From Transformation to Life Cycle Assessment of Biochar: A Case Study of Wheat Straw Biochar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biochar, as a carbon-rich material, exhibits significant potential for industrial applications. While numerous research endeavors have focused on its interactions within soil ecosystems, scant attention has been given to its behavior and potential impact on aquatic environments. In this study, we conducted an investigation to compare the environmental implications of pristine biochar with those of aged biochar. Initially, we assessed the interaction between biochar and key water quality indicators, revealing the release of endogenous ions (e.g., NH 4 +, NO 3 –, PO 4 3–, Cu 2+, and Cd 2+ ) as well as organic substances (e.g., DOC) from both pristine and aged biochar samples. Aged biochar released higher amounts of ions and organic substances than pristine biochar due to the change in the structure and properties of aged biochar. Environmental risk and toxicity of pristine and aged biochar were subsequently evaluated using the potential ecological risk index (RI) and the impact on growth of Chlorella vulgaris, respectively. The values of RI for Cu indicated a very low degree of environmental risk, while those for Cd were dependent on water quality for surface water. Our study provided thorough analysis on the environmental assessment of biochar by combining experimental environmental transformation and life cycle assessment (LCA) analysis, suggesting biochar could have excellent environmental applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".