Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Review

The costs and benefits of biochar production and use: A systematic review
Luca Campion a, *, Madina Bekchanova a, Robert Malina a, b, Tom Kuppens a, c
a
UHasselt – Hasselt University, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Research Group Environmental Economics, Agoralaan Gebouw D, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium
b
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Laboratory for Aviation and the Environment, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, 02139, Cambridge, MA, USA
c
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Multidisciplinary Institute for Teacher Education, Pleinlaan 9, 1050, Brussel, Belgium

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Handling Editor: Federica Cucchiella Besides being an opportunity to valorize biomass residues, biochar (i.e., the solid product of biomass pyrolysis)
has many potential environmental benefits, such as climate change mitigation and reduced nutrient leaching.
Keywords: Even though the academic interest in biochar has increased, it is not being used at a large scale yet, mainly
Biochar because of its economic infeasibility compared to fertilizers and because farmers are either unaware of or
Externalities
skeptical about its effects. In this paper, the economics of biochar are examined by performing a systematic
Monetization
review, following the guidelines of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. Specifically, it has been
Profitability
Societal desirability examined to which extent the production and application of biochar are yet profitable from an investor’s
Systematic review perspective and desirable from a societal perspective. For the first time, this review investigates the extent to
which previous studies have included external costs and benefits. We find that profitability and desirability of
biochar production and use are highly uncertain and case-specific, depending on factors like location, feedstock,
scale, pyrolysis conditions, biochar price, cultivated crop, and the potential internalization of externalities, which
hampers private investment. To advance biochar development and deployment, those factors must be considered
carefully for each case. Although externalities are included in the literature to some extent, the focus is mostly on
external benefits rather than external costs, often focusing on its carbon sequestration potential. The inclusion of
externalities in economic assessments is necessary to provide solid arguments to develop policies for the ac­
celeration of market uptake of biochar technology.

1. Introduction The enhanced microbial activity in the rhizosphere leads to a faster

turnover of organic matter, increasing the nutrient supply. It also in­
The term biochar was first used in 1998 to designate the solid creases nutrient mineralization, improving their uptake (Joseph et al.,
product of biomass pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is the thermochemical conver­ 2021). Furthermore, adding biochar to soil increases the organic matter
sion of organic material at elevated temperatures without oxygen and content (Glaser et al., 2001). However, biochar’s functioning described
can also yield a gaseous and a liquid product (Bridgwater, 1994; Spokas above depends on its properties, which, in turn, depend on variables
et al., 2012). The solid product of biomass pyrolysis had already been such as production feedstock and pyrolysis temperature. For example,
studied well before the 1990s, although not using the specific term Ye et al. (2020) found that biochar produced from cereal residues
biochar. There is written evidence of its use from the early 20th century, increased crop yields more than biochar from other types of feedstock
the 19th century, and even the late 17th century (Lehmann and Joseph, and that biochar produced at temperatures lower than 400 ◦ C resulted in
2009). Yet, arguably the most famous example are the Amazonian Dark the greatest crop yield increases. This increased crop yield is still an
Earths or Terra Preta de Indio, which are black soils in the Amazon Basin important reason for biochar application today (Schmidt et al., 2021).
that are remarkably fertile (Lehmann et al., 2003). Recent evidence This is especially the case in tropical areas, where the highest yield in­
shows these soils were man-made by the ancient locals to increase soil creases have been achieved (Jeffery et al., 2017; Joseph et al., 2021),
productivity for agriculture (Lehmann, 2009; Lombardo et al., 2022). and the increased soil fertility can help smallholder farmers reduce
Biochar can provide a favorable environment for root growth and mi­ poverty and hunger (Barrett and Bevis, 2015; Dwibedi et al., 2022; Oni
crobial activity by increasing soil pH, porosity, and water availability. et al., 2019; Rogers et al., 2022). Nonetheless, not the climate or soil but

Abbreviations: Mg, Megagram = 1,000,000 g.

* Corresponding author. Agoralaan Gebouw D, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium.
E-mail address: [email protected] (L. Campion).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137138
Received 2 November 2022; Received in revised form 23 March 2023; Accepted 6 April 2023
Available online 7 April 2023
0959-6526/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

the application of fertilizer has been shown to be the main determinant clarify the extent to which this inclusion has been done in the existing
of biochar’s effect on crop yield (Ye et al., 2020). On average, biochar literature. Doing so will enable us to identify possible research gaps to be
increased the crop yield by 15% when applied with inorganic fertilizer, addressed in future research. Secondly, we aim to identify factors that
compared to a control with an equivalent dosage of inorganic fertilizer influence the profitability and desirability of biochar production and
but no biochar application. use. The twofold objective of this review translates into the two
Recently, interest in biochar has also been motivated by climate following research questions:
change mitigation. Through photosynthesis, plants capture atmospheric
RQ1. To what extent have external costs and benefits been included in
CO2 and turn it into an organic form. Typically, this biomass de­
existing economic assessments of biochar production and use?
composes quickly, and the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere.
However, by turning the biomass into biochar, the stability of the carbon RQ2. Which factors influence the profitability and desirability of
increases because cellulose and lignin are destroyed, and aromatic biochar production and use?
structures are formed. Hence, the carbon is stored much longer (Leh­
mann, 2007; Lehmann et al., 2006, 2012; Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). 2. Materials and methods
Therefore, biochar has been proposed as a way to remove carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere and store it in the soil (Lehmann et al., 2006), and Because of the environmental benefits arising from biochar’s use,
multiple studies have quantified its global potential to sequester atmo­ one would expect biochar production and use to provide added value to
spheric carbon (Fuss et al., 2018; Smith, 2016; Woolf et al., 2010). In society, even if the financial benefits to producers or users might not
2018, biochar was recognized as a negative emissions technology by the exceed their respective costs. Therefore, this review differentiates be­
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (Rogelj et al., 2018). tween profitability and desirability. Biochar production and use are said
Next to this direct carbon sequestration, biochar can also indirectly to be profitable when the benefits to private economic actors, such as
mitigate climate change by substituting coal and coke in the businesses and farmers, outweigh their respective costs. In other words,
manufacturing of steel (Safarian, 2023). profitability means that the private benefits outweigh the private costs,
In addition to increasing crop yields and mitigating climate change, which can be measured by using market prices to calculate, for example,
biochar applied to soil can reduce soil NH3, N2O, and CH4 emissions. It the revenues from product sales and the expenses from the purchase of
can also reduce nutrient leaching and increase soil water retention resources. Biochar production and use are considered desirable when
(Schmidt et al., 2021). Furthermore, biochar can be used in other the benefits accruing to the entirety of societal stakeholders outweigh
environmental management applications, such as wastewater treat­ the costs they bear, including so-called external benefits and costs, such
ment, soil remediation, or as a substitute for peat in growing media as environmental benefits and costs that are usually not counted in
(Schmidt and Wilson, 2014). Also, it can provide a way to dispose of market prices (Boardman et al., 2014). Thus, desirability means that the
residual biomass by using it to produce biochar (Lee et al., 2010; Sri sum of private and external benefits outweighs the sum of private and
Shalini et al., 2020; Xiao et al., 2018; Yargicoglu et al., 2015). external costs. Including externalities means social and environmental
However, despite this array of benefits, biochar is not being deployed impacts are included in the economic analysis, making the decision
at a large scale yet (Fawzy et al., 2021; Haghighi Mood et al., 2022; sustainable.
Pourhashem et al., 2019; Sakhiya et al., 2020). A possible reason for this The profitability and desirability of biochar production and use can
lacking large-scale deployment is the focus of biochar research on its be highly case-specific. Therefore, drawing general conclusions
application as a soil amendment (Qian et al., 2015; Wang and Wang, regarding its economic assessment and determinants requires a sys­
2019) while it cannot compete with fertilizer from a cost perspective tematic review of the literature, as this methodology maximizes
(Pourhashem et al., 2019). Hence, the worldwide biochar demand – repeatability and comprehensiveness while minimizing subjectivity and
amounting to 395,300 Mg (1 Mg = 1,000 kg = 1 metric ton) in 2018 bias (Haddaway, 2018). A search of the Web of Science Core Collection
(Grand View Research, 2019) – is 480 times smaller than the one for for a combination of the search terms biochar, economic, and review
fertilizers – amounting to 190,000,000 Mg in 2018 (International Fer­ revealed only one article (Meyer et al., 2011). Their work partly dealt
tilizer Industry Association, 2021). Another possible explanation could with the economic aspects of biochar production technology and was an
be farmers’ lack of awareness of biochar. Rogers et al. (2022) surveyed important contribution towards its development. However, they
172 smallholder farmers in Tanzania, and only about 40% had previous concluded that “a thorough comparison of the profitability of biochar pro­
knowledge of biochar. The fact that 70% of those farmers declared to be duction technologies based on scientific literature is not possible at the
using biochar shows that smallholder farmers with knowledge on bio­ moment” (Meyer et al., 2011:9478). Moreover, their work mainly
char are generally convinced by biochar’s beneficial effects. Similar focused on the production costs of biochar soil applications, while other
results are found in Europe. There, too, acceptance is not a problem applications of interest and data regarding the benefits and externalities
(Verde and Chiaramonti, 2021) but farmer awareness is (Dal Ferro et al., of biochar production technologies were not considered. Finally, their
2020; Latawiec et al., 2017). review was not conducted following any guidelines for systematic re­
To foster biochar market uptake, knowledge is needed on the cir­ views, such as those of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence
cumstances under which biochar production and use are profitable from (CEE).
the point of view of an investor in its production or the end user of one of The present systematic review followed the CEE guidelines and
its applications. If the market conditions are not favorable yet, govern­ adhered to the ROSES reporting standards (Collaboration for Environ­
ment interventions might be helpful but only justified if the societal mental Evidence, 2018; Haddaway et al., 2018). Thus, a review protocol
benefits outweigh societal costs. Therefore, this systematic review ex­ was developed and uploaded to an online repository (Campion, 2020).
amines to what extent biochar production and use are profitable from an This section summarizes the methodology, but more detailed informa­
investor’s perspective and desirable from a societal perspective. Gaining tion can be found in the review protocol, which is also available in
insight into biochar economics is important to inform decision-makers, Appendix A. While executing the review, some changes to the protocol
such as potential investors or policymakers. Moreover, it is also valuable were necessary to keep the work manageable. Arguably the most
to researchers as information on necessary conditions to make biochar important change was the refinement of the eligibility criteria, to make
profitable might steer decisions regarding research topics. them more specific. No new elements were added to the protocol, except
The objective of this review is twofold. Firstly, we investigate which for adding the exclusion of existing review papers as an eligibility cri­
costs and benefits have been included in economic analyses of biochar terion. The latter can be substantiated as all relevant references from the
production and use carried out to date. In particular, because calculating excluded reviews were included in this review. A full overview of
the value to society includes external costs and benefits, we aim to changes to the protocol can be found in Appendix B and the online

