Table 1.
Yield and proximate analysis (volatile matter, ash, carbon fixed) of biochars produced at different pyrolysis temperatures.
Table 2.
Elemental composition (C, H, S, O), and atomic ratios (H/C, O/C) of biochars produced at different pyrolysis temperatures.
Fig 1.
Water-soluble organic carbon—WSOC (A) and water-soluble inorganic carbon—WSIC (B) of biomasses and biochars at different pyrolysis temperatures.
CM = chicken manure, ES = eucalyptus sawdust, CH = coffee husk, SB = sugarcane bagasse, and PB = pine bark. Uppercase letters compare pyrolysis temperatures within the same biomass and lowercase letters compare biomass at the same temperature. Bar followed by the same letter do not differ by the Tukey test at p <0.05.
Fig 2.
X-ray diffraction spectra of biochars pyrolized at different temperatures (350, 450 and 750°C).
(A) Chicken manure biochar. (B) Coffee husk biochar. (C) Pine bark biochar.
Fig 3.
FTIR-ATR spectra of biomasses and their respective biochars pyrolyzed at 350, 450, and 750°C.
(A) Chicken manure. (B) Eucalyptus sawdust. (C) Coffee husk. (D) Sugarcane bagasse. (E) Pine bark.
Fig 4.
Values of pH-H20 (A), liming value (B), EC—electrical conductivity (C), and CEC—cation exchange capacity (D) as related to biomass and biochars.
CM = chicken manure, ES = eucalyptus sawdust, CH = coffee husk, SB = sugarcane bagasse, and PB = pine bark. Uppercase letters compare pyrolysis temperatures within the same biomass and lowercase letters compare biomass at the same temperature. Bar followed by the same letter do not differ by the Tukey test at p <0.05.
Fig 5.
Simplified schematic representation in which wood, sugarcane, coffee husk, and chicken manure biochars are typified according to chemical and physiochemical properties and potential for carrying out trials on weathered soils in regard to their potential agronomic or environmental services.