Scholarlink

<p>Biochar has emerged as a carbon-negative feedstock for soil amendment, carbon sequestration, and waste valorization. It has become a vital feedstock for sustainable energy in the circular economy. The global biochar market was valued at USD 698.2 million in 2025 and is projected to surpass USD 2040 million by 2033. High production costs (USD 200–2000/ton) and methodological inconsistencies in ecological and economic assessments have hindered its commercial acceptance. Existing reviews haven’t comprehensively assessed trade-offs across major feedstocks under integrated assessment models. This review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines to assess biochar produced from lignocellulosic biomass (LCB), algal biomass (AB), and food waste (FW) across the production amenability, life cycle assessment (LCA), and technoeconomic analysis (TEA) cascades. We hypothesize that LCB is the most economical pathway, while AB and FW require targeted advances. Production methods, including slow pyrolysis, hydrothermally carbonized, and gasification, were comparatively assessed. LCA reveals GWP values (− 1.2 to + 0.4&#xa0;kg CO<sub>2</sub> eq/kg) for biochar, with variable parameters including functional-unit selection (35%), system boundary definitions (28%), and carbon permanence assumptions (22%). TEA inferred production costs of USD 150–400/ton for LCB, USD 400–1200/ton for AB, and USD 200–600/ton for FW via integrated anaerobic digestion-pyrolysis. Our key inference was that 85% of the reported variation in GWP and MSP reflects methodological heterogeneity rather than actual performance differences. This challenges current evidence-based decision-making and reveals that feedstock-specific drivers (energy integration for LCB, upstream cultivation for AB, and preprocessing infrastructure for FW) should be optimized to strategically reduce costs, rather than relying solely on pyrolysis.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Beyond pyrolysis optimization: a systematic review revealing feedstock acquisition and methodological standardization as critical barriers to biochar commercialization

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月21日

查看全文
  • R. B. Sherly Priyanka,
  • Uday Shashikumar,
  • Pei-Chien Tsai,
  • Swapnil Gurrani,
  • Gangadhar Andaluri,
  • Cheng-Di Dong,
  • Chyi-How Lay,
  • Yuan-Chung Lin,
  • Vinoth Kumar Ponnusamy

摘要

Biochar has emerged as a carbon-negative feedstock for soil amendment, carbon sequestration, and waste valorization. It has become a vital feedstock for sustainable energy in the circular economy. The global biochar market was valued at USD 698.2 million in 2025 and is projected to surpass USD 2040 million by 2033. High production costs (USD 200–2000/ton) and methodological inconsistencies in ecological and economic assessments have hindered its commercial acceptance. Existing reviews haven’t comprehensively assessed trade-offs across major feedstocks under integrated assessment models. This review adheres to the PRISMA guidelines to assess biochar produced from lignocellulosic biomass (LCB), algal biomass (AB), and food waste (FW) across the production amenability, life cycle assessment (LCA), and technoeconomic analysis (TEA) cascades. We hypothesize that LCB is the most economical pathway, while AB and FW require targeted advances. Production methods, including slow pyrolysis, hydrothermally carbonized, and gasification, were comparatively assessed. LCA reveals GWP values (− 1.2 to + 0.4 kg CO2 eq/kg) for biochar, with variable parameters including functional-unit selection (35%), system boundary definitions (28%), and carbon permanence assumptions (22%). TEA inferred production costs of USD 150–400/ton for LCB, USD 400–1200/ton for AB, and USD 200–600/ton for FW via integrated anaerobic digestion-pyrolysis. Our key inference was that 85% of the reported variation in GWP and MSP reflects methodological heterogeneity rather than actual performance differences. This challenges current evidence-based decision-making and reveals that feedstock-specific drivers (energy integration for LCB, upstream cultivation for AB, and preprocessing infrastructure for FW) should be optimized to strategically reduce costs, rather than relying solely on pyrolysis.

Graphical Abstract