processes

Review
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Biochar Production from a
Circular Economy Perspective
Joana Carvalho 1,2 , Lucas Nascimento 1,2 , Margarida Soares 1 , Nádia Valério 1,2 , André Ribeiro 1,2 ,
Luciana Faria 1 , André Silva 1 , Nuno Pacheco 1,2 , Jorge Araújo 1 and Cândida Vilarinho 2, *

1 CVR—Centre for Waste Valorisation, University of Minho, 4800042 Guimarães, Portugal

2 MEtRICs—Mechanical Engineering and Resource Sustainability Center, Campus de Azurém,
Universidade do Minho, 4800058 Guimarães, Portugal
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Highlights:
Among several approaches to circular economy and zero-waste concepts, biochar production is a
great example and might be a way to push the economy to a carbon-neutral balance. Overall, despite
all the differences in assumptions and methodologies adopted, LCA proved that biochar is a very
promising way of contributing to carbon-efficient resource circulation, mitigation of climate change,
and economic sustainability.
What are the main findings?
• Biochar is considered a black porous and carbon-rich matter;
• Biochar is a promising source of alternative energy.
What is the implication of the main finding?
Citation: Carvalho, J.; Nascimento,
• It can be concluded that the costs are closely related to the technologies used in biochar production
L.; Soares, M.; Valério, N.; Ribeiro, A.; and also to the feedstock used.
Faria, L.; Silva, A.; Pacheco, N.;
Abstract: Climate change and environmental sustainability are among the most prominent issues
Araújo, J.; Vilarinho, C. Life Cycle
Assessment (LCA) of Biochar
of today. It is increasingly fundamental and urgent to develop a sustainable economy, capable of
Production from a Circular Economy change the linear paradigm, actively promoting the efficient use of resources, highlighting product,
Perspective. Processes 2022, 10, 2684. component and material reuse. Among the many approaches to circular economy and zero-waste
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10122684 concepts, biochar is a great example and might be a way to push the economy to neutralize carbon
balance. Biochar is a solid material produced during thermochemical decomposition of biomass
Academic Editors: Ali Umut Sen,
in an oxygen-limited environment. Several authors have used life cycle assessment (LCA) method
Catarina Pereira Nobre and Terencio
Rebello de Aguiar Junior
to evaluate the environmental impact of biochar production. Based on these studies, this work
intends to critically analyze the LCA of biochar production from different sources using different
Received: 30 September 2022 technologies. Although these studies reveal differences in the contexts and characteristics of pro-
Accepted: 5 December 2022
duction, preventing direct comparison of results, a clear trend appears. It was proven, through
Published: 13 December 2022
combining life cycle assessment and circular economy modelling, that the application of biochar is
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral a very promising way of contributing to carbon-efficient resource circulation, mitigation of climate
with regard to jurisdictional claims in change, and economic sustainability.
published maps and institutional affil-
iations. Keywords: life cycle assessment (LCA); biochar; biomass; circular economy

Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.

1. Introduction
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article As climate change is threatening the world and society grows exponentially, with
distributed under the terms and more and more waste being generated, environmental sustainability is being questioned. It
conditions of the Creative Commons has been proven that linear models promote huge negative impacts on the environment.
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// This occurs by extraction and landfilling at the end-of-life, and also in the economy, since
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ not only when discarded is the economic value of products zero, but the value of finite
4.0/). resources also increases [1,2]. The transition to a circular economy is connected to great

Processes 2022, 10, 2684. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr10122684 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/processes

Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 21

not only when discarded is the economic value of products zero, but the value of finite
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 2 of 19
resources also increases [1,2]. The transition to a circular economy is connected to great
expectations of ecological and economic benefits, helping in the clear separation between
economic growth and the use of resources, the building block of the linear economy and
expectations
its respective of ecological
impacts, andand economicpromoting
additionally benefits, helping in the clear
the perspective separation between
of sustainable growth
economic growth and the use of resources, the building block of
and egalitarian society. The circular models can potentially improve the efficiency the linear economy and
of using
its respective impacts, and additionally promoting the perspective
primary raw materials and allow the waste to return to production as high-quality of sustainable growth
and egalitarian
secondary society. [1,3].
raw materials The In circular models
addition, can potentially
a circular economy can improve the efficiency
also provide a platform of
using primary raw materials and allow the waste to return to production
for pioneering methodologies, technologies and business models that create improved as high-quality
secondaryvalue
economic raw materials [1,3].natural
from limited In addition, a circular
resources, helping economy
industry cantoalso provide
become more a platform
resilient
for pioneering methodologies, technologies and business models that create improved
to external impacts and improve its global competitiveness.
economic value from limited natural resources, helping industry to become more resilient
Among several approaches to circular economy and zero-waste concepts, biochar
to external impacts and improve its global competitiveness.
production is a great example and might be a way to push the economy to a carbon neutral
Among several approaches to circular economy and zero-waste concepts, biochar
balance [4]. The assembly and appliance of biochar has been widely developed all over
production is a great example and might be a way to push the economy to a carbon neutral
the world. Biochar is a solid material formed during the thermochemical decomposition
balance [4]. The assembly and appliance of biochar has been widely developed all over
of biomass in an oxygen-limited environment. It is defined, by the International Biochar
the world. Biochar is a solid material formed during the thermochemical decomposition
Initiative, as ‘‘a solid material obtained from the carbonization of biomass’’ [5,6]. Biochar
of biomass in an oxygen-limited environment. It is defined, by the International Biochar
can be produced through several techniques, such as pyrolysis, torrefaction, and
Initiative, as “a solid material obtained from the carbonization of biomass” [5,6]. Biochar can
gasification. It can also be obtained by various biomass feedstocks, such as wood, agro-
be produced through several techniques, such as pyrolysis, torrefaction, and gasification.
residues, or wastewater sludge.
It can also be obtained by various biomass feedstocks, such as wood, agro-residues, or
Several sludge.
wastewater studies report the environmental benefits of using biochar in the most diverse
industrial areas.
Several studiesHowever,
report the
the safest way to affirm
environmental thisof
benefits is using
through LCA in
biochar studies thatdiverse
the most assess
the
industrial areas. However, the safest way to affirm this is through LCA studieslayer
most diverse environmental impacts such as climate change and ozone that
degradation,
assess the most among others.
diverse LCA methodology
environmental impacts such is asa technical
climate changetool that allowslayer
and ozone the
systematic
degradation, analysis
amongand assessment
others. of the environmental
LCA methodology is a technicalaspects
tool that and potential
allows impacts
the systematic
associated with products or services throughout its life cycle. In this
analysis and assessment of the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated context, the aim of
this
with products or services throughout its life cycle. In this context, the aim of this work ison
work is to perform an overview on biochar concepts and applications and mostly to
LCA of biochar
perform production,
an overview analyzing
on biochar several
concepts andstudy cases, from
applications and the perspective
mostly on LCAof ofcircular
biochar
economy.
production, analyzing several study cases, from the perspective of circular economy.

2.
2. Biochar
Biochar
Biochar
Biochar is is considered
considered aa black
black porous
porous and
and carbon-rich
carbon-rich matter.
matter. This
This material
material can
can be
be
produced
produced with
with little
little or
orunavailable
unavailableair,
air,through
throughaathermochemical
thermochemicalconversion
conversionof ofbiomass.
biomass.
Chemical, biological
Chemical, biological and andphysical
physicalproperties
propertiesof of
biochar make
biochar it a great
make material
it a great with many
material with
purposes
many [7]. The
purposes [7].following Figurefigure
The following 1 presents some some
1 presents benefits of biochar.
benefits of biochar.

Figure 1. Biochar benefits (adapted from [6]).

Processes 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 21

Processes 2022, 10, 2684 3 of 19

Figure 1. Biochar benefits (adapted from [6]).

2.1. Biochar Production

2.1. Biochar Production
For biochar production, several thermochemical processes are used based on
For biochar
different production,
reaction several
conditions thermochemical
(amount of oxygen processes are used
available) based onpyrolysis,
including different
reaction conditions
gasification, (amount ofInoxygen
and torrefaction. available)
this way, severalincluding pyrolysis,
types of reactors gasification,
were developedand for
torrefaction. In this way,
biomass production, several
with types of of
the objective reactors werethe
achieving developed for biomass
highest quality and production,
yield of the
with the objective
product. of achieving
These reactors differthe
inhighest
certainquality and yield of
thermochemical the product.such
parameters, Theseas reactors
oxygen
differ
availability, temperature, and the rate of heating itself. Thus, these parameters varyand
in certain thermochemical parameters, such as oxygen availability, temperature, the
the rate ofand
physical heating itself.properties
chemical Thus, theseofparameters
the biocharvary
[8]. the
Thephysical andfigure
following chemical properties
2 shows these
of the biochar
several methods[8].[8].
The following Figure 2 shows these several methods [8].