2
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

repository (Campion, 2020). when the search function did not allow the selection of different fields.
Using a topic search may have led to some economic analyses being left
2.1. Search strategy out when these are not mentioned in the title, abstract, or keywords.
However, not mentioning economic concepts in any of these fields can
The following sources were searched for relevant literature: be considered an indication of the importance that the authors attribute
to those concepts.
• Web of Science and Scopus: scholarly, peer-reviewed articles
• AGRICOLA and Agris: databases with a focus on agriculture 2.2. Study selection
• EconLit and Business Source Complete: databases with a focus on
economics After duplicates were filtered out, the screening happened in two
• GreenFILE: for its environmental focus stages. In the first stage, only the titles and abstracts were evaluated
• EBSCO Open Dissertations, OATD.org (Open Access Theses and regarding the eligibility criteria discussed below. In the second stage, the
Dissertations), and Google Scholar: gray literature. full texts were considered. When there was doubt about whether a study
should be included in the first stage, it passed to the second stage, where
Following the recommendations of Haddaway et al. (2015) it could be examined more closely. Consistency checks were performed
regarding Google Scholar, title searches were used, all results were at both stages by randomly selecting 10% of the articles assessed by one
considered, and additional hand-searching was performed. For instance, reviewer and having them assessed by a second reviewer. The ROSES
the bibliography of the only previous similar review was included flow diagram, visualizing this entire process, is shown in Section 3.1.
(Meyer et al., 2011). In addition, some hand-searches were conducted on The decisions to include or exclude studies were based on the eligi­
the websites of governmental institutions and research institutes related bility criteria shown in Table 1. The first six criteria apply to both stages.
to agriculture or the environment and biochar organizations. The full list The last one can only be applied in the second stage of the screening
is provided in the review protocol. Studies were published in the 20-year process when full texts are examined. Regarding the applications, the
time frame between 2000 and 2019 and written in English, Dutch, following were included in this review: (i) composting, (ii) anaerobic
French, or German. The following search query was developed: digestion, (iii) storage of manure, (iv) substitution of peat in growing
TS=(Biochar OR Agrichar OR “Pyrolysis char” OR Biokohle OR media, and (v) soil amendment in open-field cultivation. These specific
Pflanzenkohle) AND TS=(Cost* OR Kost* OR Coût OR Benefit* OR applications were included based on advice from the stakeholders of this
Baten OR Avantage* OR Nutzen OR Economi* OR Ökonomisch OR review, which are the partners within the BASTA project funding this
Socio-economi* OR Sozioökonomisch OR Profitabilit* OR Rentabilit* review.
OR Rendabiliteit OR Winst* OR Feasib* OR Haalbaarheid OR Faisabilité
OR Machbarkeit OR Durchführbarkeit OR Viab* OR Valuation OR 2.3. Critical appraisal
Market OR Price* OR Waard* OR Bewertung OR Monet* OR Finan*)
In addition to the term biochar, agrichar and pyrolysis char were The CEE is currently developing a critical appraisal tool because
used in the search query. Agrichar is closely related to biochar because it none exists for studies in environmental management (Collaboration for
indicates the desire for soil application. Biochar is a broader term that Environmental Evidence, 2021; Konno et al., 2021). However, this tool
includes other applications related to environmental management was not available at the time of writing. Therefore, the critical appraisal
(Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). Excluded terms were charcoal, char, in this study is based on three other frameworks (National Collaborating
activated carbon, and black carbon. The combustion of biochar for en­ Centre for Mental Health, 2009; Ofman et al., 2003; Venkataramanan
ergy recovery is not one of the applications included in this review. et al., 2019) that are used to determine the quality of a study within the
Therefore, charcoal was left out, as it is mostly used to designate fuel context of health economics. They have been modified according to the
(Joseph et al., 2009). Char is used to designate the residue of natural purpose of this review in the context of environmental economics. The
fires (Joseph et al., 2009), whereas this review focuses on the deliberate necessary modifications have been motivated in the review protocol,
production of biochar. However, pyrolysis char can be used to label resulting in the final critical appraisal framework shown in Table 2. The
deliberately produced biochar. Therefore, this specific wording was threshold for high-quality studies to be included in this review is 15 out
included. Activated carbon differs from biochar because of the necessary of 20, following the recommendation by Ofman et al. (2003). Consis­
activation and the intended applications (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009). tency checking was done by randomly selecting 10% of the articles
Finally, black carbon designates the entire spectrum, of which biochar is appraised by one reviewer and having them appraised by another.
a part (Spokas et al., 2012), so this concept is too broad. Two German
terms – Pflanzenkohle and Biokohle – were added because they are 2.4. Data extraction and synthesis
commonly used to designate biochar. In French and Dutch, the term
biochar is more common. Data were extracted from the selected studies according to the data
This review was made as comprehensive as possible regarding the coding plan developed in the protocol. Each row represented a data
costs and benefits, aiming to include more than just studies where re­ point within a certain study. If a study reported multiple scenarios, every
searchers have mentioned cost-benefit analysis in the title, abstract, or scenario corresponds to a separate row. The main information extracted
keywords. Asterisks and synonyms are used to this end. For example, was the economic indicator used; that is, net present value (NPV), in­
cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and life cycle costing are captured by the ternal rate of return (IRR), payback period (PBP), or return on invest­
search term cost*. Also, the search query was composed in such a way ment (ROI). As the profitability and desirability of biochar production
that it would account for the four different languages: English, German, and application can be very case-specific, the location, feedstock, scale
Dutch, and French. More information can be found in the review of operation, pyrolysis technology, process specifications (temperature
protocol. and residence time), and biochar application were recorded. This list of
The search query was designed based on the Web of Science envi­ potential effect modifiers was developed with the stakeholders, who
ronment. In particular, it was used in a topic search, meaning that the were the partners in the BASTA project funding this review. As
title, abstract, and keywords were checked. When a topic search was mentioned in the protocol, the possibility of performing a quantitative
unavailable, titles, abstracts, and keywords were searched separately, if analysis was explored once the data were collected. There are three
they were available. The asterisks replaced zero or more characters. reasons why a quantitative analysis was deemed impossible. The first
Whenever a database used another syntax, the asterisks were replaced two relate to the heterogeneity in the reported economic indicators: (i)
by the relevant symbol for that database. The general search was used different authors use different measures (Appendix C), and (ii) even if

3
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

Table 1
Eligibility criteria.
Criterion Included Excluded Stage Stage Justification
1 2

1) Publication Original research articles, research reports, Review studies X X Review studies were excluded to consistently account
type dissertations, etc. for primary data only.
2) Language English, French, Dutch, German Other languages X X Language is used as an inclusion criterion instead of as a
filter because not all literature sources filter for language
correctly.
3) Biochar Pyrolysis of biomass Pyrolysis of non-biomass, X X Given the definition of biochar used in this review, the
other conversion biochar should be made from biomass pyrolysis.
technologies of biomass
4) Focus Focus on biochar, equal focus on biochar and Focus on biogas, focus on X X Biogas and bio-oil resulting from the process can be
biogas or -oil bio-oil valorized, but should not be the primary focus. When the
primary aim is bioenergy production, it is impossible to
use the economic data directly to assess biochar
profitability (Meyer et al., 2011).
5) Application Composting, anaerobic digestion, storage of Other applications X X These applications were identified as the relevant ones
manure, substitute of peat in growing media, by this review’s stakeholders, being the partners in the
soil amendment in open-field cultivation, not project funding this review (BASTA, Research
specified Foundation Flanders, grant S000119N).
6) Monetized At least one cost or benefit – private or external No private costs or X X Analyses of costs, benefits, or both – private or external –
impacts – expressed in monetary terms benefits and no monetized are included, as long as at least one is expressed in
externalities monetary terms.
7) Breakdown of Broken down into subcategories Only mentioned as a lump X Costs and benefits should be listed clearly and
costs and sum organized. This is needed to be able to critically appraise
benefits the study.

they use the same economic indicator, there are differences in the un­ in Appendix C.
derlying assumptions. (iii) These assumptions were not always
completely reported, hampering the replication potential needed for a 3.2. External benefits and costs included in economic assessments (RQ1)
quantitative meta-analysis. Therefore, a narrative synthesis was carried
out in the form of a thematic analysis of the included external costs and Table 3 provides an overview of the external benefits and costs
benefits (RQ1) and the factors influencing the profitability and desir­ included in the 24 reviewed economic assessments. Fourteen of these
ability (RQ2). More specifically, for RQ1, the external costs and benefits assessments included externalities, all of which included external ben­
were listed for each study based on the data coding spreadsheet. efits; however, only five of those considered external costs.
Through an iterative process, the different costs and benefits were
grouped into suitable themes. For RQ2, the data coding spreadsheet 3.2.1. External benefits
made it easy to see which factors influencing profitability or desirability The external benefits considered by the studies included in this re­
were investigated by each study. Again through an iterative process, the view are carbon sequestration, avoided greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
influencing factors were grouped into themes and discussed accordingly. from agricultural inputs, reduced soil GHG emissions, substituted fossil
energy, avoided emissions from alternative biomass treatment (GHG
3. Results and non-GHG), and reduced nutrient leaching (Table 3). Out of the 14
studies that include external benefits, 11 considered direct carbon
3.1. The systematic review process sequestration achieved by storing biochar in soil. According to Field
et al. (2013), this carbon sequestration potential depends on the stable
The ROSES flow diagram (Haddaway et al., 2017), shown in Fig. 1, fraction of the carbon in the biochar. However, only three of the 11
reports the number of studies at each stage of the review. A total of 5,986 studies considering carbon sequestration explicitly mentioned the car­
studies were identified (9,538 including duplicates) during the searches bon stability, ranging from 70% to 80% (Galgani, 2012; Mohammadi
in August and September 2020. These were all manually screened for et al., 2017; Snyder, 2019). The other studies ignored the issue and de
their title and abstract, demonstrating the comprehensiveness of this facto assumed 100% stability, causing overestimations of this external
review. After this first screening stage, only 392 studies were left. benefit. The direct carbon sequestration in soil assumed by the 11
Arguably, this is because the search terms Benefit*, Feasib*, and Viab* do studies ranged from 0.896 Mg CO2/Mg biochar to 10.55 Mg CO2/Mg
not discriminate sufficiently between monetized and non-monetized biochar, with a median of 2.93 Mg CO2/Mg biochar, including the
environmental benefits and between economic and technical feasi­ overestimations. However, in most of these studies, this carbon
bility or viability. sequestration was not mentioned on the basis of a Mg of biochar. Hence,
Sixty-seven full texts were either not found or not accessible, and 247 this often had to be calculated from other data given by the studies.
were excluded based on the eligibility criteria listed in Table 1 of Section These calculations are shown in Appendix D.
2.2. The reported numbers of excluded studies mentioned for each of the Some studies included, as an external benefit, the anticipated effect
eligibility criteria in Fig. 1 do not add up to 247 because many articles that biochar reduces the need for agricultural inputs. The avoided
were excluded based on multiple criteria. The remaining 78 studies purchasing costs are a private benefit (Kung et al., 2015), but the
included after full-text screening were subjected to critical appraisal (see avoided GHG emissions are an external one. Field et al. (2013) and
Section 2.3), of which only 24 studies scored at least 15 out of 20. Fig. 2 Galinato et al. (2011) assume biochar can reduce the need for agricul­
summarizes the critical appraisal results. For each of the questions from tural lime and include the associated avoidance of GHG emissions. Both
the critical appraisal framework (Table 2 in Section 2.3), it shows the studies based this inclusion on West and McBride (2005), who found
potential maximum score and the average score for the studies included that a portion of the carbon in agricultural lime is lost as CO2. Field et al.
and excluded after critical appraisal. It shows that for all of the appraisal (2013), Kung et al. (2015), and Mohammadi et al. (2017) included the
questions, the included studies scored higher on average than the fact that biochar reduces the need for nitrogen fertilizer, which has
excluded ones. More information on the 24 included studies is provided direct and indirect emissions associated with it. The direct emissions,

