Can biomass-derived chars serve as a viable alternative to commercial inorganic fertilizers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing reliance on commercial inorganic fertilizers has raised significant environmental and economic concerns, including soil degradation, nutrient leaching, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. This review critically evaluates biomass-derived chars produced via thermochemical processes, i.e., pyrolysis, gasification, and hydrothermal carbonization, as potential alternatives to synthetic fertilizers. Among the three biomass-derived chars, biochar stands out as the most viable option for soil amendment due to its high stability, nutrient retention capacity, and long-term carbon sequestration benefits. Gasification char, despite its high porosity and adsorption capacity, often lacks bioavailable nutrients, whereas hydrochar, though rich in organic compounds, poses challenges related to stability and phytotoxicity. Biochar application has been shown to significantly reduce N2O emissions, enhance soil water retention, and mitigate nutrient runoff, offering clear environmental advantages over conventional fertilizers. Moreover, biochar has transitioned from an experimental soil amendment to a commercially available product with increasing adoption in agriculture worldwide, further reinforcing its practical viability. However, large-scale implementation still faces economic and logistical constraints, including high production costs, transportation inefficiencies, and regulatory uncertainties. Addressing these challenges through policy incentives such as subsidies and carbon credits can enhance the economic feasibility of biochar production and application. Given these findings, this review focuses on biochar as the most practical and sustainable alternative to commercial inorganic fertilizers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".