Figure2.2.Biomass
Figure Biomassthermochemical
thermochemicalconversion technologies
conversion for for
technologies biochar production
biochar (adapted
production fromfrom
(adapted [8]).
[8]).
Biochar production quality heavily depends on the biomass’ compositions and prop-
erties.Biochar
These parameters
production define
qualitythe application
heavily dependsfields,
on production,
the biomass’quality and toxicity
compositions and
of biochar. Their stability is influenced by pyrolysis temperature,
properties. These parameters define the application fields, production, qualitythis being the main
and
parameter [9]. Biochar production involves a complex biochemical reaction process
toxicity of biochar. Their stability is influenced by pyrolysis temperature, this being the where
biomass undertakes
main parameter decomposition,
[9]. Biochar depolymerization
production involves a complexand condensation in anoxic
biochemical reaction high
process
temperature conditions [4,8,10]. Several factors define the quality of biochar,
where biomass undertakes decomposition, depolymerization and condensation in anoxic such as pH,
specific
high temperature conditions [4,8,10]. Several factors define the quality of biochar, suchthe
surface area, porosity, nutrients, and carbon content, the latter being one of as
main factors. surface
pH, specific High carbon content isnutrients,
area, porosity, directly linked to a high-quality
and carbon biochar
content, the [11]. one of
latter being
the main
2.1.1. Slowfactors. High
Pyrolysis carbon
and content is directly linked to a high-quality biochar [11].
Fast Pyrolysis

2.1.1.Different studiesand
Slow Pyrolysis have demonstrated
Fast Pyrolysis that slow pyrolysis allows the production of a
quality biochar. This technique is characterized by using moderate temperatures
Different
(350–500 studies
◦ C) and have demonstrated
low heating that slowother
rates [8]. In addition, pyrolysis allowsparameters
operational the production of a
strongly
quality biochar. This technique is characterized by using moderate temperatures
influence this type of pyrolysis, such as particle size, the atmosphere itself, the use of a (350–500
°C) and low
catalyst, heating
etc. Veses rates
et al. [8]. In
(2015), addition,
stated other operational
that improving parameters
the residence time ofstrongly
the rawinfluence
material
this type of pyrolysis, such as particle size, the atmosphere itself,
and the pyrolysis vapor in contact, as well as the particle size and the ratio the use of aofcatalyst,
catalystetc.
in
Veses et al. (2015), stated that improving the residence time of the
the biomass can favor the quality and production yield of biochar. Furthermore, it wasraw material and the
pyrolysis vapor
mentioned in contact,
that higher pyrolysisas temperatures
well as the particle
are verysize and the
important forratio of catalyst
improving in the
the quality
biomass can favor the quality and production yield of biochar. Furthermore,
of biochar (expanding carbon content), and reduced heating rate can increase its production it was
mentioned that higher
in this type of pyrolysis [12]. pyrolysis temperatures are very important for improving the
Unlike the slow process, fast pyrolysis is characterized by the application of high
heating rates, temperatures around 500 ◦ C, and residence times shorter than 2 s, with rapid
decomposition of the biomass [13]. As mentioned above, higher pyrolysis temperatures
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 4 of 19

increase the carbon content of the product and its specific surface area [14]. However,
Chen et al. (2016), mentioned that increases in pyrolysis temperature, such as an increase
in the heating rate, reduces the production yield due to the release of volatile gases. Since
there is a shorter residence time, the amount of carbon deposition is reduced too [8].

2.1.2. Gasification
Regarding gasification, this process involves an incomplete combustion of biomass
using several gasifying agents (air, pure oxygen, steam) that occur at 700–1000 ◦ C [8].
Briefly, the process involves three main reactions: the devolatilization of the biomass, the
combustion, and the gasification itself. Char from gasification is different from that obtained
through pyrolysis, essentially due to the oxidizing environment of the gasifier. This
environment affects the physical, chemical and morphological properties of biochar [15].
As mentioned above, the quality of biochar is directly related to the carbon content present,
which is essentially affected by gasification conditions. The main parameters are the
equivalence ratio, the properties of the raw material, pressure and the gasifying agent [16].
Several studies have shown that production yield decreases with increasing equivalence
ratio, since the gasification temperature increases and carbon content also decreases [17,18].

2.1.3. Torrefaction
In turn, the torrefaction process is a modern method of obtaining biochar from
biomass. This process is considered a mild pyrolysis, carried out at temperatures between
200–300 ◦ C, under anaerobic conditions [18]. This method uses low heating rates and long
residence times [8]. As for fast pyrolysis, increasing the processing temperature leads to a
reduction in production yield. However, it is possible to achieve an energetically denser
material, correlated with larger destruction of the structural elements. In turn, increasing
the process time increases the calorific value of the biomass and has positive effects on
carbon content [19,20]. The structure and biomass composition have influence on the pro-
cess. For example, the size particles and the presence of heavy metals affect the torrefaction
mechanism [20].
In short, the higher the carbon content, the more superior the quality of the biochar.
In turn, the carbon content is higher when all volatile compounds are released from the
biomass. This occurs when slow pyrolysis is carried out, being considered a deeper
pyrolysis, using moderate temperatures over a long period of time. In this way, slow
pyrolysis yields a high-quality biochar [8]. In torrefaction, the biochar undergoes only a
lighter pyrolysis, with a low content of volatile compounds released, and there are not so
many chemical reactions [21].

2.2. Biochar Applications

The interest in conversion of biomass waste from agriculture and forestry to energy
production and carbon sequestration has been growing [22–24]. Carbon and energy content
in these wastes make them potential candidates for thermochemical process to produce
bioenergy and bioproducts [24]. In general, the many approaches to using biochar facilitate
zero waste and the interest of circular economy values [25]. Pyrolysis of biomass waste pro-
duces biochar with great capacity in agricultural, industrial and construction applications.
In addition, a bio-oil that can be burned to generate hot water, steam and/or electricity, is
also produced in the process, thus reducing amount of waste discarded [4]. Recently, the
manufacture and use of biochar has been widely developed worldwide. However, there
are great uncertainties surrounding the operations, costs and emissions associated with
wood processing [26].
As already mentioned, raw material quality, production technology and method
conditions mainly define the efficiency, quality and biochar toxicity, and thus affect the
subsequent biochar application strategy [4,27,28]. The physicochemical characteristic of
biochar reveal its distinct application perspectives, involving soil conditioning, composting
additive, building material, activated carbon, promoting anaerobic digestion and a list
 emissions associated with wood processing [26].
As already mentioned, raw material quality, production technology and method
conditions mainly define the efficiency, quality and biochar toxicity, and thus affect the
subsequent biochar application strategy [4,27,28]. The physicochemical characteristic of
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 biochar reveal its distinct application perspectives, involving soil conditioning,5 of 19
composting additive, building material, activated carbon, promoting anaerobic digestion
and a list of potential uses that continues to expand [5,29–32]. As the number of biochar
purposes increases,
of potential usesso does
that the number
continues of producers.
to expand [5,29–32].However, it is neither
As the number financially
of biochar purposes
nor increases,
energetically viable to generate and apply biochar without standards or
so does the number of producers. However, it is neither financially nor ener- regulations
for getically
its production
viable and application
to generate [4]. To
and apply solve without
biochar this problem,
standards many countries are
or regulations for its
developing their own standards. So far, the International Biochar
production and application [4]. To solve this problem, many countries are Initiative (IBI)developing
in the
United
theirStates
own of America So
standards. andfar,
thethe
European Biochar
International Certificate
Biochar (EBC)
Initiative areinthe
(IBI) themost-usually
United States of
usedAmerica
standards andallthe
over the world.
European TheseCertificate
Biochar two standards(EBC)were built
are the helping to decrease
most-usually the
used standards
health and environmental risks correlated with the production and
all over the world. These two standards were built helping to decrease the health and use of biochar,
particularly
environmentalin agriculture. However,
risks correlated with thethe production
two standards
and use areofvoluntary industry in
biochar, particularly
guidelines.
agriculture. However, the two standards are voluntary industry guidelines. Asthese
As biochar has excellent potential for sustainability in several industries, biochar
two has
guidelines
excellent appear to befor
potential unsatisfactory
sustainability toin
regulate
severalthe quality of
industries, biochar
these twomanufactured
guidelines appear
as a to
whole. With the growing
be unsatisfactory importance
to regulate in biochar,
the quality manymanufactured
of biochar countries haveas their individual
a whole. With the
biochar policies
growing in line with
importance in IBI and EBC
biochar, many standards.
countriesOther
havenations, which presently
their individual biochar do not in
policies
havelinea with
biochar standard,
IBI and are controlling
EBC standards. Other biochar usage presently
nations, which with fertilizer
do notorhave compost
a biochar
specifications
standard, [4].are controlling biochar usage with fertilizer or compost specifications [4].
Figure 3 shows
Figure some
3 shows examples
some of promising
examples of promisingbiochar applications.
biochar applications.

Figure
Figure 3. Promising
3. Promising applications
applications of biochar
of biochar (adapted
(adapted fromfrom
[33]).[33]).
2.2.1. Agriculture
2.2.1. Agriculture
Biochar application in agriculture has been extensively tested in the laboratory and
Biochar application in agriculture has been extensively tested in the laboratory and
field, and it has been usually employed as a chemical component [34–36], or as a soil
field, and it has been usually employed as a chemical component [34,35,36], or as a soil
corrective to enhance crop production, increasing nutrient availability [35,36], water reten-
tion capacity [36] and soil microbial activity [37]. Biochar can increase the pH of highly
acidic soils [38–40] and mitigate the release of heavy metals into the soil [40–42]. Several
studies have shown the advantages of biochar application as a soil conditioner and have
demonstrated its potential in that respect. Some of the main benefits are the decreasing of
greenhouse gas emissions and the mitigation soil infertility and desertification, improving
soil quality and crop yield [43]. This is justified by the inorganic content present in biochar
that acts as a nutrient and aids in fertilization [44]. As previously mentioned, biochar is
produced by the thermal decomposition of biomass in an oxygen-limited ecosystem while
composting is the natural biodegradation of organic material by the microbial community in
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 6 of 19

aerobic conditions. Carbon-based compounds in compost degrades rapidly and mineralizes

so its valuable effects are quite short-lived, which is distinct from biochar, which can endure
in soil for a long time [45]. Biochar has also been applied as an additive to enhance the
composting rate e.g., a combination of 35% over mushroom compost with 20% biochar has
been demonstrated to decrease the composting time to 24 days in comparison to the more
common 90–270 days [46]. The elevated porosity of biochar can also enhance microbial
development in the compost stockpile and consequently speed up nutrient recovery [47].
The incorporation of biochar in poultry manure for composting condensed the thermophilic
stage and increased the highest temperature reached [48]. To manage the quality of biochar,
it is extremely essential to determine its organic and inorganic pollutions [49]. General
organic and inorganic contaminants that affect biochar quality are polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenols (PCBs), dioxins, furans and heavy met-
als [50]. In addition to biochar contaminations, it is also necessary to guarantee that biochar
brings more advantages to its applications, such as cation exchange capacity, moisture
retention, nutrient retention, plant growth promotion, heavy metals stabilization from soil
or construction material, etc. The effectiveness of biochar stabilization of heavy metals can
be assigned to the high surface area of the biochar, ability to raise the pH value, small-scale
particle, etc. Nevertheless, if biochar is used precisely for its toxicity assessment without
soil, a toxic influence is commonly found in living organisms [51]. This negative impact
is basically caused by its elevated pH value and potential contaminants, but once biochar
is blended with soil in a correct percentage (for example 1% or less), it generally has no
noticeable toxic effect and it can improve plant biomass and amount of microorganisms in
the soil, which are positive impacts. Studies show that the positive impacts are attributable
to the biochar raw material, pyrolysis temperature, biochar percentage and type of soil.
The cleaner the biochar raw material is, the less toxic the final biochar product is.
Another biochar application studied is soil remediation and amendment. Biochar
has been considered an appropriate matter for this purpose, allowing the absorption and
modification of pollutants, through their properties previously mentioned, associated with
physical adsorption on the surface and in micropore structures [52].
Biochar has great potential to sequester carbon from materials based on plants, binding
CO2 through long-term storage of carbon in soil. This ability is associated with the yield
of biochar, the content of stable carbon in biochar and the biochar stability in several
circumstances and timeframes of soils [53].