4
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

Table 2 emissions.
Critical appraisal framework. Three reviewed studies included, as an external benefit, the sup­
Question Score Scoring pressing effect biochar is believed to have on soil GHG emissions. Soils
are a major source of GHG emissions, both from human intervention and
1 Were the aim and objective of the 2 0 Aim and objective not
study presented in a clear, specific, described from natural terrestrial ecosystems, such as the biological activity of soil
and measurable manner? Was there 0.5 Aim and objective partly organisms (Blagodatsky and Smith, 2012; Phillips and Nickerson, 2015).
a research question stated? described Mohammadi et al. (2017) did this for CH4 and N2O, Field et al. (2013)
1 Aim and objective well for N2O, and Meulemans (2016) for CO2, N2O, and CH4 but only re­
described
1.5 Aim and objective
ported their combined effect. However, there is considerable uncer­
described in a clear, specific, tainty regarding biochar’s effect on these emissions. For example,
and measurable manner Meulemans (2016) compared two soil types and found that net soil GHG
+0.5 Formal research emissions (CO2, N2O, and CH4) decreased for one and increased for the
question is stated
other. They did not actually find a statistically significant difference
2 Were the perspective of the analysis 1 +0.25 Perspective of the
(societal, farmer, producer, etc.) analysis stated between biochar and control treatments in their experiments, but they
and reasons for its selection stated? +0.25 Reason for its included it in the economic analysis.
Was the context of the study selection stated Some reviewed studies included indirect effects of biochar that
described? +0.5 Context described provide external benefits. Biochar producers usually seek to valorize the
3 Were the primary outcome 1 1 or 0 (Yes/No)
measures for the economic
co-produced bio-oil and syngas to increase the economic return. How­
evaluation clearly stated? ever, this also results in the substitution of fossil-based energy. This
4 Was the study design described? 3 +1 (Yes/No) for each effect was included in seven studies in this review. Snyder (2019) called
Were the components of costs and question these carbon-neutral carbon reductions, as opposed to carbon-negative,
benefits displayed in a clear,
achieved with carbon sequestration. According to Snyder (2019),
transparent manner? Were
decisions justified? carbon-neutral carbon reductions do not reduce the net CO2 concen­
5 Were the data clearly referenced? 3 3 or 0 (Yes/No) tration in the atmosphere; they shift emissions from a carbon-positive to
(Best available source? a carbon-neutral form of energy. The reviewed studies mention different
Approximationsa clearly ways to substitute fossil energy. The produced bio-oil can be used in
mentioned?)
diesel generators to produce electricity (Kung et al., 2015; Snyder,
6 Was the measurement (or the 2 +1 (Yes/No) for each
methodology for estimation) of question 2019), or it can be upgraded and used as a drop-in biofuel (Campbell
costs and benefits clearly et al., 2018). Also, the produced gas can be valorized by combusting it to
described? Was it appropriate? generate electricity (Clare et al., 2015; Snyder, 2019), process heat
7 Was the analytic horizon 2 +0.5 Appropriate analytic
(Heredia Salgado et al., 2018; Kung et al., 2015), or other heat. The
appropriate? Were benefits and horizon
costs discounted and a justification +1 Benefits and costs are latter could be used for processing agricultural residues (Heredia Sal­
given for the discount rate? discounted gado et al., 2018) or cooking (Mohammadi et al., 2017), substituting
+0.5 Justification is given for natural gas and traditional cooking stoves, respectively. Finally, Meu­
the discount rate lemans (2016) included the increased biofuel production caused by the
8 Was uncertainty handled by 2 +0.5 Partial sensitivity or
increased yield of energy crops grown on biochar-amended soils.
statistical analysis to address scenario analysis
random events (Monte Carlo +1 Monte Carlo simulations Another indirect external benefit that some reviewed studies have
simulations) and/or sensitivity +0.5 At least two methods included is the avoidance of emissions from the alternative treat­
analysis to cover a range of used ment of the biomass used to produce biochar. Galgani (2012) included
assumptions?
the CH4 emissions that were avoided by not sending the waste to land­
9 Were the limitations of the study 1 +0.5 (Yes/No) for the first
described? Did the author(s) question
fills, where it would have decomposed. Clare et al. (2015) included
explicitly discuss direction and +0.25 (Yes/No) for the subsidies for avoiding in-field open burning of straw residues, which
magnitude of potential biases? Is second question would have resulted in particulate matter and CO emissions. Finally,
the transferability of the results to +0.25 (Yes/No) for the third Field et al. (2013) included the fact that forestry wastes were not burned,
other contexts described? question
but were instead turned into biochar. Based on the work of McMeeking
10 Were the results clearly presented 2 +0.5 (Yes/No) for the first
and discussed? Were the question et al. (2009), they include the global warming potential (GWP) of CH4,
conclusions of the study justified; i. +1 (Yes/No) for the second particulate matter, and other products of incomplete combustion.
e., based on the results? Was the question Aller et al. (2018) included another expected effect of biochar’s use
research question answered; i.e., +0.5 (Yes/No) for the third
in fields unrelated to GHG emissions: a reduction in nitrogen leaching.
was the conclusion within the scope question
of the study?
This reduced leaching benefits the environment, as nutrient leaching can
11 Was there a statement disclosing 1 +0.5 (Yes/No) for each cause acidification or eutrophication (Vitousek et al., 1997).
the source of funding for the study? question
Is there evidence of the study being 3.2.2. External costs
subjected to external peer-review?
As shown in Table 3, only five studies included in this review
20 75% (15 or more) → study
included considered external costs, while 14 included external benefits. No
a
studies included external costs without also including external benefits.
An example of such an approximation could be the use of costs for a fixed-
The external costs considered by those five studies were categorized into
bed reactor for a process based on a fluidised-bed reactor.
GHG emissions from operations, increased soil GHG emissions, GHG
emissions from alternative biomass treatment, and health effects.
accounted for by Field et al. (2013) and Kung et al. (2015), consist of GHG emissions from operations are used here to describe GHG
N2O emissions from soil. The indirect emissions come from the emissions caused by biomass and biochar logistics and production. All
energy-intensive production of fertilizer, which Mohammadi et al. five studies included these, at least to some extent. Field et al. (2013)
(2017) included in their analysis. Finally, Kung et al. (2015) included and Kung et al. (2015) considered the entire life cycle, including GHG
the expected increase in the water-holding capacity of soils amended emissions from feedstock production, collection and transport, pyrolysis
with biochar. They assume this decreases the need for irrigation, plant operations, and biochar transport. Field et al. (2013) also included
entailing a reduced energy consumption and a reduction in GHG the GWP of particulate matter. Lu and El Hanandeh (2019) included

5
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

Fig. 1. ROSES flow diagram for systematic reviews (Haddaway et al., 2017).

GHG emissions from raw material extraction, drying, and pyrolysis. Field et al. (2013) included the GHG emissions from alternative
Meulemans (2016) only considered GHG emissions from on-farm bio­ biomass treatment as an external cost. They analyzed spent grains from
char application, whereas Pandit et al. (2018) only considered CH4 breweries as biochar feedstock. These spent grains are used as animal
emissions from pyrolysis. feed, offsetting corn and soy production. Therefore, it is assumed their
Soil GHG emissions were also mentioned in the previous section, as use for biochar production increases corn and soy production and,
some authors included them as external benefits (Field et al., 2013; hence, causes an external cost.
Mohammadi et al., 2017). However, the previous section also noted that Pandit et al. (2018) was the only study to include the negative health
the effect is uncertain. Meulemans (2016) serves as an example, finding effects of biochar production, considering the effects of CO and par­
decreased soil GHG emissions for one type of soil, but increased emis­ ticulate matter emitted during pyrolysis.
sions for the other. They did not actually find a statistically significant
difference between biochar and control treatments in their experiments, 3.2.3. Methods for monetization of external benefits and costs
but they did include it in the economic analysis. The reviewed studies monetized the external benefits and costs

6
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

Fig. 2. Potential maximum score, average score of the studies included after critical appraisal, and average score of the studies excluded after critical appraisal,
shown for each question in the critical appraisal framework (Table 2).

discussed in the previous sections in different ways. For the GHG et al., 2010; Malla et al., 2011). Arcenas et al. (2010) calculated the
emissions benefits and costs, carbon prices are used. The median carbon morbidity and mortality caused by solid fuel use for indoor cooking,
price in this review is 23.09 USD/Mg CO2. Galgani (2012) and Pandit which they valued with a combination of the value of a statistical life
et al. (2018) used prices from the voluntary carbon markets, using a (VSL), the human capital approach (HCA), and the cost of illness (COI).
price of 6 USD/Mg CO2 and 7 USD/Mg CO2, respectively. These are low The VSL is a valuation of the risk of mortality based on market choices
compared to the current price of 14 USD/Mg CO2 (Favasuli and Sebas­ (revealed preferences) or surveys (stated preferences) that imply a
tian, 2021). Next to the carbon price on voluntary carbon markets, one trade-off between money and risk. The HCA is based on the present
could also use the social cost of carbon (SCC). In the reviewed litera­ value of future earnings lost when an individual dies. Finally, the COI is
ture, the values used for the SCC ranged from 23.09 USD/Mg CO2 to 42 estimated from the cost of medical bills and time lost being ill (Arcenas
USD/Mg CO2 (Table 3). This wide range of estimates shows the uncer­ et al., 2010; Sparrevik et al., 2014; Viscusi and Aldy, 2003). Malla et al.
tainty associated with the SCC. One of the reasons is that studies assume (2011) monetized the health effects of using clean stoves by calculating
the emissions occur at different times, which impacts the choice of SCC the cost savings resulting from averted cases of acute lower respiratory
estimate (Interagency Working Group, 2021). As shown in Table 3, other infections and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, the same as
carbon prices were used as well (e.g., the European Union’s Emission considered by Arcenas et al. (2010). Thus, Pandit et al. (2018) assumed
Trading Scheme, The Treasury (2011), Dutta and Raghavan (2014); that the effects of indoor cooking are equal to those of outdoor biochar
Johnston et al. (2011); Ribaudo et al. (2014); Shackley et al. (2011)). production, which is arguably a conservative estimate.
The entire set of carbon prices used by the studies included in this review
also shows some variation, as shown in Fig. 3(b). The carbon price
ranged from 1 USD/Mg CO2 to 80 USD/Mg CO2. 3.3. Factors influencing biochar profitability and desirability (RQ2)
Instead of using carbon prices, one could also rely on subsidies.
Clare et al. (2015) used a subsidy for generating electricity from biomass This section discusses the factors influencing biochar’s profitability
and one for avoiding emissions from in-field straw burning. and desirability. As defined in Section 2, we distinguish these terms by
Government intervention can also take on the form of emissions the type of costs and benefits considered. Biochar production and use are
trading schemes. Campbell et al. (2018) used renewable identification said to be profitable when the private benefits outweigh the private
numbers (RINs), which are the mechanism to enforce the US Renewable costs, which are measured by market prices. Biochar production and use
Fuel Standard. Prices are set by the interaction between fuel blenders are desirable when the sum of private and external benefits outweighs
trying to reach their volume obligation of biofuel blended and fuel the sum of private and external costs. External benefits and costs are
blenders exceeding their targets (Thompson et al., 2010). Aller et al. usually not counted in market prices. Table 4 shows an overview of the
(2018) monetized the reduced nitrate leaching by using a price of 3.13 influencing factors and which reference studied them, including from
USD/lb N (6.90 USD/kg N). This price is based on a nitrogen emissions which perspective.
trading scheme intended to ensure water quality in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed (Ribaudo et al., 2014). 3.3.1. Biochar price
According to Pandit et al. (2018), the health cost of biochar pro­ In seven studies, sensitivity analysis showed that the biochar price
duction can be monetized by a value ranging from 0.4 USD/Mg biochar was the most influential factor for biochar’s production profitability
to 3.4 USD/Mg biochar, using 2 USD/Mg biochar for their calculations. and desirability (Burger, 2018; Campbell et al., 2018; Clare et al., 2015;
These findings are based on studies of indoor air pollution (Arcenas Dongyeob et al., 2015; Giwa et al., 2019; Heredia Salgado et al., 2018;
Wrobel-Tobiszewska et al., 2015). The main reason for this is the high

7
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

Table 3 Table 3 (continued )

