Emissions and char quality of flame-curtain “Kon Tiki” kilns for farmer-scale charcoal/biochar production. PloS One 2016, 11, e0154617 10.1371/journal.pone.0154617. 27191397 PMC4871524 · DOI
  24. Pennise D. M.; Smith K. R.; Kithinji J. P.; Rezende M. E.; Raad T. J.; Zhang J.; Fan C. Emissions of greenhouse gases and other airborne pollutants from charcoal making in Kenya and Brazil. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2001, 106, 24143 10.1029/2000jd000041. · DOI
  25. Becidan M.; Skreiberg Ø.; Hustad J. E. NOx and N2O precursors (NH3 and HCN) in pyrolysis of biomass residues. Energy Fuels 2007, 21, 1173– 1180. 10.1021/ef060426k. · DOI
  26. Neves D.; Thunman H.; Matos A.; Tarelho L.; Gómez-Barea A. Characterization and prediction of biomass pyrolysis products. Prog. Energy Combust. Sci. 2011, 37, 611– 630. 10.1016/j.pecs.2011.01.001. · DOI
  27. Woolf D.; Lehmann J.; Fisher E. M.; Angenent L. T. Biofuels from pyrolysis in perspective: trade-offs between energy yields and soil-carbon additions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 6492– 6499. 10.1021/es500474q. 24787482 · DOI
  28. Schmidt M. W. I.; Noack A. G. Black carbon in soils and sediments: Analysis, distribution, implications, and current challenges. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 2000, 14, 777– 793. 10.1029/1999gb001208. · DOI
  29. Wiedemeier D. B.; Abiven S.; Hockaday W. C.; Keiluweit M.; Kleber M.; Masiello C. A.; McBeath A. V.; Nico P. S.; Pyle L. A.; Schneider M. P. W.; Smernik R. J.; Wiesenberg G. L. B.; Schmidt M. W. I. Aromaticity and degree of aromatic condensation of char. Org. Geochem. 2015, 78, 135– 143. 10.1016/j.orggeochem.2014.10.002. · DOI
  30. Kanaly R. A.; Harayama S. Biodegradation of high-molecular-weight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons by bacteria. J. Bacteriol. 2000, 182, 2059– 2067. Publisher: American Society for Microbiology Journals Section: MINIREVIEW 10.1128/jb.182.8.2059-2067.2000. 10735846 PMC111252 · DOI
  31. Nguyen B. T.; Lehmann J.; Hockaday W. C.; Joseph S.; Masiello C. A. Temperature sensitivity of black carbon decomposition and oxidation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 3324– 3331. 10.1021/es903016y. 20384335 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Lehmann J.; Abiven S.; Kleber M.; Pan G.; Singh B. P.; Sohi S. P.; Zimmerman A. R.; Lehmann J.; Joseph S. Persistence of biochar in soil. Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation; Routledge, 2015; pp 233– 280.
  33. Fick S. E.; Hijmans R. J. WorldClim 2: new 1-km spatial resolution climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 2017, 37, 4302– 4315. 10.1002/joc.5086. _eprint. https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/joc.5086 · DOI
  34. Hansen V.; Müller-Stöver D.; Ahrenfeldt J.; Holm J. K.; Henriksen U. B.; Hauggaard-Nielsen H. Gasification biochar as a valuable by-product for carbon sequestration and soil amendment. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 72, 300– 308. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2014.10.013. · DOI
  35. Bingeman C. W.; Varner J. E.; Martin W. P. The effect of the addition of organic materials on the decomposition of an organic soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1953, 17, 34– 38. 10.2136/sssaj1953.03615995001700010008x. · DOI
  36. Sagrilo E.; Jeffery S.; Hoffland E.; Kuyper T. W. Emission of CO2 from biochar-amended soils and implications for soil organic carbon. GCB Bioenergy 2015, 7, 1294– 1304. 10.1111/gcbb.12234. · DOI
  37. Whitman T.; Singh B. P.; Zimmerman A. R.; Lehmann J.; Joseph S. Priming effects in biochar-amended soils: implications of biochar-soil organic matter interactions for carbon storage. Biochar for Environmental Management; Routledge, 2015; pp 455– 488.