2.2.2. Wastewater Treatments

Regarding water purification, biochar can be used in wastewater treatments. Biochar
is efficient in the removal of several pollutants, as well as organic compounds (dyes, pheno-
lics, pesticides, polynuclear aromatics and antibiotic), nutrients and heavy metals. Heavy
metals are toxic, carcinogenic and non-biodegradable components, so their removal is
fundamental [54]. This capacity is justified by their absorbent ability in aqueous solutions
due their properties, such as porosity, pH, surface area, surface charge and mineral com-
position [55,56]. Concerning nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, etc.), if
their concentrations exceed the limits, these components become dangerous to the aquatic
ecosystem. Physical and chemical properties associated to biochar are of great significance
to the removal of these components, through various removal methods, involving electro-
static interaction, ligand exchange, precipitations with Mg2+ or Ca2+ , complexation with
functional hydroxyl, surface sorption, etc. [56–58]. The same is observed in the removal
of other organic pollutants, since the efficiency is strongly affected by physical properties,
such as specific surface areas and pore-size distribution, surface functional groups and
hydrophobic nature [59].

2.2.3. Building Materials

Another application of biochar is as a partial component of cementitious building
materials, specifically as a sustainable alterative to concrete cement, sand or another energy-
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 7 of 19

intensive additives used for concrete production [60–63]. Recent studies [61–65] have
established that biochar, made from several raw biomass materials under ideal pyrolysis
conditions, can lead to an enhancement in strength and biochar-mortar by 15–20% when
evaluated to control mixture. The filling of biochar particles can also promote a reduction
in capillary water absorption and water infiltration in biochar-mortar mix by 30–40%, thus
indicating reduction in water penetration and improved durability of the composite [64].
Heavy metal leaching is a common problem in waste heat treatment products, including
ashes and biochar, with a high level of heavy metal content being determined in sources [66].
Heavy metal contained in the biochar can run like leachate when structure builds are
exposed to rain and other weathering agents [67].

2.2.4. Activated Carbon

Biochar, with a large surface area and pore formation, can potentially be employed as
a low-cost activated carbon [68]. Nevertheless, beyond typical pyrolysis treatment of waste
biomass, the resulting biochar frequently shows poorer pore behavior than commercial
activated carbon. Therefore, several physical and chemical treatment processes were
proposed to convert crude biomass or low-grade coal into activated carbon [69]. Normally,
physical activation involves elevated temperature in the presence of steam, air, CO2 , N2
and inert gases, and chemical activation was carried out utilizing nitric acid, phosphoric
acid, sulfuric acid and potassium hydroxide, among others [70–72].

2.2.5. Anaerobic Digestion (AD)

AD is an important expertise for organic waste remediation and bioenergy recovery,
thus performing a vital role in development the global circular economy [72]. In fact,
biochar has been supported as capable of increasing the AD process through quite a few
mechanisms. More precisely, it was found that biochar performs a crucial role in increasing
AD through several mechanisms, including promoting direct interspecies electron transfer
among different microbial species due to biochar’s good conductivity [73]; increasing micro-
bial growth through biochar’s immobilization effect [74]; adsorbing inhibitory compounds
such as heavy metals, ammonia and volatile fatty acids in anaerobic bioreactor [75] and
increasing the buffering capacity of the bioreactor due to the relatively high alkalinity of
the biochar [75–77].

3. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) Definitions

The concern for the environmental impacts generated by the supply of products and
services to society has led to the growth of new tools and methods that aim to understand,
control and reduce these impacts. Life cycle assessment (LCA) can be characterized as a
compilation and assessment of inputs, outputs and potential environmental impacts of a
product or system throughout its life cycle. It is the most widely used assessment type
with wide international approval to measure environmental impacts [78,79]. LCA includes
entire supply chains, representing all the impacts that occur at different steps and locations
throughout the life cycle, regardless of particular processes’ physical locations [79].
For an LCA study to be validate, it is necessary to follow the steps stipulated by the
ISO 14040 standard, which consists of (i) defining an objective and scope; (ii) carrying out
an inventory with as much information as possible about inputs and outputs related to the
product or service; (iii) calculating environmental impacts; (iv) systematic and interactive
review to validate all information.
Several studies report the environmental benefits of using biochar in the most diverse
industrial areas. However, the safest way to affirm this is through LCA studies that
assess various environmental impacts, such as climate change and ozone layer degradation
among others.
According to Matuski et al. (2020), many authors have used the LCA method to assess
biochar projects environmental impact, and these articles are systematically revised to
discover a general trend or some pattern. The differences in these studies’ contexts and
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 8 of 19

characteristics do not allow a direct comparison of results, limiting the spectrum of LCA
studies. However, biochar application brings substantial benefits, either by neutralizing
the emission of greenhouse gases from agricultural production or as a carbon sequestration
approach. There is also a great capacity for energy production using synthesis gas and bio-
oil byproducts. The advantages of carbon sequestration in biochar and energy production
generally overbalance the greenhouse gas emissions produced through the production
and handling of the raw material. On the other hand, the effect on another types of
environmental impact needs to be assessed and normalized with the intuition of observing
some negative effect to guarantee the project’s economic sustainability [80].

3.1. Scope and Objective

The LCA concept’s definition includes the full definition and description of the product,
process or activity, the choice of the functional unit to be used and establishes the context
in which the valuation must be made, identifying the limits, environmental effects and the
methodologies considered for the evaluation.
According to Zhu et al. (2022), for the particular case of LCA of biochar, the objectives
and scope are, in general, divided into two fields of research, the first one related to the
assessment of the impacts of manufacture and use with association of carbon footprint,
midpoint impacts, air pollutants, acidification and other parameters. On the other hand,
the second field of research is focused on energy consumption efficiency and economic
aspects [81].
Table 1 presents some articles that assess the environmental impacts of biochar pro-
duction and use. They are divided by a functional unit, reference system, software and
impact methodologies used and other focuses.

Table 1. LCA case studies for biochar (adapted from [82]).

Region Country Functional Unit Reference System Allocation + System Boundaries Ref.
Typical Danish rapeseed to
Denmark 1 ton of dry seed Crop cultivation included. [83]
production.
Belgium, Spain, Compost, compost blend, System expansion, cut-off (feedstock),
1 kg product 1 ha/yr [84]
Italy mineral fertilizer. construction and pesticide omitted.
System expansion—where applicable
Preparation and
Zambia x avoided electricity production (diesel [85]
utilization of 1 kg biochar
fuel generator wood burning).
System expansion, switchgrass
Production of 1 ton (Mg) Compare two different
Canada cultivation included, energy [86]
biochar temperature scenarios.
production offset.
System expansion, energy and
fertilizer offset, cut-off (manure) þ all
Belgium 1 ton of biochar x [87]
(willow cultivation in marginal soils),
pyrolysis plant construction included.
Open burning of straw, two
seasons (spring and summer) System expansion, open burning of
Vietnam 1 ton of rice straw [88]
modelled, comparison with straw eschewed.
enriched biochar.
Oat flows used as feed or
Finland 1 ton oat flakes System expansion. [89]
for energy.
Three straw utilization
scenarios: briquetting
System expansion, offset from
China 1 ton of odt straw gasification, pyrolysis two [90]
avoided fuel consumption.
baseline (reference) scenarios:
reincorporation, burning
 Some authors used LCA study to measure the potential environmental impacts o
recovering nutrients from the soil using biochar [84]. Erison et al. (2022), performed a
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 LCA study envisaging the production of biodiesel using biochar as a 9catalyst of 19 [91
Lefebvre et al. (2021), evaluated the differences between sugarcane biomass and biocha
to assess which energy source emitted less CO2-eq in energy supply [92]. The objective
Some
related toauthors
the useusedof LCALCA instudy
biochar to measure the potential
are diversified, environmental
and often adapted to impacts of need
particular
recovering nutrients
of the research. from the soil using biochar [84]. Erison et al. (2022), performed an LCA
study The
envisaging the production
functional unit usedofvaries
biodiesel using each
within biochar as a catalyst
study, e.g., in[91].
the Lefebvre et al.
study performed b
(2021), evaluated the differences between sugarcane biomass and biochar to assess which
Field et al. (2013), the functional unit was the conversion of 1 ton of dry biomass int
energy source emitted less CO2 -eq in energy supply [92]. The objectives related to the use
biochar. In Hamedani et al.’s (2019), LCA study of biochar, the production of 1 ton o
of LCA in biochar are diversified, and often adapted to particular needs of the research.
biochar as functional
The functional unit unit
usedwas varies used. Xueach
within et al.study,
(2019),e.g.,defined the functional
in the study performedunit by of thei
study as a “hectare of agricultural area used for one year”
Field et al. (2013), the functional unit was the conversion of 1 ton of dry biomass into[87,93,94].
When
biochar. considering
In Hamedani the (2019),
et al.’s biocharLCA systems’
study main objective
of biochar, is the use of
the production or 1management
ton of o
biochar
biomass aswaste
functional unit was
streams, used. Xu
upstream et al. (2019),
functional unitsdefined the functional
are generally used, unit
suchofastheir
a dry or we
study as a “hectare
raw material [90].of agricultural
Another widely area used for oneapproach
applied year” [87,93,94].
is related to downstream flows
When considering the biochar systems’
where functional units are primarily specified as the massmain objective is the
of use or management
biochar produced or of the mas
biomass waste streams, upstream functional units are generally used, such as a dry or wet
of a crop produced in the treated field. Additionally, it is also common the combinatio
raw material [90]. Another widely applied approach is related to downstream flows, where
of the two methodologies, for example, a quantity of raw material that produces a certai
functional units are primarily specified as the mass of biochar produced or the mass of a
amount
crop of biochar
produced [95], orfield.
in the treated evenAdditionally,
multiple functional units [96].
it is also common In the studyofof
the combination theZhu et a
(2022), the author infers that a commonly used functional unit
two methodologies, for example, a quantity of raw material that produces a certain amount can be the production of
kWh
of of [95],
biochar produced
or evenenergy,
multiple stating
functional that,
unitsin[96].
termsIn theof study
comparison,
of Zhu et one of the mos
al. (2022),
recommended
the author infers functional
that a commonly units tousedbe functional
used is 1 ton unitof feed
can be and 1 ton of biochar.
the production of 1 kWh [81]
of produced energy, stating that, in terms of comparison, one of the
When referring to the boundaries, in the scope of LCA, they can be called “cradle t most recommended
functional
gate”, “gateunitstotogate”,
be used“cradle
is 1 ton toof feed andand
grave” 1 ton“cradle
of biochar.to [81]
cradle”. Each type of boundar
When referring to the boundaries, in the scope of LCA, they can be called “cradle
system is described in the literature in accordance with the detail level of study. In brie
to gate”, “gate to gate”, “cradle to grave” and “cradle to cradle”. Each type of boundary
the boundary system “cradle to gate” analyses environmental impacts from the extractio
system is described in the literature in accordance with the detail level of study. In brief, the
of the raw
boundary material
system “cradle totothe
gate”“entrance” at the factory,
analyses environmental whilefrom
impacts thethe“gate to gate”
extraction of system
measures
the raw materialthe to
environmental
the “entrance” at impacts of while
the factory, one or themore
“gate to manufacturing
gate” system measuresprocesses. Th
“cradle
the to grave”
environmental expression
impacts of one or ismore
usedmanufacturing
in the assessment processes. of The
the “cradle
impacts to that
grave” cover th
extraction of raw materials, the use phase and the final disposal of the product. On it
expression is used in the assessment of the impacts that cover the extraction of raw materials,
the use the
turn, phase“cradle-to-cradle”
and the final disposal of the product.
boundary On its turn,
methodology the “cradle-to-cradle”
involves recycling and reus
boundary methodology involves
processes [97], as shown in Figure 4. recycling and reuse processes [97], as shown in Figure 4.