Overview of the inclusion of externalities in the reviewed literature. Externality References Monetization
Externality References Monetization
GHG emissions from Field et al. (2013) 23.09 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC)
Benefits alternative biomass
Carbon sequestration Aller et al. (2018) 36 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC) treatment
Field et al. (2013) 23.09 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC) Health effects Pandit et al. (2018) Health effects: 2 USD/Mg
Galgani (2012) 7 USD/Mg CO2 (VCM) biochar (based on Arcenas
Galinato et al. (2011) 1 USD/Mg CO2 (2008 et al. (2010) and Malla et al.
Chicago Climate Exchange) (2011))
and 31 USD/Mg CO2 (2008
European Climate Exchange)
Kung et al. (2015) 10 USD/Mg CO2 (2009 variability in biochar prices. This high variability is evidenced by the
European Climate Exchange) wide range of prices in this review, which are as low as 17.15 USD/Mg
Lu & El Hanandeh 29 USD/Mg CO2 (Australian
biochar (Galgani, 2012) or even 0 USD/Mg biochar (Barry, 2018) and as
(2019) Government, The Treasury)
Meulemans (2016) 40.6 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC) high as 2,710 USD/Mg biochar (Meulemans, 2016). Fig. 3(a) in Section
Mohammadi et al. 15 USD/Mg CO2 (Johnston 3.2.3 visualizes this variation.
(2017) et al., 2011) and 80 USD/Mg Biochar’s price also influences the profitability and desirability of its
CO2 (Dutta & Raghavan, use, albeit as a cost. Galinato et al. (2011) compared three different
2014)
Pandit et al. (2018) 6 USD/Mg CO2 (VCM) and 42
prices (87 USD/Mg biochar, 114.05 USD/Mg biochar, and 350.74
USD/Mg CO2 (SCC) USD/Mg biochar) and found that wheat farmers could only achieve a
Snyder (2019) 30 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC) profit when the lowest biochar price and the highest carbon price (31
Wrobel-Tobiszewska 10 USD/Mg CO2 (Authors’ USD/Mg CO2) were assumed. Sessions et al. (2019) also analyzed the
et al. (2015) estimation)
maximum biochar costs a farmer could bear. Assuming a 10% yield
Avoided GHG emissions Field et al. (2013) 23.09 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC)
from agricultural Galinato et al. (2011) 1 USD/Mg CO2 (2008 increase lasting five years, farmers growing wheat could afford to pay up
inputs Chicago Climate Exchange) to 250 USD/ha. Using the same application rate used by Galinato et al.
and 31 USD/Mg CO2 (2008 (2011), this translates to 3.27 USD/Mg biochar. Compared to the me­
European Climate Exchange) dian price in this review (400 USD/Mg biochar), this maximum pur­
Kung et al. (2015) 10 USD/Mg CO2 (2009
European Climate Exchange)
chase price is close to that calculated by Galinato et al. (2011), which
Mohammadi et al. 15 USD/Mg CO2 (Johnston amounted to 9.19 USD/Mg biochar.
(2017) et al., 2011) and 80 USD/Mg
(Dutta & Raghavan, 2014) 3.3.2. Biomass feedstock
Reduced soil GHG Field et al. (2013) 23.09 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC)
Two studies found that the feedstock purchase price is the most
emissions Meulemans (2016) 40.6 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC)
Mohammadi et al. 15 USD/Mg CO2 (Johnston important determinant of biochar production profitability (Field et al.,
(2017) et al., 2011) and 80 USD/Mg 2013; Sessions et al., 2019).
CO2 (Dutta & Raghavan, From a user’s perspective, Aller et al. (2018) compared two types
2014) of biochar, which were different based not only on the feedstock, but
Substituted fossil Campbell et al. (2018) Subsidy: RIN
energy Clare et al. (2015) Subsidy for bioelectricity
also on the technology. More specifically, biochars are compared from
generation: 0.12 USD/kWh the slow pyrolysis of hardwood and the fast pyrolysis of corn stover. The
(feed-in tariff) biochar from hardwood resulted in greater private and external benefits.
Heredia Salgado et al. 15 USD/Mg CO2 (EU ETS, It caused greater corn yield increases, providing private benefits. How­
(2018) based on Shackley et al.
ever, these were still not enough for profitability. External benefits were
(2011))
Kung et al. (2015) 10 USD/Mg CO2 (2009 higher because of the higher carbon content and higher
European Climate Exchange) carbon-to-nitrogen ratio, meaning greater carbon sequestration and
Meulemans (2016) 40.6 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC) decreased nitrogen leaching, respectively.
Mohammadi et al. 15 USD/Mg CO2 (Johnston Two studies examined the effect of feedstock from a life cycle
(2017) et al., 2011) and 80 USD/Mg
CO2 (Dutta & Raghavan,
perspective. Field et al. (2013) compared fast pyrolysis at 500 ◦ C for
2014) waste pine wood and spent grains from breweries. They found that the
Snyder (2019) 30 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC) private loss is smaller for spent grains than for pine wood, mainly
Avoided emissions from Field et al. (2013) 23.09 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC) because the opportunity cost of using spent grains for pyrolysis instead
alternative biomass Galgani (2012) 7 USD/Mg CO2 (VCM)
of animal feed is lower than the cost of collecting the waste wood in
treatment (GHG)
Avoided emissions from Clare et al. (2015) Subsidy for avoiding in-field forests. However, using pine wood provides higher external benefits, as
alternative biomass straw burning: 28 USD/Mg the avoided air pollution from burning the wood in the forest more than
treatment (non-GHG) straw offsets the emissions from collecting it. Using spent grains and diverting
Reduced nutrient Aller et al. (2018) Nitrogen leaching: 3.13 USD/ them from being used as animal feed is assumed to increase corn and soy
leaching lb N or 6.90 USD/kg N (
production. They also need more drying to reach a moisture content
Ribaudo et al., 2014)
Costs suitable for pyrolysis. However, monetizing the difference in net GHG
GHG emissions from Field et al. (2013) 23.09 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC) balance does not make up for the difference in profitability, which
operations Kung et al. (2015) 10 USD/Mg CO2 (2009 means that the spent grains are more desirable (Field et al., 2013). Kung
European Climate Exchange)
et al. (2015) examined fast pyrolysis of poplar, corn stover, rice straw,
Lu & El Hanandeh 29 USD/Mg CO2 (Australian
(2019) Government, The Treasury) orchard waste, animal waste, and open pasture waste. All are desirable,
Meulemans (2016) 40.6 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC) but the greatest desirability is achieved with poplar, whereas orchard
Pandit et al. (2018) 6 USD/Mg CO2 (VCM) and 42 waste results in the lowest. The main reason is a lower biochar yield
USD/Mg CO2 (SCC) when using poplar. This means that more electricity can be generated,
Increased soil GHG Meulemans (2016) 40.6 USD/Mg CO2 (SCC)
resulting in higher revenues and more substituted fossil energy. Kung
emissions
et al. (2015) assumed the same amount of carbon is sequestered, irre­
spective of the biochar yield, even though the carbon sequestration per
Mg of feedstock should increase with increasing biochar yield.

8
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

Fig. 3. Variation in (a) biochar prices (USD/Mg) and (b) carbon prices (USD/Mg CO2) used by the studies included in this review. The line indicates the me­
dian value.

Table 4
Overview of the factors influencing biochar’s profitability and desirability, the references that studied each of them, and from which perspective.
Factor Producer perspective User perspective Integrated production and use Life cycle perspective

Biochar price Burger (2018) a Galinato et al. (2011)

Campbell et al. (2018) a Sessions et al. (2019)
Clare et al. (2015) a
Dongyeob et al. (2015) a
Giwa et al. (2019) a
Heredia Salgado et al. (2018) a
Wrobel-Tobiszewska et al. (2015) a
Feedstock Sessions et al. (2019) a Aller et al. (2018) Field et al. (2013) a
Kung et al. (2015)
Production conditions Campbell et al. (2018) Heredia Salgado et al. (2018) Aller et al. (2018) Field et al. (2013)
Sessions et al. (2019) Kung et al. (2015)
Snyder (2019) Lu and El Hanandeh (2019)
Scale Abbas et al. (2018) Aller et al. (2018) Pandit et al. (2018)
Burger (2018) Williams and Arnott (2010)
Location Aller et al. (2018)
Dickinson et al. (2015)
Meulemans (2016)
Externalities Campbell et al. (2018) Aller et al. (2018) Mohammadi et al. (2017)
Clare et al. (2015) Dickinson et al. (2015) b Pandit et al. (2018)
Galgani (2012) Galinato et al. (2011)
a
Identified as most important parameter.
b
Not studied but mentioned.

3.3.3. Biochar production technology not distinguish between fast and slow pyrolysis, but did compare py­
Along with the choice of feedstock, Sessions et al. (2019) also iden­ rolysis at 450 ◦ C and 550 ◦ C. Unlike Snyder (2019), they found the lower
tified pyrolysis technology as one of the crucial parameters for biochar temperature more desirable because they assumed the same amount of
production profitability. Pyrolysis technologies are broadly categorized energy is valorized in both scenarios. Therefore, the higher biochar yield
into slow and fast pyrolysis, which can be distinguished in terms of in the lower temperature scenario increases revenues. Furthermore,
heating rate, residence time, and temperature (Kung et al., 2015; Roy Heredia Salgado et al. (2018) assumed a high biochar price (2,650
and Dias, 2017). For example, Snyder (2019) compared fast pyrolysis at USD/Mg biochar). Similarly, Campbell et al. (2018) compared two slow
500 ◦ C to slow pyrolysis at 400 ◦ C. The NPV is positive for both, but pyrolysis technologies with different temperatures: 500 ◦ C and 450 ◦ C –
nearly three times higher for fast pyrolysis, while the scale of operation 650 ◦ C. Contrary to Heredia Salgado et al. (2018), Campbell et al. (2018)
is identical. The difference is due to a higher bio-oil yield and the higher found that the high-temperature technology is more profitable. How­
value assumed for bio-oil, namely 500 USD/Mg as opposed to 35 ever, this is mainly because of lower capital and operational expendi­
USD/Mg for biochar (Snyder, 2019). Heredia Salgado et al. (2018) did tures associated with the choice of technology, hence not related to the

9
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

temperature. They also found that self-sustainability – that is, where the and 100,000 Mg were profitable, whereas rates of 10,000 Mg and lower
produced syngas provides the energy required for pyrolysis – is crucial were not. However, the assumed biochar sales price (220.55 USD/Mg
for profitability. When the syngas is condensed to sell bio-oil, it cannot biochar) is relatively low compared to the median price in this review
be used. In addition, the condensation requires increased operational (400 USD/Mg biochar). Abbas et al. (2018) compared three annual rice
expenditures in the form of labor and catalysts. husk feed rates (2,500 Mg, 5,000 Mg, and 25,000 Mg) and found that all
Another possible distinction in pyrolysis technologies was made by were profitable. However, they implicitly modeled diseconomies of
Sessions et al. (2019), who compared thermal pyrolysis with microwave scale by increasing the unit production costs by 25% with increasing
pyrolysis. That is the only study in this review to consider microwave scale. The authors referred to Shabangu et al. (2014) to motivate their
pyrolysis. Across all considered scenarios, the production cost is lower increase in production cost. However, Shabangu et al. (2014) suggested
for thermal pyrolysis than for microwave pyrolysis, at about 485 increasing total production costs instead of unit production costs.
USD/Mg biochar and 600 USD/Mg biochar, respectively. Thermal py­ Nearly all studies assumed that biochar is used as a soil amendment.
rolysis usually involves natural gas or the produced pyrolysis gas Only Abbas et al. (2018) and Sahoo et al. (2019) did not mention a
(Campbell et al., 2018; Sessions et al., 2019), but the sun can also supply specific application. Therefore, when the analysis is performed from a
the needed energy. Giwa et al. (2019) analyzed such a process, finding user’s perspective, the scale of operation is about the application rate.
the production costs amount to 1,600 USD/Mg biochar. Direct com­ Aller et al. (2018) compared three application rates (22, 45, and 90
parison to the results of Sessions et al. (2019) is impossible because the Mg/ha) and assumed the effects of a single application of biochar would
scale assumed by Giwa et al. (2019) is nearly 20 times smaller. Pro­ last for 32 years. The private benefits decrease with increasing appli­
duction costs alone do not provide information on the profitability or cation rates, as the increased crop yield does not offset the larger pur­
desirability of biochar production. Giwa et al. (2019) acknowledged this chase costs. The external benefits – that is, carbon sequestration and
by including the biochar market price and calculating the NPV, which reduced nitrate leaching – increase with increasing application rates.
they found to be 3,479,000 USD. Sessions et al. (2019) compared the This is obvious for the carbon sequestration potential, as more carbon is
production cost to the maximum biochar price farmers could pay, stored in the soil. The increased amount of carbon in the soil also en­
calculated as a function of the crop grown, the yield increase achieved, hances nitrogen immobilization, so leaching is reduced with an
and its persistence. Due to their high value per hectare, potatoes and increasing biochar application rate (Archontoulis et al., 2016). Aller
alfalfa are the most promising crops. Assuming the yield increase per­ et al. (2018) found that a biochar application rate of 22 Mg/ha yields the
sists for five years, it should be approximately 2% for potatoes and 7% greatest benefits per Mg biochar. Regarding application costs, Williams
for alfalfa to meet the production costs. Other crops like wheat, barley, and Arnott (2010) compared five application rates for two different
and hay need yield increases higher than 15% (Sessions et al., 2019). application methods. One is the broadcast-and-disk method, where
The analysis from a user’s perspective was already discussed in biochar is spread on the soil surface and worked into the soil through
Section 3.3.2, as Aller et al. (2018) compared two types of biochar that disking. For this application method, application costs ranged from 29
differ in feedstock and technology. More specifically, biochars are USD/acre (71.66 USD/ha) for an application rate of 2.5 Mg/acre (6.18
compared from the slow pyrolysis of hardwood and the fast pyrolysis of Mg/ha) to 300 USD/acre (741.32 USD/ha) for 50 Mg/acre (123.55
corn stover. The biochar made from slow pyrolysis yielded greater pri­ Mg/ha). Based on these figures, we calculated the application costs per
vate and external benefits. The authors attribute this to the higher car­ Mg biochar, which decreased from 11.60 USD/Mg biochar to 6 USD/Mg
bon content and carbon-to-nitrogen ratio. biochar because the cost of disking is independent of the application
From a life cycle perspective, Kung et al. (2015) found that fast rate. Compared to the broadcast-and-disk method, the application costs
pyrolysis is more desirable than slow pyrolysis because of the higher for the trench-and-fill method were more variable, ranging from 26
electricity sales. Increasing the carbon price, thereby putting more value USD/acre (64.25 USD/ha) for an application rate of 5 Mg/acre (12.36
on biochar’s carbon sequestration potential, could increase the desir­ Mg/ha) to 1,280 USD/acre (3,163 USD/ha) at 75 Mg/acre (185.33
ability of slow pyrolysis. As discussed earlier in this section, Snyder Mg/ha). As calculated for the broadcast-and-disk method, the applica­
(2019) valued biochar less than bio-oil. Hence, they also found that fast tion cost per Mg biochar increased from 5.20 USD/Mg biochar to 17.10
pyrolysis was more profitable than slow pyrolysis because it achieved a USD/Mg biochar for the trench-and-fill method. This method was
lower biochar yield. The same is true for Field et al. (2013), who generally more expensive because it is more time-consuming. Williams
compare fast pyrolysis and different types of slow pyrolysis, though even and Arnott (2010) concluded that biochar application using any of the
fast pyrolysis incurred a loss. Regarding slow pyrolysis, they analyzed a two methods is more expensive than any other common agricultural
traditional carbonization kiln and a modern fixed-bed reactor. Looking process. Together with the uncertainty regarding the agronomic benefits
at profitability, only the recovery of bio-oil – a possibility of modern of biochar, they argued that this makes farmers hesitate to use biochar.
technology – impacts the economic performance by increasing revenues. Pandit et al. (2018) compared five different application rates (5, 10,
However, the profitability is still lower than fast pyrolysis, where more 15, 25, and 40 Mg/ha) from the perspective of a farmer producing and
bio-oil is recovered. Including the external benefits, the desirability using biochar. In all carbon price scenarios (0, 6, 42 USD/Mg CO2), the
improves when gases from the traditional kiln are flared. It improves desirability reaches a maximum for 15 Mg/ha.
further when using modern technology because the syngas is combusted
to generate electricity, and even more when recovering bio-oil, which 3.3.5. Application context
substitutes fossil fuels. Kung et al. (2015) and Field et al. (2013) assumed Meulemans (2016) compared the desirability of the use of biochar
the same temperature for both fast and slow pyrolysis. Lu and El for two soil types in the same climate, which depended on the type of
Hanandeh (2019) only investigated fast pyrolysis, but they did so for crop grown. The use of biochar showed a positive NPV on the fertile
different temperatures (300 ◦ C – 600 ◦ C with 50 ◦ C increments). They Mollisol for Napier grass, but not for sweet corn, while the opposite was
found that only 300 ◦ C was undesirable, whereas the highest desirability true on the low-fertility Oxisol. However, the NPV was consistently
was achieved at 550 ◦ C. higher for the control treatment without biochar, meaning a rational and
well-informed farmer will not use biochar. The main reason for this
3.3.4. Scale of operation consistently lower NPV is the high biochar cost. The assumed biochar
From a producer’s perspective, the scale of operation relates to the purchase price (2,710 USD/Mg biochar) is the highest of all reviewed
basic microeconomic principle of economies of scale. Burger (2018) studies, much higher than the median market price of 400 USD/Mg
implicitly assumed economies of scale by applying the so-called and biochar. Similar to Meulemans (2016) comparing two crops, Aller et al.
commonly accepted six-tenths rule in their investigation of different (2018) compared two cropping systems, albeit for the same soil. They
sizes of bamboo processing facilities. Annual feed rates of 50,000 Mg found that both private and external benefits are higher when