  38. Woolf D.; Lehmann J. Modelling the long-term response to positive and negative priming of soil organic carbon by black carbon. Biogeochemistry 2012, 111, 83– 95. 10.1007/s10533-012-9764-6. · DOI
  39. Dharmakeerthi R. S.; Hanley K.; Whitman T.; Woolf D.; Lehmann J. Organic carbon dynamics in soils with pyrogenic organic matter that received plant residue additions over seven years. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2015, 88, 268– 274. 10.1016/j.soilbio.2015.06.003. · DOI
  40. Singh B. P.; Cowie A. L. Long-term influence of biochar on native organic carbon mineralisation in a low-carbon clayey soil. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 3687 10.1038/srep03687. 24446050 PMC3896930 · DOI
  41. Weng Z.; Van Zwieten L.; Singh B. P.; Tavakkoli E.; Joseph S.; Macdonald L. M.; Rose T. J.; Rose M. T.; Kimber S. W. L.; Morris S.; et al. Biochar built soil carbon over a decade by stabilizing rhizodeposits. Nat. Clim. Change 2017, 7, 371– 376. 10.1038/nclimate3276. · DOI · Paper page
  42. Blanco-Canqui H.; Laird D. A.; Heaton E. A.; Rathke S.; Acharya B. S. Soil carbon increased by twice the amount of biochar carbon applied after 6 years: Field evidence of negative priming. GCB Bioenergy 2020, 12, 240– 251. 10.1111/gcbb.12665. · DOI
  43. Wardle D. A.; Nilsson M.-C.; Zackrisson O. Fire-derived charcoal causes loss of forest humus. Science 2008, 320, 629 10.1126/science.1154960. 18451294 · DOI
  44. Lehmann J.; Sohi S. Comment on “fire-derived charcoal causes loss of forest humus”. Science 2008, 321, 1295 10.1126/science.1160005. 18772418 · DOI
  45. Verhoeven E.; Pereira E.; Decock C.; Suddick E.; Angst T.; Six J. Toward a better assessment of biochar–nitrous oxide mitigation potential at the field scale. J. Environ. Qual. 2017, 46, 237– 246. 10.2134/jeq2016.10.0396. 28380558 _eprint. https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.2134/jeq2016.10.0396 · DOI
  46. Hedges L. V.; Tipton E.; Johnson M. C. Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res. Synth. Methods 2010, 1, 39– 65. 10.1002/jrsm.5. 26056092 · DOI · Paper page
  47. Rittl T. F.; Butterbach-Bahl K.; Basile C. M.; Pereira L. A.; Alms V.; Dannenmann M.; Couto E. G.; Cerri C. E. P. Greenhouse gas emissions from soil amended with agricultural residue biochars: Effects of feedstock type, production temperature and soil moisture. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 117, 1– 9. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2018.07.004. · DOI · Paper page
  48. Scheer C.; Grace P. R.; Rowlings D. W.; Kimber S.; Van Zwieten L. Effect of biochar amendment on the soil-atmosphere exchange of greenhouse gases from an intensive subtropical pasture in northern New South Wales, Australia. Plant Soil 2011, 345, 47– 58. 10.1007/s11104-011-0759-1. · DOI · Paper page
  49. Song X.; Pan G.; Zhang C.; Zhang L.; Wang H. Effects of biochar application on fluxes of three biogenic greenhouse gases: a meta-analysis. Ecosys. Health Sustain. 2016, 2, e01202 10.1002/ehs2.1202. · DOI
  50. Spokas K.; Reicosky D. Impacts of sixteen different biochars on soil greenhouse gas production. Ann. Environ. Sci. 2009, 3, 179.
  51. Zhang A.; Cui L.; Pan G.; Li L.; Hussain Q.; Zhang X.; Zheng J.; Crowley D. Effect of biochar amendment on yield and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from a rice paddy from Tai Lake plain, China. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2010, 139, 469– 475. 10.1016/j.agee.2010.09.003. · DOI
  52. Cong W.; Meng J.; Ying S. C. Impact of soil properties on the soil methane flux response to biochar addition: a meta-analysis. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 2018, 20, 1202– 1209. Publisher: Royal Society of Chemistry 10.1039/c8em00278a. 30178797 · DOI
  53. Forster P.; Storelvmo T.; Armour K.; Collins W.; Dufresne J.-L.; Frame D.; Lunt D.; Mauritsen T.; Palmer M.; Watanabe M.; Wild M.; Zhang H.. In Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Masson-Delmotte V.,, Eds; Cambridge University Press, 2021; Chapter 7.
  54. Hammond J.; Shackley S.; Sohi S.; Brownsort P. Prospective life cycle carbon abatement for pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK. Energy Pol. 2011, 39, 2646– 2655. 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.02.033. · DOI
  55. Mohammadi A.; Cowie A. L.; Anh Mai T. L.; Brandão M.; Anaya de la Rosa R.; Kristiansen P.; Joseph S. Climate-change and health effects of using rice husk for biochar-compost: Comparing three pyrolysis systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 260– 272. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.026. · DOI
  56. Muñoz E.; Curaqueo G.; Cea M.; Vera L.; Navia R. Environmental hotspots in the life cycle of a biochar-soil system. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 158, 1– 7. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.04.163. · DOI
  57. Nguyen T. L. T.; Hermansen J. E.; Nielsen R. G. Environmental assessment of gasification technology for biomass conversion to energy in comparison with other alternatives: the case of wheat straw. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 53, 138– 148. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.04.004. · DOI
  58. Smebye A. B.; Sparrevik M.; Schmidt H. P.; Cornelissen G. Life-cycle assessment of biochar production systems in tropical rural areas: Comparing flame curtain kilns to other production methods. Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 101, 35– 43. 10.1016/j.biombioe.2017.04.001. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Woolf, D., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Kishimoto-Mo, A. W., McConkey, B., & Baldock, J.
Affiliations
  • Cornell University (US)
  • Colorado State University (US)
  • Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, National Agriculture and Food Research Organization, Ibaraki, 305-8604, Japan
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA)
  • CSIRO—Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Glen Osmond 5064 Australia
Corresponding author
Woolf, Dominic
ORCID
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2021-10-12
Volume
55
Issue
21
Pages
14795-14805
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
DOI
10.1021/acs.est.1c02425
PMC
PMC8567415
OpenAlex
W3207024456
Cited by
227
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 22
FWCI
15.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Environmental Science & Technology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Federal Open Science Repository of Canada / Le Dépôt fédéral de science ouverte du Canada (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Division of Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS-0965336)
  • Nature Conservancy (2018-19-204)
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2014-67003-22069)
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
  • Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (OPP51589)
  • Fondation des Fondateurs
  • Cornell Institute for Digital Agriculture
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Biomedical Engineering › Thermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Fire effects on ecosystems
Keywords
biochar, soil carbon sequestration, greenhouse gas inventory, carbon mineralization, biochar feedstock, pyrolysis, gasification, emissions trading, net-zero emissions, mineral soils
MeSH terms
Greenhouse Gases, Agriculture, Carbon Dioxide, Charcoal, Nitrous Oxide, Soil

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