Figure4.4.LCA
Figure LCA boundary
boundary system
system approach.
approach.

InIna aprocess of of
process biochar production
biochar fromfrom
production agro-wastes
agro-wastesobtained throughthrough
obtained pyrolysis,
pyrolysis
Tiegam et al. (2021), stated that this system boundary can be classified as cradle-to-grave
Tiegam et al. (2021), stated that this system boundary can be classified as cradle-to-grav
or cradle-to-gate [98]. On the other hand, in the study carried out by Hamedani et al.
or cradle-to-gate
(2019), [98]. On
involving pyrolysis the manure
of pig other hand,
residuesin for
thebiochar
study carried out its
production, byboundary
Hamedani et a
(2019), involving pyrolysis of pig
was characterized as cradle-to-grave [87]. manure residues for biochar production, its boundar
wasIncharacterized as cradle-to-grave
the study performed by Hammond[87]. et al. (2011), the frontier used was gate-to-gate
In aim
with the the study performed
of calculating by Hammond
the impacts et al. 1(2011),
of producing kWh ofthe frontier
biochar. In used was
another gate-to-gat
study
conducted by Dutta and Raghavam, (2014), the authors infer in their work
with the aim of calculating the impacts of producing 1 kWh of biochar. In another studthat the most-
indicated
conducted boundary system
by Dutta andfor LCA studies
Raghavam, focused
(2014), theonauthors
evaluating greenhouse
infer gas was
in their work thethe most
that
cradle-to-grave one [99].system for LCA studies focused on evaluating greenhouse gas wa
indicated boundary
the cradle-to-grave one [99].
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 10 of 19

3.2. Life Cycle Inventory

Life cycle inventory (LCI) is the collection and quantification of all natural resources
consumed and all substances that are emitted into the environment by the life cycle within
life cycle phases expressed in the goal and scope definition of this study. The procedure of
collecting inventory data begins on the basis of the data requisite for each life cycle stage,
in particular the type of data needed for the stage: foreground or background. Foreground
data mean that the data are attributable to the target products precisely, while background
data can be obtained from special or temporal averages. LCIs are usually based on average
data of material and energy inputs (resources and energy used) and outputs (product,
waste and emissions produced) collected at a real site or estimated from the literature or
from developing studies performed prior to the LCA study [100]. The LCI has a necessary
step where elementary flows are included over time and space and is a demanding activity
that requires time and attention [101]. It is essential to understand that LCA and LCI are
both supported by concepts and assessment of energy consumption and mass balance,
based on the first law of thermodynamics related to the principle of energy conservation,
by which energy cannot be created or destroyed, but converted into another form. The
second law of thermodynamics is also a fundamental concept for understanding LCA,
being related to energy degradation; that is, some losses can be due to heat, radiation and
others. In this context, LCA makes an energy balance of materials between inputs and
outputs and calculates the environmental impacts through the difference between the loss
and energy efficiency [102,103].
Some authors declare that the inventory related to biochar production usually focuses
on feedstock, transport, pyrolysis process, use of biochar and end-of-life [104]. Dutta
and Raghavam (2014), in their work consider inventory, obtaining feedstock analysis, all
transports associated with biochar, pyrolysis process to obtain biochar and use of biochar
for energy production [99]. In the study carried out by Llorach-Massana et al. (2017), the
inventory was focused on the feedstock, where the feasibility of using tomato plant residues
from an urban garden was studied [105]. In other studies, the benefits of producing biochar
from rice field residues were analyzed [88].
In the study performed by Matuštík et al. (2020), LCI for biochar must contain
information on the raw material, land use, transport, energy used in pyrolysis, pyrolysis
gas emissions and, depending on the functional unit and borders, waste must be also
accounted for [82].

3.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

To understand the potential environmental impact of the use of natural resources and
the attempts created by the system, the LCIA stage is essential. In this methodology, flows
resulting from a product’s life cycle are aggregated into impact categories [82].
The same studies presented in Table 1 were compiled in Table 2 with LCIA method-
ologies, impact assessment and GWP results.
According to de Vries and de Boer, (2010), the environmental impact types considered
during the life cycle of a product are related to the use of resources such as earth or
fossil fuels and the emission of the pollutant’s ammonia or methane. Ferrão, (2009), and
Santero et al. (2011), considered categories of impacts on climate change, eutrophication,
acidification, depletion of resources and ecotoxicity, among others, where each type of
emission is related to one or more impacts [102,106,107]. The impact assessment uses
the inventory results to evaluate the potential of environmental impacts while providing
information for interpretation. In this phase, statistical techniques, such as weighting,
normalization and aggregation, are essential to comparing impact types and measuring
their relevance [100].
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 11 of 19

Table 2. Study cases with LCIA methodologies, impact categories analyzed and GWP results (adapted
from [80]).

Study LCIA Methodology Impact Assessment Results Ref.

171 kg CO2 -eq/Mg dry seed (400 ◦ C) and 111 kg
CO2 -eq/Mg dry seed (800 ◦ C) compared to
Thers et al. (2019) IPCC (2013) GWP 100 yr, 20 yr 638 kg CO2 -eq/Mg dry seed for oilseed rape [83]
cultivation without biochar amendment =
significant GHG reduction.
Oldfield et al.
CML GWP, AP, EP Net negative—single value not presented. [84]
(2018)
GWP, PMF, land
Smebye et al. occupation, FDP, þ all
ReCiPe 2016 endpoint Only endpoint GWP value calculated. [85]
(2017) ReCiPe 1 endpoint
categories
Scenario A (459 ◦ C) −2110 kg CO2 -eq/Mg
Brassard et al.
IPCC 2007 GWP biochar, Scenario B (591 ◦ C) −2561 kg [86]
(2018)
CO2 -eq/Mg biochar.
IMPACT 2002+: −2063 kg CO2 -eq/t biochar
All midpoint (willow) and −472 kg CO2 -eq/t biochar (pig
Hamedani et al.
IMPACT 2002+, CML (IMPACT) and manure); CML: −2089.65 kg CO2 -eq/t biochar [87]
(2019)
endpoint (CML) (willow) and −466 kg CO2 -eq/t biochar
(pig manure).
Biochar production from oat side-flows leads to
Uusitalo and GHG emission reduction of 350 k gCO2 -eq/t oat
IPCC (2013) GWP [89]
Leino, (2019) flake, buffer zone biomass biochar potential of
390 kg CO2 -eq/t oat flake.
Clare et al. (2015) IPCC 2007 GWP −1.35 Mg CO2 e/odt straw [90]

There are several methodologies for calculating environmental impacts such as Recipe,
CML, Usertox, Carbon Footprint IPCC for parameters and others. According to Zhu et al.
(2022), the choice of impact category must converge with the goals. Yang et al. (2018), used
the CML methodology; Thers et al. (2019), used the IPCC methodology; Oldefild et al.
(2018), applied CML methodology and Smebye et al. (2018), assessed the impact through
ReCiPe methodology [82–85,103].
Several authors studying LCA on biochar have used methods such as Eco Indicator 99
and the ReCiPe midpoint approach to evaluate the entire biochar chain [108]. In the study
carried out by Hamedani et al. (2019), the use of two methodologies, IMPACT 2002+ and
CML, was applied to calculate environmental impacts [87].
When looking at Table 2 and considering all the differences in the limits of the system
such as functional units, among other parameters, the LCA results are not comparable. The
GWP results presented make a general balance of GHG that varies in value according to
the methodology used. According to a study by Brassard et al. (2018), in their work they
used biochar for soil correction and observed a GWP impact of up to 2561 mg CO2 -eq/t
of biochar [86]; Mohammadi et al. (2016), revealed the carbon footprint of rice production
with a change in the biochar of 3.85 kg CO2 -eq/kg. Nevertheless, the results showed
similar tendencies. However, when looking closely, the results show a certain tendency.
It is remarkable that the biochar–soil correction systems show a clear advantage from the
point of view of climate change [88]. Biochar production appraised the neutralization’s
impact of agricultural production when GHG emissions were positive, such as in the
case presented by Thers et al. (2019), and other studies. The processing of raw materials
and especially the pyrolysis system are the most important causes of GHG emissions,
not including agricultural production’s impact. In relation to the impact, it is normally
considered residual. The benefit of carbon capture and energy production from biochar,
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 12 of 19

in addition to the advantages associated with the co-products generated, compensate the
GHG emissions caused by the biochar production itself [83].
Biochar application can contribute to carbon sequestration by increasing production,
reducing the use of fertilizers and reducing CH4 or N2 O emissions, among other factors [84].
Other studies have been carried out with the aim of evaluating the influence of biochar
production on the impact categories. Concerning acidification and eutrophication potential,
agricultural processes, such as the application of fertilizers, are the most important sources
of negative impacts [84], as well as with regard to the impact of ecotoxicity categories [87].
Electricity from the network for pyrolysis and agricultural operation was reported as
another source of negative impact on acidification and eutrophication potential [109].