10
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

continuously cultivating corn compared to a rotation of corn and soy­ Mohammadi et al. (2017) found that the NPV of using biochar is 12%
bean and attributed this difference in profitability to higher crop yields. higher than the NPV of not using it, even without a carbon price. This
The difference in desirability is attributed to the good nitrogen fixation means that private benefits are enough to convince farmers to use bio­
of soybean, meaning a lower nitrogen application rate is required in the char. The difference in NPV further increases to 23% or 71%, using a
rotation. Therefore, there is less leaching in the rotation anyway, and the carbon price of 15 USD/Mg CO2 or 80 USD/Mg CO2, respectively. Pandit
additional benefit of biochar use is smaller. et al. (2018) also considered three carbon price scenarios (0, 6, and 42
Regarding the assumed location for each case study, the focus lies on USD/Mg CO2), although these are lower than the ones in Mohammadi
North America, with ten studies out of 24 (Appendix C). Of the 24 et al. (2017). Furthermore, Pandit et al. (2018) included external costs
studies, only one compared different continents. Dickinson et al. (2015) in addition to the external benefits. These are the health effects of CO
compared typical case studies for North-Western Europe and and particulate matter, and the GWP of CH4 emissions. The latter is only
Sub-Saharan Africa. They varied nearly all relevant parameters between included in the scenarios with a carbon price, which is used to monetize
the two scenarios, like production method, application rate, feedstock, it. Pandit et al. (2018) found that the deployment of biochar increases
crop yield increases (magnitude and persistence), and crop prices. They profitability by 21%, even without a carbon price. This rise in profit­
found that biochar is never profitable as a soil amendment for cereal ability can increase to 26% or 53% with a carbon price of 6 USD/Mg CO2
production in North-Western Europe. In Sub-Saharan Africa, even with or 42 USD/Mg CO2, respectively. Whereas the health costs comprised
the most advantageous values for the cost of biochar, grain yield, crop only a minor part (<2%) of private biochar production costs, the CH4
price, and discount rate, the yield increase would need to last for at least emissions cost amounted to up to 4% or 30% of it, using the low or high
seven years. Dickinson et al. (2015) noted that biochar’s long-term carbon prices, respectively.
behavior and reliability are uncertain, concluding that profitability is
uncertain in Sub-Saharan Africa, too. Finally, Aller et al. (2018) studied 4. Discussion
the effect of the removal and sale of crop residues. This option to in­
crease farm profitability harms soil quality and agricultural productiv­ This systematic review synthesizes the available empirical evidence
ity, but biochar could alleviate this problem (Aller et al., 2018). If on the economics of biochar. Firstly, the inclusion in economic assess­
biochar enables or increases residue removal, this is a benefit of its use. ments of impacts on other societal actors was investigated. These im­
Aller et al. (2018) considered three residue removal rates: 0%, 50%, and pacts are external to biochar producers and users and are therefore
90%. There is a private loss without residue removal, but the external called externalities. Including these externalities leads to more sustain­
benefits compensate for that loss. The private benefits increase with able decisions and informs potential policymakers within government
increasing removal rates, whereas the external benefits remain almost institutions. Information on the external benefits and costs on top of
constant for all three removal rates. When 50% of the residues are sold, private benefits and costs is necessary to provide valid arguments for
there is a profit, which incentivizes farmers to use biochar. market interventions by the government (such as quotas or subsidies) to
stimulate market uptake by private economic agents. Even though
3.3.6. Included externalities monitoring non-monetized environmental impacts is becoming
When the externalities are internalized through market instruments increasingly important for private actors to comply with ESG (environ­
such as subsidies, taxes, or tradeable permits, they directly influence a mental, social, and corporate governance) reporting standards, this re­
technology’s profitability. For example, Campbell et al. (2018) demon­ view focuses on monetized externalities.
strated that the inclusion of an externality, internalized using renewable Slightly more than half of the economic assessments of biochar
identification numbers (RINs, see Section 3.2.3), can make biochar production and use consider externalities. However, most studies focus
production profitable, as it increased the NPV from − 24,210,000 USD on the inclusion of external benefits alone, while external costs are often
to 7,760,000 USD. In Clare et al. (2015), the NPV increased substantially ignored. Of the 24 studies in this review, 14 included external benefits,
(from − 20,300,000 USD to − 1,840,000 USD) due to subsidies for whereas only five included external costs. The external benefits
avoiding the burning of straw and generating electricity from biomass, included in the reviewed studies were carbon sequestration, avoided
although it was still negative. Galgani (2012) included carbon credits for GHG emissions from agricultural inputs, reduced soil GHG emissions,
carbon sequestration and landfill avoidance of agricultural wastes, substituted fossil energy, avoided emissions from alternative biomass
which increased the ROI from − 22.13% to − 16.25%. Again, the inclu­ treatment (GHG and non-GHG), and reduced nutrient leaching
sion of externalities did not make biochar production profitable, partly (Table 3). These are mostly related to GHG emissions. The effects bio­
due to the low assumed carbon prices. char has on soils and plants are uncertain for two reasons. First, biochar
The inclusion of externalities also impacts the profitability and is a heterogeneous product as different types of biochar are obtained
desirability of biochar’s use. Galinato et al. (2011) found that, without when a different feedstock or pyrolysis temperature is used. Second, the
a carbon price, farmers would only be willing to pay 9.19 USD/Mg physical, biochemical, and microbiological processes at work when
biochar, but this value would increase to 100.73 USD/Mg biochar with a biochar is applied are very complex and depend on application rate,
carbon price of 31 USD/Mg CO2. However, this is still much lower than crop, and soil type. Therefore, studies report a wide range of biochar
the prices in this review (median: 400 USD/Mg biochar). Aller et al. effects (Joseph et al., 2021). However, the carbon sequestration poten­
(2018) found that, without the sale of crop residue (the removal of tial of biochar is much less uncertain. It has been one of the focal points
which is enabled by biochar), the internalization of external benefits of biochar research in the past two decades (Wu et al., 2019), and several
(that is, carbon storage and reduced nitrate leaching) is needed for studies have shown biochar’s potential as a way to mitigate climate
farmers’ profitability. Dickinson et al. (2015) did not include external­ change (Fuss et al., 2018; Smith, 2016; Woolf et al., 2010). Therefore, it
ities in their analysis and found that the use of biochar is unlikely to be is unsurprising that carbon sequestration received considerable atten­
profitable. However, they did mention financial compensation for bio­ tion in the reviewed studies, with 11 out of the 14 studies including this
char’s carbon sequestration as an option to improve profitability. Ac­ benefit.
cording to that study, the required carbon prices are 63 USD/Mg CO2 in Contrary to the carbon sequestration potential of biochar, only one
North-Western Europe and 20 USD/Mg CO2 in Sub-Saharan Africa. The study included reduced nutrient leaching – nitrogen in this case – as an
latter compares especially favorably to the median carbon price in this external benefit (Aller et al., 2018). Similarly, only one study included
review (23.09 USD/Mg CO2) and the latest estimate of the SCC (51 non-GHG emissions of avoiding the usual treatment of the considered
USD/Mg CO2) (Interagency Working Group, 2021). biomass. Clare et al. (2015) took avoided CO and particulate matter
The two studies assuming farmers produce and use biochar also emissions, which mainly have adverse health effects, into account by
investigate the effect of a carbon price on a farmer’s profitability. including a subsidy for avoiding in-field straw burning.

