The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Environmental Comparison of Biochar and Activated Carbon for Tertiary Wastewater Treatment
Abstract
Micropollutants in wastewater present environmental and human health challenges. Powdered activated carbon (PAC) can effectively remove organic micropollutants, but PAC production is energy intensive and expensive. Biochar adsorbents can cost less and sequester carbon; however, net benefits depend on biochar production conditions and treatment capabilities. Here, life cycle assessment was used to compare 10 environmental impacts from the production and use of wood biochar, biosolids biochar, and coal-derived PAC to remove sulfamethoxazole from wastewater. Moderate capacity wood biochar had environmental benefits in four categories (smog, global warming, respiratory effects, noncarcinogenics) linked to energy recovery and carbon sequestration, and environmental impacts worse than PAC in two categories (eutrophication, carcinogenics). Low capacity wood biochar had even larger benefits for global warming, respiratory effects, and noncarcinogenics, but exhibited worse impacts than PAC in five categories due to larger biochar dose requirements to reach the treatment objective. Biosolids biochar had the worst relative environmental performance due to energy use for biosolids drying and the need for supplemental adsorbent. Overall, moderate capacity wood biochar is an environmentally superior alternative to coal-based PAC for micropollutant removal from wastewater, and its use can offset a wastewater facility's carbon footprint.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Citations
Cites
Kolpin, D. W., Furlong, E. T., Meyer, M. T., Thurman, E. M., Zaugg, S. D., Barber, L. B., & Buxton, H. T. (2002) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es011055j · Cited by 7,953
Rizzo, L., Manaia, C., Merlin, C., Schwartz, T., Dagot, C., Ploy, M. C., Michael, I., & Fatta-Kassinos, D. (2013) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.032 · Cited by 2,493
Biochar for Environmental Management: Science, Technology and Implementation
(2015) · doi:10.4324/9780203762264 · Cited by 2,280
Occurrence of Antibiotics in the Aquatic Environment
Hirsch, R., Ternes, T., Haberer, K., & Kratz, K.-L. (1999) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/s0048-9697(98)00337-4 · Cited by 2,140
Chen, B., Zhou, D., & Zhu, L. (2008) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es8002684 · Cited by 1,823
Ahmad, M., Lee, S. S., Dou, X., Mohan, D., Sung, J.-K., Yang, J. E., & Ok, Y. S. (2012) · Bioresource Technology · doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.05.042 · Cited by 1,357
Roberts, K. G., Gloy, B. A., Joseph, S., Scott, N. R., & Lehmann, J. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es902266r · Cited by 1,243
TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 2.0
Bare, J. (2011) · Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy · doi:10.1007/s10098-010-0338-9 · Cited by 988
Biomass Pyrolysis for Biochar or Energy Applications? A Life Cycle Assessment
Peters, J. F., Iribarren, D., & Dufour, J. (2015) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es5060786 · Cited by 272
Competing uses for China's straw: the economic and carbon abatement potential of biochar
Clare, A., Shackley, S., Joseph, S., Hammond, J., Pan, G., & Bloom, A. (2015) · GCB Bioenergy · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12220 · Cited by 164
Properties of biochar-amended soils and their sorption of imidacloprid, isoproturon, and atrazine
Jin, J., Kang, M., Sun, K., Pan, Z., Wu, F., & Xing, B. (2016) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.01.117 · Cited by 146
Miller-Robbie, L., Ulrich, B. A., Ramey, D. F., Spencer, K. S., Herzog, S. P., Cath, T. Y., Stokes, J. R., & Higgins, C. P. (2015) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.12.050 · Cited by 74
Cited by
Zhu, S., Huang, X., Ma, F., Wang, L., Duan, X., & Wang, S. (2018) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b01817 · Cited by 1,179
Waste-derived biochar for water pollution control and sustainable development
He, M., Xu, Z., Hou, D., Gao, B., Cao, X., Ok, Y. S., Rinklebe, J., Bolan, N. S., & Tsang, D. C. W. (2022) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-022-00306-8 · Cited by 686
Han, H., Rafiq, M. K., Zhou, T., Xu, R., Mašek, O., & Li, X. (2019) · Journal of Hazardous Materials · doi:10.1016/j.jhazmat.2019.02.003 · Cited by 485
Removal of chelated heavy metals from aqueous solution: A review of current methods and mechanisms
Zhu, Y., Fan, W., Zhou, T., & Li, X. (2019) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.416 · Cited by 432
Engineered biochar – A sustainable solution for the removal of antibiotics from water
Krasucka, P., Pan, B., Sik Ok, Y., Mohan, D., Sarkar, B., & Oleszczuk, P. (2021) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2020.126926 · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Authors
- Thompson, K. A., Shimabuku, K. K., Kearns, J. P., Knappe, D. R. U., Summers, R. S., & Cook, S. M.
- Venue
- Environmental Science & Technology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2016-10-06
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 20
- Pages
- 11253-11262
- ISSN
- 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5851
- OpenAlex
- W2523549026
- Cited by
- 351
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 11.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