4. Life Cycle Cost Assessment (LCCA)

For a process to be viable, in addition to the environmental aspects, it is mandatory to
assess their associated costs. Life cycle cost assessment (LCCA) is a method of assessing
the total cost of a process. It takes into account all costs of acquiring, owning, operating
and disposing. LCCA is especially useful when project alternatives that fulfill the same
performance requirements differ with respect to initial costs and operating costs and should
be compared in order to select the one that maximizes net savings best.
In this context, conducting a complete LCCA of biochar-based products is an essential
step in the breakeven and viability of this technology during the project or industrial
application period.
Durairaj et al. (2002), reviewed models for LCCA [110], namely: (i) LCCA model of
Fabrycky and Blanchard; (ii) LCCA model of Woodward [111]; (iii) LCCA model of Dahlen
and Bolmsjo [112]; (iv) the activity-based costing (ABC) model [113]; (v) the economic
input–output LCA model [114]; (vi) the design-to-cost model (DTC) [115]; (vii) the product
life cycle costing (PLCC) to manufacturing system [116]; (viii) the total cost assessment
(TCA) model.
Fabrycky and Blanchard presented an elaborated LCCA model to approach detailed
cost analysis of all the costs related to the entire life cycle of either product.
The major advantage of this model is found in its detailed cost breakdown struc-
ture (CBS). First, they split the total cost of a product or a system into four categories,
respectively: (1) research and development costs; (2) production and construction costs; (3)
operation and maintenance costs; (4) retirement and disposal cost. This model comprises
the essential features of a holistic methodology to assess the life cycle and determine the
total cost of a product.
Woodward’s LCCA model was made to focus on planning and monitoring assets over
their entire life cycle—from the development stage through to disposal. The minimum
life cycle cost of the asset is given by the optimization of the trade-off among the cost
factors. This process requires the estimation of whole-life costs prior to making a purchase
choice for an asset from the accessible alternatives. This approach emboldens a long-term
perspective on the investment decision-making procedure [111].
Dahlen and Bolmsjö’s LCCA model aims to extend the application’s field and perform
an investment analysis when raising the production factor—labor. It considers all the
costs associated with an employee over their employment time. The costs of labor can be
graphed like the costs over the life cycle for production equipment [112]. In turn, the ABC
Model has the most likely-looking cost-effective evaluation in lifecycle design. Respecting
environmental matters, uncertainty must be considered due to the predominant lack of
hard data. When there is a lack of information and the existence of unexpected activities,
uncertainty conditions must be also used [113]. The economic input–output LCA model
is a new tool that can complement the conventional LCA and overcome its limitations.
The objective is to augment conventional economic input–output tables with appropriate
sectored environmental impacts indices, which are then used to analyze economywide,
direct and indirect environmental impacts of changes in the output of selected industries.
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 13 of 19

This model represents all the supplier relationships in the supply chain for industrial
production. Its application was shown to be feasible, rapid and inexpensive [114].
In relation to the DTC model for manufacture systems, it provides a common method-
ology to merge cost modelling and quality function deployment (QFD) to assess the possible
trade-offs among the costs and performance of product alternatives in the initiation of the
production system’s design. The design-to-cost approach has a plan for choosing a system
design [115].
The PLCC model determines the life cycle expenses of capital goods such as machines
and manufacturing systems. In this methodology, single processes connected to the prod-
uct’s life cycle are expressed. With an intent to the redesign of present product structures, it
is feasible to derive approaches out the cost structures of the life cycle. The early stages of
the product life cycle are production, use and disposal or de-production. The design of the
product should be directed upon the needs of the use phase to reduce costs in the several
phases of the life cycle. A similar dependency comes up in the disposal phase [116].
The TCA model seems to be the most helpful and practical tool for small manufacturers.
It supplies a streamlined approach to identifying and quantifying the costs of pollution
prevention investments. It expands the scope of capital budgeting to comprise indirect
benefits, thereby increasing the magnitude of savings originated from pollution prevention
investments. The information requirements of TCA can be readily implemented in the
small business scenario.
It is not possible to create a single LCCA model that considers all the requirements,
yet it is possible to develop models to answer specific needs, such as the elaboration of an
ecological, sustainable and economical product.
Most of the related studies in the literature focus on the economic assessment of biochar
systems, such as the studies carried out by Roberts et al. (2010), and Galinato et al. (2011).
In these studies, is typical to find that the potential profitability of biochar production
systems is highly dependent on the feedstock used. In their study, Yoder et al. (2011),
proceed to model the trade-off between product yield and product quality as the conversion
temperature increases, exploring the implications of different production techniques and
resulting variations in the properties of biochar for overall system performance [117–119].
In another study, Homagain et al. (2016), found that, within the limit of life cycle anal-
ysis, the economic viability of the biochar-based bioenergy production system is directly
dependent on pyrolysis costs and raw material processing (drying, grinding and pelletiz-
ing), in on-site collection, and also in total carbon offset amount provided by the system.
Through a sensitivity analysis of the transport distance and the displacement values, it was
shown that the system is profitable in the case of high biomass availability within 200 km
and when the cost of carbon sequestration exceeds the 60 Canadian dollars-per-ton carbon
equivalent (CO2 -eq) [120].
In the study performed by Clare et al. (2015), it was found that straw briquetting
for thermal energy is the most economical carbon reduction technology, requiring a subsi-
dized CAD 7 mgCO2 -eq. However, China’s current bioelectricity subsidy scheme makes
gasification (net present value (NPV) CAD 12.6 million) more financially attractive to
investors when compared to briquetting (NPV CAD 7.34 million) and pyrolysis (NPV CAD
1.84 million). The potential for direct carbon reduction from pyrolysis (1.06 mgCO2 -eq
per odt straw) is also less than briquetting (1.35 mgCO2 -eq per odt straw) and gasification
(1.16 mgCO2 -eq per odt straw). The authors conclude that the indirect carbon reduction
processes that results from biochar utilization can significantly improve the pyrolysis sce-
nario and carbon reduction potential, bearing in mind that improving the agronomic benefit
of biochar is essential for the pyrolysis scenario to compete as an economically viable and
cost-effective mitigation technology [90].
According to the study performed by Cleary, (2018), the added value of pyrolysis for
biochar production is more profitable than selling highest quality wood chips for cellulose.
The modelled biochar price ranged from CAD 3 to CAD 4/kg, quoted for 10 to 20 kg of
biochar packages. The pyrolysis cost was estimated at about CAD 150,000.00, the operating
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 14 of 19

cost around CAD 78,840.00, including labor and electricity. Thus, it can be concluded that
the costs are closely related to the technologies used in biochar production and also to the
feedstock used [121].

5. Final Remarks
Two of the most important domains facing specific challenges within the circular
economy are biomass and bio-based products. Materials based on biological resources can
be used for a wide range of products and energy uses. The bioeconomy offers alternatives
to products and energies based on fossil fuels and can contribute to the circular economy.
Bio-based materials can also have advantages linked to their renewability, biodegradability,
or the possibility of composting. On the other hand, the use of biological resources requires
attention to be paid to the environmental impacts of its life cycle and to its sustainable
supply. From a circular economy perspective, the cascading use of renewable resources
should be promoted, where appropriate, with various cycles of reuse and recycling. Bio-
based materials can be used in multiple ways, with the possibility of reusing and recycling
them several times, which is consistent with the application of the waste hierarchy and,
more generally, with options that lead to the best overall result for the environment.
Biochar is a solid, carbon-rich material generally obtained from thermochemical con-
version of biomass and respective carbonization in oxygen-limited environments and has
been proposed as a potential solution to climate change, energy security, degradation of
natural resources, food security and catastrophic forest fires worldwide. Biochar production
implies a complex chemical reaction process where biomass undergoes decomposition,
depolymerization and condensation in anoxic high temperature conditions. As was ex-
tensively discussed, the many strategies for using biochar facilitate zero waste and the
development of the circular economy. In addition, LCA has proven an excellent tool for
quantifying the potential of biochar utilization, as well as for fostering and managing its
production. Nevertheless, as was shown, multi-purpose applications of biochar make the
functional units and system boundaries of different cases variable. Additionally, although
these variables can be contextualized, they can barely be eliminated. Therefore, extensive
system boundaries and more inclusive inventory considerations must be integrated and
comprehensively analyzed in the LCA of biochar production. Although solid international
guidelines and frameworks are available to promote consistency, and most of the studies
follow the ISO standard for LCA, they still may consider different criteria and assumptions,
resulting in different outcomes, so the methodology should be unified allowing to compare
the results, at least to some extent. In addition, economic analysis through LCCA should
be encouraged to optimize the flows of sustainable biochar production.
Overall, despite all the differences in assumptions and methodologies adopted, LCA
proves that biochar is a very promising way of contributing to carbon-efficient resource
circulation, mitigation of climate change and economic sustainability.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization J.C. and L.N.; writing—original draft preparation, J.C.,
L.N., M.S. and N.V.; writing—review and editing, A.R., L.F., A.S. and N.P.; project administration,
J.C. and J.A.; funding acquisition, C.V. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work was co-financed by Compete 2020, Portugal 2020 and the European Union
through the European Regional Development Fund—FEDER within the scope of the project
WAST’AWARENESS—Technology Transfer in Waste Valorization and Sustainability (POCI-01-0246-
FEDER-181304).
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 15 of 19