11
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

The included external costs were categorized into GHG emissions underrepresented in this review, a conclusion shared with previous re­
from operations, increased soil GHG emissions, GHG emissions from views (Agegnehu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016). This is paradoxical to
alternative biomass treatment, and health effects. Similar to the external the fact that the highest yield increases are achieved in (sub)tropical
benefits, the focus is on GHG emissions. A possible external cost category areas (Jeffery et al., 2017; Joseph et al., 2021), which coincide with
that is missing concerns biochar’s possible polluting effect. Polycyclic developing countries (Robb et al., 2020). The increased soil fertility
aromatic hydrocarbons are the main pollutant in biochar, but also heavy brought about by biochar can help smallholder farmers and reduce
metals can be important, especially when biochar is produced from poverty and hunger (Barrett and Bevis, 2015; Dwibedi et al., 2022; Oni
environmental wastes such as sewage sludge (Abhishek et al., 2022; et al., 2019; Rogers et al., 2022). This is especially true when the farmers
Zhao et al., 2023). The category GHG emissions from operations is can make use of agricultural waste to produce the biochar themselves
defined here as GHG emissions from biomass and biochar logistics and (Ghorbani et al., 2021; Yrjälä et al., 2022), such as was the case for
production. For example, Meulemans (2016) only considered GHG Mohammadi et al. (2017) and Pandit et al. (2018).
emissions from on-farm biochar application, and Pandit et al. (2018) In a North-American context, Williams and Arnott (2010) pointed to
only considered CH4 emissions from pyrolysis. The GHG emissions from the importance of application costs, which can differ between applica­
alternative biomass treatment and from soil are ambiguous categories, tion methods. They compared broadcast-and-disk and trench-and-fill
as they can be both an external benefit and an external cost. For soil GHG and found the former to be cheaper, but both were much more expen­
emissions, this ambiguity is due to the uncertainty of the effect biochar sive than any other agricultural process. However, since 2015 – five
has on soil GHG emissions (Ji et al., 2022; Schmidt et al., 2021; Woolf years after the work of Williams and Arnott (2010) – new agronomic
et al., 2021). GHG emissions from alternative biomass treatment can methods of biochar application have entered the stage (Schmidt et al.,
form a benefit or a cost depending on the context, for example, the 2021), which could also impact the application costs.
biomass feedstock used to produce biochar or the region under study. The choice of feedstock not only impacts its purchase price. In their
Field et al. (2013) exemplified the former by comparing waste wood and comparison of two feedstocks, Field et al. (2013) found that one is better
spent grains from breweries. The waste wood is usually burned in the for profitability, while the other has a lower global warming potential.
open, meaning turning it into biochar avoids harmful emissions. How­ The choice of feedstock also impacts the biochar yield per Mg of feed­
ever, the spent grains are used as animal feed, and using them to produce stock, as do the technology (that is, fast or slow pyrolysis) and the py­
biochar means more soy or corn needs to be produced. Different regions rolysis temperature. Generally, a lower biochar yield, achieved by fast
might use different treatments of the considered biomass residue pyrolysis or a higher temperature, was the most profitable. The reason is
(Shinde et al., 2022). Finally, Pandit et al. (2018) included adverse that the energy co-products usually have a higher value than biochar,
health effects, but these were very low, amounting to only 2% of private thus providing more revenue. In the past years, energy prices have kept
production costs. rising due to successive sanitary and geopolitical crises (Aitken and
The second research question of this review concerns the factors Ersoy, 2022), meaning this financial preference for fast pyrolysis is
influencing the profitability and desirability of biochar production and unlikely to change. Only one study found the lower temperature to be
use. We found that the profitability and desirability of biochar are highly more profitable (Heredia Salgado et al., 2018), but this is because they
case-specific, depending on factors like location, feedstock, scale, py­ assumed a fixed amount of energy to be utilized. In the life cycle costing
rolysis conditions, biochar price, type of crop, and the inclusion of analysis of Lu and El Hanandeh (2019), 550 ◦ C came out as the optimal
externalities. temperature for fast pyrolysis. Sessions et al. (2019) were the only au­
The reviewed studies identified the biochar sales price and the thors in this review to investigate microwave pyrolysis and compared it
feedstock purchase price as the most influential parameters for bio­ to thermal pyrolysis, which, they found, has lower production costs.
char production profitability. The impact of the biochar sales price is Microwave pyrolysis has recently been gaining attention (Li et al., 2023;
mainly due to its high variability. This is evidenced by the studies in this Wu et al., 2019), as it is believed to reduce process time, reduce the need
review, as the price ranged from 0 USD/Mg biochar to 2,710 USD/Mg for drying of feedstocks, and provide rapid and convenient start-up and
biochar, shown in Fig. 3(a). Another important aspect of pricing is the shut-down of the process (Liew et al., 2019; Luque et al., 2012). Most
apparent discrepancy between prices assumed as revenues for biochar importantly, microwave pyrolysis is believed to yield biochar of higher
producers and the maximum prices users can pay. In this review, the quality due to a possible higher carbon content, surface area, and pore
studies that passed the critical appraisal only included biochar used as a volume, and fewer contaminants in its pores (Haeldermans et al., 2020;
soil amendment. Therefore, by definition, its users are farmers. Without Huang et al., 2016; Liew et al., 2018). Disadvantages are less flexibility
carbon prices, Galinato et al. (2011) and Sessions et al. (2019) found concerning the choice of feedstocks and worse financial performance,
that the farmer’s willingness to pay is lower than 10 USD/Mg biochar. especially regarding scale-up, given it is an emerging technology
This is much lower than the median biochar price in this review, which (Haeldermans et al., 2020; Luque et al., 2012). The latter is an additional
is 400 USD/Mg biochar. The prices buyers are willing to pay should at reason to perform more economic assessments of microwave pyrolysis
least be as high as the minimum price a seller needs. When minimum than the one bySessions et al. (2019) included in this review.
sales prices, necessary to cover production costs, are higher than a From a user’s perspective, Aller et al. (2018) compared two types of
buyer’s willingness to pay, there are no chances for market introduction biochar that differed based on feedstock and technology. They found
unless the government intervenes. Even with a carbon price of 31 biochar from slow pyrolysis of hardwood was more profitable and
USD/Mg CO2, this maximum willingness to pay only amounts to 100 desirable than biochar from fast pyrolysis of corn stover. In addition,
USD/Mg biochar. However, while carbon prices are imperative for they found that an application rate of 22 Mg/ha yielded the highest
farmers using biochar (Dickinson et al., 2015; Galinato et al., 2011), this benefits, both private and external, per Mg of biochar. However, the
is not the case when they produce it themselves. The two studies that effects of biochar application depend on many factors, such as the type
assumed integrated production and use of biochar found that biochar of crops grown, the type of soil, and the location in general (Aller et al.,
application increased the farmer’s profitability, even if they are not 2018; Meulemans, 2016). Dickinson et al. (2015) compared two typical
compensated for the carbon sequestration (Mohammadi et al., 2017; case studies, one for North-Western Europe and one for Sub-Saharan
Pandit et al., 2018). This is partly due to the use of freely available Africa. They varied production method, application rate, feedstock,
biomass, either their own agricultural residues or a problematically crop yield increases (magnitude and persistence), and crop prices and
invasive shrub. However, both case studies are in lower-middle-income found that biochar’s potential lies in Sub-Saharan Africa.
countries (Nepal and Vietnam), meaning the capital and labor costs are Finally, the studies included in this review did not consider some
relatively low. The fact that low labor costs are important is supported issues. As mentioned before, biochar is seen as a way to mitigate climate
by Owsianiak et al. (2021). We note that developing countries are change, but the effect climate change has on biochar is often overlooked.

12
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

Climate change impacts biomass production, impacting the biomass Steiner et al., 2010; Vandecasteele et al., 2016). These effects should also
available to produce biochar (Kung and Mu, 2019). Besides, it was be included in economic assessments. Another avenue for future
mentioned before that the studies included in this review only consid­ research is the current lack of economic assessments of biochar’s use in
ered a single biochar application, namely its use as a soil amendment. other applications than as soil amendment. All but two of the studies
However, none of them assumed the amended soil was polluted, either included in this review assumed that biochar was used as a soil
with organic pollutants or heavy metals, even though these are two amendment, and those two did not specify any application. High-quality
types of pollution biochar could remedy (Ji et al., 2022). Reviving such data are necessary to perform a sound economic assessment, and these
polluted soils could provide a larger financial benefit than the potential are currently lacking. Finally, more standardization of economic as­
crop yield increase in already cultivated land. Furthermore, in addition sessments could enable a quantitative analysis of the profitability and
to biochar’s soil application and the other four applications considered desirability of biochar production and use. This analysis, in turn, could
in this review, biochar has other potential applications which can in­ help the biochar community to make decisions about, for example,
crease its value. Examples of such applications are removing both feedstock, pyrolysis technology, or biochar application. The uncertainty
inorganic and organic pollutants from water and soil, catalysts, and faced by companies and policymakers would then be reduced, meaning
electrodes, where biochar – considered a low-cost option in those ap­ biochar deployment could progress.
plications – can replace the more expensive alternative. However, the
possibility of replacement depends on the biochar’s physical and surface
properties. Hence, these properties should be carefully considered Declaration of competing interest
(Bartoli et al., 2020; Fdez-Sanromán et al., 2020; Kumar et al., 2020;
Qambrani et al., 2017; Qian et al., 2015; Sakhiya et al., 2020). The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
5. Conclusion the work reported in this paper.

This systematic review, following the guidelines of the Collaboration Data availability
for Environmental Evidence, examined the economics of biochar.
Existing research includes externalities to some extent but mostly con­ Data will be made available on request.
centrates on the external benefits rather than the external costs.
Furthermore, the focus is often on externalities – both benefits and costs Acknowledgments
– related to greenhouse gases (GHGs). The focus on GHG emissions
might be explained by the existence of tradable permit systems that can This work was supported by the Research Foundation Flanders
provide opportunities for monetizing these GHG externalities and a lack [S000119N] through the BASTA project. The authors would like to
of policies that reward biochar users for the generation of these benefits thank the project partners, who were identified as the stakeholders of
(Verde and Chiaramonti, 2021). We emphasize that the lack of coverage this review, for their input in developing the review protocol. Finally,
of these externalities unrelated to GHG emissions only pertains to eco­ the authors would like to thank Pieter Fonteyn for his help designing the
nomic studies of biochar production and use, not to biochar research in figures in this article.
general. As such, to increase the evidence base on the economic value of
a wider set of externalities of biochar use, we advocate for an increase in Appendix A. Supplementary data
multidisciplinary research on biochar, in which soil science aspects are
combined with economic expertise. By doing so, measurements of Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
biochar-induced changes in ecosystem functions and processes, which org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137138.
can be described as external from an economic perspective, can be
translated into monetary values. This is important for external benefits
References
but also for external costs, which are currently not studied enough
(Brtnicky et al., 2021; George, 2022; Wang and Wang, 2019). Abbas, Q., Liu, G., Yousaf, B., Ali, M.U., Ullah, H., Munir, M.A.M., Liu, R., 2018.
In this review, the terms profitability and desirability were distin­ Contrasting effects of operating conditions and biomass particle size on bulk
characteristics and surface chemistry of rice husk derived-biochars. J. Anal. Appl.
guished from each other. Profitability means private benefits outweigh
Pyrolysis 134, 281–292.
private costs, whereas desirability accounts for both private and external Abhishek, K., Shrivastava, A., Vimal, V., Gupta, A.K., Bhujbal, S.K., Biswas, J.K.,
costs and benefits. The profitability and desirability of biochar are Singh, L., Ghosh, P., Pandey, A., Sharma, P., Kumar, M., 2022. Biochar application
highly case-specific, depending on factors like location, feedstock, scale, for greenhouse gas mitigation, contaminants immobilization and soil fertility
enhancement: a state-of-the-art review. Sci. Total Environ. 853, 158562.
pyrolysis conditions, biochar price, type of crop, and the inclusion of Agegnehu, G., Srivastava, A.K., Bird, M.I., 2017. The role of biochar and biochar-compost
externalities. This unpredictability discourages companies and policy­ in improving soil quality and crop performance: a review. Appl. Soil Ecol. 119,
makers, which slows down biochar deployment. For private actors and 156–170.
Aitken, C., Ersoy, E., 2022. War in Ukraine: the options for Europe’s energy supply.
policymakers, case-specific economic assessments are needed to inform World Econ. 46(4).
decision-making. For governments, the inclusion of the most relevant Aller, D.M., Archontoulis, S.V., Zhang, W., Sawadgo, W., Laird, D.A., Moore, K., 2018.
externalities is necessary to decide whether a market intervention is Long term biochar effects on corn yield, soil quality and profitability in the US
Midwest. Field Crop. Res. 227, 30–40.
justified. This is the case when the societal benefits of biochar produc­ Arcenas, A., Bojö, J., Larsen, B.r., Ruiz Ñunez, F., 2010. The economic costs of indoor air
tion or use (including both private and external benefits) outweigh so­ pollution: new results for Indonesia, the Philippines, and timor-Leste. J. Nat. Resour.
cietal costs (including both private and external costs), while the private Pol. Res. 2 (1), 75–93.
Archontoulis, S.V., Huber, I., Miguez, F.E., Thorburn, P.J., Rogovska, N., Laird, D.A.,
benefits are lower than the private costs (Owsianiak et al., 2021). 2016. A model for mechanistic and system assessments of biochar effects on soils and
Based on the findings of this systematic review, we outline four areas crops and trade-offs. GCB Bioenergy 8 (6), 1028–1045.
of future research. Future research should aim to include external Barrett, C.B., Bevis, L.E.M., 2015. The self-reinforcing feedback between low soil fertility
and chronic poverty. Nat. Geosci. 8 (12), 907–912.
costs as well as external benefits and go beyond the ones related to
Barry, D.J., 2018. Pyrolysis as an Economical and Ecological Treatment Option for Solid
greenhouse gases. For example, biochar is expected to increase the Anaerobic Digestate and Municipal Sewage Sludge. University of Western Ontario.
water-holding capacity and decrease the heavy metal availability when Bartoli, M., Giorcelli, M., Jagdale, P., Rovere, M., Tagliaferro, A., 2020. A review of non-
applied to soils (Glaser et al., 2015; Hmid et al., 2015). In other appli­ soil biochar applications. Materials 13 (2).
Blagodatsky, S., Smith, P., 2012. Soil physics meets soil biology: towards better
cations like composting and anaerobic digestion, biochar could decrease mechanistic prediction of greenhouse gas emissions from soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 47,
emissions of greenhouse gases and ammonia (Mumme et al., 2014; 78–92.