Abbreviation

AD aerobic digestion
EBC European Biochar Certificate
GHG greenhouse gas
GWP global warming potential
IBI International Biochar Certificate
LCA life cycle assessment
LCI life cycle inventory
LCIA life cycle impact assessment
PAHs polycycle aromatic hydrocarbons
PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls

References
1. Korhonen, J.; Honkasalo, A.; Seppälä, J. Circular Economy: The Concept and its Limitations. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 143, 37–46.
[CrossRef]
2. Beaulieu, L.; Durne, G.; Arpin, M. Circular Economy: A Critical Literature Review of Concepts. CIRAIG-Int. Ref. Cent. Life Cycle
Prod. Process. Serv. 2015, 91. [CrossRef]
3. Rashid, A.; Asif, F.M.A.; Krajnik, P.; Nicolescu, C.M. Resource Conservative Manufacturing: An essential change in business and
technology paradigm for sustainable manufacturing. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 57, 166–177. [CrossRef]
4. Hu, Q.; Jung, J.; Chen, D.; Leong, K.; Song, S.; Li, F.; Mohan, B.C.; Yao, Z.; Prabhakar, A.K.; Lin, X.H.; et al. Biochar industry to
circular economy. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 757, 143820. [CrossRef]
5. Cha, J.S.; Park, S.H.; Jung, S.C.; Ryu, C.; Jeon, J.K.; Shin, M.C.; Park, Y.K. Production and utilization of biochar: A review. J. Ind.
Eng. Chem. 2016, 40, 1–15. [CrossRef]
6. Biochar Is a Valuable Soil Amendment. WOKA Foundation. Available online: https://biochar-international.org/biochar/
(accessed on 7 September 2022).
7. Xie, Y.; Wang, L.; Li, H.; Westholm, L.J.; Carvalho, L.; Thorin, E.; Yu, Z.; Yu, X.; Skreiberg, Ø. A critical review on production,
modification and utilization of biochar. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrolysis 2022, 161, 105405. [CrossRef]
8. Wang, D.; Jiang, P.; Zhang, H.; Yuan, W. Biochar production and applications in agro and forestry systems: A review. Sci. Total
Environ. 2020, 723, 137775. [CrossRef]
9. Leng, L.; Huang, H. An overview of the effect of pyrolysis process parameters on biochar stability. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 270,
627–642. [CrossRef]
10. Zhao, L.; Cao, X.; Mašek, O.; Zimmerman, A. Heterogeneity of biochar properties as a function of feedstock sources and
production temperatures. J. Hazard. Mater. 2013, 256–257, 1–9. [CrossRef]
11. Yao, Z.; You, S.; Ge, T.; Wang, C.-H. Biomass gasification for syngas and biochar co-production: Energy application and economic
evaluation. Appl. Energy 2018, 209, 43–55. [CrossRef]
12. Veses, A.; Aznar, M.; López, J.M.; Callén, M.S.; Murillo, R.; García, T. Production of upgraded bio-oils by biomass catalytic
pyrolysis in an auger reactor using low cost materials. Fuel 2015, 141, 17–22. [CrossRef]
13. Choi, J.H.; Kim, S.-S.; Ly, H.V.; Kim, J.; Woo, H.C. Effects of water-washing Saccharina japonica on fast pyrolysis in a bubbling
fluidized-bed reactor. Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 98, 112–123. [CrossRef]
14. Zhao, B.; O’Connor, D.; Zhang, J.; Peng, T.; Shen, Z.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Hou, D. Effect of pyrolysis temperature, heating rate, and
residence time on rapeseed stem derived biochar. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 977–987. [CrossRef]
15. Hernández, J.J.; Saffe, A.; Collado, R.; Monedero, E. Recirculation of char from biomass gasification: Effects on gasifier performance
and end-char properties. Renew. Energy 2020, 147, 806–813. [CrossRef]
16. Benedetti, V.; Patuzzi, F.; Baratieri, M. Characterization of char from biomass gasification and its similarities with activated carbon
in adsorption applications. Appl. Energy 2018, 227, 92–99. [CrossRef]
17. Muvhiiwa, R.; Kuvarega, A.; Llana, E.M.; Muleja, A. Study of biochar from pyrolysis and gasification of wood pellets in a nitrogen
plasma reactor for design of biomass processes. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 103391. [CrossRef]
18. Krysanova, K.; Krylova, A.; Kulikova, M.; Kulikov, A.; Rusakova, O. Biochar characteristics produced via hydrothermal
carbonization and torrefaction of peat and sawdust. Fuel 2022, 328, 125220. [CrossRef]
19. Krysanova, K.; Krylova, A.; Zaichenko, V. Properties of biochar obtained by hydrothermal carbonization and torrefaction of peat.
Fuel 2019, 256, 115929. [CrossRef]
20. Wang, Z.; Lim, C.J.; Grace, J.R.; Li, H.; Parise, M.R. Effects of temperature and particle size on biomass torrefaction in a
slot-rectangular spouted bed reactor. Bioresour. Technol. 2017, 244, 281–288. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Barskov, S.; Zappi, M.; Buchireddy, P.; Dufreche, S.; Guillory, J.; Gang, D.; Hernandez, R.; Bajpai, R.; Baudier, J.; Cooper, R.; et al.
Torrefaction of biomass: A review of production methods for biocoal from cultured and waste lignocellulosic feedstocks. Renew.
Energy 2019, 142, 624–642. [CrossRef]
22. Thengane, S.K.; Bandyopadhyay, S. Biochar mines: Panacea to climate change and energy crisis? Clean Technol. Environ. Policy
2020, 22, 5–10. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 16 of 19

23. Malmsheimer, R.W.; Bowyer, J.L.; Fried, J.S.; Gee, E.; Izlar, R.L.; Miner, R.A.; Munn, I.A.; Oneil, E.; Stewart, W.C. Managing Forests
because Carbon Matters: Integrating Energy, Products, and Land Management Policy. J. For. 2011, 109, S7–S50.
24. Sanchez, D.L.; Nelson, J.H.; Johnston, J.; Mileva, A.; Kammen, D.M. Biomass enables the transition to a carbon-negative power
system across western North America. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 230–234. [CrossRef]
25. Matrapazi, V.K.; Zabaniotou, A. Experimental and feasibility study of spent coffee grounds upscaling via pyrolysis towards
proposing an eco-social innovation circular economy solution. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 137316. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Thengane, S.K.; Kung, K.; York, R.; Sokhansanj, S.; Lim, C.J.; Sanchez, D.L. Technoeconomic and emissions evaluation of mobile
in-woods biochar production. Energy Convers. Manag. 2020, 223, 113305. [CrossRef]
27. Yang, X.; Ng, W.; Wong, B.S.E.; Baeg, G.H.; Wang, C.-H.; Ok, Y.S. Characterization and ecotoxicological investigation of biochar
produced via slow pyrolysis: Effect of feedstock composition and pyrolysis conditions. J. Hazard. Mater. 2019, 365, 178–185.
[CrossRef]
28. Pecchi, M.; Baratieri, M. Coupling anaerobic digestion with gasification, pyrolysis or hydrothermal carbonization: A review.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 105, 462–475. [CrossRef]
29. Woolf, D.; Amonette, J.E.; Street-Perrott, F.A.; Lehmann, J.; Joseph, S. Sustainable biochar to mitigate global climate change. Nat.
Commun. 2010, 1, 56. [CrossRef]
30. Wang, L.; Chen, L.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Kua, H.W.; Yang, J.; Ok, Y.S.; Ding, S.; Hou, D.; Poon, C.S. The roles of biochar as green
admixture for sediment-based construction products. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2019, 104, 103348. [CrossRef]
31. Pan, J.; Ma, J.; Zhai, L.; Luo, T.; Mei, Z.; Liu, H. Achievements of biochar application for enhanced anaerobic digestion: A review.
Bioresour. Technol. 2019, 292, 122058. [CrossRef]
32. Kah, M.; Sigmund, G.; Xiao, F.; Hofmann, T. Sorption of ionizable and ionic organic compounds to biochar, activated carbon and
other carbonaceous materials. Water Res. 2017, 124, 673–692. [CrossRef]
33. Kang, K.; Nanda, S.; Hu, Y. Current trends in biochar application for catalytic conversion of biomass to biofuels. Catal. Today 2022,
404, 3–18. [CrossRef]
34. Glaser, B.; Lehmann, J.; Zech, W. Ameliorating physical and chemical properties of highly weathered soils in the tropics with
charcoal—A review. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2002, 35, 219–230. [CrossRef]
35. Pandit, N.R.; Mulder, J.; Hale, S.E.; Martinsen, V.; Schmidt, H.P.; Cornelissen, G. Biochar improves maize growth by alleviation of
nutrient stress in a moderately acidic low-input Nepalese soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 625, 1380–1389. [CrossRef]
36. Mohamed, B.A.; Ellis, N.; Kim, C.S.; Bi, X.; Emam, A.E. Engineered biochar from microwave-assisted catalytic pyrolysis of
switchgrass for increasing water-holding capacity and fertility of sandy soil. Sci. Total Environ. 2016, 566–567, 387–397. [CrossRef]
37. Yang, X.; Tsibart, A.; Nam, H.; Hur, J.; El-Naggar, A.; Tack, F.M.G.; Wang, C.-H.; Lee, Y.H.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Ok, Y.S. Effect of
gasification biochar application on soil quality: Trace metal behavior, microbial community, and soil dissolved organic matter. J.
Hazard. Mater. 2019, 365, 684–694. [CrossRef]
38. Ruzickova, J.; Koval, S.; Raclavska, H.; Kucbel, M.; Svedova, B.; Raclavsky, K.; Juchelkova, D.; Scala, F. A comprehensive
assessment of potential hazard caused by organic compounds in biochar for agricultural use. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 403, 123644.
[CrossRef]
39. Purakayastha, T.J.; Bera, T.; Bhaduri, D.; Sarkar, B.; Mandal, S.; Wade, P.; Kumari, S.; Biswas, S.; Menon, M.; Pathak, H.; et al. A
review on biochar modulated soil condition improvements and nutrient dynamics concerning crop yields: Pathways to climate
change mitigation and global food security. Chemosphere 2019, 227, 345–365. [CrossRef]
40. Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Zia ur Rehman, M.; Rinklebe, J.; Tsang, D.C.W.; Bashir, A.; Maqbool, A.; Tack, F.M.G.; Ok, Y.S. Cadmium
phytoremediation potential of Brassica crop species: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 631–632, 1175–1191. [CrossRef]
41. Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Qayyum, M.F.; Ibrahim, M.; Zia-ur-Rehman, M.; Abbas, T.; Ok, Y.S. Mechanisms of biochar-mediated
alleviation of toxicity of trace elements in plants: A critical review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2016, 23, 2230–2248. [CrossRef]
42. Qin, J.; Niu, A.; Liu, Y.; Lin, C. Arsenic in leafy vegetable plants grown on mine water-contaminated soils: Uptake, human health
risk and remedial effects of biochar. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 402, 123488. [CrossRef]
43. Kapoor, A.; Sharma, R.; Kumar, A.; Sepehya, S. Biochar as a means to improve soil fertility and crop productivity: A review. J.
Plant Nutr. 2022, 45, 2380–2388. [CrossRef]
44. Ding, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liu, S.; Li, Z.; Tan, X.; Huang, X.; Zeng, G.; Zhou, L.; Zheng, B. Biochar to improve soil fertility. A review. Agron.
Sustain. Dev. 2016, 36, 36. [CrossRef]
45. Tratsch, M.V.M.; Ceretta, C.A.; da Silva, L.S.; Ferreira, P.A.A.; Brunetto, G. Composition and mineralization of organic compost
derived from composting of fruit and vegetable waste. Rev. Ceres 2019, 66, 307–315. [CrossRef]
46. Zhang, L.; Sun, X. Changes in physical, chemical, and microbiological properties during the two-stage co-composting of green
waste with spent mushroom compost and biochar. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 171, 274–284. [CrossRef]
47. Sanchez-Monedero, M.A.; Cayuela, M.L.; Roig, A.; Jindo, K.; Mondini, C.; Bolan, N. Role of biochar as an additive in organic
waste composting. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 247, 1155–1164. [CrossRef]
48. Czekała, W.; Malińska, K.; Cáceres, R.; Janczak, D.; Dach, J.; Lewicki, A. Co-composting of poultry manure mixtures amended
with biochar—The effect of biochar on temperature and C-CO2 emission. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 200, 921–927. [CrossRef]
49. Sørmo, E.; Silvani, L.; Thune, G.; Gerber, H.; Schmidt, H.P.; Smebye, A.B.; Cornelissen, G. Waste timber pyrolysis in a medium-scale
unit: Emission budgets and biochar quality. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 718, 137335. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 17 of 19

50. Weng, Z.; Van Zwieten, L.; Singh, B.P.; Tavakkoli, E.; Joseph, S.; Macdonald, L.M.; Rose, T.J.; Rose, M.T.; Kimber, S.W.L.; Morris, S.;
et al. Biochar built soil carbon over a decade by stabilizing rhizodeposits. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2017, 7, 371–376. [CrossRef]
51. Godlewska, P.; Ok, Y.S.; Oleszczuk, P. THE DARK SIDE OF BLACK GOLD: Ecotoxicological aspects of biochar and biochar-
amended soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 403, 123833. [CrossRef]
52. He, M.; Xiong, X.; Wang, L.; Hou, D.; Bolan, N.S.; Ok, Y.S.; Rinklebe, J.; Tsang, D.C.W. A critical review on performance indicators
for evaluating soil biota and soil health of biochar-amended soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 414, 125378. [CrossRef]
53. Wang, J.; Wang, S. Preparation, modification and environmental application of biochar: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227,
1002–1022. [CrossRef]
54. Kimbell, L.K.; Tong, Y.; Mayer, B.K.; McNamara, P.J. Biosolids-Derived Biochar for Triclosan Removal from Wastewater. Environ.
Eng. Sci. 2018, 35, 513–524. [CrossRef]
55. Li, H.; Dong, X.; da Silva, E.B.; de Oliveira, L.M.; Chen, Y.; Ma, L.Q. Mechanisms of metal sorption by biochars: Biochar
characteristics and modifications. Chemosphere 2017, 178, 466–478. [CrossRef]
56. Beckinghausen, A.; Reynders, J.; Merckel, R.; Wu, Y.W.; Marais, H.; Schwede, S. Post-pyrolysis treatments of biochars from
sewage sludge and A. mearnsii for ammonia (NH4-n) recovery. Appl. Energy 2020, 271, 115212. [CrossRef]
57. Zhou, J.; Liu, S.; Zhou, N.; Fan, L.; Zhang, Y.; Peng, P.; Anderson, E.; Ding, K.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Y.; et al. Development and application
of a continuous fast microwave pyrolysis system for sewage sludge utilization. Bioresour. Technol. 2018, 256, 295–301. [CrossRef]
58. Nobaharan, K.; Bagheri Novair, S.; Asgari Lajayer, B.; van Hullebusch, E. Phosphorus Removal from Wastewater: The Potential
Use of Biochar and the Key Controlling Factors. Water 2021, 13, 517. [CrossRef]
59. Ambaye, T.G.; Vaccari, M.; van Hullebusch, E.D.; Amrane, A.; Rtimi, S. Mechanisms and adsorption capacities of biochar for
the removal of organic and inorganic pollutants from industrial wastewater. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 18, 3273–3294.
[CrossRef]
60. Dixit, A.; Gupta, S.; Pang, S.D.; Kua, H.W. Waste Valorisation using biochar for cement replacement and internal curing in
ultra-high performance concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 238, 117876. [CrossRef]
61. Akhtar, A.; Sarmah, A.K. Novel biochar-concrete composites: Manufacturing, characterization and evaluation of the mechanical
properties. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616–617, 408–416. [CrossRef]
62. Gupta, S.; Kua, H.W. Factors Determining the Potential of Biochar As a Carbon Capturing and Sequestering Construction Material:
Critical Review. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2017, 29, 04017086. [CrossRef]
63. Gupta, S.; Kua, H.W. Carbonaceous micro-filler for cement: Effect of particle size and dosage of biochar on fresh and hardened
properties of cement mortar. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 662, 952–962. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Gupta, S.; Kua, H.W.; Koh, H.J. Application of biochar from food and wood waste as green admixture for cement mortar. Sci.
Total Environ. 2018, 619–620, 419–435. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Gupta, S.; Kua, H.W. Effect of water entrainment by pre-soaked biochar particles on strength and permeability of cement mortar.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 159, 107–125. [CrossRef]
66. Kim, J.-Y.; Oh, S.; Park, Y.-K. Overview of biochar production from preservative-treated wood with detailed analysis of biochar
characteristics, heavy metals behaviors, and their ecotoxicity. J. Hazard. Mater. 2020, 384, 121356. [CrossRef]
67. Lee, J. Characterization of urban stormwater runoff. Water Res. 2000, 34, 1773–1780. [CrossRef]
68. Inyang, M.I.; Gao, B.; Yao, Y.; Xue, Y.; Zimmerman, A.; Mosa, A.; Pullammanappallil, P.; Ok, Y.S.; Cao, X. A review of biochar as a
low-cost adsorbent for aqueous heavy metal removal. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 46, 406–433. [CrossRef]
69. Jin, H.; Wang, X.; Gu, Z.; Polin, J. Carbon materials from high ash biochar for supercapacitor and improvement of capacitance
with HNO3 surface oxidation. J. Power Sources 2013, 236, 285–292. [CrossRef]
70. Coetzee, G.H.; Sakurovs, R.; Neomagus, H.W.J.P.; Everson, R.C.; Mathews, J.P.; Bunt, J.R. Particle size influence on the pore
development of nanopores in coal gasification chars: From micron to millimeter particles. Carbon N. Y. 2017, 112, 37–46. [CrossRef]
71. Ge, X.; Wu, Z.; Wu, Z.; Yan, Y.; Cravotto, G.; Ye, B.-C. Microwave-assisted modification of activated carbon with ammonia for
efficient pyrene adsorption. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2016, 39, 27–36. [CrossRef]
72. Fagerström, A.; Al Seadi, T.; Rasi, S.; Briseid, T. The role of anaerobic digestion and biogas in the circular economy. IEA Bioenergy
2018, 8, 1–24.
73. Liu, F.; Rotaru, A.-E.; Shrestha, P.M.; Malvankar, N.S.; Nevin, K.P.; Lovley, D.R. Promoting direct interspecies electron transfer
with activated carbon. Energy Environ. Sci. 2012, 5, 8982. [CrossRef]
74. Fidel, R.B.; Laird, D.A.; Thompson, M.L.; Lawrinenko, M. Characterization and quantification of biochar alkalinity. Chemosphere
2017, 167, 367–373. [CrossRef]
75. Mumme, J.; Srocke, F.; Heeg, K.; Werner, M. Use of biochars in anaerobic digestion. Bioresour. Technol. 2014, 164, 189–197.
[CrossRef]
76. Sunyoto, N.M.S.; Zhu, M.; Zhang, Z.; Zhang, D. Effect of biochar addition on hydrogen and methane production in two-phase
anaerobic digestion of aqueous carbohydrates food waste. Bioresour. Technol. 2016, 219, 29–36. [CrossRef]
77. Ismaeel, W.S.E. Assessing and Developing the Application of LEED Green Building Rating System as a Sustainable Project
Management and Market Tool in the Italian Context. J. Eng. Proj. Prod. Manag. 2016, 6, 136–152. [CrossRef]
78. Klöpffer, W. Background and Future Prospects in Life Cycle Assessment; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin, Germany, 2014.
79. Souza, D.M.; Teixeira, R.F.M.; Ostermann, O.P. Assessing biodiversity loss due to land use with Life Cycle Assessment: Are we
there yet? Glob. Chang. Biol. 2015, 21, 32–47. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 18 of 19