13
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

Boardman, A.E., Greenberg, D.H., Vining, A.R., Weimer, D.L., 2014. Cost-benefit summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and
Analysis: Concepts and Practice, 4 ed. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow. systematic maps. Environ. Evid. 7 (1), 7.
Bridgwater, A.V., 1994. Catalysis in thermal biomass conversion. Appl. Catal. Gen. 116 Haeldermans, T., Campion, L., Kuppens, T., Vanreppelen, K., Cuypers, A., Schreurs, S.,
(1), 5–47. 2020. A comparative techno-economic assessment of biochar production from
Brtnicky, M., Datta, R., Holatko, J., Bielska, L., Gusiatin, Z.M., Kucerik, J., different residue streams using conventional and microwave pyrolysis. Bioresour.
Hammerschmiedt, T., Danish, S., Radziemska, M., Mravcova, L., Fahad, S., Kintl, A., Technol. 318, 10.
Sudoma, M., Ahmed, N., Pecina, V., 2021. A critical review of the possible adverse Haghighi Mood, S., Pelaez-Samaniego, M.R., Garcia-Perez, M., 2022. Perspectives of
effects of biochar in the soil environment. Sci. Total Environ. 796, 148756. engineered biochar for environmental applications: a review. Energy Fuels 36 (15),
Burger, M.D., 2018. Evaluating Different Value Adding Processing Systems for Bamboo 7940–7986.
Developments. Stellenbosch University. Heredia Salgado, M.A., Tarelho, L.A.C., Matos, A., Robaina, M., Narvaez, R., Peralta, M.
Campbell, R.M., Anderson, N.M., Daugaard, D.E., Naughton, H.T., 2018. Financial E., 2018. Thermoeconomic analysis of integrated production of biochar and process
viability of biofuel and biochar production from forest biomass in the face of market heat from Quinoa and Lupin residual biomass. Energy Pol. 114, 332–341.
price volatility and uncertainty. Appl. Energy 230, 330–343. Hmid, A., Al Chami, Z., Sillen, W., De Vocht, A., Vangronsveld, J., 2015. Olive mill waste
Campion, L., 2020. The economics of biochar: a systematic review. https://doi.org/10 biochar: a promising soil amendment for metal immobilization in contaminated
.17605/OSF.IO/RDPKH. soils. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Control Ser. 22 (2), 1444–1456.
Clare, A., Shackley, S., Joseph, S., Hammond, J., Pan, G., Bloom, A., 2015. Competing Huang, Y.-F., Chiueh, P.-T., Lo, S.-L., 2016. A review on microwave pyrolysis of
uses for China’s straw: the economic and carbon abatement potential of biochar. lignocellulosic biomass. Sustainable Environment Research 26 (3), 103–109.
GCB Bioenergy 7 (6), 1272–1282. Interagency Working Group, 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon,
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2018. Guidelines and standards for evidence Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990.
synthesis in environmental management. www.environmentalevidence.org/infor Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States
mation-for-authors.2020. Government.
Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, 2021. Collaboration for environmental International Fertilizer Industry Association, 2021. Global demand for agricultural
evidence critical appraisal tool. Version 0.3 (Prototype). https://environmentalevi fertilizer by nutrient from 2011/2012 to 2021/2022 (in million metric tons)
dence.org/cee-critical-appraisal-tool/. [Graph]. In: Statista.
Dal Ferro, N., Camarotto, C., Piccoli, I., Berti, A., Mills, J., Morari, F., 2020. Stakeholder Jeffery, S., Abalos, D., Prodana, M., Bastos, A.C., van Groenigen, J.W., Hungate, B.A.,
perspectives to prevent soil organic matter decline in Northeastern Italy. Verheijen, F., 2017. Biochar boosts tropical but not temperate crop yields. Environ.
Sustainability 12 (1), 378. Res. Lett. 12 (5), 053001.
Dickinson, D., Balduccio, L., Buysse, J., Ronsse, F., van Huylenbroeck, G., Prins, W., Ji, M., Wang, X., Usman, M., Liu, F., Dan, Y., Zhou, L., Campanaro, S., Luo, G., Sang, W.,
2015. Cost-benefit analysis of using biochar to improve cereals agriculture. GCB 2022. Effects of different feedstocks-based biochar on soil remediation: a review.
Bioenergy 7 (4), 850–864. Environ. Pollut. 294, 118655.
Dongyeob, K., McLean Anderson, N., Woodam, C., 2015. Financial performance of a Johnston, L., Hausman, E., Biewald, B., Wilson, R., White, D., 2011. Carbon dioxide price
mobile pyrolysis system used to produce biochar from Sawmill residues. For. Prod. J. forecast. Synapse Energy Economics.
65 (5), 189–197. Joseph, S., Cowie, A.L., Van Zwieten, L., Bolan, N., Budai, A., Buss, W., Cayuela, M.L.,
Dutta, B., Raghavan, V., 2014. A life cycle assessment of environmental and economic Graber, E.R., Ippolito, J.A., Kuzyakov, Y., Luo, Y., Ok, Y.S., Palansooriya, K.N.,
balance of biochar systems in Quebec. International Journal of Energy and Shepherd, J., Stephens, S., Weng, Z., Lehmann, J., 2021. How biochar works, and
Environmental Engineering 5 (2–3), 106. when it doesn’t: a review of mechanisms controlling soil and plant responses to
Dwibedi, S.K., Pandey, V.C., Divyasree, D., Bajpai, O., 2022. Biochar-based land biochar. GCB Bioenergy 13 (11), 1731–1764.
development. Land Degrad. Dev. 33 (8), 1139–1158. Joseph, S., Peacocke, C., Lehmann, J., Munroe, P., 2009. Developing a Biochar
Favasuli, S., Sebastian, V., 2021. Understanding voluntary carbon markets, S&P global Classification and Test Methods. Biochar for environmental management, Earthscan,
platts insight. Murray Fisher 40–47. pp. 107–126.
Fawzy, S., Osman, A.I., Yang, H., Doran, J., Rooney, D.W., 2021. Industrial biochar Konno, K., Livoreil, B., Pullin, A., 2021. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence
systems for atmospheric carbon removal: a review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 19 (4), Critical Appraisal Tool. Version 0.3 (Prototype).
3023–3055. Kumar, A., Saini, K., Bhaskar, T., 2020. Advances in design strategies for preparation of
Fdez-Sanromán, A., Pazos, M., Rosales, E., Sanromán, M.A., 2020. Unravelling the biochar based catalytic system for production of high value chemicals. Bioresour.
environmental application of biochar as low-cost biosorbent: a review. Appl. Sci. 10 Technol. 299, 122564.
(21), 7810. Kung, C.-C., Mu, J.E., 2019. Prospect of China’s renewable energy development from
Field, J.L., Keske, C.M.H., Birch, G.L., Defoort, M.W., Francesca Cotrufo, M., 2013. pyrolysis and biochar applications under climate change. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Distributed biochar and bioenergy coproduction: a regionally specific case study of Rev. 114, 109343.
environmental benefits and economic impacts. GCB Bioenergy 5 (2), 177–191. Kung, C.C., Kong, F., Choi, Y., 2015. Pyrolysis and biochar potential using crop residues
Fuss, S., Lamb, W.F., Callaghan, M.W., Hilaire, J., Creutzig, F., Amann, T., Beringer, T., and agricultural wastes in China. Ecol. Indicat. 51, 139–145.
de Oliveira Garcia, W., Hartmann, J., Khanna, T., Luderer, G., Nemet, G.F., Latawiec, A.E., Królczyk, J.B., Kuboń, M., Szwedziak, K., Drosik, A., Polańczyk, E.,
Rogelj, J., Smith, P., Vicente, J.L.V., Wilcox, J., del Mar Zamora Dominguez, M., Grotkiewicz, K., Strassburg, B.B.N., 2017. Willingness to adopt biochar in
Minx, J.C., 2018. Negative emissions—Part 2: costs, potentials and side effects. agriculture: the producer’s perspective. Sustainability 9 (4),, 655.
Environ. Res. Lett. 13 (6), 063002. Lee, J.W., Kidder, M., Evans, B.R., Paik, S., Buchanan Iii, A.C., Garten, C.T., Brown, R.C.,
Galgani, P., 2012. Compost, Biogas and Biochar in Northern Ghana: Climate Impact and 2010. Characterization of biochars produced from cornstovers for soil amendment.
Economic Feasibility in the Context of Voluntary Carbon Markets. Delft University of Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (20), 7970–7974.
Technology. Lehmann, J., 2007. A handful of carbon. Nature 447 (7141), 143–144.
Galinato, S.P., Yoder, J.K., Granatstein, D., 2011. The economic value of biochar in crop Lehmann, J., 2009. Terra Preta Nova–where to from Here?, Amazonian Dark Earths.
production and carbon sequestration. Energy Pol. 39 (10), 6344–6350. Wim Sombroek’s Vision, pp. 473–486.
George, M., 2022. Unravelling the impact of potentially toxic elements and biochar on Lehmann, J., Czimczik, C., Laird, D., Sohi, S., 2012. Stability of Biochar in Soil, Biochar
soil: a review. Environmental Challenges 8, 100540. for Environmental Management. Routledge, pp. 215–238.
Ghorbani, M., Amirahmadi, E., Zamanian, K., 2021. In-situ biochar production Lehmann, J., Gaunt, J., Rondon, M., 2006. Bio-char sequestration in terrestrial
associated with paddies: direct involvement of farmers in greenhouse gases ecosystems – a review. Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Glob. Change 11 (2), 403–427.
reduction policies besides increasing nutrients availability and rice production. Land Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2009. Biochar for Environmental Management: an Introduction.
Degrad. Dev. 32 (14), 3893–3904. Biochar for environmental management. Earthscan, pp. 1–12.
Giwa, A., Yusuf, A., Ajumobi, O., Dzidzienyo, P., 2019. Pyrolysis of date palm waste to Lehmann, J., Kern, D.C., Glaser, B., Woods, W.I., 2003. Amazonian Dark Earths: Origin
biochar using concentrated solar thermal energy: economic and sustainability Properties Management. Springer, Dordrecht.
implications. Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 93, 14–22. Li, Y., Gupta, R., Zhang, Q., You, S., 2023. Review of biochar production via crop residue
Glaser, B., Haumaier, L., Guggenberger, G., Zech, W., 2001. The ’Terra Preta’ pyrolysis: development and perspectives. Bioresour. Technol. 369, 128423.
phenomenon: a model for sustainable agriculture in the humid tropics. Liew, R.K., Chai, C., Yek, P.N.Y., Phang, X.Y., Chong, M.Y., Nam, W.L., Su, M.H., Lam, W.
Naturwissenschaften 88 (1), 37–41. H., Ma, N.L., Lam, S.S., 2019. Innovative production of highly porous carbon for
Glaser, B., Wiedner, K., Seelig, S., Schmidt, H.-P., Gerber, H., 2015. Biochar organic industrial effluent remediation via microwave vacuum pyrolysis plus sodium-
fertilizers from natural resources as substitute for mineral fertilizers. Agron. Sustain. potassium hydroxide mixture activation. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 1436–1445.
Dev. 35 (2), 667–678. Liew, R.K., Nam, W.L., Chong, M.Y., Phang, X.Y., Su, M.H., Yek, P.N.Y., Ma, N.L.,
Grand View Research, 2019. Biochar Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Cheng, C.K., Chong, C.T., Lam, S.S., 2018. Oil palm waste: an abundant and
Technology (Gasification, Pyrolysis), by Application (Agriculture (Farming, promising feedstock for microwave pyrolysis conversion into good quality biochar
Livestock)), by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2019–2025. Grand View Research, with potential multi-applications. Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 115, 57–69.
San Francisco, CA, USA, p. 166. Lombardo, U., Arroyo-Kalin, M., Schmidt, M., Huisman, H., Lima, H.P., de Paula
Haddaway, N., Macura, B., Whaley, P., Pullin, A., 2017. ROSES Flow Diagram for Moraes, C., Neves, E.G., Clement, C.R., Aires da Fonseca, J., de Almeida, F.O., Vieira
Systematic Reviews, 1.0. Alho, C.F.B., Bronk Ramsey, C., Brown, G.G., Cavallini, M.S., Lima da Costa, M.,
Haddaway, N.R., 2018. Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Cunha, L., dos Anjos, L.H.C., Denevan, W.M., Fausto, C., Fernandes Caromano, C.,
Open Science. Environ. Evid. 7 (1), 26. Fontana, A., Franchetto, B., Glaser, B., Heckenberger, M.J., Hecht, S., Honorato, V.,
Haddaway, N.R., Collins, A.M., Coughlin, D., Kirk, S., 2015. The role of Google scholar in Jarosch, K.A., Braga Junqueira, A., Kater, T., Tamanaha, E.K., Kuyper, T.W.,
evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching. PLoS One 10 (9). Lehmann, J., Madella, M., Maezumi, S.Y., Matthews Cascon, L., Mayle, F.E.,
Haddaway, N.R., Macura, B., Whaley, P., Pullin, A.S., 2018. ROSES RepOrting standards McKey, D., Moraes, B., Morcote-Ríos, G., Palheta Barbosa, C.A., Magalhães, M.P.,
for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive Prestes-Carneiro, G., Pugliese, F., Pupim, F.N., Raczka, M.F., Py-Daniel, A.R.,

14
L. Campion et al. Journal of Cleaner Production 408 (2023) 137138

Riris, P., Cigaran da Rocha, B., Rodrigues, L., Rostain, S., Macedo, R.S., Shock, M.P., Schmidt, H., Wilson, K., 2014. The 55 uses of biochar. Biochar J. Version of 12th May
Sprafke, T., Stampanoni Bassi, F., Valle, R., Vidal-Torrado, P., Villagrán, X.S., 2014.
Watling, J., Weber, S.L., Teixeira, W.G., 2022. Evidence confirms an anthropic origin Sessions, J., Smith, D., Trippe, K.M., Fried, J.S., Bailey, J.D., Petitmermet, J.H.,
of amazonian Dark Earths. Nat. Commun. 13 (1), 3444. Hollamon, W., Phillips, C.L., Campbell, J.D., 2019. Can biochar link forest
Lu, H.R., El Hanandeh, A., 2019. Life cycle perspective of bio-oil and biochar production restoration with commercial agriculture? Biomass Bioenergy 123, 175–185.
from hardwood biomass; what is the optimum mix and what to do with it? J. Clean. Shabangu, S., Woolf, D., Fisher, E.M., Angenent, L.T., Lehmann, J., 2014. Techno-
Prod. 212, 173–189. economic assessment of biomass slow pyrolysis into different biochar and methanol
Luque, R., Menendez, J.A., Arenillas, A., Cot, J., 2012. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of concepts. Fuel 117, 742–748. PART A.
biomass feedstocks: the way forward? Energy Environ. Sci. 5 (2), 5481–5488. Shackley, S., Hammond, J., Gaunt, J., Ibarrola, R., 2011. The feasibility and costs of
Malla, M.B., Bruce, N., Bates, E., Rehfuess, E., 2011. Applying global cost-benefit analysis biochar deployment in the UK. Carbon Manag. 2 (3), 335–356.
methods to indoor air pollution mitigation interventions in Nepal, Kenya and Sudan: Shinde, R., Shahi, D.K., Mahapatra, P., Singh, C.S., Naik, S.K., Thombare, N., Singh, A.K.,
insights and challenges. Energy Pol. 39 (12), 7518–7529. 2022. Management of crop residues with special reference to the on-farm utilization
McMeeking, G.R., Kreidenweis, S.M., Baker, S., Carrico, C.M., Chow, J.C., Collett Jr., J.L., methods: a review. Ind. Crop. Prod. 181, 114772.
Hao, W.M., Holden, A.S., Kirchstetter, T.W., Malm, W.C., Moosmüller, H., Smith, P., 2016. Soil carbon sequestration and biochar as negative emission technologies.
Sullivan, A.P., Wold, C.E., 2009. Emissions of trace gases and aerosols during the Global Change Biol. 22 (3), 1315–1324.
open combustion of biomass in the laboratory. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 114 (D19). Snyder, B.F., 2019. Costs of biomass pyrolysis as a negative emission technology: a case
Meulemans, J., 2016. Linking Global Warming Potential and Economics to Sustainability study. Int. J. Energy Res. 43 (3), 1232–1244.
of Biochar Use in Hawaiian Agriculture. University of Hawaii at Manoa. Sparrevik, M., Lindhjem, H., Andria, V., Fet, A.M., Cornelissen, G., 2014. Environmental
Meyer, S., Glaser, B., Quicker, P., 2011. Technical, economical, and climate-related and Socioeconomic impacts of utilizing waste for biochar in rural areas in Indonesia
aspects of biochar production technologies: a literature review. Environ. Sci. – a systems perspective. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48 (9), 4664–4671.
Technol. 45 (22), 9473–9483. Spokas, K.A., Cantrell, K.B., Novak, J.M., Archer, D.W., Ippolito, J.A., Collins, H.P.,
Mohammadi, A., Cowie, A.L., Cacho, O., Kristiansen, P., Anh Mai, T.L., Joseph, S., 2017. Boateng, A.A., Lima, I.M., Lamb, M.C., McAloon, A.J., 2012. Biochar: a synthesis of
Biochar addition in rice farming systems: economic and energy benefits. Energy 140, its agronomic impact beyond carbon sequestration. J. Environ. Qual. 41 (4),
415–425. 973–989.
Mumme, J., Srocke, F., Heeg, K., Werner, M., 2014. Use of biochars in anaerobic Sri Shalini, S., Palanivelu, K., Ramachandran, A., Raghavan, V., 2020. Biochar from
digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 164, 189–197. biomass waste as a renewable carbon material for climate change mitigation in
National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, 2009. Schizophrenia: Core reducing greenhouse gas emissions – a review. Biomass Convers. and Biorefinery.
Interventions in the Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Primary and Steiner, C., Das, K., Melear, N., Lakly, D., 2010. Reducing nitrogen loss during poultry
Secondary Care (Update). British Psychological Society. litter composting using biochar. J. Environ. Qual. 39 (4), 1236–1242.
Ofman, J.J., Sullivan, S.D., Neumann, P.J., Chiou, C.-F., Henning, J.M., Wade, S.W., The Treasury, 2011. Strong Growth, Low Pollution: Modelling a Carbon Price.
Hay, J.W., 2003. Examining the value and quality of health economic analyses: Thompson, W., Meyer, S., Westhoff, P., 2010. The new markets for renewable
implications of utilizing the QHES. J. Manag. Care Pharm. 9 (1), 53–61. identification numbers. Appl. Econ. Perspect. Pol. 32 (4), 588–603.
Oni, B.A., Oziegbe, O., Olawole, O.O., 2019. Significance of biochar application to the Vandecasteele, B., Sinicco, T., D’Hose, T., Vanden Nest, T., Mondini, C., 2016. Biochar
environment and economy. Ann. Agric. Sci. (Cairo) 64 (2), 222–236. amendment before or after composting affects compost quality and N losses, but not
Owsianiak, M., Lindhjem, H., Cornelissen, G., Hale, S.E., Sørmo, E., Sparrevik, M., 2021. P plant uptake. J. Environ. Manag. 168, 200–209.
Environmental and economic impacts of biochar production and agricultural use in Venkataramanan, V., Packman, A.I., Peters, D.R., Lopez, D., McCuskey, D.J.,
six developing and middle-income countries. Sci. Total Environ. 755, 142455. McDonald, R.I., Miller, W.M., Young, S.L., 2019. A systematic review of the human
Pandit, N.R., Mulder, J., Hale, S.E., Zimmerman, A.R., Pandit, B.H., Cornelissen, G., health and social well-being outcomes of green infrastructure for stormwater and
2018. Multi-year double cropping biochar field trials in Nepal: finding the optimal flood management. J. Environ. Manag. 246, 868–880.
biochar dose through agronomic trials and cost-benefit analysis. Sci. Total Environ. Verde, S.F., Chiaramonti, D., 2021. The Biochar System in the EU: the Pieces Are Falling
637–638, 1333–1341. into Place, but Key Policy Questions Remain. Robert Schuman Centre.
Phillips, C.L., Nickerson, N., 2015. Soil Respiration, Reference Module in Earth Systems Viscusi, W.K., Aldy, J.E., 2003. The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market
and Environmental Sciences. Elsevier. estimates throughout the world. J. Risk Uncertain. 27 (1), 5–76.
Pourhashem, G., Hung, S.Y., Medlock, K.B., Masiello, C.A., 2019. Policy support for Vitousek, P.M., Aber, J.D., Howarth, R.W., Likens, G.E., Matson, P.A., Schindler, D.W.,
biochar: review and recommendations. GCB Bioenergy 11 (2), 364–380. Schlesinger, W.H., Tilman, D.G., 1997. Technical report: human alteration of the
Qambrani, N.A., Rahman, M.M., Won, S., Shim, S., Ra, C., 2017. Biochar properties and global nitrogen cycle: sources and consequences. Ecol. Appl. 7 (3), 737–750.
eco-friendly applications for climate change mitigation, waste management, and Wang, J., Wang, S., 2019. Preparation, modification and environmental application of
wastewater treatment: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 79, 255–273. biochar: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 227, 1002–1022.
Qian, K., Kumar, A., Zhang, H., Bellmer, D., Huhnke, R., 2015. Recent advances in West, T.O., McBride, A.C., 2005. The contribution of agricultural lime to carbon dioxide
utilization of biochar. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 42, 1055–1064. emissions in the United States: dissolution, transport, and net emissions. Agric.
Ribaudo, M., Savage, J., Aillery, M., 2014. An economic assessment of policy options to Ecosyst. Environ. 108 (2), 145–154.
reduce agricultural pollutants in the Chesapeake Bay. USDA-ERS Econ. Res. Rep. Williams, M.M., Arnott, J.C., 2010. A comparison of variable economic costs associated
(166). with two proposed biochar application methods. Ann. of Environ. Sci. 23–30.
Robb, S., Joseph, S., Abdul Aziz, A., Dargusch, P., Tisdell, C., 2020. Biochar’s cost Woolf, D., Amonette, J.E., Street-Perrott, F.A., Lehmann, J., Joseph, S., 2010. Sustainable
constraints are overcome in small-scale farming on tropical soils in lower-income biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat. Commun. 1 (1), 56.
countries. Land Degrad. Dev. 31 (13), 1713–1726. Woolf, D., Lehmann, J., Ogle, S., Kishimoto-Mo, A.W., McConkey, B., Baldock, J., 2021.
Rogelj, J., Shindell, D., Jiang, K., Fifita, S., Forster, P., Ginzburg, V., Handa, C., Greenhouse gas inventory model for biochar additions to soil. Environ. Sci. Technol.
Kheshgi, H., Kobayashi, S., Kriegler, E., Mundaca, L., Séférian, R., Vilariño, M.V., 55 (21), 14795–14805.
2018. Mitigation pathways compatible with 1.5 C in the context of sustainable Wrobel-Tobiszewska, A., Boersma, M., Sargison, J., Adams, P., Jarick, S., 2015. An
development. In: Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., economic analysis of biochar production using residues from Eucalypt plantations.
Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Biomass Bioenergy 81, 177–182.
Matthews, J.B.R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M.I., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Wu, P., Ata-Ul-Karim, S.T., Singh, B.P., Wang, H., Wu, T., Liu, C., Fang, G., Zhou, D.,
Tignor, M., Waterfield, T. (Eds.), Global Warming of 1.5◦ C. An IPCC Special Report Wang, Y., Chen, W., 2019. A scientometric review of biochar research in the past 20
on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5◦ C above Pre-industrial Levels and Related years (1998–2018). Biochar 1 (1), 23–43.
Global Greenhouse Gas Emission Pathways, in the Context of Strengthening the Xiao, R., Wang, J.J., Gaston, L.A., Zhou, B., Park, J.-H., Li, R., Dodla, S.K., Zhang, Z.,
Global Response to the Threat of Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and 2018. Biochar produced from mineral salt-impregnated chicken manure: fertility
Efforts to Eradicate Poverty. properties and potential for carbon sequestration. Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 78,
Rogers, P.M., Fridahl, M., Yanda, P., Hansson, A., Pauline, N., Haikola, S., 2022. Socio- 802–810.
economic determinants for biochar deployment in the Southern Highlands of Yargicoglu, E.N., Sadasivam, B.Y., Reddy, K.R., Spokas, K., 2015. Physical and chemical
Tanzania. Energies. characterization of waste wood derived biochars. Waste Manage. (Tucson, Ariz.) 36,
Roy, P., Dias, G., 2017. Prospects for pyrolysis technologies in the bioenergy sector: a 256–268.
review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 77, 59–69. Ye, L., Camps-Arbestain, M., Shen, Q., Lehmann, J., Singh, B., Sabir, M., 2020. Biochar
Safarian, S., 2023. To what extent could biochar replace coal and coke in steel industries? effects on crop yields with and without fertilizer: a meta-analysis of field studies
Fuel 339, 127401. using separate controls. Soil Use Manag. 36 (1), 2–18.
Sahoo, K., Bilek, E., Bergman, R., Mani, S., 2019. Techno-economic analysis of producing Yrjälä, K., Ramakrishnan, M., Salo, E., 2022. Agricultural waste streams as resource in
solid biofuels and biochar from forest residues using portable systems. Appl. Energy circular economy for biochar production towards carbon neutrality. Curr. Opin. in
235, 578–590. Environ. Sci. Health. 26, 100339.
Sakhiya, A.K., Anand, A., Kaushal, P., 2020. Production, activation, and applications of Zhang, D., Yan, M., Niu, Y., Liu, X., van Zwieten, L., Chen, D., Bian, R., Cheng, K., Li, L.,
biochar in recent times. Biochar 2 (3), 253–285. Joseph, S., Zheng, J., Zhang, X., Zheng, J., Crowley, D., Filley, T.R., Pan, G., 2016. Is
Schmidt, H.-P., Kammann, C., Hagemann, N., Leifeld, J., Bucheli, T.D., Sánchez current biochar research addressing global soil constraints for sustainable
Monedero, M.A., Cayuela, M.L., 2021. Biochar in agriculture – a systematic review of agriculture? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 226, 25–32.
26 global meta-analyses. GCB Bioenergy 13 (11), 1708–1730. Zhao, Y., Li, X., Li, Y., Bao, H., Xing, J., Zhu, Y., Nan, J., Xu, G., 2023. Biochar acts as an
emerging soil amendment and its potential ecological risks: a review. Energies.

15