80. Matuštík, J.; Hnátková, T.; Kočí, V. Life cycle assessment of biochar-to-soil systems: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 259, 120998.
[CrossRef]
81. Zhu, X.; Labianca, C.; He, M.; Luo, Z.; Wu, C.; You, S.; Tsang, D.C.W. Life-cycle assessment of pyrolysis processes for sustainable
production of biochar from agro-residues. Bioresour. Technol. 2022, 360, 127601. [CrossRef]
82. Miller-Robbie, L.; Ulrich, B.A.; Ramey, D.F.; Spencer, K.S.; Herzog, S.P.; Cath, T.Y.; Higgins, C.P. Life cycle energy and greenhouse
gas assessment of the co-production of biosolids and biochar for land application. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 91, 118–127. [CrossRef]
83. Thers, H.; Djomo, S.N.; Elsgaard, L.; Knudsen, M.T. Biochar potentially mitigates greenhouse gas emissions from cultivation of
oilseed rape for biodiesel. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 671, 180–188. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Oldfield, T.L.; Sikirica, N.; Mondini, C.; López, G.; Kuikman, P.J.; Holden, N.M. Biochar, compost and biochar-compost blend as
options to recover nutrients and sequester carbon. J. Environ. Manag. 2018, 218, 465–476. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Smebye, A.B.; Sparrevik, M.; Schmidt, H.P.; Cornelissen, G. Life-cycle assessment of biochar production systems in tropical rural
areas: Comparing flame curtain kilns to other production methods. Biomass Bioenergy 2017, 101, 35–43. [CrossRef]
86. Brassard, P.; Godbout, S.; Pelletier, F.; Raghavan, V.; Palacios, J.H. Pyrolysis of switchgrass in an auger reactor for biochar
production: A greenhouse gas and energy impacts assessment. Biomass Bioenergy 2018, 116, 99–105. [CrossRef]
87. Hamedani, R.; Kuppens, T.; Malina, R. Life cycle assessment and environmental valuation of biochar production: Two case
studies in Belgium. Energies 2019, 12, 2166. [CrossRef]
88. Mohammadi, A.; Cowie, A.; Mai, T.L.A.; de la Rosa, R.A.; Brandao, M.; Kristiansen, P.; Joseph, S. Quantifying the greenhouse gas
reduction benefits of utilising straw biochar and enriched biochar. Energy Procedia 2016, 97, 254–261. [CrossRef]
89. Uusitalo, V.; Leino, M. Neutralizing global warming impacts of crop production using biochar from side flows and buffer zones:
A case study of oat production in the boreal climate zone. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 227, 48–57. [CrossRef]
90. Clare, A.; Shackley, S.; Joseph, S.; Hammond, J.; Pan, G.; Bloom, A. Competing uses for China’s straw: The economic and carbon
abatement potential of biochar. GCB Bioenergy 2015, 7, 1272–1282. [CrossRef]
91. anak Erison, A.E.; Tan, Y.H.; Mubarak, N.M.; Kansedo, J.; Khalid, M.; Abdullah, M.O.; Ghasemi, M. Life cycle assessment of
biodiesel production by using impregnated magnetic biochar derived from waste palm kernel shell. Environ. Res. 2022, 214,
114149. [CrossRef]
92. Lefebvre, D.; Williams, A.; Kirk, G.J.D.; Meersmans, J.; Sohi, S.; Goglio, P.; Smith, P. An anticipatory life cycle assessment of the
use of biochar from sugarcane residues as a greenhouse gas removal technology. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127764. [CrossRef]
93. Field, J.L.; Keske, C.M.H.; Birch, G.L.; DeFoort, M.W.; Cotrufo, M.F. Distributed biochar and bioenergy coproduction: A regionally
specific case study of environmental benefits and economic impacts. GCB Bioenergy 2013, 5, 177–191. [CrossRef]
94. Xu, X.; Cheng, K.; Wu, H.; Sun, J.; Yue, Q.; Pan, G. Greenhouse gas mitigation potential in crop production with biochar soil
amendment—A carbon footprint assessment for cross-site field experiments from China. GCB Bioenergy 2019, 11, 592–605.
[CrossRef]
95. Barry, D.; Barbiero, C.; Briens, C.; Berruti, F. Pyrolysis as an economical and ecological treatment option for municipal sewage
sludge. Biomass Bioenergy 2019, 122, 472–480. [CrossRef]
96. Hammond, J.; Shackley, S.; Sohi, S.; Brownsort, P. Prospective life cycle carbon abatement for pyrolysis biochar systems in the UK.
Energy Policy 2011, 39, 2646–2655. [CrossRef]
97. Baumann, H.; Tillman, A.-M. The Hitch Hiker´s Guide to LCA—An orientation in LCA methodology and application. Int. J. Life
Cycle Assess. 2006, 11, 142. [CrossRef]
98. Tiegam, R.F.T.; Tchuifon, D.R.T.; Santagata, R.; Nanssou, P.A.K.; Anagho, S.G.; Ionel, I.; Ulgiati, S. Production of activated carbon
from cocoa pods: Investigating benefits and environmental impacts through analytical chemistry techniques and life cycle
assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 288, 125464. [CrossRef]
99. Dutta, B.; Raghavan, V. A life cycle assessment of environmental and economic balance of biochar systems in Quebec. Int. J.
Energy Environ. Eng. 2014, 5, 106. [CrossRef]
100. Ferreira, J.V.R. Análise de Ciclo de Vida de Produtos; Instituto Politécnico de Viseu: Viseu Dão Lafões, Portugal, 2004; 80p. [CrossRef]
101. Ismaeel, W.S.E. Midpoint and endpoint impact categories in Green building rating systems. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 182, 783–793.
[CrossRef]
102. Ferrão, P.C. Ecologia industrial: Princípios e ferramentas. Eng. Sanit. Ambient. 2009, 17. [CrossRef]
103. Yang, Q.; Zhou, H.; Zhang, X.; Nielsen, C.P.; Li, J.; Lu, X.; Yanga, H.; Chen, H. Hybrid life-cycle assessment for energy consumption
and greenhouse gas emissions of a typical biomass gasification power plant in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 205, 661–671. [CrossRef]
104. Zhang, C.; Liu, L.; Zhao, M.; Rong, H.; Xu, Y. The environmental characteristics and applications of biochar. Environ. Sci. Pollut.
Res. 2018, 25, 21525–21534. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
105. Llorach-Massana, P.; Lopez-Capel, E.; Peña, J.; Rieradevall, J.; Montero, J.I.; Puy, N. Technical feasibility and carbon footprint of
biochar co-production with tomato plant residue. Waste Manag. 2017, 67, 121–130. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
106. Santero, N.J.; Masanet, E.; Horvath, A. Life-cycle assessment of pavements Part II: Filling the research gaps. Resour. Conserv.
Recycl. 2011, 55, 810–818. [CrossRef]
107. De Vries, M.; de Boer, I.J.M. Comparing environmental impacts for livestock products: A review of life cycle assessments. Livest.
Sci. 2010, 128, 1–11. [CrossRef]
108. Muñoz, E.; Curaqueo, G.; Cea, M.; Vera, L.; Navia, R. Environmental hotspots in the life cycle of a biochar-soil system. J. Clean.
Prod. 2017, 158, 1–7. [CrossRef]
Processes 2022, 10, 2684 19 of 19

109. Ilankoon, I.; Ghorbani, Y.; Chong, M.N.; Herath, G.; Moyo, T.; Petersen, J. E-waste in the international context–A review of trade
flows, regulations, hazards, waste management strategies and technologies for value recovery. Waste Manag. 2018, 82, 258–275.
[CrossRef]
110. Durairaj, S. Evaluation of Life Cycle Cost Analysis Methodologies. Corp. Environ. Strateg. 2002, 9, 30–39. [CrossRef]
111. Woodward, D.G. Life cycle costing—Theory, information acquisition and application. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1997, 15, 335–344.
[CrossRef]
112. Dahlén, P.; Bolmsjö, G.S. Life-cycle cost analysis of the labor factor. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 1996, 46–47, 459–467. [CrossRef]
113. Bras, B.; Emblemsvåg, J. Designing for the Life-Cycle: Activity-Based Costing and Uncertainty. In Design for X; Springer:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996; pp. 398–423.
114. Cobas-Flores, E.; Hendrickson, C.T.; Lave, L.B.; McMichael, F.C. Life cycle analysis of batteries using economic input-output
analysis. In Proceedings of the 1996 IEEE International Symposium on Electronics and the Environment, Dallas, TX, USA, 6–8
May 1996; pp. 130–134.
115. Eversheim, W.; Neuhausen, J.; Sesterhenn, M. Design-to-Cost for Production Systems. CIRP Ann. 1998, 47, 357–360. [CrossRef]
116. Westkämper, E.; Osten-Sacken, D.v.d. Product Life Cycle Costing Applied to Manufacturing Systems. CIRP Ann. 1998, 47,
353–356. [CrossRef]
117. Roberts, K.G.; Gloy, B.A.; Joseph, S.; Scott, N.R.; Lehmann, J. Life cycle assessment of biochar systems: Estimating the energetic,
economic, and climate change potential. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, 827–833. [CrossRef]
118. Galinato, S.P.; Yoder, J.K.; Granatstein, D. The economic value of biochar in crop production and carbon sequestration. Energy
Policy 2011, 39, 6344–6350. [CrossRef]
119. Yoder, J.; Galinato, S.; Granatstein, D.; Garcia-Pérez, M. Economic tradeoff between biochar and bio-oil production via pyrolysis.
Biomass Bioenergy 2011, 35, 1851–1862. [CrossRef]
120. Homagain, K.; Shahi, C.; Luckai, N.; Sharma, M. Life cycle cost and economic assessment of biochar-based bioenergy production
and biochar land application in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. For. Ecosyst. 2016, 3, 21. [CrossRef]
121. Cleary, J. Life Cycle Impacts and Costs of Biochar Production Using Sawmill Residues. Available online: http//www.biofuelnet.
ca/nce/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Pathways_Clear.pdf (accessed on 7 October 2022).